| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 50561 | 2004-10-24 21:34:00 | Warped question for the weekend | dude (6318) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 284286 | 2004-10-25 07:16:00 | Chilling Silence: 2 tweak'e: 1 ]:) |
dude (6318) | ||
| 284287 | 2004-10-25 07:16:00 | > I have 1G ram. 3.7g swap. Isn't that way too much? Aren't you supposed to have a swap file of only twice the amount of installed ram? ]:) |
dude (6318) | ||
| 284288 | 2004-10-25 07:38:00 | If you have a gig of ram you are not likely to need a swap file. But it does no harm to have it. Mine is left at windows default and to be quite honest I never even think about it. It's there if it's wanted. Why do you want to get rid of it anyway?? Jack |
JJJJJ (528) | ||
| 284289 | 2004-10-25 07:50:00 | Windows XP requires and uses virtual memory regardless of how much ram you have. It is not possible to do away with the swap file. Windows 98 is different, with that you can with advantage eliminate swap file usage for much of the time and speed things up. You can also put the swap file on another hard drive so that your C: drive does not get fragmented due to swap file usage. |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 284290 | 2004-10-25 08:48:00 | > > I have 1G ram. 3.7g swap. > > Isn't that way too much? Aren't you supposed to have > a swap file of only twice the amount of installed > ram? ]:) > Depending on who or whom you talk to the ratio is 2 or 3 to 1. However, some applications demand more when combined with background devices/services. Video capture and dvd together, can be intensive so the "Alleged Warranty Tech" set it so. This has resolved some issues. D |
drb1 (4492) | ||
| 284291 | 2004-10-25 08:53:00 | I've never understood this: Say it's 2:1 swap to ram . That is the Windows default (I have 512 ram and had 1GB swap file) . But surely, if you have more RAM you don't need as much swap file? IE . If you have 2GB of RAM you don't need a 4GB swap file . But if you have 64MB of RAM you'll need more than 128 of swap file . So what's up with this ratio? |
george12 (7) | ||
| 284292 | 2004-10-25 09:02:00 | there wasa good acticle on this (google ??). with win9x/me the ratio is a lot of #$% for the reasons you have said. however with XP its a different ball game. basicly XP is a virtual memory based system. everything is loaded into virtual mem. to fit the data you just used and the data are useing it would have to be a least 2x the size of the RAM. if you drop the size of the virtual memory you will find XP will run a bit slower instead of faster. |
tweak'e (174) | ||
| 284293 | 2004-10-25 09:03:00 | I agree with George. When doing a Redhat 9 install on a box with 24MB Ram, it would always allocate 192MB Ram. Anything else is less-likely to get used. Ive allowed a gig of Swap so that I can suspend because Linux hibernates to the Swap partition rather than the way windows does of hiberfil.sys. |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 284294 | 2004-10-25 09:03:00 | The ratio is meaningless, it is a hangover from the days of Windows 3.1 and early Win 95 when 16 MB of ram was enormous. | Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 284295 | 2004-10-25 09:05:00 | >>It's there if it's wanted Thats good because a machine running XP uses the swap file constantly,even at idle. I do believe the theory is by loading the workings of the OS into the swapfile it leaves the ram available for programs that have to make use of it. Although that may not stand up to scientific examination, |
metla (154) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||