If the page file size never even approaches the minimum what's the point of having a larger maximum? I can see if people run memory hogs like giant spread sheets. But for my usage there's no need for it.
If you never go over the minimum, no space wasted, no harm done. If you run into a once-in-a-blue-moon situation where you need the memory, you'll probably be happy your application (or production server?
) doesn't crash.
It's my experience that people argue about swap more than they actually use it.
Yep, and you see a lot of old crap regurgitated over and over, with either the "ZOMG SET TO A MAX SIZE TO AVOID FRAGMENTATION!" or some weird magic formulas that probably made sense 15 years ago when they were first invented, but... yeah.
I only have 2 GB ram on this machine and ran for 4 years with no swap.
I did that back with 1gig of ram (which was a bit low when gaming), but after I upgraded to 2gig (and then all the upgrades after that) without a hitch. But running pagefile-less isn't something I'd advise to everybody
So why should I subscribe to your formula? On my side I have about 16 years of experience with my method. On your side I have theory.
Because the theory makes sense?
- or perhaps you can point out a flaw in the theory? There might
be some scenario I haven't though of... but at least there's none of those magic voodoo numbers.
A better solution all around is a swap partition a la Linux.
Don't see the point of those fixed size partitions these day, really - for the same reasons as my arguments against the fixed-size windows paging file. There were technical reasons for it back in the olden days, but Linux has supported file-based swap for a while now.
The Windows options are almost laughable. Everything is squeezed through the straw of a file system. They could fix it but they don't care.
How is the file system
a straw? As long as your paging file isn't fragmented, there's no I/O difference between file swap and partition swap... and I bet you'd be hard pressed to measure the computational overhead between handling writes to a file vs. to a partition even on many years old hardware.
Now, paging options might aren't as comprehensive on Windows, that's for sure. But that's how it always is with Windows: it caters to the majority
I really just got tired of trying to follow and formulate an opinion on the 0 PF safety debacle and just - said the hell with it - split the difference.
The most reasonable advise I've seen by a techie the last few years was "don't blindly follow advise, measure your needs". I still don't see the obsession with with fixed size, though