# Page file size?



## Recon-UK (Jul 13, 2016)

What is a good size to go with on Windows 10 64?

I have 8 GB ram installed and currently for all drives it is auto set up for the exact same size as my physical memory.


----------



## natr0n (Jul 13, 2016)

You dont really need much around 1-2gb is perfectly fine.
type in either 1024 or 2048 for main drive.


----------



## Recon-UK (Jul 13, 2016)

natr0n said:


> You dont really need much around 1-2gb is perfectly fine.
> type in either 1024 or 2048 for main drive.



As i put it in custom, Windows was actually saying "1918mb" as recommended for both drives, so your answer here is very spot on! thanks


----------



## AsRock (Jul 13, 2016)

Leave it as default, i have 16Gig in my systems and on auto it's 2.4Gig. Screwing with it just highers the chance of some thing going wrong, Sure it may never happen but still at least on auto and if there is a reason it needs it you will not get a issue.

Edited for typo.


----------



## Frick (Jul 13, 2016)

AsRock said:


> Leave it as default, i have 16Gig in my systems and on auto it's 2.4Gig. Screwing with it just highers the chance of some thing going wrong, Sure it may never happen but still at least on auto and if there is a reason it needs it you will not get a issue.
> 
> Edited for typo.



You have to check up on it though, when I went from 8GB to 16GB RAM Win7 set my page file to twice that, on my poor 120GB SSD.


----------



## Recon-UK (Jul 13, 2016)

I run a 500GB SSD and 1TB Samsung HDD, biggest ram eater so far is COD GHOSTS??? 7GB of actual physical RAM usage is insane, BF4 on the largest maps with 64 players only eats 5.5GB.
Only play COD for single player though.


----------



## AsRock (Jul 13, 2016)

Frick said:


> You have to check up on it though, when I went from 8GB to 16GB RAM Win7 set my page file to twice that, on my poor 120GB SSD.



When i posted was the 1st time i checked it, although i knew what it was due to explorer.


----------



## Jetster (Jul 13, 2016)

With a large SSD just leave it alone. If your hurting for space then 2048


----------



## Kursah (Jul 13, 2016)

+1 Let Windows do its thing. 

I haven't had PF management issues in 7, 8 or 10 letting the OS handle it, 120GB-1TB+ SSD's and HDD's. Might not hurt to check it, as some users have stated they've had PF management issues on their systems...none of the ones I personally run or have sold/deployed have had such issues that I've seen during any audit I've performed. 

Leave it alone and game on.


----------



## trog100 (Jul 16, 2016)

if you have enough real ram windows dosnt use its page file.. if it does you will soon notice the slow down.. 

8 gigs should be enough for most things.. ether way if windows is using its swap file its a good idea to buy some more of the real stuff.. 

trog


----------



## bonehead123 (Jul 19, 2016)

trog100 said:


> if you have enough real ram windows dosnt use its page file.. if it does you will soon notice the slow down..
> 
> 8 gigs should be enough for most things.. ether way if windows is using its swap file its a good idea to buy some more of the real stuff..
> 
> trog



^^THIS^^

I've been letting the system manage it since XP and have yet to have any issues whatsoever.....but..... I have ALWAYS had more than enough ram in my rigs to cover anything I might do usage wise to.....

Leave it alone & be happy


----------



## qubit (Jul 19, 2016)

Best left to Auto unless you're running low on space and you're unable to free up room for it.


----------



## P4-630 (Jul 19, 2016)

Mine is on auto, and it's just using 2432MB


----------



## trog100 (Jul 19, 2016)

i run with my swap file off because i have 32 gigs of ram (way more than i can make use of) and use a small 126 ssd boot/system drive.. windows taking up a huge chunk of that for a swap file that will never get used makes no sense..

the more real ram you have the more drive space windows takes up for its swap file it should never have to use.. many years ago it mattered now with ram as cheap as it is its just a waste of hard drive space..

hard drives are also cheap but solid state drives not so much.. plus i like a small easy to back up operating system.. mine weighs in with all the apps i need at around 23 gig.. a virgin windows 10 install can be around 16 gig.. or in my case left to windows around 35 gig.. he he

mostly its best just to leave windows alone.. the only important thing is to make sure you have enough real ram so that windows never has to use its swap file.. most people think it serves some essential purpose but it dosnt.. its just there cos its always been there.. he he

trog

ps.. for what its worth i have enough ram to load my entire operating system into and still have plenty to spare.. my operating system at 23 gigs would easily fit into my ram at 32 gig.. i even bought a ram drive to try and do something like this but so far i havnt been able to.. i would like everything i commonly use to be loaded into ram.. or at least a big chunk of it.. but it dosnt seem possible..


----------



## Jetster (Jul 19, 2016)

trog100 said:


> i run with my swap file off because i have 32 gigs of ram (way more than i can make use of) and use a small 126 ssd boot/system drive.. windows taking up a huge chunk of that for a swap file that will never get used makes no sense..
> 
> the more real ram you have the more drive space windows takes up for its swap file it should never have to use.. many years ago it mattered now with ram as cheap as it is its just a waste of hard drive space..
> 
> ...




Deleting it is fine, but keep in mind if you delete your page file a memory dump has no where to go and will be deleted. Not a big deal but just FYI. Really there is nothing to gain by deleting a page file. Except for the physical space. Windows set your page file the same size as your ram for a reason. So suggesting you should delete it if you have 16+ Gb ram and wont need it is inaccurate. You can also recover Data on a BSOD if you have the dump file 

"Microsoft says that, when the page file is set to a system-managed size and the computer is configured for automatic memory dumps, “Windows sets the size of the paging file large enough to ensure that a kernel memory dump can be captured most of the time.” As Microsoft points out, crash dumps are an important consideration when deciding what size the page file should be. The page file must be large enough to contain the memory data."

http://www.howtogeek.com/196672/windows-memory-dumps-what-exactly-are-they-for/


----------



## AsRock (Jul 19, 2016)

trog100 said:


> *i run with my swap file off because i have 32 gigs of ram* (way more than i can make use of) and use a small 126 ssd boot/system drive.. windows taking up a huge chunk of that for a swap file that will never get used makes no sense..
> 
> the more real ram you have the more drive space windows takes up for its swap file it should never have to use.. many years ago it mattered now with ram as cheap as it is its just a waste of hard drive space..
> 
> ...



And if it's on auto how much space it take on a win10 box  using 32GB ?,  As i know with 16GB it's only 2.4GB although i am sure there is cases it's different.


----------



## Damocles (Jul 19, 2016)

Well, I have 16GB of RAM so my page file is turned off. Less reads and writes to an SSD drive and system is faster since it's (let's say) forced to use RAM.


----------



## P4-630 (Jul 19, 2016)

Damocles said:


> Well, I have 16GB of RAM so my page file is turned off. Less reads and writes to an SSD drive and system is faster since it's (let's say) forced to use RAM.



A while ago I was reading somewhere that some applications crash without a pagefile, don't know about games though.


----------



## Disparia (Jul 19, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> A while ago I was reading somewhere that some applications crash without a pagefile, don't know about games though.



It's not that they insta-crash upon opening or anything like that, it's that the OS can't commit anymore memory to the applications asking for more and chooses something to die.


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 19, 2016)

I'm using 16MB which is the recommended minimum. I've also set BSOD dumps to be minidumps only. This way I still have the debugging capability on BSOD's, but the system is running everything from RAM. If you turn off pagefile, you won't get any memory dumps and that can suck sometimes if you're trying to figure out why something is crashing.


----------



## Toothless (Jul 19, 2016)

Jizzler said:


> It's not that they insta-crash upon opening or anything like that, it's that the OS can't commit anymore memory to the applications asking for more and chooses something to die.


That's a fairly grim way to put it. 

"Oh no space anymore now you die hehe."

In other news JC3 gave me issues with pf off.


----------



## SaltyFish (Jul 19, 2016)

Certain programs require a page file to function. For example, the original Company of Heroes requires a page file larger than 768MB (I remember another game requiring a 1GB page file, but I don't recall its name). If you don't have any such programs, you can get by without a page file. Otherwise a 2GB page file should suit your needs. If you want a page file while preserving access speed and SSD life, you can pull shenanigans by putting a page file on a RAM disk.


----------



## Disparia (Jul 19, 2016)

SaltyFish said:


> Certain programs require a page file to function. For example, the original Company of Heroes requires a page file larger than 768MB (I remember another game requiring a 1GB page file, but I don't recall its name). If you don't have any such programs, you can get by without a page file. Otherwise a 2GB page file should suit your needs. If you want a page file while preserving access speed and SSD life, you can pull shenanigans by putting a page file on a RAM disk.



CoH is a bit of an oddity as it has a built-in check for the presence of a pagefile. That wasn't very forward-thinking for a couple reasons, but I do understand their intention -- to prevent support calls and bad publicity. Luckily it was patched to support the option "-disablepagefilecheck".


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jul 19, 2016)

Unless you have advanced degrees in memory management AND you are committed and disciplined to regularly check and reset your settings, it is best to let Windows manage it. Microsoft has over 20 years of empirical data on this and has it figured out. If running without a PF when you have 16GB or more of RAM was better, MS would disable it automatically. Why? Because optimizing performance is a priority goal at MS. It is that simple. So MS does not disable it.

If you do, for some reason, decide to manual set your PF, it is NOT a set and forget setting. This is why Microsoft has made the PF size dynamic and not fixed like they did years ago.

Getting by without one is not the same as benefiting from having one. Yes, your computer will run, and probably run fine without one if you have lots of RAM. But there is no evidence anywhere, except with very rare scenarios most of us will never encounter, that running without a PF benefits anything. Forcing Windows to stuff everything into RAM does NOT improve performance. So why delete it? Best it does is create a nice placebo effect.

It is also a fallacy that you will wear out your SSDs. That is just not true - especially with today's generation SSDs which don't suffer from such limitations as first generation SSDs did.  In fact, by forcing Windows to open and close files more often (which is what you do when you disable the PF), that will increase wear on the SSDs too.

SSDs are ideally suited for Page Files. See Support and Q&A for Solid-State Drives and scroll down to, "_Frequently Asked Questions, Should the pagefile be placed on SSDs?_" While the article is getting old, it still applies - even more so now since wear problems of early generation SSDs are no longer a problem.


----------



## Jetster (Jul 19, 2016)

Some programs will actually change the size of your page file. I know Samsung Magician does

*Bill_Bright*
this old man I use to work with use to ask me. "So you think you're smarter than the engineers that built it?"   Every time I started messing with something


----------



## trog100 (Jul 20, 2016)

i have been running my main system without a swap file for over ten years.. most of the time on win xp 32 bit with only 4 gigs of ram.. now i am on win 10 64 bit with 32 gigs of ram..

all i am saying is that assuming you have enough of the real stuff windows dosnt need to fake it..

instead of going on what you read or hear try it and see.. you might be surprised..

i have a small windows tablet with only two gigs of ram.. for normal type usage browsing and the like two gigs of ram is plenty.. i leave the swap file alone on the tablet.. two reasons.. one is two gigs of ram aint a lot and two is with only two gigs of the real stuff windows only thinks it needs another gig of set aside hard drive space..

for reasons that dont make any sense to me and never have with 32 gigs of the real stuff windows thinks it needs another 16 gig or so of the fake stuff set aside..

collectively its all called "virtual" memory.. virtual meaning not real.. the only limit to windows virtual memory is the size of a hard drive.. when a machine only had 32 meg or less of the real stuff "virtual" memory was essential.. now it aint.. end of story..

2 gigs of memory is enough.. 4 gigs is plenty.. for gaming 8 gigs is enough.. 16 gigs more than enough..

ram is cheap which is why i have 32 gigs of the stuff even though i know it will never get used..

my main machine has 32 gig with its  swap file turned off.. my ten inch windows tablet has 2 gigs swap file left alone.. i have three other small none gaming laptops.. two have 4 gig of ram and one has 8 gigs.. the one with 8 gigs started life with only 2 gigs.. i "upgraded" it.. 

oddly enough the windows 10 machine with only 2 gigs of ram shows .9 gig in use while browsing or video watching.. the machine with 32 gigs of ram shows about 2.3 gigs in use.. most of the rest is doing sweet f-ck all.. its a shame windows dosnt make better use of the stuff.. its there why not f-cking use it..

basically if windows dosnt make use of the real stuff when it has it what the f-ck does it need a swap file for.. the answer is simple.. it dosnt.. however the old myths still hang around as old myths do..

why did i turrn my swap file off ten years ago..  threads like this one and on this very place.. i did it just to prove it could be done without dire consequences.. not a lot has changed.. he he

leave it on my all means just dont argue that its necessary.. it aint.. 

my old win XP machine with only 4 gigs of ram and its swap file turned off was actually (back in the day) a cross/fired  high end gaming machine not a just browsing machine.. 

trog


----------



## Damocles (Jul 20, 2016)

To be completely honest, I've also read somewhere that if you don't have a page file some programs may crash or even a whole system may crash. But so far this hasn't occurrde to me. Not even once.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jul 20, 2016)

Jetster said:


> this old man I use to work with use to ask me. "So you think you're smarter than the engineers that built it?" Every time I started messing with something


lol - when I first started repairing "non-tactical" radios in the mid 70s for the Air Force (mobile and portable radios for the security forces, fire dept, etc.) we had an old WWII and Korean War radio tech in the shop we used to call "Mr. Wizard" because he new electronics inside and out and he would say something similar when I or another young troop questioned a design decision. Then he would proceed to explain why we were wrong.


trog100 said:


> all i am saying is that assuming you have enough of the real stuff windows dosnt need to fake it..


Sorry, but aren't you doing the exact same thing - that is, assuming you are smarter than the countless number of engineers with 4, 6 or 8 years of college and decades of experience and decades of empirical data crunching on their supercomputers at Microsoft, Linux and elsewhere?

It always amazes me when I see people assume modern versions of Windows and now W10 should be treated the same as XP - a 15 year old operating system - with no proof or any supporting evidence what they do is better. As above, the typical argument for disabling the PF is because they can do it "_without dire circumstances_". Or because we always did it that way. Or I disabled it, didn't notice any difference so I left it disabled.

@trog100 - please show us one, just one recognized expert, white paper, technical article from ANY hardware maker, operating system or program developer who says it is better to turn off the PF. Or even one expert who says leaving the PF enabled is harmful? And some extreme example with some obscure program in some rare scenario does not count. And some forum poster in another thread or site does not count either.

Mark Russinovich, probably the foremost expert on the subject, does not recommend disabling the PF if you have large amounts of RAM. He does say a fixed size is fine *IF* you set it up properly AND, because it is not a set and forget setting, you recheck as your computing tasks change.

Lifehacker and The How-To Geek: Understanding the Windows Pagefile and Why You Shouldn't Disable It. 





> The Bottom Line: Should You Disable It?
> 
> The vast majority of users should never disable the pagefile or mess with the pagefile settings—just let Windows deal with the pagefile and use the available RAM for file caching, processes, and Superfetch.



Myth: Disabling the Page File Improves Performance, 





> Some people will tell you that you should disable the page file to speed up your computer. The thinking goes like this: the page file is slower than RAM, and if you have enough RAM, Windows will use the page file when it should be using RAM, slowing down your computer.
> 
> This isn’t really true. People have tested this theory and found that, while Windows can run without a page file if you have a large amount of RAM, there’s no performance benefit to disabling the page file.
> 
> ...



And to kick a dead horse, from Computer Hope,


> Question: Is it a good idea to change my Microsoft Windows page file size?
> 
> Answer: No.
> 
> ...




Edit comment: fixed a couple typos.


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Jul 20, 2016)

I feel like it's always best just to let Windows handle it.  I don't think i've ever seen changing the pagefile do anything for performance.  I've seen it do plenty for system instability though


----------



## dont whant to set it"' (Jul 23, 2016)

exodusprime1337 said:


> I feel like it's always best just to let Windows handle it.  I don't think i've ever seen changing the pagefile do anything for performance.  I've seen it do plenty for system instability though


Yeah , sure leave OS handle it,, I don't have a 8TB SLC SSD with minimum 1M I/o concomitent reads and writes, each.
Disabled is best if you know what your doing, but that needs testing, presumably app errors  app crashes , even system hang.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jul 23, 2016)

dont whant to set it"' said:


> Disabled is best if you know what your doing,


Oh? Can you show any, or even just one white paper, technical article, or knowledge base article from any recognized expert, SSD maker, hard drive maker, or OS maker, who agrees with that? Believe me, I've looked. I've provided several links from reliable sources (not just another forum poster) that say to leave it. You who say otherwise have provided no corroborating support whatsoever!

So unless you can show us (do it for yourself, at least) _any_ supporting evidence to the contrary, it is best to leave it enabled and just let Windows manage it.

And once again, it is NOT a set and forget thing if you disable it, or manually set a size. You need to retest EVERY time you make significant changes to the OS, your hardware, or in your computing routines - something Windows does for you, if you allow it.

8TB SSD?  Come on! No need to obfuscate the issue with nonsense. The size of the drive does not matter - only the amount of free space does. And I already showed where SSDs are ideally suited for PFs so if plenty of free disk space, regardless the type of drive or amount of RAM, letting Windows manage your page file is best (assuming a modern version of Windows).


----------



## basco (Jul 24, 2016)

on win xp i set it to 2048mb-2048mb
all other\newer os never touched it


----------



## Aquinus (Jul 24, 2016)

I leave mine off because I prefer to run out then get bogged down because it tells me very quickly that I need more physical memory. I also have next to zero issues running Windows 10 without it. I've said this time and time again but, people don't seem to listen to me. The problem where applications required a page file was eliminated when system memory started getting used to hold on to what would normally be manually offloaded to the page file when it gets disabled. If you're going to run with it off, fine, run with it off. If you run out of memory you either need more physical memory or you need the page file turned on. It's really that simple but, the fact of the matter is, the OS will always try to optimize performance regardless if the PF is on or off and I prefer that system memory doesn't get offloaded to disk, ever but, that's me.

So @Bill_Bright, cool your jets. Running without the PF isn't the end of the world and it will work most of the time but, if there is an issue, it's not very hard just to turn it back on. There is no need to start quoting *the internet* to make your point about how good or bad something is. If it works for the user, it doesn't really matter now does it?

So anyone with Windows 10 should just realize that disabling the page file means no virtual memory, so if you run out, an application will crash, not slow down. When you're like @trog100 or myself with more physical memory that will ever be used, then sure, there is no reason to consume that disk space. XP was a different animal because some application really did require the PF to be there but, that isn't a limitation anymore.

With that said, there really is no reason to turn it off unless you're trying to do something in particular but, turning it off isn't the end of the world if you have enough physical memory.


----------



## dont whant to set it"' (Jul 24, 2016)

in a perfect world an ssd would hold to it name and status as a non volatile storage,but it ain perfect as ssd's do wheare off by the store/erase cycles,anyways not that it matters considering a brand new one come with waranty.
maybe its justme that noticed games loading quicker,but that coulb as I keep os rather clean.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 24, 2016)

dont whant to set it"' said:


> in a perfect world an ssd would hold to it name and status as a non volatile storage,but it ain perfect as ssd's do wheare off by the store/erase cycles,anyways not that it matters considering a brand new one come with waranty.
> maybe its justme that noticed games loading quicker,but that coulb as I keep os rather clean.



Most modern SSDs come with a ridicules level of endurance.  I think the 3d NAND Samsungs have 500TBW for just the warranty period.  That's a lot.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jul 24, 2016)

Aquinus said:


> I leave mine off because I prefer to run out then get bogged down because it tells me very quickly that I need more physical memory.


You can tell if low on physical memory by using TM without turning the PF off - and more safely too because when you run out of physical memory, the system halts.


Aquinus said:


> So @Bill_Bright, cool your jets. Running without the PF isn't the end of the world and it will work most of the time


You are missing the point completely. The fact a system still works with the PF disabled is not a valid reason to disable it. That's the point.

My "jets" are running (but not overheating) because folks are advising posters that's it "okay" to disable the PF when there is absolutely no evidence out there to justify disabling it. I showed several links to experts who show there are advantages to just let Windows manage it - because I don't expect you to just believe me! It is not "quoting the Internet". It is backing up my claim with facts.

There are 1000s of things that will still work if you disable some feature. But without any evidence disabling it is better, why disable it? And more importantly, as technical advisors, why suggest it?



> There is no need to start quoting *the internet* to make your point


You mean you (those who disable the PF) don't want to see any evidence to contradict your positions. 

It is not about quoting the Internet. It is about not expected everyone just automatically believe you just because you said it. It is about supporting your position with facts and corroborating evidence. *It is about educating yourself and your fellow readers! Including me!* If I am wrong, PLEASE show us some supporting evidence where disabling the PF is better.

I am not smarter than all the PhDs and CompSci professionals at Microsoft with their decades and terabytes of empirical data. Are you? I am not so arrogant that I expect everyone to automatically believe me when I open my mouth. So I provided several links to experts.

So why can't you do the same? Why can't you justify your own position? Why can't you show any, or just one scrap of supporting evidence to show it is _better_ disabling the PF if you have lots of RAM? Because there isn't any! Is "_because it still works_" really the position you want to make a stand on???

And lets not forget W7/W8/W10 are not XP. And today's memory controllers are not dumb, legacy, archaic devices either. The way Windows manages the Page File in modern versions of Windows is NOT the same as it used to be.

And sorry, but your claim that you don't want "_system memory to get off loaded to disk_" indicates you don't really understand how memory management works.  For one, it is not "system" memory getting off loaded. For another, it is not the highest priority data that is "cached" for immediate  retrieval. That lack of understanding after the presented evidence shows you stuck your head in the sand and didn't bother to read the links I provided. And that's fine. But if you, as an experienced user don't have a thorough understanding of memory management, how are less experienced users supposed to understand how it works?

And note removing the PF does not eliminate paging! Source: The Out-of-Memory Syndrome, or: Why Do I Still Need a Pagefile? (my *bold* added)





> removing the pagefile doesn’t eliminate paging. (Nor does it turn off or otherwise get rid of virtual memory.) But removing the pagefile can actually make things worse. Reason: you are forcing the system to keep all private committed address space in RAM. And*, sorry, but that’s a stupid way to use RAM*.



You started your reply saying you leave yours off, then end your reply with "_there really is no reason to turn it off"_ (except for some particular - undefined - scenario).  If no real reason, they why do it?



R-T-B said:


> Most modern SSDs come with a ridicules level of endurance.


Right. So the old, outdated argument about wear and tear on a SSD is just that, old and outdated. Not to mention, the way Page Files work means SSDs and Page files are made for each other - assuming there is plenty of free disk space (but that applies to all types of drives - not just SSDs).

Again, I am not asking anyone to just believe me because I say so. For more info see, Page File - The definitive guide (from Oct 2015). This is about servers but it applies to less busy PCs too). 





> there is no need to disable the page file, even if your server has plenty of RAM.



PLEASE - to you naysayers, show us anything (besides another forum poster) that says disabling the PF is better.


----------



## dont whant to set it"' (Jul 24, 2016)

so I might as well get a tape drive and play on that and go get myself a cup of tea,come back and wayt for the alt+tab command to finnish. 
sorry i dont have the time nor the budget nor the will to create sayd 2 scenarios pfonvsoff.Over and out!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 24, 2016)

Windows and some applications explicitly uses the page file for precaching small files (because it eliminates file system overhead).  It also serves as a warning that there isn't enough physical RAM installed (system slows instead of locking up entirely or applications crashing).  With Auto, Windows will take what it needs.


----------



## Recon-UK (Jul 24, 2016)

Battlefield 4 has been causing my PC to just fully reset, even crash with pretty colours on the screen almost like my GPU has died, found out that system managed page file stops this issue.
Battlefield 4 would also show a RAM icon on the right, whilst RAM is not maxed out, far from it, it uses Page File.


----------



## Aquinus (Jul 24, 2016)

Bill_Bright said:


> You can tell if low on physical memory by using TM without turning the PF off - and more safely too because when you run out of physical memory, the system halts.
> You are missing the point completely. The fact a system still works with the PF disabled is not a valid reason to disable it. That's the point.
> 
> My "jets" are running (but not overheating) because folks are advising posters that's it "okay" to disable the PF when there is absolutely no evidence out there to justify disabling it. I showed several links to experts who show there are advantages to just let Windows manage it - because I don't expect you to just believe me! It is not "quoting the Internet". It is backing up my claim with facts.
> ...


You know, just because you can work yourself up and write an essay doesn't seem to address the point. I don't want to use a page file if I don't have to and if everything resides in memory, it's not, as you say "*sorry, but that’s a stupid way to use RAM*," because it's not really more stupid than letting the RAM sitting there doing "nothing" when free memory will get used for things like caching anyways and if you're not running out, very little gets offloaded anyways.

Simply put, as I said, there is no reason to turn it off but it is my preference. It works. I have zero issues with it when in the past I have experienced issues with very minor stuttered from pages getting overloaded in Windows 7 before I got my SSDs and was only running a RAID 5. I don't have much SSD space and swapping to a RAID with parity is stupid. So if I'm not running out of memory, there is no reason to not turn it off. I really don't care if it's faster or not, my point is that for me, it works. I do the same thing in Linux, no swap space, and there is no reason for it because I never run out and if I were to, I would reconsider that if I didn't feel like investing in more memory. It's not like turning it off will stop your system from doing caching or a lot of things it already does to improve performance, it just, in the end, forces more stuff into system memory and if there is extra to spare, why not? Plus, as a developer.

So instead of going on a rant because other people's opinion differ from yours, maybe you really should go have a drink or something and come back when you understand that not everything is about performance and sometimes it's just up to preference how people would like their operating system doing certain tasks. Even at work on our cloud servers, we don't provision any swap space unless there is a reason it is needed.

So go leave you holier then thou attitude at home and get over the fact that while people agree with you on some things, their preference for whatever reason might not.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Jul 24, 2016)

I have a 120gb ssd and just set about 2-4gb on my hdd, it doesn't need to be on your os drive so having it write to the ssd or not having much space is not really a valid excuse. Of course you can turn it off if you're that way inclined, there's no right or wrong way so all the repeated bickering really is pointless.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jul 24, 2016)

@ Aquinus - so you can find no supporting evidence, or refuse to backup your personal opinion with any supporting evidence. That's fine.

My "rant" has nothing to do with my opinion - in fact, I did not even express my own opinion!

I provided links to the expert advice from at least 6 different sources which you refuse to even acknowledge. And instead, rant about me. That's fine too.

But this is a technical support site, after all - dealing in technical facts. This is not about your favorite color but a technical setting in Windows that can affect system stability. It would just be nice to have one of you, anyone who believes disabling the PF is better, to provide some technical evidence to support/corroborate that position before advising others that it is okay to disable the PF.

Thus far, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest disabling the page file offers any advantage. Yet there is loads of evidence to support just letting Windows manage it. So until shown otherwise, IMO and research supports that, there is a right and wrong way.

So in the interest of peace, I will back out of this - unless some new technical evidence is presented to disprove all the other evidence.


----------



## trog100 (Jul 24, 2016)

the internet is full of erroneous information about windows and its "virtual" memory.. i base all my comments on over ten years of personal experience running with it turned off.. not on what i have read..

ten years is a f-cking long time to be doing something that some "experts" think cant or should not be done..

most of the erroneous information is simply copy and paste left overs from the past.. as is most of the comment in this thread.. people read it believe it and spread it.. 

trog


----------



## Aquinus (Jul 24, 2016)

It's not about performance, it's about having predictable behavior of the system when it runs low on memory as opposed to letting performance waiver as a result.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jul 24, 2016)

Aquinus said:


> It's not about performance, it's about having predictable behavior of the system when it runs low on memory as opposed to letting performance waiver as a result.


I agree with this completely. It is really much more about system stability than anything else. This is particularly true when the PF is on a SSD as opposed to a slow HD. That is, if your PF is on a slow HD, perhaps a 5400RPM notebook drive, then you might notice some performance issues IF the PF is being banged on a lot.

I realize some might consider system stability a performance issue. I think in this context, they are separate issues.

And no one has 10 years experience with W10. That takes us back to my point earlier. Modern versions of Windows, and in particular W10 is not XP and should not automatically be treated that way.


----------



## Recon-UK (Jul 24, 2016)

Well i hear by self declare that i am now an EXPERT in WINDOWS VIRTUAL MEMORY 

Obviously.. had to set Windows managed... Battlefield works when i do.. i am now an expert.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 24, 2016)

There was once a legit argument for playing with the page file:  Fragmentation.  If you wanted it to not mess with a certain fixed disk to keep it nice and tidy, you could set that.  That was probably the one sensible virtual memory tweak I have seen.

Now with SSDs and even HDDs being pretty dang fast though, it's less of an argument.


----------



## Recon-UK (Jul 24, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> There was once a legit argument for playing with the page file:  Fragmentation.  If you wanted it to not mess with a certain fixed disk to keep it nice and tidy, you could set that.  That was probably the one sensible virtual memory tweak I have seen.
> 
> Now with SSDs and even HDDs being pretty dang fast though, it's less of an argument.



My Sammy Spinpoint F1 is seriously rapid for it's spec...


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Jul 24, 2016)

trog100 said:


> the internet is full of erroneous information about windows and its "virtual" memory.. i base all my comments on over ten years of personal experience running with it turned off.. not on what i have read..
> 
> ten years is a f-cking long time to be doing something that some "experts" think cant or should not be done..
> 
> ...



Just because you have had no issues running with it off for 10 years doesn't mean others haven't had issues or they don't exist does it? Then saying that people who are saying otherwise are all just talking shit and copying and pasting this "erroneous" information they have come across on the web... if anything it's you trying to ram your opinions down peoples throat about this and not the other way around, I choose not to turn it off, it's my choice not yours, it's based on what I have read and also experienced, I don't talk down to you because you turn yours off telling you that you have no idea what you're talking about and expect likewise.


----------



## hat (Jul 24, 2016)

The pagefile still exists, so perhaps it's still needed. Long ago it was required because computers ran out of memory quickly, and without it, the system had nowhere to put data that needed to be accessed in that way so we ran into problems. Now we generally have ample memory, much more than we need. Still, I've heard of cases of programs misbehaving without the page file regardless of the amount of memory available, and I've heard of cases where programs would misbehave even if a page file did exist, but wasn't present on C:.

To argue the other side, in this age of ample memory we also have ample drive space. With 8GB RAM, Windows automatically has generated a pagefile of roughly 1.25GB. Missing out on that amount of drive space isn't going to harm me, either.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jul 24, 2016)

I remember a long long time ago I had 768mb of ram and was trying to play NWN 1. It ran like trash. This was back when Windows XP was dominant. To fix the issue I came a cross a post about modifying the virtual memory amount. I set it to 4GB and the game ran amazing.

Years have passed since that day. I have been through numerous phases. 

-Run it with 4GB
-Dont run it at all
-Run it with 1GB
-Let Windows decide.

The only conclusion I have been able to come to without actually designing it myself is the following.

- Running it with 4GB for several years proved to be an amazing benefit back when 1GB of DDR1 RAM was hundreds of dollars a stick. I kept it like this for many many years and never had a single issue. That said I could never ultimately decide whether or not it still provided the same benefit as it had for me that day. I also realized with the onset of bigger games in the early 2000s and the low storage capability of affordable HDDs at that time that 4GB was too much for a data hoarder or someone that needed or had many programs installed. A cycle that would crop backup with the presentation of the first wave of 32 and 64gb SSDs. With the added bonus of destroying them back when NAND structure was very weak.  Of course this was back with XP and memory management in windows OSs comes very far with almost every release.

-Not running it at all seemed like a fantastic prospect when RAM and total board compatibility grew and became affordable. This became a popular practice around Windows Vista. When "4GB Vista Ready" kits were introduced at around the $200 mark. Memory management was better for software in general obviously looking the other way at Vistas memory usage in general compared to XP at the time it was a product of change and higher OS consumption was starting to be accepted when we looked more closely at the technology that was going to be implemented in future OSs like transparent shells and security measures that loaded system processes in memory. 

Memory management was getting better and running without a pagefile worked for me for a very long time, however like anything humans are unpredictable and imperfect. Some programs were coded using old techniques and peoples refusal to leave the past behind meant compatibility modes that would break Windows memory management algorithms causing memory leaks. These caused users and myself on many different occasions issues as our systems would break because of the unforeseen consequences of bad programming and maybe bad practice. Of course then and even now, who can be certain running without one is bad practice? If not for the memory leaks of management protocols would we consistently see adverse effects? Of course we also had the issue with the crashes themselves. With no pagefile we could not analyse crash dumps.

-Running with 1GB of RAM was another popular midpoint starting with Windows 7 when we started to see less and less of the issues we encountered with Vista. The framework and best practices for software was more outlined for developers and the kernel code cleaned up and improved so 7 itself used less resources. However with the improvements most were still unsure if the likelihood of issues was going down because some were now running pagefiles that were not previously, or because now RAM stepped into the DD3 erra, becoming cheaper and more plentiful with the added software improvements simply became less of an issue because we now rarely reached the threshold. Of course one obvious added benefit is that in some small capacity we were now able to analyse some smaller crash dumps with the added pagefile thus making some bluescreens and dumps that weren't 1:1 copies of system memory readable.

-Windows managed pagefile was a proof of concept and the last in my line of thinking. I did all other varients before settling on what MS setup for me on day 1. I did this more as an academic exercise, for all I knew current OSs would be aware enough to correct issues I had once had like NWN not working. However I have seen 3 different combinations of issues. Of course one of which is all systems GO. Working as intended with the onset of better cheaper and bigger SSDs and memory Windows pagefile usage was something that slowly stopped being considered when size was thought about. Correctly working it is under the total system amount and automatically scales to need. I have seen no issues with this model. 

With everything however there are PROs and CONs one of which is when automatic adjustment does not work. Over the years memory topology and management has changed. All of it for the better, but systems arent perfect. I have seen automatic configuration 1:1 match my system memory which becomes a serious concern when disks are getting thrashed by the sheer size of the pagefile. It is also an issue in this aspect when system memory started becoming incredibly cheap during the DDR3 speed races when 1333 and 1600mhz sticks were as low as $1X for gigs of capacity. This quickly killed systems that were still running reliable smaller SSDs while running deep density sticks because of there cost effectiveness.

I have also seen Windows management use double system memory which still ties into what I just wrote but more importantly is the issue of it not correcting itself. whether it is double, 1:1 or in the unfortunate event of my recent dealing with scientific simulations were memory consumption was very high causing BSODs because Windows Memory Management was not automatically expanding the paging file the issues with Automatically setting a paging size isnt usually due to the size at which it is set automatically. The problem comes later when it FAILS to shrink or expand it. This brings in all the issues discussed above without the added benefit of being able to say you did it to yourself.

In closing I monitor my paging files for inconsistency due to Windows or software that manipulates its value incorrectly. However I will say that I do have it automatically set for every system I own now. That isnt too say I will not change it like I already have several times, only that I currently see no issues with it as is as long as it keeps working in what I believe to be an acceptable capacity.

Am I going to banish someones thought or personal ideals about this setting? No, I will not. I do not know what there situation or needs are and I have manipulated it myself on multiple occasions because of real or perceived problems with it being automatically set.

That said I also think there is no wrong way to eat a reeses.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jul 24, 2016)

hat said:


> The pagefile still exists, so perhaps it's still needed.


This is key. The Page File, virtual memory, and memory management (both in the OS and hardware) have gone through many changes since the PF was first introduced in Windows 3.0 - then known as the "swap file". Windows knows how much RAM we have installed on our systems. It would be a simple matter to code Windows to disable the PF if it was not needed or it provided some benefit to disable it - just as it automatically disables defragging on SSDs when it senses the SSD. But Windows does not disable it, ever.

The developers at Microsoft are some pretty sharp people with the ultimate goal of coding the OS to optimize our hardware resources. This is something even Microsoft marketing weenies understand. Since there is no reason for the marketing weenies to interfere with the PF settings, there is no reason to assume the developers are lazy and have not coded modern versions Windows to properly analyze our VM usage and set the PF settings accordingly.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Jul 25, 2016)

Bill_Bright said:


> This is key. The Page File, virtual memory, and memory management (both in the OS and hardware) have gone through many changes since the PF was first introduced in Windows 3.0 - then known as the "swap file". Windows knows how much RAM we have installed on our systems. It would be a simple matter to code Windows to disable the PF if it was not needed or it provided some benefit to disable it - just as it automatically disables defragging on SSDs when it senses the SSD. But Windows does not disable it, ever.
> 
> The developers at Microsoft are some pretty sharp people with the ultimate goal of coding the OS to optimize our hardware resources. This is something even Microsoft marketing weenies understand. Since there is no reason for the marketing weenies to interfere with the PF settings, there is no reason to assume the developers are lazy and have not coded modern versions Windows to properly analyze our VM usage and set the PF settings accordingly.


God forbid those weenies at m$ should design an OS without a pagefile, doubt they will ever get rid of it.


----------



## natr0n (Jul 25, 2016)

If you use photoshop type programs you need a swap/page as well. If worried about drive space use a ram drive and put it on there. I do never have issues ever.

Just set it and forget seriously.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Jul 25, 2016)

natr0n said:


> If you use photoshop type programs you need a swap/page as well. If worried about drive space use a ram drive and put it on there. I do never have issues ever.
> 
> Just set it and forget seriously.


video editing too.

Ram drive as  page file? hahaha

TBH any professional program worth its price would program its own source page file to a mapped SSD/HDD.


----------



## GoldenX (Jul 25, 2016)

Just leave it as auto, and if you worry about your ssd, then just leave it as auto on a mechanical drive, or an usb stick. Readyboost still exist xD.


----------



## Toothless (Jul 25, 2016)

GoldenX said:


> Just leave it as auto, and if you worry about your ssd, then just leave it as auto on a mechanical drive, or an usb stick. Readyboost still exist xD.


Eh Readyboost won't let me fondle it so I just let my HDDs take the brunt for the pagefile. 

Dumb Readyboost won't let me put my 2gb flash drive to use for once.


----------



## GoldenX (Jul 25, 2016)

I remember Readyboost helping a lot on those old 1GB Atom netbooks.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Jul 25, 2016)

Toothless said:


> Eh Readyboost won't let me fondle it so I just let my HDDs take the brunt for the pagefile.
> 
> Dumb Readyboost won't let me put my 2gb flash drive to use for once.


You're not supposed to fondle your dongle! 

IIRC Readyboost was designed to only compliment platter drives and totally useless on SSDs


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jul 25, 2016)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> God forbid those weenies at m$ should design an OS without a pagefile, doubt they will ever get rid of it.


Don't be critical of the developers - or at least don't blame the developers for the actions of the marketing weenies, bean counters, and the "business" decision makers.

The developers are the real pros at MS who know their stuff and they push out top-tier software. Just about every messed up thing at Microsoft is due to some poor decision forced upon and beyond the control of the actual software developers. 

As far as Page Files on RAM drives, I don't see the point. It seems counterintuitive to me. If disk space is that precious, uninstall unused programs, move some files to a different drive and delete unneeded files - viable temporary measures while you save your pennies to buy more disk space for a permanent solution. And with the price of disk space, even SSD space being so low and still dropping, saving enough pennies should not take long.

Seriously, if you have space on your SSD, that is the best place for the PF (unless it is an antique first generation SSD). Modern SSDs just don't suffer from the read/write limitations of first generation SSDs. There is no reason to expect a mechanical HD will last longer than any current generation SSD.

If you have SSDs in your system, why not take full advantage of the vastly superior performance they offer?


----------



## natr0n (Jul 25, 2016)

Argue with Asrock...


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jul 25, 2016)

natr0n said:


> Argue with Asrock...


Not sure who you are talking to, or what it is you are suggesting to argue about. I don't believe anyone said it cannot be done.

My point is putting a PF in RAM is like having integrated graphics. A potentially big chunk of RAM is stolen and now dedicated for some other purpose. And in the case of using RAM for the PF, it is likely much of that stolen RAM will go unused much of the time. So again, for me, that seems counterintuitive and an inefficient use of system RAM.


----------



## neatfeatguy (Jul 25, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> A while ago I was reading somewhere that some applications crash without a pagefile, don't know about games though.



I don't know when or how it happened, but at one point the paging file was turned off on my computer. I didn't turn it off and I thought windows defaulted to having it as auto managed....

I have 16GB RAM, 250GB SSD and 2 HDDs for storage. I had just gotten my GTX 980Ti and I was playing Shadow of Mordor at 5760x1080, everything maxed out. I kept running into low memory issues and the game would minimize to desktop and show me the low memory message.

The game was easily using upwards of 6GB of VRAM, but I didn't see my RAM make any jumps while gaming. I found my paging file was off and I turned it back on. Windows to auto manage set it to some stupid amount that wouldn't be beneficial so I just manually set it to 4096MB and I haven't had any problems since.


----------



## FYFI13 (Jul 25, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> I'm using 16MB which is the recommended minimum. I've also set BSOD dumps to be minidumps only. This way I still have the debugging capability on BSOD's, but the system is running everything from RAM. If you turn off pagefile, you won't get any memory dumps and that can suck sometimes if you're trying to figure out why something is crashing.


How do you even get a BSOD these days? Haven't seen one since Windows Fista.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 25, 2016)

I've been getting UNEXPECTED_STORE_EXCEPTION in Windows 10.  No one seems to know why they happen and they are pretty common.  I think it has something to do with Universal Windows Platform applications.

Page file, under normal circumstances, shouldn't cause a BSOD.  Only way it would is if the device the page file is on is failing and has a read, write, or data integrity error.


----------



## xkm1948 (Jul 25, 2016)

I have 128GB of RAM, Windows 10 set it to 256GB for me.  The Virtual RAM amount depends on your applications. For me I constant use 90~110GB of RAM so Windows 10 set it to a high 256GB to prevent me from crashing.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jul 25, 2016)

256GB? Wow! It has been a long time I have seen Windows set a PF larger than the amount of RAM you have. What does it say is currently allocated? I have 16GB of RAM installed and Windows set a max PF of 2938MB with 2432MB currently allocated.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Jul 25, 2016)

Bill_Bright said:


> Don't be critical of the developers - or at least don't blame the developers for the actions of the marketing weenies, bean counters, and the "business" decision makers.
> 
> The developers are the real pros at MS who know their stuff and they push out top-tier software. Just about every messed up thing at Microsoft is due to some poor decision forced upon and beyond the control of the actual software developers.
> 
> ...



Easy there Trigger! I wasnt attacking the developers, I was generalizing, but they are part of a team and do have some feedback, even if its a little slice. IMO, its the management that makes the poor decisions that messes stuff up.

The pagefile HAS outlived its usefulness now that memory sizes scaled up faster then [HDD] disk access times did before SSDs, what most people dont realize is that its so damn easy to incorporate a type of Ram disk into developing programs. We are out of the dark ages of programming now, everything is only limited by the programmers skill level. M$ should do away with the pagefile and put the burden on developers to create their own routines to make up for it. 
The nice thing about larger amounts memory becoming a standard is that most games, and what ever else, cant fill 32 gigs of memory easily.

If your system is constantly using a page file, you prolly dont have enough memory. windows is still picky about its pagefile,  it doesnt matter either HDD/SSD, above 8 GB memory, 50MB per GB is sufficient, under 8GB let windows manage it.


----------



## xkm1948 (Jul 25, 2016)

Bill_Bright said:


> 256GB? Wow! It has been a long time I have seen Windows set a PF larger than the amount of RAM you have. What does it say is currently allocated? I have 16GB of RAM installed and Windows set a max PF of 2938MB with 2432MB currently allocated.



Post #24 of this thread: https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/virtual-memory-with-large-ram.222489/

Genome assembly and alignment takes a huge amount of RAM. Somehow I was stupid enough to believe that 128GB is enough.


Here is a screenshot of a relative low work load day. I am just running some transcriptome assembly, not even genome size. And it easily chews around 38GB. That is with only ONE pipeline running. Usually I parallel assemble 2~3 projects to max out RAM. However if I am doing genome assembly and alignment I can only perform one at a time. That was the 90~110GB usage I was talking about.



Take home message of the day: DO NOT DISABLE PAGE FILE!. Windows knows better than you.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jul 26, 2016)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> Easy there Trigger! I wasnt attacking the developers,


You were talking about the designers of Windows leaving out the PF and that is not a management decision. To be sure, I am a hardware guy so my kind are always butting heads with programmers. But I still will not stand by idle when they are bashed (even by association) without due cause. So I was just making sure the record was set straight - not admonishing you..



DeathtoGnomes said:


> The pagefile HAS outlived its usefulness now that memory sizes scaled up faster then [HDD] disk access times did before SSDs,


 Oh, but now I will. To suggest virtual memory (PF + RAM) is wholly dependent on RAM size and disk speed makes it is clear you don't fully understand memory management either. The page file is still useful, or else it would not be used. Again, Microsoft does not benefit by coding in something that provides no usefulness. That is a waste of coder resources and would introduce unnecessary delays and more parts that could fail.

If the PF was not useful and the computer had gobs of RAM and SSDs, MS would code in disabling the PF. But they know otherwise is better.

So do Linux developers but they don't disable it either. In fact, Linux is capable of using several swap files at the same time on the same disk to cache pages of data to speed up performance.

And Microsoft cannot mandate every computer have 128GB of RAM, or SSDs either.


xkm1948 said:


> Take home message of the day: DO NOT DISABLE PAGE FILE!. Windows knows better than you.


 They sure do.


----------



## Frick (Jul 26, 2016)

xkm1948 said:


> I have 128GB of RAM, Windows 10 set it to 256GB for me.  The Virtual RAM amount depends on your applications. For me I constant use 90~110GB of RAM so Windows 10 set it to a high 256GB to prevent me from crashing.



When I first went from 8GB to 16 GB windows 7 set up a 32GB page file, on my 120GB SSD.  I have never used more than 5GB. So I manually set it to a couple of GB, but in Win10 the settings reverted for some reason...


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Jul 26, 2016)

Bill_Bright said:


> ...
> 
> Oh, but now I will. To suggest virtual memory (PF + RAM) is wholly dependent on RAM size and disk speed makes it is clear you don't fully understand memory management either.


Thats not what I said. I understand enough to know that accesss times to a HDD are longer than to a SSD, thats all most people really know or care about. I dont need to know exact times, I'm not a MS programmer, I only dabble anymore. And I still think M$ can do better with its memory management.



Bill_Bright said:


> The page file is still useful, or else it would not be used. Again, Microsoft does not benefit by coding in something that provides no usefulness. That is a waste of coder resources and would introduce unnecessary delays and more parts that could fail.
> 
> If the PF was not useful and the computer had gobs of RAM and SSDs, MS would code in disabling the PF. But they know otherwise is better.


There are still older programs that use the PF, I know that, but they wont be around forever. Future programs will use PF less often, and as I said earlier, there is enough RAM for them not use the PF. Part speculation ofcourse.  (I think now you are blowing this out of proportion. gobs, indeed. )

So do Linux developers but they don't disable it either. In fact, Linux is capable of using several swap files at the same time on the same disk to cache pages of data to speed up performance.[/QUOTE]
I really dont give a damn what Linus developers do, I dont play in Linux.  I will concede that the PF has its limited uses, but generally its still useless to the average user who doesnt know what it is. I can only speak for myself when I say that I find 100MB is enough to not make windows crash. I spent my share years fixing computers for others, my low opinion of M$ is mine, take it or leave it but dont ... nvm.



Bill_Bright said:


> And Microsoft cannot mandate every computer have 128GB of RAM, or SSDs either.
> ....


No I suppose they cant, but being mostly a gamer, game developers can set required specs, and if gamers want to play that game above the shit settings (low/extremely low), they'll comply.


----------



## Jetster (Jul 26, 2016)

Just FYI
I just did a clean install with 32 Gb of Ram. Windows 10 Pro set my page file to






Its appears W10 has done a better job of keeping it under control


----------



## Toothless (Jul 26, 2016)

Next thing we know we'll see someone with a 1TB SSD with the whole thing being used for pagefile but only gets 2GB of memory to chew on.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jul 26, 2016)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> There are still older programs that use the PF



If you read back through this thread, you will see there are still many current programs that expect to find and will use the PF - regardless the amount of installed RAM. You seem to be implying that is a bad thing. It is not.

If you read back through the 1/2 dozen links that show the advantages to the PF, you would learn how memory management works with the PF. Also a good thing.


DeathtoGnomes said:


> And I still think M$ can do better with its memory management.
> I really dont give a damn what Linus developers do, I dont play in Linux.
> my low opinion of M$ is mine, take it or leave it


I think that last statement says it all. Your bias has clouded your view of the facts. Microsoft is stupid for still using the PF, but all the developers of the many versions of Linux which also use a page file don't matter because you don't play in Linux? Yeah right! 

So I absolutely believe you when you say you are not a MS programmer! And as to your opinion, I'll take you up on your offer and leave it, and stick with the opinions of the many real experts (as seen in all the provided links above).

I think it is important to note that memory management is also controlled by the CPUs via on-die memory managers used by both AMD and Intel. And these management protocols are not dictated strictly by Microsoft but through extensive cooperative effort by the CPU makers, various OS makers (not just MS) and others. Yes, MS has the major hand with Windows, and until Man can create perfection, there's always room for improvement. But the fact is, Windows knows how to manage virtual memory very well. If the PF did not provide any benefits, it would not be used.


----------



## Toothless (Jul 26, 2016)

I think the moral of this thread is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" in terms of anything related to pagefile of modern operating systems. I mean it's not hard to let the experts do their job and from what I've tested with pf (on and off with different sizes)

Just leave the damn thing alone.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 26, 2016)

Purely for bedevilment get a Ramdrive sorted out and put your pagefile on it, then you have a pagefile In ram, done and your pc is actually strangely much quicker in general use.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jul 26, 2016)

And again, if you read through this thread and the links, you will see why stealing a chunk of RAM for the page file is not a very smart idea. RAM drives are fine. Page files are great. Page files on RAM drives makes no technical sense - unless, _maybe_, dreadfully low on free disk space. Then the real solution is to free up or buy more space.


theoneandonlymrk said:


> Purely for bedevilment...


Yeah.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 26, 2016)

You are a stroppy one lolzz ,a system IS QUICKER in use for definate as I suggested simples ,and reading be damned, i've read as much as I ever might need to on the subject in this thread alone and more than that for years besides, on and off in the quest for that bit moar, I've assed about with pcs my whole life as have others here abouts, stop assuming every ones a tard for having different opinions ,and I'm not going to back my opinion up with anything off Google either cos I never could be assed doing other peoples research when I've learnt the long arduous tried and benched it route.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Jul 26, 2016)

Bill_Bright said:


> If you read back through this thread, you will see there are still many current programs that expect to find and will use the PF - regardless the amount of installed RAM. You seem to be implying that is a bad thing. It is not.
> 
> If you read back through the 1/2 dozen links that show the advantages to the PF, you would learn how memory management works with the PF. Also a good thing.
> I think that last statement says it all. Your bias has clouded your view of the facts. Microsoft is stupid for still using the PF, but all the developers of the many versions of Linux which also use a page file don't matter because you don't play in Linux? Yeah right!
> ...



You leave my opinion alone, I've done the work for it to be founded as it is.  So, If you are done being condescending, please get out from under M$'s desk.


----------



## Toothless (Jul 26, 2016)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> You leave my opinion alone, I've done the work for it to be founded as it is.  So, If you are done being condescending, please get out from under M$'s desk.


Opinions can be so far from the facts. It may be that in YOUR cases when you played around with pagefiles that YOU got those results.  However when I did research with pagefile goodness and tested it across different machines it lines up with what @Bill_Bright says and what Microsoft puts out there. 

I'm not targetting anyone, but if someone wants to argue with 1. People who know how Windows works with pagefiles and has actually done their studies within the halls of the OS birthplace  (to clarify not me but someone else here) and 2. Argue their word against Microsoft's engineers who made the thing then by all means voice it on the Microsoft forums. 

This thread has answered the question and we really don't need to keep this backwards debate going. Some of y'all are getting hostile when you literally post your opinions on a public forum.

I ask the thread to be locked.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jul 26, 2016)

You are talking to walls Toothless. Folks not even willing to research the facts are not worth it. As you noted opinions are not facts. I did not post links to people's opinions, or even my own, for that matter. So it seems to me the condescending ones are those not willing to backup their comments with documented facts. And since no one has been able to provide any documentation or supporting evidence for not sticking with the Windows default settings, then oh well.

What's next I wonder? Are folks going to call for the removal of L1, L2, and L3 caches from CPUs because they have lots of RAM and fast SSDs?


Toothless said:


> I ask the thread to be locked.


I guess that's up to the OP but I think Recon-UK has his answer so I second the motion to lock the thread.


----------



## Recon-UK (Jul 26, 2016)

Lock thread please.


----------



## Jetster (Jul 26, 2016)

No!  next topic Religion


----------



## Recon-UK (Jul 26, 2016)

Jetster said:


> No!  next topic Religion


 Religion?


----------



## erocker (Jul 27, 2016)

Thread closed as per OP's request.


----------

