Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Pagefiles

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 3:03:19 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

I have 500 megs of RAM and each of my 6 logical drives indicate that the
system has allocated 785 megs to the pagefile. That is huge. I can't
imagine why any drive would need that much, and since I am runing out of
space on some drives I would like to drastically reduce the size of the
files - maybe to 300 megs. Would that be OK, or would it be unadvisable??

Ted Smith

More about : pagefiles

Anonymous
July 23, 2005 5:16:31 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

See if this helps:
http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm

--

Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Shell/User }
Conflicts start where information lacks.
http://basconotw.mvps.org/

Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375




"Ted Smith" <me@net.org.com> wrote in message
news:uHVh6tzjFHA.2156@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>I have 500 megs of RAM and each of my 6 logical drives indicate that the system
>has allocated 785 megs to the pagefile. That is huge. I can't imagine why any
>drive would need that much, and since I am runing out of space on some drives I
>would like to drastically reduce the size of the files - maybe to 300 megs.
>Would that be OK, or would it be unadvisable??
>
> Ted Smith
>
>
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 10:42:39 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Hi Ted,

As David has indicated, the system will only create one paging file
(pagefile.sys) if it was left on system managed. Someone has forced the
system to create multiples. Go into the Control Panel/System applet/Advanced
tab, click on Performance settings. On the advanced tab, click on change.
Disable the pagefiles on all drives except the one housing the system
drives. If you have multiple drives (not multiple logical volumes on the
same drive), then you could also leave the paging file on the first volume
of one of them.

Do you need 785MB? That depends. If you are set for a full memory dump on
system failure (check startup and recovery settings), then yes you need it
as this is where the ram contents are dumped initially. If not, and you are
not paging frequently, then you can set it to something smaller (I would not
go less than 100MB). If more is needed, it will be expanded on the fly as
the demand arises.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

"Ted Smith" <me@net.org.com> wrote in message
news:uHVh6tzjFHA.2156@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>I have 500 megs of RAM and each of my 6 logical drives indicate that the
>system has allocated 785 megs to the pagefile. That is huge. I can't
>imagine why any drive would need that much, and since I am runing out of
>space on some drives I would like to drastically reduce the size of the
>files - maybe to 300 megs. Would that be OK, or would it be unadvisable??
>
> Ted Smith
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 9:29:26 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Delete 5 of them. They are called paging files not pagefiles. Type it in help.

1 x 768 is a reasonable figure for most people although some people will need 6 x 4GB.

A human did this. Windows only makes 1 if it is making the decisions.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/_comment/001075.htm...
=================================================
"Ted Smith" <me@net.org.com> wrote in message news:uHVh6tzjFHA.2156@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>I have 500 megs of RAM and each of my 6 logical drives indicate that the
> system has allocated 785 megs to the pagefile. That is huge. I can't
> imagine why any drive would need that much, and since I am runing out of
> space on some drives I would like to drastically reduce the size of the
> files - maybe to 300 megs. Would that be OK, or would it be unadvisable??
>
> Ted Smith
>
>
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 12:13:10 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Thank you. I learned a lot from that web page, but I sure have a long way
to go. One thing that was confusing was the mention of "free memory". My
task manager does not show that expression. It does refer to "available"
memory but I'm not sure that is the same thing. Maybe "free" memory is
what's left of the "total" after you subtract the "available", and "system
cache" amounts. Also, why aren't the "Kernal Memory" amounts included under
"Physical Memory"? Aren't they all part of RAM? XP "Help" seems to be no
help at all here. Do you know of a site that better (more simply) explains
the relationships of the various numbers under Task Manager "Performance"??
It sure would be appreciated.

Ted Smith


"Brian A." <gonefish'n@afarawaylake> wrote in message
news:uleeL40jFHA.3336@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> See if this helps:
> http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm
>
> --
>
> Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Shell/User }
> Conflicts start where information lacks.
> http://basconotw.mvps.org/
>
> Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
>
>
>
>
> "Ted Smith" <me@net.org.com> wrote in message
> news:uHVh6tzjFHA.2156@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>I have 500 megs of RAM and each of my 6 logical drives indicate that the
>>system has allocated 785 megs to the pagefile. That is huge. I can't
>>imagine why any drive would need that much, and since I am runing out of
>>space on some drives I would like to drastically reduce the size of the
>>files - maybe to 300 megs. Would that be OK, or would it be unadvisable??
>>
>> Ted Smith
>>
>>
>
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 12:27:40 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Yep - I guess I did that sometime back before I knew to ask questions first.
Thanks for jogging my memory. Also, I won't be calling the page files (or,
paging files) pagefiles any more. Guess that was dumb

Ted Smith


"David Candy" <.> wrote in message
news:uDiuFh1jFHA.2152@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
Delete 5 of them. They are called paging files not pagefiles. Type it in
help.

1 x 768 is a reasonable figure for most people although some people will
need 6 x 4GB.

A human did this. Windows only makes 1 if it is making the decisions.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/_comment/001075.htm...
=================================================
"Ted Smith" <me@net.org.com> wrote in message
news:uHVh6tzjFHA.2156@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>I have 500 megs of RAM and each of my 6 logical drives indicate that the
> system has allocated 785 megs to the pagefile. That is huge. I can't
> imagine why any drive would need that much, and since I am runing out of
> space on some drives I would like to drastically reduce the size of the
> files - maybe to 300 megs. Would that be OK, or would it be unadvisable??
>
> Ted Smith
>
>
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 12:42:20 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Thanks for the advice. I got rid of all the paging files except the one on
C: drive, and everything is working better now. Also, I read the article by
Alex Nichol, and downloaded a paging file monitor that he referenced on Doug
Knox's site. Then I loaded and ran all the programs I could imagine running
at the same time and the monitor indicated a max paging file usage of 95 MB.
So I set my paging file size to 100 MB. It hasn't gotten even close to that
amount since then. So, all is well, and I appreciate your help.

Ted Smith

"Rick "Nutcase" Rogers" <rick@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:%235nlCN3jFHA.3144@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi Ted,
>
> As David has indicated, the system will only create one paging file
> (pagefile.sys) if it was left on system managed. Someone has forced the
> system to create multiples. Go into the Control Panel/System
> applet/Advanced tab, click on Performance settings. On the advanced tab,
> click on change. Disable the pagefiles on all drives except the one
> housing the system drives. If you have multiple drives (not multiple
> logical volumes on the same drive), then you could also leave the paging
> file on the first volume of one of them.
>
> Do you need 785MB? That depends. If you are set for a full memory dump on
> system failure (check startup and recovery settings), then yes you need it
> as this is where the ram contents are dumped initially. If not, and you
> are not paging frequently, then you can set it to something smaller (I
> would not go less than 100MB). If more is needed, it will be expanded on
> the fly as the demand arises.
>
> --
> Best of Luck,
>
> Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
> Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
> www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
> Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
>
> "Ted Smith" <me@net.org.com> wrote in message
> news:uHVh6tzjFHA.2156@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>I have 500 megs of RAM and each of my 6 logical drives indicate that the
>>system has allocated 785 megs to the pagefile. That is huge. I can't
>>imagine why any drive would need that much, and since I am runing out of
>>space on some drives I would like to drastically reduce the size of the
>>files - maybe to 300 megs. Would that be OK, or would it be unadvisable??
>>
>> Ted Smith
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 3:57:16 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Noone understands the depths of XP memory except the people who wrote the memory manager, incl most MS programmers. To understand a little bit will require hours of reading material where you don't understand a word. However a lot of people understand a lot of the subject. But most people who talk about are often wrong in part. It's a complex and not fully documented subject.

He's an imperfect summation.

Their is virtual address space. Each process on your machine can address 4 GB of memory directly (and a lot more indirectly). There is virtual memory - the sum total of memory - disk based and memory based. There is paging files (up to 16 x 4 GB) and open exe files and other system files. Part of an open executable becomes a swap file for that process (this is for speed reasons - the data doesn't change so never needs to be written only read). All system dlls are mapped into each process. So if you have a 1 meg system dll and twenty processes then it uses only 1 mb of physical memory.

Programs reserve memory and can ask for more as well. TM doesn't show how much of your paging file is being used but how much of your disk based (paging files + open exe) virtual memory is being RESERVED. To see how much is being used of the paging file type systeminfo in a command prompt. Mine is usually around 40 MB which shows as around 150 to 200MB in TM's PF Used.

Available memory is not free memory, only memory available for use. It is being used, partly by the system cache. Windows tries to keep free memory to 4 Mb I think (might even be 1).

Windows continuely tunes open apps. One thing it does is take a page of memory (4k) off an application and see if it requests it by a page fault. If not it adjusts it's working set down (the amount of physical memory a process has). If you want to see what is the working set for a program look in System Information (the GUI one) Software Environment\Running Tasks. Windows tries to keep the physical memory to an app inbetween these figures which it has determined by observation and experimentation is all it needs. Remember that it does not mean the memory is written to disk if removed from a program - it goes to available memory where it is written to disk if needed, written to disk if the system is doing nothing but kept in memory as well, or restored to the application if needed. Also only data is written out (that is more than your data it includes the program's data like variables) not code. As discussed above code is just dropped from memory and reread from the exe. An exe contains code and data structures.

Task Manager's Help explain a lot of the terms. Use that rather than Windows Help. System Monitor's Help you may also find useful.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/_comment/001075.htm...
=================================================
"Ted Smith" <me@net.org.com> wrote in message news:%23TZG7%23XkFHA.4024@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Thank you. I learned a lot from that web page, but I sure have a long way
> to go. One thing that was confusing was the mention of "free memory". My
> task manager does not show that expression. It does refer to "available"
> memory but I'm not sure that is the same thing. Maybe "free" memory is
> what's left of the "total" after you subtract the "available", and "system
> cache" amounts. Also, why aren't the "Kernal Memory" amounts included under
> "Physical Memory"? Aren't they all part of RAM? XP "Help" seems to be no
> help at all here. Do you know of a site that better (more simply) explains
> the relationships of the various numbers under Task Manager "Performance"??
> It sure would be appreciated.
>
> Ted Smith
>
>
> "Brian A." <gonefish'n@afarawaylake> wrote in message
> news:uleeL40jFHA.3336@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> See if this helps:
>> http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm
>>
>> --
>>
>> Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Shell/User }
>> Conflicts start where information lacks.
>> http://basconotw.mvps.org/
>>
>> Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>> How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Ted Smith" <me@net.org.com> wrote in message
>> news:uHVh6tzjFHA.2156@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>>I have 500 megs of RAM and each of my 6 logical drives indicate that the
>>>system has allocated 785 megs to the pagefile. That is huge. I can't
>>>imagine why any drive would need that much, and since I am runing out of
>>>space on some drives I would like to drastically reduce the size of the
>>>files - maybe to 300 megs. Would that be OK, or would it be unadvisable??
>>>
>>> Ted Smith
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 4:04:07 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

If you have 2 drives create a paging file on each drive. Windows will use the drive that is free at that moment in time. You need to trade the benefit of this (almost none if system is not stressed) with drive speed if one drive is slow.

You'll know if your paging file is too small when you start an application or open a new window and nothing happens. You will not get an error (one reason is not enough memory to tell you).

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/_comment/001075.htm...
=================================================
"Ted Smith" <me@net.org.com> wrote in message news:eby5THYkFHA.2484@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Yep - I guess I did that sometime back before I knew to ask questions first.
> Thanks for jogging my memory. Also, I won't be calling the page files (or,
> paging files) pagefiles any more. Guess that was dumb
>
> Ted Smith
>
>
> "David Candy" <.> wrote in message
> news:uDiuFh1jFHA.2152@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Delete 5 of them. They are called paging files not pagefiles. Type it in
> help.
>
> 1 x 768 is a reasonable figure for most people although some people will
> need 6 x 4GB.
>
> A human did this. Windows only makes 1 if it is making the decisions.
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/_comment/001075.htm...
> =================================================
> "Ted Smith" <me@net.org.com> wrote in message
> news:uHVh6tzjFHA.2156@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>I have 500 megs of RAM and each of my 6 logical drives indicate that the
>> system has allocated 785 megs to the pagefile. That is huge. I can't
>> imagine why any drive would need that much, and since I am runing out of
>> space on some drives I would like to drastically reduce the size of the
>> files - maybe to 300 megs. Would that be OK, or would it be unadvisable??
>>
>> Ted Smith
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 2:39:22 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Man! That's heavy! I'll have to put an ice pack on my brain and try reading
that again once it cools off a bit. Thanks a lot! I rally do appreciate
your thoughtfulness and help.

Ted Smith

"David Candy" <.> wrote in message
news:%233tQhVYkFHA.3580@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Noone understands the depths of XP memory except the people who wrote the
memory manager, incl most MS programmers. To understand a little bit will
require hours of reading material where you don't understand a word. However
a lot of people understand a lot of the subject. But most people who talk
about are often wrong in part. It's a complex and not fully documented
subject.

He's an imperfect summation.

Their is virtual address space. Each process on your machine can address 4
GB of memory directly (and a lot more indirectly). There is virtual memory -
the sum total of memory - disk based and memory based. There is paging files
(up to 16 x 4 GB) and open exe files and other system files. Part of an open
executable becomes a swap file for that process (this is for speed reasons -
the data doesn't change so never needs to be written only read). All system
dlls are mapped into each process. So if you have a 1 meg system dll and
twenty processes then it uses only 1 mb of physical memory.

Programs reserve memory and can ask for more as well. TM doesn't show how
much of your paging file is being used but how much of your disk based
(paging files + open exe) virtual memory is being RESERVED. To see how much
is being used of the paging file type systeminfo in a command prompt. Mine
is usually around 40 MB which shows as around 150 to 200MB in TM's PF Used.

Available memory is not free memory, only memory available for use. It is
being used, partly by the system cache. Windows tries to keep free memory to
4 Mb I think (might even be 1).

Windows continuely tunes open apps. One thing it does is take a page of
memory (4k) off an application and see if it requests it by a page fault. If
not it adjusts it's working set down (the amount of physical memory a
process has). If you want to see what is the working set for a program look
in System Information (the GUI one) Software Environment\Running Tasks.
Windows tries to keep the physical memory to an app inbetween these figures
which it has determined by observation and experimentation is all it needs.
Remember that it does not mean the memory is written to disk if removed from
a program - it goes to available memory where it is written to disk if
needed, written to disk if the system is doing nothing but kept in memory as
well, or restored to the application if needed. Also only data is written
out (that is more than your data it includes the program's data like
variables) not code. As discussed above code is just dropped from memory and
reread from the exe. An exe contains code and data structures.

Task Manager's Help explain a lot of the terms. Use that rather than Windows
Help. System Monitor's Help you may also find useful.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/_comment/001075.htm...
=================================================
"Ted Smith" <me@net.org.com> wrote in message
news:%23TZG7%23XkFHA.4024@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Thank you. I learned a lot from that web page, but I sure have a long way
> to go. One thing that was confusing was the mention of "free memory".
> My
> task manager does not show that expression. It does refer to "available"
> memory but I'm not sure that is the same thing. Maybe "free" memory is
> what's left of the "total" after you subtract the "available", and "system
> cache" amounts. Also, why aren't the "Kernal Memory" amounts included
> under
> "Physical Memory"? Aren't they all part of RAM? XP "Help" seems to be no
> help at all here. Do you know of a site that better (more simply)
> explains
> the relationships of the various numbers under Task Manager
> "Performance"??
> It sure would be appreciated.
>
> Ted Smith
>
>
> "Brian A." <gonefish'n@afarawaylake> wrote in message
> news:uleeL40jFHA.3336@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> See if this helps:
>> http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm
>>
>> --
>>
>> Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Shell/User }
>> Conflicts start where information lacks.
>> http://basconotw.mvps.org/
>>
>> Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>> How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Ted Smith" <me@net.org.com> wrote in message
>> news:uHVh6tzjFHA.2156@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>>I have 500 megs of RAM and each of my 6 logical drives indicate that the
>>>system has allocated 785 megs to the pagefile. That is huge. I can't
>>>imagine why any drive would need that much, and since I am runing out of
>>>space on some drives I would like to drastically reduce the size of the
>>>files - maybe to 300 megs. Would that be OK, or would it be unadvisable??
>>>
>>> Ted Smith
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
!