|
Dom
|
 |
« on: April 05, 2011, 09:12:38 AM » |
|
I heard (many moons ago) that by default, the pagefile in Windows XP is set to 1.5 times the amount of RAM you have in your machine. Is that accurate? Also, what's better in terms of performance - lower pagefile usage, or higher pagefile usage?
I'd guess the lower, the better, but I don't know for sure. I know that the pagefile is some disk space that's used as temporary RAM if there isn't enough RAM to go round, but it's just that my laptop seems to use around 1.3Gb of the pagefile whilst having 1Gb of RAM. Even though it hasn't used all of the RAM (it currently has 240Mb free) it's still using a rather large amount of the pagefile.
Should I be worried, and is there anything I can do to stop it from using the pagefile as much (or, if it's better to use the pagefile, is there anything I can do to get the laptop to use more of it?)
It's not a big deal or anything, I just thought I'd ask, as this laptop is getting rather slow.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Lampkins
|
|
« Reply #1 on: April 05, 2011, 09:16:10 AM » |
|
Apparently, apart from the placebo effect, you're best of letting Windows handle it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jem
|
|
« Reply #2 on: April 05, 2011, 09:18:07 AM » |
|
Set it to system managed and forget about it.
If your computer is slow, look at what's running (inc. background stuff like adobe updaters etc) and have a cull.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
oi.
|
|
|
|
Dom
|
|
« Reply #3 on: April 05, 2011, 09:21:40 AM » |
|
If I had a cull on this machine it'd be in the bin right now.
Considering the people that order the laptops we use here are IT guys, we always seem to get given the bottom dregs of the hardware available at the time. I don't know if it's a cost thing, or if they don't realise that installing piles of crap that nobody uses is bad for your machine, but people are always complaining.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
suedenem
|
|
« Reply #4 on: April 05, 2011, 11:12:40 AM » |
|
Ditto to letting Windows handle it. Installing Sysinternals Pagedefrag might make a bit of a difference - it's a specialised defrag tool for your pagefile. Less fragments mean less wasted space and quicker paging. If you use Photoshop, it has its own pagefile. If possible, set this to run in a separate drive partition (or ideally physical drive) so it's not faffing about on the main system partition. That's how I've done things for years now, anyway. There might be a better way now... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
So this SEO copywriter walks into a bar, grill, pub, public house, Irish bar, bartender, drinks, beer, wine, liquor...
Beware my weird, cross-dressing comment's; they are pretty standard examples of trolling.
|
|
|
|
Dom
|
|
« Reply #5 on: April 05, 2011, 11:27:12 AM » |
|
Thanks for the advice, I might give that a go. I don't have Photoshop on my work machine, but I do at home, so that's something to bear in mind.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
robwhizz
|
|
« Reply #6 on: April 05, 2011, 02:57:04 PM » |
|
There might be a better way now...
System managed works well usually. Windows take enough to store a complete dump of the memory in the event of a BSOD, which is why it's around 1.5 times. In a modern system with decent amounts of RAM - depending on how much you have running - the pagefile isn't used that much. The drawback to letting windows manage the pagefile is that it puts it in the middle of the C:\ drive. Potentially this can create a bit of a bottle neck with it not being on the fastest part of the disk and the fact it may be moving things in and out of the pagefile and trying to load something from the same drive. With hard drive so cheap, and most people having SATA now, the ultimate way is to buy/use another drive. I use a drive that I have set for backups. Partition the first few GB on the drive, which will be the fastest area and manually set the page file to fill it. Make the partition at least 1.5 times larger than your RAM, and think about whether you might upgrade the RAM. I set mine to 10GB. It's nothing to lose off a 1TB drive, and I'll never need that much. It's worth doing if you buy a new drive at some point, but probably not worth faffing around with a current drive full of stuff. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Great post Jon! I have been following the effort since you started it, and although I have understood its purpose this post does a really great job solidifying the full rationale.
|
|
|
|
robwhizz
|
|
« Reply #7 on: April 05, 2011, 03:14:56 PM » |
|
it's still using a rather large amount of the pagefile.
Contrary to popular belief, the windows memory manager is actually pretty decent. Don't worry too much about the size of the pagefile. The thing to look at is page faults. That's when windows can't find a file in RAM and has to go looking for it in the pagefile. You need to have a look at what is running and what memory it is using too. Firefox can be a bugger with multiple tabs eating tons of RAM. Have a look for Process Explorer on the sysinternals site that sue posted. That will tell you about everything that's running and the memory it's eating. Have a look for unused crap that can be uninstalled, or things looking suspect that need sorting out. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Great post Jon! I have been following the effort since you started it, and although I have understood its purpose this post does a really great job solidifying the full rationale.
|
|
|
|
Steve Lampkins
|
|
« Reply #8 on: April 05, 2011, 03:21:56 PM » |
|
Once that bloody Firefox nicked 300MB of my precious RAMs. I have 6GB, so I'm not hurting, but still, it made my other RAMS insecure.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dom
|
|
« Reply #9 on: April 05, 2011, 03:25:01 PM » |
|
I had Mashable open in Chrome and it was using 200Mb. Just that one tab, it was ludicrous.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jem
|
|
« Reply #10 on: April 05, 2011, 03:46:11 PM » |
|
He's a clever ol' chap, that Rob guy.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
oi.
|
|
|
|
Dom
|
|
« Reply #11 on: April 05, 2011, 03:50:52 PM » |
|
Have a look for Process Explorer on the sysinternals site that sue posted. That will tell you about everything that's running and the memory it's eating. Have a look for unused crap that can be uninstalled, or things looking suspect that need sorting out.
Just popped that open actually. There's lots of stuff running, but I don't know how much of it I can get rid of. I might have to look into it tomorrow. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
robwhizz
|
|
« Reply #12 on: April 06, 2011, 08:41:53 AM » |
|
He's a clever ol' chap, that Rob guy.
 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Great post Jon! I have been following the effort since you started it, and although I have understood its purpose this post does a really great job solidifying the full rationale.
|
|
|
|
Jem
|
|
« Reply #13 on: April 06, 2011, 08:54:23 AM » |
|
I'm surprised you didn't pick up on the fact I was calling you old  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
oi.
|
|
|
|
robwhizz
|
|
« Reply #14 on: April 06, 2011, 09:06:49 AM » |
|
I'm surprised you didn't pick up on the fact I was calling you old I couldn't remember my age the other day and had to work it out from my date of birth! I'm just glad that I'm not as old as I feel today.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Great post Jon! I have been following the effort since you started it, and although I have understood its purpose this post does a really great job solidifying the full rationale.
|
|
|
|
Dom
|
|
« Reply #15 on: April 06, 2011, 10:01:17 AM » |
|
I forgot my address the other day. I put it down to lack of sleep, and an excess of alcohol though.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jem
|
|
« Reply #16 on: April 06, 2011, 10:59:03 AM » |
|
I forgot it was Karl's birthday yesterday, until Facebook reminded me.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
oi.
|
|
|
|
Dom
|
|
« Reply #17 on: April 06, 2011, 12:51:01 PM » |
|
Birthday reminders are the only thing I really use Facebook for, but that involves actually going on Facebook and checking. I wish Facebook would just email me whenever it's someone's birthday.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
robwhizz
|
|
« Reply #18 on: April 06, 2011, 01:11:40 PM » |
|
Birthday reminders are the only thing I really use Facebook for, but that involves actually going on Facebook and checking. I wish Facebook would just email me whenever it's someone's birthday.
You can do that on an Android phone. I turned facebook calendar off though as it was full of peoples' birthdays that I didn't care about. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Great post Jon! I have been following the effort since you started it, and although I have understood its purpose this post does a really great job solidifying the full rationale.
|
|
|
|
Dom
|
|
« Reply #19 on: April 06, 2011, 01:26:19 PM » |
|
Birthday reminders are the only thing I really use Facebook for, but that involves actually going on Facebook and checking. I wish Facebook would just email me whenever it's someone's birthday.
You can do that on an Android phone. Can you? I've got my Facebook calendar imported into my phone (which I hate, BTW) but it only reminds me to a calendar event if it's an event I've put into my Google Calendar, and not when it's a Facebook event. Ideally I'd love to have it remind me of birthdays from my Facebook calendar. As a side not, I'd like to be able to remove all my Facebook contacts from my phone's contacts list, but I haven't been able to figure out how to do that either. You can turn Facebook syncing on, but it syncs everything. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dom
|
|
« Reply #20 on: April 06, 2011, 01:29:53 PM » |
|
Scrap that, I've just had a look and have found where you turn calendars on and off.
I just need to get it to send me a reminder popup thing for Facebook events.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
