- Swap File Showing Incorrect Size
- Posted by JamesJ on February 29th, 2004
I've specified a 3000 mb permanent swap file in virtual memory. (3000 Min.
and 3000 Max)
Explorer is reporting the size of WIN386.SWP as 100 mb.
Any ideas for the discrepancy?
Thanks,
James
- Posted by Will Denny on February 29th, 2004
Hi James
I think that you need to downsize the spec. for your Swapfile - 3GBs is 'rather' large.
--
Will Denny
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
"JamesJ" <jjy@adelphia.net> wrote in message news:OLVi2Qw$DHA.4060@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| I've specified a 3000 mb permanent swap file in virtual memory. (3000 Min.
| and 3000 Max)
| Explorer is reporting the size of WIN386.SWP as 100 mb.
| Any ideas for the discrepancy?
|
| Thanks,
| James
|
|
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.600 / Virus Database: 381 - Release Date: 28/02/2004
- Posted by Rick T on February 29th, 2004
JamesJ wrote:
Check your settings for min & max size, if they look like what you think
they should, reboot to DOS from a floppy disk and delete the .swp file,
then reboot into Windows (which will rebuild the swapfile).
How much free space do you have on the drive ? Subtract RecycleBin and
Restore reserved amounts in case you don't have as much as you think you do.
3GB is way overkill, unless you have a program that specifically
requires that much.
Rick
- Posted by Noel Paton on February 29th, 2004
....and fixing the swapfile size also tends to change its placement - what
the OP may be seeing is the old swapfile, rather than the current one.
FWIW - there is VERY RARELY any good reason to fix the file size -
especially at such a high figure
I'd recommend letting Windows manage the filesize under almost all
circumstances
I'd be interested to know James' reasons for this??
--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2004, Win9x)
Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
"Rick T" <plinnane3NO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eguZFVw$DHA.1732@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
- Posted by Noel Paton on February 29th, 2004
IIRC, it's actually 'too large' for a Win9x system, which is limited to
files of 4GB - or effectively 2GB???
--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2004, Win9x)
Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
"Will Denny" <willdenny@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:eEbJAVw$DHA.1036@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Hi James
I think that you need to downsize the spec. for your Swapfile - 3GBs is
'rather' large.
--
Will Denny
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
"JamesJ" <jjy@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:OLVi2Qw$DHA.4060@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| I've specified a 3000 mb permanent swap file in virtual memory. (3000 Min.
| and 3000 Max)
| Explorer is reporting the size of WIN386.SWP as 100 mb.
| Any ideas for the discrepancy?
|
| Thanks,
| James
|
|
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.600 / Virus Database: 381 - Release Date: 28/02/2004
- Posted by Will Denny on February 29th, 2004
Yes 2GB. I've tried various Win 9x OSes with 1.5 Gbs RAM installed - it's not easy to make them work with the default Swap File set to 1.5x the amount of RAM installed.
--
Will Denny
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
"Noel Paton" <NoelDPspamless@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:u9$lFcw$DHA.2348@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| IIRC, it's actually 'too large' for a Win9x system, which is limited to
| files of 4GB - or effectively 2GB???
|
| --
| Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2004, Win9x)
|
| Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
| http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
|
| Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
|
| "Will Denny" <willdenny@mvps.org> wrote in message
| news:eEbJAVw$DHA.1036@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| Hi James
|
| I think that you need to downsize the spec. for your Swapfile - 3GBs is
| 'rather' large.
|
| --
|
| Will Denny
| MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
|
|
| "JamesJ" <jjy@adelphia.net> wrote in message
| news:OLVi2Qw$DHA.4060@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| | I've specified a 3000 mb permanent swap file in virtual memory. (3000 Min.
| | and 3000 Max)
| | Explorer is reporting the size of WIN386.SWP as 100 mb.
| | Any ideas for the discrepancy?
| |
| | Thanks,
| | James
| |
| |
|
|
| ---
| Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
| Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
| Version: 6.0.600 / Virus Database: 381 - Release Date: 28/02/2004
|
|
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.600 / Virus Database: 381 - Release Date: 28/02/2004
- Posted by JamesJ on February 29th, 2004
I've always setup a permanent swap file and I've always used 2.5 or 3 times
my actual physical memory. I'm not a mathematician but, I have 1 gb of
installed
RAM, isn't that 1,000 mb?
If it's to large for Win9x I'll tone it down but why the discrepancy??
Thanks,
James
"Noel Paton" <NoelDPspamless@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:u9$lFcw$DHA.2348@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
- Posted by JamesJ on February 29th, 2004
On my old system when I had only a 12gb hard drive I was using a perminant
swap
file to conserve disk space or rather so I can have more control over it.
Now I have a
40 gb hard drive and I have about 90% of it free...... Maybe I have no good
reason
now but might I set a maximum size??
Thanks,
James
"Noel Paton" <NoelDPspamless@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:%23EUhSZw$DHA.620@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
- Posted by Noel Paton on February 29th, 2004
As I said before, there's almost NEVER a good reason for a huge (or even
fixed) swapfile - the more RAM you have, the less the need for ANY
swapfile - and most systems with 1GB+ can survive quite well on a swapfile
of 100MB or less (if only the running apps would let it!)
The problem arises when running apps specify the swapfile size required on
loading - which they shouldn't (but many do). The more of that type you
have, the more VM you need - irrespective of the RAM available.
Since ME came out, and RAM got so cheap and processor so fast, a lot of
people are running many more apps than it was originally envisaged that they
would - with resulting problems with Resources.
For some reason, many people confuse Resources with Memory - and the fun
starts.
--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2004, Win9x)
Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
"JamesJ" <jjy@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:%23TUPNmw$DHA.2524@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
- Posted by JamesJ on February 29th, 2004
I see your point. Since I have no need to conserve disk space
and it should be one less thing I shouldn't be concerned about.
Thanks,
James
"Noel Paton" <NoelDPspamless@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:es6rdqw$DHA.2336@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
- Posted by Noel Paton on February 29th, 2004
You don't - there's an automatic maximum of 2GB (or perhaps 4GB), or however
much disk space there is (whichever is the smaller).
Just let Windows manage it completely!!!
--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2004, Win9x)
Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
"JamesJ" <jjy@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:uI1GYpw$DHA.1288@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
- Posted by JamesJ on February 29th, 2004
One more observation. Fragmentation. Wouldn't a permanent swap file
keep fragmentation at a minimum?
James
"Noel Paton" <NoelDPspamless@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:es6rdqw$DHA.2336@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
- Posted by Will Denny on February 29th, 2004
Hi James
There is no need to have a massive Swap file unless you are editing a lot of video files all at the same time. It will use up a lot of hard disk space that could be utilised for other purposes. BG wasn't a mathematician either - look where that got him :-))
--
Will Denny
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
"JamesJ" <jjy@adelphia.net> wrote in message news:%23TUPNmw$DHA.2524@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| I've always setup a permanent swap file and I've always used 2.5 or 3 times
| my actual physical memory. I'm not a mathematician but, I have 1 gb of
| installed
| RAM, isn't that 1,000 mb?
| If it's to large for Win9x I'll tone it down but why the discrepancy??
|
| Thanks,
| James
|
| "Noel Paton" <NoelDPspamless@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
| news:u9$lFcw$DHA.2348@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| > IIRC, it's actually 'too large' for a Win9x system, which is limited to
| > files of 4GB - or effectively 2GB???
| >
| > --
| > Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2004, Win9x)
| >
| > Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
| > http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
| >
| > Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
| >
| > "Will Denny" <willdenny@mvps.org> wrote in message
| > news:eEbJAVw$DHA.1036@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| > Hi James
| >
| > I think that you need to downsize the spec. for your Swapfile - 3GBs is
| > 'rather' large.
| >
| > --
| >
| > Will Denny
| > MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
| >
| >
| > "JamesJ" <jjy@adelphia.net> wrote in message
| > news:OLVi2Qw$DHA.4060@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| > | I've specified a 3000 mb permanent swap file in virtual memory. (3000
| Min.
| > | and 3000 Max)
| > | Explorer is reporting the size of WIN386.SWP as 100 mb.
| > | Any ideas for the discrepancy?
| > |
| > | Thanks,
| > | James
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
| > ---
| > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
| > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
| > Version: 6.0.600 / Virus Database: 381 - Release Date: 28/02/2004
| >
| >
|
|
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.600 / Virus Database: 381 - Release Date: 28/02/2004
- Posted by Noel Paton on February 29th, 2004
perhaps - but putting the swapfile into its own partition would do the same.
fragmentation delays on an unused swapfile are zero anyhow!
--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2004, Win9x)
Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
"JamesJ" <jjy@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:%23py3fxw$DHA.3400@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
- Posted by Will Denny on February 29th, 2004
Noel - I've just tried a Defrag on a Win 9x partition. The Swap file was defragmented, but couldn't be defragged and moved. Ergo - a permanent Swap File wouldn't necessarily help minimise the fragmentation of a hard disk/partition.
--
Will Denny
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
"Noel Paton" <NoelDPspamless@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:%23jyIL0w$DHA.2804@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| perhaps - but putting the swapfile into its own partition would do the same.
| fragmentation delays on an unused swapfile are zero anyhow!
|
| --
| Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2004, Win9x)
|
| Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
| http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
|
| Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
|
| "JamesJ" <jjy@adelphia.net> wrote in message
| news:%23py3fxw$DHA.3400@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| > One more observation. Fragmentation. Wouldn't a permanent swap file
| > keep fragmentation at a minimum?
| >
| > James
| >
| > "Noel Paton" <NoelDPspamless@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
| > news:es6rdqw$DHA.2336@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
| > > As I said before, there's almost NEVER a good reason for a huge (or even
| > > fixed) swapfile - the more RAM you have, the less the need for ANY
| > > swapfile - and most systems with 1GB+ can survive quite well on a
| swapfile
| > > of 100MB or less (if only the running apps would let it!)
| > >
| > > The problem arises when running apps specify the swapfile size required
| on
| > > loading - which they shouldn't (but many do). The more of that type you
| > > have, the more VM you need - irrespective of the RAM available.
| > >
| > > Since ME came out, and RAM got so cheap and processor so fast, a lot of
| > > people are running many more apps than it was originally envisaged that
| > they
| > > would - with resulting problems with Resources.
| > > For some reason, many people confuse Resources with Memory - and the fun
| > > starts.
| > >
| > >
| > >
| > > --
| > > Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2004, Win9x)
| > >
| > > Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
| > > http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
| > >
| > > Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to
| NG's
| > >
| > > "JamesJ" <jjy@adelphia.net> wrote in message
| > > news:%23TUPNmw$DHA.2524@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| > > > I've always setup a permanent swap file and I've always used 2.5 or 3
| > > times
| > > > my actual physical memory. I'm not a mathematician but, I have 1 gb of
| > > > installed
| > > > RAM, isn't that 1,000 mb?
| > > > If it's to large for Win9x I'll tone it down but why the discrepancy??
| > > >
| > > > Thanks,
| > > > James
| > > >
| > > > "Noel Paton" <NoelDPspamless@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
| > > > news:u9$lFcw$DHA.2348@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| > > > > IIRC, it's actually 'too large' for a Win9x system, which is limited
| > to
| > > > > files of 4GB - or effectively 2GB???
| > > > >
| > > > > --
| > > > > Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2004, Win9x)
| > > > >
| > > > > Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
| > > > > http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
| > > > >
| > > > > Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to
| > > NG's
| > > > >
| > > > > "Will Denny" <willdenny@mvps.org> wrote in message
| > > > > news:eEbJAVw$DHA.1036@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| > > > > Hi James
| > > > >
| > > > > I think that you need to downsize the spec. for your Swapfile - 3GBs
| > is
| > > > > 'rather' large.
| > > > >
| > > > > --
| > > > >
| > > > > Will Denny
| > > > > MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
| > > > >
| > > > >
| > > > > "JamesJ" <jjy@adelphia.net> wrote in message
| > > > > news:OLVi2Qw$DHA.4060@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| > > > > | I've specified a 3000 mb permanent swap file in virtual memory.
| > (3000
| > > > Min.
| > > > > | and 3000 Max)
| > > > > | Explorer is reporting the size of WIN386.SWP as 100 mb.
| > > > > | Any ideas for the discrepancy?
| > > > > |
| > > > > | Thanks,
| > > > > | James
| > > > > |
| > > > > |
| > > > >
| > > > >
| > > > > ---
| > > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
| > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
| > > > > Version: 6.0.600 / Virus Database: 381 - Release Date: 28/02/2004
| > > > >
| > > > >
| > > >
| > > >
| > >
| > >
| >
| >
|
|
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.600 / Virus Database: 381 - Release Date: 28/02/2004
- Posted by Noel Paton on February 29th, 2004
It would do - if you used Norton SpeedDisk as defragger. This puts the
swapfile at the front of the drive in a single block and fixes the size (if
you use the 'Optimize' [sic] option)
--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2004, Win9x)
Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
"Will Denny" <willdenny@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:e%23l3%237w$DHA.1844@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Noel - I've just tried a Defrag on a Win 9x partition. The Swap file was
defragmented, but couldn't be defragged and moved. Ergo - a permanent Swap
File wouldn't necessarily help minimise the fragmentation of a hard
disk/partition.
--
Will Denny
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
"Noel Paton" <NoelDPspamless@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:%23jyIL0w$DHA.2804@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| perhaps - but putting the swapfile into its own partition would do the
same.
| fragmentation delays on an unused swapfile are zero anyhow!
|
| --
| Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2004, Win9x)
|
| Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
| http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
|
| Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
|
| "JamesJ" <jjy@adelphia.net> wrote in message
| news:%23py3fxw$DHA.3400@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| > One more observation. Fragmentation. Wouldn't a permanent swap file
| > keep fragmentation at a minimum?
| >
| > James
| >
| > "Noel Paton" <NoelDPspamless@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
| > news:es6rdqw$DHA.2336@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
| > > As I said before, there's almost NEVER a good reason for a huge (or
even
| > > fixed) swapfile - the more RAM you have, the less the need for ANY
| > > swapfile - and most systems with 1GB+ can survive quite well on a
| swapfile
| > > of 100MB or less (if only the running apps would let it!)
| > >
| > > The problem arises when running apps specify the swapfile size
required
| on
| > > loading - which they shouldn't (but many do). The more of that type
you
| > > have, the more VM you need - irrespective of the RAM available.
| > >
| > > Since ME came out, and RAM got so cheap and processor so fast, a lot
of
| > > people are running many more apps than it was originally envisaged
that
| > they
| > > would - with resulting problems with Resources.
| > > For some reason, many people confuse Resources with Memory - and the
fun
| > > starts.
| > >
| > >
| > >
| > > --
| > > Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2004, Win9x)
| > >
| > > Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
| > > http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
| > >
| > > Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to
| NG's
| > >
| > > "JamesJ" <jjy@adelphia.net> wrote in message
| > > news:%23TUPNmw$DHA.2524@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| > > > I've always setup a permanent swap file and I've always used 2.5 or
3
| > > times
| > > > my actual physical memory. I'm not a mathematician but, I have 1 gb
of
| > > > installed
| > > > RAM, isn't that 1,000 mb?
| > > > If it's to large for Win9x I'll tone it down but why the
discrepancy??
| > > >
| > > > Thanks,
| > > > James
| > > >
| > > > "Noel Paton" <NoelDPspamless@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
| > > > news:u9$lFcw$DHA.2348@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| > > > > IIRC, it's actually 'too large' for a Win9x system, which is
limited
| > to
| > > > > files of 4GB - or effectively 2GB???
| > > > >
| > > > > --
| > > > > Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2004, Win9x)
| > > > >
| > > > > Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
| > > > > http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
| > > > >
| > > > > Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages
to
| > > NG's
| > > > >
| > > > > "Will Denny" <willdenny@mvps.org> wrote in message
| > > > > news:eEbJAVw$DHA.1036@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| > > > > Hi James
| > > > >
| > > > > I think that you need to downsize the spec. for your Swapfile -
3GBs
| > is
| > > > > 'rather' large.
| > > > >
| > > > > --
| > > > >
| > > > > Will Denny
| > > > > MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
| > > > >
| > > > >
| > > > > "JamesJ" <jjy@adelphia.net> wrote in message
| > > > > news:OLVi2Qw$DHA.4060@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| > > > > | I've specified a 3000 mb permanent swap file in virtual memory.
| > (3000
| > > > Min.
| > > > > | and 3000 Max)
| > > > > | Explorer is reporting the size of WIN386.SWP as 100 mb.
| > > > > | Any ideas for the discrepancy?
| > > > > |
| > > > > | Thanks,
| > > > > | James
| > > > > |
| > > > > |
| > > > >
| > > > >
| > > > > ---
| > > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
| > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
| > > > > Version: 6.0.600 / Virus Database: 381 - Release Date: 28/02/2004
| > > > >
| > > > >
| > > >
| > > >
| > >
| > >
| >
| >
|
|
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.600 / Virus Database: 381 - Release Date: 28/02/2004
- Posted by Will Denny on February 29th, 2004
As I won't let ****any**** Norton products anywhere near any of my PCs I hadn't realised this - thanks Noel.
--
Will Denny
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
"Noel Paton" <NoelDPspamless@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:%23XZk1$w$DHA.392@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| It would do - if you used Norton SpeedDisk as defragger. This puts the
| swapfile at the front of the drive in a single block and fixes the size (if
| you use the 'Optimize' [sic] option)
|
|
| --
| Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2004, Win9x)
|
| Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
| http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
|
| Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
|
| "Will Denny" <willdenny@mvps.org> wrote in message
| news:e%23l3%237w$DHA.1844@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
| Noel - I've just tried a Defrag on a Win 9x partition. The Swap file was
| defragmented, but couldn't be defragged and moved. Ergo - a permanent Swap
| File wouldn't necessarily help minimise the fragmentation of a hard
| disk/partition.
|
| --
|
| Will Denny
| MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
|
|
| "Noel Paton" <NoelDPspamless@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
| news:%23jyIL0w$DHA.2804@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| | perhaps - but putting the swapfile into its own partition would do the
| same.
| | fragmentation delays on an unused swapfile are zero anyhow!
| |
| | --
| | Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2004, Win9x)
| |
| | Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
| | http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
| |
| | Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
| |
| | "JamesJ" <jjy@adelphia.net> wrote in message
| | news:%23py3fxw$DHA.3400@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| | > One more observation. Fragmentation. Wouldn't a permanent swap file
| | > keep fragmentation at a minimum?
| | >
| | > James
| | >
| | > "Noel Paton" <NoelDPspamless@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
| | > news:es6rdqw$DHA.2336@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
| | > > As I said before, there's almost NEVER a good reason for a huge (or
| even
| | > > fixed) swapfile - the more RAM you have, the less the need for ANY
| | > > swapfile - and most systems with 1GB+ can survive quite well on a
| | swapfile
| | > > of 100MB or less (if only the running apps would let it!)
| | > >
| | > > The problem arises when running apps specify the swapfile size
| required
| | on
| | > > loading - which they shouldn't (but many do). The more of that type
| you
| | > > have, the more VM you need - irrespective of the RAM available.
| | > >
| | > > Since ME came out, and RAM got so cheap and processor so fast, a lot
| of
| | > > people are running many more apps than it was originally envisaged
| that
| | > they
| | > > would - with resulting problems with Resources.
| | > > For some reason, many people confuse Resources with Memory - and the
| fun
| | > > starts.
| | > >
| | > >
| | > >
| | > > --
| | > > Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2004, Win9x)
| | > >
| | > > Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
| | > > http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
| | > >
| | > > Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to
| | NG's
| | > >
| | > > "JamesJ" <jjy@adelphia.net> wrote in message
| | > > news:%23TUPNmw$DHA.2524@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| | > > > I've always setup a permanent swap file and I've always used 2.5 or
| 3
| | > > times
| | > > > my actual physical memory. I'm not a mathematician but, I have 1 gb
| of
| | > > > installed
| | > > > RAM, isn't that 1,000 mb?
| | > > > If it's to large for Win9x I'll tone it down but why the
| discrepancy??
| | > > >
| | > > > Thanks,
| | > > > James
| | > > >
| | > > > "Noel Paton" <NoelDPspamless@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
| | > > > news:u9$lFcw$DHA.2348@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| | > > > > IIRC, it's actually 'too large' for a Win9x system, which is
| limited
| | > to
| | > > > > files of 4GB - or effectively 2GB???
| | > > > >
| | > > > > --
| | > > > > Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2004, Win9x)
| | > > > >
| | > > > > Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
| | > > > > http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
| | > > > >
| | > > > > Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages
| to
| | > > NG's
| | > > > >
| | > > > > "Will Denny" <willdenny@mvps.org> wrote in message
| | > > > > news:eEbJAVw$DHA.1036@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| | > > > > Hi James
| | > > > >
| | > > > > I think that you need to downsize the spec. for your Swapfile -
| 3GBs
| | > is
| | > > > > 'rather' large.
| | > > > >
| | > > > > --
| | > > > >
| | > > > > Will Denny
| | > > > > MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
| | > > > >
| | > > > >
| | > > > > "JamesJ" <jjy@adelphia.net> wrote in message
| | > > > > news:OLVi2Qw$DHA.4060@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| | > > > > | I've specified a 3000 mb permanent swap file in virtual memory.
| | > (3000
| | > > > Min.
| | > > > > | and 3000 Max)
| | > > > > | Explorer is reporting the size of WIN386.SWP as 100 mb.
| | > > > > | Any ideas for the discrepancy?
| | > > > > |
| | > > > > | Thanks,
| | > > > > | James
| | > > > > |
| | > > > > |
| | > > > >
| | > > > >
| | > > > > ---
| | > > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
| | > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
| | > > > > Version: 6.0.600 / Virus Database: 381 - Release Date: 28/02/2004
| | > > > >
| | > > > >
| | > > >
| | > > >
| | > >
| | > >
| | >
| | >
| |
| |
|
|
| ---
| Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
| Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
| Version: 6.0.600 / Virus Database: 381 - Release Date: 28/02/2004
|
|
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.600 / Virus Database: 381 - Release Date: 28/02/2004
- Posted by JamesJ on February 29th, 2004
Thanks to all for the advise.
Thanks again,
James
"Noel Paton" <NoelDPspamless@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:%23XZk1$w$DHA.392@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
- Posted by JamesJ on February 29th, 2004
Thanks to all for the advise.
Thanks again,
James
"Noel Paton" <NoelDPspamless@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:ubwqUvw$DHA.916@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
- Posted by Rick T on February 29th, 2004
Noel Paton wrote:
2 gigabytes... er wait 2 gig for an .avi file, 4 gig for ... dammit I
used to know this.
Rick
