Before and after I ripped the latest Win10 1903 Pro with NTLite, it was taking too much space. It still does. In comparison to build 1903, it takes 4-5GB of extra space. Any idea what uses that extra space?
Could you mean the 7GB preservation? Discussed here: https://forums.mydigitallife.net/threads/reserved-storage-in-windows-10.79347/
I don't know? What is the difference in size of Windows folder between 1809 and 1903? This is a clean install of 18362.116 on freshly formatted SSD.
LOL! MS be crazy then. I always used a 30GB OS partition and can't see why that should change. 30GB is just fine for Win10 OS (ripped with NTLite) + 4GB pagefile + MS Office 2016/2019 + few minor non-portable apps. As I mentioned, I got space back by rebasing the OS again. It tends to allow rebasing not just after updates, but also after disabling features and on-demand features.
4GB page file? Geez, I've been using a 1GB static page file for over a decade now even with machines that have had 4GB of RAM in 'em, it's never ever been an issue. I know it's just 4GB you mentioned but even so, if you that concerned over free space left on a small partition, then having a 4GB page file is utterly insane.
I have 16GB RAM and have configured the pagefile to min 16MB and max 1000MB. I haven't noticed that it has allocated more then 16MB whenever I checked. Never had any issues. Never had issues with it disabled either but I use a pagefile now because of crash dumps.
Just because you had no issues, does not give you the leaway to advise bad practices! Keep it OS-managed. If having issues with it growing beyond reason (this ugly bug comes and goes each build), standby memory issues and all that jazz, set it to a suitable fixed size: - 4GB and less of RAM, onboard gpu or some 512MB/1GB entry gpu, and you play games or use creator software? go for 4GB! - more RAM? go for 2GB! and only increase it if you ever get virtual memory too low error. 4GB also works just fine as a one-size-fits-all as it lines up with the average W10 x64 commit
I haven`t used a page file in years but I love to experiment to see what happens, Just realize if you do that and your system crashes or you lose power everything more them likely stored in ram is lost for good.
First off there's nothing wrong with my avitar and second if admin tells me to remove it I will. You have no right to tell me to remove it! It's not up to you to decide what's appropriate or not.
People are talking about it, like it happens daily, I did not have a system crash or a power outage in years. I am also using ramdisk, that is way more sensitive.. Besides, pagefile is a potential privacy and security risk, you can grab any saved info from it, even passwords, unless you encrypt it, like with EncryptPagingFile.
I have a 12GB pagefile, which is about the proper size for 8GB of RAM that I have pagefile should optimally be 1.5 times the amount of physical RAM available
If you actually did some research, and some testing using the tools that Windows provides for monitoring such things, I can safely guarantee you that unless you're doing things that consistently push your machine to use 7GB+ of actual physical RAM (3D rendering, extensive graphics editing of 500MB+ uncompresed TIFF files with Photoshop, seriously hardcore RAM usage), that 12GB page file rarely ever sees more than a few megabytes to a few hundred megabytes of actual use so, you're wasting space for no good reason at all. A static - that means you set it for the same minimum size and the same maximum size - ensures that Windows doesn't have to bother resizing it, ever, it doesn't move around, it doesn't get fragmented (yes, with SSDs fragmentation is a no-brainer non-concern, that's a given), and it doesn't waste an excessive amount of space. Mark Russinovich, one of the most incredibly talented people that's ever worked with Windows and a CTO for Microsoft, publishes a lot of books about the internals of Windows and how best to set a lot of the configuration parameters for best system performance. He admitted a few years ago that the old "1.5x physical RAM" page file size recommendation was only useful when machines had 1GB of RAM or less and used slow 5400 rpm hard drives. Nowadays, with 8GB of RAM being basically the norm on most every new machine, and with people having even more in their own machines after upgrades (I have 32GB in my ThinkPad), the old 1.5x physical RAM thing is nothing more than a complete absolute total waste of available drive space and the chances of anyone at random every requiring more than a few dozen megabytes to a few hundred megabytes in daily use is so small it's like 15 places past the decimal point like 0.000000000000000000001% so basically irrelevant in the big picture. These days, if you have 4-8GB of RAM, a static 1GB page file (OK 2GB if you must) works just fine for 99.999% of users. If you have 8GB or more, the same 1GB page file works just fine unless you really get into hardcore stuff like serious 3D rendering or potentially doing a lot of serious computing of large data sets (Matlab, etc). But it's just fine with me if you folks wish to waste a few gigs here and there, go for it. Also the post above by ch100, those links, that info, a decade plus or older, and again it goes back to a time when 1-2GB of RAM in machines was the norm, and the majority of the time that info is more relevant to servers and not desktop computers so it's basically useless in today's world with 8GB of physical RAM or more in machines, and with Windows being more efficient in terms of memory utilization. The Citrix link above, at the very end of it, that person came to basically the same results and conclusions as Russinovich himself: Old school methodology != efficiency in today's world, the old ways are not the best ways anymore, it's really that simple.
So with 256Gb RAM server, I would need 384Gb page file....! But I only have 100Gb SSD mirrored OS volume. And never had a problem....
I've run with my pagefile disabled for the past two or three years, and it hasn't seemed to cause me many problems. Yet, I think I will start using a small one, again, in order to lower the probability of poorly-engineered software causing my system to crash. My question has now become: what is the ideal cost/benefit tradeoff pagefile size? I've got 16 GB of DDR4 in a dual-boot Win 7 Pro, MS Server 2019 desktop. There's plenty of hard drive room, on either my OS disk or elsewhere. I will sometimes tax my system (Intel Core i7 8700K with an Nvidia GTX 1060 6GB video card) with gaming, or trying to foolishly do too many things at once. As I said, I've run without pagefiles for at least the past couple of years, and have found no pattern of problems (although, on the other hand, I haven't been immune to occasional mysterious crashes). It seems as if 512 MB would be a good compromise.