Jump to content
RESET Forums (homeservershow.com)

To pagefile or not w/SSD


CablDeViL
 Share

Recommended Posts

Question - currently i have my swapfile set to 7Gb on my 100 SSD drive. Windows 7 recommends 9gb. I have 6 gig of memory and a raid of 2 tera for storage. Should I :

 

Kill the pagefile all together?

Just keep it the way I have it?

Move the pagefile to the Raid drive?

And If I move the page file or del the pagefile from my Vortex LE what should I do to clean up the dirty nadz - I did read in CPU mag that CCleaner works well to do that instead of some other tools out there.

 

 

Thank you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 28
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • dvn

    5

  • CablDeViL

    5

  • pcdoc

    8

  • mrossco

    4

Top Posters In This Topic

If your concern is Writes to the SSD, locate your fixed page file on the RAID. If you're concerned about performance, the same. For me, I've never seen a performance increase when I moved the page file, but that's likely due to the fact that I generally don't use applications that heavily rely upon it.

 

MS Article - This is a 2007 article covering page files. In it, you'll find info about using more than one page file at a time. I've done that, too. It's likely that had I benchmarked my system using that config, I'd have seen a difference.

 

So frankly, unless you're concerned about writes to the SSD, or reclaiming disk space on a 100 GB SSD, I'd just go with a fixed size of the recommended 1.5x's the amount of RAM. That's to be safe.

 

If you do move or delete it, it's gone. There are no remnants for CCleaner to clean up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My two cents is that you give a try without any swapfile and see what happens. The 1.5x RAM formula from MS does not quite make sense to me unless you are memory deprived which you are not. I have been running without for months on 6 gig and a 12 gig systems with no issues and overall better response. If for some reason you have an issue, then just increase it by 2gig increments until you are happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Dvn and PCD - I will try to del the swap file on the SSD and the second swap I have on the raid and see how the benchmarks look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 1.5x RAM formula from MS does not quite make sense to me unless you are memory deprived which you are not.

That was exactly my thought until I checked my page file size which was 4.1 GB. I have 4 GB of RAM installed in my system. So, I'm not sure what to make of that. I know that I can disable the page file and I probably won't have a problem. But it seems like Windows says if there's a page file, let's use it. In fact, let's use lots of it.

 

I do know that they used to say that setting a fixed page file size eliminates fragmentation in the page file, and that in itself increases performance. Not sure if that still applies in W7.

 

Thanks Dvn and PCD - I will try to del the swap file on the SSD and the second swap I have on the raid and see how the benchmarks look.

 

What benchmarks are you going to run?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Photoshop cs3 (stress the mem), Premiere pro cs3 and ripbot264 again i am trying to test the memory as full as possible without a swap. I will run it tonight and let you know if I see a difference - I think ripbox with a BD disk will be the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if I'm late to the party, but I would say, in Windows 7, to go ahead and set your pagefile to your SSD and use the "System Managed size" value. On Windows 7/2008 R2, the algorithm to manage this is far better than it used to be. Pagefile usage typically consists of few numbers of sequential writes (when program memory is flushed to the pagefile) and a large number of random reads (perfect for an SSD). Even when the system managed option is selected, you'll notice that the pagefile is often maintained at a size that is smaller than the "recomended" size.

 

What you will not want to do is store your pagefile on RAID volumes unless they are RAID 1/0/10. RAID types that use partity (e.g. RAID 3/5/6/50/60/...) should not house your pagefile. This is because pagefile writes are time-sensitive, and the overhead associated with parity writes could actually make your system slower. In a server setting, your pagefile can be housed on a single JBOD disk volume.

 

As far as my two cents on disabling it all-together, I would only recommend it for systems that are dedicated to a single task such as a dedicated app server, media center box, etc. That way, you can test w/ vs. w/o a pagefile. For your standard desktop system in which you will use the PC differently from day to day, I would be more cautious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mrossco,

 

Based on your statement, have you tried it and had problems? If so, can you describe the issue, how much RAM, etc. I routinely run 6-10 apps without issue or without pushing the limits of my RAM so I would be interested in your experiences.

 

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on your statement, have you tried it and had problems?

 

Very much so with servers, especially those running SQL Server. On the desktop, not so much. I did try it on Windows XP after seeing that my pagefile was severely fragmented. What I saw was that my PC did not run any faster. Instead, as application usage increased, and my memory consumption jumped to between 60% and 80%, I noticed that launching new applications started to take longer. I didn't even have to reach 90% before some apps stopped working or threw some kind of memory error. The worst offender was MusicMatch Jukebox, which simply locked-up and stopped working all-together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...