Average pagefile size settings?

[lucasbuck]

I'm trying to clear up some more space on my SSD. I have 8gb of memory in the machine. The pagefile is taking up 8gb on the ssd. Do most folks just leave it on automatic, or specify a size? What would be a good size?

Also, it's recommend just to leave it on the C: correct? From the posts I've read most people suggested that, but didn't specifically say why.

Thanks for any tips!

[foxwood]

Mark Russinovich says that to optimize your Pagefile size, run the system normally for a while, and then use Process Explorer to look at the "Peak Commit Charge". Your Physical RAM plus your Pagefile only needs to be as big as this "Peak Commit Charge" - anything else is just wasted. If you have enough Physical RAM that you don't expect to exceed the "Peak Commit Charge", then you just need a small Pagefile big enough permit the kind of crash dump you are configured for, so set the Minimum size for that, and the Maximum size for double that.

http://blogs.technet.com/b/markrussinov ... 55406.aspx

[lucasbuck]

Thanks for the article. I think that article is based on Vista. I can't seem to find peak commit charge on Win 7.

[foxwood]

Did you install Process Explorer, the tool Russinovich referred to?

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysi ... 96653.aspx

[richard1980]

Also, it's recommend just to leave it on the C: correct? From the posts I've read most people suggested that, but didn't specifically say why.

The page file doesn't necessarily have to be left on C:\, but it should reside on your SSD. The reason for keeping it on the SSD is because the SSD has significantly higher read speeds as compared to a traditional HDD. Some overly-paranoid people are concerned about storing the page file on the SSD because the write activity decreases the lifespan of the SSD. They are certainly correct, but they over-exaggerate the impact the page file has on SSD lifespan. In the real world, the impact is very small. Unless you plan on keeping your SSD for many years (think big...really big...something like 50 years), the page file's small impact on SSD lifespan isn't really relevant. So ultimately, there's really no reason to have the page file anywhere other than the SSD.

[barnabas1969]

I recommend letting Windows manage the size of the page file, unless you're running Win95/98/ME (or earlier). And, as Richard wrote above, leave it on your SSD.

It sounds like your main purpose is to save space on your SSD. I've been running Windows 7 x64 on two machines with 64 GB SSD's for a couple of years, and I am still doing just fine on free space on my SSD. Both PC's have hibernation disabled (powercfg -h off), and both have the My Documents and all the other libraries pointed to an HDD.

Some people have reported running Windows on even smaller SSD's. I think Richard1980 says that he's running a 30GB SSD (correct me if I'm wrong, Richard).

Maybe you should start by telling us:

• how big is your SSD
• how much free space you have now
• whether or not hibernation is enabled (and do you actually use hibernation)
• have you relocated your libraries to an HDD?

[richard1980]

40 GB.

[barnabas1969]

Thanks for the correction. Just as a side note, I ran Win 7 x86 on a PC with a 32GB HDD as the system drive (a 10,000 RPM drive). Never ran out of space on the system drive, even after running Windows for quite a few years. One of the two machines I referred to above is this same PC. I just migrated the data to an SSD. The major thing hogging space (which would prevent me from going back to a 32GB drive) is Win SxS (Side by Side). There are ways to reduce the space in WinSxS, but there are limitations.

My advice: Run "Tree Size Free". If WinSxS is the big hog, I might be able to help you. Either way, Tree Size Free will help you identify the biggest files and directories on your system.

[staknhalo]

Messing with WinSxS is a bad very bad horrible idea; you're more than likely to get a Windows update/Microsoft product installer/Microsoft runtime installer error(s) down the road if you screw with it. I wouldn't recommend it under any circumstances. Did a lot of trial and error with it when vLite was still in active development. The space you can save (usually under 10 GB) by removing duplicate or outdated components/runtimes/dlls/etc is not worth the headaches it can cause.

Edit: Unless you are talking about the 'service pack clean up tool' which is a legit option from Microsoft to remove some WinSxS files (basically removes all the dupes from WinSxS for pre-service pack files/runtime/programs and makes the service pack unremovable) - but it only applies if you installed a service pack on top of a RTM install etc. Also, it will only save under 2 GB usually.

[barnabas1969]

Unless you are talking about the 'service pack clean up tool' which is a legit option from Microsoft to remove some WinSxS files (basically removes all the dupes from WinSxS for pre-service pack files/runtime/programs and makes the service pack unremovable) - but it only applies if you installed a service pack on top of a RTM install etc. Also, it will only save under 2 GB usually.

Yep, that's what I'm talking about... but it only saves space after a service-pack install. Who cares if you can't undo SP1? In my experience, it saved more than 2GB, but it wasn't an astronomical amount of space saved. I can't remember exactly how much.

[staknhalo]

Who cares if you can't undo SP1?

They wouldn't make it an option unless there were people who wanted/needed to do so; therefore it's worth mentioning is all.

[barnabas1969]

Who cares if you can't undo SP1?

They wouldn't make it an option unless there were people who wanted/needed to do so; therefore it's worth mentioning is all.

OK, but for the purpose of an HTPC... I can't imagine anyone who would want to un-install SP1. I haven't slip-streamed SP1 into any of my Win7 install disks (yet), but many people do slip-stream service packs into the install disks so they don't need to download the service pack (which basically amounts to re-installing Windows).

[barnabas1969]

In case you're wondering, here's how to remove the files from a prior service pack install:

1) Login as an administrative user.
2) Open a command prompt (elevated is probably a good idea).
3) Type the following command:

Code: Select all

DISM /online /Cleanup-Image /SpSuperseded

I just did it on a new install of Win7 Pro x64, and saved almost 3GB.

[staknhalo]

All I know from browsing these various forums over the years - if you look at half the crap people do with their HTPCs/run on their HTPCs in addition to HTPC duties..... you should learn to not to assume anything in regards to what people want to do with their setups

A lot of people suffer from thinking 'the way I run things is the right/only way'...I myself have to try and keep the above in mind from time to time.

As for slipstreaming SP1 - save yourself the time and just dl a SP1 MSDN/Technet iso. Microsoft publicly lists the SHA1/MD5 hashes for you to make sure your dl is legit.

[barnabas1969]

I understand what you mean. For me, an HTPC is an HTPC. I'm not trying to use it to edit spreadsheets, Word documents, and run a database on it. I do run EventGhost... and that gives me some cool features to automate my lighting and stuff using an Insteon USB-to-powerline modem... but that's very light duty for a PC.

[lucasbuck]

Sorry, I replied yesterday but for some reason I'm not seeing it.

foxwood - No, I missed that part and was looking in task manager
barnabas:
- It's a 60gb Agility
- 17 gb free (which will probably be fine if things quit growing)
- Hibernate is disabled
- I didn't relocate docs, music, video etc if that's what you mean by libraries, but there's really nothing in it. I did notice tubecore has a temp in videos. I had moved the playon temp stuff with a junction per your previous instructions. Do I need to do that with the tubecore temp also? I try to save wear on the SSD as much as I can without going overboard

Using treesize:
- My windows dir is 23 gig, 10 of it winscs (3.8gb for system, 2 for assembly, etc,)
- My pagefile constantly sits at 8 (I was under the assumption it fluctuated based on need, or is it always supposed to be at 8?)
- My mediabrowser imagecache is at 7gb (was at 4gb, but I just rebuilt it, so probably have redundant and old stuff I need to clear our). I was thinking about moving it off with a junction, but I read on the mediabrowser forum that that could slow it down some when pulling art. Anyone with any experience have an opinion? A little slow wouldn't bother me. I guess I could try it and put it back if it doesn't work well.

Again guys, thanks for taking the time to help.

[barnabas1969]

I just checked, and I have 18.6GB free on my 60GB SSD too. It's been there for a long, long while. I don't use Media Browser, so I can't comment on that. I don't think you want to slow down your image cache.

I abandoned PlayOn and TubeCore a while back. PlayOn was too unreliable, and the TubeCore interface was clunky. I bought "smart" Bluray players for all the other rooms, so that takes care of Netflix and other stuff.

If I remember correctly, back when I was using vmcPlayIt (before PlayOn blocked access to Netflix via wmcPlayIt), I moved the vmcPlayIt temp stuff to my HDD using a junction. I don't remember how much space it occupied though.

You can try the command I posted in post #13 above. It won't do any harm, unless you want to uninstall Service Pack 1 (unlikely) at some time in the future.

The only thing on my system that grows (other than recorded TV and movies) is the database for ShowAnalyzer. I use Yammm, but it puts all the metadata and thumbnails in the same directory as the movie.

[lucasbuck]

Thanks again for all the advice, really appreciated. I'll just keep an eye on the size and maybe play around with moving that image cache.

[wannabesq]

If you have more than 8GB of ram, chances are windows won't need much more, and you won't even need much of a pagefile. If you are low on space, I highly recommend moving the page file to a larger drive. If you have a large enough SSD, keeping the pagefile there will make it marginally faster should the pagefile be accessed, but even still SSDs are considerably slower than DDR3 ram these days, so IMO, i'd rather take an occasional speed hit by using a slow drive for pagefile, than risk filling up a SSD, as all drives perform worse when they are at or near maximum capacity.