Swapfile HELP

Hi ya'll............... can someone help me with setting up my Swapfile....... i've heard all kinds of ways to do it....... any advice would be helpful.... i currently have 192megs of memory...... THANKS!!!!!!!

Your swap file should be exactly 420 MB with 192 MB of RAM. The equation is: 2.5 x RAM Hope it helps. Cheers, Schumi "Lou S." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Zz7X6.55077$[email hidden]... > Hi ya'll............... can someone help me with setting up my > Swapfile....... i've heard all kinds of ways to do it....... any advice > would be helpful.... i currently have 192megs of memory......THANKS!!!!!!! > >

Your swap file should be exactly 420 MB with 192 MB of RAM. The equation is: 2.5 x RAM Hope it helps. Cheers, Schumi

It's probably best to let Windows Manage it on it's own. It's quite good at it. It will grow, it will even grow quite large if you have a program with a memory leak. In that case you may want to try the static method. "Jason "Schumi" Murray" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Your swap file should be exactly 420 MB with 192 MB of RAM. > > The equation is: > > 2.5 x RAM I can't seem to fine a MS knowledge base article listing this equation. Where's the source?

On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 13:25:45 -0700, "Jason \"Schumi\" Murray" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>Your swap file should be exactly 420 MB with 192 MB of RAM. > >The equation is: > >2.5 x RAM > >Hope it helps. >

So if I have 512mb of ram than I should set my swap file to 1.28gb? This is the same logic that says you should set your agp aperature to 1/2 your system ram. Both are logically wrong if you really analyze why. I'll let you figure out why.

Hi Go to: http://www.speedguide.net/Windows/win_perform.shtml If you let Windows manage your Virtual memory settings, the System often resizes the swap file ( the simulated memory on your hard disk ), and can use up to the entire free space on your Hard disk for caching............. more... Link to this and other sites you need is on my site: Todays Legends http://www.bonghead.org/racing/gplstart/index.html Stefan Zscharnack

Ermmm..... "It's probably best to let Windows Manage it on it's own. It's quite good at it." That is a bit false. Windows has BRUTAL memory management. In fact, the last thing you want happening, is Windows dynamically resizing your VM... particularly during a race, etc. That causes CPU cycles, and HD activity, etc. The "optimum" configuration is as follows: Make a partition on your HD. Make it roughly 10 MB larger than your "2.5 X RAM" in size. Format that Partition (preferably using FAT32 FS using the smallest cluster size possible). Then... assign your virtual memory to that partition. Make sure you set the minimum/maximum size to exactly the same number (2.5 x RAM). Reboot... and enjoy. This is what you have just accomplished: 1) Seperating your Virtual Memory to its own 'dedicated location'. 2) By virtue of (1), and by preseting minimum/maximum size to equal numbers, you ensure that no "fragmentation" will occur... which is VERY important for read/write times, and thus the importance is escalated by virtue of the "read/write frequency of VM). 3) Preset the size of the VM, and allow windows to fill it up as needed, without any requirements for CPU cycles needed in resizing/"recalculating" the filesize. Its just a "physical memory dumping ground, but accessible for later) 4) Ensured that in the "99% likely case of a memory leaks" windows has enough VM to dump the "rogue memory allocations" to VM, thus freeing up your physical memory for more "real-time needs", which is what VM is optimumly designed for in the first place (as well as just providing you with more should you max out the physical memory). I can guarantee that there are memory leaks on your window's system. This gurantee is also exponentially ensured if you are running any "multi-threaded" applications. MS have a documented bug in all Windows OSs, that "opening multiple threads will cause a potential for memory leaks". In fact, we are fighting with the bug as we speak, and their suggested remedy is ironically a solution that is also documented to cause memory leaks (running in circles, chasing bugs with bugs is a VERY frustrating thing... let me tell ya...). The bug however, is remedied by "minimizing" the application, which then seems to "flush the rogue memory buffers". Anyways... end of the day... I have been doing this practise for years, and never get an "out of memory" error. Also, my HD activity is very minimal, which makes my games/system run smoother and faster as a whole. Some may have other suggestions, but that is mine :) Cheers, Schumi "+G�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:eu9X6.250192$[email hidden]... > It's probably best to let Windows Manage it on it's own. It's quite goodat > it. It will grow, it will even grow quite large if you have a programwith

Quoted text (14 lines)

> a memory leak. In that case you may want to try the static method. > > "Jason "Schumi" Murray" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Your swap file should be exactly 420 MB with 192 MB of RAM. > > > > The equation is: > > > > 2.5 x RAM > > I can't seem to fine a MS knowledge base article listing this equation. > Where's the source? > >

Ermmm..... "It's probably best to let Windows Manage it on it's own. It's quite good at it." That is a bit false. Windows has BRUTAL memory management. In fact, the last thing you want happening, is Windows dynamically resizing your VM... particularly during a race, etc. That causes CPU cycles, and HD activity, etc. The "optimum" configuration is as follows: Make a partition on your HD. Make it roughly 10 MB larger than your "2.5 X RAM" in size. Format that Partition (preferably using FAT32 FS using the smallest cluster size possible). Then... assign your virtual memory to that partition. Make sure you set the minimum/maximum size to exactly the same number (2.5 x RAM). Reboot... and enjoy. This is what you have just accomplished: 1) Seperating your Virtual Memory to its own 'dedicated location'. 2) By virtue of (1), and by preseting minimum/maximum size to equal numbers, you ensure that no "fragmentation" will occur... which is VERY important for read/write times, and thus the importance is escalated by virtue of the "read/write frequency of VM). 3) Preset the size of the VM, and allow windows to fill it up as needed, without any requirements for CPU cycles needed in resizing/"recalculating" the filesize. Its just a "physical memory dumping ground, but accessible for later) 4) Ensured that in the "99% likely case of a memory leaks" windows has enough VM to dump the "rogue memory allocations" to VM, thus freeing up your physical memory for more "real-time needs", which is what VM is optimumly designed for in the first place (as well as just providing you with more should you max out the physical memory). I can guarantee that there are memory leaks on your window's system. This gurantee is also exponentially ensured if you are running any "multi-threaded" applications. MS have a documented bug in all Windows OSs, that "opening multiple threads will cause a potential for memory leaks". In fact, we are fighting with the bug as we speak, and their suggested remedy is ironically a solution that is also documented to cause memory leaks (running in circles, chasing bugs with bugs is a VERY frustrating thing... let me tell ya...). The bug however, is remedied by "minimizing" the application, which then seems to "flush the rogue memory buffers". Anyways... end of the day... I have been doing this practise for years, and never get an "out of memory" error. Also, my HD activity is very minimal, which makes my games/system run smoother and faster as a whole. Some may have other suggestions, but that is mine :) Cheers, Schumi > It's probably best to let Windows Manage it on it's own. It's quite good at > it. It will grow, it will even grow quite large if you have a program with

Quoted text (13 lines)

> a memory leak. In that case you may want to try the static method. > > Your swap file should be exactly 420 MB with 192 MB of RAM. > > The equation is: > > 2.5 x RAM > I can't seem to fine a MS knowledge base article listing this equation. > Where's the source?

In article <[email hidden]>, Scalawag <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (19 lines)

> >On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 13:25:45 -0700, "Jason \"Schumi\" Murray" ><[email hidden]> wrote: > >>Your swap file should be exactly 420 MB with 192 MB of RAM. >> >>The equation is: >> >>2.5 x RAM >> >>Hope it helps. >> > >So if I have 512mb of ram than I should set my swap file to 1.28gb? >This is the same logic that says you should set your agp aperature to >1/2 your system ram. Both are logically wrong if you really analyze >why. I'll let you figure out why. > >

Can you help out those of us who don't have any IDEA about this...? Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +16.36...Monster +366.59... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

On 18 Jun 2001 10:24:40 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>>So if I have 512mb of ram than I should set my swap file to 1.28gb? >>This is the same logic that says you should set your agp aperature to >>1/2 your system ram. Both are logically wrong if you really analyze >>why. I'll let you figure out why. >> >> > >Can you help out those of us who don't have any IDEA about this...? > >Eldred

Because the more ram you have then the less swap file will be used. The more video ram you have the less the AGP aperature needed. See how using 2.5x your system ram for the swap file is illogical now? It all depends on the game/program anyway, you just need to find a safe number that your most ram hungry game will run in. That's why I now let windows manage it, so long as I have plenty of free space on C: I don't have to be concerened with if my swap file is large enough for game X. I've ran my system with a dynamic swap file and a permanent fixed size and I don't see any benefit to having a permanent one. I know the theory why it is better, but having 256mb of ram I just don't see a difference. Anyway, if you only had 32mb of ram and you set the swap file to 2.5x then you would have a swap file of only 80mb. That is no where near enough for many of todays games. B17-2 requires about 600mb, they are saying the same for WWII Online also. So the more ram you have then the smaller the swap file you need. Saying 2.5x your system ram is just a myth that many people think is correct when in fact it is illogical. Spock out.

If windows set the swapfile, the swapfile is resizing all the time, in small parts all ower the disk, that take a loong time. If you defrag and set the swap file to min & max same number of ram, then swapfile stays on the same free spot and no need for resizing...If you have mutch ram no need for 2 1/2 x ram size in swap file. I am no professor, but I have read a lot .....hope this help,( the amont of missspelling is lower in my own language) :) Stefan Zscharnack

In article <[email hidden]>, Scalawag <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (18 lines)

>Because the more ram you have then the less swap file will be used. >The more video ram you have the less the AGP aperature needed. See how >using 2.5x your system ram for the swap file is illogical now? It all >depends on the game/program anyway, you just need to find a safe >number that your most ram hungry game will run in. That's why I now >let windows manage it, so long as I have plenty of free space on C: I >don't have to be concerened with if my swap file is large enough for >game X. I've ran my system with a dynamic swap file and a permanent >fixed size and I don't see any benefit to having a permanent one. I >know the theory why it is better, but having 256mb of ram I just don't >see a difference. Anyway, if you only had 32mb of ram and you set the >swap file to 2.5x then you would have a swap file of only 80mb. That >is no where near enough for many of todays games. B17-2 requires about >600mb, they are saying the same for WWII Online also. So the more ram >you have then the smaller the swap file you need. Saying 2.5x your >system ram is just a myth that many people think is correct when in >fact it is illogical. Spock out. >

So how do you know what size swap files your games need? Trial and error? I don't remember ever seeing that in any manuals... Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +16.36...Monster +366.59... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

"Because the more ram you have then the less swap file will be used." Without attempting to get into a debate/argument over this, this above statement is very false. Virtual Memory is 'generally' most used in 2 occurrences. One is obvious, the other not so much, and is the reason the above statement is false. Virtual Memory useage: 1) When you run out of Physical Memory (hence the term "swapping" from back in the day when RAM was maxxing out at 32MB, etc. on Mobos) 2) Dumping of unused but unexpired Memory Buffers (Dynamically allocated by Windows). #2 is the big one, and why 2.5x RAM is a generally well accepted formula. Those of you running windows2000, open up Task Manager. Then make sure you have 2 columns (generally not shown by default), and 3 in total. 1) Mem Useage 2) VM Size 3) Mem Delta Watch those 3 side-by-side. Keep it on top... now start doing some things. Watch as the Memory Delta spikes, and is then usually sent to "Mem Usage". Mem Usage is your Physical Memory. Then watch some more, you'll start to see Mem Usage go up, and then drop down again, and VM Size will slowly creep up as you do certain things. You have not run out of physical memory, but rather, Windows is dynamically allocating those 'currently unused' memory buffers to VM. The reason that 2.5 comes into play, is that Windows will do such to certain point, but is careful not to allocate too much, because there will come a time perhaps that the 'stored memory buffers' may be called upon later... which is best run from physical memory... so it will bring it back to physicaly memory, and run it from there (better performance... read once from disk, and run from physical memory after that.... until it is deemed an 'old memory buffer' by windows. You basically can allocate 2X your RAM without too much problem, but the extra 0.5 is actually a "safety buffer" to allow a little bit more flexibility. You can actually see Layman's Settings inside win2k that will actually help you manage your VM better. Anyone seen the "optimize performance for: foreground|background|even" setting? That is directly setting the "dynamic VM allocation" and telling Windows under what conditions you plan to run your applications. Meaning, if you run a lot of progs from the taskbar, or minimized (a server is a good example of this)... you want to optimize your performance for "background applications". This ensures that Windows will still keep a healthy amount of Physical RAM available in Physical Memory for those applications that are minimized/background. Otherwise, by virtue of Window's design, you would be swapping from your VM everytime something called on those apps from outside (ala servers), and that would reduceperformance quite drastically, and cause unnecessary HDD usage overall. BUT... if you use that box just for gaming, and want to free up as much memory as possible for the app that is in the foreground (ala games), then you do the opposite... since you want as much ram as possible while playing to be dedicated to the game (so you aren't swapping as much). ALSO... if you are doing things like Office Duties, and are one of those people like my wife who can have as many as 20 apps open at the same time... you are best to set the optimization for "even". This will treat all as equal, and dump to VM regardless of application status, or current window activity... thus giving more freedom for another app you might open. Anyways... moral of the story (sorry for being so long winded) is: Virtual Memory is not JUST for when you run out of Physical Memory... it is used all the time, and Windows will dump/allocate to that pagefile at will/requirement. When it dumps, is an OS kernel decision... but it will dump (it'll dump during boot even... when you theoretically have the most free RAM available) Anyways, that's my 2 cents... Cheers, Schumi "Scalawag" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (32 lines)

> On 18 Jun 2001 10:24:40 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: > > > >>So if I have 512mb of ram than I should set my swap file to 1.28gb? > >>This is the same logic that says you should set your agp aperature to > >>1/2 your system ram. Both are logically wrong if you really analyze > >>why. I'll let you figure out why. > >> > >> > > > >Can you help out those of us who don't have any IDEA about this...? > > > >Eldred > > Because the more ram you have then the less swap file will be used. > The more video ram you have the less the AGP aperature needed. See how > using 2.5x your system ram for the swap file is illogical now? It all > depends on the game/program anyway, you just need to find a safe > number that your most ram hungry game will run in. That's why I now > let windows manage it, so long as I have plenty of free space on C: I > don't have to be concerened with if my swap file is large enough for > game X. I've ran my system with a dynamic swap file and a permanent > fixed size and I don't see any benefit to having a permanent one. I > know the theory why it is better, but having 256mb of ram I just don't > see a difference. Anyway, if you only had 32mb of ram and you set the > swap file to 2.5x then you would have a swap file of only 80mb. That > is no where near enough for many of todays games. B17-2 requires about > 600mb, they are saying the same for WWII Online also. So the more ram > you have then the smaller the swap file you need. Saying 2.5x your > system ram is just a myth that many people think is correct when in > fact it is illogical. Spock out. >

"Because the more ram you have then the less swap file will be used." Without attempting to get into a debate/argument over this, this above statement is very false. Virtual Memory is 'generally' most used in 2 occurrences. One is obvious, the other not so much, and is the reason the above statement is false. Virtual Memory useage: 1) When you run out of Physical Memory (hence the term "swapping" from back in the day when RAM was maxxing out at 32MB, etc. on Mobos) 2) Dumping of unused but unexpired Memory Buffers (Dynamically allocated by Windows). #2 is the big one, and why 2.5x RAM is a generally well accepted formula. Those of you running windows2000, open up Task Manager. Then make sure you have 2 columns (generally not shown by default), and 3 in total. 1) Mem Useage 2) VM Size 3) Mem Delta Watch those 3 side-by-side. Keep it on top... now start doing some things. Watch as the Memory Delta spikes, and is then usually sent to "Mem Usage". Mem Usage is your Physical Memory. Then watch some more, you'll start to see Mem Usage go up, and then drop down again, and VM Size will slowly creep up as you do certain things. You have not run out of physical memory, but rather, Windows is dynamically allocating those 'currently unused' memory buffers to VM. The reason that 2.5 comes into play, is that Windows will do such to certain point, but is careful not to allocate too much, because there will come a time perhaps that the 'stored memory buffers' may be called upon later... which is best run from physical memory... so it will bring it back to physicaly memory, and run it from there (better performance... read once from disk, and run from physical memory after that.... until it is deemed an 'old memory buffer' by windows. You basically can allocate 2X your RAM without too much problem, but the extra 0.5 is actually a "safety buffer" to allow a little bit more flexibility. You can actually see Layman's Settings inside win2k that will actually help you manage your VM better. Anyone seen the "optimize performance for: foreground|background|even" setting? That is directly setting the "dynamic VM allocation" and telling Windows under what conditions you plan to run your applications. Meaning, if you run a lot of progs from the taskbar, or minimized (a server is a good example of this)... you want to optimize your performance for "background applications". This ensures that Windows will still keep a healthy amount of Physical RAM available in Physical Memory for those applications that are minimized/background. Otherwise, by virtue of Window's design, you would be swapping from your VM everytime something called on those apps from outside (ala servers), and that would reduceperformance quite drastically, and cause unnecessary HDD usage overall. BUT... if you use that box just for ***, and want to free up as much memory as possible for the app that is in the foreground (ala games), then you do the opposite... since you want as much ram as possible while playing to be dedicated to the game (so you aren't swapping as much). ALSO... if you are doing things like Office Duties, and are one of those people like my wife who can have as many as 20 apps open at the same time... you are best to set the optimization for "even". This will treat all as equal, and dump to VM regardless of application status, or current window activity... thus giving more freedom for another app you might open. Anyways... m***of the story (sorry for being so long winded) is: Virtual Memory is not JUST for when you run out of Physical Memory... it is used all the time, and Windows will dump/allocate to that pagefile at will/requirement. When it dumps, is an OS kernel decision... but it will dump (it'll dump during boot even... when you theoretically have the most free RAM available) Anyways, that's my 2 cents... Cheers, Schumi

Quoted text (26 lines)

> >>So if I have 512mb of ram than I should set my swap file to 1.28gb? > >>This is the same logic that says you should set your agp aperature to > >>1/2 your system ram. Both are logically wrong if you really analyze > >>why. I'll let you figure out why. > >Can you help out those of us who don't have any IDEA about this...? > >Eldred > Because the more ram you have then the less swap file will be used. > The more video ram you have the less the AGP aperature needed. See how > using 2.5x your system ram for the swap file is illogical now? It all > depends on the game/program anyway, you just need to find a safe > number that your most ram hungry game will run in. That's why I now > let windows manage it, so long as I have plenty of free space on C: I > don't have to be concerened with if my swap file is large enough for > game X. I've ran my system with a dynamic swap file and a permanent > fixed size and I don't see any benefit to having a permanent one. I > know the theory why it is better, but having 256mb of ram I just don't > see a difference. Anyway, if you only had 32mb of ram and you set the > swap file to 2.5x then you would have a swap file of only 80mb. That > is no where near enough for many of todays games. B17-2 requires about > 600mb, they are saying the same for WWII Online also. So the more ram > you have then the smaller the swap file you need. Saying 2.5x your > system ram is just a myth that many people think is correct when in > fact it is illogical. Spock out.

On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:42:14 +0200, "Stefan Zscharnack" <[email hidden]> wrote: >If windows set the swapfile, the swapfile is resizing all the time, in small >parts all ower the disk, that take a loong time. Have you ever measured this? How looong are we talking? 1 nanosecond difference?

In article <[email hidden]>, Jason "Schumi" Murray <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted text (9 lines)

>Ermmm..... "It's probably best to let Windows Manage it on it's own. It's >quite good at it." > >That is a bit false. Windows has BRUTAL memory management. In fact, the >last >thing you want happening, is Windows dynamically resizing your VM... >particularly during a race, etc. That causes CPU cycles, and HD activity, >etc. >

Are you suggesting that windows is busy reading/writing to my swapfile whilst I'm actually racing GPL or any other CPU intensive game? I seriously doubt this as I would suspect that any kind of other PC activity would slow up my gaming experience quite noticeably whether I've attempted to optimise my swapfile or not. <snip> -- Peter Ives Remove ALL_STRESS before replying If you know what's good for you, don't listen to me GPLRank Joystick -50.63 Wheel -14.08

On 18 Jun 2001 15:39:32 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: >So how do you know what size swap files your games need? Trial and error? I >don't remember ever seeing that in any manuals... > >Eldred Yes, trial and error (games will crash if the swap file is not large enough). But, to play it safe the bigger the better. With todays games I would probably go with 500-600mb if you are going to use a permanent fixed swap file. It's a good idea to use a defragmenting prog (like Norton) that allows you to move the swap file to where you want so you can put it at the beginning of the HD too (faster).Or if you have a second HD then put the swap file at the beginning of that drive, if the drive is as fast or faster than your C: drive.

On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:47:36 -0700, "Jason \"Schumi\" Murray" <[email hidden]> wrote: >"Because the more ram you have then the less swap file will be used." > >Without attempting to get into a debate/argument over this, this above >statement is very false. BS. So if I have 32mb of ram then I set my swap file to 80mb? Wake up dude. You will have games crashing all over the place. Regardless of if you have 32mb or 256mb you will need a larger swap file than 80mb for many of todays games. 2.5x ram is a stupid equation for the same reason 1/2 your ram for AGP aperature is. Maybe you want to tackle that one too?

On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:47:36 -0700, "Jason \"Schumi\" Murray" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Anyways... moral of the story (sorry for being so long winded) is: Geez, for such a long post you didn't really say anything at all. Now tell me again why I should use 2.5x my ram?

I like to back up what I say so here. http://www.windrivers.com/tech/swap.htm Be wary of some myths about the Swap-File passed on by well meaning folks nearly every time this subject comes up. I am surprise at how many seemingly knowledgeable people are perpetuating one or both of these myths in some of the popular PC Magazines, W9x help books and many websites Swap-File myth #1: Create a permanent swapfile 2 1/2-3 times the amount of physical memory. Fact: Virtual memory (Swap-File) is a substitute for physical memory. Common sense tells you the more physical memory you have, the less virtual memory you need. Conversely (all other things being equal) the less physical memory you have the more virtual memory you will need. There is no reasonable "rule of thumb" formula for setting the size of a permanent Swap-File. (Gee Schumi, isn't that exactly what I said?) Swap-File myth #2: Set the 'min' and 'max' size the same for the Swap-File. This one can cause you grief, it is bad advice!!! Some seem to think of the Swap-File like an insect trap, if you don't have a lid on it, all of those Ks and Ms of bytes and bits will fly out all over the HD. Not so!!! It may help to think of your Swap-File as a water glass sitting on the table (The level within this container will rise and fall as demands change and it is emptied whenever you shut W9x off), the only time it will overflow is if you try to put more into it than it can hold, (your 'min' size setting) and that is the reason you 'never' want to place a 'max' size for your Swap-File, you want it to overflow if it needs to. (This is an analogy, it will not overflow, the Swap-File will increase in size if need be, possibly using non contiguous HD space until it shrinks to your 'Min' size setting again.) W9x will 'never' exceed your 'min' size unless it needs to, if it can't (because of a 'max' size setting) it will revolt, usually with a "Out of Memory!! Shut down one or more programs to continue" warning. It is doubtful you will associate this warning with the 'max' setting you placed on your Swap-File months ago when your usage habits were less demanding. http://www.komando.com/help/tips/20010503.shtml Size of Swap File Dear Kim, I noticed recently that my massive swap file is eating away at my available disk space. Is there a way to limit the size of the swap file generated by Windows? Steve K. in Battle Creek-Grand Rapids, MI listening on WBCK 930 AM Steve, though it is possible to modify the size of the swap file, we don't recommend it. The swap file is the portion of your hard disk that Windows uses for virtual memory. Virtual memory allows you to run more programs at one time than the computer’s existing RAM (memory) would normally allow. Whenever your actual RAM is exceeded, Windows uses the swap file to move items in and out of RAM. This operation happens a lot more often than you think, and interfering with the size of the swap file could cause some of your memory-hogging programs to run poorly. The best way to ensure good swap file performance is to make sure that the drive containing your swap file has plenty of free space. This way, the swap file size can shrink and grow as needed based on the tasks at hand and available disk space.

Scalawag <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> http://www.windrivers.com/tech/swap.htm : > Swap-File myth #1: > Create a permanent swapfile 2 1/2-3 times the amount of physical > memory. > > Fact: Virtual memory (Swap-File) is a substitute for physical memory. > Common sense tells you the more physical memory you have, the less > virtual memory you need. Conversely (all other things being equal) the > less physical memory you have the more virtual memory you will need.

ACK. > There is no reasonable "rule of thumb" formula for setting the size of > a permanent Swap-File. Well I believe the 2,5x rule of thumb is: If your system runs fine with a 2,5x RAM size page file under heavy "normal" load then you've reached some sort of optimal memory point: Less memory requires a bigger swap file and results in heavy paging (even inside one application) and a huge performance decrease. More memory OTOS will increase the systems performance under normal load only slightly because most things will fit into RAM i.e. paging mostly occurs when the user start a new program or (infrequently) switches between large applications. Of course more RAM (and thus a relativly smaller page file) won't hurt performance - however the gain isn't that dramatic during normal use. OTOH Memory intensive applications (like some games) will still benefit a lot from more memory - up to the point where you don't need a swap file at all because all your data and apps fit into RAM. In short: The rule is not: "I have 128 MB RAM so I need 300 MB swap" but "if the system needs a page file 2,5 times the RAM size to run under heavy load then you have enough memory for a smooth normal use". That's how _I_ understand that rule, anyway.

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Swap-File myth #2: > Set the 'min' and 'max' size the same for the Swap-File. > > This one can cause you grief, it is bad advice!!! > > W9x will 'never' exceed your 'min' size unless it needs to, if it > can't (because of a 'max' size setting) it will revolt, usually with a > "Out of Memory!! Shut down one or more programs to continue" warning. > It is doubtful you will associate this warning with the 'max' setting > you placed on your Swap-File months ago when your usage habits were > less demanding.

Personally I'd like to have my min and max size the same for this very reason. When I get the out of memory error I know that my page file is "full" and that it might be a good idea to avoid using that many programs at the same time or buy some more RAM. Just my 0.02 Martin

Well that is easy mate. First... most games nowadays won't run on only 32 MB of RAM. Second... If you are running your game from a pagefile... chug-chug-chug go the FPS Why on earth do you think they only load say "a track at a time" before you actually race... because they are loading it into RAM. The gentleman in question was asking a "general topic" question. Bottom-line... if you are running your game from VM... you need more RAM... period. I have found the 2.5x formula to work just great for me in a wide number of configurations. If the box has 32 MB of RAM... it isn't all that suited to do a whole heck of a lot in today's applications anyways.... nevermind games... As for AGP aperature size, I do not concur with that formula you posted, so that is moot. You seem to be getting quite upset about a silly little post from a guy who simply wanted a solid answer. You tell him "Figure it out yourself...". I tell him "This is what I have found works best for me...". Seems to me that YOU are the one here not saying a whole lot constructive TBH. Again... not trying to start a war here (the topic is not worth it). Cheers, Schumi "Scalawag" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:47:36 -0700, "Jason \"Schumi\" Murray" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >"Because the more ram you have then the less swap file will be used." > > > >Without attempting to get into a debate/argument over this, this above > >statement is very false. > > BS. So if I have 32mb of ram then I set my swap file to 80mb? Wake up > dude. You will have games crashing all over the place. Regardless of > if you have 32mb or 256mb you will need a larger swap file than 80mb > for many of todays games. 2.5x ram is a stupid equation for the same > reason 1/2 your ram for AGP aperature is. Maybe you want to tackle > that one too?

Well that is easy mate. First... most games nowadays won't run on only 32 MB of RAM. Second... If you are running your game from a pagefile... chug-chug-chug go the FPS Why on earth do you think they only load say "a track at a time" before you actually race... because they are loading it into RAM. The gentleman in question was asking a "general topic" question. Bottom-line... if you are running your game from VM... you need more RAM... period. I have found the 2.5x formula to work just great for me in a wide number of configurations. If the box has 32 MB of RAM... it isn't all that suited to do a whole heck of a lot in today's applications anyways.... nevermind games... As for AGP aperature size, I do not concur with that formula you posted, so that is moot. You seem to be getting quite upset about a silly little post from a guy who simply wanted a solid answer. You tell him "Figure it out yourself...". I tell him "This is what I have found works best for me...". Seems to me that YOU are the one here not saying a whole lot constructive TBH. Again... not trying to start a war here (the topic is not worth it). Cheers, Schumi

Quoted text (14 lines)

> On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:47:36 -0700, "Jason \"Schumi\" Murray" > >"Because the more ram you have then the less swap file will be used." > >Without attempting to get into a debate/argument over this, this above > >statement is very false. > BS. So if I have 32mb of ram then I set my swap file to 80mb? Wake up > dude. You will have games crashing all over the place. Regardless of > if you have 32mb or 256mb you will need a larger swap file than 80mb > for many of todays games. 2.5x ram is a stupid equation for the same > reason 1/2 your ram for AGP aperature is. Maybe you want to tackle > that one too?

Sorry if I took longer than 15 minutes to respopnd to you... I don't camp out here day/night awaiting replies... Cheers, Schumi "Scalawag" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:47:36 -0700, "Jason \"Schumi\" Murray" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > >Anyways... moral of the story (sorry for being so long winded) is: > > Geez, for such a long post you didn't really say anything at all. Now > tell me again why I should use 2.5x my ram?

Sorry if I took longer than 15 minutes to respopnd to you... I don't camp out here day/night awaiting replies... Cheers, Schumi

Quoted text (7 lines)

> On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:47:36 -0700, "Jason \"Schumi\" Murray" > >Anyways... m***of the story (sorry for being so long winded) is: > Geez, for such a long post you didn't really say anything at all. Now > tell me again why I should use 2.5x my ram?

On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 14:50:14 -0700, "Jason \"Schumi\" Murray" <[email hidden]> wrote: >You seem to be getting quite upset about a silly little post from a guy who >simply wanted a solid answer. You tell him "Figure it out yourself...". I >tell him "This is what I have found works best for me...". > >Seems to me that YOU are the one here not saying a whole lot constructive >TBH. And you wouldn't get upset if someone told everyone that what you said is boillocks even though you know it isn't? I've posted my proof of why I said what I said. Now where is yours? And i already know that the more ram you have then the more windows will use for paging. That still doesn't mean 2.5x is a good number. In fact it is a completely stupid number and would only maybe apply to running windows itself and not games.

On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 14:50:59 -0700, "Jason \"Schumi\" Murray" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Sorry if I took longer than 15 minutes to respopnd to you... I don't camp >out here day/night awaiting replies... > >Cheers, > >Schumi How convenient of you to respond to all my posts except the one where I posted an url that backs up what I say. Why is that Schumi?

On 18 Jun 2001 21:07:26 GMT, [email hidden] (Martin) wrote: >That's how _I_ understand that rule, anyway. Well it is bollocks. We are applying this to gaming, no? With your rule and 128mb of ram you would set your swap file to 320mb. This is not enough for some of todays games. So your rule is completely useless.

Scalawag <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> On 18 Jun 2001 21:07:26 GMT, [email hidden] (Martin) wrote: > >>That's how _I_ understand that rule, anyway. > > Well it is bollocks. We are applying this to gaming, no? With your > rule and 128mb of ram you would set your swap file to 320mb. This is > not enough for some of todays games.

Well you're getting me wrong here... what I said was: if the system doens't run with the 2,5x RAM rule it's time to buy more RAM. If a game requires more than 128+320 MB RAM to run then usually the performance will be very poor with just 128 -> add more RAM until the system runs again with the 2,5x rule: 256+640 should do the trick for most games. Plus I also said for memory intensive apps (like gaming) you'd have to shift that rule into the 1x directrion. > So your rule is completely useless. No, it is not - you just have to know how to apply it... Martin

"Jason "Schumi" Murray" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Ermmm..... "It's probably best to let Windows Manage it on it's own. It's > quite good at it." > > That is a bit false. Windows has BRUTAL memory management. In fact, thelast > thing you want happening, is Windows dynamically resizing your VM... > particularly during a race, etc. That causes CPU cycles, and HD activity, > etc. > There's nothing brutal or false about it. They designed it to manage it all on it's own. I'm not saying dynamic is best, but dynamic does work on some machines just fine and dandy. If its dynamically resizing the swap during a race, I'd suspect something else is up with your system. GPL is very well behaved in my experience. WinVROC or another background program might be up to something, I wouldn't suspect GPL as the sole cause. It seems quite stable on my system. Seems to me that accessing any swap file, dynamic or static, will use CPU cycles and HD activity. > The "optimum" configuration is as follows: > > Make a partition on your HD. Make it roughly 10 MB larger than your "2.5 X > RAM" in size. Format that Partition (preferably using FAT32 FS using the > smallest cluster size possible). > If this isn't on a separate drive what performance increase did you just gain? It's now got to go to another partition on the same disk to access the swap. If it's on a single spindle the only performance increase I've ever heard was to insure the swap file is at the center of the drive (if possible) and go static like you say, but only IF you're having issues. I've heard that putting the swap on a separate, physical drive helps. > Then... assign your virtual memory to that partition. Make sure you setthe > minimum/maximum size to exactly the same number (2.5 x RAM). Reboot... and > enjoy. > I guess your not going to answer the question about the 2.5 figure? I've yet to hear a definitive answer anyway. I've seen 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, etc. listed. It's a good number as any, however I've yet to see a MS knowledge base article on this. Surely someone's benchmarked this somewhere, love to see it. http://www.bootdisk.com/swapfile.htm This guy points out a way to determine what swap you need. Sounds like you can measure things a bit if you want. > This is what you have just accomplished: > > 1) Seperating your Virtual Memory to its own 'dedicated location'. Good idea in SOME cases, even better on a separate drive. > 2) By virtue of (1), and by preseting minimum/maximum size to equalnumbers, > you ensure that no "fragmentation" will occur... which is VERY importantfor > read/write times, and thus the importance is escalated by virtue of the > "read/write frequency of VM). This can be an issue, however using the right defragger you can also defrag your swap. I'm usually more concerned about defragging all my files not just the swap file. Depending where this partition is located you may have the exact opposite effect anyway, especially if your files are at the opposite end of the platters from your swap file. > 3) Preset the size of the VM, and allow windows to fill it up as needed, > without any requirements for CPU cycles needed in resizing/"recalculating" > the filesize. Its just a "physical memory dumping ground, but accessiblefor > later) Saving CPU cycles sounds great and is great. Most games access the drive some of the time anyhow, retrieving textures, with any disk activity, you can't stop using CPU cycles unfortunately. I see this being more of an issue if something was wrong with the app and the swap kept growing. I've seen many a desktop get into swap file hell once they pushed a program too far. Usually because they tried to load every bit of tool software they own at the same time. > 4) Ensured that in the "99% likely case of a memory leaks" windows has > enough VM to dump the "rogue memory allocations" to VM, thus freeing upyour > physical memory for more "real-time needs", which is what VM is optimumly > designed for in the first place (as well as just providing you with more > should you max out the physical memory). > Your explaining one example of how a swap file is used, how would dynamic or static differ in this case. What I see, is that in your case with a static, it may not have enough room to dump the "rouge memory allocations". Surely there's some reason they recommend that you let Windows manage it. > I can guarantee that there are memory leaks on your window's system. This > gurantee is also exponentially ensured if you are running any > "multi-threaded" applications. MS have a documented bug in all WindowsOSs, > that "opening multiple threads will cause a potential for memory leaks".In > fact, we are fighting with the bug as we speak, and their suggested remedy > is ironically a solution that is also documented to cause memory leaks > (running in circles, chasing bugs with bugs is a VERY frustrating thing... > let me tell ya...). The bug however, is remedied by "minimizing" the > application, which then seems to "flush the rogue memory buffers". > I'm sure that MS OS's have memory leaks, however they certainly don't always manifest themselves regularly. Well not with 2000 at least, it's been excellent, can't say the same thing about some of it's applications though. My swap file is dynamic, I've been playing GPL for a month or so, amongst other diversions. It hasn't significantly changed its size, still at 400MB. Good GPL. > Anyways... end of the day... I have been doing this practise for years,and > never get an "out of memory" error. Also, my HD activity is very minimal, > which makes my games/system run smoother and faster as a whole. > I've haven't had a "out of memory" error in years either. Well since Windows 3.1 anyway. All while using a dynamic swap files (servers included, Windows 95/98/ME/NT/2000). > Some may have other suggestions, but that is mine :) > Exactly, to call something "a bit false" wasn't fair IMO. What works for you may not work for others. There are too many permutations and combinations of hardware/software/OS's for absolutes.

Hi I would like to revolutionise your thinking by asking you not to use swapfile. IF YOUR SYSTEM IS 800MHZ and above the swapfile is actually dragging your system behind. AFTER numerous measurement and attempts, i HAVE FOUND that SDRAMs are your best friend. They are cheap now so get plenty I have 320mb and they are keeping swapfile at bay. Done various games and files etc, with this ram and swapfile set to zero. WORKS with everything you can throw at it. Scalawag <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:42:14 +0200, "Stefan Zscharnack" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >If windows set the swapfile, the swapfile is resizing all the time, insmall > >parts all ower the disk, that take a loong time. > > Have you ever measured this? How looong are we talking? 1 nanosecond > difference?

Schumi do this very simple test: set swapfile to zero and reboot. then run your window word, excel etc. then run IE5 and email program. if they runs, then what you said about swapfile comes to .................?? Jason "Schumi" Murray <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> "Because the more ram you have then the less swap file will be used." > > Without attempting to get into a debate/argument over this, this above > statement is very false. > > Virtual Memory is 'generally' most used in 2 occurrences. One is obvious, > the other not so much, and is the reason the above statement is false. > > Virtual Memory useage: > > 1) When you run out of Physical Memory (hence the term "swapping" from

back > in the day when RAM was maxxing out at 32MB, etc. on Mobos) > > 2) Dumping of unused but unexpired Memory Buffers (Dynamically allocatedby

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Windows). > > #2 is the big one, and why 2.5x RAM is a generally well accepted formula. > > Those of you running windows2000, open up Task Manager. Then make sure you > have 2 columns (generally not shown by default), and 3 in total. > > 1) Mem Useage > 2) VM Size > 3) Mem Delta > > Watch those 3 side-by-side. Keep it on top... now start doing some things. > Watch as the Memory Delta spikes, and is then usually sent to "Mem Usage". > Mem Usage is your Physical Memory. Then watch some more, you'll start to

see > Mem Usage go up, and then drop down again, and VM Size will slowly creepup > as you do certain things. You have not run out of physical memory, but > rather, Windows is dynamically allocating those 'currently unused' memory > buffers to VM. > > The reason that 2.5 comes into play, is that Windows will do such tocertain > point, but is careful not to allocate too much, because there will come a > time perhaps that the 'stored memory buffers' may be called upon later... > which is best run from physical memory... so it will bring it back to > physicaly memory, and run it from there (better performance... read once > from disk, and run from physical memory after that.... until it is deemedan > 'old memory buffer' by windows. You basically can allocate 2X your RAM > without too much problem, but the extra 0.5 is actually a "safety buffer"to > allow a little bit more flexibility. > > You can actually see Layman's Settings inside win2k that will actuallyhelp

Quoted text (7 lines)

> you manage your VM better. > > Anyone seen the "optimize performance for: foreground|background|even" > setting? That is directly setting the "dynamic VM allocation" and telling > Windows under what conditions you plan to run your applications. > > Meaning, if you run a lot of progs from the taskbar, or minimized (a

server > is a good example of this)... you want to optimize your performance for > "background applications". This ensures that Windows will still keep a > healthy amount of Physical RAM available in Physical Memory for those > applications that are minimized/background. Otherwise, by virtue ofWindow's

Quoted text (7 lines)

> design, you would be swapping from your VM everytime something called on > those apps from outside (ala servers), and that would reduceperformance > quite drastically, and cause unnecessary HDD usage overall. > > BUT... if you use that box just for gaming, and want to free up as much > memory as possible for the app that is in the foreground (ala games), then > you do the opposite... since you want as much ram as possible while

playing > to be dedicated to the game (so you aren't swapping as much). > > ALSO... if you are doing things like Office Duties, and are one of those > people like my wife who can have as many as 20 apps open at the sametime...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> you are best to set the optimization for "even". This will treat all as > equal, and dump to VM regardless of application status, or current window > activity... thus giving more freedom for another app you might open. > > Anyways... moral of the story (sorry for being so long winded) is: > > Virtual Memory is not JUST for when you run out of Physical Memory... it

is

Quoted text (48 lines)

> used all the time, and Windows will dump/allocate to that pagefile at > will/requirement. When it dumps, is an OS kernel decision... but it will > dump (it'll dump during boot even... when you theoretically have the most > free RAM available) > > Anyways, that's my 2 cents... > > Cheers, > > Schumi > > > "Scalawag" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On 18 Jun 2001 10:24:40 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: > > > > > > >>So if I have 512mb of ram than I should set my swap file to 1.28gb? > > >>This is the same logic that says you should set your agp aperature to > > >>1/2 your system ram. Both are logically wrong if you really analyze > > >>why. I'll let you figure out why. > > >> > > >> > > > > > >Can you help out those of us who don't have any IDEA about this...? > > > > > >Eldred > > > > Because the more ram you have then the less swap file will be used. > > The more video ram you have the less the AGP aperature needed. See how > > using 2.5x your system ram for the swap file is illogical now? It all > > depends on the game/program anyway, you just need to find a safe > > number that your most ram hungry game will run in. That's why I now > > let windows manage it, so long as I have plenty of free space on C: I > > don't have to be concerened with if my swap file is large enough for > > game X. I've ran my system with a dynamic swap file and a permanent > > fixed size and I don't see any benefit to having a permanent one. I > > know the theory why it is better, but having 256mb of ram I just don't > > see a difference. Anyway, if you only had 32mb of ram and you set the > > swap file to 2.5x then you would have a swap file of only 80mb. That > > is no where near enough for many of todays games. B17-2 requires about > > 600mb, they are saying the same for WWII Online also. So the more ram > > you have then the smaller the swap file you need. Saying 2.5x your > > system ram is just a myth that many people think is correct when in > > fact it is illogical. Spock out. > > > >

"Jason "Schumi" Murray" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Ermmm..... "It's probably best to let Windows Manage it on it's own. It's > quite good at it." > > That is a bit false. Windows has BRUTAL memory management. In fact, thelast > thing you want happening, is Windows dynamically resizing your VM... > particularly during a race, etc. That causes CPU cycles, and HD activity, > etc. > There's nothing brutal or false about it. They designed it to manage it all on it's own. I'm not saying dynamic is best, but dynamic does work on some machines just fine and dandy. If its dynamically resizing the swap during a race, I'd suspect something else is up with your system. GPL is very well behaved in my experience. WinVROC or another background program might be up to something, I wouldn't suspect GPL as the sole cause. It seems quite stable on my system. Seems to me that accessing any swap file, dynamic or static, will use CPU cycles and HD activity. > The "optimum" configuration is as follows: > > Make a partition on your HD. Make it roughly 10 MB larger than your "2.5 X > RAM" in size. Format that Partition (preferably using FAT32 FS using the > smallest cluster size possible). > If this isn't on a separate drive what performance increase did you just gain? It's now got to go to another partition on the same disk to access the swap. If it's on a single spindle the only performance increase I've ever heard was to insure the swap file is at the center of the drive (if possible) and go static like you say, but only IF you're having issues. I've heard that putting the swap on a separate, physical drive helps. > Then... assign your virtual memory to that partition. Make sure you setthe > minimum/maximum size to exactly the same number (2.5 x RAM). Reboot... and > enjoy. > I guess your not going to answer the question about the 2.5 figure? I've yet to hear a definitive answer anyway. I've seen 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, etc. listed. It's a good number as any, however I've yet to see a MS knowledge base article on this. Surely someone's benchmarked this somewhere, love to see it. > This is what you have just accomplished: > > 1) Seperating your Virtual Memory to its own 'dedicated location'. Good idea in SOME cases, even better on a separate drive. > 2) By virtue of (1), and by preseting minimum/maximum size to equalnumbers, > you ensure that no "fragmentation" will occur... which is VERY importantfor > read/write times, and thus the importance is escalated by virtue of the > "read/write frequency of VM). This can be an issue, however using the right defragger you can also defrag your swap. I'm usually more concerned about defragging all my files not just the swap file. Depending where this partition is located you may have the exact opposite effect anyway, especially if your files are at the opposite end of the platters from your swap file. > 3) Preset the size of the VM, and allow windows to fill it up as needed, > without any requirements for CPU cycles needed in resizing/"recalculating" > the filesize. Its just a "physical memory dumping ground, but accessiblefor > later) Saving CPU cycles sounds great and is great. Most games access the drive some of the time anyhow, retrieving textures, with any disk activity, you can't stop using CPU cycles unfortunately. I see this being more of an issue if something was wrong with the app and the swap kept growing. I've seen many a desktop get into swap file hell once they pushed a program too far. Usually because they tried to load every bit of tool software they own at the same time. > 4) Ensured that in the "99% likely case of a memory leaks" windows has > enough VM to dump the "rogue memory allocations" to VM, thus freeing upyour > physical memory for more "real-time needs", which is what VM is optimumly > designed for in the first place (as well as just providing you with more > should you max out the physical memory). > Your explaining one example of how a swap file is used, how would dynamic or static differ in this case. What I see, is that in your case with a static, it may not have enough room to dump the "rouge memory allocations". Surely there's some reason they recommend that you let Windows manage it. > I can guarantee that there are memory leaks on your window's system. This > gurantee is also exponentially ensured if you are running any > "multi-threaded" applications. MS have a documented bug in all WindowsOSs, > that "opening multiple threads will cause a potential for memory leaks".In > fact, we are fighting with the bug as we speak, and their suggested remedy > is ironically a solution that is also documented to cause memory leaks > (running in circles, chasing bugs with bugs is a VERY frustrating thing... > let me tell ya...). The bug however, is remedied by "minimizing" the > application, which then seems to "flush the rogue memory buffers". > I'm sure that MS OS's have memory leaks, however they certainly don't always manifest themselves regularly. Well not with 2000 at least, it's been excellent, can't say the same thing about some of it's applications though. My swap file is dynamic, I've been playing GPL for a month or so, amongst other diversions. It hasn't significantly changed its size, still at 400MB. Good GPL. > Anyways... end of the day... I have been doing this practise for years,and > never get an "out of memory" error. Also, my HD activity is very minimal, > which makes my games/system run smoother and faster as a whole. > I've haven't had a "out of memory" error in years either. Well since Windows 3.1 anyway. All while using a dynamic swap files (servers included, Windows 95/98/ME/NT/2000). > Some may have other suggestions, but that is mine :) > Exactly, to call something "a bit false" wasn't fair IMO. What works for you may not work for others. There are too many permutations and combinations of hardware/software/OS's for absolutes.

"Jason "Schumi" Murray" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > The reason that 2.5 comes into play, is that Windows will do such tocertain > point, but is careful not to allocate too much, because there will come a > time perhaps that the 'stored memory buffers' may be called upon later... > which is best run from physical memory... so it will bring it back to > physicaly memory, and run it from there (better performance... read once > from disk, and run from physical memory after that.... until it is deemedan > 'old memory buffer' by windows. You basically can allocate 2X your RAM > without too much problem, but the extra 0.5 is actually a "safety buffer"to > allow a little bit more flexibility. > You're describing how the OS can monitor and tunes itself, to me this makes even more sense to let it manage the swap. > Anyone seen the "optimize performance for: foreground|background|even" > setting? That is directly setting the "dynamic VM allocation" and telling > Windows under what conditions you plan to run your applications. > Yes and it's not just used for VM allocation, it's also used for thread prioritization. As important or more so. > BUT... if you use that box just for gaming, and want to free up as much > memory as possible for the app that is in the foreground (ala games), then > you do the opposite... since you want as much ram as possible whileplaying > to be dedicated to the game (so you aren't swapping as much). > Enditall, end of story! ;-) > Virtual Memory is not JUST for when you run out of Physical Memory... itis > used all the time, and Windows will dump/allocate to that pagefile at > will/requirement. When it dumps, is an OS kernel decision... but it will > dump (it'll dump during boot even... when you theoretically have the most > free RAM available) > Agreed, static or dynamic, it's used (ie. using CPU cycles) all the time.

Why use a magic formula. This guys shows a potential way to measure what you may require. http://www.bootdisk.com/swapfile.htm

Thanx for the Url +G�!! I have a fixed max-min file for memory of 1gig! Maybe I am doing "overkill" and using too much HD space since I have 512megs of PC133Dram? Going to read the info now.. :-) Thom_j. "+G�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:cgyX6.250556$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

| Why use a magic formula. | | This guys shows a potential way to measure what you may require. | | http://www.bootdisk.com/swapfile.htm | |

--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.259 / Virus Database: 130 - Release Date: 6/5/2001

On 18 Jun 2001 22:40:38 GMT, [email hidden] (Martin) wrote: >Well you're getting me wrong here... >what I said was: if the system doens't run with the 2,5x RAM rule it's time >to buy more RAM. I still say bollocks mate. And I posted an url with backup to my claim and you still refute it.

On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 22:53:31 -0300, "+G²" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Why use a magic formula. > >This guys shows a potential way to measure what you may require. > >http://www.bootdisk.com/swapfile.htm > Hey, another url that says exactly what I said, and yet they still argue the point. May as well be talking to a brick wall.

Well said Martin, particularly about (roughly translated) - If you're swapping during gameplay it is time to do one of the following: a) Get more RAM! b) Close some applications in the background... c) Lose the application that has out of control memory leakage... VM is NOT a good thing to rely on at all for gaming... so since that IS the topic (so eloquently said by Sir Scalawag)... the topic then becomes somewhat moot. But, I am a student (or try to be) of logic... and I just can't resist blowing a gapping wide hole in that link he posted. I'll losely quote the same article, and have some questions I hope someone can answer for me in the end... which brings us full circle to the original poster's request... which we'll try to answer... "I suggest placing it on your fastest HD, on the Partition with the most free space. "... and briefly after that... "The point is to have no Swap-File, or an empty Swap-File when you Defragment the drive you want your 'Permanent Swap-File' on." OK... so what they are saying is this (minus a bit of other repetitious advice): 1) You want to put your swap file on the biggest partition 2) Ideally... on a second drive (mentioned in the repetitious leave-outs). 3) That partition should not be fragmented. I disagree with #1 and #2, but wholeheartedly agree with #3. Here is why: They totally contradict themselves... They say... assumably put the swapfile on a defragmented harddrive because fragmentation of the pagefile will simply increase the read times of an already slowpoke rate (HD read times compared to direct from RAM read times). This is good advice... I concur 100% But in the same advice, they tell you to place it on your biggest HD... assumably on a partition where other data resides (since they make no mention of a dedicated partition... and this is the crux of my point). Then... they tell you to let the pagefile shrink/expand on its own as needed. Well folks... you place the Min setting as something different than max setting... then only use your min setting for a while (you are typing a letter, surfing the net, and reading RAS at the same time)... then decide to save a couple letters you finished up to that drive (no mention of a dedicated partition remember)... then you open up some more apps (like another IE window from a link in RAS, etc., etc.) the swapfile increases beyond the minimum setting, and creates more pagefile as needed... you now have just achieved fragmentation (that little file[s] you just saved is quite possibly right smack dab in the middle of your pagefile on the HD cluster order). Which as they have already assumpably eluded to... is the worst thing that can happen to VM (which I'll concur with that point). So... I will overcome this glaring oversight by them with a simple suggestion (which I have posted in earlier posts here on this topic). We create a dedicated partition on your Hard Drive. Then we set the Min/Max to be the same. Windows loads... pagefile is created (without fragmentation because we are not using that partition for anything else other than the pagefile itself, and it is created in a single swipe block of set size.) Now comes the $25,000 question... How big should I make that partition? Funny... haven't we just come full circle to the original poster's question? This is where I suggest 2.5x the physical memory (unless of course you want to take their advice, and just use the rest of your drive as the swap file partition and leave no room for data... remember.... we don't want to fragment the pagefile as per your own website's suggestion...). At this point, you have a "loose rule of thumb of a set size" (something to at least answer the partition size question, without wasting the rest of the drive... leaving no room for data... or at the very least wasting a chunk of your harddrive by not using it at all). So... at this point (as that webpage also said), if you put a lid on the VM... you may encounter "out of memory error". They are absolutely correct. But my answer to that is: If you are maxing out your RAM, and 2.5x the RAM in your VM... its just a good ol' fashion time to: GET MORE RAM... you need it desperately, as if the chugging of your machine hasn't already told you that when you reached 2X RAM levels even... If this machine is for gaming... and you are maxing out 2.5X RAM... your FPS must be in the doghouse, and I cannot even comprehend how you could put up with that performance... Also, a few interesting things I wanted to point out: That website posted by Scalawag had this interesting footnote "Portions of this report have been reproduced from articles and FAQS in Microsoft newsgroups and Acel216's Windows Tip Site." Well now... aren't we discussing this topic in a newsgroup as well? Don't be fooled by the "Microsoft Newsgroups" reference... these are the same guys who suggest fixing bugs.... with more bugs (seriously guys... they do...) Isn't that Acel216 site yet another "self professed authority" as you claim is what makes my theory wrong? Wouldn't we all just be speculating then? But yet... I emplore you to poke a hole in "our theory" of 2.5X RAM, and still look me in the eye without laughing and tell me the person doesn't just need more RAM to fulfill their needs. Next interesting fact: Scalaway... would you please be so kind as to point me to your sources for these reports of games that are going to require 320MB of memory to run? I am VERY interested in those games... as I will be avoiding them like the plague. No self-respecting project manager would allow a game that requires 320 MB of memory to run. (If you can point me to that Project Manager, I'll be sure to give his/her name to the website owner of that link you just posted. I think they said somewhere on their about some Florida Swampland they had for sale.) This is particularly true when you consider the "quasi-standard" RAM installation size is currently 128 MB on most NEW machines sold today (boxed). That would basically exclude their game from the vast majority of PC owners... something I am SURE the publisher would be very interested in squashing (talk about an ultra niche market... I only run 256 MB myself...). Although Scalawag... I suppose that what you are indeed referring to is "HD space required for installation of the game". If you think that is all loaded in Memory when you launch the game... your credibility to me is completely shot to hell. As for the poor gents who are running 32MB of RAM... That 500 MB pagefile isn't going to help speed up that computer at all. Time to get more RAM... particularly if you are gaming (which IS what we are talking about... right Scalawag?) Anyways... there's my 20 bucks worth ;) Cheers, Schumi

Well said Martin, particularly about (roughly translated) - If you're swapping during gameplay it is time to do one of the following: a) Get more RAM! b) Close some applications in the background... c) Lose the application that has out of control memory leakage... VM is NOT a good thing to rely on at all for ***... so since that IS the topic (so eloquently said by Sir Scalawag)... the topic then becomes somewhat moot. But, I am a student (or try to be) of logic... and I just can't resist blowing a gapping wide hole in that link he posted. I'll losely quote the same article, and have some questions I hope someone can answer for me in the end... which brings us full circle to the original poster's request... which we'll try to answer... "I suggest placing it on your fastest HD, on the Partition with the most free space. "... and briefly after that... "The point is to have no Swap-File, or an empty Swap-File when you Defragment the drive you want your 'Permanent Swap-File' on." OK... so what they are saying is this (minus a bit of other repetitious advice): 1) You want to put your swap file on the biggest partition 2) Ideally... on a second drive (mentioned in the repetitious leave-outs). 3) That partition should not be fragmented. I disagree with #1 and #2, but wholeheartedly agree with #3. Here is why: They totally contradict themselves... They say... assumably put the swapfile on a defragmented harddrive because fragmentation of the pagefile will simply increase the read times of an already slowpoke rate (HD read times compared to direct from RAM read times). This is good advice... I concur 100% But in the same advice, they tell you to place it on your biggest HD... assumably on a partition where other data resides (since they make no mention of a dedicated partition... and this is the crux of my point). Then... they tell you to let the pagefile shrink/expand on its own as needed. Well folks... you place the Min setting as something different than max setting... then only use your min setting for a while (you are typing a letter, surfing the net, and reading RAS at the same time)... then decide to save a couple letters you finished up to that drive (no mention of a dedicated partition remember)... then you open up some more apps (like another IE window from a link in RAS, etc., etc.) the swapfile increases beyond the minimum setting, and creates more pagefile as needed... you now have just achieved fragmentation (that little file[s] you just saved is quite possibly right smack dab in the middle of your pagefile on the HD cluster order). Which as they have already assumpably eluded to... is the worst thing that can happen to VM (which I'll concur with that point). So... I will overcome this glaring oversight by them with a simple suggestion (which I have posted in earlier posts here on this topic). We create a dedicated partition on your Hard Drive. Then we set the Min/Max to be the same. Windows loads... pagefile is created (without fragmentation because we are not using that partition for anything else other than the pagefile itself, and it is created in a single swipe block of set size.) Now comes the $25,000 question... How big should I make that partition? Funny... haven't we just come full circle to the original poster's question? This is where I suggest 2.5x the physical memory (unless of course you want to take their advice, and just use the rest of your drive as the swap file partition and leave no room for data... remember.... we don't want to fragment the pagefile as per your own website's suggestion...). At this point, you have a "loose rule of thumb of a set size" (something to at least answer the partition size question, without wasting the rest of the drive... leaving no room for data... or at the very least wasting a chunk of your harddrive by not using it at all). So... at this point (as that webpage also said), if you put a lid on the VM... you may encounter "out of memory error". They are absolutely correct. But my answer to that is: If you are maxing out your RAM, and 2.5x the RAM in your VM... its just a good ol' fashion time to: GET MORE RAM... you need it desperately, as if the chugging of your machine hasn't already told you that when you reached 2X RAM levels even... If this machine is for ***... and you are maxing out 2.5X RAM... your FPS must be in the doghouse, and I cannot even comprehend how you could put up with that performance... Also, a few interesting things I wanted to point out: That website posted by Scalawag had this interesting footnote "Portions of this report have been reproduced from articles and FAQS in Microsoft newsgroups and Acel216's Windows Tip Site." Well now... aren't we discussing this topic in a newsgroup as well? Don't be fooled by the "Microsoft Newsgroups" reference... these are the same guys who suggest fixing bugs.... with more bugs (seriously guys... they do...) Isn't that Acel216 site yet another "self professed authority" as you claim is what makes my theory wrong? Wouldn't we all just be speculating then? But yet... I emplore you to poke a hole in "our theory" of 2.5X RAM, and still look me in the eye without laughing and tell me the person doesn't just need more RAM to fulfill their needs. Next interesting fact: Scalaway... would you please be so kind as to point me to your sources for these reports of games that are going to require 320MB of memory to run? I am VERY interested in those games... as I will be avoiding them like the plague. No self-respecting project manager would allow a game that requires 320 MB of memory to run. (If you can point me to that Project Manager, I'll be sure to give his/her name to the website owner of that link you just posted. I think they said somewhere on their about some Florida Swampland they had for sale.) This is particularly true when you consider the "quasi-standard" RAM installation size is currently 128 MB on most NEW machines sold today (boxed). That would basically exclude their game from the vast majority of PC owners... something I am SURE the publisher would be very interested in squashing (talk about an ultra niche market... I only run 256 MB myself...). Although Scalawag... I suppose that what you are indeed referring to is "HD space required for installation of the game". If you think that is all loaded in Memory when you launch the game... your credibility to me is completely shot to hell. As for the poor gents who are running 32MB of RAM... That 500 MB pagefile isn't going to help speed up that computer at all. Time to get more RAM... particularly if you are *** (which IS what we are talking about... right Scalawag?) Anyways... there's my 20 bucks worth ;) Cheers, Schumi

Scalawag <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> On 18 Jun 2001 22:40:38 GMT, [email hidden] (Martin) wrote: > >>Well you're getting me wrong here... >>what I said was: if the system doens't run with the 2,5x RAM rule it's >>time to buy more RAM. > > I still say bollocks mate. > And I posted an url with backup to my claim > and you still refute it. >

_READ_ my post ! All the URLs you post say that if you want to run the same kind of system (mix of apps) on 32MB machine you'll need a bigger page file than on a 512MB machine - which is of course correct. But that's no contradiction to the 2x "rule": If your system needs a page file twice the RAM size during heavy load then you memory is used efficiently (Windows) under normal circumstances. If you can run with a much smaller page file you could remove some RAM without a serious performance drop. If it needs a bigger page file adding more RAM will speed up your system under normal load a lot. All this applies for normal Windows application usage (e.g. Office). Well maybe an example helps: Say under heavy load (Windows) your system needs a total of 360 MB to run (Not getting "out of memory"). Then the 2x rule would tell you that the system (normal load) will run just fine with 128MB RAM + 256 MB page file. Less RAM would cause a serious preformance hit: 64MB RAM + 300 MB page file (5x) will slow your system to crawl - don't even think about 32 + 350... More RAM will increse the performance but only slightly (i.e. there's a huge gain going from 64 to 128 but the gain from 128 to 192 won't be as noticeable) And yes the system will run fine with 384 MB RAM and a 40MB page file (0,1x) of course - however you don't really need that much RAM to get a good performance. If you're the "all the performance I can get"-guy you'd be going for the last solution - however if you want the most "bang for the buck" then you'd probably go for the 128 + 256 approach - mind you memory wasn't always as cheap as it is today. That's all the 2x rule tells you. Religiously setting the page file size to twice the RAM size is nonsense but that's not what the rule is about. You could also call this rule "1/3 physical rule" because it basically says that a system will run fine if 1/3 of the needed memory is backed by physical RAM. Note: The memory requirements written on the boxes is usually the amount of physical memory (RAM) required to run this app/game (somewhat) smoothly. Martin

On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 00:24:19 -0700, "Jason \"Schumi\" Murray" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Scalaway... would you please be so kind as to point me to your sources for >these reports of games that are going to require 320MB of memory to run? I >am VERY interested in those games... as I will be avoiding them like the >plague. B17-2 and WWII Online. http://www.frugalsworld.com/tweaking/tweak.shtml B17 2 requires a swap file around 400 MB and this will become more common in the future if your swapfile cannot grow to at least 400 meg you may have problems with many of todays games. <also from that same url > Should we have a static swap, or dynamic, if static what size should it be, where should it live and how do we set it up. These days I would opt for a semi dynamic swap, that is to say I set a minimum but no maximum size. As far as size is concerned the old axim used to be "twice your physical ram plus 10%". I don't beleive this applies anymore as when this was determined the average user had 16mb and few apps needed more than 32mb. Also this formula falls down because the less memory you have the larger the swap required, yet this formula assigns more swap the more memory you have. http://sfi2.com/forum/ubb/Forum13/HTML/000008.html <for WWII Online> 8. Almost done. Right click on My Computer and select properties, performance, and Virtual Memory again. Now set the virtual memory to what you really want. [With a 256 Meg machine I found that 300 Meg was not enough to run online but 640 Meg was enough.] Set both the minimum AND maximum to be that amount so your swap file will never change size. >Although Scalawag... I suppose that what you are indeed referring to is "HD >space required for installation of the game". If you think that is all >loaded in Memory when you launch the game... your credibility to me is >completely shot to hell. I never said that. Andf you've had no credibility with me since you took the populist stance and said to set your swap file to 2.5x your system ram. >As for the poor gents who are running 32MB of RAM... That 500 MB pagefile >isn't going to help speed up that computer at all. Time to get more RAM... >particularly if you are gaming (which IS what we are talking about... right >Scalawag?) We are talking theories here so I certainly hope all gamers have at least 128mb real ram installed. Unless you are still running just old dos games.The 32mb was used to illustrate that your 2.5x theory doesn't hold up.

On 19 Jun 2001 08:13:33 GMT, [email hidden] (Martin) wrote: >_READ_ my post ! I did. Now read +G's post and the included url.

On 19 Jun 2001 08:13:33 GMT, [email hidden] (Martin) wrote: >All the URLs you post say that if you want to run the same kind of system >(mix of apps) on 32MB machine you'll need a bigger page file than on a >512MB machine - which is of course correct. But that's no contradiction to >the 2x "rule": They never said that. They said the 2.5x rule goes against logic and is wrong.

On 19 Jun 2001 08:13:33 GMT, [email hidden] (Martin) wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

>If you're the "all the performance I can get"-guy you'd be going for the >last solution - however if you want the most "bang for the buck" then you'd >probably go for the 128 + 256 approach - mind you memory wasn't always as >cheap as it is today. > >That's all the 2x rule tells you. Religiously setting the page file size to >twice the RAM size is nonsense but that's not what the rule is about. > >You could also call this rule "1/3 physical rule" because it basically says >that a system will run fine if 1/3 of the needed memory is backed by >physical RAM. >Note: The memory requirements written on the boxes is usually the amount of >physical memory (RAM) required to run this app/game (somewhat) smoothly. > >Martin

Both you and Schumi are making this more complicated than it needs to be and are probably confusing the hell out of some people. HD space is cheap so why use any formula at all (as +G said)? You want to play it safe with no games crashing because you ran out of memory then just do the followiing and leave it the hell alone. Set minimum at 300mb. Set maximum at no limit. This will ensure just about every game you own will not cause dynamic changing in size of the swap file and any game that requires more than 300mb will run fine too. Simple.

Both those links have a glaring hole in THEIR logic... as I posted in a below message. What size do I make that partition that I am putting my new "dynamic swap file" on? Cheers, Schumi "Scalawag" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On 19 Jun 2001 08:13:33 GMT, [email hidden] (Martin) wrote: > > > >_READ_ my post ! > > I did. Now read +G's post and the included url.

Both those links have a glaring hole in THEIR logic... as I posted in a below message. What size do I make that partition that I am putting my new "dynamic swap file" on? Cheers, Schumi > >_READ_ my post ! > I did. Now read +G's post and the included url.

Well.... again... size of partition in "their" logic is? Cheers, Schumi "Scalawag" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On 19 Jun 2001 08:13:33 GMT, [email hidden] (Martin) wrote: > > > >All the URLs you post say that if you want to run the same kind of system > >(mix of apps) on 32MB machine you'll need a bigger page file than on a > >512MB machine - which is of course correct. But that's no contradictionto > >the 2x "rule": > > They never said that. They said the 2.5x rule goes against logic and > is wrong.

Well.... again... size of partition in "their" logic is? Cheers, Schumi > >All the URLs you post say that if you want to run the same kind of system > >(mix of apps) on 32MB machine you'll need a bigger page file than on a > >512MB machine - which is of course correct. But that's no contradiction to > >the 2x "rule": > They never said that. They said the 2.5x rule goes against logic and > is wrong.

Thanks for those postss Scalawag... they are either: a) Still plagued with the same partition size problem (unanswered byt hem)... b) Completely backing up what Martin and I are saying. Lets start with (A) Well this guy is worse than the first post you made... he is unsure of even where to put the swapfile. But again we'll go over the SAME corner those other links will back you into... He goes onto say that it is ideal to place your swapfile on another physical Harddrive. I'll concur witht hat, for the reasons he already mentioned. But then the guy goes onto say that you should let your partition take up the rest of your drive... I to assume that he is saying (reading word for word): "Go out and put another FAST HD on the secondary IDE channel, and make that whole drive for your swap file." Here are some quotes that make me think that... "As far as the maximum is concerned I would reccomend setting that to the maximum remaining space on the Hard drive" WOW... this guy must have money to burn... where do I put my data? "As to where should it live, this depends on how many hard drives you have. I mean real HD's not partitions. If you have more than one hd then you should put your swap on a different HD to your games, preferably on its own partition." Yeps... I concur with the whole "other HD on secondary IDE channel".... but how big should I set this "own partition?" See above for HIS logic on that... I am already getting dizzy... but there is more... "If you have only 1 HD then the swap file should be ideally be placed at the outer edge of your drive if you have any software that will do this although realistically the performance gains for doing this are not worth the extra trouble. OK... but what if this swapfile increases as needed (which is what he is suggesting). Would you not theoretically fall off the end of the earth so to speak if you needed more than your "minimum size" that is now set at the END of the drive? Obviously it will not be the case.... but Windows will place that pagefile overflow somewhere else on the drive.... can you say "fragmentation?" Hehe... this guy is going to need a massive shoehorn to pull his foot out of his mouth. At the end of the day, and after we finish running in his circles.... he and the other sites you have posted still haven't answered the $25,000.00 question. How big do I make that partition you speak of? More importantly asked to the latest guy... where do I put my data after I allocate the whole drive to my swapfile (without getting fragmentation as he also suggests is bad... as do I) OK... now onto article (B). I like this guy... he is totally saying the exact same thing that I am. Point in case: "Now set the virtual memory to what you really want. [With a 256 Meg machine I found that 300 Meg was not enough to run online but 640 Meg was enough.] Set both the minimum AND maximum to be that amount so your swap file will never change size.". Hmmm.... just what I suggested. Also... according to my calculator... 256MB (RAM) x2.5 (my suggestion) = 640 MB (his suggestion). This guy has now told you what your partition size should be. Max is set to 640MB... tack on 10MB for hidden system info... and you have a partition that is: a) Set in size b) not fragmented c) same size swap (min/max equal, and does not bother the CPU/HD when adding removing... since it is not "resizing" everytime). d) formula = 2.5 x RAM. Now we'll get onto the 32 MB "theory" topic. Simple... if you are running 32MB of RAM, and your system needs more.... don't up your VM size... it'll still run like a dog. Just go out and buy more RAM to fulfill your needs... Also... please don't take these posts as a personal attack on you. I have a hard-on for those guys who run out and say the other guys are wrong... yet their logic is totally flawed, or they leave big gapping question marks in relation to direct issues. In fact... I think I will mail these bozos, and see what their partition size suggestion is... Then after they give me a straight answer I'll ask them: "OK... you say a 512MB partition (just a number I made up)... great. But now why not simply allocate your swapfile to min/max 512 MB and save your CPU/HD from the redundant task of resizing all the time... You say that you don't want fragmentation on your swapfile... and it is now on a dedicated partition without any other data... what is the point of NOT putting a min/max of equal value on that partition to fill it up and stop the resizing performance hits?" I'll assume that they don't have an answer... Cheers, Schumi

Thanks for those postss Scalawag... they are either: a) Still plagued with the same partition size problem (unanswered byt hem)... b) Completely backing up what Martin and I are saying. Lets start with (A) Well this guy is worse than the first post you made... he is unsure of even where to put the swapfile. But again we'll go over the SAME corner those other links will back you into... He goes onto say that it is ideal to place your swapfile on another physical Harddrive. I'll concur witht hat, for the reasons he already mentioned. But then the guy goes onto say that you should let your partition take up the rest of your drive... I to assume that he is saying (reading word for word): "Go out and put another FAST HD on the secondary IDE channel, and make that whole drive for your swap file." Here are some quotes that make me think that... "As far as the maximum is concerned I would reccomend setting that to the maximum remaining space on the Hard drive" WOW... this guy must have money to burn... where do I put my data? "As to where should it live, this depends on how many hard drives you have. I mean real HD's not partitions. If you have more than one hd then you should put your swap on a different HD to your games, preferably on its own partition." Yeps... I concur with the whole "other HD on secondary IDE channel".... but how big should I set this "own partition?" See above for HIS logic on that... I am already getting dizzy... but there is more... "If you have only 1 HD then the swap file should be ideally be placed at the outer edge of your drive if you have any software that will do this although realistically the performance gains for doing this are not worth the extra trouble. OK... but what if this swapfile increases as needed (which is what he is suggesting). Would you not theoretically fall off the end of the earth so to speak if you needed more than your "minimum size" that is now set at the END of the drive? Obviously it will not be the case.... but Windows will place that pagefile overflow somewhere else on the drive.... can you say "fragmentation?" Hehe... this guy is going to need a massive shoehorn to pull his foot out of his mouth. At the end of the day, and after we finish running in his circles.... he and the other sites you have posted still haven't answered the $25,000.00 question. How big do I make that partition you speak of? More importantly asked to the latest guy... where do I put my data after I allocate the whole drive to my swapfile (without getting fragmentation as he also suggests is bad... as do I) OK... now onto article (B). I like this guy... he is totally saying the exact same thing that I am. Point in case: "Now set the virtual memory to what you really want. [With a 256 Meg machine I found that 300 Meg was not enough to run online but 640 Meg was enough.] Set both the minimum AND maximum to be that amount so your swap file will never change size.". Hmmm.... just what I suggested. Also... according to my calculator... 256MB (RAM) x2.5 (my suggestion) = 640 MB (his suggestion). This guy has now told you what your partition size should be. Max is set to 640MB... tack on 10MB for hidden system info... and you have a partition that is: a) Set in size b) not fragmented c) same size swap (min/max equal, and does not bother the CPU/HD when adding removing... since it is not "resizing" everytime). d) formula = 2.5 x RAM. Now we'll get onto the 32 MB "theory" topic. Simple... if you are running 32MB of RAM, and your system needs more.... don't up your VM size... it'll still run like a dog. Just go out and buy more RAM to fulfill your needs... Also... please don't take these posts as a personal attack on you. I have a hard-on for those guys who run out and say the other guys are wrong... yet their logic is totally flawed, or they leave big gapping question marks in relation to direct issues. In fact... I think I will mail these bozos, and see what their partition size suggestion is... Then after they give me a straight answer I'll ask them: "OK... you say a 512MB partition (just a number I made up)... great. But now why not simply allocate your swapfile to min/max 512 MB and save your CPU/HD from the redundant task of resizing all the time... You say that you don't want fragmentation on your swapfile... and it is now on a dedicated partition without any other data... what is the point of NOT putting a min/max of equal value on that partition to fill it up and stop the resizing performance hits?" I'll assume that they don't have an answer... Cheers, Schumi

I am amking it more complicated? Look at my first post... 1 line suggestion. You sir are the one making this a lot more confusing, and so are the guys who's links you sent. Again mate.... can you answer the $25,000.00 question? What size should I set my partition that your links are suggesting? Simple question actually. Cheers, Schumi "Scalawag" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On 19 Jun 2001 08:13:33 GMT, [email hidden] (Martin) wrote: > > > >If you're the "all the performance I can get"-guy you'd be going for the > >last solution - however if you want the most "bang for the buck" thenyou'd > >probably go for the 128 + 256 approach - mind you memory wasn't always as > >cheap as it is today. > > > >That's all the 2x rule tells you. Religiously setting the page file sizeto > >twice the RAM size is nonsense but that's not what the rule is about. > > > >You could also call this rule "1/3 physical rule" because it basicallysays > >that a system will run fine if 1/3 of the needed memory is backed by > >physical RAM. > >Note: The memory requirements written on the boxes is usually the amountof

Quoted text (16 lines)

> >physical memory (RAM) required to run this app/game (somewhat) smoothly. > > > >Martin > > Both you and Schumi are making this more complicated than it needs to > be and are probably confusing the hell out of some people. HD space is > cheap so why use any formula at all (as +G said)? You want to play it > safe with no games crashing because you ran out of memory then just do > the followiing and leave it the hell alone. > > Set minimum at 300mb. > Set maximum at no limit. > > This will ensure just about every game you own will not cause dynamic > changing in size of the swap file and any game that requires more than > 300mb will run fine too. Simple.

I am amking it more complicated? Look at my first post... 1 line suggestion. You sir are the one making this a lot more confusing, and so are the guys who's links you sent. Again mate.... can you answer the $25,000.00 question? What size should I set my partition that your links are suggesting? Simple question actually. Cheers, Schumi > >If you're the "all the performance I can get"-guy you'd be going for the > >last solution - however if you want the most "bang for the buck" then you'd > >probably go for the 128 + 256 approach - mind you memory wasn't always as > >cheap as it is today. > >That's all the 2x rule tells you. Religiously setting the page file size to > >twice the RAM size is nonsense but that's not what the rule is about. > >You could also call this rule "1/3 physical rule" because it basically says > >that a system will run fine if 1/3 of the needed memory is backed by > >physical RAM. > >Note: The memory requirements written on the boxes is usually the amount of

Quoted text (16 lines)

> >physical memory (RAM) required to run this app/game (somewhat) smoothly. > >Martin > Both you and Schumi are making this more complicated than it needs to > be and are probably confusing the hell out of some people. HD space is > cheap so why use any formula at all (as +G said)? You want to play it > safe with no games crashing because you ran out of memory then just do > the followiing and leave it the hell alone. > Set minimum at 300mb. > Set maximum at no limit. > This will ensure just about every game you own will not cause dynamic > changing in size of the swap file and any game that requires more than > 300mb will run fine too. Simple.

Scalawag <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>>All the URLs you post say that if you want to run the same kind of >>system (mix of apps) on 32MB machine you'll need a bigger page file >>than on a 512MB machine - which is of course correct. But that's no >>contradiction to the 2x "rule": > > They never said that. They said the 2.5x rule goes against logic and > is wrong.

That's pretty much what they (and you) say: "the 2x rule is wrong because if you have limited RAM you need a huge swapfile and if you have plenty you'll be fine with a small file." If you understand the rule the way you seem to do: "No matter what - always use twice the RAM size as swapfile" then of course it is wrong - I already said that in my previous posts btw. You're approaching this thing from the wrong end here. Don't start with the available RAM and try to calculate the page file size. You'd have to start with how much memory (RAM plus swap file) you system NEEDs. The 2x rule will then tell you how much RAM (and swapfile) you'll need for an optimal (in the sense of "bang for the buck") system (see my previous post for an example). Of course you can say "screw it" and buy more RAM (and use a smaller swap file) and "violate" the rule in the high performance direction. This will get you a slight performance increase for a lot of (well at least some) money. If you have more than enough money then that that's the way to go: buy as much RAM as you can fit in there and use a minimal swapfile. But if you have to think about how much money to spend the 2x rule is a good instrument to determine your needs. So the 2x rule is more a "management rule" than a performance thingy - it tells you how much RAM to get - not what to set your swap file size to with a given amout of RAM. Martin

On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 13:00:19 -0700, "Jason \"Schumi\" Murray" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>I am amking it more complicated? > >Look at my first post... 1 line suggestion. You sir are the one making this >a lot more confusing, and so are the guys who's links you sent. > >Again mate.... can you answer the $25,000.00 question? What size should I >set my partition that your links are suggesting? Simple question actually. > >Cheers, > >Schumi

That will change as game requirements keep getting steeper and steeper. There is no definitive answer. I suggest to anyone that they forget this voodoo science and just do as I suggested earlier. Moving to a dedicated partition will reap negligible benefits.

On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 12:54:57 -0700, "Jason \"Schumi\" Murray" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Thanks for those postss Scalawag... they are either: > >a) Still plagued with the same partition size problem (unanswered byt >hem)... >b) Completely backing up what Martin and I are saying. > >Lets start with (A)

I'm done playing Tiddly Winks with you and Martin.

"Jason "Schumi" Murray" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Well.... again... size of partition in "their" logic is? > > Cheers, > > Schumi Hi Schumi and others I've pasted an article I found on the web some time ago that explains how to work out what you need, rather than what anyone else says you need. Dont remember there its from, makes a lot of sense to me though. Hope its of use. Mark Calculating Virtual memory Before you can set your Virtual memory you�ll want to get an idea of what to actually set it too. Some recommend using a general formula, e.g. Physical RAM*2.5. This is incorrect however. Using that formula, a person with 16MB RAM should set 40MB, while a person with 128MB RAM should set 320MB. Clearly the person with little RAM needs a greater amount of Virtual memory than the person with a lot of RAM. To begin with, let Windows manage your virtual memory settings. Then install System monitor. Click on Start, Settings, Control panel, Add/Remove programs. Select the Windows set-up tab & then System tools. Select System monitor & install it. Reboot your system for the changes to take effect. Open up System monitor (Click on Start, Programs, Accessories, System Tools, System Monitor), select Edit then Add item. Add Swapfile size These are the items that System monitor will now track for you. You can remove/add other items by clicking on Edit then Add/Remove item. Over the next few days load up System monitor & let it track your Swapfile size. Click on Options then Chart & set the update interval as you see fit I �d recommend setting it to 30 seconds or 1 minute, depending on how long you intend to be monitoring for. Make sure to Start logging (Click on File then Start logging) & save the logs so that you�ll be able to reference usage over the days. It would be best to start tracking your usage when you go to play a game or something that will put your PC under a bit of stress. Run a few time-demos or play Unreal tournament against some bots. This will give you an idea of your Virtual memory needs, however don�t go overboard with the testing you want to track normal usage, not excessive usage. The graph to be concerned with is the Swapfile size. Once you�re satisfied with your monitor it�s time to consult your log. Open the sysmon.log (or whatever you saved it as) with Notepad. Unfortunately the size is saved in byte size, rather than in MB�s. To convert into MB�s, take the largest value from the log & divide it by 1048576 (1024*1024). So in the above example it would be 113246208/1048576=110MB (108 rounded up). Obviously you should only be concerned with calculating the highest value, rounding up to the nearest 10 MB�S, e.g. if you get 143.8MB round it up to 150MB.