Please don't hurt me because this question has been asked so many times before. LOL. I have in fact reviewed the previous threads on virtual memory, but am a little confused on several points: I allowed my Tuneup Utilities program to configure my swap file for maximum performance. I have 256mb of physical ram, and it set my minimum at 384mb (1.5x) and my maximum at 768mb (3x). I have read in several posts here that this is in fact the best way to configure it, but in other posts i have read that the only way to achieve a real performance increase is to keep it static, which i assume means that the minimum and maximum are the same value. If this is the case, would i want to set both values to 384mb or 768mb? Thanks in advance for any insight you can provide. Jim

Setting it to fixed size stops the file becoming fragmented (that's the performance gain - its not usually very significant unless pagefile becomes very fragmented). As to what fixed size should be - big enough to cope with your peak load (if you look at perfomance tab in task manager - or turn on XP's performance monitoring utility you can get an idea about this). It doesn't have to be 384 or 768 - eg, 500 might be sufficient.

Normal setting is 1.5% the amount of RAM.I.E. 256 ram=384 page file.

Thanks Steve and Per, Using the Task Manager utility, my maximum load with many programs running has been 190980k. Does this mean that i could set my swap file to 384mb (1.5x) both min and max (static), and be okay? Jim

I personally let windows manage my page file. Never had a problem.

This is the best way I have found to set the pagefile up. Create pagefile partition on a seperate drive. Then set it as a static pf and set it to 1.5x the amount of memory you have. Sandman An Official Microsoft Minion. ÿ

Here's the deal. Per is right, in dealing with a workstation letting windows manage its memory is best for most folks. Now when you start talking high performance or servers its a different deal. Microsoft, in all of their server training courses I have attended, recommend setting the pagefile static with both min and max set the same. This is for two reasons. One, as previously mentioned, is so the pagefile is doesn't fragment. Pagefile fragmentation is where the pagefile no longer occupies a single contiguous area of disk space but multiple areas of disk space. This produces time lags due to more disk io action having to read/write to multiple files. Two, is that it takes CPU cycles to expand and contract the pagefile. This is system overhead that slows the system down during these actions. Server OS's like W2K will not allow you to run without a pagefile. But XP WILL ! There are two trains of thought here. One is that ANY pagefile operation slows the system down. This is because memory is far faster than any disk IO [input/output]. So ideally you would run a system with no pagefile for maximum performance. The other train of thought is "right sizing". Right sizing is where you monitor your memory usage for a period of time. You look to see what your largest virtual memory usage was, add a smigin, and set it as min and max pagefile. Usually this is Gigs to Megs less then the "standard" rule of thumb of 1.5x ram. I apply these trains of thought to the OS's pagefile requirements. XP doesn't need a pagefile but W2k does. Key here is plenty of physical ram. I consider for workstations 256 minimum and 1gig in server minimum [servers should be maxed to what the board will take]. So you could run your XP home with no pagefile and see how your performance is. My system boots in 30 secs after the bios password to XP pro. I have 768meg but have been without a pagefile since I had 500meg. Runs all my games etc just fine and stable.