Windows temp file is full to the brim

[GeordieJedi]

Hi all, hope your all taking it easy.

I have a quick question if you dont mind.

My dual boot Linux/XP is running like a dog, (Its actually XP thats running so slowly, its almost going backwards).

I think the problem relates to the C: drive telling me that its only got
650Mb space left!!
Ive done a quick check and there seems to be 20 Gb of "Junk?" in the Temp folder.

IIRC this happed to me not too long ago, (I had been image editing & transferring large .jpgs and RAW files from my new digital camera, and also deleting a bunch of the pics that I diddnt want).

The problem files seem to be quite large and named things like

1. "PR125.tmp" = 174 MB
2. "$NtUninstallKB885836$" = 400-800 Kb

So, Can I safely delete the contents of the Temp folder, or am I asking for trouble?

Thanks in advance for any help.

[wyliecoyoteuk]

Usually, anything labelled *.tmp is deletable.
the uninstall files are generated whenever you install an update, and if your system is running ok, you are usually safe deleting them.

[GeordieJedi]

Thanks very much wyliecoyoteuk. I appreciate the help.

I'll use Ccleaner, destory the offending files. And see how I get on.
Cheers.

[ollie]

Windows has major problems when the C:\ drive gets past 75% full. This is because it "needs" space to expand Virtual Memory. There are a number ways get around this, setting the minimum and maximum value of Virtual Memory to the same setting, moving the Virtual memory to another partition or even creating a separate partition 33% bigger than required for Virtual Memory (I've heard that idea somewhere before ).

The last one actually solved a licensing issue on a Windows 2000 server for me about 7 years ago.

[GeordieJedi]

Thanks for the info Ollie.

I used Ccleaner and nuked the offending items.
my XP PC seems to be back to normal lethargic self.
Cheers.

I was thinking of installing up most of my new apps on a separate partition to help combat this.

[ollie]

I was thinking of installing up most of my new apps on a separate partition to help combat this.

Unfortunately, due to slack software programmers quite a few Windows applications have a dummy spit if they aren't installed in "C:\Programs", often also with Administrator privileges, so ymmv

[Rhakios]

It used to be possible in Win98 to assign swap to a separate partition, which would at least let you use your data area to the extent you might expect to be possible. Is this still possible with XP?

[HINTERG]

In general, if you are dual booting your machine and can boot into Linux, anything you can see in the Win temp file is dead. The problems come from deleting stuff in the temp file when running in Windows, as some programs drop stuff in there that they are using.

[ollie]

It used to be possible in Win98 to assign swap to a separate partition, which would at least let you use your data area to the extent you might expect to be possible. Is this still possible with XP?

It is possible with Windows 2000 Workstation/Server, Windows XP Home/Pro, Windows Server 2003, Windows Vista (too many versions) and probably Windows Server 2008 but I haven't used this yet

[Ram]

Unfortunately, due to slack software programmers quite a few Windows applications have a dummy spit if they aren't installed in "C:\Programs", often also with Administrator privileges, so ymmv

I don't have a C: Drvice, it's G: and the only issue I have so far is with google chrome looking for C: for a auto update, looks to be hard coded as no option to change drive/directory... filed a bug report.

In general, if you are dual booting your machine and can boot into Linux, anything you can see in the Win temp file is dead. The problems come from deleting stuff in the temp file when running in Windows, as some programs drop stuff in there that they are using.

If it's in use you just can't delete it.

[LoL]

Unfortunately, due to slack software programmers quite a few Windows applications have a dummy spit if they aren't installed in "C:\Programs"

Easily solved with an NTFS junction

often also with Administrator privileges, so ymmv

Easily solved by editing the shortcut on the Startmenu to "Run as <Some account with administrator privileges>"

[LoL]

There are a number ways get around this, setting the minimum and maximum value of Virtual Memory to the same setting, moving the Virtual memory to another partition or even creating a separate partition 33% bigger than required for Virtual Memory (I've heard that idea somewhere before ).

Not actually a good idea - Windows will eventually need more than you've assigned it and then become unstable and/or completely unusable

Sadly, the best thing to do is let it handle the virtual memory requirements itself

Just put the pagefile.sys on a different drive or partition

(You can share a linux swap partition with Windows, but it won't be big enough, given that the max you want for linux is 512MB, for performance reasons - So, again sadly, I wouldn't recommend doing that either!)

[ollie]

Not actually a good idea - Windows will eventually need more than you've assigned it and then become unstable and/or completely unusable.

Never had that happen in 15+ years of Windows use and I always set the VM to 2 -3 times the size of RAM.

Just put the pagefile.sys on a different drive or partition

Did this with Windows 2000 Server 8 years ago and set the VM to 75% of the partition size and worked flawlessly from then on.

(You can share a linux swap partition with Windows, but it won't be big enough, given that the max you want for linux is 512MB, for performance reasons - So, again sadly, I wouldn't recommend doing that either!)

The size of the swap partition depends on the amount of RAM and the tasks you are going to do. If you have 2 GB RAM in your laptop and try to suspend or hibernate and your swap partition is 512 MB it won't work. The swap partition needs to large enough to hold everything loaded in RAM.

[LoL]

Never had that happen in 15+ years of Windows use and I always set the VM to 2 -3 times the size of RAM.

Interesting you should say that, cos neither have I, but, recently ... for some reason, my suspicions about which I shan't bore you with ... I've been getting the dreaded Windows has, typically, managed to allocate an unsuitable amount of pagefile and needs to crash your system for you, to make up for it error

So, I did a bit of further research and it came to light that this might well have been due to my having allocated insufficient pagefile space ... (you'd have thought that 6GB would be more than sufficient on a 2GB system, wouldn't you?) ... and that, due to the way Windows (doesn't) handle memory, it would actually be better to let it handle it itself

It makes sense, when you think about it - No matter how much you reserve, if you put a maximum limit on it, sooner or later, it's going to be insufficient - Of course, I suppose that depends a lot on what you use your system for [1] and how much you multitask ... (if you can call what Windows does 'multitasking' [2])

the partition size and worked flawlessly from then on.

Why specifically 75%? - What were the other 25% used for?

The size of the swap partition depends on the amount of RAM and the tasks you are going to do. If you have 2 GB RAM in your laptop and try to suspend or hibernate and your swap partition is 512 MB it won't work. The swap partition needs to large enough to hold everything loaded in RAM.

Yes, I was rather presumptuous in that regard

It does raise the question, though, of why the recommendation ... (even by LXF, as I seem to recall) ... is "not more than 512MB"

But I don't tend to hibernate my linux sessions - I do that more with Windows ... (and Windows just slings hiberfile.sys on your system drive/wherever you've told it to, so there's always space)

So, I never really stopped to think about it much - Also, my linux installs are on my main box rather than any of my laptops, so, again, hibernation is not such an issue for me [3]

---

[1] In my case, phenominal amounts of realtime audio processing

[2] I suppose that, technically, it does - After all, it's capable of crashing in so many different ways at once, that I can only imagine it to be so ... (only a truly multitasking OS could handle all the necessary invalid pointer references )

[3] I've got eLive on an old Notino ... but that's because, at the time, I couldn't get it to install on my main box and I just haven't found a reason to uninstall it in the meantime [4]

[4] I think I've got nine computers at the moment, including four laptops - I just seem to end up installing to the latest acquisition rather than updating old ones ... and if I were to uninstall eLive from the Notino, I'd have to actually think about what to do with it next ... (It's less stressful, just to get a new box/laptop )