 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I moved my page file to a second drive letter, but the original one on
my C drive is still there. It hasn't been modified or accessed since I
made the change, so I know it's not in use. How do I get rid of it? When
I try to run attrib on it I get an access error.
-Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 04:56:01 +0200, SharkD <mik### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> I moved my page file to a second drive letter, but the original one on
> my C drive is still there. It hasn't been modified or accessed since I
> made the change, so I know it's not in use. How do I get rid of it? When
> I try to run attrib on it I get an access error.
Did you really move it, or did you just create another one? Windows'
pagefile options are per-drive; setting up a page file on a second drive
does not remove any that already exist. If you want to get rid of
C:\pagefile.sys, you must explicitly disable the page file on drive C.
Keep in mind though that some features -- like BSOD crash dumps -- require
at least a small page file on the system drive in order to work.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> Did you really move it, or did you just create another one? Windows'
> pagefile options are per-drive; setting up a page file on a second drive
> does not remove any that already exist. If you want to get rid of
> C:\pagefile.sys, you must explicitly disable the page file on drive C.
> Keep in mind though that some features -- like BSOD crash dumps --
> require at least a small page file on the system drive in order to work.
I set it to "No paging file" for that drive.
-Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 07:50:16 +0200, SharkD <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
>> Did you really move it, or did you just create another one? Windows'
>> pagefile options are per-drive; setting up a page file on a second
>> drive does not remove any that already exist. If you want to get rid of
>> C:\pagefile.sys, you must explicitly disable the page file on drive C.
>> Keep in mind though that some features -- like BSOD crash dumps --
>> require at least a small page file on the system drive in order to work.
>
> I set it to "No paging file" for that drive.
What OS? If it indeed shows as "None" for drive C in the settings dialog,
you should be able to do "attrib -s -h c:\pagefile.sys", followed by "del
c:\pagefile.sys" (or just hit 'Del' in Explorer), at least in XP. In
Vista/Win7 you might have to take ownership of the file first.
You must of course also reboot after changing page file settings.
Is the new page file located on a drive that requires a special driver? If
so, Windows might decide to use a page file on C anyway because the paging
system is initialised very early in the boot process.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 07:50:16 +0200, SharkD <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
>>> Did you really move it, or did you just create another one? Windows'
>>> pagefile options are per-drive; setting up a page file on a second
>>> drive does not remove any that already exist. If you want to get rid
>>> of C:\pagefile.sys, you must explicitly disable the page file on
>>> drive C. Keep in mind though that some features -- like BSOD crash
>>> dumps -- require at least a small page file on the system drive in
>>> order to work.
>>
>> I set it to "No paging file" for that drive.
>
> What OS? If it indeed shows as "None" for drive C in the settings
> dialog, you should be able to do "attrib -s -h c:\pagefile.sys",
> followed by "del c:\pagefile.sys" (or just hit 'Del' in Explorer), at
> least in XP. In Vista/Win7 you might have to take ownership of the file
> first.
>
> You must of course also reboot after changing page file settings.
>
> Is the new page file located on a drive that requires a special driver?
> If so, Windows might decide to use a page file on C anyway because the
> paging system is initialised very early in the boot process.
>
>
>
On a semi-side note. Had to defrag mine, which Windows doesn't normally
allow. Page Defrag utility from sysinternals works nice (though I need
to run it again, now that I succeeded in defragging all the files I
couldn't, because the page file was in 33,000 pieces... O.o It runs
before anything but the basics starts up, just after the initial loading
screen, so pagefile.sys isn't yet in use.
You would think, even with the slight overhead, trying to keep this
thing in one chunk, as much as possible, would have been useful... Sigh!
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> You would think, even with the slight overhead, trying to keep this
> thing in one chunk, as much as possible, would have been useful... Sigh!
What makes you think they don't? If you fill up your disk, you're going to
get fragmentation. Recreate your pagefile, and tell it to use a fixed size,
and you're done.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> You would think, even with the slight overhead, trying to keep this
>> thing in one chunk, as much as possible, would have been useful... Sigh!
>
> What makes you think they don't? If you fill up your disk, you're
> going to get fragmentation. Recreate your pagefile, and tell it to use
> a fixed size, and you're done.
>
Uh. Doing that requires shutting up off, then rebooting, then defraging
the drive, then turning it on again.. Well, lets just say that, at least
one person trying this had it render the OS unbootable. I would rather
let the damn thing just handle it itself, which should include imho,
occationally using some idle time to restructure the file, so its
contiguous (like duh!). Near as I can tell, it isn't doing that at all
as part of normal operations.
Main reason I started into my own cleanup was that I was running Halo 2,
with the XP patching, Firefox open (I leave it that way) and 1-2 other
things, folding @home in the background, and the virus scan came up. It
ran out of virtual memory and started going *boom* on me. lol
Got to be about the one and only reason I am looking at getting 7, so it
doesn't have the memory limits XP did. Oh, that and the fact that XP's
boot.sys got mangled at some point (who knows by what), and I am not
sure I know how to reconstruct it, so I could add the dumb flag needed
to make it use more memory... It amazes me some times how much can break
on the OS and still be usable, kind of like owning a car, but where the
tail pipe hasn't fallen off yet, or an engine mount snapped. lol I hear,
kind of like with Windows, some people never had the cars, which got
recalled for their tendency to burst into flames, ever actually burst
into flames too... ;)
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Uh. Doing that requires shutting up off, then rebooting, then defraging
> the drive, then turning it on again..
If you don't have enough space to put a pagefile on your machine that's
contiguous, then you're going to get fragmented files and all. Yep, yep, yep!
> Well, lets just say that, at least
> one person trying this had it render the OS unbootable. I would rather
> let the damn thing just handle it itself, which should include imho,
> occationally using some idle time to restructure the file, so its
> contiguous (like duh!). Near as I can tell, it isn't doing that at all
> as part of normal operations.
It defrags everything else that way. Just not the pagefile. Because, you
know the page file is usually open, and it's pretty easy to defrag it at
boot time if you want.
Of course, if you don't have enough free space to make a block of disk big
enough to hold a page file, then no, it's not going to defrag.
> Got to be about the one and only reason I am looking at getting 7, so it
> doesn't have the memory limits XP did.
The only XP memory limits I know of was running into the 4G boundary. And
apparently that's a licensing thing - seems XP x86 is happy to use however
much memory you put in there, except that Microsoft tells it not to.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Uh. Doing that requires shutting up off, then rebooting, then
>> defraging the drive, then turning it on again..
>
> If you don't have enough space to put a pagefile on your machine that's
> contiguous, then you're going to get fragmented files and all. Yep, yep,
> yep!
>
Get enough now. Already defragged it once. Went from 33,000+ fragments
to 1,000, but.. Still be be nice for more.
Still, point is, if you have memory free, open or not, I see no reason
why, if you have free real memory, you couldn't page in some of the file
that isn't "in use", page it back out someplace saner, etc. and defrag
it that way. Ironically, its one thing I almost miss from the old
Win3.11 days, where you could use Norton's defragger to defrag
everything "including" the page file, and shift files you use a lot
closer to the start, and unscatter directories, *and* consolidate free
space. I get that Windows defrag now does most of those, but it does
them damned inefficiently, and no matter how many times you "force" it
to consolidate files, it will flat out *refuse* to consolidate the free
space, even when there is no sane reason to leave a handful of files
scattered willy nilly over the remaining disk space.
And, that is the problem. If you need to defrag something like the page
file, during boot, how do you do that, if it won't move the stupid files
that are in the way? :(
Actually reminds me of the ice truck issues at work. Big days for
shoppers we bring in a truck. The normal method of handling this seems
to have been to spend 3-4 hours trying to get early customers to move
their damn cars, so we could park the thing. This year we spent 2 hours,
at night, waiting for people to get a hint and stop parking where we
where trying to rope off, so that we just had to move the ropes the next
day. This, obviously, worked a whole lot better. lol
> The only XP memory limits I know of was running into the 4G boundary.
> And apparently that's a licensing thing - seems XP x86 is happy to use
> however much memory you put in there, except that Microsoft tells it not
> to.
>
Yeah. I know. But, the hack requires changing the boot.sys file. They
managed to make the OS smart enough to boot anyway, if its
damaged/missing (mine is missing for some reason), but didn't include
any way to rebuild it, if you lost/mangled it. So.. No file, no clue how
to write it, and therefor, no means to override the setting.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Get enough now. Already defragged it once. Went from 33,000+ fragments
> to 1,000, but.. Still be be nice for more.
You just need to have enough space to put it there. :-)
> Still, point is, if you have memory free, open or not, I see no reason
> why, if you have free real memory, you couldn't page in some of the file
> that isn't "in use", page it back out someplace saner, etc. and defrag
> it that way.
Of course you could. As I said, the "sane" reason is that not enough people
want this to justify the difficulty of implementing it. And yes, it's
difficult. Probably much so more than you think.
> Ironically, its one thing I almost miss from the old
> Win3.11 days, where you could use Norton's defragger to defrag
> everything "including" the page file, and shift files you use a lot
> closer to the start, and unscatter directories, *and* consolidate free
> space.
Yeah, when you can shut down all other processes and do it with the machine
offline, it's a lot easier.
> it will flat out *refuse* to consolidate the free
> space, even when there is no sane reason to leave a handful of files
> scattered willy nilly over the remaining disk space.
There is a sane reason, actually. You just don't know what that reason is.
:-) One possibility is that they're protected because they're branches of
files carrying around the encryption key information. Another possibility is
that they're locked open for writing.
> And, that is the problem. If you need to defrag something like the page
> file, during boot, how do you do that, if it won't move the stupid files
> that are in the way? :(
Copy those files to a different disk, delete them, defrag, copy them back.
>> The only XP memory limits I know of was running into the 4G boundary.
>> And apparently that's a licensing thing - seems XP x86 is happy to use
>> however much memory you put in there, except that Microsoft tells it
>> not to.
>>
> Yeah. I know. But, the hack requires changing the boot.sys file.
Different hack, I suspect.
> They
> managed to make the OS smart enough to boot anyway, if its
> damaged/missing (mine is missing for some reason), but didn't include
> any way to rebuild it, if you lost/mangled it. So.. No file, no clue how
> to write it, and therefor, no means to override the setting.
LMGTFY. http://mirror.href.com/thestarman/asm/mbr/bootini.htm
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
