Paging File
in [Help and Support]
|
Prev: Does Windows store a list of installed updates?
Next: Eject (button and command) fails on both optical drives (CD & DVD)under XP. Works fine under Linux and pre XP starting
From: Dilly Dally on 19 Jun 2010 14:29 I just installed an additional 2gis of ram for a total of 3gigs on an xp pro machine. I have two HDs and have the paging file on the second (non-booting) drive. I went to check the paging file and found that the "Recommended" size was 4606megs, but the "Allocated" was 3071megs. The file is set for "System Managed Size" Why is there a difference between the "Recommended" and "Allocated" amount ?? Which number should I use if changing to a "Custom" setting ?? Thank you for your time and trouble. --------------= Posted using GrabIt =---------------- ------= Binary Usenet downloading made easy =--------- -= Get GrabIt for free from http://www.shemes.com/ =-
From: Shenan Stanley on 19 Jun 2010 14:42 Dilly Dally wrote: > I just installed an additional 2gis of ram for a total of 3gigs on > an xp pro machine. I have two HDs and have the paging file on the > second (non-booting) drive. I went to check the paging file and > found that the "Recommended" size was 4606megs, but > the "Allocated" was 3071megs. The file is set for "System Managed > Size" > > Why is there a difference between the "Recommended" and "Allocated" > amount ?? > > Which number should I use if changing to a "Custom" setting ?? > Thank you for your time and trouble. First question: Because you have it set to the System Managed Size and not 4606MBs. Second question: You shouldn't be choosing "custom" - leave it "System Managed Size". Tweaking of that setting is not likely to result in performance increases. Changes you may not notice (a few seconds of pause a month, maybe even gain a few extra seconds in a year) might happen - but it is not worth the trouble for 90% of the people out there. Let Windows manage it, continue using your computer. Given you went from 1GB to 3GB - unless you do some heavy graphics/sound work (work - not play - games are usually tweaked to work with less RAM than that) and given you have Windows XP 32-bit and all the limitations thereof - you probably won't notice any increase in performance for your money. You *may* in some select applications (and if that is what you were going for - great!) -- Shenan Stanley MS-MVP -- How To Ask Questions The Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
From: Db on 19 Jun 2010 15:16
my suggestion is to set it for a custom size. intial = 2 max = 1048 it is unlikely that your system will even utilize to 1048 of paging. -- -- db���`�...�><)))�> DatabaseBen, Retired Professional ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This NNTP newsgroup is evolving to: http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/default.aspx "Dilly Dally" <dd(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:t28Tn.217369$ot7.213957(a)en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com... > I just installed an additional 2gis of ram for a total of 3gigs on an xp > pro machine. I have two HDs and have the paging file on the second > (non-booting) drive. > I went to check the paging file and found that the "Recommended" size was > 4606megs, but > the "Allocated" was 3071megs. The file is set for "System Managed Size" > Why is there a difference between the "Recommended" and "Allocated" amount > ?? > Which number should I use if changing to a "Custom" setting ?? > Thank you for your time and trouble. > > > --------------= Posted using GrabIt =---------------- > ------= Binary Usenet downloading made easy =--------- > -= Get GrabIt for free from http://www.shemes.com/ =- > |