PDA

View Full Version : Swap file settings using Win-xp pro?


Paul
June 25th 03, 11:37 AM
Is the need for a user managed swap file obsolete with WinXP-Pro?
I run games alot on my system:
1.4 athlon
512 ddr ram
Geforce 3 64 m.

What is the general consensus for setting a swap-file with the above?

Danke.

Alceryes
June 26th 03, 01:18 PM
"Paul" > wrote in message
le.rogers.com...
> Is the need for a user managed swap file obsolete with WinXP-Pro?
> I run games alot on my system:
> 1.4 athlon
> 512 ddr ram
> Geforce 3 64 m.
>
> What is the general consensus for setting a swap-file with the above?
>
> Danke.
>
>

There is no 'best' answer since it depends on what you do with your system.
With that amount of RAM you might want to set a static page file of 768MB
and give it a go. This is a little higher then many would say but the last
thing you want to do is run out of virtual memory.
A few tips: Setting a static page file (same amount min and max) means that
windows won't have to resize the page file before writing to it (might save
a little time). It also helps keep your system defragmented.

Make sure you don't set a page file size that comes close to filling up your
HD.

If you have 2 HD's on your system (both of comparable speed) move your page
file to the 2nd HD. *Note - you will only benefit from this if the 2nd HD is
on a separate IDE chain than the 1st (to all you nay-sayers please go to
www.pcguide.com and read the section on HD's and IDE transfer before
retorting).
--


"I don't cheat to survive. I cheat to LIVE!!"
- Alceryes

(check out my modded/OC'd system at http://mywebpages.comcast.net/alceryes)

Frode
June 26th 03, 01:47 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Alceryes wrote:
> If you have 2 HD's on your system (both of comparable speed) move your
> page file to the 2nd HD. *Note - you will only benefit from this if the
> 2nd HD is on a separate IDE chain than the 1st (to all you nay-sayers
> please go to www.pcguide.com and read the section on HD's and IDE
> transfer before retorting).

You trust a site tells you that a "fixed swap file size of about 50 MB is
good for most uses"? Nor does it actually tell you to put it on a separate
channel. I quote: "Use A Second Hard Disk: One common optimization trick is
to put the swap file on a second hard disk, or a hard disk that is
different from the one that you boot or that contains most of your programs
and files. The idea here is that the slowest part of hard disk access is
moving the heads (seek time). If you put the swap file on a separate disk,
the heads don't have to move back and forth between where the data files
are and where the swap file is on the same disk. " That's the entire
paragraph. It doesn't even mention separate channels on the entire page.

Either way your claim is logically flawed. If HD1 is busy seeking out
heavily fragmented files at the same time Windows decides to access the
swapfile, it'll still give a performance increase on the same IDE channel
since the bottleneck would not be the IDE bandwidth but the seektime of HD1
and it having to contend with accessing multiple files in addition the the
swapfile. Seeking around like crazy on HD1 while performing swapfile access
on HD2 would help.

Don't trust sites on the web blindly over your own judgement.


- --
Frode

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2

iQA/AwUBPvrrVuXlGBWTt1afEQJiqwCeOV+qzBlIC2GXa5S1SmnxYF FKI0UAoKMT
VDRis2/Q1l+yh3W8S6SHPTiX
=14ky
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Frode
June 26th 03, 07:23 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

The Laughing Gnome wrote:
> I don't let it handle it for me. WinXP uses the stupid formula of 1.5x
> system ram. I have 1gb of ram so XP likes to set a 1.5gb pagefile.
> Uh, tell me why I would need a 1.5gb pagefile with 1gb of ram and only
> a 768mb pagefile with 512mb of ram. Let's use some common sense here.
> The more real ram I have the less virtual memory I need. With 1gb of
> ram I set my pagefile to 400mb min/max and I probably don't even need
> that.


You've misunderstood how XP "thinks". It doesn't go "hmm, oops running low
on RAM, better move some stuff that's been laying unused for a while into
the swapfile to free up for that program I was just told to start". It goes
"Ooo, some stuff that hasn't been used for a long time, who cares if I have
600MB free RAM I'll move this to swap anyways just in case". It's a stupid
scheme, one MS has been using since day one, but there you have it.


- --
Frode

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2

iQA/AwUBPvs6GuXlGBWTt1afEQKoqQCg0fyyOfLmhOvcAstbsatKc+ l//XsAoMpt
Da3JlnJi4js1FFYHvydfvVOB
=BU/u
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

tq96
June 26th 03, 07:27 PM
> I don't let it handle it for me. WinXP uses the stupid formula of 1.5x
> system ram. I have 1gb of ram so XP likes to set a 1.5gb pagefile.
> Uh, tell me why I would need a 1.5gb pagefile with 1gb of ram and only
> a 768mb pagefile with 512mb of ram. Let's use some common sense here.

Because the more RAM you have, the more you are likely to try and use.
Someone with 512MB will see a severe slow down when using memory hungry
program a lot sooner than someone with 1GB of RAM.

Shepİ
June 26th 03, 08:46 PM
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:33:46 -0700, Whilst playing Smegball with the
scutters The Laughing Gnome > wrote :

>On 26 Jun 2003 13:27:19 -0500, tq96 > wrote:
>
>
>>Because the more RAM you have, the more you are likely to try and use.
>>Someone with 512MB will see a severe slow down when using memory hungry
>>program a lot sooner than someone with 1GB of RAM.
>
>Maybe so, but I still don't need a 1.5gb pagefile. In Win98SE I use
>200mb swap file and everything runs hunky dory. 400mb in XP hunky dory
>too. I don't let the OS handle it and I don't think that is the best
>option, as the other person said. Fixed is best so it isn't
>dynamically resizing all the time.

I agree but this can be made by setting a correct minimum.No need for
a maximum :O)



--
Free Windows/PC help,
http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html
Free songs download,
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/17/sheppard.html

Alceryes
June 26th 03, 11:23 PM
> Either way your claim is logically flawed. If HD1 is busy seeking out
> heavily fragmented files at the same time Windows decides to access the
> swapfile, it'll still give a performance increase on the same IDE channel
> since the bottleneck would not be the IDE bandwidth but the seektime of
HD1
> and it having to contend with accessing multiple files in addition the the
> swapfile. Seeking around like crazy on HD1 while performing swapfile
access
> on HD2 would help.
>
> Don't trust sites on the web blindly over your own judgement


;-p Again, please do some reading before posting...

Please read 'Master/Slave Channel' sharing here
http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/if/ide/conf_Performance.htm.
Pasted from text at above link...

"Master/Slave Channel Sharing: By its very nature, each IDE/ATA channel can
only deal with one request, to one device, at a time. You cannot even begin
a second request, even to a different drive, until the first request is
completed. This means that if you put two devices on the same channel, they
must share it. In practical terms, this means that any time one device is in
use, the other must remain silent. In contrast, two disks on two different
IDE/ATA channels can process requests simultaneously on most motherboards.
The bottom line is that the best way to configure multiple devices is to
make each of them a single drive on its own channel, if this is possible. "

....and yes, I do know that this site is outdated but it still contains a
wealth of information for specifications that have not changed over the past
10 years (i.e. IDE/ATA specs). If you do not trust this site then look
around I'm sure you can find the same info at numerous other sites. Remember
the IDE/ATA specification is as old as dirt in computer terms!!
--


"I don't cheat to survive. I cheat to LIVE!!"
- Alceryes

(check out my modded/OC'd system at http://mywebpages.comcast.net/alceryes)





"Frode" > wrote in message
...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Alceryes wrote:
> > If you have 2 HD's on your system (both of comparable speed) move your
> > page file to the 2nd HD. *Note - you will only benefit from this if the
> > 2nd HD is on a separate IDE chain than the 1st (to all you nay-sayers
> > please go to www.pcguide.com and read the section on HD's and IDE
> > transfer before retorting).
>
> You trust a site tells you that a "fixed swap file size of about 50 MB is
> good for most uses"? Nor does it actually tell you to put it on a separate
> channel. I quote: "Use A Second Hard Disk: One common optimization trick
is
> to put the swap file on a second hard disk, or a hard disk that is
> different from the one that you boot or that contains most of your
programs
> and files. The idea here is that the slowest part of hard disk access is
> moving the heads (seek time). If you put the swap file on a separate disk,
> the heads don't have to move back and forth between where the data files
> are and where the swap file is on the same disk. " That's the entire
> paragraph. It doesn't even mention separate channels on the entire page.
>
> Either way your claim is logically flawed. If HD1 is busy seeking out
> heavily fragmented files at the same time Windows decides to access the
> swapfile, it'll still give a performance increase on the same IDE channel
> since the bottleneck would not be the IDE bandwidth but the seektime of
HD1
> and it having to contend with accessing multiple files in addition the the
> swapfile. Seeking around like crazy on HD1 while performing swapfile
access
> on HD2 would help.
>
> Don't trust sites on the web blindly over your own judgement.
>
>
> - --
> Frode
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGP 8.0.2
>
> iQA/AwUBPvrrVuXlGBWTt1afEQJiqwCeOV+qzBlIC2GXa5S1SmnxYF FKI0UAoKMT
> VDRis2/Q1l+yh3W8S6SHPTiX
> =14ky
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>