System Restore Size....HDD

denmarfl;1075468 Wrote: <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Vista Home Prem 32bit. Has anyone come up with what is causing System
> Restore Points on a PC that has been running for almost 2 years where
> Restore
> points were Restore Points took 5 to 7 days to equal 1GB, and now
> suddenly
> over the past 3 weeks each restore Point is taking up 3 to 4GB of HDD
> space
> Daily? I know its System restore using up space, if I turn it off,
> which
> deletes all Points, I regain the Space lost....but the process than
> starts
> over again. There has to be a file(s) that grew in size in 1 day
> causing
> this......<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->


A restore point (shadow) is on average 1GB +/-. It is written once per
day and then each time you install something (program, update, etc.).
Could it be that you installed a lot recently?. Check how many restore
points you have and how they are dated with the cmd command VSSADMIN
LIST SHADOWS.


--
whs

 

What will be of interest is how large your Restore get over the next week or
so....as I wrote in the beginning, my Restore Points following the Install of
Vista SP2 grew from Restore points that were a round 1 GB a week in total to
3 to 4 GB daily. That is the reason I started this thread.......

"Doug" wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> "Manny Weisbord" <mannyweisbord@crimest.invalid> wrote in message
> news:j69355thiea4ekqe8lg4lhra1ktfpp8v9v@4ax.com...<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
> > "Doug" <doug@FAKEpleasereplytogroup.com> wrote:
> ><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
> >>I am concerned at the suggestion that if the Page File is to perform its
> >>intended role it must be in the Root Drive. I have always put it on a
> >>different drive imagining that with two drives working cooperatively it
> >>speeds everything up, and am reluctant to give up that notion on the basis
> >>of a report of advice given on a Microsoft helpline without further
> >>verification. I shall be interested to learn the current truth of the
> >>matter.
> >>
> >>Four weeks ago I was chided on this NG for mentioning that, with my RAM
> >>increased to 4 GB, I had given up using a swap file. The consensus was
> >>always use a swap file and leave Vista to choose its size, so I mended my
> >>ways and now have it, though NOT on my root drive. Since then some
> >>processes, such as Vista's Disk Cleanup, seem to take twice as long as
> >>they
> >>did with no swap file, and generally things seem a little more sluggish. I
> >>had imagined they would be even more sluggish if all the frantic disk
> >>activity were confined to a single HDD, but I could well be wrong about
> >>that, particularly if Vista is having to make compromises because the swap
> >>file is on the *wrong* drive.
> >>
> >>Doug<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
> >
> > These sites might be helpful (or might confuse you more):
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> Thanks Manny, most interesting and useful.
> Under the illusion that I am no longer confused I have settled for:
> Drive C: a static swap file of 4605 MB
> Drive D: a static swap file of 4605 MB
> 4605 MB was the figure recommended by Vista.
> Vista should then be able to use the 9210 MB of available virtual memory any
> way it pleases with minimum impact on anything else. Hopefully all will now
> run sweetly till I upgrade to Windows 7 Home Premium.
>
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

"Doug" <doug@FAKEpleasereplytogroup.com> wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>"Manny Weisbord" <mannyweisbord@crimest.invalid> wrote in message
>news:j69355thiea4ekqe8lg4lhra1ktfpp8v9v@4ax.com...<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> "Doug" <doug@FAKEpleasereplytogroup.com> wrote:
>><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>>I am concerned at the suggestion that if the Page File is to perform its
>>>intended role it must be in the Root Drive. I have always put it on a
>>>different drive imagining that with two drives working cooperatively it
>>>speeds everything up, and am reluctant to give up that notion on the basis
>>>of a report of advice given on a Microsoft helpline without further
>>>verification. I shall be interested to learn the current truth of the
>>>matter.
>>>
>>>Four weeks ago I was chided on this NG for mentioning that, with my RAM
>>>increased to 4 GB, I had given up using a swap file. The consensus was
>>>always use a swap file and leave Vista to choose its size, so I mended my
>>>ways and now have it, though NOT on my root drive. Since then some
>>>processes, such as Vista's Disk Cleanup, seem to take twice as long as
>>>they
>>>did with no swap file, and generally things seem a little more sluggish. I
>>>had imagined they would be even more sluggish if all the frantic disk
>>>activity were confined to a single HDD, but I could well be wrong about
>>>that, particularly if Vista is having to make compromises because the swap
>>>file is on the *wrong* drive.
>>>
>>>Doug<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>> These sites might be helpful (or might confuse you more):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
>Thanks Manny, most interesting and useful.
>Under the illusion that I am no longer confused I have settled for:
>Drive C: a static swap file of 4605 MB
>Drive D: a static swap file of 4605 MB
>4605 MB was the figure recommended by Vista.
>Vista should then be able to use the 9210 MB of available virtual memory any
>way it pleases with minimum impact on anything else. Hopefully all will now
>run sweetly till I upgrade to Windows 7 Home Premium. <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

You now have the same setup I have.