Wow I just learned Bleachbit is bad for SSD, is Ccleaner bad too?

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
About all I do is disable recycle bins and that's it
Use and enjoy.

Turn off hibernation as well.

 

[Mussels]

How come?

It seems to run just fine..

You're not actually disabling it, you're forcing it to run at a minimum size and it gets created and deleted as needed

Some apps will crash and error out if they try to use it without enough space existing in advance, but like all caches it's simple: the smaller it is, the more likely data has to be re-created instead of using an older copy.

An SSD user would want a LARGER page file, so that files are written just once, and then read as many times as possible.

 

[Bill_Bright]

It seems to run just fine..

I always find this excuse puzzling. Just because something, normally enabled by default, "seems" to run fine when manually disabled, how is that justification and sound rational to keep it disabled? It makes no sense!

Did it run poorly before you disabled it? Do you have greater experience and technical knowledge than the entire team of true, "memory management" experts - highly trained and educated professionals with decades of experience, exabytes of empirical data, super-computers at their disposal to run 1000s of scenarios - who have determined having it enabled (and Windows managed) by default is best - for your system too?

Since Windows will dynamically resize our PFs as needed (and knows how to do that very well) doesn't it make sense Windows would disable the PF "IF" it made sense to do so your specific computer?

Contrary to what some people seem to think;

There are some pretty sharp cookies at Microsoft - at least in the "development" side of the house (can't always say that about the executive or marketing side - but that's for a different discussion).​

​

The developers at Microsoft really do want our computers to run optimally and securely - and they know how to make that happen.​

​

98% of us users out here are "normal" users. Contrary to what we may think, we are not special and our computers are NOT so unique that we "need" to change the defaults.​

​

Windows 10/11 are not XP. We need to stop treating them like they are.​

​

And, "It didn't break when I did that" is NOT justification to do that.​

 

[freeagent]

I always find this excuse puzzling. Just because something, normally enabled by default, "seems" to run fine when manually disabled, how is that justification and sound rational to keep it disabled? It makes no sense!

Just saving my ssd from all those little writes. Very rarely do I actually need to enable it..

If it was as important as you say, why do they make it so easy to disable?

 

[Snotspat]

These days you can get SSDs so cheap, that I have a 512GB SSD that just sits as a cache for my spinning 8TB drive, using Primocache.

(The idea with that btw. was that I install all my games on the 8TB drive, and then let Primocache decide which files I need, so they load from the SSD. It seems very snappy, but its hard to tell.)

If one was so inclined, one could pick up a 120GB SSD for 10 Euro, and just stick the Windows page file there. Then paging would be slightly slower of course, which is why I don't do it. Better than disabling it I think, and if it makes you feel better about not wearing out the fast drives. You could use the 10 Euro drive for all kinds of other temp. work as well, like downloading files to be extracted, well, anything that's temporary, and just not care because its a 10 Euro drive.

 

[Bill_Bright]

If it was as important as you say, why do they make it so easy to disable?

Sorry, but that question makes no sense if you are trying to use it justify disabling it. But I will give you an example. If you have multiple drives, or a very small boot drive, you might want to have the PF on a secondary drive instead.

 

[freeagent]

Sorry, but that question makes no sense if you are trying to use it justify disabling it. But I will give you an example. If you have multiple drives, or a very small boot drive, you might want to have the PF on a secondary drive instead.

But I don't need to justify it, it works well for me. I have 32GB of ram, very rarely do I even use half of it. I have no stability issues, no problems, and no un-needed writes.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Then paging would be slightly slower of course

"Of course"? Ummm, how so? The only reason it might be slower is if the smaller SSD was a slower performer and you disabled the PF on the faster drive. Otherwise, Windows is smart enough to determine the fastest drive and use that for the primary PF too.

But I don't need to justify it, it works well for me. I have 32GB of ram

But you did justify it using illogical logic - just now and before too.

You turned it off then "justified it" by saying, "It seems to run just fine". That's not sound justification. Sound justification to leave it disabled is if it worked "better" disabled.

It is also not sound justification to claim you are saving it from all those little writes. That is not a problem with today's SSDs.

And you claim you rarely need to enable it. How would you know or even determine that? Are you an expert at memory management? You may not have "noticed" any performance hit, but that does not mean you did not suffer one. And of course, if your system crashed, no dump file.

You can have 128GB of system RAM and Windows may still use the PF to temporarily store lower high priority data in there. That is NOT a bad thing.

But you are right - you do not "need" to justify it. You can disable the PF for any reason you like. It is your system. But it is illogical to attempt to justify it by claiming you didn't notice any difference, or you have enough RAM, or you are trying to save writes. None of those excuses are valid with today's modern SSDs and operating systems.

 

[r9]

I always find this excuse puzzling. Just because something, normally enabled by default, "seems" to run fine when manually disabled, how is that justification and sound rational to keep it disabled? It makes no sense!

Did it run poorly before you disabled it? Do you have greater experience and technical knowledge than the entire team of true, "memory management" experts - highly trained and educated professionals with decades of experience, exabytes of empirical data, super-computers at their disposal to run 1000s of scenarios - who have determined having it enabled (and Windows managed) by default is best - for your system too?

Since Windows will dynamically resize our PFs as needed (and knows how to do that very well) doesn't it make sense Windows would disable the PF "IF" it made sense to do so your specific computer?

Contrary to what some people seem to think;

There are some pretty sharp cookies at Microsoft - at least in the "development" side of the house (can't always say that about the executive or marketing side - but that's for a different discussion).​

​

The developers at Microsoft really do want our computers to run optimally and securely - and they know how to make that happen.​

​

98% of us users out here are "normal" users. Contrary to what we may think, we are not special and our computers are NOT so unique that we "need" to change the defaults.​

​

Windows 10/11 are not XP. We need to stop treating them like they are.​

​

And, "It didn't break when I did that" is NOT justification to do that.​

Bill Gates is that you ?

 

[Snotspat]

"Of course"? Ummm, how so? The only reason it might be slower is if the smaller SSD was a slower performer and you disabled the PF on the faster drive. Otherwise, Windows is smart enough to determine the fastest drive and use that for the primary PF too.

I was using an example for someone, no one in particular, who had the PF disabled on the OS drive. The example is the fact that you can pick up a 120GB SSD for a little more than 10 Euro.

Such a drive will be without DRAM for caching, which leads to slower random/IO. I think the Psion controllers are able to store the mapping data inside the controller itself, so I don't know how bad it'll be.

Obviously using the fastest drive for the page file is what one ought to do.

But as a thought experiment its fun. I might put a drive like than in, just to use for trash files, or trying out other OS's outside of an VM etc.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Bill Gates? Who's that? Wasn't he someone who used to work at MS many years ago?

I was using an example for someone, no one in particular, who had the PF disabled on the OS drive. The example is the fact that you can pick up a 120GB SSD for a little more than 10 Euro.

Ah! Thanks for clarifying. That said, even the slowest SSD will run circles around the fastest hard drive. So the fact that little 120GB SSD may come cheap, it would still be wise to put the PF on it verse a hard drive.

 

[freeagent]

You turned it off then "justified it" by saying, "It seems to run just fine". That's not sound justification. Sound justification to leave it disabled is if it worked "better" disabled.

I actually haven't been using one for a few years, just a habit to turn it off on my system.

And you claim you rarely need to enable it. How would you know or even determine that? Are you an expert at memory management?

No, I wouldn't go that far as to call myself an expert at anything. Occasionally I will have a small crash when running Test Mem 5 (TM5)

None of those excuses are valid with today's modern SSDs and operating systems.

Tell that to my 500GB M.2. I did have a PF enabled and is now sitting at 95% life left.

I didn't think you would take my post to heart like that.

 

[Snotspat]

I opened up Crystal Disk info just now.

My 256GB Evo 970 Plus has 10TB of writes. This on a system with 32GB of memory, running Windows 11 pro.

I guess some of that is pf writes. Since the drive is rated for 150TB writes, that's about 15 years from now at this rate. I suspect that's not going to be an issue.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Ummm, 95% is good, not bad.

just a habit to turn it off on my system.

Illustrating my point that W10/W11 are not XP and it is time to stop treating them like it is.

I didn't think you would take my post to heart like that.

Oh? Isn't the goal of this site to ensure readers have the best, and most current information needed to make informed decisions? That's my reason for being here - along with maybe, as a bonus, learning something new along the way.

Like it or not, if one sports the Moderators badge, they should expect what they say to be taken seriously.

 

[Arco]

Sorry if a bit off-topic, SSDs now can handle a LOAD of abuse. I have a bunch of old 120GB SSD's that are still working perfectly. There is no reason to be scared of using your SSD.

 

[Snotspat]

Sorry if a bit off-topic, SSDs now can handle a LOAD of abuse. I have a bunch of old 120GB SSD's that are still working perfectly. There is no reason to be scared of using your SSD.

Older SSDs have a far longer life span than new ones, because they often used SLC NAND. Ie. I had an 120GB OCZ Vertex 2 with 2 Petabytes of writes! That's 30 times the endurance of current TLC drives. [per GB of storage]

You shouldn't be scared though. I agree. The only reason I reached 2PB write, was because I played World of Warcraft on Windows 7 with 1GB of total system memory.

Larger SSDs have more endurance, as they use wear levelling when writing, and thus have more space to spread the writes over. And of course, when people have 16GB+ in their system, the OS isn't paging that much.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Older SSDs have a far longer life span than new ones

Nah! That's a blanket statement and like all blanket statements, it is wrong (and yes, I note the irony of that statement too).

There may be a few older SSDs that can be expected to have a longer lifespan than the latest generation SSDs of the same size, but those are exceptions.

 

[Snotspat]

Nah! That's a blanket statement and like all blanket statements, it is wrong (and yes, I note the irony of that statement too).

There may be a few older SSDs that can be expected to have a longer lifespan than the latest generation SSDs of the same size, but those are exceptions.

We can change that statement to something else. SLC based NAND has a far longer lifespan than, TLC and QLC based drives.

For comparison, we're talking 100 times the amount of write cycles for SLC drives vs. QLC drives.

There's a clear correlation between age of drives, and technology used, for very obvious reasons.

 

[Mussels]

Just saving my ssd from all those little writes. Very rarely do I actually need to enable it..

If it was as important as you say, why do they make it so easy to disable?

You're not saving writes, you're adding to them as its re-created and deleted.

It's easy to turn off, because you're meant to enable it on another drive when you disable it on C:

 

[ExcuseMeWtf]

We can change that statement to something else. SLC based NAND has a far longer lifespan than, TLC and QLC based drives.

For comparison, we're talking 100 times the amount of write cycles for SLC drives vs. QLC drives.

There's a clear correlation between age of drives, and technology used, for very obvious reasons.

Except higher capacity of newer drives compensates for lower durability of individual cell. Controller has more free space to do wear levelling around.

 

[Mussels]

Except higher capacity of newer drives compensates for lower durability of individual cell. Controller has more free space to do wear levelling around.

Valid point

 

[Bill_Bright]

We can change that statement to something else. SLC based NAND has a far longer lifespan than, TLC and QLC based drives.

Except there is no reason to assume, in fact it is illogical to assume that today's TLC or QLC (or [fill-in-the-blank]) technologies are still in the same dark ages as their first generation ancestors! What we can easily assume is that manufacturing techniques as well as the refinement of the raw materials, as well as design and engineering all have improved to help extend and improve quality, reliability and endurance.

Yes, I'll concede that manufacturers' constant desire to cut costs and improve profits often results in a couple steps back. But the state-of-the-art is still multiple steps forward from the first generations.

Today's internal combustion engine uses basically the same technologies as used in the Ford Model T. Does that suggest today's internal combustion engines have poor reliability and endurance?

Note this from the How-To Geek,

TLC SSDs write three bits to each cell. At this writing, TLCs are the most common type of SSD.

They pack more capacity than SLC and MLC drives into a smaller package, but sacrifice relative speed, reliability, and durability. That doesn’t mean TLC drives are bad. In fact, they’re probably your best bet right now—especially if you’re hunting for a deal.

Don’t let the notion of less durability get you down; TLC SSDs usually last for several years.

Except higher capacity of newer drives compensates for lower durability of individual cell. Controller has more free space to do wear levelling around.

This too! If the user buys a 32GB or even 64GB SSD to use as their boot drive - where the PF, Windows Updates, cookies and other frequently changing temp files will be stored - they can expect the life expectancy of that SSD to be affected. But that is even with the SSD technologies with the best endurance capabilities. And even with TLC SSD, assuming a current generation model, the budget minded user can still expect many years of reliable service.

I think we need to keep things in context and focus too. Would the experienced user and/or enthusiast seek out and buy a cheap, low tech, entry level SSD (or motherboard, PSU, RAM, case, graphics, CPU, or [fill-in-the-blank] technologies for their new builds if their budgets allowed for better technologies? Nope! At least not if they do their homework first.

And would the experienced user and/or enthusiast with bottomless pockets be able to forego having and using a robust backup plan if he or she bought the latest and greatest, most reliable, most enduring SSD available? Nope!

 

[Deleted member 185158]

I actually haven't been using one for a few years, just a habit to turn it off on my system.


No, I wouldn't go that far as to call myself an expert at anything. Occasionally I will have a small crash when running Test Mem 5 (TM5)


Tell that to my 500GB M.2. I did have a PF enabled and is now sitting at 95% life left.

I didn't think you would take my post to heart like that.

Shawn, you are doing what overclockers have been doing since the dawn of Windows. lol. Turning off page file.

If it's unused, turn it off.

You don't need it. That's why you don't see any repercussion from disabling it.

Are you running XP32 bit with a 3.5GB cap?? I think not.....

There are points in here stating something about a place for dump files.
You already know what the BSOD was from, stop pushing so hard on that memory OC bro!!!

Page files in Windows with large physical memory​

When large physical memory is installed, a page file might not be required to support the system commit charge during peak usage. For example, 64-bit versions of Windows and Windows Server support more physical memory (RAM) than 32-bit versions support. The available physical memory alone might be IS large enough.
Source-

Introduction to the page file - Windows Client

Learn about the page files in Windows. A page file is an optional, hidden system file on a hard disk.

learn.microsoft.com

Yes, I corrected the statement in red above. To make it more "accurate" in your use case sir.

Oh? Isn't the goal of this site to ensure readers have the best, and most current information needed to make informed decisions? That's my reason for being here - along with maybe, as a bonus, learning something new along the way.

Like it or not, if one sports the Moderators badge, they should expect what they say to be taken seriously.

Don't mess with my team mate. He's my friend.

Don't do it again.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Don't do it again.

Not your job to dictate what others say. But to your other comment, I can't say we're friends (because we don't socialize) but he's definitely not my enemy.

Doesn't change the facts - you sport a badge, there are certain expectations involved - desired or not, fair or not.

 

[Deleted member 185158]

Not your job to dictate what others say. But to your other comment, I can't say we're friends (because we don't socialize) but he's definitely not my enemy.

Doesn't change the facts - you sport a badge, there are certain expectations involved - desired or not, fair or not.

I'll just say it out loud then.

Your posts are boring, long winded as hell.... usually way way off point and you never gather evidence to support your all knowing wisdom, which Page File you seem to know none.

I linked my statement with supported evidence above.

Talk to Shawn with respect. badge or not. That's all I'm asking man.