>Rhett>MS suggests (WINXP Pro SP2) that a paging file still be>established on the system drice (C:| in my case, as well as>creating another paging file on another drive in its own>partition (I am able to do this). My question: Should the>total paging file be say 6GB or should each pf be 6GB each?>Thanks>Peter HayesPersonally, I would keep it simple, and just have 1 paging file on C: and it would be 6 gb. If it were me. I like to keep things simple, and not risk any chance of the OS slowing down or crashing because I tried to get too cute with page file(s). I have a lot of other system config issues to concern myself with, and don't want to spend time messing with page files for what would be at best, only a marginal performance difference anyway.The reason Microsoft recommends a page file on c: is because XP will make a small one there anyway, if you choose to place your large page file somewhere else. So you might as well, in my opinion, have 1 large page file on c: and be done with it.A good read on page files, their usage and application, is Khouroush Ghazi's tweak guides Tweaking Companion. You can google that and find it. It is very informative and Khouroush knows his stuff.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

RhettThanks for that - I'll read the articles as suggested.Peter Hayes

Isn't /userva not needed anymore, with SP2?SP2 is 3-4gb-aware, aren't the /userva OS settings not needed anymore?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

I believe you are correct Rhett, I'm still using SP1......and about to go up to the office and install my new 4 GB of RAM.Now the process of trying to squeeze out the most I can with a 32 bit XP install.

>Isn't /userva not needed anymore, with SP2?>>SP2 is 3-4gb-aware, aren't the /userva OS settings not needed>anymore?In my original post, I outline four steps. SP2 eliminates one of them (modifying the executable, fsx.exe, to take advantage of the boot.ini settings). But you still need to edit boot.ini, make sure you have DX9 updated, and set your paging file size to > 4 Gb. Again, whether this will have a tangible benefit in 32-bit XP I don't know. But if you want to use more than 2 of RAM, real or virtual, for FSX you need to edit boot.ini, even if you are using Acceleration/SP2.

In case anyone is reading this with a similar set-up (4GB RAM and WINXP 32 bit), as mine, I found the /3GB switch would only work in FSX with the /userva=2560 switch activated (3GB showing active in WINXP). As soon as I pushed the uerva switch to 3 GB, I got texture 'issues', and could not run FSX. I also modified the FSX .exe prior to all this.I'm going to try a couple different pagefile.sys settings, but right now have it set at 3072, which shows 5.87GB Page File space in the System Info. Task Manager is showing about 3.15 GB of total physical Memory, with 2.7+/- GB available ('at idle').Now....things got interesting....I tried the /PAE switch 'for fun', and it seemed to work even better, (but without the userva switch, and in addition, FSX would not run with both the /3GB and /PAE switch activated). Figures from Task Manager and System Info are almost identical as above 'tweaks'.I truly believe that FSX 'feels' much smoother, and that it is running much better with only the /PAE switch activated (along with the FSX.exe mod) in lieu of the /3GB /userva switches. No real increases in Frame Rates, but everything was very smooth, and my scenery looked great....very sharp, and very very few 'blurries'.Things that make you go 'hummmm'.

Thanks for reporting your experience with the /pae switch. It never would have occurred to me (cautious soul that I am). Sticks 3 and 4 arrived today, and I'll what I find here.

Please do David, I would be very interested in what your findings are.

What does your line in boot.ini read (with /pae)?

Just as that; Following '/fastdetect', my last entry is /PAE

Are we even certain that FSX uses anywhere near 2GB in the first place?I have 4GB on an XP 32bit system and XP shows just over 3.1GB.I also have a memory guage running and it goes nowhere near the max when FSX is running. Run BF2 or BF2142 though and it'll fill the memory, FSX doesn't.

>Are we even certain that FSX uses anywhere near 2GB in the>first place?>>I have 4GB on an XP 32bit system and XP shows just over>3.1GB.>>I also have a memory guage running and it goes nowhere near>the max when FSX is running. Run BF2 or BF2142 though and>it'll fill the memory, FSX doesn't.From what I can understand thus far (and I could be wrong), yes, FSX can run with 3 GB RAM if the /3GB and /userva=X switch is used, as those lines provide applications to run 3GB **with** the FSX.exe modification. Problem I have found is I can only run the userva switch at 2.5 GB to work in FSX in WINXP 32 bit. But, with a 64 bit WINXP/Vista installation, it is my understanding FSX will use the full 4 GB. Thus far though, I seem to heve better performance with the /PAE switch (with 32 bit WINXP), which provides WINXP the use of 3+ GB (perhaps all the 4 GB, as I understand it), but only provides FSX 2 GB. None the less, I feel my performance is better with that switch turned on....but I'm going to keep testing.

BrianI have also wondered about memory usage. I use a Pertelian Hardware device and it shows when FSX is running (WINXPro SP2, 2Gb RAM) a max usage of 1000Mb RAM (in very dense areas, average is around 500 Mb), cpu usage 100% (occasionally dropping to 80%); Paging File peak usage approx 5%. GPU usage: max 38%. Processes up to 200. I'm mystified about setting it to use above 3Gb??Peter Hayes

I did some tests with the benchmark flight in the AVSIM file library. Very little difference in average framerate (measured over five minutes), some difference in framerate volatility (when the FPS readings are spread out on a graph). On my rig, 4 Gb with no memory tweaks (no /pae, no /3g) made the prettiest looking graph, but again the differences were so slight that I wouldn't make a recommendation on that basis.

I've actually gone back to the /3GB switch, but changed the /userva= to 2816. I believe that may be the max I can go before running into trouble within FSX. I may still go back to 2560.Peter, I don't have any fancy benchmark utilities to use while in FSX, but while in Windowed mode, simply looking at Windows task Manager, I was averaging between 1.4-1.76 GB being used while in FSX. My total Physical memory total is showing about 3.15 GB. My usage changed as I 'hopped into' different aircraft, with various complexity and gauge/panel systems. Regardless, I now have approx. a 1.5ish GB ceiling 'to work with' in FSX. I certainly don't regret getting the 4 GB of memory and stuffing it in the box, even with the 32 bit WINXP issue. ;)A 64 bit operating system is kinda intriguing to me now, but just not sure I want to run into any driver issues. SP2 is not on my radar right now until I see how things 'shake out'.