Page file

[Rod Speed]

True, but windows does not fall in the category you describe - it automatically loads itself into
RAM, then swaps out parts to the swap file without question.

It isnt that black and white. Most obviously when there is no swap file.

In the control panel you can set the minimum and maximum size for the
swapfile. These settings do indicate to windows the smallest amount
to use if the RAM is not full, it simply says the minimum size that
the file will be. This avoids the swapfile becoming fragmented across
the disk. Before setting the virtual memory size, I would recommend
turning off virtual memory completely, rebooting, defragmenting the
hard disk, then setting the minimum and maximum values to the same
amount, so that the swapfile is configured in one large contiguous
block on the disk and will never grow and shrink and therefore cannot
become defragmented. Of course, this is my advice to someone with
less RAM than the applications they use can ever need. If you have
enough RAM - turn it off and things will be faster, quieter and more
responsive.

There's real downsides with no swap file with Win.

Wrong, some OS's can, but windows doesn't.

I said CAN, not DOES.

Who told you that gem?!?

You just restated that yourself in different words at tha top.

Concentrate on the use of the word WHEN.

But loading from virtual memory IS using something from a file - its just not in the original
place on the hard disk!

The word IF is there for a reason.

No, we are stating a fact - swapping files between physical RAM and the slower hard disk (virtual
memory) has a performance impact on the system.

It isnt a fact at all IF that only happens in the background with the performance impact.

Also, like I said above - the minimum setting for the swapfile is not an indication of how much
windows will use as a
minimum, just the smallest size the swapfile is allowed to be.
Duh.

Yes we do.

No you dont.

Perhaps you could stretch to more than 1 word in your reasoning here

I did.

- the standard is for virtual memory to be 100%-150% the size of the RAM

That is just plain silly, most obviously when you go from say 1G to 2G of
physical ram, with the same machine use, why would you need to double
the swap file size in that situation ? The use of the swap file will DROP.

Nope.

You proove our point
Nope.

- it is used all the time by Windows, whether it needs it or not!

Pity that doesnt necessarily produce a performance impact when
you have large amounts of physical ram, enough for whatever is run.

 

[Rod Speed]

unless its necessary because there isnt enough physical memory.

I take it you either never used WINDOWS
or never bothered to monitor pagefile activity.

More fool you, as always.

I used the words AN OS there for a reason.

That's wrong enough I don't know where to start.

We'll see.

Pagefile isn't necessarily any faster than rest of HDD,

Wrong. Random access to the indexed page file
is a lot quicker than going thru the file system
with stuff that is too big for the file system cache.

the only gain there is if paging unneeded things left more
memory available for a (larger) filecache in physical memory.

Wrong again.

Never suggested it wasn't.

He clearly did.

The fact remains that it is possible a use(s) won't have any excess
over physical memory but windows will still have pagefile activity.

But that doesnt necessarily impact performance.

 

[Rod Speed]

Agreed - it is safer, but unfortunately windows will use it if it is there, whether it needs it or
not,
Yep.

so your system will see a performance reduction,.

Not necessarily.

I suspect that any PC with 2GB of RAM is probably powerful enough to absorb the performance hit
and the user won't even notice in day to day use.

Or you dont understand how Win uses the page file in that situation.

Its only noticable if you use some application that requires disk access and is impeeded by
virtual memory activity.

Wrong again, it wont be doing that enough to matter with
2G of physical ram with most normal machine uses.

Not in my experience over the last 2 years

Doing a tiny subset of machine use.

- XP works much faster and more efficiently with it turned off.

Bullshit on that much claim.

 

[GT]

It isnt that black and white. Most obviously when there is no swap file.



There's real downsides with no swap file with Win.

Elaborate please - We have already covered the point of running out of RAM
with swapfile turned off, so what downsides are you aware of with no swap
file with Win?

I said CAN, not DOES.

I'm sure some OSs can, but MS Windows CAN'T and its the Windows swapfile we
are talking about so why did you bother to comment on other OSs?

You just restated that yourself in different words at tha top.

I have never stated that the swap file is used to provide faster access to
read only files - this is some tripe that only you have mentioned!

Concentrate on the use of the word WHEN.

If I concentrate on your word WHEN, does your argument make more sense. Hold
on while I try.... Nope you're still wrong.

The word IF is there for a reason.

There may be the occasional chunk of data that is swapped out to virtual
memory, then never loaded, but there is significantly more data that is
swapped out to Virtual memory and IS loaded again. Whilst swapping out data
in the background is fine and won't impact performance, the performance hit
is incurred when the majority of data is swapped out while you are doing
something or has to be swapped back in when you need something, or need the
space in the swapfile.

It isnt a fact at all IF that only happens in the background with the
performance impact.

And as we have already discussed, swapping back in doesn't happen in the
background and swapping out doesn't always happen in the background, so like
I said there is a performance impact on the system.

No you dont.



I did.

Well you only posted the word 'Wrong' in that discussion - perhaps you wrote
the other words of that sentence in white text?
Please focus on the word HERE

That is just plain silly, most obviously when you go from say 1G to 2G of
physical ram, with the same machine use, why would you need to double
the swap file size in that situation ? The use of the swap file will
DROP.

Almost - the use of the swapfile will remain exactly the same or even
increase because Windows uses it whether it needs to or not, hence our
recommendation that it is turned off on a PC with sufficient RAM. However,
if you insist on having a swapfile, then I repeat, "the STANDARD is for
virtual memory to be 100%-150% the size of the RAM"

Nope.

Yes it does - you agreed that there is only a performance hit if the virtual
memory is used. We have already told you that windows uses a pagefile
whether it needs to or not, therefore will require to swap pages back into
RAM when required, therefore there is a performance hit. So you DID prove
our point.

Pity that doesnt necessarily produce a performance impact when
you have large amounts of physical ram, enough for whatever is run.

Let me summarise:
It is a fact that reading a page from virtual memory will be slower than
reading a page from physical RAM.
It is a fact that Windows will use a swapfile if one is present, regardless
of the amount of physical RAM in the system.
It is a fact that swapping out to virtual memory while the user is working
will have an impact on performance
It is a fact that swapping out to virtual memory in the background will NOT
affect the performance from the user's point of view
It is a fact that if any page required by the OS or an application is in
virtual memory, then the performance of that particular operation will be
slowed than if the page had been in physical RAM.
With no swap file, everything loaded will always be in physical RAM and
accessed at maximum speed.
With a swap file, not everything loaded will always be in physical RAM so
there will be an innevitable performance reduction, which will be measurable
when pages are swapped back into physical RAM and measurable when pages are
swapped into virtual memory concurrently with other user activity.

So with the swapfile turned on, windows will use it and the performance of
the PC will be slightly reduced. With the swapfile turned off, windows
cannot use it, so this particular bottleneck in performance will be
elliminated, but we introduce the possibility of windows running out of
memory, which will cause a runtime error in the application in question and
may take the OS down with it.

 

[GT]

Yep.

Ah, so one point is agreed - windows uses a swapfile whether it need it or
not

Not necessarily.

But you just agreed that windows uses the swapfile whether it needs to or
not, so when a swapped out file is required, it must be paged-in from the
swap file with an associated delay.

Or you dont understand how Win uses the page file in that situation.

Careful use of the word OR there - I like it! A fair alternative, but the
original statement (the bit before the or) is correct.

Wrong again, it wont be doing that enough to matter with
2G of physical ram with most normal machine uses.



Doing a tiny subset of machine use.

Oh you know what I do then? Clearly a lot more than you!

Bullshit on that much claim.

Nice argument - you win!

 

[kony]

Wrong. Random access to the indexed page file
is a lot quicker than going thru the file system
with stuff that is too big for the file system cache.

When did you plan on having random access to these giant
files? Are you ignoring that rewriting these big files to a
pagefile is in itself a performance loss before even
considering the performance of rereads?

But that doesnt necessarily impact performance.

Not necessarily, but usually it does, particularly when a
system has only 1 hard drive. Windows can make use of idle
time but at best it can only guess what to do then, and has
to correct when you're actively using the system.

 

[Rod Speed]

Elaborate please - We have already covered the point of running out of RAM with swapfile turned
off, so what downsides are you aware of with no swap file with Win?

Thats the real downside, Win doesnt handle that well.

I'm sure some OSs can, but MS Windows CAN'T

I didnt say it does.

and its the Windows swapfile we are talking about

Nope, its swap files in general that are being discussed.

so why did you bother to comment on other OSs?

Its swap files in general that are being discussed.

I have never stated that the swap file is used to provide faster access to read only files

You did however say that Win does load some read only files into the swap file.

- this is some tripe that only you have mentioned!

It isnt tripe, its fact. The access to that stuff is faster from the
swap file instead of to the hard drive when it isnt in the file cache.

If I concentrate on your word WHEN, does your argument make more sense. Hold on while I try....
Nope you're still wrong.
Nope.

There may be the occasional chunk of data that is swapped out to virtual memory, then never
loaded,

Its a hell of a lot more than an occasional chunk.

but there is significantly more data that is swapped out to Virtual memory and IS loaded again.

Depends entirely on how the system is used and
how much physical ram there is, even with Win.

Whilst swapping out data in the background is fine and won't impact performance, the performance
hit is incurred when the majority of data is swapped out while you are doing something

That doesnt happen when you have lots of physical ram.

or has to be swapped back in when you need something,

That doesnt happen when you have lots of physical ram either.

or need the space in the swapfile.

Doesnt happen with lots of physical ram.

And as we have already discussed, swapping back in doesn't happen in the background

Swapping back doesnt happen if you can run
without a swap file and have one anyway.

and swapping out doesn't always happen in the background,

It does in the situation where you have enough physical ram
to be able to do without a swap file, and have one anyway.

so like I said there is a performance impact on the system.

You are just plain wrong when you have enough physical ram
to be able to do without a swap file, and have one anyway.

Well you only posted the word 'Wrong' in that discussion

Wrong. The rest is still in the quoting below.

- perhaps you wrote the other words of that sentence in white text?

You'll end up blind if you dont watch out.

Please focus on the word HERE

Focus on the rest of the quoted text below.

Almost

No almost about it, your original just plain silly.

- the use of the swapfile will remain exactly the same or even
increase because Windows uses it whether it needs to or not,

Wrong when the 1G of physical ram isnt enough for what is being done.

hence our recommendation that it is turned off on a PC with sufficient RAM.

Separate matter entirely to your stupid 100-150% claim with that much ram.

However, if you insist on having a swapfile, then I repeat, "the STANDARD is for virtual memory to
be 100%-150% the size of the RAM"

Wrong with that much physical ram.

Yes it does -
Nope.

you agreed that there is only a performance hit if the virtual memory is used.

But I dont agree that there is always performance hit when
you have enough physical ram to not need the swap file,
when Win uses the swap file anyway IN THAT SITUATION.

We have already told you that windows uses a pagefile whether it needs to or not,

No news to me, I said that myself.

therefore will require to swap pages back into RAM when required,

Wrong when there is enough physical ram to not need to do that.

therefore there is a performance hit.

Nope, because that doesnt happen when you have enough physical
ram so that you can go without a swap file and have one anyway.

So you DID prove our point.
Nope.

Let me summarise:
It is a fact that reading a page from virtual memory will be slower than reading a page from
physical RAM.

Not when you have enough physical ram to be able
to do without a swap file and have one anyway.

It is a fact that Windows will use a swapfile if one is present,
regardless of the amount of physical RAM in the system.

That's the only bit you did manage to get right and is no news.

It is a fact that swapping out to virtual memory while the user is working will have an impact on
performance

Win doesnt do that when you have enough physical ram
to be able to do without a swap file and have one anyway.

It is a fact that swapping out to virtual memory in the background
will NOT affect the performance from the user's point of view

What I said.

It is a fact that if any page required by the OS or an application is
in virtual memory, then the performance of that particular operation
will be slowed than if the page had been in physical RAM.

Not when you have enough physical ram to be able
to do without a swap file and have one anyway.

With no swap file, everything loaded will always be in physical RAM and accessed at maximum speed.

Just as true when you have enough physical ram to be
able to do without a swap file and have one anyway.

With a swap file, not everything loaded will always be in physical RAM
Wrong.

so there will be an innevitable performance reduction,
Wrong.

which will be measurable when pages are swapped back into physical RAM

Win doesnt do that when you have enough physical ram
to be able to do without a swap file and have one anyway.

and measurable when pages are swapped into virtual memory concurrently with other user activity.

Win doesnt do that when you have enough physical ram
to be able to do without a swap file and have one anyway.

So with the swapfile turned on, windows will use it
Yes.

and the performance of the PC will be slightly reduced.
Nope.

With the swapfile turned off, windows cannot use it,

You quite sure you arent one of those rocket scientist pig ignorant children ?

so this particular bottleneck in performance

No such animal when you have enough physical ram to
be able to do without a swap file and have one anyway.

will be elliminated, but we introduce the possibility of windows running out of memory, which will
cause a runtime error in
the application in question and may take the OS down with it.

So, when you have enough physical ram to be able to do
without a swap file and have one anyway, that cannot happen.

You can run up the white flag now.

 

[Rod Speed]

When did you plan on having random access to these giant files?

Nothing to do with random access to giant files, everything
to do with what files end up not in the file system cache.

Are you ignoring that rewriting these big files to a pagefile

I never ever said that they ever get into the pagefile.

is in itself a performance loss before even
considering the performance of rereads?

See above.

Not necessarily, but usually it does, particularly
when a system has only 1 hard drive.

Nope, not when you have enough physical ram to be
able to do without a swap file and have one anyway.

Windows can make use of idle time but at best it can only guess what
to do then, and has to correct when you're actively using the system.

Nope, not when you have enough physical ram to be
able to do without a swap file and have one anyway.

 

[Rod Speed]

Ah, so one point is agreed - windows uses a swapfile whether it need it or not

Yep, but your performance claim isnt agree when you have enough
physical ram to be able to do without a swap file and have one anyway.

But you just agreed that windows uses the swapfile whether it needs to or not, so when a swapped
out file is required, it must be paged-in from the swap file with an associated delay.

I never agreed that it was swapped out in the sense that it ever
needs to be swapped in again when you have enough physical
ram to be able to do without a swap file and have one anyway.

In fact that doesnt happen.

Careful use of the word OR there - I like it! A fair alternative, but the original statement (the
bit before the or) is correct.
Nope.

Oh you know what I do then?

No one ever does more than a tiny subset of machine use.

Clearly a lot more than you!

Clearly not. You clearly dont actually understand how Win
uses the swap file when you have enough physical ram to
be able to do without a swap file and have one anyway.

Nice argument - you win!

Your pathetic excuse for an 'argument' in spades.

Yours was just an assertion without a shred of evidence to substantiate it.

In spades with the much claim.

 

[kony]

Nothing to do with random access to giant files, everything
to do with what files end up not in the file system cache.

Still doesn't remove the performance penalty of reading it
in, paging it out, and still reading it in again. If the
large files are really such a problem, get more physical
memory. It's not as though a pagefile is a magic fix for
this either, the pagefile does not just receive any files
too big for the filecache, it is not large enough to do that
even if it did.

Nope, not when you have enough physical ram to be
able to do without a swap file and have one anyway.

Wrong, _IF_ you really do have enough physical ram to be
able to do without, enabling the paging feature will only
cause more work for windows and accessing a slow(er) medium,
versus not doing it at all. Windows was wrote dumb to
assume you don't have enough physical memory and start
paging out beforehand, even if you don't ever have the need
in the specific use of the system.

I will write again that many people don't actually have
enough physical ram, and cannot then disable the pagefile.
The issue of when it has a performance gain (disabled)
depends entirely on having ample (some would even consider
it excess because they think in terms of reliance of a
pagefile) physical ram.

Nope, not when you have enough physical ram to be
able to do without a swap file and have one anyway.

Doesn't matter if you have enough physical ram, if the
pagefile is enabled it will page and it will be a
performance loss if you didn't need the addt'l memory it
freed up. Some do, some don't.

 

[Rod Speed]

Still doesn't remove the performance penalty of
reading it in, paging it out, and still reading it in again.

You dont know it does that when you have enough physical ram
so that a pagefile isnt necessary and you have one anyway.

If the large files are really such a problem, get more physical memory.

That aint how 'giant files' are used, it aint even
possible to have enough physical memory for those.

It's not as though a pagefile is a magic fix for this either, the
pagefile does not just receive any files too big for the filecache,

No one ever said it did.

it is not large enough to do that even if it did.
Duh.

Wrong, _IF_ you really do have enough physical ram to be able to
do without, enabling the paging feature will only cause more work for
windows and accessing a slow(er) medium, versus not doing it at all.

Wrong when that superfluous pagefile activity happens in the background.

Windows was wrote dumb to assume you don't have enough
physical memory and start paging out beforehand, even if you
don't ever have the need in the specific use of the system.

Utterly mangled, as always.

I will write again that many people don't actually have
enough physical ram, and cannot then disable the pagefile.

Irrelevant to the situation being discussed where there is
enough physical ram and what is being discussed is whether
there is any need to disable the pagefile in THAT situation.

The issue of when it has a performance gain (disabled) depends
entirely on having ample (some would even consider it excess
because they think in terms of reliance of a pagefile) physical ram.

Meaningless waffle, what you always end up with when you havent got a clue.

Doesn't matter if you have enough physical ram, if the pagefile is enabled it will page

Nope, not in a way that has any effect on performance it doesnt.

and it will be a performance loss if you didn't need the addt'l memory it freed up.

Wrong, as always.

Some do, some don't.

More meaningless waffle.

 

[kony]

You dont know it does that when you have enough physical ram
so that a pagefile isnt necessary and you have one anyway.

Yes I do, but apparently you don't. That's how it's written
to work, it pages out ahead of time before it actually knows
how much memory you might need for the *next* task.

 

[Rod Speed]

Yes I do,

No you dont.

but apparently you don't.

We'll see...

That's how it's written to work,

No it isnt, when you have enough physical ram so that
a pagefile isnt necessary and you have one anyway.

it pages out ahead of time before it actually knows
how much memory you might need for the *next* task.

Wrong when you have enough physical ram so that
a pagefile isnt necessary and you have one anyway.

Its completely trivial to prove what it actually does when you have enough
physical ram so that a pagefile isnt necessary and you have one anyway.

Try it, and then get a very large towel for your face, again.

 

[kony]

No you dont.

LOL

So it's just everyone's imagination when the pagefile
activity occurs?

Ok, if you say so Rod.

 

[Rod Speed]

LOL

Laughing like a village eejut aint gunna save your bacon, child.

So it's just everyone's imagination when the pagefile activity occurs?

Pity we happen to be talking about an unusual subset of that situation, child.

Ok, if you say so Rod.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

 

[GT]

[snip]

Not when you have enough physical ram to be able
to do without a swap file and have one anyway.


That's the only bit you did manage to get right and is no news.

Right then we are talking here about a system with 2GB of RAM, which can
operate without a swapfile. You agree with the second point here - that
windows will use a swapfile whether it needs to or not, so pages will be
swapped out from RAM to hard disk. But in your first argument here, you say
that reading pages in from that swapfile will be just as fast as reading
them from RAM. Please explain to the group how your hard disk can read pages
at the same speed as RAM?

Please don't tell me you are trying to suggest that windows swaps pages out
to virtual memory, then stores that virtual memory in physical RAM in the
form of a cache? That is plain ludicrous!

Win doesnt do that when you have enough physical ram
to be able to do without a swap file and have one anyway.

Windows will swap pages out to a swap file if one is present regardless of
the amount of RAM in a system. If this happens while the user is working,
there will be an impact on performance.

What I said.

So you agree again that windows will swap pages out to a swap file if one is
present regardless of the amount of RAM in a system.

Not when you have enough physical ram to be able
to do without a swap file and have one anyway.

You contradict yourself again - you agree that pages will be swapped out to
virtual memory, but you think they will be loaded again at RAM speed?

Just as true when you have enough physical ram to be
able to do without a swap file and have one anyway.


Wrong.

Actually it is a fact, so replying with a single word just makes you look
silly!

Win doesnt do that when you have enough physical ram
to be able to do without a swap file and have one anyway.

Yes it does - we have told you that.

Win doesnt do that when you have enough physical ram
to be able to do without a swap file and have one anyway.

Yes it does - we have told you that.

Yes.

Ah, that same self-contradiction again. You agree that windows uses the
swapfile, but can somehow load pages back from it without performance
degradation!!!

You quite sure you arent one of those rocket scientist pig ignorant
children ?

Ah he has been reduced to insults - the sign of a lost argument!

 

[Rod Speed]

Right then we are talking here about a system with 2GB of RAM, which can operate without a
swapfile. You agree with the second point here - that windows will use a swapfile whether it needs
to or not, so pages will be swapped out from RAM to hard disk.

But not returned from the swap file to physical ram, so no effect on performance.

But in your first argument here, you say that reading pages in from that swapfile will be just as
fast as reading them from RAM.

I never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.

Please explain to the group how your hard disk can read pages at the same speed as RAM?

Pity I never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.

Please don't tell me you are trying to suggest that windows swaps
pages out to virtual memory, then stores that virtual memory in
physical RAM in the form of a cache? That is plain ludicrous!

Having fun thrashing that straw man are you child ?

Windows will swap pages out to a swap file if one is present regardless of the amount of RAM in a
system.

But what ends up in the swap file is quite different when you have
enough physical ram to not need a swap file and have one anyway.

If this happens while the user is working, there will be an impact on performance.

You havent established that that does happen and that it
doesnt happen in the background when you have enough
physical ram to not need a swap file and have one anyway.

So you agree again that windows will swap pages out to a swap file if one is present regardless of
the amount of RAM in a system.

But I do NOT agree that the SAME stuff will end up in the swap
file when you have enough physical ram to not need a swap file and
have one anyway and its completely trivial to prove that it doesnt.

You contradict yourself again
Nope.

you agree that pages will be swapped out to virtual memory,

But I do NOT agree that the SAME stuff will end up in the swap
file when you have enough physical ram to not need a swap file and
have one anyway and its completely trivial to prove that it doesnt.

but you think they will be loaded again at RAM speed?

You aint established that it is loaded into physical ram again.

Actually it is a fact,

No it isnt with the pig ignorant performance claim.

so replying with a single word just makes you look silly!
Nope.

Yes it does - we have told you that.

You can say whatever you like, you havent established that it
is ever swapped back into physical ram, just CLAIMED that.

Yes it does - we have told you that.

You can say whatever you like, you havent established that it
is ever swapped back into physical ram, just CLAIMED that.

Ah, that same self-contradiction again.
NOpe.

You agree that windows uses the swapfile,

But I do NOT agree that the SAME stuff will end up in the swap
file when you have enough physical ram to not need a swap file and
have one anyway and its completely trivial to prove that it doesnt.

but can somehow load pages back from it without performance degradation!!!

You aint even established that anything does ever get
swapped back in again when you have enough physical ram
to be able to do without a swap file and have one anyway.

Using your mindlessly silly line, there would be no point in having
more physical ram, because Win will still use the swap file in the
same way as it does without that extra physical ram, and that is
clearly not so and completely trivial to prove that it is not so
because the use of the swap file CHANGES when you add more
physical ram when you dont have enough in the first place.

Ah he has been reduced to insults

Not a single insult, just fact, child.

- the sign of a lost argument!

Pathetic, really. You're the one that's so stupid
that you cant even understand the argument.

You can run up the white flag now.

 

[kony]

But not returned from the swap file to physical ram, so no effect on performance.

.... because we all know it takes ZERO time to write files,
it's only reading them that is an issue. Not.

 

[Rod Speed]

... because we all know it takes ZERO time to write files,

No one ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.

it's only reading them that is an issue.

Or that either.

Not.

Keep desperately lying, you'll be out in china any day now. Again.

 

[GT]

But not returned from the swap file to physical ram, so no effect on
performance.

Fantastic - so windows can now see into the future and knows which pages it
will never need, so swaps them out to the page file. So your copy of windows
can see into the future!!!! Can it predict the lottery numbers as well?
Perhaps a weather forcast?

Here's a crazy idea - if you have had your copy of windows modified with a
complex algorithm capable of predicting which pages it can swap out of its
2GB of RAM into its swap file, then how about this - just don't load those
pages in the first place?!?

Twat