Page defrag V2.32

[carl424]

I just tryed this out on my xp machine, and wonderd if they are ok to use


PageDefrag

Can this be used in vista also.

 

[Dwarf]

Sorry, but it does't work in Vista.

 

[pacinitaly]

wow, I have not seen this for a long time.

I used to use this on my XP / win2000 / and win98SE machines

 

[carl424]

Sorry, but it does't work in Vista.

OK, thanks dwarf, in the end i downloaded "defraggler" to try, i know it does not defrag the paging file, but i thought i would try one of these utilitys , as people keep recommending them or tell you to not bother with the windows defragmentation tool...

wow, I have not seen this for a long time.

I used to use this on my XP / win2000 / and win98SE machines

Is there anything like this for vista,

 

[MilesAhead]

Here's what the author of MyDefrag advises:
FAQ Special files - How do I defragment "C:\pagefile.sys" (the swapfile)?


edit: I think he has a point. In XP Pro I set my page file to a fixed size. Every now and then I would run PageDefrag to check it. It always showed as unfragmented.

 

[carl424]

Here's what the author of MyDefrag advises:
FAQ Special files - How do I defragment "C:\pagefile.sys" (the swapfile)?


edit: I think he has a point. In XP Pro I set my page file to a fixed size. Every now and then I would run PageDefrag to check it. It always showed as unfragmented.

Interesting milesAhead.

probabley try that in vista, i seen an artical on another website, saying defraging the page file is a big myth and that you should just leave the paging alone.

But its a file, so surly it can get defragmented, i'll give it ago though...

 

[smarteyeball]

Another method (not the best) is to disable the pagefile completely, restart, delete the pagefile.sys, run a complete defrag and then re-enable the PF. It will rebuild.

 

[MilesAhead]

Here's what the author of MyDefrag advises:
FAQ Special files - How do I defragment "C:\pagefile.sys" (the swapfile)?


edit: I think he has a point. In XP Pro I set my page file to a fixed size. Every now and then I would run PageDefrag to check it. It always showed as unfragmented.

Interesting milesAhead.

probabley try that in vista, i seen an artical on another website, saying defraging the page file is a big myth and that you should just leave the paging alone.

But its a file, so surly it can get defragmented, i'll give it ago though...

Linux achieves a similar effect by having a swap partition. In fact if you had a separate small physical drive in a Windows machine you could dedicate it to swap. Some guys who have more memory than 32 bit Windows can use directly may even create ram drives to put the swap file on. I never got into it that deeply. When I was playing around with Linux I could use swap partitions and swap file with various strategies determining when each is used. I had 2 physical drives in the machine at that time. Unfortunately one was much faster and larger than the other, but by having an additional swap partition on the "slow" drive and using "round robin" swapping I could smooth out the virtual memory. I cut down on the thrashing on the faster drive quite a bit, even though performance was pretty much the same. It was fun to mess with it. I got it to run smoothly and quietly if not quickly.

 

[carl424]

Another method (not the best) is to disable the pagefile completely, restart, delete the pagefile.sys, run a complete defrag and then re-enable the PF. It will rebuild.

Nice one , smarteybell, noted that one down

Linux achieves a similar effect by having a swap partition. In fact if you had a separate small physical drive in a Windows machine you could dedicate it to swap. Some guys who have more memory than 32 bit Windows can use directly may even create ram drives to put the swap file on. I never got into it that deeply. When I was playing around with Linux I could use swap partitions and swap file with various strategies determining when each is used. I had 2 physical drives in the machine at that time. Unfortunately one was much faster and larger than the other, but by having an additional swap partition on the "slow" drive and using "round robin" swapping I could smooth out the virtual memory. I cut down on the thrashing on the faster drive quite a bit, even though performance was pretty much the same. It was fun to mess with it. I got it to run smoothly and quietly if not quickly.

Thanks milesAhead.

I've just really started to read up on this, so i am a bit of a novice when it comes to the page file, but it all sounds interesting....

I had found a tip to optimize performance so
I put a question "rebuilding the page file" on another forum some months ago, and it put me of since after a few replys, here's one of them.

Years ago on my site one of my mods - who was really quite an expert - was a huge proponent of making the pagefile static (setting min & max the same) to avoid fragmentation. The theory of course was that when the system reboots all data in virtual memory is released and any fragmentation would be minimal. The fact is, however, that even when the setting is dynamic Windows only expands the pagefile when necessary and on reboot it resets to the minimum size, all data is released, and the result is essentially exactly the same. Bottom line, leave the pagefile alone. Pretty much anything you read in forums about adjusting the size of the pagefile is absolute nonsense.

Quantos - no offense but your post above is not only not relevant to the OP's question, it is also incorrect. Windows is not always in control of what is or is not paged to virtual memory. But I really don't want to get into a whole pagefile thing here. These threads became so inane and contentious that I eventually banned them on my forum 5 years ago.

So really i just left it after that, but getting back into it a little , i'll probably do some experimenting, but i probably will not notice anything...:D

 

[MilesAhead]

I've given up arguing on these type of topics. I try some things on my own machines and use what seems to work best. If others want to set up differently, that's why they call 'em personal computers afaic.

 

[carl424]

I totally agree with you there.
But thanks again for the input........:D