| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 53916 | 2005-01-31 03:36:00 | Swapfile in different partition | JimboJones (1680) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 319649 | 2005-02-01 01:45:00 | Hi, I have my pagefile(swapfile) on a different drive, and on a different IDE controller from my main drive. But honestly, I don't notice any performance increase. Perhaps I would if I benchmarked it... Although keeping your pagefile a fixed size is a good idea to prevent it from getting fragmented as it expands. Thanks for that info. On my son's computer it would be on a different drive, but the same IDE controller. Is the latter a particular issue I should avoid? I think it may be an idea for me to try giving it a fixed size on my computer. I will try that out and see what happens, and then if there are no particular issues, I will try that on my son's PC as well. Thanks (I might have taken over this thread - hope the original author has got the info he wanted...) John |
John H (8) | ||
| 319650 | 2005-02-01 02:59:00 | Thanks for that info. On my son's computer it would be on a different drive, but the same IDE controller. Is the latter a particular issue I should avoid? From what I've read, being on a seperate controller is supposed to be the best setup. It's due to the fact that only one request can be sent to a controller at a time, so if you have 2 drives on a the same controller, the CPU has to wait (until the first request is completed) to contact the second drive. That's my understanding anyway. But as I said, on my system the performance increase is so subtle that I don't see it(if it's even there). Likewise with having the pagefile a fixed size. But you never know, all these tweaks might add up over time... I'm gonna keep doing them anyway. :nerd: |
saikou (7056) | ||
| 319651 | 2005-02-01 03:11:00 | Making it fixed size causes your comp to crash when it needs more pagefile. Your better off letting XP manage it, that way when it needs more then it can go ahead and use it. If you want to be picky about defrag then disable the swap file before running a defrag,then enable it afterwards. |
Metla (12) | ||
| 319652 | 2005-02-01 03:18:00 | MS might be right ... when the boot partition gets full, it can take longer to do disk operations because there can be more fragmentation. Shifting an enormous swap file to another partition will certainly improve performance in that case. Anything which frees space will do that. Most of the time the maximum performance of swap files doesn't matter on PCs. Single user systems don't need it. People benchmark such things because the benchmark programmes exist. If they've got enough spare time to run the benchmark, they've got too much performance. ;) On timeshared real computers, the swap device is critical. Many systems used very expensive "head per track" drives to get user spaces loaded and restored at the maximum rate. Even with that, from time to time everyone experienced "thrashing". The PDP8 Edusystem-20 which handled 20 users (using BASIC on Teletype terminals) with 32 kilowords of memory had a head-per-track 32 kword disk, so the monitor ("OS") would be fast enough. User files went on the moving head disks. |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 319653 | 2005-02-01 08:55:00 | Well, I took a punt and shifted the pagefile to another drive on the same IDE controller, and made it a fixed size as well. Rebooted, and thus far I can't see any difference either way, but then I haven't been doing any intensive stuff on the thing (what is intensive anyway - I only do word processing, editing photos, internet, spreadsheets etc. Plus LAN and WLAN networking between three computers)? The only games I play from time to time are the ones that come with XP! However, if I wanted to go back and make it a flexible size, is there a formula for calculating the max size? Windoze says somewhere you should allow a minimum size at least the same as the amount of RAM on your PC. I noticed on the two computers I have tried this on that they both had recommended sizes, but they were different even though both are running XP Pro and have the same amount of RAM. They were both more than the amount of RAM on each PC. Should the max size be a multiple of 64 or something? The main PC was certainly a multiple of 64 but that may have been coincidence... Just guessing here! Thank you - this should be the last question! |
John H (8) | ||
| 319654 | 2005-02-01 09:42:00 | to add to graham..... you will notice that one partion is often faster than the other. haveing the swapfile on the fastest will increase perfomance. usually the faster partitoin is the first one. True in a way. I see nothing about keeping the swapfile on a separate partition and keeping this as a fixed size on one fixed hard drive. With enough RAM there would be no need for a large swapfile. If the swapfile is on a different partion it will help with a defrag as the swapfile on C: is not able to be defragged as it may be in use. |
Elephant (599) | ||
| 319655 | 2005-02-01 10:05:00 | i have recently installed a second hard drive (40gig) and moved my page files (swap files/virtual memory) to it and also temporary internet files. it is conented via a different channell than the origonal drive and i have found that this works wonders, and (i think this is how it works) should i get a virus i can wipe my hard drive clean at the drop of a hat as it dosent contain any of my data or operating system. info can be obtained from page files and OS at same time as they are in seperate drives hence the increase in speed. | broad55 (7057) | ||
| 319656 | 2005-02-01 10:15:00 | Welcome broad55 Good luck with your bright idea. Let us know how you get on when you get your first virus. |
Rob99 (151) | ||
| 319657 | 2005-02-01 10:19:00 | True in a way . I see nothing about keeping the swapfile on a separate partition and keeping this as a fixed size on one fixed hard drive . pass . . . . . proberly because i never mentioned anything about useing a 2nd hardrive (and if the other hardrive is on the same IDE you won't gain anything anyway) With enough RAM there would be no need for a large swapfile . true . . . . . with the exception of XP (not sure anout 2k) as you need the swapfile to be over twice the size of the ram . If the swapfile is on a different partion it will help with a defrag as the swapfile on C: is not able to be defragged as it may be in use . its not the "inuse" bit thats the problem . the swapfile defrag problem occurs when the swapfile RESIZES . useing a fixed or a large minimum swapfile size fixes that . |
tweak'e (69) | ||
| 319658 | 2005-02-02 00:17:00 | Making it fixed size causes your comp to crash when it needs more pagefile. For a while I had my pagefile set to only 64MB (in a vain attempt to make WinXP use more Ram - which of course it refuses to do..) and it never crashed. All that happened was that a ballon would pop-up saying that the pagefile was too small and that Windows was increasing its size. |
saikou (7056) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||