Posts by vividstag31

Why isn't Eustahije loading that page file directly onto the RAM disk? I'd love to hear if anyone here has actually tried this.

The real headache starts when you're managing more than a dozen workstations at once. 😁

You misunderstood me. It’s not that I’m against defragging, but I still maintain that the ROI just isn't there—especially if we're talking about machines running Microsoft Office. Questionable, isn't it?

John Palmer4 said:So what? You run a defrag once a week and you’ve got a fast drive and plenty of space. I don't see the issue. It’s not like you have to sit there staring at the monitor while it works.

Oh sure, and then I just slowly morph into a servant for my computer instead of having it serve me. Forget about it. Anyone who thinks that actually speeds things up can go ahead and defrag away. Personally, I’d rather be out making money.

I'll admit, this whole thing about a fragmented Pagefile completely wrecked me. It doesn't make much sense to me, but it's certainly not the first nonsense stunt from FJBG. Honestly, the only reason I ever assumed the Pagefile couldn't be fragmented was because it's always one solid block on all my machines. Perhaps that's because when I install a clean system, I set the size immediately and don't let Windows mess around with it.

It’s funny how differently everyone experiences this. From my own perspective, I know that whatever I defragment today to get a little extra speed might not hold up tomorrow. So, I’ll just do it all over again.

As far as I can tell, you can't even set a Pagefile if you don't have enough free space on your HDD. I’m not quite that senile, after all. So, when you're actually defining it and trying to set the maximum size, isn't that the limit you're hitting?

Does anyone know the absolute best way to defrag the Pagefile?

Back in the DOS days, you’d just wipe it clean and reboot into Windows.😁

And honestly, I'll be damned if it doesn't end up perfectly contiguous!

No need for all that anger!

The worst part is, I don't recall ever actually seeing a fragmented swap file. Not since they first introduced them back in the Windows 3.1 days.

And as for those cylinders on a Hard Disk Drive... 👍 😁 😁 😁

I’m looking at my three machines sitting right here next to me, and not a single one has a swap partition set up. They're just running in clusters. We're talking Windows 98 here!

Even this laptop running XP is all one single partition. It's got 1GB of space on a 20GB drive and 512MB of RAM!

Well, damn. Now I’m just completely lost.

Mind you, I was the one who defined them myself.

And which partition type are we talking about here? FAT32 or NTFS?

Also, did you set the size manually?

Let’s at least find some common ground here. Are you actually suggesting that putting the Pagefile on a separate partition of the same Hard Drive is somehow worse than keeping it on the same one? Just making sure I follow your logic.

Let me try this approach instead. Since when has it been like this?

amberorca192 said:The Pagefile CAN be defragmented. If you insist on using junk (like the built-in Windows defragmenter) to do the job, that’s on you. Just don't claim something is impossible when you clearly don't understand how it works.

THE PAGEFILE CAN BE FRAGMENTED OR DEFRAGMENTED, BUT ONLY WITHIN ITSELF.

OVER&OUT

Listen up, captains, go read my response!

And while we're on the subject, give me your take on this: do you think performance takes a hit if the Pagefile is sitting on a different partition, or am I just overthinking it?

Oof.

I’m sorry, but you’re talking nonsense.
It can fragment. In fact, my Pagefile is so badly fragmented right now that it’s honestly a disaster.
Since Windows treats it like a database TABLESPACE, its name is actually hyberfil.sys. It hogs a massive amount of space and functions as a core system file that’s constantly in use. That's exactly why it's unmovable—Windows simply won't touch it.

I never actually claimed that the Pagefile isn't fragmented internally. What I said was that the Pagefile CANNOT be fragmented on the specific drive where it's located. I only pointed that out because I've seen several comments suggesting it's a bad idea to keep the Pagefile on the same drive or partition if you want your disk defragmentation to run faster.

And here's another ridiculous one...
Take a look at that Hard Drive structure... how many heads does it have? How many cylinders? You actually partially answered your own question in the next snippet.

Look, my friend, I know exactly what a hard drive can and cannot do. For starters, you seem to be under the impression that a hard drive actually has physical cylinders. It doesn't. A hard drive consists of platters and heads; those cylinders are purely virtual constructs. Since that seems to be news to you, let me clear up another thing: you can't move each head individually. They all move in unison. That is precisely why I argued that placing the Pagefile on a different partition of the same drive won't give you a speed boost. Theoretically, it’s impossible.

The difference is massive. We’re talking about how much time a CPU needs to get its act together—and that happens in milliseconds. If your RAM response time is measured in microseconds (or even less), then compared to that, we're looking at an absolute eternity.

I don't follow. I never claimed that anything would run faster off a Hard Drive than from RAM.

Why on earth would anyone do that? Putting the Pagefile in the RAM? Since Windows is always trying to juggle having maximum free RAM while simultaneously cramming as much data into it as possible, you’d end up in a loop. You shove 300 MB of "virtual" Pagefile into those precious remaining megabytes of free RAM, then Windows tries to clear out more space by expanding the Pagefile even further. It’s an endless, ridiculous cycle.

Come on, you totally ripped that straight from my previous post! Admit it. I mean, I agree with what you wrote, but Eustachius claims his system runs faster when he moves the Pagefile to a RAM disk. What’s your take on that? For God's sake.

And once again, pure nonsense.

The fact remains that even when you aren't doing anything, Windows is always busy running processes in the background. This means that regardless of how often you actually use the machine, fragmentation is absolutely inevitable.

Even minimal fragmentation can tank your performance once you install something heavy, like a major AAA game. By that point, running a defrag is almost useless because those files end up tucked away in the gaps left behind by that initial, incomplete optimization.

Pro tip: run a defrag both before and after any major installation, and make sure you definitely do it again once you've uninstalled the software.

I wouldn't go so far as to call this stupid, per se; let's just call it a topic worth debating. Of course, defragmentation isn't useless, but you really shouldn't expect miracles from it. First off, it takes forever. Secondly, when you weigh the massive amount of time spent against the actual speed boost you get, the math just doesn't add up. If we’re being pedantic about it, you’d practically need to run a defrag every single time you download something from the web, since old Internet Explorer used to clutter everything up like there was no tomorrow. Ultimately, it's less about the process being "dumb" and more about having the wrong approach to the problem. 👍
I generally advise against recommending defragging to users. If you lose power mid-process, things can go south very quickly. Any perceived speed boost isn't worth that kind of risk. Besides, honestly, defragging hasn't actually sped up a single system since the old DOS days, let alone modern ones. Most performance issues are better solved by simply using a high-quality Hard Drive with a larger cache.

Hopefully, that clears up why I don't usually frame my inquiries as "I'm wondering about..."

Best regards!

The first sentence is fine enough.
The Pagefile CANNOT BE FRAGMENTED!!! I have no idea where you even got that notion. I’ve heard that exact claim a few times now. Even a defragmentation tool won't touch that file at all.
Because we are dealing with two separate drives, I actually find this slower than using just one. Why would you assume it should be faster? And if we are talking about two partitions on the same physical drive, there is absolutely no theory where that becomes faster. With a physically different drive, you might see a tiny speed boost simply because the head doesn't have to constantly jump between data and the Pagefile, but the difference is so negligible it isn't worth the effort. Especially since, looking at this thread, you have zero operational control over how stupid Windows handles that Pagefile anyway.
The only solution involving a Pagefile on a RAM disk makes any sense if you want to speed things up, but again, if Windows were actually efficient, it would have used that extra RAM to create its own RAM disk better than we can. Of course, it works, but since it doesn't, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!

By the way, since we are touching on fragmentation, all these past defrag programs are like those engine oil additives that claim to improve fuel economy. A lot of noise for nothing. Why? Because while things *should* run faster after defragmenting, it only works in theory. The only real reason to defragment is so that if a drive failure occurs, you can more easily read the clusters and recover data. Otherwise, there is no long-term benefit. If you use your computer every single day, you could technically defrag it daily to keep it "fast," but if you rarely use it, then defragging is clearly unnecessary.

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!

How exactly do you think he decides? What’s the actual payoff there?

Honestly, it doesn't matter where it sits if it isn't a temporary file—meaning, if you just set the size yourself. Years ago, people used to criticize Microsoft for making the swap file land on whatever drive it felt like. Ideally, you'd be able to define that file starting from the very end of the disk, from the last cluster moving upward, for as much space as needed. But Microsoft just isn't capable of thinking that way.

Is there actually any legitimate reason why keeping the Page file on its own partition is supposedly better? To me, it seems completely pointless, yet I feel like I’ve heard this suggestion a hundred times already.

Nothing changed on my laptop.
I’ll try testing this on my desktop, which runs a 2.6GHz Intel. It’s packed with 1.5GB of RAM—three 512MB sticks—but honestly, compared to the 256MB I started with, I haven't felt any real boost. I am leaning toward that solution involving moving the page file Usage to a RAM disk, even though, as I mentioned before, it feels like a total long shot. Then again, thinking about it now, it wouldn't be the first—or the last—ridiculous move from Microsoft.

What kind of hardware specs are we talking about here for this to actually run smoothly?

On second thought...

It’s honestly absurd to suggest that converting "excess" RAM into a performance boost actually works. It just goes to show how little Microsoft truly understands their own architecture. Logic dictates that you should be running purely on raw RAM, and only switch over to using the swap or the
page file Usage
when you've completely run out of space, right?🤔