system page file

[clutch 1]

Kool, so you brought up the whole memory model thing. You may want to point out that the whole 2GB/4GB thing is actually referring to the total amount of memory addresses available to the system (seeing as the min requirements for an installation of NT WS/Server are 110MB and 125MB of hard drive space respectively. Couple that with the 12MB and 16MB min RAM configs and there would be now way in hell to support all those addresses directly with either physical RAM, Swap File, or the combination of both. Good points on the app not having direct control over the memory functions. It's just a good idea to distribute the I/O activity evenly over your resources if possible.

 

------------------

Regards,

 

clutch

[badboy 0]

Are you running Windows NT or Windows 2000 sound like you are running NT with 2gb partitions. I am running Windows 2000 with two 20.4gb IBM hard drives with no partitions. As I said in my previous post I only allocated what windows specified that is why I posted this board because I needed help. My Second drive is for storeing files and downloads and nothing else the files on the second drive are about 1gb in total. It was also pointed out that if you go to large with the page file that you could end up with excessive fragmentation and to make the minimum and maximum the same!!! If it helps my system specs are

 

Windows 2000 pro build 2195

Supermicro P6DGE

Dual Pentium PIII 550'S not Coppermine

256mb PC100 SDRAM

2 X 20.4gb IBM Hard Drives

Soundblaster live / Creative Liveware

Guillemot 3D Prophet / Nvidia 5.16 Drivers

ISDN Network Card

[mickbench 0]

I'm running Windows 2000 with two 10 gig partitions on my Primary Hard Disk and a 4 gig partition on my Secondary Hard Disk slaved of my Primary..

 

This drive is used for general files such as word docs and downloaded zip files...

 

Not much I/O usage on this drive, so my swapfile is on this drive..

 

I've got 128MB RAM, so my Swapfile is 190MB

 

128 to match my system memory plus 62 meg extra. It could max out at 382MB but fragmentation on this is going to be a problem...

 

Yes, I agree setting pagefiles too large will cause it to fragment...

 

So mine is 190 - 190. The min recommended by W2K...

 

I've seen some that have set up a whole partition for swapfiles..

 

I NEVER recommend anyone does this..

 

Say you set a partition for 200MB for a swapfile... You have 128MB of RAM.. Fine, until you increase your system memory to say 256MB.. Now your partition isn't large enough, and you have to re-create it..

 

Too much trouble.. Its just best to use a drive that you use for general data....

 

As for the 2GB/4GB issues.. I was just saying how Windows NT (Includes 2000) allocates its memory... The VMM allocates memory in address spaces, and in theory it can be up to 2GB for applications.

 

Windows NT runs all 32Bit Apps in its own memory space, and when the app hasn't been used for some time, it moves it into the backgroud using hard disk space.

 

The space you allocated for your swapfile.

 

This then allows other 32bit apps to be run with more actual RAM. Which makes it faster, as real RAM is MUCH Faster then FAKE RAM.

 

What you have done sounds fine...

 

If you have more then two general data drives with not much I/O usage, you could split that across both... But some would not agree with this..

 

But what ever, don't leave the swapfile on the system or boot partition.. These partitions have very high levels of I/O usage, and are not recommended for swapfiles.

 

 

[This message has been edited by mickbench (edited 13 May 2000).]

[Guest]

Just to put in my two cents worth:

 

I split up my swap file. 150 meg swap on my C: drive and a 150 meg swap file on my E: drive. Both drives run at the same speeds (ATA/66 7200 rpm), and I have 128 meg of physical pc100 ram.

 

My system runs great, absolutely great. My question is... does anybody think that splitting up a pagefile is better than having one huge one? I sure think so!!

 

------------------

**********************************************

---Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.---

**********************************************

Pentium II 450@504 4.5X112

128MB PC100 SDRAM

Diamond Viper V770 Ultra

Sound Blaster Live! Value

Seagate 13.6 Gig 7200RPM ATA/66

Western Digital 13.4 Gig 7200RPM ATA/66

Quantum 8.3 Gig

36X Acer CD Rom

Viewsonic PS790 19" Sweet as Heck Monitor

3Com NIC

Lexmark 5700 Printer

**********************************************

[mickbench 0]

MS do recommend that you split the swapfile across partitions with low I/O usage...

 

I don't have a problem with that..

 

One of the Servers at work has 1280MB of actual physical memory.

 

That would be a huge swapfile, so as we use RAID5 and have four 20gig SCSI Drives with 6 partitions of 10gigs each I split the swapfile.

 

Its on the last 2 partitions in the array. 700MB each in fact. The last partitions are used for users home folders, and the usage on these is a whole lot less then the system partition, or the partition with SQL installed...

 

The only problem with moving the swapfile of the system partition or boot partition is that if the computer crashes through a stop error, the crash.dmp file will not be created...

 

But what to do... Have performance or have plenty of log data in case of a crash..

 

I prefer performance..

 

In the Case of W2K, you can configure a small 2MB swapfile for small 64KB Crash Dumps.

 

But for full Kernel or complete system dump, you need a swapfile the size of your memory on the boot partition..

 

Phew.. that's it.. no more posts on this topic from me..

[c5rlh 0]

I can't remeber where I heard it, but supposedly the best setup for virtual memory is your total physical memory +100 meg

 

I've got 256 meg and a swapfile of 350 - 450, and it works like a treat

[ofelas 0]

I've got 18GB HDD/256MB SDRAM on my laptop split up into C(system 5GB) D(apps 4GB) & E(data 8GB) with a 270MB min./270MB max.swapfile on partition C; which partition should I have the swapfile on-thanx.

I'd appreciate a cc to ofelas2@home.com as I don't have reliable internet access, so I forward my e-mail to my cell-phone.

[Netslayer 0]

I have 128mb of edo ram(66mhz) and two hds running off of one ide channel with two cdroms on the other channel. One of the drives is a WD27.6gig 7200 ata66 enabled, while the old one is a maxtor 2.0gig (4800-5400rpm?? dma mode 2). Which is better for a page file in WINDOWS 2000 and how bug should it be?

 

[This message has been edited by Netslayer (edited 29 May 2000).]

[Flitzman 0]

Hi,

 

some pointers on pagefiles:

 

-put it on your fastest harddrive (ie your ATA66)

-Put the pagefile on the disk that has the least I/O activity on it, ie not your system partition (X:\WINNT)

-the size... mine is 192 meg big, and i have 256 meg physical RAM. I read somewhere that it should ideally be 2,5 times the size of your RAM, but i dont see a point in making it bigger than my 190 megs unless you use heavy graphical applications like autoCAD or Photoshop. The eventual size really depends on your personal preferences. If u notice your system is swapping too much then u might want to enlarge it. It is also recommended not to make it too big, because then u will get fragmentation on the swapfile, causing it to go slower.

 

hope this clears some things instead of complicating them

 

cheers,

 

Flitzman.

[Dirty Harry 0]

Hmm, I'm getting a bit confused here. From from what I gather you should:

- put the swap file on your fastest harddrive

- put it on a different (physical drive) than W2K

 

Logically, you this means that you did NOT install W2K on your fastest drive...

 

Which one of the two "rules" is more important ?

[JBoDEAN 0]

I think people are putting to much time / effort into this page file...

 

 

IMO, it doesnt make THAT MUCH difference.

 

I have 256 megs ram, and page file at 300. Never had a problem

 

 

 

------------------

[Here is my system]

Intel Celeron 366 @ 550

Abit BE6 Rv1

Creative Labs TNT2 Ultra

Soundblaster Live! Value w/ cambridge 4 point speakers

Pioneer 6x dvd / 12 x cdrom SCSI Drive

3com 905b-cmb network card

Panasonic 4x scsi burner

IBM Deskstar 13.5g 7200rpm DMA/66

Western Digital 14g 5400rpm DMA/66

256m PC-100 CS2 ram

 

 

BoDEAN

http://www.sammyhagar.net

[clutch 1]

Basically, swap file setup is more of a tweak than anything. If you have a decent system (i.e. 350 or above, 128MB+ RAM and at least 50% free space on your hd) don't worry about it. My primary concern is to get the swap file off of the system partition, then if possible onto another drive. As far as selecting what drive to put it on, most systems wont have a huge difference between multiple hard drives in the same system. On my main home pc, I have the swap file on a different partition. On my home server, I have it on a stripe set w/o parity. At work, I have it on a RAID5 set that doesn't have an active database, system partition, or IIS Index catalog (in this order of priority). If you find that you can't decide where to place it in your current system, don't worry about it. It's more of a tweak for high-demand systems in order to spread the I/O load across all the hard drives.

 

------------------

Regards,

 

clutch

[Rudyatek 0]

Is it possible to have Win2k and Win98 (on a dual boot) share the same swapfile? I thought I heard somewhere that this is possible, but I can't figure out how. It would be really useful if I could.

[SplEEb 0]

check out this about sharing the swap file.

SplEEb http://www.tweak3d.net/articles/win2kdualboot/

[c5rlh 0]

As far as I've been told, as said above

 

It needs to be physical memory +100 meg, but also, if it's anything like NT, just putting it on another partition from your main, it improves performance, even if you have one drive split into 2.

 

Don't ask me how, but this does work