• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

SSD for the pagefile?

This one applies to XP, but makes sense even today, because the logic obviously stays the same:

Myth - "Disabling the Paging File improves performance."

Reality - "You gain no performance improvement by turning off the Paging File. When certain applications start, they allocate a huge amount of memory (hundreds of megabytes typically set aside in virtual memory) even though they might not use it. If no paging file (pagefile.sys) is present, a memory-hogging application can quickly use a large chunk of RAM. Even worse, just a few such programs can bring a machine loaded with memory to a halt. Some applications (e.g., Adobe Photoshop) will display warnings on startup if no paging file is present."

"In modern operating systems, including Windows, application programs and many system processes always reference memory using virtual memory addresses which are automatically translated to real (RAM) addresses by the hardware. Only core parts of the operating system kernel bypass this address translation and use real memory addresses directly. All processes (e.g. application executables) running under 32 bit Windows gets virtual memory addresses (a Virtual Address Space) going from 0 to 4,294,967,295 (2*32-1 = 4 GB), no matter how much RAM is actually installed on the computer. In the default Windows OS configuration, 2 GB of this virtual address space are designated for each process' private use and the other 2 GB are shared between all processes and the operating system. RAM is a limited resource, whereas virtual memory is, for most practical purposes, unlimited. There can be a large number of processes each with its own 2 GB of private virtual address space. When the memory in use by all the existing processes exceeds the amount of RAM available, the operating system will move pages (4 KB pieces) of one or more virtual address spaces to the computer's hard disk, thus freeing that RAM frame for other uses. In Windows systems, these "paged out" pages are stored in one or more files called pagefile.sys in the root of a partition. Virtual Memory is always in use, even when the memory required by all running processes does not exceed the amount of RAM installed on the system."

Myth - "Putting the Paging File on a RAMdisk improves performance."

Reality - "Putting a Paging File in a RAM drive is a ridiculous idea in theory, and almost always a performance hit when tested under real-world workloads. You can't do this unless you have plenty of RAM and if you have plenty of RAM, you aren't hitting your paging file very often in the first place! Conversely, if you don't have plenty of RAM, dedicating some of it to a RAM drive will only increase your page fault rate. Now you might say "yeah, but those additional page faults will go faster than they otherwise would because they're satisfied in RAM." True, but it is still better to not incur them in the first place. And, you will also be increasing the page faults that have to be resolved to exe's and dll's, and the paging file in RAM won't do diddly to speed those up. But thanks to the paging file in RAM, you'll have more of them. Also: the system is ALREADY caching pages in memory. Pages lost from working sets are not written out to disk immediately (or at all if they weren't modified), and even after being written out to disk, are not assigned to another process immediately. They're kept on the modified and standby page lists, respectively. The memory access behavior of most apps being what it is, you tend to access the same sets of pages over time... so if you access a page you lost from your working set recently, odds are its contents are still in memory, on one of those lists. So you don't have to go to disk for it. Committing RAM to a RAMdisk and putting a paging file on it makes fewer pages available for those lists, making that mechanism much less effective. And even for those page faults resolved to the RAMdisk paging file, you are still having to go through the disk drivers. You don't have to for page faults resolved on the standby or modified lists. Putting a paging file on a RAMdisk is a self-evidently absurd idea in theory, and actual measurement proves it to be a terrible idea in practice. Forget about it."
 
If you have enough RAM, pagefile is barely being used - but that said, you still DO need it.

If you need to use a paging file or not will vary on a case by case basis but please don't tell me what I need when you don't even have a clue as to what i am doing. It seems disabling the paging file didn't work for you so your assuming it's not going to work for anyone else.

BTW a quote from MS.

When lots of memory is added to a computer, a paging file may not be required.
or perhaps more fairly
However, as more RAM is added to a computer, the need for a page file decreases. If you have enough RAM installed in your computer, you may not require a page file at all, unless one is required by a specific application.
Even better the article will hopefully give an idea of how much paging file is needed. [http://support.microsoft.com/kb/889654]


You gain no performance improvement by turning off the Paging File.
IMHO disabling or enabling the paging file (either way ;)) is about preventing performance degradation and not about performance gains.

Putting a Paging File in a RAM drive is a ridiculous idea in theory
I would agree with this except perhaps in the case of client versions of Windows 32-bit OS's that ignore remapped memory above 4GB. With some RamDisk software drivers that can take advantage of that ignored memory that would otherwise be wasted, it could possibly prove useful.


I don't have a SSD so can not really comment on them but don't they come with a 5 year wear warranty in which case wouldn't the manufacturers be fairly confident of it lasting with a default windows OS environment and paging file?
 
I don't have a SSD so can not really comment on them but don't they come with a 5 year wear warranty in which case wouldn't the manufacturers be fairly confident of it lasting with a default windows OS environment and paging file?
Exactly. This should convince even those who do not believe any technical argument, I'd say.
 
Well i do and ever since i stopped using XP i've only once needed a paging file for Titan Quest other wise never needed one.

The data on a Intel SSD after time gets scattered so much it looks pretty crazy due to there even wear.

Best way to find out is to disable the paging file and find out for sure after all it wont do any harm. Although with a bit of common sence you might want to turn it on with 3D apps. I only use my system for gaming and i play a hell load of games without issue.

Disabling pagefile is best done to keep the wear level down.
 
Well i do and ever since i stopped using XP i've only once needed a paging file for Titan Quest other wise never needed one.

The data on a Intel SSD after time gets scattered so much it looks pretty crazy due to there even wear.

Best way to find out is to disable the paging file and find out for sure after all it wont do any harm. Although with a bit of common sence you might want to turn it on with 3D apps. I only use my system for gaming and i play a hell load of games without issue.

in vista/7, you cant really disable it. it turns itself back on and off automatically. (at least, thats what i've read - never checked)
 
The thing is, according to what I read in various articles, that unless you have extremely little memory and system has to page data to the disk, you do not gain any noticeable performance by disabling the pagefile (if it can be turned off - I do not know either). You can possibly even experience performance decrease if you disable it, if some application wants to allocate some amount of VM - in that case it has to use the RAM, which would otherwise be free.

Me myself, I don't give a shit. With 1.5TB of disk space, 4GB pagefile is nothing. I also checked in Task manager and other monitoring tools and I am 90% sure the pagefile usage, or rather amount of IO operations with it, is minimal, so why bother?
 
SSD's, a waste of money!

wait till they perfect them.

I agree. Enable this, move this, disable that, what a PITA. Here is a firmware to fix our screw ups. Oh, it didn't work. Oh, it even made things worse.
 
I don't think so. The technology is still somewhat young (relatively...), but far from useless.
 
Intel does not support TRIM in RAID

There have been some reports and claims in various places online that Intel, since Rapid Storage Technology version 9.6, supports TRIM on SSDs configured in RAID arrays. In Intel's own words:

Intel said:
The latest: Intel® RST 9.6 will be released this week which includes TRIM support for SSDs. It will support TRIM with SSDs in an AHCI configuration, or with the RAID controller enabled and the SSD is used as a pass through device. An example of this use case is for users that want to use the SSD as a boot drive but still be able to RAID multiple HDDs together to allow for large protect data storage – a great use for the home theater PC. TRIM support for SSDs in a RAID configuration is under investigation and is not included in Intel® RST 9.6.

Source

If Intel has since released an update that does allow the use of TRIM in RAID, please let me know and I will correct this post.
 
There have been some reports and claims in various places online that Intel, since Rapid Storage Technology version 9.6, supports TRIM on SSDs configured in RAID arrays. In Intel's own words:



Source

If Intel has since released an update that does allow the use of TRIM in RAID, please let me know and I will correct this post.

Totally true i would have to say mine are still hitting above 500BMs just like new. So as i said in another post trim with intel drivers work in Vista too.


And the drives are for sure spreading the usage over the cells as you can tell when you look at them with a disk defrager.
 
in vista/7, you cant really disable it. it turns itself back on and off automatically. (at least, thats what i've read - never checked)

Sounds like an old wives tale that one :laugh:

AFAIK Pagefile.sys is used for modifiable data/code i.e. anything that is flagged writeable. If you set "no paging file" then any modifiable sections can not be swapped out to disk. However with data/code that isn't writeable then the file on the disk can be used as virtual memory as it will always be the same (unchanged) and can be read into and out of RAM as required without having to write to the disk. Hope that helps in explaining it.
 
There have been some reports and claims in various places online that Intel, since Rapid Storage Technology version 9.6, supports TRIM on SSDs configured in RAID arrays. In Intel's own words:



Source

If Intel has since released an update that does allow the use of TRIM in RAID, please let me know and I will correct this post.

yes intel supports TRIM in RAID, but only intel does
 
yes intel supports TRIM in RAID, but only intel does

Do you mean that Intel supports TRIM on SSDs that are part of a RAID array, or on SSDs that are not themselves part of a RAID array (running as individual drives/"pass through devices"), but which are connected to a storage controller that is running other devices in RAID mode?

As far as I know, you cannot run TRIM and RAID with SSDs simultaneously. RST 9.6 simply allows you to run TRIM with SSDs that are connected to the same controller that is running other drives in RAID (with the SSDs themselves not in RAID).
 
oh really? I thought it was including those in the RAID array.... Maybe I was in fantasy world :p

but google it, perhaps its all misinformation but it seems people say that it includes the RAIDed drives
 
Intel drivers support TRIM on RAID SSDs, but I do belive it has to be on an Intel board, or at least an Intel based mobo.
I'm not sure, I gave away my only SSD in the 3D contest. :laugh:
 
Do you mean that Intel supports TRIM on SSDs that are part of a RAID array, or on SSDs that are not themselves part of a RAID array (running as individual drives/"pass through devices"), but which are connected to a storage controller that is running other devices in RAID mode?

As far as I know, you cannot run TRIM and RAID with SSDs simultaneously. RST 9.6 simply allows you to run TRIM with SSDs that are connected to the same controller that is running other drives in RAID (with the SSDs themselves not in RAID).

Thats what I thought. I'm pretty sure that it works in a non-member raid config but not as a member of the raid array.

Tech Report
 
Intel drivers support TRIM on RAID SSDs, but I do belive it has to be on an Intel board, or at least an Intel based mobo.
That doesn't make sense. I don't think many people use Intel boards :)
Anyway, I believe it simply is supported on such device that works with the drivers.
 
I do not use a pagefile. Never had an issue.

The only issue I have ever seen with not using a pagefile happens with AutoCAD.

If you have enough system RAM you should never have to use a pagefile however there are some exceptions, very rare ones, like autocad.
 
I do not use a pagefile. Never had an issue.

The only issue I have ever seen with not using a pagefile happens with AutoCAD.

If you have enough system RAM you should never have to use a pagefile however there are some exceptions, very rare ones, like autocad.
Since there seems to be an even split of opinion on this issue, I will just say that if you decide to go with no pagefile, be aware of the symptoms if you do end up running out of memory. What I have always seen is that first the system slows to a complete glacial crawl and soon after that freezes completely. And that was with smaller than recommended pagefiles, not no pagefile. So if you see that happening, you it probably means you either need more ram or should switch the pagefile back on.
 
I've read and kept up with this thread and read all the posts (yeah, I know not like me lol) and I think that you would really not see any tangible increase in performance by putting the pagefile on an SSD. Especially if you have sufficient RAM.

Just my 2 cents.
 
but the OS on a SSD he would
 
Or just don't think about pointless crap and have both OS and pagefile on the SSD :)
 
My system is 1gb on SSD and 8gb on HDD, just FYI, thats ehat seems to work best for me... However, the SSD might die in a few years xD
 
Or just don't think about pointless crap and have both OS and pagefile on the SSD :)

Why take up valuable space on the SSD with the page file?
 
Back
Top