Timeline for Should I disable swap file if I have lots of RAM or should I move it to a virtual RAM drive?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 11, 2014 at 20:45 | comment | added | user366447 | @DavidSchwartz Perhaps, but that's the explanation that explained it to me the best. In most cases, a small amount of swapfile is always benificiary over no swapfile. However, I don't have the resources to back that up. | |
| Sep 11, 2014 at 16:34 | comment | added | David Schwartz | @Mast That's a gross oversimplification. Swapfiles are also there to permit efficient use of RAM. | |
| Sep 11, 2014 at 15:59 | history | edited | Peter | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 150 characters in body
|
| Sep 11, 2014 at 13:44 | comment | added | user366447 | Swapfiles are there to compensate for a lack of RAM. If there's plenty of RAM, there's no need to compensate. Your OS will still use the swapfile though, so it's quicker to turn it off in that case. | |
| Sep 11, 2014 at 9:05 | comment | added | Peter | Correct. Copying bytes from RAM to a pagefile that is on a ramdisk is the fastest possible pagefile. But not copying at all is smarter. | |
| Sep 11, 2014 at 9:02 | comment | added | user1306322 | But in case the pagefile is on a virtual RAM drive, the time used to copy some megabytes from RAM to virtual hard drive or back from it will be reduced. And if the pagefile is disabled completely, there should be no time wasted on that at all. Is this correct? | |
| Sep 11, 2014 at 8:58 | history | edited | Peter | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 122 characters in body
|
| Sep 11, 2014 at 8:52 | history | answered | Peter | CC BY-SA 3.0 |