Swap file size?

[rpc212]

I just rebuilt my computer and am wondering how big the swap file size should be? In the Max installation leaflet it says it should be 3 times the size of your physical ram!

I have 2 GB ram and have set my swap file size to 3.4 GB. I did this because I always thought the swap file should be about 1.5 times the size of the computer's physical ram. Am I wrong?

I am also wondering if the swap file should have the same "intial size" and "Maximum size" to avoid defragmenting?

Thanks,

[DaForce]

What ever size you choose i always recommend min and max to tbe the same, to minimise fragmentation as you said.

And you only even need as much swap as you need..if you know what i mean. Same with ram, no point getting 4gb if you only render tiny scenes.

Although in my setup i have a 4gb partition which i dedicate to the swap file. So i set the min and max to 3.5gb even tho i only have 1gb ram. I realise that swap will probabaly never fill up..

But the way i see it, the less ram you have the move swap you have. And if you have like 4gb of ram you would only need around 1gb or so of swap.

But it certainly cant hurt setting it too large, but it can hurt if you set it too small.

[davision]

Keeping in mind, that I have no idea what Microsoft software is doing behind the scenes, I'm not sure I agree that setting a swap file too big "can't hurt". I think that I've read that there are disadvantages to overdoing it. I'm not a techie though and I don't know where I read it, so I can't say with any certainty.

[DaForce]

yeah i guess there is big and there is "too big"
So as long as you keep it reasoable i reckon everything should be peachy
but who knows seeing as its a microsoft product.

[Da_elf]

well. with winxp64 if we got vray64 then it means that there is no such thing as to much ram. it can handle 128gb ram and 16tb virtual ram

[DaForce]

I think there advertising of 16TB of virtual ram is more of a it can be done not a should be done.
hehehhe can you just imagine who long it would take to fill a pagefile that big... LOL....needless to say your render time would be shot

But seriously i reckon 2gb-3gb of swap is probabaly MORE then enough for anyway, no matter how much ram you have.

[Da_elf]

maybe thats why maxwell renders take too long. it takes 16tb of swap space to render their uber photo realistic calculations

[DaForce]

[rpc212]

Very funny Da_Elf!!!!

Thanks DaForce. Put my swap file at 3.4 GB. Figure that should be plenty. I plan on upgrading to 3 GB of ram from my current 2 GBs at some point so I did want to leave enough room for that. I have also read that one should make both their maximum and minimum swap file sizes the same to avoid defragmentation of the swap file. However, I have also read the opposite. The person who wrote the article I read said it was better leaving Windows to dynamically manage the swap file rather than forcing one size on Windows.

So which is better?

I think keeping it defragmented and therefore both min/max the same would be better, but what do I know? Plus I don't really trust Windows anyway so . . .

Thanks guys!

[DaForce]

Well it depends on where you have the swap file stored. If its on a drive all of its own (like in my case) it shouldnt really matter if min/max are the same or not, because there is nothing for it to be fragmented with as its the only file on that drive. However if you have it on a drive that is fairly full or gets alot of data traffic. then it would be wiser to make the min/max the same to stop any possible fragmentation.

Generally i would believe that having the min/max sizes at the same would also make filling up the page file quicker , as A. its not possible to be fragmented. B. the file space is already occupied and should be quicker to fill up.

When i first looked into it i read a fair bit about it and came to the conclusion it was better for min/max to be the same. So having min/max the same and on its own drive/parition will make a difference for the better..sure it may not be massive, but something is better than nothing