Ideal Page File Size

gurusan

gurusan

gurusan

Soldato
Joined
2 Sep 2006
Posts
13,483
Location
Forest Grove, OR, 'Merica
What's the ideal page file size if I have 2gb of memory on XP x64? How about on 64 bit Vista?

Currently it's just set to the same as my memory (2048mb)
Thanks
 
this is probably the most controversial question to ask in IT !

it used to be twice your ram, then keep it fixed, etc etc

current thinking in many circles is if you have 2Gb of ram just let windows do it automatically.

it NEVER makes a difference in my experience changing the page file size. :(
 
windows managed is what i go for, unless its a really low ram pc -say a 128 mb pc, i set it to 384 - 512
 
I just use a static pagefile (same size as amount of ram installed) on another HDD on a different controller, and a very small (static) pagefile on C:\, for XP 50MB and Vista 200MB. :)
 
jbloggs said:
I just use a static pagefile (same size as amount of ram installed) on another HDD on a different controller, and a very small (static) pagefile on C:\, for XP 50MB and Vista 200MB. :)
Click to expand...

Just curious, but why the small pagefile on C: ?
 
sidefxv1 said:
Just curious, but why the small pagefile on C: ?
Click to expand...
Apparently it is required if wish the error reporting to make a kernel or full dump, also remember reading that if you have your pagefile on another HDD without a small one on C:\, it could possibly lead to problems.

Not too sure on the validity of the 2nd reason, I think, it really comes back as to what works for you personally.

Have to admit I have read so many different "theories" on it, I found something that works for me, so I stick with it. :)
 
Ah fair enough. Must admit I always just go for 1.5x RAM static pagefile on my second HDD, and have for a long time. Never really had any problems. :) IMO If you have sufficient RAM, it's not going to make much difference to performance anyway.
 
In vista, i just leave it on auto, as changing it makes little or no odds to anythink i can notice. I tend to be more worried if i run out of coffee, and was the last cup at the right temp ! :eek:
 
Although its not a big thing its best to place the page file on another disk as this improves the error reporting capabilities as stated above and performance by spreading the work load to 2 disks instead of one.

Its also better to use a static page file size as this cuts down thrashing as the page files doesn't constant grow and shrink.

Not really a big issue though.
 
With the size of HDDs now, what's the point of limiting pagefile size? If you need to page stuff out of the ram then let Widnows do it.

Burnsy
 
wellibob said:
In vista, i just leave it on auto, as changing it makes little or no odds to anythink i can notice. I tend to be more worried if i run out of coffee, and was the last cup at the right temp ! :eek:
Click to expand...
This will cause fragmentation of the page file. To avoid fragmentation, have a static size.
 
Jamie Edwards said:
This will cause fragmentation of the page file. To avoid fragmentation, have a static size.
Click to expand...

A stiatic pagefile will also have fragmentation. You could defrag the pagefile, and keep performance at it's optimal, rather than the size.

Burnsy
 
Jamie Edwards said:
It wont fragment anywhere near as much as a dynamic paging file
Click to expand...

The loss in performance is low at best, like I said, defrag the pagefile ever few days and the fact it's dynamic won't hurt performance.

I've just looked at my pagefile, it's never been defragged and only has a 1328 fragments out of 400k clusters. There's really not much point in having a static pagefile.

Burnsy
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom