Windows 2K & XP Pagefile Tweak

mnosteele52 · Post by **mnosteele52** » Tue Dec 17, 2002 3:22 pm

This is something that is asked about or discussed almost daily over at TweakXP....... how to set your pagefile for optimum perfomance. So I though I would post it here to share with everyone.

The original tweak came from Windows 98 with virtual memory, it was to first defrag your hard drive (so your virtual memory wouldn't be fragmented) then set your virtual memory to min & max the same so that it wouldn't continuosly resize therby in theory slow you pc down.

I don't care what anyone says..... WINDOWS HAS TO HAVE A PAGEFILE TO FUNCTION PROPERLY, so don't even think about disabling it NO MATTER HOW MUCH RAM YOU HAVE.

The best tweak, and I have done this on COUNTLESS pc's, is to set your pagefile to min & max the same amount - period. An adequate size no matter how much physical RAM you have is 512MB for both values*. You shouldn't even run XP with less than 256MB of physical memory (but even if you only have 128MB) you will never use more than 512 + the physical amount you have.

Once you set both min & max to 512MB reboot your pc when prompted then defrag your pagefile with Sysinternal's PageDefrag (it's FREE), this will defrag your pagefile and it WILL NOT become fragmented again since it is static, this will also defrag your registry for optimum performance.

You can rebut this all you want but I have done it more times than you can count and I have never had a problem with it, once it's done it will help improve your memory management.

* Note - The only exception to this rule is if you are running a server you might want to up the values but still keep them the same amount.

Norm · Post by **Norm** » Tue Dec 17, 2002 8:54 pm

One thing I don't agree with is setting max and min size. If you limit the max setting, you CAN run out of memory.

Set a min size, and leave the max open ended (remaining free space on the drive). The min won't get fragged, and you'll have an open ended max just in case it's ever needed.

Some things do need a lot of memory, and 1 or even 2 GB won't be enough. Granted the average user won't need to worry, but to avoid "out of mem" errors completely, don't set a max.

Lobo · Post by **Lobo** » Tue Dec 17, 2002 9:06 pm

http://support.microsoft.com/default.as ... S;308417#3

mnosteele52 · Post by **mnosteele52** » Tue Dec 17, 2002 9:33 pm

I see your point Norm (and I always enjoy your input

) but if you don't set both to the same size then there isn't any point in doing this. 99% of pc users have 256MB + of RAM these days, allot more like 512MB, that being the case it is pretty much impossible to run out of total RAM (physical & virtual) doing this. I can run IE6, Photoshop, Word, Trillian, Sygate, NAV & Nero and still not even come close to using up the physical RAM I have much less my pagefile. You can always udo this if you do run out but I doubt anyone will.

P.S. Lobo if you have an intelligent comment about the subject as Norm did them post it otherwise keep your links out of it.

Norm · Post by **Norm** » Tue Dec 17, 2002 10:21 pm

Originally posted by mnosteele52
I see your point Norm (and I always enjoy your input ) but if you don't set both to the same size then there isn't any point in doing this.

Again, I disagree

It won't hurt anything by having no set max, but it can hurt having it set (limited), depending on what the PC is used for. Certain apps are extrememly memory intensive, and will use up both physical and virtual ram easily. Graphic intensive apps especially.

Setting a min, and no max is virtually the same as setting both equal. If you set a min, then that min amount will be permanent, and not get fragged, and if more ram is never needed it will never grow past what you set. But if ram IS needed, it has the room to grow.

So, as you can see, there IS a point in doing this. Done this way, you can't go wrong, the other way has risks.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Tue Dec 17, 2002 10:25 pm

I think there is merit in all the posts above.

I am a power user and I work with huge files everyday. When I'm making music, the wav files can exceed a gig in my multitrack program. This of course isn't the only thing I'm running as there are usually 4 or 5 background tasks being run as well.

I also work with multi-gigabyte size DV files. My latest creation was 4.5 GB.

When I was using Win98SE all the time, I applied this tweak with good results....but I did run out of memory a couple of times and couldn't figure out why. It was because of these huge files that needed to be rendered and there wasn't enough virtual memory to complete the task. So I had to go back to letting Windows manage my memory. Oh well, live and learn.

Now that I'm using multiple operating systems for different tasks, I'm on WinXP now, I can basically setup memory management that is in line with my usage.

So I think that while this tweak is good...it could be better in that it should be associated with a "profile" so to speak.

There are different types of users out there.

There are the simple browsers,email users, word processing, etc. this tweak would best serve them.

Then you have the intermediate users, people who play games, run a chat client, photoshop, and a music app of some sort all at the same time, not to mention their background tasks. This tweak could also work for them as well but it might need to be adjusted on the higher side.

Then you have the upper echelon users...the content creators. These apps usually require lots of memory...even by themselves. Throw in an office app like Outlook and a browser session and they are gonna need every MB of memory they can get. But I should also add that these users usually have lots of physical ram...like a gigs worth to begin with.

This is where both Norm and Lobo have valid points because you should base your calculations on the amount of system ram you have.

So while I think this is good advice, I do think that users need to evaluate where they are on the user spectrum to get the best performance out of their system.

Gauging your usage can be accomplished with the included MS utilities. I say, do that for a week or so and keep the logs. Review the logs and see where your peak usage is. This should give you a profile...a profile that can be used to base this tweak off of.

Hell, you might discover that you simply just need more RAM! LOL

256/512 is pretty commonplace....but power users will benefit from even more.

chpalmer · Post by **chpalmer** » Wed Dec 18, 2002 12:15 am

posted by mnosteele52
"The best tweak, and I have done this on COUNTLESS pc's, is to set your pagefile to min & max the same amount - period. "

I think they missed your point. This seems to be about keeping the page file from fragmenting, which it will do if min and max values are not set the same, no matter what size it is.

Ive done this since I ran 95 on my last computer, a 486 and 40 meg drive, helped a bunch. ( or maybe it was when I stuck 98 on it when I got the new drive...)

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Wed Dec 18, 2002 3:51 am

Originally posted by chpalmer
posted by mnosteele52
"The best tweak, and I have done this on COUNTLESS pc's, is to set your pagefile to min & max the same amount - period. "

I think they missed your point. This seems to be about keeping the page file from fragmenting, which it will do if min and max values are not set the same, no matter what size it is.

Ive done this since I ran 95 on my last computer, a 486 and 40 meg drive, helped a bunch. ( or maybe it was when I stuck 98 on it when I got the new drive...)

I didn't miss the point.

The point is this....how do you determine what the size should be?

I tried to give a coherent answer as to why there isn't one single answer for everybody.

Triplate · Post by **Triplate** » Wed Dec 18, 2002 8:03 am

Well......i dont know.....ive been running this puter with no pagefile(set) for 6 months now ....no probs and it flys.However, i agree.....min and max should be set equal.

drdoug99 · Post by **drdoug99** » Wed Dec 18, 2002 8:21 am

I agree with UOD's post about making a profile.

I dont remember now, but one of the websites I've read in the past details how to use the logging tools in XP as he said, to monitor your specific RAM usage.

For me, for example, I have 512MB of RAM, and during a typical week, I ran the logging programs, and my peak virtual memory usage was barely above 30MB.

so I set my page file at 64MB min/max....never have problems.

also, I use RAM Idle, which displays how much free RAM I have at all times....currently I have 347 MB's availbe.....which is plenty for all the tasks I do anyway.....so why set a large pagefile?

mnosteele52 · Post by **mnosteele52** » Wed Dec 18, 2002 11:23 am

Everyone has a good point here, 512MB for both min & max may not be enough for everyone, but it would be rare that it wouldn't be, in such a case set them both to 1GB. The main point is making it static then defragging it so it doesn't become fragmented again. If you don't set them both the same size then Windows will resize as needed thereby negating the point of tweaking it at all.

P.S. drdoug99 RamIdle has spyware.

Norm · Post by **Norm** » Wed Dec 18, 2002 4:46 pm

Everyone is right, UOD said it best.

mnosteele, you still haven't understood my point.
Quote from mnosteele "If you don't set them both the same size then Windows will resize as needed thereby negating the point of tweaking it at all."
Not true.
Windows will not resize the min amount. It will only resize if mem over the min is needed, and this does not negate the tweak. It is insurance that IF more ram is needed, it will be available (open ended max)
And if windows does resize past the min setting, then it was a necessity. You can avoid out of mem errors by not setting a limit on the max.

Using 98 I have 512 MB of ram, and I set my min to 32MB, with no max.
I also use the system.ini tweak under 386Enh (ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1) to force windows to use ram until it runs out. I've never seen my swap file grow past 32MB, but it can if needed.

True, most users will be ok with a set min, and a set max.
Some will get errors.

Size is a user dependent setting.

Where ram + virtual ram is concerned, each user will benefit using personalized settings.
One tweak is not good for all.

chpalmer · Post by **chpalmer** » Fri Dec 20, 2002 9:29 pm

What would be the problem of setting your minimum to a higher number? this way fragmentation would probably never occur. If your computer needs more than 32 megs, more likely it is going to fragment the file as it grows in size, being set that low. With 98 you might as well click the "let windows do it box".

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Fri Dec 20, 2002 10:06 pm

Originally posted by chpalmer
What would be the problem of setting your minimum to a higher number? this way fragmentation would probably never occur. If your computer needs more than 32 megs, more likely it is going to fragment the file as it grows in size, being set that low. With 98 you might as well click the "let windows do it box".

There is really 3 tweaks going on here.

The first tweak would apply to all users...that is the conservative swap file usage tweak....enabling you to use all your physical ram before you use the swap file. Everyone should use this....hell, you paid for that ram, it's the fastest in relation to the swap file so why not use it?

The second tweak is for keeping the swap file from fragmenting. But this is user dependent because the size of the swap file itself should be based on your profile. If you're a power user...you won't benefit from a small swap file. You would want the overhead to grow...that is why Norm said to let the max size be open ended or large enough to avoid getting errors.

The third tweak....is implied in that if you have a second hard drive, you should put the swap file on it. That is what Lobo was suggesting with his link. That is also a very good idea If you have a second HDD.

Like I said before...everyones post has merit. We just have to decipher what is best for each of us as we are all different in the way we utilize our computers.

there is really no right or wrong answer here...just some good food for thought...and that is the way it should be.....sharing and exchanging ideas!

chpalmer · Post by **chpalmer** » Fri Dec 20, 2002 10:18 pm

Thanx for the reply

Ive used the conservative tweak on everything I touch for aout a year now,(I think I got it from here somewhere) alway happy with that one. win 3.11 had a swap file didn't it? I seem to remember changing its size for kicks...
guess the best key for speed is a fasssst drive

I will have to pick one some day...

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Fri Dec 20, 2002 11:08 pm

Originally posted by chpalmer
Thanx for the reply Ive used the conservative tweak on everything I touch for aout a year now,(I think I got it from here somewhere) alway happy with that one. win 3.11 had a swap file didn't it? I seem to remember changing its size for kicks...
guess the best key for speed is a fasssst drive I will have to pick one some day...

Now we're talking buddy!!!!

Yes! I would say, if you have the extra cash, to pick up a extra HDD...and you don't need the biggest...even a used 10gig would suffice, but a good 20gig @7200rpm would kick ass. Put the swap file on it and away you go!!!!!

IMHO...the best HDD out there are the Western Digital Special Edition drives with the 8MB of cache. This would be a fine upgrade for a primary drive....then you could go for it and install a 2nd drive for a dedicated swap file.

there are soooooo many little things we can do to boost performance and soooo many different ways to do them.

Good luck and happy holidays to you!

Norm · Post by **Norm** » Fri Dec 20, 2002 11:18 pm

Originally posted by chpalmer
What would be the problem of setting your minimum to a higher number? this way fragmentation would probably never occur. If your computer needs more than 32 megs, more likely it is going to fragment the file as it grows in size, being set that low. With 98 you might as well click the "let windows do it box".

Good point about the min being too small at 32MB.
For most, it is too small.

For me, and the way I use my PC, and with 512 MB of physical ram, I never need the swap file at all. I only make one because windows won't work right without one, or certain programs may need to use it.
Also, I do put it on a separate partition of it's own too.

I found out very quick that even with 512 MB of ram, and a swap file with open ended size, plus 2GB of freespace on the drive, I needed even more when I tried to scan a picture at 9700x9700 pixels and 16 million colors.

mnosteele52 · Post by **mnosteele52** » Fri Dec 20, 2002 11:27 pm

I do see your point Norm in setting a min but not a max

, but I still say it's best to figure out the maximum you may need and set both the same.... just my opinion.

Conservative swap file usage...... remember it's only valid for 98 & ME not 2K & XP.

If you have an extra HD lying around it might be a good idea, but if it's old and 5400rpm and ATA33... well it's going to slow your faster drive down if it's on the same IDE cable and most people these days have 2 cdroms (cdrom or DVD rom & CDRW). So it's not worth the money vs the performance boost to install another drive for the sole purpose of a pagefile.... it's that THAT important.

The reason I posted this in the first place is because it's a FREE and very easy way to optimize your pagefile, making another partition or adding a drive... it's not worth the hassle.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Fri Dec 20, 2002 11:44 pm

Well...I think we are just yakking it up right now with a little chit chat......pretty soon, or maybe in a couple of hours we'll be chatting about huge RAM drives and whatnot lol!

Norm · Post by **Norm** » Fri Dec 20, 2002 11:44 pm

Originally posted by mnosteele52
I do see your point Norm in setting a min but not a max , but I still say it's best to figure out the maximum you may need and set both the same.... just my opinion

One reason to leave it open ended, and one reason only (for me)

In those rare moments when I do need more ram, like in my last post (re: Scanning) I won't have to change settings and reboot.

If I was to set my min, and max to the same size, just to accomodate those rare moments without 'out of mem' errors, I would need to set my max at about 10 GB (maybe more)

No thanks

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Fri Dec 20, 2002 11:46 pm

HEY! Let's put the pagefile on a RAM Drive!!!!!!!

HELL YEAH!!!!!!

So who is gonna go first?

Norm · Post by **Norm** » Fri Dec 20, 2002 11:46 pm

Originally posted by UOD
Well...I think we are just yakking it up right now with a little chit chat......pretty soon, or maybe in a couple of hours we'll be chatting about huge RAM drives and whatnot lol!

Oh, you wanna talk ramdrives now, eh?

Tell us why you don't put the swap file in a ramdrive.

Norm · Post by **Norm** » Fri Dec 20, 2002 11:48 pm

Originally posted by UOD
HEY! Let's put the pagefile on a RAM Drive!!!!!!!

HELL YEAH!!!!!!

So who is gonna go first?

Think logically

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Fri Dec 20, 2002 11:51 pm

Originally posted by Norm
Oh, you wanna talk ramdrives now, eh?

Tell us why you don't put the swap file in a ramdrive.

Uhhhh.....I'm temporarily stupid.

I thought NTRamdisk allowed you to put the pagefile on a ramdisk????

Boy...that was ages ago but i thought you could.?????

chpalmer · Post by **chpalmer** » Fri Dec 20, 2002 11:53 pm

posted by UOD "Yes! I would say, if you have the extra cash, to pick up a extra HDD...and you don't need the biggest...even a used 10gig would suffice, but a good 20gig @7200rpm "

I get asked if I need medical attention everytime I pass one of those WD 80 gig things in the isle at the local comp-store.

but as they say, driver carries no cash- he's married.. Im slowly aquiring parts for my next build and that drive (or its replacement) is planned!!!

Guess my big question on all this is if it dont hurt to have a 1 gig minimum, and you have the space, why not? Its only reserved space till its used (right?) or has this changed?

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Fri Dec 20, 2002 11:57 pm

Originally posted by Norm
Think logically

I'm confusing myself here.....what I'm thinking of is actually creating a real drive using RAM....not a ramdrive but a real drive using only ram...I saw them do this on TechTV one night....very expensive......mainly used for a server situation but it was so cool.

So I'm think of something different.

the reason why you wouldn't put the pagefile on a ramdrive is because you will be taking away from your usable physical ram to do so negating the effects of having MORE ram!!!! LOL

I completely confused me there for a minute.

Now I gotta find the link for that damn drive.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Sat Dec 21, 2002 12:02 am

Originally posted by chpalmer
posted by UOD "Yes! I would say, if you have the extra cash, to pick up a extra HDD...and you don't need the biggest...even a used 10gig would suffice, but a good 20gig @7200rpm "

I get asked if I need medical attention everytime I pass one of those WD 80 gig things in the isle at the local comp-store. but as they say, driver carries no cash- he's married.. Im slowly aquiring parts for my next build and that drive (or its replacement) is planned!!!

Guess my big question on all this is if it dont hurt to have a 1 gig minimum, and you have the space, why not? Its only reserved space till its used (right?) or has this changed?

How much ram do you have or do you plan to have?

If you can spare the space...I see no problems with it but waste not want not........

I hope that I'm interpreting your question correctly.....

Norm · Post by **Norm** » Sat Dec 21, 2002 12:06 am

What I want is a drive, like you mentioned. Ram, but a drive.

2GB outta do it. With battery support so it's contents are saved at shutdown.

Install windows into one of those suckers and you won't have to worry about speed.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Sat Dec 21, 2002 12:12 am

chpalmer:

Check out this link:

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/cook/Pagefile.htm

Hang on Norm...still searching for it

chpalmer · Post by **chpalmer** » Sat Dec 21, 2002 12:25 am

Cool- thanx for the link

Helped answer the questions for me...
Ill be going to 2K, so everything I can learn...

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Sat Dec 21, 2002 12:51 am

Found it Norm...better save your pennies though....

Solid State Hard Drives!!!!!

http://www.bitmicro.com/products_edide.html

This is just one company...there are many.

Andrzej · Post by **Andrzej** » Sat Dec 21, 2002 2:55 am

SwapFile - on above device & on second IDE hehe
but FTOH why not install above device as C:\ with OS ??? :2cool:

dannjr · Post by **dannjr** » Sat Dec 21, 2002 3:23 am

UOD in a few months youll be drulling over a ATA 150 and it wont be a WD.. I can tear a WD up in 6 months.

Back On subject sort of..
To drop in a older HD as a pagefile... It will end up fragmented. Your better off to get matched NEW drives and mirror them At least when you blow one up it continues to run.

But I think part of the point in what mnosteele is saying is its a simple tweak
First its FREE
Second he was more refuring to it in the 2k to XP, Since he works with them more.
and in them OS as they fill they off load.. Oldest first.. Similar to a ramdrive without the Crash.

Win9x totally different...
Norm while I might aggree this is for you.... OLD stuff. I didnt write it but still uses the principle.

http://broadbandnuts.com/cablenut/win98tweak.htm

Besides your limited anyway no matter what you might think heres another 2 example.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;en-us;237740&

AND some minor history

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;en-us;99707&

Ramdrive I think I covered why you dont want it on there..
But just in case. Fragmentation off a ramdrive can contribute to a Fun BSOD

I tend to aggree with everyone. To a Point. But I still say Mnosteels makes the most sence for the money.. FREE is good..
Plus a NoOb aint gonna come back and say I blew up my machine crossing switchs. Or messed up the registry..
But its a tweaking forum

Old drives only good for DAta store before backup. AND possibly slows the system.(more than likely)

Mirror, you might want to look into, or fast Raid5 or Wait till the Good ATA 150s are out.. Then you can build a layered page file.. That Im not going into. Its Christmas I still have shopping to finish.

In other words spend it wise...

Linux Raid or Windows 2k server mirror..

Now you gots some other options

Now if they can just figure out how I run 3 NICs on the Same IP with the same name on the same network with 5 networks BackingUp at once then your smokin..

Boy I can see where this is gonna go.

HAPPY HOLIDAY

Im out shopping or am I.

Did I miss anything OH yeah Norm I have forgotten more than I care to. UOD take a deep breath WD is built in the same shop as a Maxtor just with a different controller. Last I looked Seagate still queitly owns Maxtor. Fugitsu needs to rethink its product and the world builds IBM.

Enjoy the holidays maybe I can get back here. Lots of work and packages.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Sat Dec 21, 2002 4:01 am

Ya know Dann.....with Lobo, Norm and you all in here...it's beginning to look like a nursing home!

Why don't ya'll just go play some skeeball or whatever old folks do and leave me and mnosteele alone???

LOL!!!!

I had to bust ya a couple times.....

In any case....good stuff all around. I miss these long posts.....we used to have some REALLY long posts a couple of years ago.

Now I'm showing my age lol.

Oh well...Girls Gone Wild Infopornmercial is on now...gotta go!

Happy Holidays!

P.S. I'll be back in the am or pm to discuss this further...got a few questions for ya!

illestdynasty · Post by **illestdynasty** » Sat Dec 21, 2002 11:27 am

I saw a huge speed increase by placing my XP pagefile onto a seperate 30gig 5400rpm hard drive that I was using as extra storage. Note:this is a non-raid configuration. I use PerfectDisk200 v5.0 to defrag my hard drives, and pagefile once every two days at 4am. Works like a charm.

dannjr · Post by **dannjr** » Sat Dec 21, 2002 7:19 pm

Originally posted by UOD
Ya know Dann.....with, Norm and you all in here...it's beginning to look like a nursing home!
Why don't ya'll just go play some skeeball or whatever old folks do and leave me and mnosteele alone???

LOL!!!!
I had to bust ya a couple times.....
In any case....good stuff all around. I miss these long posts.....we used to have some REALLY long posts a couple of years ago.
Now I'm showing my age lol.
Oh well...Girls Gone Wild Infopornmercial is on now...gotta go!
Happy Holidays!
P.S. I'll be back in the am or pm to discuss this further...got a few questions for ya!

Now why would I leave Mnosteele alone...
He be one of the best..
ANd leave you alone... Not a chance dont want ya to feel left out

illestdynasty
PerfectDisk is great I use it here myself.. Not as often as that..
Makes things run fast and defrags well Whats the size of your page file now

mnosteele52 · Post by **mnosteele52** » Sat Dec 21, 2002 8:13 pm

Originally posted by dannjr
Now why would I leave Mnosteele alone...
He be one of the best..

Ain't you so nice

UOD you are right, this has been an excellent thread with allot of good view points, information and input from intelligent people..... what a forum should be.

illestdynasty · Post by **illestdynasty** » Sat Dec 21, 2002 9:25 pm

Originally posted by dannjr
Now why would I leave Mnosteele alone...
He be one of the best..
ANd leave you alone... Not a chance dont want ya to feel left out

illestdynasty
PerfectDisk is great I use it here myself.. Not as often as that..
Makes things run fast and defrags well Whats the size of your page file now

the pagefile is set to 768 min and 1536 max. I used the x2 and x3 formula of the physical ram. I may readjust the perfect disk scheduler to something less frequent.

dannjr · Post by **dannjr** » Fri Dec 27, 2002 4:52 am

Lets assume "my" page file never ever fragments. How can I use the memory stack the mnosteele uses with out ever having to defrag the pagefile on boot. Plus add security.. Lets face facts theres allot of personal stuff that can be on that file.

Set memory to min/max the same size which makes it static.

Disable sysinternals pagefile defrag or any other page file defrag tool you use on boot..
You can still defrag system files and other files or folders if you choose.

Next follow this sequence (Win2k, XP)
control pnl> Administrative Tools> Local Security Policy> Local policies> Security Options> double click on Clear virtual Memory Page File When system shuts down> set to Enable

Reboot and see how it works for you...

Iv done this on several machines and it seems to help the system..
On older systems there might be a touch more harddrive activity after you start.
I already seen a preformance boost on my old compaq laptop with spanish enhancments(keyboard).

"Its Important to Disable sysinternals pagefile defrag.. Cause theres no page file to defrag in this case.."

I also dont see a problem with the way illestdynasty sets his as well.. Just a touch more paging..
The reason you dont need to defrag as much as I see it.
If you have a newer drive the controllers are much better than they used to be. I go almost a month on a few machines here.. It all depends on how active files are..

Let me also point out that this is one of the better threads Iv seen in this forum in awhile.
Its all mnosteeles fault

Andrzej · Post by **Andrzej** » Fri Dec 27, 2002 6:38 am

agree with dannjr ... this is one of the better threads Iv seen in this forum ...

fixed PageFile
a huge PageFile is needed only for prgs instalations
NOT for evryday activity
so after prg(s) instalation(S) - how often do you do it?

a week PF observation, monitoring
max value of PageFile can be reduced to noted from monitored max +5%
or max +10% if you realy need vvv.dynamic changes
& PFminimum to 50% of above value
so PF is NOT fixed !
such setings is advantage for OS & resourses
& OS can use resources acording to ACTUAL activity
GOK (God only knows)... is it important on MODERN pc ?

BTW one can change PF settings for next, new instalation(s) up to 3*RAM
(or even more)
I never heard about unexpected prg instalation ... hehehe
OTOH can it prevent unexpected instalations ?????

PageFile defragmentation
vvv.often I use NUtility from NSysWorks for:
hdd & PageFile & Registry defragmentation
it also fixed position of PF on egde of the fastest hdd (or partition)
BTW for PF defragmentation one can temporary use second partition on hdd
temporary moove PF on second partition,
hdd defragmentation
return PF on first partition.

second hdd & on SECOND IDE
I know the trick with PF (fixed or not) on above it is working also for me
but I hate to use it
on firs hdd I have always 4 equivalent partitions
d:\second partition for temporary files, NGhost images ( than: e:\archive; f:\ collection of prg for install)
after atachment (instalation) second HDD is as D:\
and partitions from first hdd are mooved & are as folow c:\ ..... e:\; f:\ g:\
aloso mooved CD-ROM is h:\
with & after removal second hdd nothng working properly
so small, fast, remoovable second HDD I use ONLY for moove huge file, prgs
but not for PageFile