4-8GB SSD dedicated to page file?

[003]

I've seen all these really in depth guides on how to optimize your paging file, and one thing that seems to remain constant throughout them: Have the paging file on it's own dedicated disk, on the first partition to minimize access times.

All right. Well I was thinking, why not just get a very fast, small (4-16gb) SSD to dedicate to the paging file? Wouldn't that give a mad increase in page file performance?

Which leads me to my next question. What is a very good SSD for under $400, no larger than 16GB, that has very fast read/write times and high transfer speeds?

[biftek.]

You could also use a usb flash drive... considerably cheaper.

And with a little imagination you could make it internal even.

[003]

Yes, but they are a lot slower, not to mention the slower bus, and they have a much lower MTBF than SSDs, they aren't meant for continuous read/write operations.

[ak_47_boy]

The massive number of page file reads and writes will destroy the SSD. Get more ram and disable the page file or make a ram drive and put it on it. Ram is almost cheaper then flash anyway, and WAY faster.

[003]

Oh I never thought about putting the page file on a ram drive! I've got 8GB of ram, so that should be easy, right?

Only, I have two problems. First, how do I make a RAM drive? And second, I thought the page file is preserved when the system shuts down? How would that work on a RAM drive? It would be wiped clean whenever the computer was shut off. How would windows respond to the actual page file getting deleted every time the computer was shut down? I'm on XP x64.

I'm pretty sure if you delete the page file off the hard drive, and then try to boot it up, you can't boot and get a nasty BSOD?

EDIT:
Would it be possible to put the page file on a RAM drive, but also have some "backup" page file on a hard drive, in case the page file on the RAM drive became full? I think you can have the page file on multiple drives, but how would you make it so it never used the one on the hard disk until the RAM drive was full (which should not happen in the first place)?

[tiro_uspsss]

The massive number of page file reads and writes will destroy the SSD.

not true. example: Mtron disks are rated @ 50GB read/write a day for 140yrs

Oh I never thought about putting the page file on a ram drive! I've got 8GB of ram, so that should be easy, right?

Only, I have two problems. First, how do I make a RAM drive? And second, I thought the page file is preserved when the system shuts down? How would that work on a RAM drive? It would be wiped clean whenever the computer was shut off. How would windows respond to the actual page file getting deleted every time the computer was shut down? I'm on XP x64.

I'm pretty sure if you delete the page file off the hard drive, and then try to boot it up, you can't boot and get a nasty BSOD?

EDIT:
Would it be possible to put the page file on a RAM drive, but also have some "backup" page file on a hard drive, in case the page file on the RAM drive became full? I think you can have the page file on multiple drives, but how would you make it so it never used the one on the hard disk until the RAM drive was full (which should not happen in the first place)?

RAM-Drives are made with software. I have used it before, but not for PF. It is incredibly fast :D.. I cant remember the prog I used, but it gave an option to auto back-up to a HDD (pretty much a must, seeing as RAM doesnt hold info after shut-down). I think the program was SuperSpeed or something like that..

[003]

I am using SuperSpeed RAM Disk Plus 9.0.1.0 x64, and it says that it supports having the page file on the RAM disk. Well, I successfully made a ram disk that windows sees as a hard drive and not a RAM disk. I go to put the page file on it, which I did successfully (changes registered when I pressed set). But then when I hit OK, the computer just restarts. This happens every time, I can't get it to work. The computer is completely stable.

Is there any way I can make this work? If not, should I just look into a small Mtron disk?

[Neuuubeh]

Oh I never thought about putting the page file on a ram drive! I've got 8GB of ram, so that should be easy, right?

Why would you want to make a Ramdrive on your system ram, dedicated to Page file, when you could just turn off the page file :X. Reducing the amount of ram the OS can use, just so it can create its page file on the same place doesnt really make any sense to me..

If you max out your RAM, you could look into a real ramdisk :p none of those software implementation. Gigabyte is supposed to bring out a new I-RAM i think, there are similar devices for other makes (Hyper-OS..) as well.

I dont see any reason to buy an SSD for page file.. youd be better off even trying out that 16gb ram kit by gskill :X

not true. example: Mtron disks are rated @ 50GB read/write a day for 140yrs

Any manufacturer can claim that, and noone can really properly test it. I know that they also supply ssds to the US military (or was it another company..) and they seem to have high quality, but again, noone can test it.

[Logos4]

Why would you want to make a Ramdrive on your system ram, dedicated to Page file, when you could just turn off the page file :X. Reducing the amount of ram the OS can use, just so it can create its page file on the same place doesnt really make any sense to me..

If you max out your RAM, you could look into a real ramdisk :p none of those software implementation. Gigabyte is supposed to bring out a new I-RAM i think, there are similar devices for other makes (Hyper-OS..) as well.

I dont see any reason to buy an SSD for page file.. youd be better off even trying out that 16gb ram kit by gskill :X


Any manufacturer can claim that, and noone can really properly test it. I know that they also supply ssds to the US military (or was it another company..) and they seem to have high quality, but again, noone can test it.

I agree partially with this: spending any money in hardware to relocate your page file is absolutely useless. Even on USB flash, just a waste (SSD...:confused::confused:, you would be ready to sell your house to get the drives, and get what in return :confused: ) Now don't deactivate it completely as Windows needs it (MS secrets :D). Just make it minimal (as long as you got enough physical RAM).

I wish Windows had an as good memory management as Linux does: in Linux the "swap file partition" won't be used before all of the RAM has been used, which rarely happens, so basically no swapping to HDD occurs in Linux. Not to mention that Linux caches all unused RAM to make it available as soon as needed. I admit though in terms of memory management that things work better with Vista, compared to XP in terms of booting times and program launch times (except those wonderful memory leaks when copying or deleting in Vista, prior to SP1).

[Serra]

All right. Well I was thinking, why not just get a very fast, small (4-16gb) SSD to dedicate to the paging file? Wouldn't that give a mad increase in page file performance?


Yes, it likely would. That said - next to nobody needs a "mad increase" in page file performance. If you have a specific reason to believe you use an application intensively enough that you would benefit from a faster page file, then let us know and we'll work with you on it. Chances are (just statistically speaking) that it really won't do you much at all and would be a complete waste of cash.

[Xel'Naga]

I had no idea that you can put the pagefile on a different partition than the one you have your OS. Is it just a Vista thing or you can do that on Xp too?
To 003: Your sig says that you have 8 GB ram. What on earth are you running that you still use your pagefile so much that you want a SSD for it?

[tiro_uspsss]

I had no idea that you can put the pagefile on a different partition than the one you have your OS. Is it just a Vista thing or you can do that on Xp too?
To 003: Your sig says that you have 8 GB ram. What on earth are you running that you still use your pagefile so much that you want a SSD for it?

XP too.. probably can do it in 2K as well

right click My Comp>Properties>Advanced>Performance settings>Advanced>change ... u should be able to figure the rest out :up:

[Logos4]

I had no idea that you can put the pagefile on a different partition than the one you have your OS. Is it just a Vista thing or you can do that on Xp too?
To 003: Your sig says that you have 8 GB ram. What on earth are you running that you still use your pagefile so much that you want a SSD for it?

you can change the partition you put the page file on on any Windows version, and Linux requires an entirely dedicated swap file partition (not much used though :D). Any OS would even start with no page file at all.

[003]

I had no idea that you can put the pagefile on a different partition than the one you have your OS. Is it just a Vista thing or you can do that on Xp too?
To 003: Your sig says that you have 8 GB ram. What on earth are you running that you still use your pagefile so much that you want a SSD for it?

Windows always uses the page file no matter how much RAM you have. If you disable the page file, windows still pages system files and such, only you now have no control over where this occurs. Plus, many programs will not start with the page file disabled. I am on XP x64.

I really want to put the page file on the Ram Disk I created with SuperSpeed RAM Disk Plus, but it's not letting me do it (see my previous post for more detail). Can anybody help me? SuperSpeed advertises that it supports having the page file on the ram disk.

[Xel'Naga]

Windows always uses the page file no matter how much RAM you have. If you disable the page file, windows still pages system files and such, only you now have no control over where this occurs. Plus, many programs will not start with the page file disabled. I am on XP x64.

I really want to put the page file on the Ram Disk I created with SuperSpeed RAM Disk Plus, but it's not letting me do it (see my previous post for more detail). Can anybody help me? SuperSpeed advertises that it supports having the page file on the ram disk.

Yeah, forgot about that. Stupid though:shrug:. I have 1 GB of ram and even if I use 900 MB ( which is very hard on a stripped down version of Linux ) the pagefile usage is only a few KB

[m^2]

Windows always uses the page file no matter how much RAM you have. If you disable the page file, windows still pages system files and such, only you now have no control over where this occurs. Plus, many programs will not start with the page file disabled. I am on XP x64.
How do you know this?

[stevecs]

@003 - I would like to know what program you've tried that refuses to run without a page file. on my own builds where I know my workloads I always turn it off and instead buy ram. Right now 4GB under xp64 and 4gb under linux are more than enough to load/use any program here. As for the 'bug' in disabling the page file and your OS still writing to the drive as far as I know that was fixed well before server 2003 (2000?) can't remember. but it was an issue w/ NT and the some of the desktop versions (95/98/ et al). I have not seen what you mentioned in anything current.

[RADCOM]

It could make your setup faster but IMHO a waste of a good fast disk. Better to use a small partition on a fast hard disk and use the SSD for the system partition. You can do without a pagefile if you have lots of memory but doesn't windows dump the memory to the pagefile when there is a serious system crash? I too have heard that Windows needs a minimum 2MB pagefile but I can't remember where; thanks for the insight Stevecs. Try the various combinations 003, I look forward to your results.

[RejZoR]

I have one dedicated disk (the 320GB one) just for pagefile and TEMP folder + archived data. Everything else is on 750GB Samsung. The difference is huge just because TEMP is independent and pagefile operates on it's own (meaning head doesn't have to jump around when regular data and pagefile have to be accessed at the same time.

[Zaskar]

Wait, why make a ram disk for the page file, isn't that just a crazy way to go about simply disabling the page file? :D

[IanB]

It could make your setup faster but IMHO a waste of a good fast disk. Better to use a small partition on a fast hard disk and use the SSD for the system partition. You can do without a pagefile if you have lots of memory but doesn't windows dump the memory to the pagefile when there is a serious system crash?

When was the last time you had a serious system crash? Seriously? And you can turn off the memory contents dump in XP at least, so probably 2000/Vista as well: My Computer\System Properties\Advanced\Startup and Recovery\Settings\Write debugging information: none

The only people that information is useful to are those that have a need, and that can afford, for MS to trace through it and find why it crashed.

Most of the superstitions about the pagefile are based on outdated information two or three Windows versions old. Unless you are on Vista, which may have its own quirks, turning it off has no ill-effects AS LONG AS you have enough system RAM. Paging only happens when you have contents in memory you need to move out to make space for other memory requests. If you have enough spare memory then you don't need to swap out, as simple as that. There is a metric in Task Manager that shows the maximum amount of Virtual RAM used in a session ("Commit Charge: Peak") so you just have to compare that after a long unbooted period of "normal" use for you, whatever that may be, with the "Physical Memory: Total" figure. If significantly less, then turn off the pagefile altogether, or leave a VERY small amount on your Windows drive to cater for those extremely rare badly behaved apps that demand its existence.

I'd say using an SSD for swap file would be the biggest waste of money imaginable with no measurable gains in return. :eek: Especially compared to simply adding the same amount of system memory instead.

[RADCOM]

Greetz my fellow Londoner IanB:)
well it was last week actually but I knew it was the RAID card drivers :) You are probably right we live in fear of not having a page file just in case we need it lol. We agree having an SSD just as pagefile is not great value but he may be extremely well off.

[adamsleath]

turning off the pagefile doesnt actually turn off the pagefile. :hehe:

how come when i set no pagefile i still get pagefile activity in taskmanager :lol:?

[IFMU]

I've followed this a bit and there is one thing I must put out there.
On Windows XP SP2, I have installed programs before, when I tried to load, they would not due to not having a pagefile. Think it was either Adobe Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro. (Older versions) (Others as well, just can't recall which ones.)
However, they would not load, period. Had 3gigs of ram at the time if I remember correctly.
So while yes, pagefiles are pretty much a thing of the past and not really needed much anymore. Let alone cheaper to buy more ram rather than a SSD.
Some programs do require it.

[Mr.Guvernment]

i may do this, but not for page file, but for scratch disk :)

[dinos22]

i may do this, but not for page file, but for scratch disk :)

that's where SSDs will excel :D

[Mr.Guvernment]

dont tell me that..lol i got enough things to spend money on :D

[Kobalt]

There is a metric in Task Manager that shows the maximum amount of Virtual RAM used in a session ("Commit Charge: Peak") so you just have to compare that after a long unbooted period of "normal" use for you, whatever that may be, with the "Physical Memory: Total" figure. If significantly less, then turn off the pagefile altogether, or leave a VERY small amount on your Windows drive to cater for those extremely rare badly behaved apps that demand its existence.



I thought that was the maximum amount of RAM requested during that session (both physical and virtual). So if the "Commit Charge: Peak" was higher than your total physical RAM, then you'd benefit from more RAM. Otherwise, more RAM would be a waste.

Secondly, why wouldn't you just get a 8 GB or 16 GB drive and just put both the OS and page file on that?

[IanB]

I thought that was the maximum amount of RAM requested during that session (both physical and virtual). So if the "Commit Charge: Peak" was higher than your total physical RAM, then you'd benefit from more RAM. Otherwise, more RAM would be a waste.

"Virtual" means everything available, physical and "fake" RAM from the pagefile. So yes, exactly, if the peak value is much less than your physical RAM then there is no need for allocating extra "fake" RAM that's orders of magnitude slower. If you do, it's just insurance.

Secondly, why wouldn't you just get a 8 GB or 16 GB drive and just put both the OS and page file on that?

The jury is still out on the long-term reliability of SSDs, despite manufacturer claims. Write operations are the ones that degrade the medium, so putting the two areas of an OS that are likely being overwritten and updated the MOST frequently (assuming the pagefile is actually being used...) on SSD has to be somewhat risky, if you value that investment. The ideal data to put on SSD would be static, write-once archive information that needs to be read frequently or fast. If you never update Windows or your AV software, then I guess you could risk it... :shrug: