Best settings for my page file

I've got 2 partitions on my hard disk with a fixed 1024MB page file on each one. I wonder if somebody can tell me if the page file is unnecessarily large or too small or whether it is a bad idea to have it split between the partitions?

Thanks,
Syd.

Really, I thought fixed page files were more efficient?

At This Site the argument seems to be that single partitions are not such a good idea. I'd be quite happy to work with only one partition. Is there a way to delete my secondary partition and extend the primary partition to the whole disk? I've googled but not turned up anything other than command line which is getting a bit scary!

Syd.

Something we all learn after a while, is that DAW work on the computer is far different from other applications, a multitasking system can work, but it is far better to build a system just for recording and do all other things on another system

Check out THIS SITE for information on tweaking your system (including paging file settings)...

That site gives a very bad piece of advice. It says that if you have greater than 512 MB of RAM, you might want to consider disabling paging. This is a really bad idea (at least with Windows XP). Actually, the more memory you have, the LARGER your page file should be. Good settings for the page file are often 1.5 to 2.5x the size of your physical RAM for the minimum, and 2-3x the physical RAM for the maximum.

The page file is "virtual RAM". It works in a bunch of ways. One of the important ways is that Windows will use spare computer/disc cycles to write data in memory to the page file. In effect, all the system RAM is mapped to an equivalent location in the page file. When it isn't doing anything else, Windows will copy data in RAM to the page file; in effect, it "prepares" RAM for swapping. If a particular piece of data is in both RAM and the page file, Windows will use the data in RAM and ignore the copy in the page file. However, if the system runs out of available memory, it can just start using a piece of memory immediately. Since the data has already been copied to the page file, there is no need for the system to wait for the data to be written to disc before it starts using the memory for the new task. This is partially why the page file size should be greater than the amount of RAM installed in your system.

Also, I don't know of any reason for having a page file on multiple discs or partitions. That sounds wrong. In fact, for Audio work, your page file should optimally be on your primary drive, while your audio data is on a second drive (not on a seperate partition on the same disc). The goal is that you don't want paging to interfere with the flow of audio data to/from the disc.

The argument about putting the page file on its own partition (from Syd's reference) is also specious. Your computer is configured with a "minimum size" for the page file. A portion of the disc was reserved for just this page file. Unlike other files, this file does not grow and shrink or move around as it is used. It is like a bucket that always occupies the exact same part of the disc, and data is dumped in and out of the bucket. The bucket does not move, so it cannot become fragmented. In many ways, it is like an "unofficial partition."

If your page file is too small, it can be expanded, up to the maximum allowed. This "extra space" will be at a different part of the disc - NOW the page file is fragmented. However, when the system is rebooted, the page file returns to its original size, and it is no longer fragmented. But, since the "extra space" is not physically next to the main part of the page file, it is undesireable. Therefore, if your page file is constantly expanding, that is a sign that it is probably too small. The answer is not to disable the expansion, but to increase the page file settings so that the expansion no longer happens (or happens rarely). It is still a good idea to leave some expansion room, "just in case".

Note that if you add more RAM to your system and permanently increase your page file size, you should defrag it so that it is contiguous.

The arguments (again from Syd's reference) for partitioning your data drives are valid. But I would recommend leaving your primary drive alone. Instead, get a second, larger drive for your data. 80MB seems to be pretty standard these days for a primary drive. If you get something like a 250MB drive as your secondary drive, then you may want to partition the drive, as the reference recommends. Then use one of these partitions for your Audio data.

Very useful advice all, thank you.

Due to the fact that my machine is a laptop I'm not keen to buy a secondary drive just yet, although it's an option to buy an external USB/Firewire drive at some point but this would be mainly for backup purposes. I've got 512MB RAM so I'll move the pagefile all to C: and set the size to minimum 1024 and max 2048 to start with and see what that does for me. I do defrag fairly regularly, which I am sure is a good idea. A lot of large files come and go on my machine so fragmentation happens a lot.

I also use my machine for video editing (hence the large files) so disk space is an issue. I can cope with the space I have got but sometimes it gets a bit low when I come to rendering the video for DVD. I'll move all the files other than the applications, cakewalk file (inc audio) and video files to the D: partition. I don't have any specific problems with performance but it's always good to try and tweak performace as much as possible. I have been through the suggestions on the site referred to by papa and implemented the ones I thought were useful to me. I ignored a few such as disabling hibernation and automatic updates though because I do use these.

Thanks again,
Syd.

Well, Papa and Syd, thanks for prompting me to do some actual WORK... This took a fair bit of effort, but it was interesting. Definitely a lot more fun than answering "Why am I getting bleedover when I record my second track?" or "How come I can't hear my MIDI?"

The result can be found by following this link. Let me know what you think.

Now I should probably get some sleep. I've been working on this pretty much all day, instead of doing things I should've been doing... Somehow it ended up being 4:30 in the morning... How did that happen?

Great post, sinc.
After reading carefully I realized that I should have bought an 8 track cassette recorder instead. (just kidding..)

quote:

...For custom size, this is often recommended to be 1.5 to 2 times the amount of your total RAM for both initial and maximum size. Set this to a fixed minimum and maximum value according to your existing RAM. Of course, if you have >512 or >768 MB of RAM, then you could consider disabling virtual memory completely, although I would suggest that you experiment to find out what is best for you.



"...could consider..." being the operative phrase. To be honest with you (and others on this board) I had forgotten about that "ambiguous" suggestion that is truly predicated upon each individuals' computer system and the parameters those respective systems are configured for...Sorry if I created any confusion or problems for anyone following the author's advice to the letter...

I have received feedback on the paper from several XP Experts, and they most strongly assure me that performance will not degrade by having the minimum pagefile setting smaller than physical RAM. They say this is a prevalent myth on the internet, but it is just that - a myth. Instead, it is only necessary to make sure that the minimum size is large enough for YOUR USAGE, whatever that may be, and that the maximum size is set to something larger than the minimum size (so expansion can occur if it is needed).

I have revised the paper accordingly, and included information on how to determine the best setting for your machine.

So, Syd, turns out that you very well might be able to make the pagefile smaller to save on disc space. Of course, if you're at the point where you can't afford to dedicate 1GB of disc space for the pagefile, you're probably at the point where you need another hard drive, anyway. The ideal long-term solution would be to add another drive. That may even be a more useful upgrade in your situation than adding more RAM.

Thanks for the feedback, guys.