As qhn said but let me belabor the point a little. Anything you have heard about the benefit of setting the size of swapfile or disabling is from 98 and before for windows systems. And yes it could offer benefit. Since then it is people who read old things and don't know what they are talking about.
That said I am not saying M$ is perfect. I must ask if I have 4GB RAM and you have 2GB why would I need a larger swapfile? Yea kind of counter intuitive. That said a minor issue of no consequence so let us not dwell.
My breakdown. Other than what qhn mentioned about some apps simply need a swapfile. So good reason to have. I am not certain but I do know Windows limits how much RAM applications can use so that is why swapfile is necessary. Photoshop is one I have been told wants a swapfile.
What do you have to lose using swapfile? For me 6GB of HDD space? Now a days if you can't spare 6GB HDD space your problems are bigger than to use swapfile or not.
Misconceptions on swapfile. If enabled Windows will use and that will slow down system. Not true Windows will not put things in swapfile that would stay in RAM if no swap file. So without swapfile it goes away. That leads to two things both negative for system performance. #1 application needs something not in RAM no swapfile system crashes, #2 not having in swapfile would retard performance if somehow you did not crash.
On fixed size? Yea sounds good avoid fragmentation? Good until you understand how it works. Nothing gets in the way of great progress like knowledge and common sense. OK I have 4GB RAM I installed OS manages swapfile. Reserves 6GB of HDD space for swapfile. This will not fragment it is fixed by Windows. Now by letting Windows manage if Windows decides it needs more it can. I guess yea it might "fragment" but really think non contiguous is a better term. So you set a fixed yea it is not fragmented but is it better to no have if needed or have but non contiguous? Yea non contiguous is better than nothing.
The proponents of no swapfile and fixed size swapfile. While with all the RAM we have do have a point on not being needed on a pure size perspective. They lack the understanding that some applications simply need to run. On their point that disabling improves or could improve defies all logic. Windows does not move the most likely needed instructions or data to the swapfile. regardless of if swapfile is enabled or not, what would of gone to the swapfile will not be there if swapfile is disabled. Windows uses algorithms to determine what might and might not be needed. This decision is not based on if there is a swapfile or not. These same algorithms are used to migrate the important back to the front. So if Windows has expanded swapfile to the non contiguous if needed it migrates back to the front, first going to the swap then RAM or skipping that order and going from extended swapfile straight to RAM. How would not having improve performance?
Unless you can't spare 8GB of HDD space disabling swapfile is foolish. Also how would disabling something that has zero affect on what stays in RAM would improve performance is just obtuse.
This is not the first thread I have been involved in on this subject. The disable swapfile crowd comes in and says yea it helps. They have never provided any demonstrable or empirical evidence or logical explanation as to why it would. People with much more advanced knowledge than I cut them down, and they tend to go away.
Oh and as qhn said you do not want to partition swapfile unless a different physical disk than OS. Doing on a logical partition (same physical disk) can/will lead to thrashing, not good for HDD or performance.
Wow I feel better got that off my chest.
