Where to put that pagefile.sys partition

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

OK. I got two SATA harddrives - a 36gb 10,000 rpm boot drive and a 200GB
7,200 rpm 8MB cache drive.

I use XP Home and Win2K on my machine and want to create a single
pagefile.sys partition for both to use. I understand the read/write speed of
a drive gets slower the further you get from the outer cylinders.

So is it better to have the pagefile partition (3GB) as the 3rd partition on
the 10,000rpm drive after the 8GB Win2K partition and the 6GB XP Home
partition? (May be i can shrink those partitions slightly since I'll be
having a specific pagefile partition) Or is it better to have it as the
first partition on the 7,200 rpm drive?

The 10,000 rpm drive will also contain the serious apps partition for Win2K.
The 7,200 rpm drive will contain a games partition for XP and a digital
video partition(Win 2K). Although I do aim later to buy another humongous
ATA drive for more digital video storage and processing.

Thanks in advance

James
17 answers Last reply
More about where pagefile partition
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    In article <c7p2920o46@enews4.newsguy.com>,
    Jootec from Mars <antispam@snuff.com> wrote:
    >OK. I got two SATA harddrives - a 36gb 10,000 rpm boot drive and a 200GB
    >7,200 rpm 8MB cache drive.
    >
    >I use XP Home and Win2K on my machine and want to create a single
    >pagefile.sys partition for both to use. I understand the read/write speed of
    >a drive gets slower the further you get from the outer cylinders.
    >

    >So is it better to have the pagefile partition (3GB) as the 3rd partition on
    >the 10,000rpm drive after the 8GB Win2K partition and the 6GB XP Home
    >partition? (May be i can shrink those partitions slightly since I'll be
    >having a specific pagefile partition) Or is it better to have it as the
    >first partition on the 7,200 rpm drive?
    >
    >The 10,000 rpm drive will also contain the serious apps partition for Win2K.
    >The 7,200 rpm drive will contain a games partition for XP and a digital
    >video partition(Win 2K). Although I do aim later to buy another humongous
    >ATA drive for more digital video storage and processing.
    >
    >Thanks in advance
    >
    >James
    >
    >


    The degree of "tuning" you are talking about is a fantasy unless you
    make performance measurements, make changes, see what the bottleneck
    is with the application you want to run fastest, and repeat until
    you've reached the point of diministing returns.

    For what you are talking about, I suggest you set up a vanilla,
    no-partitions system and learn how to run perfmon.exe to see what the
    bottleneck is for each of your applications, and then make changes to
    eliminate that bottleneck. If you've got enough RAM the frequency of
    page file access will be low enough that you won't notice an
    improvement if you speed it up.

    How do you know that you need 3GB swap space ? Swap space requirement
    is driven my your application.

    You're correct in that it's good to put the swap space on the lowest
    latency disk. OTOH, partitioning can force the disk to do long seeks,
    which may offset any speed advanatage.

    I'm of the opinion that partitioning doesn't help performance, or ease
    of backup. Multiple disks, on seperate channels does.

    My $0.02


    --
    Al Dykes
    -----------
    adykes at p a n i x . c o m
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    It really doesnt matter if you do the only thing
    that makes any sense, have enough physical ram
    so that it isnt used much except at boot time.

    Jootec from Mars <antispam@snuff.com> wrote in
    message news:c7p2920o46@enews4.newsguy.com...

    > OK. I got two SATA harddrives - a 36gb 10,000 rpm
    > boot drive and a 200GB 7,200 rpm 8MB cache drive.

    > I use XP Home and Win2K on my machine and want to create a single
    > pagefile.sys partition for both to use. I understand the read/write speed
    > of a drive gets slower the further you get from the outer cylinders.

    > So is it better to have the pagefile partition (3GB) as the 3rd partition
    > on the 10,000rpm drive after the 8GB Win2K partition and the 6GB XP
    > Home partition? (May be i can shrink those partitions slightly since I'll be
    > having a specific pagefile partition) Or is it better to have it as the
    > first partition on the 7,200 rpm drive?

    > The 10,000 rpm drive will also contain the serious apps partition for Win2K.
    > The 7,200 rpm drive will contain a games partition for XP and a digital
    > video partition(Win 2K). Although I do aim later to buy another humongous
    > ATA drive for more digital video storage and processing.
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    I have a hint to add to this, from personal experience. No matter how much
    RAM you have, don't disable the paging file. I use 2gb and I even let XP
    manage the size on its own which ends up with a huge file, but it leaves the
    system very stable. I am not sure why but you can have some strange
    problems when you disable your paging file or manually set the size. Maybe
    some folks do it with no problem, but I have seen problems start and stop
    because of changing paging file settings. In a newsgroup like this I will
    probably get flamed for this post, as I have no evidence or real theory
    behind this. Maybe other folks had the same problems?

    --Dan


    "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:2gai20Fjg2iU1@uni-berlin.de...
    > It really doesnt matter if you do the only thing
    > that makes any sense, have enough physical ram
    > so that it isnt used much except at boot time.
    >
    > Jootec from Mars <antispam@snuff.com> wrote in
    > message news:c7p2920o46@enews4.newsguy.com...
    >
    > > OK. I got two SATA harddrives - a 36gb 10,000 rpm
    > > boot drive and a 200GB 7,200 rpm 8MB cache drive.
    >
    > > I use XP Home and Win2K on my machine and want to create a single
    > > pagefile.sys partition for both to use. I understand the read/write
    speed
    > > of a drive gets slower the further you get from the outer cylinders.
    >
    > > So is it better to have the pagefile partition (3GB) as the 3rd
    partition
    > > on the 10,000rpm drive after the 8GB Win2K partition and the 6GB XP
    > > Home partition? (May be i can shrink those partitions slightly since
    I'll be
    > > having a specific pagefile partition) Or is it better to have it as the
    > > first partition on the 7,200 rpm drive?
    >
    > > The 10,000 rpm drive will also contain the serious apps partition for
    Win2K.
    > > The 7,200 rpm drive will contain a games partition for XP and a digital
    > > video partition(Win 2K). Although I do aim later to buy another
    humongous
    > > ATA drive for more digital video storage and processing.
    >
    >
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Jootec from Mars wrote:

    > OK. I got two SATA harddrives - a 36gb 10,000 rpm boot drive and a 200GB
    > 7,200 rpm 8MB cache drive.
    >
    > I use XP Home and Win2K on my machine and want to create a single
    > pagefile.sys partition for both to use. I understand the read/write speed of
    > a drive gets slower the further you get from the outer cylinders.
    >
    > So is it better to have the pagefile partition (3GB) as the 3rd partition on
    > the 10,000rpm drive after the 8GB Win2K partition and the 6GB XP Home
    > partition? (May be i can shrink those partitions slightly since I'll be
    > having a specific pagefile partition) Or is it better to have it as the
    > first partition on the 7,200 rpm drive?
    >
    > The 10,000 rpm drive will also contain the serious apps partition for Win2K.
    > The 7,200 rpm drive will contain a games partition for XP and a digital
    > video partition(Win 2K). Although I do aim later to buy another humongous
    > ATA drive for more digital video storage and processing.
    >
    > Thanks in advance
    >
    > James
    >
    >

    You are correct that modern HDs have higher datarates on outer bands
    than on inner bands, but the fall-off is rather gradual. For a
    fairly modern HD, with its rather typical 16 zones, the datarates fall
    off at roughly 3% per zone. So, the innermost zone is only half the
    outer zone, but the difference between the penultimate zone and the
    ultimate zone is ~3%, and the difference between the antepenultimate
    zone and the ultimate zone is ~6%. {And that's the first time in
    ~40 years that I've been able to use the word 'antepenultimate' in a
    sentence; gotta love it.}

    Datarates to the physical device are cloaked by caches. HDs usually
    have both read-ahead and write-behind caches; OSs frequently have
    both as well; and RAID hardware may also do caching behind your back
    (RAID5 requires caching).

    Do not assume that a 10K RPM HD will have higher peak datarates than
    a 7200 RPM HD; you need to look at the specs for the specific HDs to
    know. The primary effects of 10K RPM over 7200 RPM are: lower average
    access time, and higher price.

    In summary, I think you are over-thinking your pagefile strategy. Let
    the OS manage it, and don't sweat it. If measurements show that your
    pagefile is costing serious performance on your system with its normal
    workload, then the solution is simple: buy more RAM.
    --
    Cheers, Bob
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Bob Willard" advised:
    > In summary, I think you are over-thinking your pagefile strategy.
    > Let the OS manage it, and don't sweat it. If measurements show
    > that your pagefile is costing serious performance on your system
    > with its normal workload, then the solution is simple: buy more
    > RAM.


    What if the RAM is maxed out at the largest size allowed by
    the motherboard and you do a lot of editing with big media files?
    Wouldn't putting the pagefile on a 2nd (or 3rd) hard drive having
    its own IDE channel be worthwhile? I once somehow ended up
    with a pagefile on a different hard drive - on a different IDE
    channel from the one the system hard drive was on - while testing
    multi-booting of the archived versions of the same system, and
    defragmentation seemed to go more quickly than usual.

    Since a 7,200 rpm ATA/133 60GB hard drive with 8MB of
    cache memory costs around $75, and a PCI ATA/133 controller
    card to supply extra IDE channels goes for about $30, mebbe a
    "page drive" might be the way to go - especially if you have an
    extra hard drive lying around. Think of a pagefile 60GB in size
    on its own IDE channel....

    *TimDaniels*
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    In article <CeidnfL7-JRkijzdRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
    Timothy Daniels <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote:
    >
    >"Bob Willard" advised:
    >> In summary, I think you are over-thinking your pagefile strategy.
    >> Let the OS manage it, and don't sweat it. If measurements show
    >> that your pagefile is costing serious performance on your system
    >> with its normal workload, then the solution is simple: buy more
    >> RAM.
    >
    >
    > What if the RAM is maxed out at the largest size allowed by
    >the motherboard and you do a lot of editing with big media files?
    >Wouldn't putting the pagefile on a 2nd (or 3rd) hard drive having
    >its own IDE channel be worthwhile? I once somehow ended up
    >with a pagefile on a different hard drive - on a different IDE
    >channel from the one the system hard drive was on - while testing
    >multi-booting of the archived versions of the same system, and
    >defragmentation seemed to go more quickly than usual.
    >

    Significant pagefile activity happens only when the "working set" of
    your application (plus the operating system) exceeds the physical RAM
    on your system.

    See http://www.memorymanagement.org/glossary/w.html and google
    "working set" for a flood of hits. Generations of people have gotten
    their PhDs on this topic.

    You can't tell what your working set is except by measuring it with
    perfmon. For a well written program large program, the working set
    will be small, compared to the entire memory footprint. The pages in
    the working set will be in memory and the rest may be kept in the
    pagefile. If the working set exceeds physical memeory enough
    you get "memory thrashing".


    Overall, you have no idea what will be the limiting factor
    (called the bottleneck) of a hardware/OS/application combination
    unless you've already built something similar already.

    Build something, learn how to identify the bottleneck,
    solve it, and repeat the process until the system is fast enough.

    If you're looking for the best possible concurrent IDE performance
    each disk should be on it's oen channel.


    > Since a 7,200 rpm ATA/133 60GB hard drive with 8MB of
    >cache memory costs around $75, and a PCI ATA/133 controller
    >card to supply extra IDE channels goes for about $30, mebbe a
    >"page drive" might be the way to go - especially if you have an
    >extra hard drive lying around. Think of a pagefile 60GB in size
    >on its own IDE channel....
    >

    Physical RAM in excess of you application's working set buys
    you very little performance.

    Pagefile size in excess of what your application mix needs gets you
    absolutly nothing.

    Pagefile size has no relationship to physical ram size for the sake
    of this discussion.


    --
    Al Dykes
    -----------
    adykes at p a n i x . c o m
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Timothy Daniels wrote:
    > "Bob Willard" advised:
    >
    >>In summary, I think you are over-thinking your pagefile strategy.
    >>Let the OS manage it, and don't sweat it. If measurements show
    >>that your pagefile is costing serious performance on your system
    >>with its normal workload, then the solution is simple: buy more
    >>RAM.
    >
    >
    >
    > What if the RAM is maxed out at the largest size allowed by
    > the motherboard and you do a lot of editing with big media files?
    > Wouldn't putting the pagefile on a 2nd (or 3rd) hard drive having
    > its own IDE channel be worthwhile? I once somehow ended up
    > with a pagefile on a different hard drive - on a different IDE
    > channel from the one the system hard drive was on - while testing
    > multi-booting of the archived versions of the same system, and
    > defragmentation seemed to go more quickly than usual.
    >
    > Since a 7,200 rpm ATA/133 60GB hard drive with 8MB of
    > cache memory costs around $75, and a PCI ATA/133 controller
    > card to supply extra IDE channels goes for about $30, mebbe a
    > "page drive" might be the way to go - especially if you have an
    > extra hard drive lying around. Think of a pagefile 60GB in size
    > on its own IDE channel....
    >
    > *TimDaniels*
    >

    If measurements show that your pagefile is costing serious performance
    on your system with its normal workload, then the solution is simple:

    If you can add more RAM to your MB, then
    buy more RAM
    Else
    buy a new MB with more RAM
    Endif

    Think about it: if you are wasting time and getting frustrated due
    to an inadequate amount of sub-microsecond access time RAM, then adding
    HDs with multi-millisecond access times will not lead to happiness.

    But, before you spend any money on hardware, read Al D's note and do
    the measurements.
    --
    Cheers, Bob
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Bob Willard" wrote in response to:
    > >
    > > What if the RAM is maxed out at the largest size allowed by
    > > the motherboard and you do a lot of editing with big media files?
    > > Wouldn't putting the pagefile on a 2nd (or 3rd) hard drive having
    > > its own IDE channel be worthwhile? I once somehow ended up
    > > with a pagefile on a different hard drive - on a different IDE
    > > channel from the one the system hard drive was on - while testing
    > > multi-booting of the archived versions of the same system, and
    > > defragmentation seemed to go more quickly than usual.
    > >
    > > Since a 7,200 rpm ATA/133 60GB hard drive with 8MB of
    > > cache memory costs around $75, and a PCI ATA/133 controller
    > > card to supply extra IDE channels goes for about $30, mebbe a
    > > "page drive" might be the way to go - especially if you have an
    > > extra hard drive lying around. Think of a pagefile 60GB in size
    > > on its own IDE channel....
    > >
    > > *TimDaniels*
    > >
    >
    > If measurements show that your pagefile is costing serious performance
    > on your system with its normal workload, then the solution is simple:
    >
    > If you can add more RAM to your MB, then
    > buy more RAM
    > Else
    > buy a new MB with more RAM
    > Endif


    Read again. My comment was predicated with the
    statement that the RAM capacity of the motherboard
    was maxed out, i.e. at maximum memory capacity, so
    "more RAM" is not an option, and "a new motherboard"
    is generally considered an extravagant solution to any
    PC problem. Your response is appropriate to the
    question "What is the best way to minimize paging?",
    not to whether having a pagefile on a separate hard drive
    with its own IDE channel would make for faster paging
    than a pagefile on a partition on the same hard drive as
    the system. I submit that if one is prepared to futz around
    with a separate and specifically-located partition to speed
    paging, then putting a page file on a separate hard drive
    and channel (if they are available) is a better solution,
    although far short of increasing the amount of RAM.
    Remember that the original poster's question was
    "Where to put that pagefile.sys partition?", not "How
    can I minimize paging time?"

    *TimDaniels*
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    You can expect paging performance to be access-time bounded, not
    transfer-rate bounded. Your best bet is to put it in the middle of the
    drive.

    Anyway, for a premium one'd pay for a SCSI paging drive, it's possible to
    buy quite a lot of RAM.

    "Bob Willard" <BobwBSGS@TrashThis.comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:AN3oc.25838$z06.4272555@attbi_s01...
    >
    > You are correct that modern HDs have higher datarates on outer bands
    > than on inner bands, but the fall-off is rather gradual. For a
    > fairly modern HD, with its rather typical 16 zones, the datarates fall
    > off at roughly 3% per zone. So, the innermost zone is only half the
    > outer zone, but the difference between the penultimate zone and the
    > ultimate zone is ~3%, and the difference between the antepenultimate
    > zone and the ultimate zone is ~6%. {And that's the first time in
    > ~40 years that I've been able to use the word 'antepenultimate' in a
    > sentence; gotta love it.}
    >
    > Datarates to the physical device are cloaked by caches. HDs usually
    > have both read-ahead and write-behind caches; OSs frequently have
    > both as well; and RAID hardware may also do caching behind your back
    > (RAID5 requires caching).
    >
    > Do not assume that a 10K RPM HD will have higher peak datarates than
    > a 7200 RPM HD; you need to look at the specs for the specific HDs to
    > know. The primary effects of 10K RPM over 7200 RPM are: lower average
    > access time, and higher price.
    >
    > In summary, I think you are over-thinking your pagefile strategy. Let
    > the OS manage it, and don't sweat it. If measurements show that your
    > pagefile is costing serious performance on your system with its normal
    > workload, then the solution is simple: buy more RAM.
    > --
    > Cheers, Bob
    >
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Tue, 11 May 2004 15:19:59 -0700, "Timothy Daniels"
    <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote:

    >
    >"Bob Willard" wrote in response to:
    >> >
    >> > What if the RAM is maxed out at the largest size allowed by
    >> > the motherboard and you do a lot of editing with big media files?
    >> > Wouldn't putting the pagefile on a 2nd (or 3rd) hard drive having
    >> > its own IDE channel be worthwhile? I once somehow ended up
    >> > with a pagefile on a different hard drive - on a different IDE
    >> > channel from the one the system hard drive was on - while testing
    >> > multi-booting of the archived versions of the same system, and
    >> > defragmentation seemed to go more quickly than usual.
    >> >
    >> > Since a 7,200 rpm ATA/133 60GB hard drive with 8MB of
    >> > cache memory costs around $75, and a PCI ATA/133 controller
    >> > card to supply extra IDE channels goes for about $30, mebbe a
    >> > "page drive" might be the way to go - especially if you have an
    >> > extra hard drive lying around. Think of a pagefile 60GB in size
    >> > on its own IDE channel....
    >> >
    >> > *TimDaniels*
    >> >
    >>
    >> If measurements show that your pagefile is costing serious performance
    >> on your system with its normal workload, then the solution is simple:
    >>
    >> If you can add more RAM to your MB, then
    >> buy more RAM
    >> Else
    >> buy a new MB with more RAM
    >> Endif
    >
    >
    > Read again. My comment was predicated with the
    >statement that the RAM capacity of the motherboard
    >was maxed out, i.e. at maximum memory capacity, so
    >"more RAM" is not an option, and "a new motherboard"
    >is generally considered an extravagant solution to any
    >PC problem.

    Buying a disk, or spending time rearranging a disk for 0.001%
    performance gain is an extravagant solution too.

    Buying a new mobo for a 1000% performance gain is usually not an
    extravagant solution.

    > Your response is appropriate to the
    >question "What is the best way to minimize paging?",
    >not to whether having a pagefile on a separate hard drive
    >with its own IDE channel would make for faster paging
    >than a pagefile on a partition on the same hard drive as
    >the system. I submit that if one is prepared to futz around
    >with a separate and specifically-located partition to speed
    >paging, then putting a page file on a separate hard drive
    >and channel (if they are available) is a better solution,
    >although far short of increasing the amount of RAM.
    >Remember that the original poster's question was
    >"Where to put that pagefile.sys partition?", not "How
    >can I minimize paging time?"

    It doesn't matter if the original poster asked the wrong question. As
    long as he gets the right answer :-)

    But seriously: Have you ever encountered a situation where you need
    more RAM for your applications then your mobo allowed? I doubt that
    very much.

    Expecially with large media you rarely need a lot of ram. For example,
    when you edit a 2GB movie file, you only need several tons of MB of
    memory. The reason for this is that you are editing streaming media,
    and the application only need to load and edit a minute at a time.
    In other situations the writer of an application that edits 2GB files
    knows that putting all of that in memory will create huge problems, so
    the programmer will find a way edit the file in small bits.

    So the situations where you have maxed out your mobo with RAM and you
    are still swapping are ***EXTREMELY*** rare.

    In such a situation the placement for the swapfile is very simple:
    You have to put it on the most used partition on the least used drive.
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Marc de Vries" wrote:
    > Buying a disk, or spending time rearranging a disk for 0.001%
    > performance gain is an extravagant solution too.


    Not if you already have a spare 7,200 rpm hard drive
    lying around unused (as I have).


    > Buying a new mobo for a 1000% performance gain is usually
    > not an extravagant solution.


    With my Dell Dimension, it would also involve buying
    a new power supply and reloading a ton of software
    and buying new RAM to match the motherboard. It
    would be more cost-effective to simply buy a new
    computer


    > But seriously: Have you ever encountered a situation where you need
    > more RAM for your applications then your mobo allowed? I doubt that
    > very much.


    Doubt all you want, but when I tripled my RAM size,
    the time to defrag the disk dropped by half.


    > So the situations where you have maxed out your mobo with RAM
    > and you are still swapping are ***EXTREMELY*** rare.


    Really? According to Dell, my mobo's RAM is maxed out
    at 384MB. Although it will really take twice that, to get it
    would involve throwing out the three 128MB sticks that I
    have now. Would you be satisfied with 384MB of RAM
    nowadays? Would you consider defragging a rare usage?


    > In such a situation the placement for the swapfile is very simple:
    > You have to put it on the most used partition on the least used drive.


    Right! Like on a spare hard drive that has a dedicated IDE
    channel.

    You have to remember, Marc, that different people have
    different budgets, hardware access, and time, and it's best
    to just answer their specific questions as best you can and
    only THEN point out what you consider to be better solutions
    IF they have the requisite budget, hardware access, and time.
    IOW, the "best" solution for you may not be the "best" for
    someone else.

    *TimDaniels*
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    In article <1c6dnXRI6ddF0j_dRVn-vA@comcast.com>,
    Timothy Daniels <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote:
    >
    >"Marc de Vries" wrote:
    >> Buying a disk, or spending time rearranging a disk for 0.001%
    >> performance gain is an extravagant solution too.
    >
    >
    > Not if you already have a spare 7,200 rpm hard drive
    > lying around unused (as I have).
    >
    >
    >> Buying a new mobo for a 1000% performance gain is usually
    >> not an extravagant solution.
    >
    >
    > With my Dell Dimension, it would also involve buying
    > a new power supply and reloading a ton of software
    > and buying new RAM to match the motherboard. It
    > would be more cost-effective to simply buy a new
    > computer
    >
    >
    >> But seriously: Have you ever encountered a situation where you need
    >> more RAM for your applications then your mobo allowed? I doubt that
    >> very much.
    >

    Yes, absolutly,

    >
    > Doubt all you want, but when I tripled my RAM size,
    > the time to defrag the disk dropped by half.
    >

    Most of us didn't buy a computer to run defrag, ;-) and it's
    an irrelevant benchmark. What mix of programs to you want to
    run better, and how much better ? Lets get specific. Without
    goals spending time or money is pointless.

    The common set of applications (windows+Internet Explorer+Outlook (or
    another email client)+MSOFFICE runs fine in 256MB, and 384MB
    is plenty. (all running at once.)

    What do you run ? What's the slowest task you want to speed up
    (and I don't mean something you do infreqently like full backup.)

    >
    >> So the situations where you have maxed out your mobo with RAM
    >> and you are still swapping are ***EXTREMELY*** rare.
    >
    >
    > Really? According to Dell, my mobo's RAM is maxed out
    > at 384MB. Although it will really take twice that, to get it
    > would involve throwing out the three 128MB sticks that I
    > have now. Would you be satisfied with 384MB of RAM
    > nowadays? Would you consider defragging a rare usage?
    >
    >
    >> In such a situation the placement for the swapfile is very simple:
    >> You have to put it on the most used partition on the least used drive.
    >
    >
    > Right! Like on a spare hard drive that has a dedicated IDE
    > channel.
    >
    > You have to remember, Marc, that different people have
    > different budgets, hardware access, and time, and it's best
    > to just answer their specific questions as best you can and
    > only THEN point out what you consider to be better solutions
    > IF they have the requisite budget, hardware access, and time.
    > IOW, the "best" solution for you may not be the "best" for
    > someone else.
    >
    >*TimDaniels*
    >


    --
    Al Dykes
    -----------
    adykes at p a n i x . c o m
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Al Dykes" wrote:
    > Most of us didn't buy a computer to run defrag, ;-)
    > and it's an irrelevant benchmark. What mix of
    > programs to you want to run better, and how much
    > better ? Lets get specific. Without
    > goals spending time or money is pointless.


    Why are you asking me? I didn't ask the question -
    which, BTW, was "Where to put that pagefile.sys
    partition?", NOT "What is the 'best' way to speed
    up my system?".

    As for defrag, I consider it representative of an
    app that does a lot of file I/O and file reconstruction.
    It's not a benchmark, but it does point in the right
    direction. It's good enough for me for that purpose.
    If it's not good enough for you for that purpose, it's
    not good enough for *you* for that pupose.


    > The common set of applications (windows+Internet Explorer+
    > Outlook (or another email client)+MSOFFICE runs fine in
    > 256MB, and 384MB is plenty. (all running at once.)


    Obviously, the original poster had more in mind than those
    office apps, so you're answering a question that wasn't asked.
    Why not ask *him* how much RAM his system has and
    what he intends to run? And then remember - he didn't ask
    whether he needs more RAM, he asked where he should
    put the pagefile to use it most effectively.


    > What do you run ? What's the slowest task you want to
    > speed up (and I don't mean something you do infreqently
    > like full backup.)


    What is so insignificant about backup speed? Backup is an
    important operation and it should be done frequently. Anything
    that speeds that process makes the backup more likely to be
    done. As for *full* backup versus *incremental* backup,
    that's a religious topic.

    In reply to the original poster's question about where to put
    the pagefile to make its use fastest, my answer is still to put it
    on a separate hard drive that has a dedicated IDE channel.
    Let *him* decide if that is cost-effective for him to do so,
    given his resources and applications..

    *TimDaniels*
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Wed, 12 May 2004 09:25:00 -0700, "Timothy Daniels"
    <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote:

    >
    >"Marc de Vries" wrote:
    >> Buying a disk, or spending time rearranging a disk for 0.001%
    >> performance gain is an extravagant solution too.
    >
    >
    > Not if you already have a spare 7,200 rpm hard drive
    > lying around unused (as I have).

    Adding Ram isn't an extravagant solution if you happen to have it
    lying around unused too.

    >> Buying a new mobo for a 1000% performance gain is usually
    >> not an extravagant solution.
    >
    >
    > With my Dell Dimension, it would also involve buying
    > a new power supply and reloading a ton of software
    > and buying new RAM to match the motherboard. It
    > would be more cost-effective to simply buy a new
    > computer
    >
    >
    >> But seriously: Have you ever encountered a situation where you need
    >> more RAM for your applications then your mobo allowed? I doubt that
    >> very much.
    >
    >
    > Doubt all you want, but when I tripled my RAM size,
    > the time to defrag the disk dropped by half.

    What defrag program was that???
    Such tools normally don't and shouldn't use much memory at all.
    Or did you run it while you were doing a lot of other work at the same
    time eating the 348MB ram you have?

    >> So the situations where you have maxed out your mobo with RAM
    >> and you are still swapping are ***EXTREMELY*** rare.
    >
    >
    > Really? According to Dell, my mobo's RAM is maxed out
    > at 384MB. Although it will really take twice that, to get it
    > would involve throwing out the three 128MB sticks that I
    > have now. Would you be satisfied with 384MB of RAM
    > nowadays? Would you consider defragging a rare usage?

    With "maxing out ram on the mobo" I meant that you put as much ram in
    as the mobo will accept. Most mobo's will accept at least 1GB.

    Dell probably only lists the memory configurations that they have
    tested themselves.

    Adding more ram to your 348MB would indeed mean replacing one of the
    ram sticks. But do you really consider that an extravagant solution
    when it means that you get huge performance gains?

    When you have filled your mobo to the maximum the mobo will accept,
    for example 1GB, and you still want more, then you get expensive
    solutions (like replacing the mobo) that some would find extravagant.

    BTW I have 256MB of RAM in my laptop that I use for work, and it is
    enough for normal work. (outlook, Word, and some IE sessions open.
    Next to that Exchange system manager, Agent newsreader, and our
    servicedesk applications)

    For my desktop at home I use 1 GB. Mainly for 3D renderwork. (and it
    run out of virtual memory once, with windows managing the swapfile
    :-))

    >> In such a situation the placement for the swapfile is very simple:
    >> You have to put it on the most used partition on the least used drive.
    >
    >
    > Right! Like on a spare hard drive that has a dedicated IDE
    > channel.
    >
    > You have to remember, Marc, that different people have
    > different budgets, hardware access, and time, and it's best
    > to just answer their specific questions as best you can and
    > only THEN point out what you consider to be better solutions

    That's precisely what I did.

    I pointed out that looking for the best placement of the swapfile
    concerning performance is wasted time, because it gives minimal
    performance gain in any case.

    Then I pointed out the only solution that would really give
    performance gain.

    Then I told the best placement for the swapfile for best performance.

    > IF they have the requisite budget, hardware access, and time.
    > IOW, the "best" solution for you may not be the "best" for
    > someone else.

    Seems to me that the OP got the information he needs to determine
    himself what is the best solution for him.

    Marc
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Marc de Vries" <marcdevries@geen.spam.zonnet.nl> wrote in message
    news:qbsga0113ellg4t6qn0hc5cspvni278pun@4ax.com...
    > > Doubt all you want, but when I tripled my RAM size,
    > > the time to defrag the disk dropped by half.
    >
    > What defrag program was that???
    > Such tools normally don't and shouldn't use much memory at all.
    > Or did you run it while you were doing a lot of other work at the same
    > time eating the 348MB ram you have?

    I think it is funny to use defrag as a performance test. Think about it,
    you defrag your drive and record the time it took. You then add ram and run
    a defrag again, WOW-IT ONLY TOOK 5% AS MUCH TIME! Hmmm, I wonder why it
    defragged so fast the second time, could it be because the drive was just
    defragged before adding memory? Eh?

    --Dan
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "dg" wrote:
    > I think it is funny to use defrag as a performance test. Think about it,
    > you defrag your drive and record the time it took. You then add ram
    > and run a defrag again, WOW-IT ONLY TOOK 5% AS MUCH
    > TIME! Hmmm, I wonder why it defragged so fast the second time,
    > could it be because the drive was just defragged before adding memory?


    Give me a break. The defrags done after the memory increase were
    done after the same amount of time and activity as the previous defrags.
    Before the increase, they consistently took about 40 minutes. After
    the increase, they consistently took about 20 minutes.

    *TimDaniels*
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    > Posted: Tue May 11, 2004 12:01 am Post subject: Where to put that
    pagefile.sys partition by
    >
    > Jootec from Mars
    > Guest
    >
    >
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > OK. I got two SATA harddrives - a 36gb 10,000 rpm boot drive and a
    200GB
    > 7,200 rpm 8MB cache drive.
    >
    > I use XP Home and Win2K on my machine and want to create a single
    > pagefile.sys partition for both to use. I understand the read/write
    speed of
    > a drive gets slower the further you get from the outer cylinders.
    >
    > So is it better to have the pagefile partition (3GB) as the 3rd
    partition on
    > the 10,000rpm drive after the 8GB Win2K partition and the 6GB XP
    Home
    > partition? (May be i can shrink those partitions slightly since I'll
    be
    > having a specific pagefile partition) Or is it better to have it as
    the
    > first partition on the 7,200 rpm drive?
    >
    > The 10,000 rpm drive will also contain the serious apps partition
    for Win2K.
    > The 7,200 rpm drive will contain a games partition for XP and a
    digital
    > video partition(Win 2K). Although I do aim later to buy another
    humongous
    > ATA drive for more digital video storage and processing.
    >
    > Thanks in advance
    >
    > James
    >
    >

    James,

    I think you simply asked; where shoul I place the pagefile.sys file
    when I have two SATA drives. You didn't say anything about
    bottlenecks, perfmon, penultimate zone, defrags or anything else that
    was suggested due to misunderstanging of your question or technical
    arguments by the respodents. Frankly, I cannot believe some of the
    responses I have read that were submitted by pseudo "experts."

    The best answer simply is: place your PageFile on your secondary drive
    - your 200 gb 7,200 rpm drive. Make the PageFile 1.5 times the RAM
    minimum and 3 times that figure for the maximum. For a good article
    about the technical details and the reasons why it should be done
    this way, please take a look at the
    following article:
    http://www.petri.co.il/pagefile_optimization.htm


    Good luck and best wishes, JD
    > It pays to be an MCSE

    ==============
    Posted through www.HowToFixComputers.com/bb - free access to hardware troubleshooting newsgroups.
Ask a new question

Read More

Partition Pagefile Storage