# Wow I just learned Bleachbit is bad for SSD, is Ccleaner bad too?



## Rock N Roll Rebel (Aug 19, 2022)

here is the site that said it
If Bleachbit is bad for an SSD, what should be used instead? - Windows 10 Forums (tenforums.com)


----------



## ThrashZone (Aug 19, 2022)

Hi,
Yeah that's pretty much for harddrives not ssd's

Plenty of people use ccleaner on ssd's
I personally don't use it I use TFC once and a while then run trim manually after a restart

TFC - Temp File Cleaner by OldTimer Download - Geeks to Go Forum

Might add that app says it's not good for win-8.1 or 10 Oops I use it anyway I've noticed no ill effects.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Aug 19, 2022)

"Bad" may not be the best word for current generation SSDs.  "Totally unnecessary" makes more sense.

As noted in that thread, the SSDs garbage collection and TRIM features take care of that - even a simple erase/delete with a SSD is vastly superior to the same function on a HD.

No CCleaner is not "bad" either. But CCleaner is great and very beneficial when it comes to cleaning out the clutter. But then again, Windows own Disk Cleanup works great for that too. The advantage to CCleaner is you can tell which cookies to keep - a HUGE advantage, IMO.


Edit comment: Fixed a couple typos -bb


----------



## Rock N Roll Rebel (Aug 20, 2022)

yep that is what I like about CCleaner you can tell it what cookies to keep " I like to eat my cookies"


----------



## AsRock (Aug 20, 2022)

Seamonkey does this in a way at least, were you can tell it that deleted cookies are no longer allowed. Although i guess it could have it's own issue's but at least you would not be continuously deleting files.

And no this does not include expired ones either.


----------



## Rock N Roll Rebel (Aug 29, 2022)

well I had to just restore my system from backup because CCleaner made Winget not work anymore I even uninstalled Winget and reinstalled it still no go did some looking up on the net and there were a few people that said CCleaner messed things up I should have never paid for it I'm going to there website and make sure auto-renew is off


----------



## Mussels (Aug 29, 2022)

Rock N Roll Rebel said:


> here is the site that said it
> If Bleachbit is bad for an SSD, what should be used instead? - Windows 10 Forums (tenforums.com)


anything that over-writes files for a secure delete is bad for SSD's.
All these programs have multiple features.
If you clean cache files that need to be re-created, that does add more writes.

There is no reason or benefit to run these cleaning programs more than once every few months, less is best.


----------



## Icon Charlie (Aug 29, 2022)

AsRock said:


> Seamonkey does this in a way at least, were you can tell it that deleted cookies are no longer allowed. Although i guess it could have it's own issue's but at least you would not be continuously deleting files.
> 
> And no this does not include expired ones either.
> 
> View attachment 258741


Ahhh yes I still use Seamonkey as my back up browser.  I'm so used to it that I never really changed from it.  I still get my Emails from Sea Monkey.


----------



## Rock N Roll Rebel (Aug 29, 2022)

good thing I saved my email from Ccleaner when I purchased it I found out through that email is the only way to cancel the renew


----------



## MarsM4N (Aug 29, 2022)

Rock N Roll Rebel said:


> well I had to just restore my system from backup because CCleaner made Winget not work anymore I even uninstalled Winget and reinstalled it still no go did some looking up on the net and there were a few people that said CCleaner messed things up I should have never paid for it I'm going to there website and make sure auto-renew is off



I use CCleaner for more than 10 years, had maybe some problems when it came out, but nothing since a very long time. Best feature is the removal of tracker cookies. Just be careful with the "extended" stuff & the "Driver Updater".  However there where some other "cleaners", esp. registry cleaners & "optimizer" software that regulary killed my systems in the beginning.

Also do not delete your "Session" and "Stored Tabs" if you don't want to wipe your tabs. This one was driving me nuts until I found the option in the settings. And as others pointed out, don't use a "safe erase" feature, it's overwriting files countless times & in the process degrading your SSD. On SSD's deleted files are gone forever after the TRIM run.


----------



## pavle (Aug 29, 2022)

With CCleaner as with all "cleaners" and "optimizers" you have to very specifically tell it what to delete. If you just go full tilt, you can also lose file associations and stuff that is in the registry that doesn't get used always but when it is, it needs to be there. I haven't used it in a while but when I did I believe only one third of its "findings" were to be deleted, all others are just too zealous and not beneficial. So the registry is a few kilobytes bigger, so what.


----------



## mclaren85 (Aug 29, 2022)

I used them both occasionally, but I never set to bleach and write "00" to sectors. Do you still think it may harm?


----------



## dgianstefani (Aug 29, 2022)

I've found wise cleaner to be better than ccleaner in both scope and quality.

Most bios these days have inbuilt securely wipe disk functions.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Aug 29, 2022)

Mussels said:


> anything that over-writes files for a secure delete is bad for SSD's.


I would say "unnecessary" and "ineffective" rather than "bad" - at least for newer generation SSDs.

Most "wipe" programs default to 1 or maybe 3 passes. A small handful of "writes" is not going to hurt, or put excessive wear, on a SSD - even an older generation SSD. And even if you went to super-duper military specs and selected 256 passes. So what? Why are you trying to secure-erase a SSD anyway - except to get rid of the drive?

The bigger problem, as I see it, is TRIM, overprovisioning and wear-leveling features used on SSDs will actually prevent the wipe program from touching each and every storage location on the disk - which is necessary to ensure "all" previously stored data has been obliterated. 

So a "wipe" program - that is, a program that over-writes files - is "unnecessary" because the erase/delete function used on SSDs does not leave data behind in the same manner as a hard drive for a recovery program to restore, nor does it leave residual magnetism behind that Agent 007 could read. And a wipe program is "ineffective" because the wear leveling features prevents such wipe programs from writing a bunch of random 1s and 0s to each and every storage location. 

So, if you want to ensure all previously stored data on a hard drive is unrecoverable, use a wipe program. If you want to ensure all previously stored data on a SSD is unrecoverable, use Secure Erase. Most SSD makers provide free secure erase utilities on their websites. And more and more motherboard BIOS firmware include "secure erase" right from the BIOS Setup Menu. 

And if you really, once and for all want to ensure your data is unrecoverable, use a drive shredder.


----------



## Shrek (Aug 29, 2022)

Bill_Bright said:


> even if you went to super-duper military specs and selected 256 passes. So what?



Some modern SSD drives can handle 600 writes, some 1200









						Are there wear problems from partitioning a SSD?
					

Going to see how primocache works, thanks!  I think I don't need to use this app, as my current SSD is an NVMe, SX 8200 Pro. :oops:




					www.techpowerup.com


----------



## Bill_Bright (Aug 29, 2022)

Shrek said:


> Some modern SSD drives can handle 600 writes, some 1200


That's totally over-written. Not writes.


----------



## Ferather (Aug 29, 2022)

I have used Ccleaner for years to remove internet garbage and dead registry entries, but that's basically it, I certainly never use the wipe space feature.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Aug 29, 2022)

Ferather said:


> I certainly never use the wipe space feature.


Not sure why you say "certainly" - as though it is a bad feature. For HDs, it works great. I particularly like the wipe free space only feature. It is handy if you want to keep the OS intact.


----------



## Shrek (Aug 29, 2022)

Bill_Bright said:


> That's totally over-written. Not writes.



I fear that an HD wipe will wipe ALL the free space

Now an intelligent SSD wiper would check if things were zeroed and if not, zero them once, but an HD wiper is worried about side traces on tracks.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Aug 30, 2022)

Shrek said:


> I fear that an HD wipe will wipe ALL the free space


Huh? I don't understand what you are saying. 

First, on a hard drive, that is exactly what a wipe program is supposed to do. So nothing to fear - that is what you want. 

Second, on a SSD, no it won't wipe all the free space and that IS the fear! That is, the fear is some personal, sensitive data might be left behind. This is due to the various load leveling features with essentially all modern SSDs - and this is exactly why a "wipe" program should NOT be used on a SSD. 

Sadly, folks seem to focus on the wear (limited number of writes) factor of SSDs but that is a *misguided focus*. 

For what purpose do we wipe a hard drive? To ensure no previously saved personal data is left behind. In other words, for security (or privacy) reasons. 

Since wear leveling prevents a wipe program from touching every storage location on a SSD, a wipe program does NOT ensure security. And that is why wipe programs should not be used on SSDs. 

And on SSDs it is NOT about putting a 1 or 0 in the storage location. Remember how HDs and SSDs store data. On a HD, a magnetic charge from the R/W head  "physically" orientates the magnetic particles on the platters in patterns that represent a 1 or a 0. To illustrate, a particle arranged in a North/South orientation may represent a "1" while a particle in an East/West orientation may represent a "0". There is no actual numeral "1" or numeral "0" saved to the disk.

On SSDs, a "cell" is either charged (to represent a "high" or a "1"), or not charged ("low" or "0"). And again, there is no actual numeral "1" or numeral "0" saved to the disk. And yes, over time, this charge can fade away which is exactly why the data on a SSD periodically refreshes - well, as long as the SSD does not sit unpowered, sitting a shelf for several years. 

So a "Secure Erase" program does indeed, hit "ALL" the free space - including the reserved over-provisioning areas, ensuring each cell/storage location no longer holds a charge.


----------



## Bomby569 (Aug 30, 2022)

Shrek said:


> I fear that an HD wipe will wipe ALL the free space
> 
> Now an intelligent SSD wiper would check if things were zeroed and if not, zero them once, but an HD wiper is worried about side traces on tracks.



on HD's there is no wiping, you have to rewrite something so you can't get back what was written there. And even then some entities like NSA and shit like that have tools that can recover data even if that space has been rewritten, no more then x times.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Aug 30, 2022)

Bomby569 said:


> And even then some entities like NSA and shit like that have tools that can recover data even if that space has been rewritten, no more then x times.


Maybe - but not likely. 

Even if they can recover a "1" that is now hidden under a "0", a "1" by itself means nothing. And even if they can recover a full byte of information, a single byte means nothing. And even if they can recover a full 4K file cluster (the typical size on most NTFS formatted hard drives), a single 4K cluster most likely does NOT contain enough information to be of any use to anyone. And even if they can recover 100s of 4K clusters, it is near impossible to arrange them in the correct order because that information has been wiped too. And of course, all the file fragments most likely are not in the right order either - unless the drive was, for some reason, defragmented just before wiping. 

Contrary to what we may see on CSI, even with the available tools, recovery is a long, tedious, expensive, and rarely successful process. And if the drive was used at all after the wipe, recovery chances plummet.


----------



## LifeOnMars (Aug 30, 2022)

I've been using Windows built in function for years on a combination of SSD and HDD. Runs once a week and never had issues at all with it.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Aug 30, 2022)

LifeOnMars said:


> Runs once a week and never had issues at all with it.


I am assuming you mean Windows integrated defrag and yes, it works quite well. But do note the BIOS and thus Windows knows the difference between a hard drive and a SSD and therefore, does not even attempt to defrag a SSD. In fact, to help avoid confusion, this is why the feature is no longer called Windows Defrag but rather "Optimize Drives".


----------



## LifeOnMars (Aug 30, 2022)

Bill_Bright said:


> I am assuming you mean Windows integrated defrag and yes, it works quite well. But do note the BIOS and thus Windows knows the difference between a hard drive and a SSD and therefore, does not even attempt to defrag a SSD. In fact, to help avoid confusion, this is why the feature is no longer called Windows Defrag but rather "Optimize Drives".


Exactly, which is why I use the os in such a way. It knows what it's doing. Don't even install SSD magician because there is literally no need. (Never needed secure erase but even my bios can do that)


----------



## Mussels (Aug 31, 2022)

Bill_Bright said:


> *I would say "unnecessary" and "ineffective" rather than "bad" - at least for newer generation SSDs.
> 
> Most "wipe" programs default to 1 or maybe 3 passes. A small handful of "writes" is not going to hurt, or put excessive wear, on a SSD - even an older generation SSD.* And even if you went to super-duper military specs and selected 256 passes. So what? Why are you trying to secure-erase a SSD anyway - except to get rid of the drive?
> 
> ...



Are you kidding?

You can buy 1TB drives with under 100TB life spans (WD green 960GB is only 80TBW) , and you think eating up a bunch of those cycles wont hurt?
If these erase programs aren't matching up perfectly with the drive itself, each 1KB it overwrites could result in many more writes being actually used on TLC and QLC drives, multiplying the issue massively.

And yet you think TRIM, the only feature that can possibly prevent the drive dying from this abuse is the issue...


----------



## Bill_Bright (Aug 31, 2022)

Mussels said:


> You can buy 1TB drives with under 100TB life spans (WD green 960GB is only 80TBW) , and you think eating up a bunch of those cycles wont hurt?


No I'm not kidding. Again - we are not talking about 1st generation SSDs anymore.

Look, you are right "IF" this is something you do very frequently. But why would any "normal" user run such a program that performs an "abnormal" number of writes on a SSD over and over again? That makes no sense. That, for sure, would be "abuse" - as you yourself noted. All bets are off if you abuse the device.

Over the decades, I have "wiped" several 100 hard drives. And in the last 5 or 10 years, I have run Secure Erase on dozens of SSDs - the vast majority are for users who are getting rid of those drives. I cannot think of any case where I ran wipe on a HD, or Secure Erase on a SSD more than once. Maybe, maybe twice. Why would there be a need for a normal user to run such programs over and over and over again?

Also, we have to be realistic. You would have to write 10s of gigabytes of data to the disk every day to use up that 80TBW. 80TB is lot! That is 80,000 gigabytes - of writes! And frankly, 80TBW is small these days!

1, just *1*TB can hold 250 movies (500 hours of HD content)! 6.5 million .pdf documents. Over 1000 standard file cabinets of documents. In just one, single terabyte of space. 

And also, speaking of being realistic, instead of spending $69 on a WD Green with only 80TBW (though this says 100TBW), maybe one should spend $79 on a WD Blue 1TB that has a TBW spec of 600TBW. You would have to write 100s of Gigabytes of data to the disk every day, day in and day out. Who does that?

We have to remember that "reading" from a SSD does NOT affect this wear and tear issue. Only "writes" do. This is exactly why SSDs are ideal for page files too.


----------



## Rock N Roll Rebel (Sep 1, 2022)

Mussels said:


> anything that over-writes files for a secure delete is bad for SSD's.
> All these programs have multiple features.
> If you clean cache files that need to be re-created, that does add more writes.
> 
> There is no reason or benefit to run these cleaning programs more than once every few months, less is best.


yep and I learned that windows built in cleaner are good enough I will stay away from these third party cleaners


----------



## Shrek (Sep 1, 2022)

Bill_Bright said:


> This is exactly why SSDs are ideal for page files too.



Paging includes writes, a lot of them if RAM is low.


----------



## Athlonite (Sep 1, 2022)

meh just record a 1TB (or however big your SSD is) black screen video and write that to the SSD then delete it and write it again 



Shrek said:


> Paging includes writes, a lot of them if RAM is low.


and that's why I use a shitty old Samsung 870 SATA SSD for it I just make a 16GB partition and when the F'd i'll make another one


----------



## Bill_Bright (Sep 1, 2022)

Shrek said:


> Paging includes writes, a lot of them if RAM is low.


Not really - not compared to the number of reads. Most pagefile operations are small random reads or larger sequential writes, both of which are types of operations that SSDs excel at!

We have to remember that many (if not most) laptops these days come with SSDs only. These drives are not dying long before the laptop itself dies. 

And many PCs come with SSDs only, or SSDs in the boot position where, by default, the PF goes. And again, these drives are not dying prematurely. This computer I am using is SSD only - and after 6.5 years of 4 - 5 hours per day of daily use, the boot drive (with its Windows managed PF) is still 96% good. 






For the best performance, the PF should go on the best performing drive. 

We MUST stop basing our opinions on obsolete, 10 year old information. We must stop perpetuating these myths about SSDs. What was, no longer is. 

But hey! If you want to bottleneck your paging performance, by all means, move your PF to one of your slow, clunky, hard drives.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 5, 2022)

Shrek said:


> Paging includes writes, a lot of them if RAM is low.


Shreks right on this one bill.
paging is literally writes by its entire nature

For performance yes you want pages on an SSD - but low RAM situations are going to eat up writes and eat them up fast because by nature they're a lot of smaller


Since i've got an excess of RAM i use a RAM cache designed with TRIM in mind that prevents un-neccesary writes, and i'm saving approx 40% of the intended writes to the SSD
It's a write cache that avoids re-writing something that was TRIM'd (by un-deleting) and by delaying page file and temp file writes for 60 seconds, often enough they never needed to be written and were just deleted.





In the lifespan of a decent SSD, this is nothing. 2GB a day of my 1200TBW drive is a slow trickle of reduction... but this is literally the best case scenario with a usual 32GB+ of free RAM.
Low RAM situations have a lot of un-needed writes that just burn out drives.


Just because it's the right thing to do for performance doesn't mean it's not eating the drives up. I've already proven that modern SSD's have very low TBW's, they've HALVED over the generation before them - it's stupid to burn them out with wasted writes from cleaning programs, or excessive paging.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Sep 5, 2022)

Mussels said:


> Shreks right on this one bill.
> paging is literally writes by its entire nature


Well, of course it writes! You can't read data from any drive if has not been saved to it first. So what? Why would the system (OS and CPU) write "high priority" data to the PF if that information was not going to be needed (read) soon?

But once again, so what??????? No one is talking about 1st generation SSDs!!! Or at least I sure am not. Come on people! SSDs have been around for 30 years!!!!! 

Why would Dell, HP, Acer, Lenovo provide more expensive SSD only PCs and laptops if those drives were going to die prematurely as you keep suggesting they will do?

The odds of any "normal" computer user wearing out their modern generation SSDs before the rest of the computer dies of old age, or is retired by the user due to the rest of the HW or SW getting superseded or going obsolete, are minuscule!

We used to have to replace the spark plugs in our cars every 10 - 20,000 miles. Today's spark plugs typically last at least 60,000, many 100,000 and beyond. So do you still replace them every 10-20 because that is what we used to do? 

This is just one more example of so many computer users refusing to accept that computer technologies have advanced and improved significantly! Why? I don't get it. Just like W10/W11 are not XP, today's SSDs are not the same as first generation SSDs. We need to stop treating them like they are. 

I say take advantage of all the advantages modern SSDs provide! 

But hey! If you guys want to bottleneck your systems, that's your choice. Go again and build or buy your brand new, state-of-the-art computers - most of which come with SSDs only (especially laptops - not to mention tablets and cell phones) then go ahead and slap an antiquated, clunky and "slow" hard drive in there to bottleneck your disk access. Don't forget to move your page files to that "slow" hard drive to bottleneck it even further.  

Me? I started installing SSDs as the only drives in my builds in 2013 and have not, and will not look back - with no, as in zero regrets, or SSD failures, for that matter. And note that 2013 system, now serving as my backup server/computer, is still in use today with CrystalDIskInfo reporting both SSDs are still "Good" with status ratings still in the 90s percentiles.


----------



## Rock N Roll Rebel (Sep 5, 2022)

I moved my page file to my 10TB hard drive it works just fine there is no performance hit


----------



## Bill_Bright (Sep 6, 2022)

Rock N Roll Rebel said:


> there is no performance hit


And how and with what did you use to measure performance before and after to determine there was no hit?



Rock N Roll Rebel said:


> it works just fine


Well, there's no reason why it would not "work" fine. You can even have page files an each disk and they will still "work" fine. Many do this - fortunately Windows is smart enough to recognize the fastest drive and then use that PF for the more important data. Just don't put a separate page file on different partitions on the same physical drive. That will indeed, hamper performance. 

Does Samsung recommend using their SSDs as the boot drive? Yes.
Does Samsung recommend moving the paging file off their SSDs? No.

Does WD recommend using their SSDs as the boot drive? Yes.
Does WD recommend moving the paging file off their SSDs? No.

Does Kingston recommend using their SSDs as the boot drive? Yes.
Does Kingston recommend moving the paging file off their SSDs? No.

Does Crucial recommend using their SSDs as the boot drive? Yes.
Does Crucial recommend moving the paging file off their SSDs? No.

I cannot find any SSD maker that recommends (or even suggests) moving the page file off their SSDs and on to a hard drive. Can you?

The HowToGeek:


> *Warning:* Be sure to keep the page file on your fastest drive! For example, many computers now have a speedy SSD as a system drive and a slower mechanical hard drive as a secondary data drive. In this case, you should definitely leave your page file on the fast SSD and not move it to a slower hard drive.



ComputerHope:


> *I have an SSD, should I use a non-SSD for a page file?*
> 
> There are people who suggest using an HDD as a second drive for a page file, reducing the overall read/writes done to the SSD, and extending its life. However, today's SSD are rated to transfer 20 GB+ of data daily for 5-years and often have an MTBF of 1,000,000 hours. Moving the page file to a slower hard drive can cause the computer to have to wait for the slower HDD to catch up to the SSD.



But again, if you want to prevent taking full advantage your SSD, that's your choice, and your money. But PLEASE do not assume that is best for the normal user. It is not.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Sep 14, 2022)

Not to beat a dead horse, but the Backblaze report, "_The SSD Edition: 2022 Drive Stats Mid-year Review_" just came out and makes for an interesting and apropos read.

It must be noted that the SSDs used in these data centers were used as "boot" drives on busy servers. That is significant because serving as the boot drive is exactly how we "normal users" use our SSDs in SSD-only laptops and PCs. The big difference is servers in busy data centers are much more active than the typical home PC or laptop. 

Note the following from that report - which has been tracking SSD error rates and AFR (annualized failure rates) since 2018.


> ...SSDs are more reliable than HDDs, at least when used as boot drives in our environment. This supports the anecdotal stories and educated guesses made by our readers over the past year or so. Well done.



To be fair, the article also notes the likely event of increased failures as time goes by


> is possible ... perhaps when they start to reach their medial wearout limits.



However, it is important to stress again that these SSDs are being used in busy data center servers - in constant operation 24/7/365, year after year - a much more strenuous and active scenario than nearly all home, school, or work computer environments that nearly all of us here at TPU subject our systems to. 

Now the downside, of course, if that SSDs are still more expensive per gigabyte than HDs - but the prices are [albeit, agonizingly slow] leveling out. But also a factor is the lower power consumption, less heat generation and of course, silent operation of the SSD compared to hard drives.


----------



## Snotspat (Sep 14, 2022)

I once managed to write 2PB to a 120GB SSD. 

That was an early generation OCZ Vertex 2, using SLC NAND. And the reason it occurred was that I was running Windows 7 with 1GB of memory, playing a lot of WoW etc. The system felt fine, but it was paging like crazy. 

It's still possible to purchase SLC drives for industry applications, but they're very expensive, and usually in 16-32GB size. How ever, I was lucky to pick up another 120GB SLC drive for 20 Euroes, used, from someone who knew what is was, and the significance of it. I'll likely use it as a L2 cache using Primo Cache for my spinning HD.

---

If OP is worried about third parties getting a hold of sensible information via physical means, perhaps use Bitlocker? And when you're going to websites where you don't want to save any information locally, use the browsers Privacy function (the Privacy function does not hide your identity, some people think that. What it does is to prevent cookies, or other files, from the session to be written to your PC).


----------



## Athlonite (Sep 14, 2022)

Bill_Bright said:


> less heat generation


When's the last time you've seen an HDD hit 70c while copying a large file


----------



## Bill_Bright (Sep 14, 2022)

Athlonite said:


> When's the last time you've seen an HDD hit 70c while copying a large file


I fail to see the point of picking some arbitrary number out of thin air with some arbitrary scenario. 

SSDs generate less heat. That's just the way it is.


----------



## Athlonite (Sep 14, 2022)

Bill_Bright said:


> I fail to see the point of picking some arbitrary number out of thin air with some arbitrary scenario.
> 
> SSDs generate less heat. That's just the way it is.


the point is your assertion that SSD's generate less heat which just is not true 

for example 
Seagate 2TB HDD: 32c idle
C2    Temperature    32    OK: Always passes
Samsung 980 Pro 1TB NVMe SSD:
1    Temperature      34 °C   OK: Always passes
yeah OK it's only 2 degrees difference in idle but if started copying a 10GB file to either drive I know which one is going to get hotter by alot and it's not the HDD


----------



## Icon Charlie (Sep 15, 2022)

Athlonite said:


> the point is your assertion that SSD's generate less heat which just is not true
> 
> for example
> Seagate 2TB HDD: 32c idle
> ...


Going to have tp agree with this as I keep taps on my computer almost on a daily basis. Yea geeky person here. 

Currently my SSD and HD are equal in heat.  This all depends on how and where your HDD/SSD are mounted.

As far as CC Cleaner hurting my SSD's?  I have not seen any issues on my current one Samsung 860 EVO,  16-20 hours per day 7 days per week, 3 years.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Sep 15, 2022)

Athlonite said:


> the point is your assertion that SSD's generate less heat which just is not true


 Do not assume your anecdotal sample size of one renders the whole point moot. Do SSDs generate heat? Of course. Can they generate a lot of heat? Of course. But over the course of normal operations, the typical SSD generates less over all heat than a hard drive performing the exact same tasks in the exact same scenario. 

Are there exceptions to the rule. Again, of course. But do exceptions define the rule? No!



Icon Charlie said:


> This all depends on how and where your HDD/SSD are mounted.


 No it doesn't. Think about it for a second. Does a 100W lightbulb "generate" more heat in a closed closet compared to an identical 100W lightbulb in a large open room? NO!!!! It generates the exact same amount of heat. Now does the closet heat up more than the large room? Of course. 

This really is a matter of simple physics. There are no moving parts in SSD creating friction and consuming (or wasting) power. On the whole, SSDs consume less power than hard drives. They are more efficient than hard drives. 

Less power consumed with more efficient use of that power means less power is wasted in the form of heat! Simple physics, along with simple common sense. 

SSDs may "feel" hotter to the touch than a hard drive but that is only because they have much less mass, and just as importantly, much less surface area to heat up. 

Google it if you don't believe me. SSDs consume 2 - 3W. HDs 6 - 7W.


----------



## Icon Charlie (Sep 15, 2022)

> No it doesn't. Think about it for a second. Does a 100W lightbulb "generate" more heat in a closed closet compared to an identical 100W lightbulb in a large open room? NO!!!! It generates the exact same amount of heat. Now does the closet heat up more than the large room? Of course.


Yes it does... And that is just common sense.  The more air flow to a SSD/HD the cooler it gets.   Proper placement of your components can get you overall positive results.  

IF I place my SSD closer to a heat source, (Example.  a video card) it gets hotter.
IF I place my SSD without proper air flow.  It gets hotter.

The Same goes with my HDD.

This is one of the reasons I have my Icy Docks to keep my SSD/HD cooler as well as to be able to hot swap on the fly.  It is also a helps keep your overall rig cool.   

EVERY Celsius counts.  This is why I spent 6+ hours messing with different configurations on component placement in order to get optimum airflow/cooling results.  

AS posted before in a very lengthy article, my rig cooling set up is 2, 140mm Artic Fans and 1 120mm Corsair.   I am using hot components (MSI A-PRO as an example as the mosfeds are hotter than other MB's) as stated in the article.  I ran my rig normally in very hot weather with excellent results.  

The Reason for my success in my Rig is because I have that side panel cooling and the ability and flex ability of using the 5.25 enclosures on my Corsair Carbide THAT has been removed on current models because...

Little Timmy wants his Eye Candy.

By using my ICY Dock  I am getting cooler air from outside of the case, being pulled in and flowing around my SSD than just mounting it inside the case.  The Celsius difference is 1 to 3 degrees cooler when using my Icy Dock than normally mounting my SSD inside of the case.

Agree to disagree.  I have my data on my Rig on where I should place my components  in my computer case to cool it as efficiently as possible.  Air-Flow Management (practical applications since 1995) is a lost art because... 

Little Timmy wants his Eye Candy.

Again we can agree to disagree and that's fine.  But I'll continue to use the knowledge in using the practical applications of Air-Flow Management and that means in my case I'll place my components into positions where I can get the best results in cooling.  Your mileage may vary but what works well for me might work well for you.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Sep 15, 2022)

Icon Charlie said:


> Yes it does... And that is just common sense.


Then use your common sense!!!! Read what I said!!! Clearly you are not doing either! 



> The more air flow to a SSD/HD the cooler it gets.


100% true!!!! But that has absolutely nothing to do with how much heat the device "generates" or "creates". That only has to do with how quickly and effectively the "case cooling" is at extracting the heat the device is creating.



Icon Charlie said:


> Proper placement of your components can get you overall positive results.


Yes. But again, that has nothing to do with how much heat a device is creating - the ONLY point I made when I said, "SSDs generate less heat!"

So to your claim, how hot a device gets does indeed depend on how or where your HD/SSD is mounted. But again, that has NOTHING to do with how much heat the device "generates".


----------



## freeagent (Sep 15, 2022)

I think you only need a PF if you have low ram, or max what you have already. You could just simply turn paging off.. and not worry about writes at all..


----------



## Snotspat (Sep 16, 2022)

freeagent said:


> I think you only need a PF if you have low ram, or max what you have already. You could just simply turn paging off.. and not worry about writes at all..



Don't ever turn your pagefile off.


----------



## freeagent (Sep 16, 2022)

Snotspat said:


> Don't ever turn your pagefile off.


How come?

It seems to run just fine..


----------



## Snotspat (Sep 16, 2022)

freeagent said:


> How come?
> 
> It seems to run just fine..


Because it can cause instability or crashing.

If it hasn't done that for you, then its because Windows haven't required it, in which case you also gained nothing by disabling it.


----------



## R-T-B (Sep 16, 2022)

Mussels said:


> If these erase programs aren't matching up perfectly with the drive itself


Then you should repartition your drive you barbarian.



Bill_Bright said:


> But why would any "normal" user run such a program that performs an "abnormal" number of writes on a SSD over and over again?


Paranoia.  Sadly it's very common in todays world.



freeagent said:


> How come?
> 
> It seems to run just fine..


It won't be long until you encounter that one application that makes you find out...


----------



## freeagent (Sep 16, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> It won't be long until you encounter that one application that makes you find out...


TM5 actually..   

Anta777 Absolute


----------



## ThrashZone (Sep 16, 2022)

Hi,
About all I do is disable recycle bins and that's it 
Use and enjoy.

Turn off hibernation as well.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 16, 2022)

freeagent said:


> How come?
> 
> It seems to run just fine..


You're not actually disabling it, you're forcing it to run at a minimum size and it gets created and deleted as needed

Some apps will crash and error out if they try to use it without enough space existing in advance, but like all caches it's simple: the smaller it is, the more likely data has to be re-created instead of using an older copy.

An SSD user would want a LARGER page file, so that files are written just once, and then read as many times as possible.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Sep 16, 2022)

freeagent said:


> It seems to run just fine..


I always find this excuse puzzling. Just because something, normally enabled by default, "seems" to run fine when manually disabled, how is that justification and sound rational to keep it disabled? It makes no sense! 

Did it run poorly before you disabled it? Do you have greater experience and technical knowledge than the entire team of true, "memory management" experts - highly trained and educated professionals with decades of experience, exabytes of empirical data, super-computers at their disposal to run 1000s of scenarios - who have determined having it enabled (and Windows managed) by default is best - for your system too?

Since Windows will dynamically resize our PFs as needed (and knows how to do that very well) doesn't it make sense Windows would disable the PF *"IF"* it made sense to do so your specific computer? 

Contrary to what some people seem to think;

There are some pretty sharp cookies at Microsoft - at least in the "development" side of the house (can't always say that about the executive or marketing side - but that's for a different discussion).​​The developers at Microsoft really do want our computers to run optimally and securely - and they know how to make that happen.​​98% of us users out here are "normal" users. Contrary to what we may think, we are not special and our computers are NOT so unique that we "need" to change the defaults.​​Windows 10/11 are not XP. We need to stop treating them like they are.​​And, "_It didn't break when I did that_" is NOT justification to do that.​


----------



## freeagent (Sep 16, 2022)

Bill_Bright said:


> I always find this excuse puzzling. Just because something, normally enabled by default, "seems" to run fine when manually disabled, how is that justification and sound rational to keep it disabled? It makes no sense!


Just saving my ssd from all those little writes. Very rarely do I actually need to enable it..

If it was as important as you say, why do they make it so easy to disable?


----------



## Snotspat (Sep 16, 2022)

These days you can get SSDs so cheap, that I have a 512GB SSD that just sits as a cache for my spinning 8TB drive, using Primocache.

(The idea with that btw. was that I install all my games on the 8TB drive, and then let Primocache decide which files I need, so they load from the SSD. It seems very snappy, but its hard to tell.)

If one was so inclined, one could pick up a 120GB SSD for 10 Euro, and just stick the Windows page file there. Then paging would be slightly slower of course, which is why I don't do it. Better than disabling it I think, and if it makes you feel better about not wearing out the fast drives. You could use the 10 Euro drive for all kinds of other temp. work as well, like downloading files to be extracted, well, anything that's temporary, and just not care because its a 10 Euro drive.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Sep 16, 2022)

freeagent said:


> If it was as important as you say, why do they make it so easy to disable?


Sorry, but that question makes no sense if you are trying to use it justify disabling it. But I will give you an example. If you have multiple drives, or a very small boot drive, you might want to have the PF on a secondary drive instead.


----------



## freeagent (Sep 16, 2022)

Bill_Bright said:


> Sorry, but that question makes no sense if you are trying to use it justify disabling it. But I will give you an example. If you have multiple drives, or a very small boot drive, you might want to have the PF on a secondary drive instead.


But I don't need to justify it, it works well for me. I have 32GB of ram, very rarely do I even use half of it. I have no stability issues, no problems, and no un-needed writes.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Sep 16, 2022)

Snotspat said:


> Then paging would be slightly slower of course


"Of course"? Ummm, how so? The only reason it might be slower is if the smaller SSD was a slower performer and you disabled the PF on the faster drive. Otherwise, Windows is smart enough to determine the fastest drive and use that for the primary PF too. 


freeagent said:


> But I don't need to justify it, it works well for me. I have 32GB of ram


But you did justify it using illogical logic - just now and before too. 

You turned it off then "justified it" by saying, "It seems to run just fine". That's not sound justification. Sound justification to leave it disabled is if it worked "better" disabled. 

It is also not sound justification to claim you are saving it from all those little writes. That is not a problem with today's SSDs.

And you claim you rarely need to enable it. How would you know or even determine that? Are you an expert at memory management? You may not have "noticed" any performance hit, but that does not mean you did not suffer one. And of course, if your system crashed, no dump file. 

You can have 128GB of system RAM and Windows may still use the PF to temporarily store lower high priority data in there. That is NOT a bad thing. 

But you are right - you do not "need" to justify it. You can disable the PF for any reason you like. It is your system. But it is illogical to attempt to justify it by claiming you didn't notice any difference, or you have enough RAM, or you are trying to save writes. None of those excuses are valid with today's modern SSDs and operating systems.


----------



## r9 (Sep 16, 2022)

Bill_Bright said:


> I always find this excuse puzzling. Just because something, normally enabled by default, "seems" to run fine when manually disabled, how is that justification and sound rational to keep it disabled? It makes no sense!
> 
> Did it run poorly before you disabled it? Do you have greater experience and technical knowledge than the entire team of true, "memory management" experts - highly trained and educated professionals with decades of experience, exabytes of empirical data, super-computers at their disposal to run 1000s of scenarios - who have determined having it enabled (and Windows managed) by default is best - for your system too?
> 
> ...


Bill Gates is that you ?


----------



## Snotspat (Sep 16, 2022)

Bill_Bright said:


> "Of course"? Ummm, how so? The only reason it might be slower is if the smaller SSD was a slower performer and you disabled the PF on the faster drive. Otherwise, Windows is smart enough to determine the fastest drive and use that for the primary PF too.



I was using an example for someone, no one in particular, who had the PF disabled on the OS drive. The example is the fact that you can pick up a 120GB SSD for a little more than 10 Euro.

Such a drive will be without DRAM for caching, which leads to slower random/IO. I think the Psion controllers are able to store the mapping data inside the controller itself, so I don't know how bad it'll be.

Obviously using the fastest drive for the page file is what one ought to do.

But as a thought experiment its fun. I might put a drive like than in, just to use for trash files, or trying out other OS's outside of an VM etc.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Sep 16, 2022)

Bill Gates? Who's that? Wasn't he someone who used to work at MS many years ago? 



Snotspat said:


> I was using an example for someone, no one in particular, who had the PF disabled on the OS drive. The example is the fact that you can pick up a 120GB SSD for a little more than 10 Euro.


Ah! Thanks for clarifying. That said, even the slowest SSD will run circles around the fastest hard drive. So the fact that little 120GB SSD may come cheap, it would still be wise to put the PF on it verse a hard drive.


----------



## freeagent (Sep 16, 2022)

Bill_Bright said:


> You turned it off then "justified it" by saying, "It seems to run just fine". That's not sound justification. Sound justification to leave it disabled is if it worked "better" disabled.


I actually haven't been using one for a few years, just a habit to turn it off on my system.


Bill_Bright said:


> And you claim you rarely need to enable it. How would you know or even determine that? Are you an expert at memory management?



No, I wouldn't go that far as to call myself an expert at anything. Occasionally I will have a small crash when running Test Mem 5 (TM5)



Bill_Bright said:


> None of those excuses are valid with today's modern SSDs and operating systems.


Tell that to my 500GB M.2. I did have a PF enabled and is now sitting at 95% life left.

I didn't think you would take my post to heart like that.


----------



## Snotspat (Sep 16, 2022)

I opened up Crystal Disk info just now.

My 256GB Evo 970 Plus has 10TB of writes. This on a system with 32GB of memory, running Windows 11 pro.

I guess some of that is pf writes. Since the drive is rated for 150TB writes, that's about 15 years from now at this rate. I suspect that's not going to be an issue.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Sep 16, 2022)

Ummm, 95% is good, not bad. 


freeagent said:


> just a habit to turn it off on my system.


Illustrating my point that W10/W11 are not XP and it is time to stop treating them like it is. 


freeagent said:


> I didn't think you would take my post to heart like that.


Oh? Isn't the goal of this site to ensure readers have the best, and most current information needed to make informed decisions? That's my reason for being here - along with maybe, as a bonus, learning something new along the way. 

Like it or not, if one sports the Moderators badge, they should expect what they say to be taken seriously.


----------



## Arco (Sep 16, 2022)

Sorry if a bit off-topic, SSDs now can handle a LOAD of abuse. I have a bunch of old 120GB SSD's that are still working perfectly. There is no reason to be scared of using your SSD.


----------



## Snotspat (Sep 16, 2022)

Arco said:


> Sorry if a bit off-topic, SSDs now can handle a LOAD of abuse. I have a bunch of old 120GB SSD's that are still working perfectly. There is no reason to be scared of using your SSD.



Older SSDs have a far longer life span than new ones, because they often used SLC NAND. Ie. I had an 120GB OCZ Vertex 2 with 2 Petabytes of writes! That's 30 times the endurance of current TLC drives. [per GB of storage]

You shouldn't be scared though. I agree. The only reason I reached 2PB write, was because I played World of Warcraft on Windows 7 with 1GB of total system memory.

Larger SSDs have more endurance, as they use wear levelling when writing, and thus have more space to spread the writes over. And of course, when people have 16GB+ in their system, the OS isn't paging that much.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Sep 17, 2022)

Snotspat said:


> Older SSDs have a far longer life span than new ones


Nah! That's a blanket statement and like all blanket statements, it is wrong (and yes, I note the irony of that statement too). 

There may be a few older SSDs that can be expected to have a longer lifespan than the latest generation SSDs of the same size, but those are exceptions.


----------



## Snotspat (Sep 17, 2022)

Bill_Bright said:


> Nah! That's a blanket statement and like all blanket statements, it is wrong (and yes, I note the irony of that statement too).
> 
> There may be a few older SSDs that can be expected to have a longer lifespan than the latest generation SSDs of the same size, but those are exceptions.



We can change that statement to something else. SLC based NAND has a far longer lifespan than, TLC and QLC based drives.

For comparison, we're talking 100 times the amount of write cycles for SLC drives vs. QLC drives.

There's a clear correlation between age of drives, and technology used, for very obvious reasons.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 18, 2022)

freeagent said:


> Just saving my ssd from all those little writes. Very rarely do I actually need to enable it..
> 
> If it was as important as you say, why do they make it so easy to disable?


You're not saving writes, you're adding to them as its re-created and deleted.

It's easy to turn off, because you're meant to enable it on another drive when you disable it on C:


----------



## ExcuseMeWtf (Sep 18, 2022)

Snotspat said:


> We can change that statement to something else. SLC based NAND has a far longer lifespan than, TLC and QLC based drives.
> 
> For comparison, we're talking 100 times the amount of write cycles for SLC drives vs. QLC drives.
> 
> There's a clear correlation between age of drives, and technology used, for very obvious reasons.



Except higher capacity of newer drives compensates for lower durability of individual cell. Controller has more free space to do wear levelling around.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 19, 2022)

ExcuseMeWtf said:


> Except higher capacity of newer drives compensates for lower durability of individual cell. Controller has more free space to do wear levelling around.


Valid point


----------



## Bill_Bright (Sep 19, 2022)

Snotspat said:


> We can change that statement to something else. SLC based NAND has a far longer lifespan than, TLC and QLC based drives.


Except there is no reason to assume, in fact it is illogical to assume that today's TLC or QLC (or [fill-in-the-blank]) technologies are still in the same dark ages as their first generation ancestors! What we can easily assume is that manufacturing techniques as well as the refinement of the raw materials, as well as design and engineering all have improved to help extend and improve quality, reliability and endurance. 

Yes, I'll concede that manufacturers' constant desire to cut costs and improve profits often results in a couple steps back. But the state-of-the-art is still multiple steps forward from the first generations. 

Today's internal combustion engine uses basically the same technologies as used in the Ford Model T. Does that suggest today's internal combustion engines have poor reliability and endurance? 

Note this from the How-To Geek,


> TLC SSDs write three bits to each cell. At this writing, TLCs are the most common type of SSD.
> 
> They pack more capacity than SLC and MLC drives into a smaller package, but sacrifice relative speed, reliability, and durability. That doesn’t mean TLC drives are bad. In fact, they’re probably your best bet right now—especially if you’re hunting for a deal.
> 
> Don’t let the notion of less durability get you down; TLC SSDs usually last for several years.





ExcuseMeWtf said:


> Except higher capacity of newer drives compensates for lower durability of individual cell. Controller has more free space to do wear levelling around.


This too! If the user buys a 32GB or even 64GB SSD to use as their boot drive - where the PF, Windows Updates, cookies and other frequently changing temp files will be stored - they can expect the life expectancy of that SSD to be affected. But that is even with the SSD technologies with the best endurance capabilities. And even with TLC SSD, assuming a current generation model, the budget minded user can still expect many years of reliable service. 

I think we need to keep things in context and focus too. Would the experienced user and/or enthusiast seek out and buy a cheap, low tech, entry level SSD (or motherboard, PSU, RAM, case, graphics, CPU, or [fill-in-the-blank] technologies for their new builds if their budgets allowed for better technologies? Nope! At least not if they do their homework first. 

And would the experienced user and/or enthusiast with bottomless pockets be able to forego having and using a robust backup plan if he or she bought the latest and greatest, most reliable, most enduring SSD available? Nope!


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 19, 2022)

freeagent said:


> I actually haven't been using one for a few years, just a habit to turn it off on my system.
> 
> 
> No, I wouldn't go that far as to call myself an expert at anything. Occasionally I will have a small crash when running Test Mem 5 (TM5)
> ...


Shawn, you are doing what overclockers have been doing since the dawn of Windows. lol. Turning off page file.

If it's unused, turn it off.

You don't need it. That's why you don't see any repercussion from disabling it.

Are you running XP32 bit with a 3.5GB cap?? I think not.....

There are points in here stating something about a place for dump files.
You already know what the BSOD was from, stop pushing so hard on that memory OC bro!!!

Page files in Windows with large physical memory​When large physical memory is installed, a page file might not be required to support the system commit charge during peak usage. For example, 64-bit versions of Windows and Windows Server support more physical memory (RAM) than 32-bit versions support. The available physical memory alone might be * IS* large enough.
Source-








						Introduction to the page file - Windows Client
					

Learn about the page files in Windows. A page file is an optional, hidden system file on a hard disk.



					learn.microsoft.com
				




Yes, I corrected the statement in red above. To make it more "accurate" in your use case sir.



Bill_Bright said:


> Oh? Isn't the goal of this site to ensure readers have the best, and most current information needed to make informed decisions? That's my reason for being here - along with maybe, as a bonus, learning something new along the way.
> 
> Like it or not, if one sports the Moderators badge, they should expect what they say to be taken seriously.


Don't mess with my team mate. He's my friend.

Don't do it again.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Sep 19, 2022)

ShrimpBrime said:


> Don't do it again.


Not your job to dictate what others say. But to your other comment, I can't say we're friends (because we don't socialize) but he's definitely not my enemy.  

Doesn't change the facts - you sport a badge, there are certain expectations involved - desired or not, fair or not.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 19, 2022)

Bill_Bright said:


> Not your job to dictate what others say. But to your other comment, I can't say we're friends (because we don't socialize) but he's definitely not my enemy.
> 
> Doesn't change the facts - you sport a badge, there are certain expectations involved - desired or not, fair or not.


I'll just say it out loud then.

Your posts are boring, long winded as hell.... usually way way off point and you never gather evidence to support your all knowing wisdom, which Page File you seem to know none. 

I linked my statement with supported evidence above. 

Talk to Shawn with respect. badge or not. That's all I'm asking man.


----------



## Snotspat (Sep 19, 2022)

Bill_Bright said:


> Except there is no reason to assume, in fact it is illogical to assume that today's TLC or QLC (or [fill-in-the-blank]) technologies are still in the same dark ages as their first generation ancestors! What we can easily assume is that manufacturing techniques as well as the refinement of the raw materials, as well as design and engineering all have improved to help extend and improve quality, reliability and endurance.
> 
> Yes, I'll concede that manufacturers' constant desire to cut costs and improve profits often results in a couple steps back. But the state-of-the-art is still multiple steps forward from the first generations.
> 
> ...



I haven't made any assumptions. There's inherent limitations to TLC and QLC that means they won't have the same endurance as SLC chips.

I don't know that its a step back. I think large cheap drives are great for the market, and in fact, the larger size also helps to mask the vastly lower endurance.

Perhaps there'll be a successor to QLC that goes in a different direction than, cheaper/less endurance. That would be great.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Sep 19, 2022)

Then


ShrimpBrime said:


> I'll just say it out loud then.
> 
> Your posts are boring, long winded as hell.... usually way way off point and you never gather evidence to support your all knowing wisdom, which Page File you seem to know none.


Then don't read them! In fact, it would be wonderful if you put me on ignore. 

Joining a thread days later, attacking, trolling, criticizing another's expertise, and attempting to stifle others sure doesn't help the flow of the thread. In fact, it just degrades it.

I see nowhere where I was being disrespectful to others - contrary to your posts. But if freeagent felt I was being disrespectful, then I apologize. But I note he is perfectly capable of defending himself. I also note there are at least 3 members of the staff participating in this thread - with at least two being moderators. Pretty sure the site does not need any wannabe mods running around playing vigilante. The mods here are quite capable of stepping in when they see fit. 

Here's a thought - if a thread does not meet your standards, use the Report button.

Now I suggest we move on.



Snotspat said:


> I haven't made any assumptions.


Sorry - I was speaking to the crowd there. I should have been more clear.


----------



## freeagent (Sep 19, 2022)

All good fellas! We are just doing things that we know work for us  Thanks for that link Jon, I knew there was something like that floating around


----------



## Bill_Bright (Sep 19, 2022)

That link does indeed go to a good source of information, and includes links to even more. I urge everyone here to follow those links, read, and understand them (if they can) if they wish to deviate from the defaults.

Too bad the quote was edited to say something different. While the edit was acknowledged - a good thing, and I grant and applaud that. But come on! You cannot change the wording, and thus message of a sentence to say  something the original author did NOT say or mean, then pretend the article supports your claim. That is just silly.

The OP has never stated what his peak system commit charge was, or what his quantity of infrequently accessed pages are, or if a supporting a crash dump file is something desired, or any other data needed to properly determine if a PF is needed, or not, and if needed, what size it should be.

I note other information needed to properly determine page file necessity and size is to know (and understand the significance) of the following, as shown in : How to determine the appropriate page file size for 64-bit versions of Windows (a link included in that initial link).



> The following performance counters measure hard page faults (which include, but aren't limited to, page file reads):​
> \Memory\Page/sec
> \Memory\Page Reads/sec
> \Memory\Page Inputs/sec
> ...


These are things any "true" experienced person in memory management, or person truly knowledgeable of the function and purpose of the page file would know, or information they would determine BEFORE making recommendations or changes. If all that is "Greek" to you, then LEAVE THE DEFAULTS ALONE!!!!! Windows knows how to deal with them just fine.

Without knowing this essential information for that specific computer and user, and then to suggest it is fine to disable the PF just because someone has gobs of RAM, or because they  "always did it that way", or because, "I disabled it and didn't notice any difference", is, frankly reckless and naive advice!

It really is akin to, "_I took off the air filter and didn't notice any difference so I left it off_". Or, "_I disabled my anti-virus and didn't get infected so I left it disabled". _Or_ "I'm a good driver so I don't need insurance". _


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 19, 2022)

Bill_Bright said:


> That link does indeed go to a good source of information, and includes links to even more. I urge everyone here to follow those links, read, and understand them (if they can) if they wish to deviate from the defaults.
> 
> Too bad the quote was edited to say something different. While the edit was acknowledged - a good thing, and I grant and applaud that. But come on! You cannot change the wording, and thus message of a sentence to say  something the original author did NOT say or mean, then pretend the article supports your claim. That is just silly.
> 
> ...


Excuse me. This is directed towards me. No?

What is "gobs of ram" ?

If you intend to give accurate information, perhaps a lengthy post about what gobs of ram definition is in order.

----

The on topic = any reads and writes to any drive will reduce its life cycle. Period. That was the point. Which is what page file does. 

There's nothing more to prove.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 20, 2022)

ShrimpBrime said:


> The on topic = any reads and writes to any drive will reduce its life cycle. Period. That was the point. Which is what page file does.
> 
> There's nothing more to prove.


No it doesnt. It reduces writes by writing once and reading many times, instead of writing deleting and re-writing.


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Sep 20, 2022)

@Bill_Bright technically a semiconductor uses less power and produces less heat when operating temperature is reduced. 

@freeagent if what mussels said is true, you are reducing your SSD lifespan by keeping it off. If untrue, you are putting your system at risk for a crash if it ever happens to need a pagefile - for no benefit. If it works fine (I understand, I use defender  ) it hasn't needed the pagefile, and you are getting no benefit. I cannot recommend disabling pagefile.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 20, 2022)

Mussels said:


> No it doesnt. It reduces writes by writing once and reading many times, instead of writing deleting and re-writing.


Well really in a sense your correct because your system isn't using the page file.
It's just there, empty, waiting.... for you to use up all the physical memory.

But a single write fits into the (ANY) category.

Below I depict.
The system is running 16GB 2x8 and Page file just sits there using system resources, empty as empty gets.
If I shut it off like Shawn, It would look exactly the same. 0% usage 0% peak. 

When the system notifies you that system memory is low, then you're using page file.








Count von Schwalbe said:


> @Bill_Bright technically a semiconductor uses less power and produces less heat when operating temperature is reduced.
> 
> @freeagent if what mussels said is true, you are reducing your SSD lifespan by keeping it off. If untrue, you are putting your system at risk for a crash if it ever happens to need a pagefile - for no benefit. If it works fine (I understand, I use defender  ) it hasn't needed the pagefile, and you are getting no benefit. I cannot recommend disabling pagefile.


Many overclockers tweak a system with Page File disabled and often times actually reduce the memory quantity at start up.  

This is speaking directly about competitive benchmarking. Page file (or any system services not needed to run a particular benchmark) uses system resources. So it has been customary for said competitive benchmarking individuals to disable this feature.... because it either reduces scores or raises benchmark times. So it's eliminated as a "system tweak". 

________
Should everyone do this? 

No probably not. There's a lot of people that need page file cause they just don't have the required amount of system memory to cover all the applications they run. Which is a shame, cause generally an SSD and HDD is much much slower than system memory and would come with a HUGE performance hit if Page File did in fact need to be used. 

It's also used to store system dumps. Like I bet everyone takes the time to read those also.... I'd bet not.


----------



## ExcuseMeWtf (Sep 20, 2022)

Many programs will run into issues if you disable page file, e.g., "Out of Memory" messages, even when you actually have a good amount of free RAM.
To save space, I have trimmed it a bit regarding initial size, then let Windows expand it when needed.

Currently on my 20 GB PC Windows chose to expand it from 1,5 GB to 3,2GB.


----------



## Shrek (Sep 20, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> @Bill_Bright technically a semiconductor uses less power and produces less heat when operating temperature is reduced.



I thought it was the other way around and the reason some power diodes are run with less cooling.


----------



## ExcuseMeWtf (Sep 20, 2022)

Shrek said:


> I thought it was the other way around and the reason some power diodes are run with less cooling.


A little more complicated than that, but generally yes:


----------



## Bill_Bright (Sep 20, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> @Bill_Bright technically a semiconductor uses less power and produces less heat when operating temperature is reduced.


Ummm, kinda, sorta, but not really - at least not as a general rule. Are there exceptions? Of course! In extreme cases but this is not about extreme cases. Therefore, it is irrelevant AS LONG AS and assuming we are still maintaining that temp comfortably within its "normal operating temperature" range - the job of the computer case and therefore a "user responsibility". 

If the operating temperature is significantly above "normal" operating temps (normal as defined by engineering specs and physical limits of the component materials), that is, overheated, then that could (I did not say "will") result in increased current which then could result in even more heat production - and in extreme cases, smoke, burning device, open circuit or even fire. So in that sense, if the operating temp is lowered (back to where it belongs) you are correct. But note those abnormal temps will change the desired characteristics of the electrical circuit. And if a critical circuit (and proper design), the designers will have included additional compensation (or interrupt) circuits just to ensure that does not happen (assuming no component failure). 

Note for electronics that operate in cold environments (satellites in space or mountain-top radio or radio-relay stations as examples), heaters in the electronics are used to raise the operating environment temperature to that normal operating temperature range. This addresses the point @Shrek correctly points out; colder is not necessarily better, or desired. 

And that's the point; "normal operating temperature" is a "range" of temps. And if the device (and circuit) is maintained comfortably within that range, not only do the electrical and thermal characteristics of that circuit remain consistent, there is nothing to suggest lowering the temps further will improve stability, performance, or longevity of the device. 



ShrimpBrime said:


> The on topic = any reads and writes to any drive will reduce its life cycle. Period. That was the point. Which is what page file does.
> 
> There's nothing more to prove.





Mussels said:


> No it doesnt. It reduces writes by writing once and reading many times, instead of writing deleting and re-writing.


Mussels is, once again, exactly right. Ironic I'm accused of not knowing how things work then we see that statement.  "Reads" have no affect on the life cycle of SSDs. Only writes and that limit on the latest generation is so high, normal users will never reach it during the expected lifetime of that computer or beyond.



ShrimpBrime said:


> What is "gobs of ram" ?
> 
> If you intend to give accurate information, perhaps a lengthy post about what gobs of ram definition is in order.


Really? Okay fine. IMO, the "sweetspot" for most (not all, but most) users today is 16GB of system RAM. Less RAM and performance "may" be noticeably degraded. However, more than 16GB and performance gains (particularly in a "blind test" - to avoid placebo effects) will "likely" be negligible, at best. Therefore, my definition of "gobs" (today) would be 32GB of RAM or more. Again, are there exceptions? Of course! But exceptions don't make the rule, nor should they dictate what everyone should do. Might some say 32GB is the sweetspot? Sure. And frankly, for many, I would not argue. In fact, in a few short years, 32GB may be the new sweetspot, with 64GB soon after. Then "gobs" might be 128GB. 



ShrimpBrime said:


> Many overclockers tweak a system with Page File disabled and often times actually reduce the memory quantity at start up.
> 
> This is speaking directly about competitive benchmarking.


LOL Yeah, because competitive benchmarkers (or even overclockers in general - other than possible users of the presets provided by mobo makers) represent the majority of users out here.  

I find it very ironic that you went to great lengths to argue how a PF on a SSD will put so much extra wear and tear on the SSD and then went to great effort to illustrate how little the PF on your 16GB system would be utilized.  So, to prevent all that wear on your SSD from hits that don't happen, you disable the page file.  

And yet we've need zero evidence that shows disabling the SSD improves performance. The only argument (besides preventing all that wear that won't happen) we've seen is, "_I didn't notice any difference_."  The exception being, maybe, is "competitive benchmarkers" seeking "bragging rights". 

I am always preaching that things change and what was may no longer be. So how about doing us a favor? Please post a link to a recent article from a reputable source that recommends normal users with 16GB (gobs?) or more of system RAM disable our page files to improve performance. Thanks.


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Sep 20, 2022)

Bill_Bright said:


> Ummm, kinda, sorta, but not really - at least not as a general rule. Are there exceptions? Of course! In extreme cases but this is not about extreme cases. Therefore, it is irrelevant AS LONG AS and assuming we are still maintaining that temp comfortably within its "normal operating temperature" range - the job of the computer case and therefore a "user responsibility


I stand corrected - I could have sworn I read that somewhere. 


Bill_Bright said:


> to prevent all that wear on your SSD from hits that don't happen, you disable the page file


This is the thing I was trying to get at - if it is needed, disabling it introduces instability, and if it is not needed, disabling it has no benefit.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Sep 20, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> I stand corrected - I could have sworn I read that somewhere.


You probably did read it. Sadly, that is a commonly believed myth. I have seen it many times by alternative cooling users seeking bragging rights by trying to cool their CPUs to the lowest temperatures possible. They have propagated falsehoods to rationalize their actions. This has, sadly, caused some to be misinformed and into believing their 50°C CPUs (to pull an arbitrary, but applicable example out of the air) is too hot and going to die prematurely. So they start yanking off coolers, reapplying perfectly good thermal paste, and taking other unnecessary actions - often creating bigger problems in the process.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 20, 2022)

Great lengths to take a screen shot. It's literally a one button click.

I'll be doing research on Ageia Physx and making a thread for that. I've been working in it for a few days.


----------



## Arco (Sep 20, 2022)

Bill_Bright said:


> Really? Okay fine. IMO, the "sweetspot" for most (not all, but most) users today is 16GB of system RAM. Less RAM and performance "may" be noticeably degraded. However, more than 16GB and performance gains (particularly in a "blind test" - to avoid placebo effects) will "likely" be negligible, at best. Therefore, my definition of "gobs" (today) would be 32GB of RAM or more. Again, are there exceptions? Of course! But exceptions don't make the rule, nor should they dictate what everyone should do. Might some say 32GB is the sweetspot? Sure. And frankly, for many, I would not argue. In fact, in a few short years, 32GB may be the new sweetspot, with 64GB soon after. Then "gobs" might be 128GB.


I agree, if you are building a new system and you have a bit of a budget I would go for 32 GB of ram. More is useless unless you are doing prosumer or whatever,


----------



## Shrek (Sep 20, 2022)

Bill_Bright said:


> IMO, the "sweetspot" for most (not all, but most) users today is 16GB of system RAM.



I find 8 GB enough, unless gaming; so I'd agree with 16 GB

Windows 10/11 takes about 4 GB


----------



## Arco (Sep 20, 2022)

Shrek said:


> I find 8 GB enough, unless gaming; so I'd agree with 16 GB
> 
> Windows 10/11 takes about 4 GB


Yeah, the most noticeable upgrades are SSD then after that is RAM.

My 5-6-year-old Windows OS is still kicking although it's eating up a lot of RAM.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Sep 20, 2022)

@Rock N Roll Rebel - First, my apologies for my part in this OT sideshow. And second, I hope you have the found the answers you seek.



Shrek said:


> I find 8 GB enough


This is true for many. 8GB is plenty to surf the Internet, view YouTube videos, update social media, online banking and shopping, process email, develop Word docs and even do some gaming. I would probably want a discrete graphics card so a large chunk of my system RAM is not stolen... err... being "shared" for graphics processing - but that's me.



Arco said:


> if you are building a new system and you have a bit of a budget I would go for 32 GB of ram.


I also agree. If building a new system, and the budget allows, I say go for 32GB too. But this is often because if you decide to add more RAM in 2 or 3 years, it may be difficult to find matching/compatible RAM, or, because of a limited number of slots, you may end up having to replace existing RAM instead of just adding more. In other words, it typically is cheaper to buy "_more than you will ever need_" today, than to add more later.



ShrimpBrime said:


> Great lengths to take a screen shot. It's literally a one button click.



So you can't provide a link that backs up your claim. Got it.

It is sad you routinely resort to puerile, personal insults when you can't backup your claims with supporting evidence, and yet be so quick to accuse others of being disrespectful. Your true colors shine through.

Time to move on.


----------



## 95Viper (Sep 20, 2022)

Stay on topic.
Stop the insults and bickering.
Thread bans will be issued for anymore BS.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 20, 2022)

Bill_Bright said:


> @Rock N Roll Rebel - First, my apologies for my part in this OT sideshow. And second, I hope you have the found the answers you seek.
> 
> 
> This is true for many. 8GB is plenty to surf the Internet, view YouTube videos, update social media, online banking and shopping, process email, develop Word docs and even do some gaming. I would probably want a discrete graphics card so a large chunk of my system RAM is not stolen... err... being "shared" for graphics processing - but that's me.
> ...


Bill, I already did the link deal. I believe it's your turn.

Find a recent article that states reads and writes don't degrade an ssd while using page file from a reputable source.

There's actually not a lot about page file because it seems seldom brought up.

I already stated most users shouldn't change this windows feature.

What more do you really need? My point was simply any reads and writes to a drive degrades it. How much is where you put the words into my mouth making it seem like it's a lot of reads and writes, no simply one write.....

Cause all hardware is designed with a MTBF. By design this can vary greatly generally by usage. 

Hope this helps you understand the simplicity of my argument. Meaning I wasn't trying to make it a long drawn out deal. 

If Shawn saw his drives degrade from having page file on, we have no reason not to take his word on it.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Sep 20, 2022)

ShrimpBrime said:


> Bill, I already did the link deal.


 No you didn't. You posted a link, then changed the comment from "might be" to *"IS"* then claimed you made it more accurate, then pretended it supported your claims, and just expected everyone to accept it. Didn't work. 

You have yet to provide any link to any article that recommends disabling the PF, or even suggests disabling it is better, or that disabling it offers better performance. Nor have you provided any link from any SSD maker that recommends or suggests moving the PF off their SSDs and on to HDs.

I provided several links that recommend leaving the PF enabled and on SSDs. Please read my post #35. I provided another link in #36 that reports how SSDs are more reliable than HDDs in data center environments - which clearly deal with huge number of writes and more abuse than typical home users encounter.

You claimed before and now again that "reads" degrade the SSD. As pointed out by me and others, "reads" do not. In fact, I've seen nothing to suggest that writes "degrade" a SSD. They simply count towards the total write limits of the SSD - which for today's SSDs is an astronomical number most normal users will never reach. Others in this thread have also stated to just leave the PF be.

I pointed out that many (if not most) laptops and even many PCs these days come with SSDs only and, of course, the PFs are on those SSDs. Are they dying prematurely? Nope. Why? Because today's SSDs are more than capable of supporting constantly updated operating system files, 1000s and 1000s of temp files, and PFs too.



> I believe it's your turn.



No it is not my turn. I have already stated my case with supporting logic and links to supporting, corroborating evidence. And this thread is about Bleachbit and SSDs. Not page files.

Now I am hitting the bike trails because it is 95° out, and only in the 60s for the next 3 days. And I apologize once again to @Rock N Roll Rebel for my part in this thread getting knocked so far OT.

And to @95Viper - I assure you, unless Rock N Roll Rebel returns with a question for me, I am outta here.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Sep 20, 2022)

Bill_Bright said:


> No you didn't. You posted a link, then changed the comment from "might be" to *"IS"* then claimed you made it more accurate, then pretended it supported your claims, and just expected everyone to accept it. Didn't work.
> 
> You have yet to provide any link to any article that recommends disabling the PF, or even suggests disabling it is better, or that disabling it offers better performance. Nor have you provided any link from any SSD maker that recommends or suggests moving the PF off their SSDs and on to HDs.
> 
> ...


The page file isn't used because modern x64 systems with enough system memory don't use it. 

Again, find me a link. I explained why the quote was modified. That was enough for everyone else except you.

For a problem with me, see my pm box. I'll let you know exactly how I feel in private, no problem.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 21, 2022)

On the ram discussion above for 32GB:

You want 32GB on DDR4 because it gives you four memory ranks which is an easy 10% RAM performance.
Whether its from 4x8 or 2x16 is upto you, but that performance difference can be larger than buying a higher CPU model


These are from a 1usmus review here on TPU years ago with a 2700x


Look how the DR and MR results smash ahead of the SR results
AMD Ryzen Memory Tweaking & Overclocking Guide - Benchmarks: Performance Results | TechPowerUp

DDR4 3333 dual rank is as fast as 3800 single rank, and Zen3 can reach 3800/3900 dual rank easily these days




I havent found what he meant by multirank, it could be 2xDR and 2xSR together, or something else entirely

(More ram good for SSD, so it's on topic?)


Page file is definitely still used, some programs forcibly require it, and others just crash when they need it and it doesn't exist.
The Windows 7 Pagefile And Running Without One - TweakHound

You'd be far better off running a memory write cache buffer instead of disabling the page file, you'd need to see actual proof of that working before assuming anything.
The entire point of a cache is to write once, read many.


----------



## thyself (Oct 17, 2022)

Rock N Roll Rebel said:


> well I had to just restore my system from backup because CCleaner made Winget not work anymore I even uninstalled Winget and reinstalled it still no go did some looking up on the net and there were a few people that said CCleaner messed things up I should have never paid for it I'm going to there website and make sure auto-renew is off


I got same issue too and managed to fixed with reinstalling webview2.


----------



## mechtech (Oct 17, 2022)

I don't use anything.  Just set the shut down time high and let windows trim and garbage collection algorithms take care of it.  Then again I don't have much installed, nor do install and uninstall a bunch of stuff constantly.





Every 2-3 years I will secure erase OS ssd and put on a fresh install.  (especially when ms was putting out service packs......errrrr updates every 6 months)


----------



## Calenhad (Nov 9, 2022)

ShrimpBrime said:


> Cause all hardware is designed with a MTBF. By design this can vary greatly generally by usage.


And the other metric used for ssd life is what? TBW? What does the W stand for again? And this is only the guaranteed value from the manfacturer. Look up some actual durability testing and you will see that most ssds will perform way beyond this figure. But, of course, there are some of us that will get the drive with the minimum value. Otherwise the guaranteed minimum would be higher.

Reading from a ssd is harmless. For a ssd rated in TBW, you are looking at a similar value in the EBR range or higher. Or put it this way: MBTF is a much more realistic metric when it comes to max number of reads.

Having a pagefile on a ssd is harmless. It is pretty much never, ever used. And when it is used, you really need it. Otherwise that, probably poorly programmed, piece of software you are running will crash and burn.

Regarding operating temperatures, nvme drives do not care much about temperatures when reading, just stay within the min/max temps from the manufacturer. Writing has a narrower optimal temperature range. Which is why watercooling nvme drives is seldom recommended. Because your drive will often be below optimal temperatures for writes, and having to heat up cells to write to them is very inefficient.

Oh and don't fill your drive entirely. The load-levelling algorithm in the drive controller will thank you by extending the life of your drive.

Sauce: I am a computer engineer. I have been knee-deep in operating systems and how their low level functions work. I have studied physical properties of computer hardware. Amongst other things, how ssds are built and function. Do some work with server-grade hardware and this is something you actually have to take into consideration while planning the setup.


----------



## Shrek (Nov 9, 2022)

Calenhad said:


> And the other metric used for ssd life is what? TBW? What does the W stand for again?



Total Bytes Written?


----------



## Toothless (Nov 9, 2022)

Shrek said:


> Total Bytes Written?


Total bytes or terabytes. Typically it's 150 terabytes written for endurance, as an example.


----------



## Shrek (Nov 9, 2022)

You are right

Tera

I need to get some rest


----------



## Mussels (Nov 10, 2022)

Terabytes written.

Some modern SSD's can be stupidly low, anything that inflates the writes is just suicide.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Nov 10, 2022)

Calenhad said:


> And the other metric used for ssd life is what? TBW? What does the W stand for again? And this is only the guaranteed value from the manfacturer. Look up some actual durability testing and you will see that most ssds will perform way beyond this figure. But, of course, there are some of us that will get the drive with the minimum value. Otherwise the guaranteed minimum would be higher.
> 
> Reading from a ssd is harmless. For a ssd rated in TBW, you are looking at a similar value in the EBR range or higher. Or put it this way: MBTF is a much more realistic metric when it comes to max number of reads.
> 
> ...


The page file is harmless, cause it typically isn't used. Virtual memory is used consistently. 

In order to read from a drive, you write to it first.

If counting writes happens to account into how a company describes the definition to MTBF, then so be it. 

None of this means a drive will last longer or not really. Some come DOA. 

Yes, with enough testing and gathering data, we could approximate a life cycle of devices. For sure. But at least some manufacturers do this research and give a ball park of expectancy.


----------



## Kissamies (Nov 10, 2022)

Hasn't cclener been crap for ages? I remember that it was good in the Win7 days though.


----------



## Vayra86 (Nov 10, 2022)

ShrimpBrime said:


> Should everyone do this?
> 
> No probably not. There's a lot of people that need page file cause they just don't have the required amount of system memory to cover all the applications they run. Which is a shame, cause generally an SSD and HDD is much much slower than system memory and would come with a HUGE performance hit if Page File did in fact need to be used.
> 
> It's also used to store system dumps. Like I bet everyone takes the time to read those also.... I'd bet not.


This is absolute nonsense.

The page file is a level of memory that _relieves bandwidth_ elsewhere in the pipeline. I game a lot. I use the page file and never turn it off. Why? _Because it improves system responsiveness_, rather than reduces it, and especially when performance is wanted, it helps. I have way too much RAM for gaming, 16GB, never have I seen it at capacity, in fact, it often sits royally below 8GB. Still, the page file is used during gaming, I monitor it in for example Space Engineers, and in that application, turning it off is _harmful to performance of the simulation_. Even with many GBs of RAM to spare.

The page file plays a role in scheduling. Its really fantastic you don't see a disadvantage in your 'simple' use case of running a bench and dialing in some frequencies to run it at. But what kind of use case IS that? You're running a single type of load where you tweak memory usage to fit your capacity, on a system built for many concurrent types of loads. You think you're pushing that system. Its laughable, honestly.

Nobody who disables the page file has managed to quantify what performance they've actually gained or lost; I honestly can't even do it for Space Engineers, unless I'd program my path through the simulation for the exact same run. You speak of a huge performance hit if the page file needed to be used - without backing it up. There isn't one. And if there is one, you need more RAM regardless of whether you use it or not 

Still though I understand your argument about unnecessary writes on a disk, it stands because if you're not using it, you're 'writing and reading' more directly out of RAM. Sure. But again... can you actually quantify this or is this 99% impression and historical evidence from ages gone by and 1% reality? I think its the latter. I'm using a 2011 Samsung 830 that has always ran a page file and Windows OS and its still in perfect health. That's _eleven years worth_ of writes and reads in a gaming system.

Things change, in hardware as it progresses, there was also an age where having a filesystem with folder names as brief as you could get them (coded, letter/number, etc.) was considered useful to gain some performance, I'm sure that in the time of kilobytes of data being relevant, this was measurable. Today? You're considered a nutcase for doing so. The same applies here. Old principles are simply no longer relevant.



Mussels said:


> Terabytes written.
> 
> Some modern SSD's can be stupidly low, anything that inflates the writes is just suicide.


And those SSDs are definitely not to be used as 'active' disks, but rather for mass storage. They're generally QLC, which also makes them more suited for mass storage rather than high usage-use cases.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 10, 2022)

Vayra86 said:


> And those SSDs are definitely not to be used as 'active' disks, but rather for mass storage


not that they're marketed that way at all, or used that way by the common folk who just buy the cheapest in-store


page file re-enables itself

Even just today was posts in a gaming group i'm in from someone with "out of memory" errors that were just the page file being too small since their C: drive was full

plenty of free RAM, plenty of space on the games drive - just under 1GB on C: so crashy crashy time


----------



## Shrek (Nov 10, 2022)

ShrimpBrime said:


> The page file is harmless, cause it typically isn't used.



True, unless you have little RAM or something with a memory leak.



Vayra86 said:


> And those SSDs are definitely not to be used as 'active' disks, but rather for mass storage. They're generally QLC, which also makes them more suited for mass storage rather than high usage-use cases.



At which point use a hard drive.

If I have an SSD I want to take advantage of its speed and use it as a boot drive.


----------



## Vayra86 (Nov 10, 2022)

Shrek said:


> True, unless you have little RAM or something with a memory leak.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, well, I do like not having the hum of HDD in my room since my rig is 100% on solid state. But if its really mass storage, I do agree, I just wouldn't do it on my main box.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Nov 11, 2022)

Vayra86 said:


> This is absolute nonsense.
> 
> The page file is a level of memory that _relieves bandwidth_ elsewhere in the pipeline. I game a lot. I use the page file and never turn it off. Why? _Because it improves system responsiveness_, rather than reduces it, and especially when performance is wanted, it helps. I have way too much RAM for gaming, 16GB, never have I seen it at capacity, in fact, it often sits royally below 8GB. Still, the page file is used during gaming, I monitor it in for example Space Engineers, and in that application, turning it off is _harmful to performance of the simulation_. Even with many GBs of RAM to spare.
> 
> ...


In use case page file Yada Yada. I get it. 

People seek performance at different levels. 
Scheduling and so forth ... across many platforms and operating systems.
All of which handle this differently.
W10 vs w11 is a fi e example.

For me, in general not interested in page file. Obviously, which there are users here and there disable it, with no issues. 

But generally speaking, people don't use it. Well, the operating system doesn't use it. 

If a system is low on memory, the user is generally notified. Then, the wise man saves pennies and purchases a larger amount of system RAM. 

It's not difficult to conceive the fact it's not needed. 

And I could back the statement up just fine on the given hardware on my bench right now consisting of a whopping 1024MB of system memory. IDE on a 40 pin cable..... shit performance loss is so great...

But my use case is the actual seek for performance. Operating systems and slash of services, back ground tasks and everything in between is slashed. 

Because performance doesn't come from using more resources. It comes from using less. If you need proof to that statement, then go to HWBot and find yourself some examples. I'm not in the mode to prove facts this morning.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 11, 2022)

> If a system is low on memory, the user is generally notified


Actually, those low memory errors are only about the page file running out - not about RAM running out (since that was extremely common in earlier versions of 32 bit windows)

You get the errors only after your programs crashed out, which isnt super helpful and they still mention "memory" in the error messages today since its technically correct, even tho it gives everyone the wrong impression

I'm all for page files. Any and all caching is fantastic - you just want the writes minimised, and the reads maximised. A bigger cache is written once and re-read many times.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Nov 11, 2022)

ShrimpBrime said:


> But generally speaking, people don't use it. Well, the operating system doesn't use it.


You are correct, "people" don't use page files. 

But you are totally wrong when you say operating systems don't. In fact, operating systems typically are the biggest users of page files. This is a primary reason to just _leave the defaults alone!!!!_


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Nov 11, 2022)

Bill_Bright said:


> You are correct, "people" don't use page files.
> 
> But you are totally wrong when you say operating systems don't. In fact, operating systems typically are the biggest users of page files. This is a primary reason to just _leave the defaults alone!!!!_


I'm a competitive overclocker. 

You guys leave defaults alone cause that suits your needs. And it's fine. 

I mentioned, which was quoted again, that I don't recommend users to turn this feature off.

But am entitled to my opinion and views on the subject just as much as the next guy.

No?



Mussels said:


> Actually, those low memory errors are only about the page file running out - not about RAM running out (since that was extremely common in earlier versions of 32 bit windows)
> 
> You get the errors only after your programs crashed out, which isnt super helpful and they still mention "memory" in the error messages today since its technically correct, even tho it gives everyone the wrong impression
> 
> I'm all for page files. Any and all caching is fantastic - you just want the writes minimised, and the reads maximised. A bigger cache is written once and re-read many times.


Um, not what I meant. 
When system memory is full, windows notifies the user of it.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Nov 11, 2022)

ShrimpBrime said:


> But am entitled to my opinion and views on the subject just as much as the next guy.
> 
> No?


Of course you are entitled to your own opinion. I spent 24 years in the military defending your right to express them. I see no reason to stop doing that now. 

But you are NOT entitled to your own facts. You claimed operating systems don't use the PF. That is not true. 

Actually, I don't have a problem with folks disabling the PF (or setting a fixed size) - AS LONG AS they know what they are doing. The problem is, most do not. They are not experts in memory management. They don't fully understand virtual memory. They have no clue what commit rates are. They don't understand that setting a fixed size is NOT a "set and forget" setting. In fact many, if not most who dink with the PF settings do so simply because they read somewhere to do it. Or worse, they assume they are smarter and know better than all the PhDs and computer science professionals at Microsoft who have 100s of decades of hands-on experience and exabytes of empirical data to draw on. 

The most silly, asinine excuse I have ever heard is, "I disabled it and didn't notice any issues, so I left it disabled." The next most asinine is, "I've always done it that way".   

And if folks don't understand why those are silly, it just proves my point about them not being experts and therefore, should leave the defaults alone!


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Nov 11, 2022)

Bill_Bright said:


> Of course you are entitled to your own opinion. I spent 24 years in the military defending your right to express them. I see no reason to stop doing that now.
> 
> But you are NOT entitled to your own facts. You claimed operating systems don't use the PF. That is not true.
> 
> ...


I'm far from a page file expert. This is true.

Perhaps you could provide us a screen shot of the page file being used in your system. I cannot. 

So again, more information provided for your mind, not your eyes.



> Page files in Windows with large physical memory​When large physical memory is installed, a page file might not be required to support the system commit charge during peak usage. For example, 64-bit versions of Windows and Windows Server support more physical memory (RAM) than 32-bit versions support. The available physical memory alone might be large enough.



So again, the OS isn't using page file on most systems when there's enough system memory installed. I'm sure there are exceptions where some people are running 2gb of memory on LGA 1700 systems, but I'm probably mistaken for sure. 

I can provide the link upon your request as well.

Maybe there's something I'm missing. I dunno. But my opinion is based on that above.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Nov 11, 2022)

ShrimpBrime said:


> Perhaps you could provide us a screen shot of the page file being used in your system. I cannot.


I see no purpose for doing that. Every computer is different. Every user is different. My PF requirements today may be different tomorrow. So anything I posted would be anecdotal. 



ShrimpBrime said:


> So again, the OS isn't using page file on most systems when there's enough system memory installed.


 Your understanding of English is different from reality. 

If something says, "*might* *be*" or "*might* *not*", that does NOT mean "*is*" or "*is* *not*". 

And just because something isn't currently be used, that does not indicate it is *better* to disable it. And "better" should be the criteria. Not, "I didn't notice any difference". 

Even for those with lots of system memory installed, for the vast majority of those users, there is no harm or negative impact in leaving the defaults as is. If it is not being used, what's it hurting?

"IF" the argument is to save disk space, I say "bullfeathers!" If someone is that negligent to allow their computer to get that desperately low on disk space, disabling the PF is not proper resolution. 

Are there exceptions? Of course. But having "lots of RAM installed" is not sufficient criteria or justification to disable the PF, or set a fixed size.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Nov 11, 2022)

Bill_Bright said:


> I see no purpose for doing that. Every computer is different. Every user is different. My PF requirements today may be different tomorrow. So anything I posted would be anecdotal.
> 
> 
> Your understanding of English is different from reality.
> ...


I cannot dictate how words are used to ascribe meaning within the context of the use.

I would take a guess it's worded in such fashion because there are users with old operating systems running 32 bit with a 3.5gb cap.

Which for most users with MODERN hardware, page file is unnecessary. 

And because there are 32 bit users, the wording ascribed to the use is mandatory because 32b systems are still a thing. Though I don't know why.

Page file is used only when system memory has been filled.

Nobody here has proven otherwise. So I'll stand by my statements.









						Introduction to the page file - Windows Client
					

Learn about the page files in Windows. A page file is an optional, hidden system file on a hard disk.



					learn.microsoft.com


----------



## Bill_Bright (Nov 11, 2022)

ShrimpBrime said:


> I cannot dictate how words are used to ascribe meaning within the context of the use.


Huh? You can dictate how YOU use words to insure they are truthful and are used in the context of their accepted definitions. Again, you are not entitled to your own set of facts. 

"Might be" does not mean "is" or "will be". Yet that is what you posed "might" means.  



ShrimpBrime said:


> Page file is used only when system memory has been filled.


 What a bunch of bullcrap! Why are you posting falsehoods like that? Did you read the article you just linked to? Or hope I wouldn't?

NO WHERE in there does it say what you just claimed! Why be deceitful? 

Your article clearly points out several scenarios where a page file is required. Yes, it mentions where it "might" not be required. But again, "might not" does not mean "is not". And *nowhere in your article does it recommend or suggest the PF be disabled.* 



ShrimpBrime said:


> Nobody here has proven otherwise. So I'll stand by my statements.


LOL So if you believe that is how things should work, unicorns must exist because you cannot prove they don't, right?

I showed WITH YOUR OWN ARTICLE that you are wrong - the page file is indeed used in several other scenarios, contrary to your false statements. 

Why don't you do us all a favor and show us any white paper, study, or knowledge base article that reports disabling the PF is better and recommended when lots of RAM is installed, okay? Then you will have the true facts for which you can stand by. And then, I will apologize and concede you were right and I was wrong and that you are not just fabricating and repeating the same old falsehoods.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Nov 11, 2022)

Bill_Bright said:


> Huh? You can dictate how YOU use words to insure they are truthful and are used in the context of their accepted definitions. Again, you are not entitled to your own set of facts.
> 
> "Might be" does not mean "is" or "will be". Yet that is what you posed "might" means.
> 
> ...


You don't even have to click it. 

Read.

Optional.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Nov 11, 2022)

ShrimpBrime said:


> You don't even have to click it.
> 
> Read.


You do if you want to learn what it really says - because you certainly are not quoting it truthfully!


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Nov 11, 2022)

@ShrimpBrime Note that Hard Faults are accesses to page file (you probably knew, bot not everyone does). Yes, I have a lot of things open for my 16GB, but let's close some things:



Hm, page file still in use. Why would it be using page file? I cannot tell. I can tell what my system-managed page file looks like though:




I have a 2TB BX500 as disk C. This is a domain computer, so the C drive has around 20GB used. I also download large files regularly to local and move them to the domain as part of my job:




She's been running a while now without significant degradation. Long story short, if anyone is remotely concerned about page file damaging your SSD, just get the next size up or an extra and move it over.

Now, I fully understand disabling page file for an overclocking session like @ShrimpBrime does, if it causes memory errors, but I strongly recommend against it for anyone not running their system at the edge of stability.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Nov 11, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> if anyone is remotely concerned about page file damaging your SSD, just get the next size up or an extra and move it over.


If anyone is concerned a page file will "damage" a SSD, don't be it won't "damage" it.

If the concern is a page file will put too many writes on the SSD, reducing its life expectancy, no need to worry about that either - not with newer generation SSDs. Remember, more and more laptops and even PCs are coming only with SSDs these days. All our builds here have been SSD-only since 2013 and all of those SSDs are still in use, except for a couple early 64GB and 128GB SSDs, which have been retired early due to their small size. And another Samsung failed due to actual failure, not to reaching any write limit (which Samsung promptly replaced via RMA). 

It is much more likely your entire computer will be retired long before you reach any SSD write limit. For this reason, even busy data centers, more and more are using SSDs to "cache" their most commonly accessed data. Also, operating systems use the Page Files to read many more times than they write. "WORM" (for write once - read many) is an often used acronym among many that, once exclusive to optical disks, is used often recently with SSDs.  Reads have no effect on life expectancy. 

The Count is absolutely correct. If you are concerned, get a bigger SSD or move the PF to a less used SSD. A bigger SSD makes sense for many reasons - most significantly is that wear leveling and TRIM takes advantage of extra free space to distribute any "wear" across many more storage locations, making any single location used for write much less often. But that is for normal use just as much as it applies to the PF.


----------



## Wirko (Nov 12, 2022)

ShrimpBrime said:


> Page file is used only when system memory has been filled.


Yes. But. The definition of "filled" in an ecosystem of an OS and user applications with user data is anything but simple.

This is an excellent introduction to virtual memory and all related things. It appears to be the last blog post by some guy named Brian Catlin - unfortunately he didn't continue writing posts like this.





						The Out-of-Memory Syndrome, or: Why Do I Still Need a Pagefile? – Azius
					






					azius.com
				




For me, the short takeaway is this: do keep the page file and let Windows manage it. Windows will grow and shrink it however it likes, no worries, it basically just reserves virtual memory by doing this. Windows does it to accomodate applications that are poorly written, poorly optimised, unable to adapt to more or less RAM, allocating gigabytes just for fun, or flawed in any other way in how they manage memory. The size of PF doesn't indicate how much data is actually written to it - it may be very little. People who wrote Windows know what spinning rust is, they understand it's best to avoid sending gigabytes to it just for fun.

Everything OK so far. But if the PF _does _suffer a lot of writing then there's something more wrong. Really poorly made applications or games. Or, well, an actual lack of RAM, but that isn't trivial to determine for certain. I'd start worrying if my PC wrote more to the PF, per day, than the amount of RAM it has (16 GB). Also if it spent more than about a minute per day writing to and reading from the PF.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Nov 12, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> View attachment 269539
> 
> @ShrimpBrime Note that Hard Faults are accesses to page file (you probably knew, bot not everyone does). Yes, I have a lot of things open for my 16GB, but let's close some things:
> View attachment 269544
> ...


Yessir. 

To allocate drive space is one thing. To actually utilize the space is another.

I don't have my main rig setup set up at this time. But none of this shows the actual page file in use.

Do the following steps to inspect page file usage in Performance Monitor:


Via the Windows start menu, open Administrative Tools, and then open Performance Monitor.
Expand Monitoring Tools.
Click Performance Monitor.
Right-click on the graph and select Add Counters... from the context menu.
Result:The Add Counters dialog is opened.
From the Available counters list, select _Paging File_.
Click on the down-arrow icon to the right of _Paging File_.
Select % Usage under _Paging File_ and then click the Add button to add the counter on the Added counters list.
Click OK to close the Add Counters dialog
Then open a whole lot of you tube tabs and programs, games. 
Fill the system memory. 
A faster way is to pull memory sticks and do the above.

Once you've gotten all the system memory used up page file should start being used once that happens. 

to everyone else just reading.

I AM NOT SAYING THAT YOU SHOULD DISABLE PAGE FILE.
Just to make that clear, now I've said it 3 times....


----------



## OkieDan (Nov 24, 2022)

Snotspat said:


> Because it can cause instability or crashing.
> 
> If it hasn't done that for you, then its because Windows haven't required it, in which case you also gained nothing by disabling it.


In the past I've disabled swap file, understanding the potential consequences, because it was really annoying waiting for Windows to move data out of swap from HDD back into RAM and deletingfrom swap just to close an application I started a long time ago. Windows will (or did in past) throw stuff in swap file even if you weren't anywhere close to running out of free memory. Windows probably still does this, but it's not a bother to me for the past decade after moving to SSD.


----------

