PageDefrag

Is there a PageDefrag for Vista?
This is the one for XP: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897426.aspx

 

JKdefrag has a built-in page defrag utility, in "system" tab.

 

I haven't found it to give me a big performance boost, but it may be good for others.

 

Hi.

what dose "page defrag" do?

thanks

John.

 

It defrags this. Wikipedia might be hard to understand but it'll give you the gist of it.

 

It looks as if PageDefrag will work with Vista.

I also use a fixed size for the virtual memory to avoid progressive fragmentation of the swap file.

John

 

. pagedefrag was kinda "ineffective" since XP SP2
. John's mentioning of a fixed size vm file is one of the best bets around

cheers ...

 

my page file is disabled, will running a page defrag show noticeable improvement?
and roytse is that jkdefragui or jkdefrag

 

jkdefragGUI

 

it doesnt work with vista
;[

 

from jkDefrag site ( http://www.kessels.com/JkDefrag/):
" Note: On Vista right-click the JkDefrag program and select "run as administrator"

cheers ...

 

Think about that for a second. If you are not using a pagefile then how could defragging the pagefile give you any sort of improvement?

I mean no offense, but if you are asking that question, then do you REALLY understand the implications of running without a pagefile??? Do you understand what a pagefile is and why it exists in Win98, Win2000, WinXP and WinVista??

Gary

 

John is absolutely right. There is no benefit to defragging the pagefile unless you are using a fixed size one. Well let me restate that, there is a very SHORT LIVED benefit, probably measured in hours, if not minutes.

Gary

 

jkdefragGUI uses the same pagedefrag program that the OP linked to. In essence, it doesn't work well on Vista

I agree. If this question needs to be asked, please re-enable your pagefile and leave those settings alone. I believe this is perfect proof of why the discussions about turning off your pagefile can only lead people astray. They do it without knowing why, just because it's "supposed to be faster".

 

Orev,

Thanks for the backup. I hesitated when I wrote it because I didn't want McGrady to think I was picking on him. But after I thought about it a bit more I decided, no this had to be said. You and I are always in agreement on this, uninformed tweaking has no place here. Just applying a tweak because someone told you it was faster, is never a good idea. If you don't understand what the tweak does and the ramifications, then you should just trust the original authors of the operating system.

This is why I take issue with tweak apps that do not FULLY disclose every last detail of what they do.

Gary

 

I think it should be said, however (maybe a sort of reversal of my typical position), that tweaking and discussions about it can be a good way to learn about your system (especially if you mess something up and need to figure out how to fix it). The all important reason is to know why you are doing something -- just following a list isn't good.

Personally, I prefer my systems to just work, so I can get on with doing something that has real value. Many tweaks only give the perception of performance increases, and others give real increases but the amount is such a small percentage that you will never gain back the time spent on it. I do understand, however, that people like to play with things, and that is a hobby and can be fun in and of itself.

 

We are still on the same page, my friend. What you said in the first paragraph was precisely what I was referencing when I said "uninformed tweaking" has no place here. What you described is what I would call "informed tweaking".

Gary

 

sry. mixing up my computers. my desktop is what i meant. i dont have it disabled on there so i was wondering if i defragged it will there be a noticeable difference. i have a basic understanding of page filing.

 

See message #13 in this thread. The benefit is marginal at best. But just as I do not recommend rumming without a pagefile, I also don't recommend a fix size one either.

Gary

 

Ah ok. why do you recommend not disabling page file or having a fixed one. you just recommend vistas default settings?

 

I think he said it was because it might cause programs to not work correctly because they don't have the appropriate amount of RAM, or something to that effect.

 

well, with 3gb ram which is what i have, i dont even come close to using even 70% of that. ;o
ya it can be dangerous if i had lower ram, but i dont game intensively or do video editing.

 

Because if you do run out of memory, for instance while editing a large video file, without a pagefile the application will crash and you will loose the work you were doing. The app won't complain, it won't warn you it will just crash. The same issue exists if you have a fixed size pagefile.

The overhead of having a pagefile is so small that it is not worth the potential data loss.

Gary

 

yea, but if i dont come close to using 65-70% ram usage, then having it off is fine

 

Even with 3 gb you are not safe. The OS is using part of that memory and the rest is allocated for your apps. Running without a pagefile under Vista, I think is even more dangerous than with XP. Vista attempts to keep as much stuff in memory that it can (XP did not do that). Vista operates under the principle that unused memory is wasted memory. But part and parcel to that principle, is the fact that Vista relies on having a pagefile so that when it does realize it needs to free some up for an application request, it can use the pagefile to offload some unused item and free up some ram. I am not convinced (despite the anecdotal evidence provided by Les and some other folks) that Vista is really able to cope well without a pagefile. The technical articles on Microsoft Technet and MSDN appear to indicate it isn't. Even if Vista itself is able to cope, the applications that request memory when Vista has none to give will NOT be so forgiving. Application programs are not written with such a scenario in mind. They make the assumption that when they ask for memory they will get it.

You may be able to operate just fine without a pagefile for most web surfing and other apps that don't really tax the OS. But that just lulls you into a false sense of security. Then one day while running a particularly memory intensive app, like some games, or a audio editor or a video editor, or just a combination of a lot of programs all at one time, then WHAMO one or more apps dies, taking your work in progress with it. Is that risk REALLY worth the small increment in performance you might get?

I spend my day in front of the computer. It is how I make my living. I can't afford to risk loosing work for this small bump in performance. A bump, by the way, that I have yet to see actually quantified. I have asked several folks who claim that it is faster without a pagefile, but not one has been able to SHOW how much faster. It is always a "it feels faster" answer never a real number.

Gary

 

Just because you have not seen it rise above 70% doesn't mean it will NEVER rise above 70%. Try editing a video file and then tell me you won't go past 70%.

This is the false sense of security I mentioned in my longer answer above.

But let me turn the tables around for a second. Why is it important to you to have it turned off? What do you hope to gain?

Gary

 

i dont edit videos and probably never will.
its not important to turn it off, but if it doesnt need to be on, then i dont need it on. if i could have a tiny bit of performance better then ok.

 

Editing video is not the only thing that consumes large amounts of memory. That was only an example. You mention better performance. So I will ask, how MUCH better performance?

Obviously, I am not going to convince you that a page file is a good thing to have. Your mind is made up. And that's fine. That decision may never come back to bite you. But I still would like to know, how much performance change are you getting by rolling the dice?

McGrady, thanks for engaging in this conversation. Many other folks just blow it off. I am glad to see you are willing to DISCUSS this rather than taking some dogmatic position. It is my hope that it will allow some other folks who see this tweak mentioned make up their minds based on the facts that you and I have discussed. This goes back to what Orev and I were talking about earlier. There is a difference in "informed tweaking" and "uninformed tweaking".


Gary

 

I understand that isn't the only ram consuming thing, but I probably will never come close to using 3gb ram. Performance wise, I haven't noticed a difference from having it enabled or disabled. I may turn it back on later but the fact that it COULD boost performance slightly is whats stopping me. Lol. Ah, discussing isn't a problem and I never do a tweak unless I understand it. Thank you Gary.

 

if McGrady feels that the running of vista w/o a pagefile works well under the current configuration/environment - i would just leave it. Personally i saw it both ways, work "well" with and without it. Personal preference is ON.

Both sides can always quote statistic and reports and "experiences". Bottom line is - if it works, leave it be.

The interesting part comes first when an issue (gaming, vido editing, office apps etc ...) occurs. This is when/where one must decide if the pagefile should be turned back on (or off) in order to make an informative diagnostic.

cheers ...

 

My preference is "on" too. I can't afford the possibility of loosing work. As far as statistics go, I am waiting for some statistics on the performance improvement without a pagefile. I have yet to see ANY such stats. That is one of the big reasons I recommend against the idea under any circumstance. If I saw some real numbers that show a real improvement, I might change my tune and say for folks with large amounts of ram, who rarely multitask large numbers of apps, and are not running mission critical apps, it MIGHT be a grand idea to run without a pagefile. Untill I see such numbers though the whole concept doesn't make any sense to me. Why do it if you don't know it will REALLY improve performance, only that it "feels like" it did so???

Gary

 

human's nature? - just to be contrary and always a belief that "nah, it'll work for me" - that what makes us human species soooo interesting

and urs "waiting for some statistics on the performance improvement without a pagefile" statement can probably be used to get no/non/nein/nyet-pagefile-users to post some benchmarks for us all to study

cheers ...

 

I am hoping to see that! Some REAL numbers would sure be nice.

Gary