defragging and setting correct swapfile size

  holly polly 16:14 27 Feb 2005

Hi gday all read that i could gget better performance outta my comp if i specify the swapfile size ,windows was managing it before ,withh the rfesult it was using all my remaining hdd space ,i have 512mb of ram fitted and i have specified the min virtual memory at 512 and the maximum at 1024 is this right or does it require a further tweak?
athlon 7000
512mb of ram
80 gig hdd
32mb ddr nvidia graphics card
creative sb live card
running win ME fully updated
all replies greatfully recived -Hol Pol....

  holly polly 09:28 28 Feb 2005

gday all sorry it has taken so long to write back
firstly i only have the one partition on my hdd and windows was requesting a swapfile of over 20 gig huge or what .
many thanks for the postings on the recommended swap file size ,greatly appreciated ,but can someone please answer the second part of my question -is there a way to manually defrag my swap file without the utilities mentioned?-much obliged -Hol Pol...

  dan11 19:12 28 Feb 2005

First thing. If you set the minimum and maximum swap file to the same size, you will drastically reduce the fragmentation in the swap file and windows. I personally would set it to 750Mb minimum and 750mb maximum. This will stop the virtual memory on the hard drive shrinking and expanding.

Apart from third party utilities, i only know of one way to manually defrag the swap file.

Change the swap file to 50mb min and 50mb max, reboot the computer to safe mode. Now defrag all of the C drive. When defragged, reset the page file to 750Mb min and 750Mbmax. reboot to normal windows.

Your hard disk is now defragged and the paging file will select a full ( empty space ) segment of 750Mb on the hard drive.

Well that's the way I would do it!:-)

  CurlyWhirly 09:07 01 Mar 2005

I have 1 Gb RAM, and I have set my virtual memory size to 512mb which is half the physical memory size.
According to articles, I *should* really set the virtual memory size to 1.5 times physical memory i.e. 1.5 Gb.

This would give me 2.5 Gb in total - overkill I would say!
Why is it that the more physical RAM you put in, the more virtual memory XP allegedly needs where as I would have thought it the other way round i.e. the MORE physical memory you have, the LESS you would need virtual memory?

Is my virtual memory size of 512mb about right, or should I increase it to the recommended amount of 1.5 Gb?

  woodchip 15:08 01 Mar 2005

My comments exactly, read my settings above and I do not have problems with 256Mb and set to 100 for page file

  as400man 20:05 01 Mar 2005

My Computer,Properties, System restore, disable.
Then de-frag. Enable System restore, set swap file min and max to 768Mb. You can let Windows manage it but it must constantly calculate what is needed. By specifying min and max sizes, Windows won't worry about it.

De-frag then sorts out one of the most heavily used part of your hard drive. If you do not turn off System Restore beforehand, de-frag will not touch that part of the disk because it is marked as 'in use'.


  dan11 20:51 01 Mar 2005

I would say if you can open all your usual programmes and suffer no delay, then your virtual memory is about right. it all depends what programmes you use, regularly.

Windows XP pro, 128Mb sdram with a M700mhz pentium 111.

With my virtual memory set, I can open all of these click here and still have 33Mb of physical memory spare.

  Mr Mistoffelees 21:23 01 Mar 2005

The reason you have 33MB of physical ram apparently spare is because Windows has had to shift a lot of data into the page file. 128MB is not really enough for Windows XP, the general consensus seems to be you need a minimum of 256MB of ram to make it work well. All that page file usage will be slowing your pc down.

  dan11 22:10 01 Mar 2005

That is the whole point.;-) re this thread.

If the page file is large enough, it can cope with multiple programmes with ease. Some thing a bog standard computer, with 128Mb of ram, would find painfully slow to do.

256mb earmarked for birthday:-)

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

HTC U12 Plus review: Hands-on

Best Android emulators for Mac

Comment utiliser l’Apple Store Éducation ?