Page file size?

[trog100]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

trog

 

[Damocles]

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

 

[Bill_Bright]

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

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

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

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

It always amazes me when I see people assume modern versions of Windows and now W10 should be treated the same as XP - a 15 year old operating system - with no proof or any supporting evidence what they do is better. As above, the typical argument for disabling the PF is because they can do it "without dire circumstances". Or because we always did it that way. Or I disabled it, didn't notice any difference so I left it disabled.

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

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

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

The Bottom Line: Should You Disable It?

The vast majority of users should never disable the pagefile or mess with the pagefile settings—just let Windows deal with the pagefile and use the available RAM for file caching, processes, and Superfetch.

Myth: Disabling the Page File Improves Performance,

Some people will tell you that you should disable the page file to speed up your computer. The thinking goes like this: the page file is slower than RAM, and if you have enough RAM, Windows will use the page file when it should be using RAM, slowing down your computer.

This isn’t really true. People have tested this theory and found that, while Windows can run without a page file if you have a large amount of RAM, there’s no performance benefit to disabling the page file.

However, disabling the page file can result in some bad things.

In summary, there’s no good reason to disable the page file – you’ll get some hard drive space back, but the potential system instability won’t be worth it.

And to kick a dead horse, from Computer Hope,

Question: Is it a good idea to change my Microsoft Windows page file size?

Answer: No.

Question: I have plenty of RAM, should I disable the page file?

Answer: No.

Edit comment: fixed a couple typos.

 

[exodusprime1337]

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

 

[dont whant to set it"']

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

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

 

[Bill_Bright]

Disabled is best if you know what your doing,

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

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

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

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

 

[basco]

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

 

[Aquinus]

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

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

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

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

 

[dont whant to set it"']

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

 

[R-T-B]

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

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

 

[Bill_Bright]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most modern SSDs come with a ridicules level of endurance.

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

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

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

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

 

[dont whant to set it"']

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

 

[FordGT90Concept]

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

 

[Recon-UK]

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

 

[Aquinus]

You can tell if low on physical memory by using TM without turning the PF off - and more safely too because when you run out of physical memory, the system halts.
You are missing the point completely. The fact a system still works with the PF disabled is not a valid reason to disable it. That's the point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[NdMk2o1o]

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

 

[Bill_Bright]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[trog100]

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

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

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

trog

 

[Aquinus]

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

 

[Bill_Bright]

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

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

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

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

 

[Recon-UK]

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

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

 

[R-T-B]

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

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

 

[Recon-UK]

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

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

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

 

[NdMk2o1o]

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

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

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

trog

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

 

[hat]

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

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