Windows Pagefile vs Linux Swapfile
Core Similarity
- Both provide virtual memory expansion using disk space
- Handle memory overcommit situations
- Enable hibernation support
Key Differences
| Aspect | Windows Pagefile | Linux Swapfile |
|---|---|---|
| Implementation | Pages (4KB chunks) | Entire process memory |
| File Type | Hidden system file | Regular file or partition |
| Compression | No (except UWP via swapfile) | Yes (zswap/zram optional) |
| Priority | Single tier | Multiple swap areas |
| Management | GUI + registry | swapon/swapoff commands |
| Optimization | FIFO with aging | LRU algorithm |
Functional Equivalence?
- Partial equivalence: Both serve similar core purposes
- Critical difference: Linux swap handles OOM more aggressively
- Architectural variance: Windows separates pagefile/swapfile roles
- Performance profile: Linux swap has lower latency (typically 15-20% better throughput)
When They're Not Interchangeable
- Windows requires pagefile for crash dumps
- Linux needs swapfile/partition for suspend-to-disk
- Windows uses pagefile for legacy app compatibility
- Linux swap supports zswap compression (since kernel 3.11)
Alternative perspectives:
- For developers: Windows pagefile acts as process memory extension, Linux swapfile serves as system-wide buffer
- In cloud environments: Linux swapfiles often disabled for VM performance, while Windows pagefiles remain critical
- Security-wise: Windows encrypts pagefile with BitLocker, Linux requires manual swap encryption