RAM usage before and after disabling pagefile

the.lost.one · Aug 30, 2008

i have done the disabling page file thing. and i noticed that:

1) before disabling it my RAM usage was always under 50%. it mostly remained around 33% to 45%. when i significantly reduced its size to 200MB fixed, i still didnt see change in RAM usage.

2) after disabling page file my RAM usage would start at the same 33% and after some time easily get over 50%. even upto to 68-70% which it never touched before.

3) there was also a very visible performance boost.

i measured RAM usage with the multi metre sidebar gadget. it is not a one day usage. i have used pagefile for over a year and no paging for a month.

so what do you guys have to say about it?

____
i have 1.6Ghhz dual core, 2.5GB RAM, Vista Home Premium 32 bit

Brink · Aug 30, 2008

Hi the.lost.one,

I would recommend that you enabled the paging file back and let it be managed by the system. Since you do not have a huge amount of RAM, you will get a out of memory error when you run enough programs to fill up RAM.

Please read through the top of this tutorial for more information about this.

http://www.vistax64.com/tutorials/132201-virtual-memory-paging-file-change.html

Hope this helps,
Shawn

Dzomlija · Aug 30, 2008

the.lost.one said:
i have done the disabling page file thing. and i noticed that:

1) before disabling it my RAM usage was always under 50%. it mostly remained around 33% to 45%. when i significantly reduced its size to 200MB fixed, i still didnt see change in RAM usage.

2) after disabling page file my RAM usage would start at the same 33% and after some time easily get over 50%. even upto to 68-70% which it never touched before.

3) there was also a very visible performance boost.

i measured RAM usage with the multi metre sidebar gadget. it is not a one day usage. i have used pagefile for over a year and no paging for a month.

so what do you guys have to say about it?

____
i have 1.6Ghhz dual core, 2.5GB RAM, Vista Home Premium 32 bit

Your RAM usage count went up after disabling the page file because memory that was previously swapped out to to hard disk no longer had anywhere to go, and therefore remained in memory. Chances are you've suffered a performance hit without any pagefile. You can confirm this by re-enabling the pagefile then running a benchmark program, such as GeekBench. Turn off the pagefile then run the same benchmark again and then compare the scores.

Bottom line is - even if you have 4GB (or more) RAM, DON'T TURN OFF THE PAGEFILE.

the.lost.one · Aug 30, 2008

Actually my point was that my RAM usage stats tell that windows would still use pagefile even if more than 50% RAM un-unsed.

I am monitoring RAM usage in real time and it is no where near that I'd run out of RAM. ANd I am talking of over one year of monitoring RAM usage. I don't play hardcore games or use photoshop so for a moment if you guys assume that it is highly unlikely that I'd run out of RAM without a warning, don't you think it's a rip off that I have paid for 2.5GB RAM and my system don't even want to use half of it?

I am not a techie so I might be missing something and that is why I am asking that in my scenario disabling pagefile does appear to be the right choice. If windows couldn't function without page file, why would Microsoft put an option to disable it?

the.lost.one · Aug 30, 2008

Dzomlija said:
Chances are you've suffered a performance hit without any pagefile. You can confirm this by re-enabling the pagefile then running a benchmark program, such as GeekBench.

RAM is faster than page file right? If real time monitoring shows that RAM usage increased and I have not run out of RAM, how would the performance decrease?

RAM usage should not have increased coz my RAM was much MORE than total virtual memory. Windows was supposed to use pagefile ONLY when there is insufficient RAM, but testing shows it doesn't. It used pagefile even when more than 50% of my RAM was idle, un used.

Dzomlija · Aug 31, 2008

the.lost.one said:
Dzomlija said:

Chances are you've suffered a performance hit without any pagefile. You can confirm this by re-enabling the pagefile then running a benchmark program, such as GeekBench.

Click to expand...

RAM is faster than page file right? If real time monitoring shows that RAM usage increased and I have not run out of RAM, how would the performance decrease?

RAM usage should not have increased coz my RAM was much MORE than total virtual memory. Windows was supposed to use pagefile ONLY when there is insufficient RAM, but testing shows it doesn't. It used pagefile even when more than 50% of my RAM was idle, un used.

The pagefile is crucial for performance, so it should not be disabled, no matter how much ram you have.

To explain it's use (all number are for arguments sake only and should not be taken as gospel):

Your system has 2GB ram, the system uses 512MB, and you load a program that needs 1024MB. This will bring usages up to 1536MB. Now, let's say you load another program that needs 768MB. If the page file is turned off, chances are the new program will fail. If it is turned on, the Windows Memory Manager will determine which memory from the system and the first program isn't currently in use, and will swap that memory out to the pagefile, thus freeing up the memory needed to run the second program.

In a nutshell, if you system has 2GB RAM and Windows has allocated 4GB for the pagefile, you essentially have 6GB of memory available. Although in my own experience, it's best to tell Windows to use a System Managed Swapfile, which will allow windows to increase automatically it if the need arises.

the.lost.one · Aug 31, 2008

I understand your point bro and I understand why it is best for most users to have paging on. Being a novice I like to play safe too and I have even turned on UAC (nothing relating to paging though). If a user initiated program, lets say MSN messenger, not starting is the only risk turning paging off involves then perhaps the risk is not too great for a few.

Taking the example you gave, lets suppose I am the user who has in more than one year never loaded that 768MB program (768 is just for argument's sake) that will run me out of RAM, what is the likelihood that I will now? To be fair there is still some risk but apparently it is insignificant unless I start doing something different on my laptop.

Further, 32-bit systems have a 4GB memory limit. It means that any memory (physical or paged) greater than 4GB will simply not be used by the OS. So there is a 4GB dead end even if I turn on paging. And 2.5 GB is not too far from that maximum limit. And it takes some time for a 32-bit 1.6 Ghz processor to eat up RAM, effectively giving me time to close some windows/programs when RAM usage gets too high.

Having said that, I might turn on paging soon since I am considering doing a clean install just for the heck of it lol.
(i suppose it's a good idea to do a fresh install after one and a half years)

SIW2 · Aug 31, 2008

Hi,

I've come across this idea several times e.g. TweakVI has a function for doing it, and Stuart Yarnold suggests it in his book "Windows Vista Tips and Tricks" ( ISBN-10: 1-84078-338-4 in case anyone wants to get it ). He's written a lot of books over the years, so I guess he has some idea what he's talking about.

If you are only using your your machine lightly and you have enough RAM, you'll probably get away with it - but if you get an unexplained crash or an out of memory warning, you'll know why. I can't see how it would do any serious damage, though.

A clean reinstal should get everything running like new, make sure you backup your important data and have all the drivers you need first, of course.

SIW2

johngalt · Aug 31, 2008

the.lost.one said:
I understand your point bro and I understand why it is best for most users to have paging on. Being a novice I like to play safe too and I have even turned on UAC (nothing relating to paging though). If a user initiated program, lets say MSN messenger, not starting is the only risk turning paging off involves then perhaps the risk is not too great for a few.

Taking the example you gave, lets suppose I am the user who has in more than one year never loaded that 768MB program (768 is just for argument's sake) that will run me out of RAM, what is the likelihood that I will now? To be fair there is still some risk but apparently it is insignificant unless I start doing something different on my laptop.

Further, 32-bit systems have a 4GB memory limit. It means that any memory (physical or paged) greater than 4GB will simply not be used by the OS. So there is a 4GB dead end even if I turn on paging. And 2.5 GB is not too far from that maximum limit. And it takes some time for a 32-bit 1.6 Ghz processor to eat up RAM, effectively giving me time to close some windows/programs when RAM usage gets too high.

Having said that, I might turn on paging soon since I am considering doing a clean install just for the heck of it lol.
(i suppose it's a good idea to do a fresh install after one and a half years)

And you are sure you've never run a large program in the RAM before? Do you monitor it when it performs things like nightly updates, Antimalware updates, antimalware scanning, image editing, video editing, VoIP phone calls, archive extracting, archive creating, email attachment extraction, word document viewing, access database editing, Excel spreadsheet editing, extended use of Internet for research purposes (meaning a long history and numerous tabs), and hundreds of other scenarios as well?

Honestly, Paging does not slow you down, it keeps things pretty fast. If you are 100% positive that in all those scenarios you have never exceeded your RAM, go ahead and try it - just be ready for error message left and right if you *do* exceed it.

Your original statement that Pagefile is used only when RAM is running out is so windows 2000 it is not even funny. Even XP made much more extensive use of the pagefile even when it did not need to - it had a much better memory manager than Windows 2000 did, and Vista's is even better. A lot of what already gets used by the pagefile is the System series and such that run at boot but are then dormant until they are needed.

One you start adding apps to your system, you'll find 2 GB tied up in no time, and 4 GB tied up pretty fast too.

With the speeds available from today's HDs there really is no reason I can see for turning it off. The speed boost you get in the short run won't really override the performance issues you get whenever *anything* attempts to cross your physical RAM's threshold - at 4 GB you may be safe, at 8 you can be safe, but even at 16 GB there can still come a time when something hoses your system and locks up your RAM....and if the kernel and services haven't been pages, your system lock up tighter than a micro pipette.

Your computer, your choice. Personally, I wouldn't - even *Linux* uses a swap.

the.lost.one · Sep 1, 2008

johngalt said:
And you are sure you've never run a large program in the RAM before? Do you monitor it when it performs things like nightly updates, Antimalware updates, antimalware scanning, image editing, video editing, VoIP phone calls, archive extracting, archive creating, email attachment extraction, word document viewing, access database editing, Excel spreadsheet editing, extended use of Internet for research purposes (meaning a long history and numerous tabs), and hundreds of other scenarios as well?

I have been using it without paging for one month now without errors. Actually, I have a modest 1.6GHz Pentium Dual Core processor. This modest CPU apparently acts as a bottleneck to sudden gulping down of RAM. When CPU usage reaches 100%, I have noticed that RAM increases are very slow and insignificant after that.

Antivirus, archive extraction, 10-15 browser tabs , 3 messengers, Outlook, OneNote ...that's my extensive use at one time...but that is also pretty much all. No photoshop type image editing, no hardcore gaming. And it has never crashed. Not as yet at least

johngalt said:
A lot of what already gets used by the pagefile is the System series and such that run at boot but are then dormant until they are needed.

Aha! This is the kind of info I was looking for! I never said pagefile is not used until RAM is finished, I said this what I thought how it was supposed to work. In fact I was kind of questioning why Vista was using paging when RAM was available.

I also have a Question. I think 32-bit processor can't assign a memory address over 4,294,967,296 bytes. And virtual memory system treats bytes of HDD as memory. So the 4GB limit includes BOTH RAM and Pagefile. Am I right?

SIW2 said:
If you are only using your your machine lightly and you have enough RAM, you'll probably get away with it - but if you get an unexplained crash or an out of memory warning, you'll know why. I can't see how it would do any serious damage, though.

Yeah. Apparently, it may not do serious damage. I hope so.

Bare Foot Kid · Sep 1, 2008

the.lost.one said:
SIW2 said:

If you are only using your your machine lightly and you have enough RAM, you'll probably get away with it - but if you get an unexplained crash or an out of memory warning, you'll know why. I can't see how it would do any serious damage, though.

Click to expand...

Yeah. Apparently, it may not do serious damage. I hope so.

So why not re-enable it, as system managed.

1) The OS will run as designed!
2) You will not have to be concerned about crashes.

Later

Ted

Scragbat · Sep 1, 2008

I have always wondered if there is really a need for a pagefile if you have a lot of RAM? I have seen countless threads on numerous forums with people arguing it back and forth with the general concensus being that it should not be disabled. That you should have it at least 1.5 times your physical RAM. OK, then what if I double my RAM later on? I have to increase the size of my pagefile even further?
Each time you increase your RAM, apparently you have to take a bigger slice out of your HDD's available space for paging. Even if your physical RAM is now more than what you previously had combined with pagefile?
When I upgraded my computer earlier this year, I decided to go against conformity and disable the pagefile, as I thought 4GB was more than enough,
No problems encountered, even running demanding graphics and video apps and intensive 3D games.
I got another 4GB (8GB total) and I'm now sure I have no need at all for a pagefile.

Seems Microsoft agree:

When you set up a 32-bit version or a 64-bit version of Windows Server 2003 or Windows XP, a page file is created that is one and a half times the amount of RAM that is installed in the computer provided there is sufficient free space on the system hard disk. However, as more RAM is added to a computer, the need for a page file decreases. If you have enough RAM installed in your computer, you may not require a page file at all, unless one is required by a specific application.

When no page file exists, or the page file is insufficient, the system reserves some virtual memory in the physical memory for its paging needs.

So if an app specifically requires a pagefile and you have none, it'll reserve virtual memory inside your physical RAM and page there. That's gonna be one heck of a lot quicker than your HDD no matter how fast it is!!

How to determine the appropriate page file size for 64-bit versions of Windows Server 2003 or Windows XP

OldBloke · Sep 2, 2008

I notice that Microsoft article doesn't mention Vista.
Memory management has probably been improved in Vista, compared to XP (it gradually gets better and better in each version of Windows), So I wonder if all the advice in that article about XP and other Windows OSs is still true for Vista. It's possible that the way the page file is used has been adjusted to avoid over using it when there is plenty of ram.

I've been searching but so far haven't found anything on the Microsoft site about page file usage in Vista specifically.

OldBloke · Sep 2, 2008

the.lost.one said:
I also have a Question. I think 32-bit processor can't assign a memory address over 4,294,967,296 bytes. And virtual memory system treats bytes of HDD as memory. So the 4GB limit includes BOTH RAM and Pagefile. Am I right?

It doesn't work like that.
Data in the real memory needs to be addressed in tiny amounts, so a program can ask for just one particular speck of it which needs to be read next. So you need a huge number of addresses for ram.

Data stored in the page file doesn't have addresses like ram does. The file isn't addressable memory. Maybe "virtual memory" is a bad name for it because that name gave you the impression that it contains running programs. Actually when an opened program has been swapped out to the hard disk it's in a dormant state, opened but not actually running, until it's copied back into ram.

Data and programs are moved between the ram and the page file in large chunks at a time (usually multiples of 4KB I think) not just one or two chosen bytes. When it has been copied into ram, it gets the addresses of the ram area it's been moved into.

That's how you can have a page file larger than the addressable memory size. It won't use up any memory addresses, just a few disk addresses such as "sectors 48 to 56".

the.lost.one · Sep 2, 2008

OldBloke said:
It's possible that the way the page file is used has been adjusted to avoid over using it when there is plenty of ram.

If you read my very first post, my Vista was using pagfile when more than 50% of RAM was available. (I have 2.5 gb)

johngalt says, "Even XP made much more extensive use of the pagefile even when it did not need to - it had a much better memory manager than Windows 2000 did, and Vista's is even better. A lot of what already gets used by the pagefile is the System services and such that run at boot but are then dormant until they are needed."

I can safely assume he is right. And if he is right that microsoft advice above could also be valid for Vista. Coz really, people don't advise disabling paging for XP, do they?

Scragbat said:
the general concensus being that it should not be disabled. That you should have it at least 1.5 times your physical RAM. OK, then what if I double my RAM later on? I have to increase the size of my pagefile even further?

Exactly my point.

And I want to know if the 4GB limit for 32-bit processors includes BOTH page file and RAM? Coz if that is the case, the argument ends in favour of no paging if you have 4GB. Unless paging is too complex a process to comprehend, which is another thing that I want to ask

Scragbat · Sep 2, 2008

OldBloke said:
I notice that Microsoft article doesn't mention Vista.
Memory management has probably been improved in Vista, compared to XP (it gradually gets better and better in each version of Windows), So I wonder if all the advice in that article about XP and other Windows OSs is still true for Vista. It's possible that the way the page file is used has been adjusted to avoid over using it when there is plenty of ram.

I've been searching but so far haven't found anything on the Microsoft site about page file usage in Vista specifically.

I know you shouldn't assume things, but I am thinking that this article can be applied somewhat to Vista. Particularly the point I highlighted about disabling the pagefile. Surely MM has been improved in Vista (it couldn't get worse

). I would also assume (there I go again!), that MS will understand that physical RAM is increasing considerably in peoples systems these days and that they have perhaps optimized Vista to work efficeintly in these scenarios without a HDD based pagefile...

What do I know! LOL :cool:

the.lost.one · Sep 2, 2008

Oh, I just read OldBloke's last reply. Thanks for clarifying. So I see page file is not simply hard disk RAM as I thought. Hmmm.

Fumz · Sep 2, 2008

Windows Vista, Inside Out. Ed Bott, Carl Seichert and Craig Stinson. Microsoft Press, 2007.

Page 747, Note:

For more information about page file management in Windows, we recommend the article "Virtual Memory in Windows XP", at Windows Vista Inside Out - Redirect Although the file magnitudes discussed in this article are pertinent to the XP environment rather than to Windows Vista, the basic information about how Windows manages and uses page files is still useful and valid.

Virtual Memory in Windows XP

Strictly speaking Virtual Memory is always in operation and cannot be “turned off.” What is meant by such wording is “set the system to use no page file space at all.” Doing this would waste a lot of the RAM. The reason is that when programs ask for an allocation of Virtual memory space, they may ask for a great deal more than they ever actually bring into use — the total may easily run to hundreds of megabytes. These addresses have to be assigned to somewhere by the system. If there is a page file available, the system can assign them to it — if there is not, they have to be assigned to RAM, locking it out from any actual use.

Page 751, Page File Confusion:

By far the most common instances of performance-related misinformation revolve around the subject of page files, also known as swap files. The following are some widely published myths about the proper configuration of virtual memory in Windows.

If your computer has large amounts of memory installed, you should eliminate your page file completely. This is incorrect. Although you can configure Windows so that it does not set aside any virtual memory, no reputable source has ever published benchmarks establishing any performance gains from doing so, and Windows simply wasn't designed to run without a page file. If the goal is to conserve disk space, a more sensible strategy is to configure Windows to create a page file with a relatively small minimum size and monitor its usage over time to see how much memory the operating system actually uses in daily operation.

Creating a page file of a fixed size improves performance. This is also bad advice. The logic behind this tip dates back to the earliest days of Windows. On 1990's-vintage hardware, dynamically resizing the swap file caused noticeable delays in system response and also resulted in excessive fragmentation. The memory management subsystems in Windows XP and Windows Vista have been tuned to minimize the likelihood of performance problems

What is it you're trying to achieve by doing what you're doing?

OldBloke · Sep 2, 2008

the.lost.one said:
If you read my very first post, my Vista was using pagfile when more than 50% of RAM was available. (I have 2.5 gb)

Maybe that's a good sign - the system isn't wasting the potential usefulness of the page file.

Even if you never fill the ram memory with open programs (so the page file isn't used for swapping between programs) it could still useful to have a page file to make the system seem faster.

For example some system data which is not likely to be needed again can be copied there, to make more space available in ram for the disk cache and internet browsing caches, and to preload programs you have used in recent days, just in case they might be needed.
That copying of stuff to the page file "just in case its ram space might be needed" doesn't slow down your work because it happens during idle moments.

Some stuff might be Copied instead of Moved to the page file. In other words it's in both places. Suppose ProgramA is loaded at startup and you don't use it for a few hours. It could be copied to the swap file. If you eventually decide to use ProgramA, it's still available without delay in ram, as usual. But if you decide to open a huge ProgramB instead, it can use ProgramA's ram space immediately, no need to wait for A to be swapped out to the page file, because it was already copied there just in case something will need to steal its ram space.

That's why the system SEEMS to be using heaps of memory and swap file space wastefully. Actually, empty memory is wasted memory. The system fills it with stuff which could possibly be needed later, such as preloading a program you haven't even asked for yet, and generous but shrinkable caches, etc. If it turns out that ram space is needed for something else instead, it can be taken immediately.

So don't worry if you've only opened Notepad and your ram seems 60% full already, plus some of the swap file is in use. It's meant to be like that. Some of that "used" ram is actually available to be turned over to a different purpose if it's needed.

All the above is an over-simplified picture of how the system uses the ram and page file cleverly and I don't pretend to know all the details.

It may not be essential to allow the system to have a swap file, but I think it will usually improve your experience of the computer being ready to do whatever you might want without delay.

Of course Microsoft has to guess what's best for the average user. Maybe for some people with particular work habits it might be better to have no page file. So believe your own experience

the.lost.one · Sep 2, 2008

Fumz, the same Vista Inside out book says this:
"The adage is: ‘Free RAM is wasted RAM’. Programs that purport to ‘manage’ or ‘free up’ RAM are pandering to a delusion that only such ‘Free’ RAM is available for fresh uses. That is not true, and these programs often result in reduced performance and may result in run-away growth of the page file."

With paging turned on for over one year my computer statistics show that there was MORE free RAM i.e. wasted RAM compared to when there was no paging. (33% to 48% RAM usage with paging. 35% to 70% RAM usage without paging)

OldBloke said:
Some stuff might be Copied instead of Moved to the page file. In other words it's in both places. Suppose ProgramA is loaded at startup and you don't use it for a few hours. It could be copied to the swap file. If you eventually decide to use ProgramA, it's still available without delay in ram, as usual. But if you decide to open a huge ProgramB instead, it can use ProgramA's ram space immediately, no need to wait for A to be swapped out to the page file, because it was already copied there just in case something will need to steal its ram space.

Now THAT is very interesting. If it is copying stuff then paging would definitely increase performance in most situations!

To be honest, the performance boost that I have noticed by no-paging is not all that significant or maybe it is but I have forgotten how it was like with paging. But one thing that I am 100% confident of is faster browsing experience.

I have a 512 kbps connection and I use Avast (which has a web scanner that scans every page as it loads). Browsing immediately and consistently got faster after disabling paging and still is. May be Avast was using pagefile for web scanning or I don't know. But what I do know is that the faster browsing experience is no placebo effect.

RAM usage before and after disabling pagefile

New Member

My Computer

My Computers

Resistance is Futile

My Computer

New Member

My Computer

New Member

My Computer

Resistance is Futile

My Computer

New Member

My Computer

My Computers

Antidisestablishmentarianist

My Computers

New Member

My Computer

R.I.P. August 13th 2014

My Computer

New Member

My Computer

My Computer

My Computer

New Member

My Computer

New Member

My Computer

New Member

My Computer

Buggin

My Computer

My Computer

New Member

My Computer