ok i think i have found the culprit, damn it fsx is starting to drive me fking crazy.Anyways i fired up fsx with pmdg 737800 i notice these stutters so i decide to change my aircraft to the leveld 767 and all is fine and smooth i dont understand.And yes i did pay the pmdgPlease helpthankyou

I agree with TOR you should never disable the paging file in windows as it is used by the the Physical RAM for quite a number of vital windows processes. If you want to find how big the paging file should be Google Mark Russinovich and Paging file and he will explain that you should base it on the highest commit charge/level of the physical RAM but all in all on a large drive up to twice the Physical RAM or let Windows handle it is not a bad bet.Myth: A large paging file slows the system down. No it doesn't in fact its the reverse - no paging file will definitely slow the system down. The paging file when set up does not affect system performance one way or another.

Peter, as I'm running with very much success and without any problems since years without pagefile, I'm very interested into any proof that pagefile is needed or of benefit.I see it like this: if I activate a pagefile, windows has the chance to write in it, if it needs to. If I disable it, I prevent any chance of windows attempting to write in it, and force it to use RAM. If windows were unable to use RAM instead of pagefile, something would crash - no, that never happened.Thus I'm looking for some real hard evidence of this, otherwise I'm staying and recommending by my opinion that turning off pagefile is just of a benefit if you have enough physical RAM.

ok i think i have found the culprit, damn it fsx is starting to drive me fking crazy.Anyways i fired up fsx with pmdg 737800 i notice these stutters so i decide to change my aircraft to the leveld 767 and all is fine and smooth i dont understand.And yes i did pay the pmdgPlease helpthankyou

Um, very simple? - NGX is way more demanding than LevelD767?

Word Not Allowed, see Tor's link, and this too (by the end of the video is what you're looking for)Disabling the page file does not prevent Windows from "paging" stuff to disk, so the whole point of disabling the page file is moot, and therefore it's you and whoever vouches for disabling the paging file who needs to prove there's a real benefit in that tweak, not the other way around.Someday you'll need a crash dump. Actually you had a system freeze not too long ago and a .dmp could have very well helped you figure out what went wrong.

Okay, if a dump is the reason, then so be it.But I'm talking about performance.Where does windows page if I turn the paging off? Show me the file or anything... I can't find anything.I'll read these articles when I get a little time.

Okay, if a dump is the reason, then so be it.But I'm talking about performance.Where does windows page if I turn the paging off? Show me the file or anything... I can't find anything.I'll read these articles when I get a little time.

Memory mapped files, go to the disk, which often happen to be a huge part of what sits in memory. Just checked in RAMMap, right now I have close to 3GB of memory mapped files in RAM that windows could repurpose even without a page file. dll's, exe's, language files... without a page file you may well be forcing the OS to page all that stuff out.Performance gains based on a faulty premise like that need to be proven to me beyond the "I can't hear my HDD so much now" or "the HDD activity led doesn't blink anymore", and even if it worked for you, and I highly doubt you are getting any mesurable benefit from that, before telling someone to disable the page file one should know for a fact that it works for everyone, not only your system and how you run it. What happens if you have Superfetch enabled? What is your usage pattern and how much different is it from mine? etc...There was a thread about this all in this same forum, but all you need is to check out that video of Mark Russinovich and listen from 1:14:00

Edited February 19, 201214 yr by dazz

Alright, I'm open to anything, really.Be aware, I'm not telling anyone to do something, especially turn off. I am just stating that I have been running it like that for ages now, without a problem.I'll listen to that and report afterwards.

Okay, if a dump is the reason, then so be it.But I'm talking about performance.Where does windows page if I turn the paging off? Show me the file or anything... I can't find anything.I'll read these articles when I get a little time.e fi

Way back when I did a little experiment using Perfmon. I first set up a windows system controlled page file on a 3rd drive (OS, FSX, page file) and then set up perfmon to watch disk i/o on the page file drive. That was the only thing on that drive. What I saw was continuous i/o activity on the page file drive ranging in size up to the many megabytes. I then disabled the page file completely. Of course, i/o activity on the original page file disappeared. I never determined if it occurred instead on the system drive at that point. From that situation I disabled the page file and believed smoothness in FSX improved. This was back when I was using XP 32bit.

Thanks for the input guysOk so which drive should i page E or C? E being just my fsx and C is OS and what number of MB should i insert?If that doesnt pan out will try disabling also.

Just put your paging file on the same drive as system and set system managed. I watched the video, he says a bit more than commit to have a little buffer. More is not needed. But if you are running 6GB, I would set 6GB. My commit is peaking around 5.5, but I have 8GB of RAM. So I guess 6 should be enough. But as said: try system managed and see what windows sets it at.

Ok thankyou so much Word Not Allowed, will give it a shot.

KostaThanks for your reply due to the vagaries of time zone distance I've only just seen it. The bulk of opinion coming from Microsoft and many techo experts is that you do need a paging file. That is the people who developed the Windows OS and should be aware on how it allocates and uses physical and virtual memory.I mainly follow Sysinternals guru Mark Russinovich and while he poo poos the calculation that MS gave for calculating the PF but he still insists that you need one. Even with 6GB of RAM it is still advisable and if you set the min at 6GB and the max at 6GB on say a 1TB drive thats only 0.6% of the drive capacity which is nothing.These articles show what I mean:http://blogs.technet.com/b/markrussinovich/archive/2008/11/17/3155406.aspx and one refhttp://blogs.technet.com/b/markrussinovich/archive/2008/07/21/3092070.aspx and a mentionhttp://blogs.technet.com/b/markrussinovich/archive/2009/03/26/3211216.aspxThe paging file does not affect system performance, and I'm not saying that you cannot run Windows without a paging file, its just without one performance can be affected. Now if Win 8 and the widespread use of 16GB of quad core RAM change the way memory is mapped then we may be telling a different story when IB becomes mainstream.This really did develop into a healthy discussion - I applaud everyone who participated.RegardsPeterH

Peter, the least problems are space here.I did listen to that dude, he talks quite some sense there.If I do system managed here, Windows creates 8GB pagefile.I'll just make on the drive where neither Windows or FSX resides, so I guess it can't hurt me or the performance of both.Now just checked my peak: 6.7GB. I guess what W7 creates, 8GB is healthy.

KostaTo be fair now that large amounts of Physical RAM are becoming common place then the tide of opinion seems to favour none or a minimal amount PF set eg 512MB Min and say 2GB Max. Some argue that without a PF it forces Windows to use RAM more efficiently.If you can get away without having a PF then it can be done and I may have been wrong re-performance as it does not appear to be affected either with or without a PF.This is a lovely article: http://www.tweakhound.com/2011/10/10/the-windows-7-pagefile-and-running-without-one/ for the other viewpoint.On reflection, I can see the day coming when the PF is superfluous - I have used Windows to manage mine so I might try 512 MB min and 2GB Max and see what happens and it will have less chance of getting defrgamented at that miniscule size. Oh! The jury is still out wrt having the PF on a SSD or not. Hmmm!Your comments certainly made me think and set me on a track about stutters in FSX - but that's another story.RegardsPeterH

You know, aside all that this or that is better.Look at it from that viewpoint: why would Microsoft put the option to remove the pagefile in the first place, if it was bad? One could argue: so that you can move it on another drive, but if that were the reason, then you would just get an option where to place the pagefile and that's it. Right now, you have all options, and none make any problems.And crashdump? If I ever start getting crashes, I'll enable it, or use the alternative method.EDIT:I just now enabled PF for testing, made a reboot, and tested FSX boot. 6 minutes.Disabled PF, rebooted. FSX load: 2.5 minutes.Now explain me that.I could do the test 2-3 times to confirm, but, needed?FSX boot after the first one is always the same, 45seconds.

EDIT:I just now enabled PF for testing, made a reboot, and tested FSX boot. 6 minutes.Disabled PF, rebooted. FSX load: 2.5 minutes.Now explain me that.

Could superfetch have anything to do with it? I'm not saying it is but it can have big effects on FSX launche times.How long did you wait after windows boot before launching FSX both times?Is superfetch even enabled?Word Not Allowed, I can't remember your config and I am sitting on a mobile browser so I can't see your sign, but you do not use SSD or do I remember that wrong?