I increased my laptop memory and then increased the paging file size to match the new memory but now the page file has moved from it's original position at the beginning of the drive and is now located somewhere in the middle of the drive. How I can I relocate it back to it's original position near the beginning of the drive? Note: only a single drive in use, no separate partition for page file. Thanks and regards! Mark1 person got this answerI do too

You should let win manage your paging file. Run both Disk Cleanup followed by defrag

How much memory do you have now? Do you expect to have a lot of paging activity? Ultimately, if the location of the page file is that critical, it would probably be beneficial to get more RAM, or a system that supports more RAM if you have "maxxed" out the current system. As indicated, it is preferable to let Windows manage the page file size. If you choose to size it manually, consider reviewing the "How Big Should I Make the Paging File?" section of Pushing the Limits of Windows: Virtual Memory.

Yes, good advice from both No.Compromise and Palcouk, but not an answer to my question. Windows, after a fresh install of XP locates the virtual memory/page files close to the beginning of the drive but when you change memory, you need to make a change to the allotted memory range as XP doesn't always make the change automatically as it is designed to do. So, when you manually adjust the page file memory range,increase in my case, Windows moves the virtual memory farther out on the drive. I am looking to move the space used by the page file back to it's original position in the drive.

I dont believe you can 'move' the paging file either with winxp in built tools or a third part app

Why do you need to "make a change to the allotted memory range" (interpreted as change the size of the paging file to be in step with the new amount of RAM on the system)? It would seem that the more RAM a system has, the less important a large/matching page file becomes (dump file stipulations not withstanding). OK, fine - that doesn't address the concern - the deed is done, the page file has been resized according to manually configured parameters. You can't control where files are stored on the disk so you can't control the location of the page file or its fragments. A disk defragmenter with options to defragment page files may support the notion of optimally placing the page file at the start of the disk and moving files there elsewhere on the disk. But I would contend that if you're relying on the notion that the perf added by placing the page file at the start of the drive will make or break your experience with the system, you likely would be best off going with more RAM in the first place, so you don't have to "rely" on "performance-paging" at all.

"No.Compromise" wrote 'But I would contend that if you're relying on the notion that the perf added by placing the page file at the start of the drive will make or break your experience with the system, you likely would be best off going with more RAM in the first place, so you don't have to "rely" on "performance-paging" at all.' I would actually contend that the logical place to have the PF would be the middle of the drive, on the basis that the head then never needs to traverse more than half the disc radius to find what it needs - whereas at the start, it will almost certainly have to traverse more than that for any data file on a reasonably full disk, while if it's at the end, it would likewise have to traverse more than half for any system file. But since the chances that any reasonable system under reasonable load, with a correctly-behaving app is going to require much in the way of page-file-writing/reading in time-sensitive scenarios is virtually nil, I consider the point of the OP to be ... well.. pretty much pointless. -- Noel Paton CrashFixPC Nil Carborundum Illegitemi www.crashfixpc.co.uk

I didn't think so either but worth asking others! Thanks!

I have maxed out the memory and even though I as a lowly human would most likely not be able to notice any difference in the placement of the page files location, it is about getting that extra bit of performance, just for the fun of it. This is a new hobby for me so I am trying new things is all. I do this same sort of thing with my motorcycle as well. Thanks again for all your valuable input!

This is a sound argument and would support why XP moved the space to near the middle of the drive when I increased the page file. This sure is a great way to spend a rainy day in Portland! Thanks folks, I consider this issue resolved!

I do wish to add one more thought however.....regardless of the value of my curiosity with this exercise, think of it as the pursuit some have to climb Mt Everest. You do it because it's there. So no need to tell me my interest is... well...pointless. I spend many hours of my time and money with performance tuning my toys in the garage for mere fractions of a second better performance. I don't race as a profession but it is a hobby so it is fun for me.

I do wish to add one more thought however.....regardless of the value of my curiosity with this exercise, think of it as the pursuit some have to climb Mt Everest. You do it because it's there. So no need to tell me my interest is... well...pointless. I spend many hours of my time and money with performance tuning my toys in the garage for mere fractions of a second better performance. I don't race as a profession but it is a hobby so it is fun for me. I understand you completely. I make changes all the time to my computer just to experiment and play. If it crashes.. Oh well it just crashes. I built this one and I can build another one even better. If you find out how to relocate the page file let me know. This topic has peaked my curiosity! I would also invite you to join a new computer support and diagnostics forum I have created and feel free to add any knowledge you have or post an issue. It's completely free, no adware or third party data collections are involved. It's a hobbie for me to answer questions here and on other forums. But, after a moderator here over stepped her boundaries I decided to create my own forum where Highjack This log files are welcome. Repair-Bots Online Forum Regards, Joel Free computer support and diagnostics -->> http://repairbotsonline.forumotion.com/

"mbmiles" wrote in message news:96de168a-f949-410c-b9ab-6d44f3d0d113... >I do wish to add one more thought however.....regardless of the value of my >curiosity with this exercise, think of it as the pursuit some have to climb >Mt Everest. You do it because it's there. So no need to tell me my interest >is... well...pointless. I spend many hours of my time and money with >performance tuning my toys in the garage for mere fractions of a second >better performance. I don't race as a profession but it is a hobby so it is >fun for me. > Hey - I wasn't knocking, really, just trying to make a point! <groan> I have similar problems of my own making. I like taking things apart to find out how they work, but somehow never find the time to finish putting them back together <g> - which is how I originally started coming to the support forms back in the late 90's. (the rest I'll leave to your imagination!) -- Noel Paton CrashFixPC Nil Carborundum Illegitemi www.crashfixpc.co.uk

Not to worry, I understood exactly what you meant. As soon as you pointed out disk traversing I was sold! Do step in and knock me about when I start talking about liquid cooling my CPU though okay? ;)

Isn't that a race between head traversal and fast reads though, if one considers that data is read more quickly from the innermost tracks of the disk (the basis of the argument for keeping the page file at the "start" of the disk in the first place)? So it seems to become a situational comparison - how much data is there to be read?

"mbmiles" wrote in message news:58752a41-5aba-4ee8-982d-ad2eaf7b5e9b... > Not to worry, I understood exactly what you meant. As soon as you pointed > out disk traversing I was sold! Do step in and knock me about when I start > talking about liquid cooling my CPU though okay? ;) Well, I was thinking about liquid Nitrogen myself - it's supposed to let you overclock the processor something rotten! <vbseg> -- Noel Paton CrashFixPC Nil Carborundum Illegitemi www.crashfixpc.co.uk

"No.Compromise" wrote in message news:fe9925c2-9570-4945-9786-4d6a18cb6229... > Isn't that a race between head traversal and fast reads though, if one > considers that data is read more quickly from the innermost tracks of the > disk (the basis of the argument for keeping the page file at the "start" > of the disk in the first place)? So it seems to become a situational > comparison - how much data is there to be read? It's almost certain that traversing the drive is a LOT slower than reading - once the data is found reading is pretty quick, but the seek-time can be up to 12-15ms even in fast drives. it's only where the date is really large that seek time becomes low priority -- Noel Paton CrashFixPC Nil Carborundum Illegitemi www.crashfixpc.co.uk

Ignorant here, but in cases where paging has been of concern, the amount of data being dealt with is in fact quite large... large enough to make a difference, though? Hard to tell, and again depends on hardware and the specific scenario being measured.