| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 35408 | 2003-07-11 13:29:00 | Swap Files / Partition | Annanz (3044) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 158989 | 2003-08-09 06:07:00 | I really did not expect to see some bad advice like that in the link up the top of this thread from IDG. | agent (30) | ||
| 158990 | 2003-08-09 06:55:00 | Hi, I'm of the opinion that you "try it and see" . I've got a smallHD and 192Mb Ram on W98 and originally set max/min to 400Mb and then gradually reduced it til its now sitting at 75Mb max/min and it runs fine. I'm not a power user, but have done a lot of restoring images from old family photos (b&w) and never had any problems. I guess its just storage that you can ajust to your needs. |
Rod ger (316) | ||
| 158991 | 2003-08-09 09:06:00 | I've never seen any benchmarks to back up any claims related to swapfile optimisation . Most of them seem to be based on assumptions about how windows works . For example: what if windows writes to the file directly, bypassing the filesystem to improve performance . This would make seperate partitions, cluster sizes etc ineffective . IMO if you have to tweak it, set a reasonable minimum size . It will stop it from being resized most of the time which should be noticeable . Anything beyond that is most likely a waste of time . |
bmason (508) | ||
| 158992 | 2003-08-09 23:28:00 | If Windows were to skip around the filesystem, that would imply it knows (and places) the swapfile in a set location, and it never gets moved from there (or else Windows wouldn't know where it was) - highly unlikely, if you ask me. The swapfile can get fragmented because it is not in one set physical location on the HDD - and while placing it in a partition of its own reduces this, it also reduces access time to the swapfile, and a hard drive is substantially slower than memory - you'd be slowing down your entire system. |
agent (30) | ||
| 158993 | 2003-08-09 23:29:00 | Sorry, I meant to say "it also increases access time to the swapfile". | agent (30) | ||
| 158994 | 2003-08-09 23:42:00 | i'm not to sure that having the swap file on a seperate partition would increase the access time. the whole point of having a swapfile partition is (just like linux) keeps the swapfile from fragmenting and has it on the fastest part of the disk. i've seen a few pc's that after a defrag (exspecially when the swapfile was deleted and then remade) the pc is slower. this is simply due to the swapfile being at the slow end of the disk (and the lack of ram ;-) ). | tweak'e (174) | ||
| 158995 | 2003-08-10 06:16:00 | > If Windows were to skip around the filesystem, that > would imply it knows (and places) the swapfile in a > set location, and it never gets moved from there (or > else Windows wouldn't know where it was) - highly > unlikely, if you ask me . I can't think of any reason why it couldn't map out what parts of the disk the swapfile covers . It should be as simple as looking in the FAT . Anyway, my point was we don't know how it works and what tricks windows uses . All these ideas for performance improvements really need to be benchmarked . Currently they are just theories . If anyone can find some I would be interested . > The swapfile can get fragmented because it is not in > one set physical location on the HDD - and while > placing it in a partition of its own reduces this, it > also reduces access time to the swapfile, and a hard > drive is substantially slower than memory - you'd be > slowing down your entire system . But it generally doesn't move most of it . Windows 95 was quite bad at fragmenting the end of it because the size of the file was kept close to the in-use size . Win98 and later don't resize it anywhere as much . As for its location on the disk, it is slower but not hugely . I think its more in sequential throughput rather than seek times . Again, I would really like to see a benchmark on how much affect this actually has . |
bmason (508) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||