Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Windows VM Pagefile - what size do you think?

Tags:
  • Configuration
  • Photoshop
  • Pagefile
  • Windows 7
Last response: in Windows 7
Share
November 21, 2012 9:15:01 AM

Folks, we got 32 GB RAM here, with SSD disks and 4GB video on a gen 3.2 Intel board.

Did you zero your pagefile too-day? So Adobe dreams up this creative suite called CS6 and includes an application with archaic memory demands called Photoshop CS6. Now, remove that pagefile.sys by setting Control Panel, Advanced system settings, Advanced tab, Performancce Settings, Advanced tab [again], Change, and selecting No paging file. Please remember this dialog location: Control Panel System, System Properties, Performance Options, Windows Virtual Memory (gosh, that's a lot of dialogs floating around)... and Photoshop completely freaks out. Adobe techs will insist on resetting Photoshop memory behavior and Virtual Memory to massive doses and then gradually everything Photoshop will dribble down the toilet, regardless.

Set your paging file to Initial size of say 800 (MB), and to a Maximum 800. Photoshop, though it opens in about 0.1 seconds, is actually testing many of its archaic system 'coat hangers' (remember that term, you Windows 3.1 8cum32 crowd!). If there is no memory there for coat hangers, Photoshop freaks and crashes, once it wears out the physical temp staff. If there's more than 2048 for pagefile, then Adobe is "afraid to inform you" that Photoshop starts looping (trying to hang their laundry on more and more hangers). Why only 800? Why not 4096? 800 is more than enough for Photoshop's dribbling collection of mini-this-and-that plug-in dependents to process... on time and in cue. They each are designed for a load time of several minutes, not 0.0001 seconds! Windows prioritizes them in the order they are received and they will all do fine.

But like Photoshop, Windows is a fishbowl full of skeletons. If Windows sees less than 384 dependent hangers on the rack (one of those tactile code things you learn in computing engineering 101), it looses track of first-come first-serve and all those wailing, disorganized archaics hit the ditch. Some dude in tech spin over at msdn suggested the 800, and it seems to work like a charm here. An Adobe "snr" in jnr support suggested 2048 to solve a boatload of CS6 woes to no effect. Really, 800 handles ins, outs and hangs just fine. To be textboook you could up that all the way to 384(3) as 1152 :~) lol. 384/1152 or 1152/1152? Your guess is as good as mine. One thing we all know for certain. None of the OS builders know what's best, or the dang OS would be adjusting itself. Hmmm. No os in this century is ready for that yet.

Anyway, back to that 64-bit conundrum. Is there a problem with your ample load of system memory? No. But even Linux is woozled trying to build true 64-bit apps that manage their own coat hangers. For at least another decade, and probably longer, your motherload-of-redundancy monster OS, like say Windows will need to play archaic games with your memory sticks, simply naturally (lol) dancing somawares in a dedicated cpu layer with millions more of component calculation resource than you will ever need, mind you. Go a little shy outside minimal and you should be... just fine for now. That's suck-yer-thumb and fresh it the wind generality c/o the builders, in reclusive banter.

No offence intended to snr jnr techs in telephone support cues over at Adobe, Microsoft, et al. :hello: 
Yeah, so anyway, any thoughts and takers on our little pagefile memory dance?

More about : windows pagefile size

a b $ Windows 7
November 21, 2012 9:24:16 AM

Similar: http://blogs.technet.com/b/markrussinovich/archive/2008...
Task Manager, Performance, Resource Monitor, Memory and you'll see the amount of virtual memory reserved by the processes. Open several applications, if not all, add the reserved amount of memory (commit), 500MB (as reserve) and there's the answer.
m
0
l
November 21, 2012 10:50:48 AM

alexoiu said:
Similar: http://blogs.technet.com/b/markrussinovich/archive/2008...
... and there's the answer.


Not really. My Memory now is 5.32 GB. Your method would so screw up Ps. Think WOW, and then think WOW hyperdrive... self-contained in a chip. That's where we're at today.

Actually though, yes that's a good start. We were mussing around there for a whole afternoon last week, me and a senior Adobe team, and we still couldn't stabilize the core API's. Their verbal conclusion is that they have to continue trying to rewrite The Core, whatever that is, to weed out 32-bit redundency.

Thank's for the link to Mark's post. Didn't see anything there for Intel's new CPU's on Gen 3 boards, unless they might be [trying] to slave one of those old spinner drives for a monster backup. Maybe.

The way these new systems work is the disk logic simply stores tags, no more spinning data clusters, and doesn't physically sort tags. The new CPU's do the sorting, even some retagging, and they slave the new 'flat' memory disks. They profile RAM and 'magnify' memory resource by expanding it between processor layers.

PAGEFILE is redundency, but it is essential for redundent software [somaware] to be able to run.

Just as Windows 8 is "massively" changing global Network [aka Regional] security, our new generation of hardware, from servers and desktops right down to handheld smart phones, is massively reshaping data management. The power of the new Network and our personal machines is awesome!

It really strikes me that the only support cue to suggest any pagefile size other than "0" is the gang around highly redundent Photoshop. Do you think a better topic would be "Pagefile vs. Power"? Unless this is Euro softwares woes, economy and not technology...
m
0
l
!