Q: My system has 512 mb mem and I have my virtual mamory configured so that a 256 MB paging file on C: root partition and a 256 MB paging file on the first partition of my extra hard drive (Z:). When I first set this input from the virtual page mamory properties, they work fine and I have a total page size of 512 MB. However, after a reboot, my total virtual memory is only 256MB. When I go back to the virtual memory features, both 256 MB files appear to be present and continue as before, but the total size is only 256 MB (only the C: page file is approved. The only way to restore the Z: the file is the properties window to the Z to remove page file, reboot, use the properties page to reset a 256MB swap file on the Z: drive. At this point, I have a fully functional 512MB swap file, at least until I reboot and Z: the file is lost again despite still present in the institutions. I am absolutely going nuts here! What could cause these settings are ignored reboot?
Re:Don't put the pagefile on a different partition unless that partition is also located on a different harddrive. Otherwise, the possible benefits are negated. Just keep it all on one partition and don't worry about it.
Re:Im not on about OS`s, what im saying is that almost all of the installers for their software have said that they are stable and fast.
And McDonald's commercials say they're food is good, it's called marketing. You don't take cracks at your own products. And frankly everything in the NT line has been solid for me.
And as for virtual memory, how can they know more than us? We are finding ways to optimise VM far more effitiantly than they ever have.
Far more is one helluva stretch. Making the pagefile fixed size and telling NT not to page the executive make a small difference if any, and there was the other guy who wasted a large chunk of his memory to put a pagefile on a ramdisk when the pagefile probably wasn't even used before. Good optimization there, it's pretty much completely backwards.
And you're the one that doesn't think using more than one pagefile will use them in round-robin/raid0 style, which it will and no it wont' incurr any noticable CPU usage increase by the VM.
For example. MS sets windows to manage VM, not very efficient
It may not be the most effiecient, hell it's impossible to have the most efficient system in all cases, but it's the safest. It allocates a base pagefile and grows if memory becomes tight which would probably have been my decision too. The only real guesses at installation time are:
1) Set a fixed size pagefile some multiple of the size of memory and hope it's enough.
2) Set a variable sized pagefile and let the user's change it later if they feel the need.
3) Ask the user
The safe answer is 2 because you have no idea of the workload that will be put on the box. 3 would be valid if they had an 'advanced' setup, because most people don't even know what a pagefile is. And most people that do know what it is think the pagefile and virtual memory are the same thing.
Anyway shouldnt we be helping guy instead of arguing?
There would be no need to argue if people wouldn't hand out misinformation. Anyway, I've said my piece, I don't have Windows on my home PCs anymore and I havn't seen his problem on my 1 Windows work PC so I can't help anymore.
Re:Im not on about OS`s, what im saying is that almost all of the installers for their software have said that they are stable and fast.
Bit of an understatement aint it? False advertising if you will.
And as for virtual memory, how can they know more than us? We are finding ways to optimise VM far more effitiantly than they ever have.
For example. MS sets windows to manage VM, not very efficient. We set it to a "rule/s" that we`ve come up with, and we get faster and more stable systems.
And it comes to the same point, when have MS ever been 100% true?
Another Example, XBOX.
"best games console on the planet" they said. Although it aint. GameCube&PS2 beat in several areas. such as design, games, controllers, efficient subsystems ect;. True, XBOX is good in some areas, but they overestimate their product/s cabilibites by a long shot.
Anyway shouldnt we be helping guy instead of arguing?
Re:Listen….or read, im not here to make enemies, but look at MS`s track record.
When have any of their big claims ever been 100% true?
When was the last time you released an OS?
Common sense (and your posts in this thread, no offense) tells me that MS knows more about VM management than you do.
Re:ha ha, a comedian.
Listen….or read, im not here to make enemies, but look at MS`s track record.
When have any of their big claims ever been 100% true?
Re:Your point could be argued, but, common sence tells you not to listen to MS
Actually, common sense is tell me not to listen to you 
Bill
Re:I agree with all of you, but unfortunately I can't even do that now. My settings simply won't stick for a page file not on the C: drive. Windows keeps overriding my settings on reboot. I set all of my p[age files to zero and rebooted. This worked and I started with zero virtual memory size I then put a 256mb file back on Z:. This actually stuck through one reboot, but after a second reboot, the 256 is agagin unrecoginzed, and instead I have a 768mb swap file on the C: drive. However, the list at the property sheet for virtual mem again shows no swap on C:, and only the 256mb on Z:, as does the registry. The windows properties for virtual memory just keep ignoring me!!!
Also my rationale for having two swap files is I often use the second drive for TV captures in MJPEG at full res (I use showshifter as a pseudo PVR). Since this only uses approx 20% of the CPU, I am free to use the computer for other tasks, but I would prefer the swap file on the capture drive to not be used due to the risk of dropped frames. Conversely, whenever I am not capping, I want the page file on the second drive to be used primarily. Surprisingly enough, windows xp handled this behavior well before I started to have these problems.
Re:Hi again,
Alot of people have different theorys on how the swap file should be set, i have tryed most, if not all of the suggested methods, and have found that a single, fixed sized swapfile, on a seperate drive to which windows is(can have other stuff on the same drive as the swapfile as well), is the most stable, and also improve multitasking performance by quite a bit.
Re:Create a partition a bit larger than your page file for XP and then have it installed on that partition. I have my page file/swap file on partition H: all by itself and it is very fast
Having a seperate partition for the pagefile is pointless, just set the min/max sizes the same and you have basically the same effect except without all the extra seeking.
Re:Create a partition a bit larger than your page file for XP and then have it installed on that partition. I have my page file/swap file on partition H: all by itself and it is very fast. I see no slowdowns at all. Make the page file maximum and minimum the same size at least 256 Megs or higher. There is no sense in playing around with your swap file size or where it is located.
I have my XP Pro page file at 384 megs max and min. I have 512 megs RAM installed. I have plenty of hard drive free space so there is no problem with that size.
If you are experimenting with what works best for you then keep on trying until you find settings that works best for your computer.
Re:The other reason that I like using two page files is if the one disk happens to be in heavy use, aka vid capture, the other swap file will basically take over. Anyway, the registry settings in HKLM/system/currentcontrolset/services/session manager/memory management are exactly as they should be after I set them, they are simply being ignored by the damn system. I am completely at a loss as to why this keeps happening.
Re:Your point could be argued, but, common sence tells you not to listen to MS.
Their articles, like the ones you mentioned are baced on theory and not actual real world testing.
Plus, if you think about it, unless your HDs are in RAID anyway, it wont work, it`ll just create more stuff for the CPU to work out.
How often do you believe in what MS says?
Not that I believe MS often, but they're right about multiple swap files. Of course if you're swapping a lot you should get more memory anyway. There's no real CPU usage in selecting a file to swap to, it just uses a round-robin-effect swapping out some pages then updating a pointer to the next swap space to use. It's more CPU intensive to use a pagefile at all than it is to select one to use, because Windows uses a swapfile instead of a partition every page-out has to go through the filesystem driver hooks before hitting the disk.
I can't remember the key off hand, but you can find the registry key that holds the pagefiles and make sure it's written there before you reboot, just as a sanity check. If it's not, there's no way the pagefile will be used on bootup.
Re:Your point could be argued, but, common sence tells you not to listen to MS.
Their articles, like the ones you mentioned are baced on theory and not actual real world testing.
Plus, if you think about it, unless your HDs are in RAID anyway, it wont work, it`ll just create more stuff for the CPU to work out.
How often do you believe in what MS says?
Remember the install background for 98/Me? "The fastest & most stable version of windows yet!!!". I rest my case.
Anyway, back to the problem.
Ive never come accross that problem, but try
1)Downloading some sort of XP tweaking program, like X-Setup, and setting the page file like that.
2)Try what i said with the swap file, and have it on one drive only (im persistant arnt I!)
3)Install/Un-Install SP1, depending on wether you have it or not.
And if all else fails, do the granddaddy of all windows fixes, Re-Install Windows.
Re:True, it does reduce teh chance of crashing, but having the swap on two drives actually can inprove performance by simultaneously writing to both disks like a mini-RAID. See this article for details http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;314482
I have pressed the set button, and the setting are appropriately listed at the box in the top. Unfortunately, the system just seems to be ignoring me. Itried setting the C: drive to no swap file and the Z: drive to 256mb. It worked,but when I rebooted agagi the Z: file was not recognized and instead I have a 768mb sized file on C:. The system is simply ignoring what I enter. I also checked the PageFiles key in the registry, and it is exactly what I set it to. It is just being ignored also!!!
Re:Hi,
Two things.
1) You have to click "set" if ure using XP or 2K to save the new settings.
2) Dont have the page file on two drives
Set it so its all on one drive and preferably the one which doesnt have the system files on. Dunno why, but i read it on a website somewhere and like this it reduces the chance of a crash.
0 Comments.