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

[Snotspat]

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,

I haven't made any assumptions. There's inherent limitations to TLC and QLC that means they won't have the same endurance as SLC chips.

I don't know that its a step back. I think large cheap drives are great for the market, and in fact, the larger size also helps to mask the vastly lower endurance.

Perhaps there'll be a successor to QLC that goes in a different direction than, cheaper/less endurance. That would be great.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Then

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.

Then don't read them! In fact, it would be wonderful if you put me on ignore.

Joining a thread days later, attacking, trolling, criticizing another's expertise, and attempting to stifle others sure doesn't help the flow of the thread. In fact, it just degrades it.

I see nowhere where I was being disrespectful to others - contrary to your posts. But if freeagent felt I was being disrespectful, then I apologize. But I note he is perfectly capable of defending himself. I also note there are at least 3 members of the staff participating in this thread - with at least two being moderators. Pretty sure the site does not need any wannabe mods running around playing vigilante. The mods here are quite capable of stepping in when they see fit.

Here's a thought - if a thread does not meet your standards, use the Report button.

Now I suggest we move on.

I haven't made any assumptions.

Sorry - I was speaking to the crowd there. I should have been more clear.

 

[freeagent]

All good fellas! We are just doing things that we know work for us Thanks for that link Jon, I knew there was something like that floating around

 

[Bill_Bright]

That link does indeed go to a good source of information, and includes links to even more. I urge everyone here to follow those links, read, and understand them (if they can) if they wish to deviate from the defaults.

Too bad the quote was edited to say something different. While the edit was acknowledged - a good thing, and I grant and applaud that. But come on! You cannot change the wording, and thus message of a sentence to say something the original author did NOT say or mean, then pretend the article supports your claim. That is just silly.

The OP has never stated what his peak system commit charge was, or what his quantity of infrequently accessed pages are, or if a supporting a crash dump file is something desired, or any other data needed to properly determine if a PF is needed, or not, and if needed, what size it should be.

I note other information needed to properly determine page file necessity and size is to know (and understand the significance) of the following, as shown in : How to determine the appropriate page file size for 64-bit versions of Windows (a link included in that initial link).

The following performance counters measure hard page faults (which include, but aren't limited to, page file reads):​

• \Memory\Page/sec
• \Memory\Page Reads/sec
• \Memory\Page Inputs/sec

The following performance counters measure page file writes:​

• \Memory\Page Writes/sec
• \Memory\Page Output/sec

These are things any "true" experienced person in memory management, or person truly knowledgeable of the function and purpose of the page file would know, or information they would determine BEFORE making recommendations or changes. If all that is "Greek" to you, then LEAVE THE DEFAULTS ALONE!!!!! Windows knows how to deal with them just fine.

Without knowing this essential information for that specific computer and user, and then to suggest it is fine to disable the PF just because someone has gobs of RAM, or because they "always did it that way", or because, "I disabled it and didn't notice any difference", is, frankly reckless and naive advice!

It really is akin to, "I took off the air filter and didn't notice any difference so I left it off". Or, "I disabled my anti-virus and didn't get infected so I left it disabled". Or "I'm a good driver so I don't need insurance".

 

[Deleted member 185158]

That link does indeed go to a good source of information, and includes links to even more. I urge everyone here to follow those links, read, and understand them (if they can) if they wish to deviate from the defaults.

Too bad the quote was edited to say something different. While the edit was acknowledged - a good thing, and I grant and applaud that. But come on! You cannot change the wording, and thus message of a sentence to say something the original author did NOT say or mean, then pretend the article supports your claim. That is just silly.

The OP has never stated what his peak system commit charge was, or what his quantity of infrequently accessed pages are, or if a supporting a crash dump file is something desired, or any other data needed to properly determine if a PF is needed, or not, and if needed, what size it should be.

I note other information needed to properly determine page file necessity and size is to know (and understand the significance) of the following, as shown in : How to determine the appropriate page file size for 64-bit versions of Windows (a link included in that initial link).


These are things any "true" experienced person in memory management, or person truly knowledgeable of the function and purpose of the page file would know, or information they would determine BEFORE making recommendations or changes. If all that is "Greek" to you, then LEAVE THE DEFAULTS ALONE!!!!! Windows knows how to deal with them just fine.

Without knowing this essential information for that specific computer and user, and then to suggest it is fine to disable the PF just because someone has gobs of RAM, or because they "always did it that way", or because, "I disabled it and didn't notice any difference", is, frankly reckless and naive advice!

It really is akin to, "I took off the air filter and didn't notice any difference so I left it off". Or, "I disabled my anti-virus and didn't get infected so I left it disabled". Or "I'm a good driver so I don't need insurance".

Excuse me. This is directed towards me. No?

What is "gobs of ram" ?

If you intend to give accurate information, perhaps a lengthy post about what gobs of ram definition is in order.

----

The on topic = any reads and writes to any drive will reduce its life cycle. Period. That was the point. Which is what page file does.

There's nothing more to prove.

 

[Mussels]

The on topic = any reads and writes to any drive will reduce its life cycle. Period. That was the point. Which is what page file does.

There's nothing more to prove.

No it doesnt. It reduces writes by writing once and reading many times, instead of writing deleting and re-writing.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

@Bill_Bright technically a semiconductor uses less power and produces less heat when operating temperature is reduced.

@freeagent if what mussels said is true, you are reducing your SSD lifespan by keeping it off. If untrue, you are putting your system at risk for a crash if it ever happens to need a pagefile - for no benefit. If it works fine (I understand, I use defender ) it hasn't needed the pagefile, and you are getting no benefit. I cannot recommend disabling pagefile.

 

[Deleted member 185158]

No it doesnt. It reduces writes by writing once and reading many times, instead of writing deleting and re-writing.

Well really in a sense your correct because your system isn't using the page file.
It's just there, empty, waiting.... for you to use up all the physical memory.

But a single write fits into the (ANY) category.

Below I depict.
The system is running 16GB 2x8 and Page file just sits there using system resources, empty as empty gets.
If I shut it off like Shawn, It would look exactly the same. 0% usage 0% peak.

When the system notifies you that system memory is low, then you're using page file.

@Bill_Bright technically a semiconductor uses less power and produces less heat when operating temperature is reduced.

@freeagent if what mussels said is true, you are reducing your SSD lifespan by keeping it off. If untrue, you are putting your system at risk for a crash if it ever happens to need a pagefile - for no benefit. If it works fine (I understand, I use defender ) it hasn't needed the pagefile, and you are getting no benefit. I cannot recommend disabling pagefile.

Many overclockers tweak a system with Page File disabled and often times actually reduce the memory quantity at start up.

This is speaking directly about competitive benchmarking. Page file (or any system services not needed to run a particular benchmark) uses system resources. So it has been customary for said competitive benchmarking individuals to disable this feature.... because it either reduces scores or raises benchmark times. So it's eliminated as a "system tweak".

________
Should everyone do this?

No probably not. There's a lot of people that need page file cause they just don't have the required amount of system memory to cover all the applications they run. Which is a shame, cause generally an SSD and HDD is much much slower than system memory and would come with a HUGE performance hit if Page File did in fact need to be used.

It's also used to store system dumps. Like I bet everyone takes the time to read those also.... I'd bet not.

 

[ExcuseMeWtf]

Many programs will run into issues if you disable page file, e.g., "Out of Memory" messages, even when you actually have a good amount of free RAM.
To save space, I have trimmed it a bit regarding initial size, then let Windows expand it when needed.

Currently on my 20 GB PC Windows chose to expand it from 1,5 GB to 3,2GB.

 

[Shrek]

@Bill_Bright technically a semiconductor uses less power and produces less heat when operating temperature is reduced.

I thought it was the other way around and the reason some power diodes are run with less cooling.

 

[ExcuseMeWtf]

I thought it was the other way around and the reason some power diodes are run with less cooling.

A little more complicated than that, but generally yes:

 

[Bill_Bright]

@Bill_Bright technically a semiconductor uses less power and produces less heat when operating temperature is reduced.

Ummm, kinda, sorta, but not really - at least not as a general rule. Are there exceptions? Of course! In extreme cases but this is not about extreme cases. Therefore, it is irrelevant AS LONG AS and assuming we are still maintaining that temp comfortably within its "normal operating temperature" range - the job of the computer case and therefore a "user responsibility".

If the operating temperature is significantly above "normal" operating temps (normal as defined by engineering specs and physical limits of the component materials), that is, overheated, then that could (I did not say "will") result in increased current which then could result in even more heat production - and in extreme cases, smoke, burning device, open circuit or even fire. So in that sense, if the operating temp is lowered (back to where it belongs) you are correct. But note those abnormal temps will change the desired characteristics of the electrical circuit. And if a critical circuit (and proper design), the designers will have included additional compensation (or interrupt) circuits just to ensure that does not happen (assuming no component failure).

Note for electronics that operate in cold environments (satellites in space or mountain-top radio or radio-relay stations as examples), heaters in the electronics are used to raise the operating environment temperature to that normal operating temperature range. This addresses the point @Shrek correctly points out; colder is not necessarily better, or desired.

And that's the point; "normal operating temperature" is a "range" of temps. And if the device (and circuit) is maintained comfortably within that range, not only do the electrical and thermal characteristics of that circuit remain consistent, there is nothing to suggest lowering the temps further will improve stability, performance, or longevity of the device.

The on topic = any reads and writes to any drive will reduce its life cycle. Period. That was the point. Which is what page file does.

There's nothing more to prove.

No it doesnt. It reduces writes by writing once and reading many times, instead of writing deleting and re-writing.

Mussels is, once again, exactly right. Ironic I'm accused of not knowing how things work then we see that statement. "Reads" have no affect on the life cycle of SSDs. Only writes and that limit on the latest generation is so high, normal users will never reach it during the expected lifetime of that computer or beyond.

What is "gobs of ram" ?

If you intend to give accurate information, perhaps a lengthy post about what gobs of ram definition is in order.

Really? Okay fine. IMO, the "sweetspot" for most (not all, but most) users today is 16GB of system RAM. Less RAM and performance "may" be noticeably degraded. However, more than 16GB and performance gains (particularly in a "blind test" - to avoid placebo effects) will "likely" be negligible, at best. Therefore, my definition of "gobs" (today) would be 32GB of RAM or more. Again, are there exceptions? Of course! But exceptions don't make the rule, nor should they dictate what everyone should do. Might some say 32GB is the sweetspot? Sure. And frankly, for many, I would not argue. In fact, in a few short years, 32GB may be the new sweetspot, with 64GB soon after. Then "gobs" might be 128GB.

Many overclockers tweak a system with Page File disabled and often times actually reduce the memory quantity at start up.

This is speaking directly about competitive benchmarking.

LOL Yeah, because competitive benchmarkers (or even overclockers in general - other than possible users of the presets provided by mobo makers) represent the majority of users out here.

I find it very ironic that you went to great lengths to argue how a PF on a SSD will put so much extra wear and tear on the SSD and then went to great effort to illustrate how little the PF on your 16GB system would be utilized. So, to prevent all that wear on your SSD from hits that don't happen, you disable the page file.

And yet we've need zero evidence that shows disabling the SSD improves performance. The only argument (besides preventing all that wear that won't happen) we've seen is, "I didn't notice any difference." The exception being, maybe, is "competitive benchmarkers" seeking "bragging rights".

I am always preaching that things change and what was may no longer be. So how about doing us a favor? Please post a link to a recent article from a reputable source that recommends normal users with 16GB (gobs?) or more of system RAM disable our page files to improve performance. Thanks.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

Ummm, kinda, sorta, but not really - at least not as a general rule. Are there exceptions? Of course! In extreme cases but this is not about extreme cases. Therefore, it is irrelevant AS LONG AS and assuming we are still maintaining that temp comfortably within its "normal operating temperature" range - the job of the computer case and therefore a "user responsibility

I stand corrected - I could have sworn I read that somewhere.

to prevent all that wear on your SSD from hits that don't happen, you disable the page file

This is the thing I was trying to get at - if it is needed, disabling it introduces instability, and if it is not needed, disabling it has no benefit.

 

[Bill_Bright]

I stand corrected - I could have sworn I read that somewhere.

You probably did read it. Sadly, that is a commonly believed myth. I have seen it many times by alternative cooling users seeking bragging rights by trying to cool their CPUs to the lowest temperatures possible. They have propagated falsehoods to rationalize their actions. This has, sadly, caused some to be misinformed and into believing their 50°C CPUs (to pull an arbitrary, but applicable example out of the air) is too hot and going to die prematurely. So they start yanking off coolers, reapplying perfectly good thermal paste, and taking other unnecessary actions - often creating bigger problems in the process.

 

[Deleted member 185158]

Great lengths to take a screen shot. It's literally a one button click.

I'll be doing research on Ageia Physx and making a thread for that. I've been working in it for a few days.

 

[Arco]

Really? Okay fine. IMO, the "sweetspot" for most (not all, but most) users today is 16GB of system RAM. Less RAM and performance "may" be noticeably degraded. However, more than 16GB and performance gains (particularly in a "blind test" - to avoid placebo effects) will "likely" be negligible, at best. Therefore, my definition of "gobs" (today) would be 32GB of RAM or more. Again, are there exceptions? Of course! But exceptions don't make the rule, nor should they dictate what everyone should do. Might some say 32GB is the sweetspot? Sure. And frankly, for many, I would not argue. In fact, in a few short years, 32GB may be the new sweetspot, with 64GB soon after. Then "gobs" might be 128GB.

I agree, if you are building a new system and you have a bit of a budget I would go for 32 GB of ram. More is useless unless you are doing prosumer or whatever,

 

[Shrek]

IMO, the "sweetspot" for most (not all, but most) users today is 16GB of system RAM.

I find 8 GB enough, unless gaming; so I'd agree with 16 GB

Windows 10/11 takes about 4 GB

 

[Arco]

I find 8 GB enough, unless gaming; so I'd agree with 16 GB

Windows 10/11 takes about 4 GB

Yeah, the most noticeable upgrades are SSD then after that is RAM.

My 5-6-year-old Windows OS is still kicking although it's eating up a lot of RAM.

 

[Bill_Bright]

@Rock N Roll Rebel - First, my apologies for my part in this OT sideshow. And second, I hope you have the found the answers you seek.

I find 8 GB enough

This is true for many. 8GB is plenty to surf the Internet, view YouTube videos, update social media, online banking and shopping, process email, develop Word docs and even do some gaming. I would probably want a discrete graphics card so a large chunk of my system RAM is not stolen... err... being "shared" for graphics processing - but that's me.

if you are building a new system and you have a bit of a budget I would go for 32 GB of ram.

I also agree. If building a new system, and the budget allows, I say go for 32GB too. But this is often because if you decide to add more RAM in 2 or 3 years, it may be difficult to find matching/compatible RAM, or, because of a limited number of slots, you may end up having to replace existing RAM instead of just adding more. In other words, it typically is cheaper to buy "more than you will ever need" today, than to add more later.

Great lengths to take a screen shot. It's literally a one button click.

So you can't provide a link that backs up your claim. Got it.

It is sad you routinely resort to puerile, personal insults when you can't backup your claims with supporting evidence, and yet be so quick to accuse others of being disrespectful. Your true colors shine through.

Time to move on.

 

[95Viper]

Stay on topic.
Stop the insults and bickering.
Thread bans will be issued for anymore BS.

 

[Deleted member 185158]

@Rock N Roll Rebel - First, my apologies for my part in this OT sideshow. And second, I hope you have the found the answers you seek.


This is true for many. 8GB is plenty to surf the Internet, view YouTube videos, update social media, online banking and shopping, process email, develop Word docs and even do some gaming. I would probably want a discrete graphics card so a large chunk of my system RAM is not stolen... err... being "shared" for graphics processing - but that's me.


I also agree. If building a new system, and the budget allows, I say go for 32GB too. But this is often because if you decide to add more RAM in 2 or 3 years, it may be difficult to find matching/compatible RAM, or, because of a limited number of slots, you may end up having to replace existing RAM instead of just adding more. In other words, it typically is cheaper to buy "more than you will ever need" today, than to add more later.



So you can't provide a link that backs up your claim. Got it.

It is sad you routinely resort to puerile, personal insults when you can't backup your claims with supporting evidence, and yet be so quick to accuse others of being disrespectful. Your true colors shine through.

Time to move on.

Bill, I already did the link deal. I believe it's your turn.

Find a recent article that states reads and writes don't degrade an ssd while using page file from a reputable source.

There's actually not a lot about page file because it seems seldom brought up.

I already stated most users shouldn't change this windows feature.

What more do you really need? My point was simply any reads and writes to a drive degrades it. How much is where you put the words into my mouth making it seem like it's a lot of reads and writes, no simply one write.....

Cause all hardware is designed with a MTBF. By design this can vary greatly generally by usage.

Hope this helps you understand the simplicity of my argument. Meaning I wasn't trying to make it a long drawn out deal.

If Shawn saw his drives degrade from having page file on, we have no reason not to take his word on it.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Bill, I already did the link deal.

No you didn't. You posted a link, then changed the comment from "might be" to "IS" then claimed you made it more accurate, then pretended it supported your claims, and just expected everyone to accept it. Didn't work.

You have yet to provide any link to any article that recommends disabling the PF, or even suggests disabling it is better, or that disabling it offers better performance. Nor have you provided any link from any SSD maker that recommends or suggests moving the PF off their SSDs and on to HDs.

I provided several links that recommend leaving the PF enabled and on SSDs. Please read my post #35. I provided another link in #36 that reports how SSDs are more reliable than HDDs in data center environments - which clearly deal with huge number of writes and more abuse than typical home users encounter.

You claimed before and now again that "reads" degrade the SSD. As pointed out by me and others, "reads" do not. In fact, I've seen nothing to suggest that writes "degrade" a SSD. They simply count towards the total write limits of the SSD - which for today's SSDs is an astronomical number most normal users will never reach. Others in this thread have also stated to just leave the PF be.

I pointed out that many (if not most) laptops and even many PCs these days come with SSDs only and, of course, the PFs are on those SSDs. Are they dying prematurely? Nope. Why? Because today's SSDs are more than capable of supporting constantly updated operating system files, 1000s and 1000s of temp files, and PFs too.

I believe it's your turn.

No it is not my turn. I have already stated my case with supporting logic and links to supporting, corroborating evidence. And this thread is about Bleachbit and SSDs. Not page files.

Now I am hitting the bike trails because it is 95° out, and only in the 60s for the next 3 days. And I apologize once again to @Rock N Roll Rebel for my part in this thread getting knocked so far OT.

And to @95Viper - I assure you, unless Rock N Roll Rebel returns with a question for me, I am outta here.

 

[Deleted member 185158]

No you didn't. You posted a link, then changed the comment from "might be" to "IS" then claimed you made it more accurate, then pretended it supported your claims, and just expected everyone to accept it. Didn't work.

You have yet to provide any link to any article that recommends disabling the PF, or even suggests disabling it is better, or that disabling it offers better performance. Nor have you provided any link from any SSD maker that recommends or suggests moving the PF off their SSDs and on to HDs.

I provided several links that recommend leaving the PF enabled and on SSDs. Please read my post #35. I provided another link in #36 that reports how SSDs are more reliable than HDDs in data center environments - which clearly deal with huge number of writes and more abuse than typical home users encounter.

You claimed before and now again that "reads" degrade the SSD. As pointed out by me and others, "reads" do not. In fact, I've seen nothing to suggest that writes "degrade" a SSD. They simply count towards the total write limits of the SSD - which for today's SSDs is an astronomical number most normal users will never reach. Others in this thread have also stated to just leave the PF be.

I pointed out that many (if not most) laptops and even many PCs these days come with SSDs only and, of course, the PFs are on those SSDs. Are they dying prematurely? Nope. Why? Because today's SSDs are more than capable of supporting constantly updated operating system files, 1000s and 1000s of temp files, and PFs too.



No it is not my turn. I have already stated my case with supporting logic and links to supporting, corroborating evidence. And this thread is about Bleachbit and SSDs. Not page files.

Now I am hitting the bike trails because it is 95° out, and only in the 60s for the next 3 days. And I apologize once again to @Rock N Roll Rebel for my part in this thread getting knocked so far OT.

And to @95Viper - I assure you, unless Rock N Roll Rebel returns with a question for me, I am outta here.

The page file isn't used because modern x64 systems with enough system memory don't use it.

Again, find me a link. I explained why the quote was modified. That was enough for everyone else except you.

For a problem with me, see my pm box. I'll let you know exactly how I feel in private, no problem.

 

[Mussels]

On the ram discussion above for 32GB:

You want 32GB on DDR4 because it gives you four memory ranks which is an easy 10% RAM performance.
Whether its from 4x8 or 2x16 is upto you, but that performance difference can be larger than buying a higher CPU model


These are from a 1usmus review here on TPU years ago with a 2700x


Look how the DR and MR results smash ahead of the SR results
AMD Ryzen Memory Tweaking & Overclocking Guide - Benchmarks: Performance Results | TechPowerUp

DDR4 3333 dual rank is as fast as 3800 single rank, and Zen3 can reach 3800/3900 dual rank easily these days

I havent found what he meant by multirank, it could be 2xDR and 2xSR together, or something else entirely

(More ram good for SSD, so it's on topic?)


Page file is definitely still used, some programs forcibly require it, and others just crash when they need it and it doesn't exist.
The Windows 7 Pagefile And Running Without One - TweakHound

You'd be far better off running a memory write cache buffer instead of disabling the page file, you'd need to see actual proof of that working before assuming anything.
The entire point of a cache is to write once, read many.

 

[thyself]

well I had to just restore my system from backup because CCleaner made Winget not work anymore I even uninstalled Winget and reinstalled it still no go did some looking up on the net and there were a few people that said CCleaner messed things up I should have never paid for it I'm going to there website and make sure auto-renew is off

I got same issue too and managed to fixed with reinstalling webview2.