Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I have 2 GB RAM. Can I make paging file size size to 0 (means "No Paging" option). Because my peak RAM usage goes only upto 1.5 GB. So I think there is no need for paging.

Will there be any performance issues? or it is not recommended?

What should be the recommended size?

I suppose performance will increase since there would be no swaps now. Everything will be in RAM now. Am I correct?

share|improve this question
up vote 1 down vote accepted

I've been running swapless happily for years. On XP swapless at 1GB is doable and 2GB comfortable; on Vista you might consider bumping it up to 4GB first. RAM is cheap, swap is slow. OK, swap still has purpose for storing inactive background processes, but if you can it's better just to kill the background processes you don't need.

If you're sure usage never goes above 1.5 at all then fine, but that's really not a lot of headroom for temporary large allocations that you might not have noticed.

share|improve this answer

I've been running win 7 swapless for 4 month now and no problems, 8GB ram, 64bit ofcourse.

I mainly use it for steam games, new and old ones.

share|improve this answer

You generally should not go swapless, especially if you are doing things like video/photo editing - Not that you've said that you are.

I've seen Live Linux Distros (Running all in RAM, hence little to no swap) hang miserably on amazingly powerful systems.

Edit: Spellcheck ;)

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.