«

I've running under Win2K with 1Gb of memory and I can't seem to get rid of my
swapfile. Surely I don't need it with that much memory!

If I remove the swapfile a temporary one is created on next boot. Is it really
necessary?

"An Metet" <> wrote in message
news: ster...
> I've running under Win2K with 1Gb of memory and I can't seem to get rid of
my
> swapfile. Surely I don't need it with that much memory!
>
> If I remove the swapfile a temporary one is created on next boot. Is it
really
> necessary?

Your question is addressed part way down this wonderful page on the subject
of virtual memory: http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm

Regards,
Ian.

An Metet wrote:
> I've running under Win2K with 1Gb of memory and I can't seem to get rid of my
> swapfile. Surely I don't need it with that much memory!
>
> If I remove the swapfile a temporary one is created on next boot. Is it really
> necessary?
>
Yes - you need a swap file. Apart from a few internal bits
within the operating system, /everything/ that executes on
Win2k uses virtual addresses and not real ones. These
virtual addresses exist within pages that are mapped to
either real memory or hard disk files space. Pages that are
not part of the working set currently in use will be swapped
out routinely - particularly during transitions in the
working set as programs go from one phase of execution to
another. These swapped out pages may, or probably may not,
be needed again but do contain changes that mean that the
original pages held on the hard disk cannot simply be
re-fetched. Windows has no idea whether a particular program
will be well-designed, with nice transitions between small
working sets, or has been built like a heap of spaghetti -
fetching pages from all over its virtual memory space - so
it has to allow for holding pages in excess of the real
memory capability, even when that capacity is 25% of the
virtual memory space. Of course, when 64 bit systems become
common, even your 1 Gbyte will look miniscule in comparison
to the virtual mapped space available.

Yes.


-Barry
========
Web page: http://members.optusnet.com.au/~barry.og
Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information.

"An Metet" <> wrote in message
news: ster...
> I've running under Win2K with 1Gb of memory and I can't
seem to get rid of my
> swapfile. Surely I don't need it with that much memory!
>
> If I remove the swapfile a temporary one is created on
next boot. Is it really
> necessary?
>

The fact that Windoze re-creates the swapfile every time you
delete it and restart should answer your question "Is it
really necessary"
Generally speaking, the more memory you have, the more hard
disk space Windows will reserve for the swap file. So with
1G or ram, your swapfile could grow to 1.5Gb

P.

Thanks to all for the answers. Looks like I'll just have to put up with the
swapfile then.

PJB wrote:

> The fact that Windoze re-creates the swapfile every time you delete it
> and restart should answer your question "Is it really necessary"

I think this attributes wisdom to Windows that is not warranted.

This is not to say swap is not needed -- but using "Windows does it" as
a yardstick probably isn't the best of ideas.

For example, Windows also allows "temporary internet files" to pile up
until they choke IE to death[1]. If Windows were all-knowing, they'd be
FIFO purged before they disabled the Browser That Is Part Of Windows.

[1]Not that this is a bad thing.

--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
AOL Diary http://snipurl.com/aoldiary
Nigerian Scam From Space http://snipurl.com/iss419
New Windows - Don't Wait For Longhorn! http://snipurl.com/newwin

An Metet wrote:
>
> I've running under Win2K with 1Gb of memory and I can't seem to get rid of my
> swapfile. Surely I don't need it with that much memory!
>
> If I remove the swapfile a temporary one is created on next boot. Is it really
> necessary?

Yes it's necessary but with that much ram you'll only have a 50 meg or
less swap file usage which is NOT an issue.




--
http://www.bootdisk.com/

If you don't fill your entire allocation of your 1Gb physical memory then you
should be able to cut down on the size of your pagefile. No point to have 2Gb or
so of swapfile if you don't go over 1Gb of memory frequently.

If you find you go over your 1Gb of memory frequently then it maybe time to look
at buying more memory. Using the swapfile as RAM should be avoided where
possible as it slows down the system dreadfully.

"An Metet" <> wrote in message
news: ster...
> I've running under Win2K with 1Gb of memory and I can't seem to get rid of my
> swapfile. Surely I don't need it with that much memory!
>
> If I remove the swapfile a temporary one is created on next boot. Is it
really
> necessary?
>

"Blinky the Shark" <> wrote in message
news: ...
> PJB wrote:
>
> > The fact that Windoze re-creates the swapfile every time
you delete it
> > and restart should answer your question "Is it really
necessary"
>
> I think this attributes wisdom to Windows that is not
warranted.
>
> This is not to say swap is not needed -- but using
"Windows does it" as
> a yardstick probably isn't the best of ideas.

You're right, but taking into account most folks
inexperience of the working of Windoze, I feel it's better
to leave Windoze to do its own thing.

>
> For example, Windows also allows "temporary internet
files" to pile up
> until they choke IE to death[1]. If Windows were
all-knowing, they'd be
> FIFO purged before they disabled the Browser That Is Part
Of Windows.
>
> [1]Not that this is a bad thing.

can't argue that point either

P.