I'm working my way through Paul Johnson's excellent guide to hardware and software for FSX.

 

On P10 he suggests as more RAM is added to a computer, the need for a page file decreases. If you have enough RAM installed in your computer, you may not require a page file at all, unless one is required by a specific application.

 

If I increased RAM from 8Gb to 16Gb would that negate the requirement? The reason I ask is because I'm getting a single SSD (512Gb) for both W7 and FSX and further on in that document he say's

 

...when the Paging File is used - it's disk is working it's head off, and you really don't want to be creating disk files when your memory and disk are both under stress - loading FSX's REX cloud textures. The second issue is - when Windows manages the paging file, it dynamically resizes it as it sees fit, and this eventually leads to pagefile fragmentation, and boom! another OOM.. Created files are not guaranteed to be contiguous, and non-contiguous swap will lead to various seeks and will hamper your performance.
The answer to both problems, is to simply create a fixed, “custom” size

 

I've had a fixed pagefile for years in XP but with a single SSD I'd like to dispense with it so it doesn't unduly hammer it - even fixed.

 

Has anyone tried running FSX without a pagefile and if so did it cause you any problems requiring you to reinstate it? The alternative for me is to buy 2 x 256Gb SSDs which won't be any more expensive than a single 512Gb one. And another 8Gb of RAM isn't going to be a burden.

I have run without a pagefile for 3-4 years.  The only issue i have ever had was with Guitar Hero 3, it wouldn't even run without a pagefile.  Your mileage may vary, other people will have different opinions i am sure.

 

I also have 16Gb.

Thanks Ian. I don't intend running much else on the FSX PC apart from that but other supporting software may need it. Other replies might help clear that up.

 

Pete Dowson also suggested it to me but I don't know his source and he's away at present.

Instead of buying more RAM, maybe you can spend that money better - on Windows 7 / 64bit. This will improve your FSX experience significantly, and much more then adding some RAM and changing the paging file

Sorry, should have said this at the start. Ignore my current PC info. I'm close to ordering a i4770K / GX780 / Win7 64-bit PC. My question was based on that - not my current 5 year-old PC.

 

So on that basis Zeljko, what would you suggest?

I have a SSD for Win7 and 16GB RAM. Following Nick Needham's advice I've setup a small fixed page file (20MB) on the OS SSD and fixed 3072MB page file on another HDD.

 

The 20MB page file on the system SSD will enable Win7 to write dump files if the system crashes.

 

The 3GB page file on another HDD resides on its own 5GB partition on that drive. In that way I ensure that the page file is located on the fastest part of the HDD.

Ulf,

 

That's very similar advice to the document by Paul Johnson. What I'm trying to establish is whether I can dispense with a pagefile with 16Gb RAM.

 

 

So on that basis Zeljko, what would you suggest?

 

I still think there is no need for that. I'd like to hear from someone who tried to do this  ,if he can see any difference. I think we have other, more important things to do about FSX. My personal opinion is to leave paging on default settings, on WIndows 7 / 64bit. And i'm not saying that just becouse this sounds good to me I did some research about this. 

Also, I didn't really have so positive experience folowing Nick's advices. My FSX is a very, very smooth, i don't have CTD's and i don't have OOM's. For some reason, if i set my paging file to 3072-3072 i will get OOM on most of my flights. I have this to system managed, like many experts are adviced, and i didn't have any OOM for the last 2 years. I know that many advices, tweaks etc can sound great and logical, but testing is essential

Instead of buying more RAM, maybe you can spend that money better - on Windows 7 / 64bit. This will improve your FSX experience significantly, and much more then adding some RAM and changing the paging file

 

Hi Ray,

 

I've done both and settled on putting a fixed 1Gb page file on the HDD in my system because as mentioned previously we want to try to minimize (non-critical) writes to the SSD.  The only reason I ended up w/ this over disabling the pagefile outright is because of the annoying popup that 'Windows has created a page file...' that occurs when I had no pagefile specified and I did not want this created on the SSD.   Windows begins paging activity when there is no more physical ram available.  This is why in my 32Gb system I don't see pagefile write activity.  I think the caveat to this is if there is a specific application that has built-in the need to perform page file writes, like the example above for Guitar Hero 3.  FSX does not have this issue I can attest.

 

From Microsoft's comments regarding this, my underline:

 

RAM is a limited resource, whereas for most practical purposes, virtual memory is unlimited. There can be many processes, and each process has its own 2 GB of private virtual address space. When the memory being used by all the existing processes exceeds the available RAM, the operating system moves pages (4-KB pieces) of one or more virtual address spaces to the computer’s hard disk.

 

Hence, I don't see page file write activity.  It's possible the behavior described re 'Windows has created a page file...' or whatever it says may go away after so many cycles I'm not sure.   In any case if you will have a data HDD in your new box you might consider this technical solution.  Ulf's comment re the 20mb file is interesting and sounds like it implies Windows will not write the dump file to the HDD my swap file is on.  I'll ask...!

I have a SSD for Win7 and 16GB RAM. Following Nick Needham's advice I've setup a small fixed page file (20MB) on the OS SSD and fixed 3072MB page file on another HDD.

 

The 20MB page file on the system SSD will enable Win7 to write dump files if the system crashes.

 

The 3GB page file on another HDD resides on its own 5GB partition on that drive. In that way I ensure that the page file is located on the fastest part of the HDD.

UlfB, it sounds like Nick is saying Windows will NOT write dump files on the data drive if it is setup as the sole page file location?  Do we know if this is true for certain?  Also, what is the downside of NOT writing dump files?

 

I use a single swap file on a separate HDD set at 1GB, though it's almost never used.

My personal opinion is to leave paging on default settings, on WIndows 7 / 64bit. And i'm not saying that just becouse this sounds good to me I did some research about this.

 

Also, I didn't really have so positive experience folowing Nick's advices. My FSX is a very, very smooth, i don't have CTD's and i don't have OOM's. For some reason, if i set my paging file to 3072-3072 i will get OOM on most of my flights. I have this to system managed, like many experts are adviced, and i didn't have any OOM for the last 2 years.

 

I'm very reluctant to create a pagefile on an SSD as Noel's mentions in his reply. I have always had a fixed size with XP / FS9 but I appreciate FSX with 3rd party scenery is very demanding and OOM errors are a possibility. But I can monitor the VAS with Process Monitor.

 

I'm having this PC built by Scan in the UK and I don't want to complicate things by opening it up as soon as I get it and adding a HDD especially as I will only use it for the pagefile. I have a NAS box for storing downloads etc.

 

 

Hence, I don't see page file write activity. It's possible the behavior described re 'Windows has created a page file...' or whatever it says may go away after so many cycles I'm not sure. In any case if you will have a data HDD in your new box you might consider this technical solution.

 

Hi Noel,

 

I'm trying to avoid having to install a HDD as I don't want to start playing with a custom built PC. I know how to do it of course as I've built plenty over the years but Scan might get funny if I start adding things.

 

I'm also thinking about 2 x 256 SSDs rather than one 512 as the advice in Paul Johnson's document (and elsewhere) is to keep the OS and FSX on separate drives.

 

But I may need to create one as you suggest to avoid getting that Windows message. Grgghh!

Ray

 

Running Win7 64bit here, with 32GB memory and 2 x 512GB SSD's in RAID0, and have no problems at all with a disabled pagefile, so far.

Have been running this now for just over 12 months.

 

The only thing you may see is repeated errors in your windows event viewer, which are caused by having no pagefile, but thats it.

Its fast, really fast, and causes me no problems at all.

Oh, and if your after a high spec PC, I can give you the contact details of an Awesome Dell reseller who sells pretty much any PC Dell sells, but around 50% or 60% of its cost, and includes the 3yr in home next day warranty. Dell PC's are freakin awesome if you get a high spec gaming one, and their service is pretty good too... VERY stable computers.

 

Wouldnt touch SCAN for all the tea in china though.. But hey, I've only been working in I.T for 20 yrs..

 

 

Running Win7 64bit here, with 32GB memory and 2 x 512GB SSD's in RAID0, and have no problems at all with a disabled pagefile, so far.

Have been running this now for just over 12 months.

The only thing you may see is repeated errors in your windows event viewer, which are caused by having no pagefile, but thats it.

Its fast, really fast, and causes me no problems at all.

 

Thanks Richard, that's encouraging although I would baulk at 32Gb.

 

Oh, and if your after a high spec PC, I can give you the contact details of an Awesome Dell reseller who sells pretty much any PC Dell sells, but around 50% or 60% of its cost, and includes the 3yr in home next day warranty. Dell PC's are freakin awesome if you get a high spec gaming one, and their service is pretty good too... VERY stable computers.

Wouldnt touch SCAN for all the tea in china though.. But hey, I've only been working in I.T for 20 yrs..

 

Interesting viewpoint. :smile:  All the advice I've read says not to buy commercial PCs as their BIOSs can be locked down preventing tweaking. Also, I have no overclocking experience so don't want to start now as it could prove an expensive mistake.

 

In the latest edition of PC Pro the readers' survey rates Chillblast and Scan as the top desktop makers with HP/Compaq, Lenovo and Dell languishing well down. Each to their own I guess. :wink:

UlfB, it sounds like Nick is saying Windows will NOT write dump files on the data drive if it is setup as the sole page file location? Do we know if this is true for certain? Also, what is the downside of NOT writing dump files?

Haven't tested it, but I guess Windows on a BSOD will only access your system drive.

 

I suppose that a dump file may be a source for experts to identify the cause of BSOD.

Erghhh, PC Pro... Comic books.. Theres a good reason when I go into the datacentre, 75% of all the racks, including all of my racks are all Dell kit....

Same goes for schools, offices, government, emergency services, retail etc. You dont see Dell kit everywhere for no good reason. Its dependable, and reliable.

 

Want to customise it, no problem, just swap out the systemboard and away you go (on most gaming PC's) and you can then overclock to your hearts content, but if you dont want to overclock, and want stability, rock solid stability, then for me, and thousands of customers, its Dell kit mate...

 

My laptop was £2000 on Dells website, with no in-home warranty, that was an extra £300, but our local reseller did it for £1000, with the 3yr in home next day warranty.

Same story for hundreds of our customers, last one few weeks ago got a £1200 gaming PC for £650, with the next day 3yr in home warranty and Win 7 64bit, intel i7 quad core 3.6, 8GB ram (RAM costs peanuts these day too), so he got top whack spec, SSD drive too, for a touch over half price, and delivered next day.. Not just the money though, but stability and performance..

 

If you want to build it yourself, then go with ASUS kit, but if your not confident to do that, then I'd pick Dell kit every time, its the same hardware as elsewhere, fraction of the cost, and covered for years... Scan wont be using any hardware you wont get in a Dell, only you will be paying a lot more for it..

 

Dell do get a hard time because of the indian call centres, and boy I hate those too, but I never use them... Never had to.. Just some food for thought...

 

 

I'm also thinking about 2 x 256 SSDs rather than one 512 as the advice in Paul Johnson's document (and elsewhere) is to keep the OS and FSX on separate drives.

 

What component of Paul's argument has you rethinking?  I can attest I have unchanging solid high performance in my one-drive solution and I don't see that changing, really ever.  I have loads of capacity for add ons so will likely not max out the drive in any way.  I can see picking up a 2nd 500Gb SSD, however this will be for another complete standalone OS & Simulator on that one drive--like P3D version 2.