Hi all,I understand the need for a Page File in XP. It's there when there's insufficient RAM to store data from the hard drive. So, in theory, the more RAM you add to a system the less the page file is needed. That's how I see it anyway.So when I added an extra 2Gb of RAM to my system making a total of 3Gb why does FS9 continue to use the page file to store data when there's over 2Gb of unused memory? I could understand it if the OS couldn't recognise so much RAM but we're talking about XP for Pete's sake which can recognise up to 4Gb!And where's the logic in the recommended size of the page file being 1.5 times the available RAM? If I add more memory I would expect to reduce the size of the page file - not have to make it bigger!Can I shrink the page file down to a few hundred Mb and force XP/FS9 to use available memory instead? Has anyone played around with page file sizes successfullyHaving paid for this extra RAM I feel a bit cheated that the OS and FS9 can't utilise it. I smell a conspiracy between Microsoft and hard drive manufacturers!x( Thanks.

>Hi all,>>I understand the need for a Page File in XP. It's there when>there's insufficient RAM to store data from the hard drive.>So, in theory, the more RAM you add to a system the less the>page file is needed. That's how I see it anyway.>That does seem logical, however that is not the way Windows manages memory.Windows will ALWAYS page some data to disk, unless you completely remove the paging file.Since Windows will always try to page some data to disk, you should always have at least some sort of page file.>So when I added an extra 2Gb of RAM to my system making a>total of 3Gb why does FS9 continue to use the page file to>store data when there's over 2Gb of unused memory? See above. :)>>And where's the logic in the recommended size of the page file>being 1.5 times the available RAM? If I add more memory I>would expect to reduce the size of the page file - not have to>make it bigger!>That 1.5 times size thing is old information. It is no longer valid for WinXP.The concept is based on the premise that the OS would be able to dump the entire contents of memory into the page file. The reason this is desirable, would be in an error situation where the mem needs to be cleared. If there is no more room (read: pagefile is full) then THAT'S when you get a complete system crash.You don't want that. That's why you want at least SOME page file.That's also why a lot of guru's now recommend a dynamic page file rather than one of fixed size. My philosophy is to make a fixed size one (and contiguous, unfragmented) of rather large size.>Can I shrink the page file down to a few hundred Mb and force>XP/FS9 to use available memory instead? Has anyone played>around with page file sizes successfully>>Having paid for this extra RAM I feel a bit cheated that the>OS and FS9 can't utilise it. I smell a conspiracy between>Microsoft and hard drive manufacturers!x( >Well, a few hundred megs is nothing anymore, with hd prices so low per megabyte.Ray, I highly, highly suggest you read up on modern Page file usage in Windows OS, (google search). There are a number of GOOd sources, some possibly authored by Khoroush Ghazi, that explain all of these things in great detail.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

Hi Ray,"My philosophy is to make a fixed size one (and contiguous, unfragmented) of rather large size."I agree with Rhett and, following Koroush's advice, have had my paging file fixed at 2560MB (Inital and Maximum) for some time now with no issues.MikeASRock 939Dual-SATA2, AMD Athlon 64X2 4800+ (2400MHz)(Toledo), 2GB Crucial PC3200 DDR400 Ram 3-3-3-8 (2T)(Dual Channel)

Hi Rhett and Mike,Thanks for your suggestions. I've downloaded his guide from this site http://www.tweakguides.com/TGTC.html and I'll change its size to 2.5Gb and place it on the primary partition on my Raptor.I still find it somewhat silly that so much disk space has to be reserved but where would we be without good old Bill!My comment about Microsoft and hard drive manufacturers was somewhat tongue-in-cheek ;-)Cheers,

This is an also an informative read regarding VM in WinXP:http://www.tweakhound.com/xp/virtualmemory.htmAnother issue many folks forget is that of back-ground applications and services. Since XP cannot be run without a Page File we should do all we can to eliminate as much as possible apps/services hitting the PF. Ideally, we'd like the PF to be there only for the sim (although this limitation is not realistic) so minimizing the other apps/services running in the background will be helpful.Hardware is yet another variable in this equation. The CPU/Motherboard/Memory subsystem must be able to move the data quickly in and out of memory lest the Page File be hit more often and heavier. Not all hardware memory subsystems are created equal, and each should be tuned for best performance (this is most often a matter of drivers... chipset/video/sound etc.).Good luck,

Hi Greg,Very good points! I use Ken Salter's FSAutoStart and close down all non-essential apps and services prior to FS9 starting.I fly the PMDG737 but instead of using that quite heavy panel I run Project Magenta (PM) Boeing suite on a WideFS PC. FS has a full forward view with no panel so I would say that is as lean as it could be made.My biggest complaint is that of the display stuttering as the aircraft turns 90 degrees onto the active runway. One I've lined up everything smooths up and the flight is very smooth with only occasional stutters. I can't establish what is responsible for those stutters. AS6.5 Wx is fed from my laptop and the only other software running on the FS PC is two small PM apps.It's not a show-stopper but it is slightly annoying when I've invested in so much RAM. I guess this is the downside of running a heavyweight app on the back of a heavyweight OS :-(Having said that there's no way I'd go back to the days of DOS! :-hah

On all OS I know the page file should be equal or larger than thereal physical memory (or it is not used). This is because the entire memory is mapped to disk + other pages reserved for more space. Soit is recommended to 1.5 x RAM, since 1.0 x RAM is required for theexact mapping of real memory. It is just more efficient this way -fast is important.How FS9 uses memory is up to the OS to decide. Windows (and other OS) have fairly good pagers, and I assure you that you willnot be able to make a better decision as to what pages to use inmemory or not. Anyway, re first point, if you have 1G of RAM usedby FS9 you will 1G of page space on disk mapped to this RAM.So what is the logic - cos of 1 you must always increase your pagesize if you add more physical memory - the whole physical memorymust be mapped to the disk.Don't even think of not using page files smaller than RAM or notat all - this is really really bad thing to do. If an OS runsout of space it will delete processes until it has space; if youare lucky this will be FS9, if not then poof.No conspiracy, it is all about getting a computer to go as fastas possible. You have not been conned, when you load FS9 thememory will be read to RAM, and then written to the page file. Thiswrite to disk is less critical than a read from disk since weget less problems of locking so less wait. When it is all loadedthen you get full speed access from RAM; honest.Tom

Hi Tom,With respect to all who have posted the advice I'm getting is somewhat mixed. Rhett suggests the 1.5X RAM rule is outdated for XP whereas you say it's important the page file is sufficiently large to hold the contents of the RAM.I don't profess to be an expert on these matters but OTOH I'm no novice either. The explanation that the contents of RAM need to be held somewhere suggests a page file 1.5 times the size of installed RAM seems logical.So despite the fact that after loading FS9 I still have approx 2.2Gb of available RAM suggesting only 0.8Gb is being used and therefore a page file size of 1.2Gb would suffice I will delete the existing page file of 2.5Gb and create a new one of 4.5Gb.However, I doubt it will be one contiguous file as the 37Gb Raptor is partitioned as 20Gb © and 17Gb (E). I don't suppose it will cause too much of a problem and hopefully it will smooth out the occasional stutters.Thanks all.

Ray, I am finding this thread very interesting. I just took a peek at my page file settings, and had this:3 gigs of actual system RAM.My page file was set to 4096.I just changed it to 'allow the system' to handle it.You know that I claim great system performance (30 FPS) and all. I'll see if this setting (system controlled) changes anything for the good or perhaps the not-so-good.I'll run FS9 and other programs for a couple of days and then report how the change to file paging affected my system.Mitch

It is usually recommended to use a fixed size page just for fragmentation issues. That is, if the system changes the pagefile size it will look next available block of disk space free ondisk that is large enough to satisfy the request. This is usuallyon a slower part of the disk. This will then "increase" thefragmentation rate; you will also get a big hit as the disk doesan allocate to a huge file and marks the directory as a unmovable file.Page file size changes are rare for this reason. I would recommend you set a "nice" page filesize fixed early on within a system installation . Thisway it is near the edge (faster access) and not moved and not fragmented. Just my 2p worth. Feel free to try, just don't use a page file smaller than RAM asyou can render your system unable to bootable. (Though you can modifythe necessary boot file).

Hi Mitch,With 3Gb of RAM I would have a fixed page file of 4.5Gb. That way it can't fragment over time as a system handled one may.Your '30fps' performance. I can also get 30 most of the time (often higher) once I'm away from busy airports. Can you still get 30fps on approach to KJFK, KORD with 100% Ai enabled? ;-)That would tell me far more about what your system can deliver when pushed. :-)

Hey Ray,I usually get 30 pretty well everywhere. As stated in another thread, if I enter really heavy cloud, I might drop three or four momentarily, but then go right up at even-keel '30' once more.I run 100 percent commercial A.I. all the time and no approach to main-line airports drops me. Only really heavy build up of clouds produced by A.S. does, but again for mere seconds.Mitch :)

Hi Mitch,Looking back to check your system I see you have a Dell 3GHz processor so I'm guessing your Ai package is not from MyTraffic or Ultimate Traffic as those would certainly drag down frame rates with 100% Ai at major airports.I'm not disputing your claims that you get 30fps pretty well everywhere but if you do have one of those two Ai packages I'd love to know how you get 30 inbound to KORD etc.BTW, when I attemped to create a 4.5Gb page file the system wouldn't allow me to create one higher than 4096Gb. :-hmmmPS. It would be helpful if more people posted their system details into their sigs :-)Cheers,

Hi Ray,I actually have a Dell 3.4 GHz. I also tried to use your 4.5 GB for the page file, and my system TOO, slapped my hand back to 4096 (XP Pro)For my A.I., I use P.A.I.'s great package.Actually, I do get 30 into KORD! :)I know that you are not disputing me Ray, and I truly have absolutely no reason to lie or claim falsely. It does me, and especially the reader...NO GOOD! :) I ALWAYS run A.S. 6.5 for my custom weather.Since installing the X1950 Pro....all I can say..is that LIFE IS GOOD! :))))Dell XPS Gen3, 3.4 Pent4 Prescott core (no overclock)Actual ATI X1950Pro 256 Vid card. (no overclock)Audigy 2 ZS Soundblaster sound cardMitch

>Hi Tom,>>With respect to all who have posted the advice I'm getting is>somewhat mixed. Rhett suggests the 1.5X RAM rule is outdated>for XP whereas you say it's important the page file is>sufficiently large to hold the contents of the RAM.>Actually we really said the same thing. I indicated that the page file needs to be large enough to hold the entire physical memory contents, and so did Tom.That is the important point to take away from it. I wanted to emphasize that the 1.5x thing is no longer a sure-fire hard and fast rule (you know that dates from Windows 3.0 days). If you set up a dynamic page file, it will not always be 1.5x size, you will find.>>However, I doubt it will be one contiguous file as the 37Gb>Raptor is partitioned as 20Gb © and 17Gb (E). I don't>suppose it will cause too much of a problem and hopefully it>will smooth out the occasional stutters.You can make your page file to be one contiguous block (recommended).In my case I have the page file on a separate physical disk than my FSX installation. It seems to work well.I assume you have FS on your Raptor, as well as your paging file.You might want to read up on this in Khoroush's notes, but I suspect Windows XP is also making a small paging file on your C: drive whether you like it or not.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian