Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

I read one one site to partition the drive that will solely contain the
Windows XP Swap File in FAT32 instead of NTFS. Is there a reason for this?
I'm going to be setting up a 2gb partition for the swap but have to figure
out this variable.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <fpqdnTEm5YRQC2_cRVn-ow@comcast.com>,
David Miller <scorpioatl@comcast.net> wrote:
>I read one one site to partition the drive that will solely contain the
>Windows XP Swap File in FAT32 instead of NTFS. Is there a reason for this?
>I'm going to be setting up a 2gb partition for the swap but have to figure
>out this variable.
>
>


Wrong information. If you have only one disk don't partition it just
for the swap file. If you think you need to partition the disk for
some other reason then the right answer is (a) that the swap file
should be in the most-used partition and (b) that unless you measure
your system's page rate and find it's slowing you down it doesn't make
any diff. Putting the sawpfile in C is the best option unless you do
your own tests and if you find that you are reading the pagefile often
then adding more RAM is a better option, if your system can take it.

NTFS, always.

--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Howdy!

"David Miller" <scorpioatl@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:fpqdnTEm5YRQC2_cRVn-ow@comcast.com...
> I read one one site to partition the drive that will solely contain the
> Windows XP Swap File in FAT32 instead of NTFS. Is there a reason for
this?
> I'm going to be setting up a 2gb partition for the swap but have to figure
> out this variable.

Because they're so full of it that it won't make any difference.

If you're going to separate the swap file where the format might
make a difference, you need it on a separate DRIVE, not a separate
PARTITION.

RwP

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:09:14 -0500, "David Miller"
<scorpioatl@comcast.net> wrote:

| I read one one site to partition the drive that will solely contain the
| Windows XP Swap File in FAT32 instead of NTFS. Is there a reason for this?
| I'm going to be setting up a 2gb partition for the swap but have to figure
| out this variable.

I've had a separate 1GB swap file partition for years formatted both
FAT32 and NTFS with 4K clusters at various times and have noticed no
difference at all. It's NTFS now and the swap file is at its minimum
50MB size, which is what it usually is.

Larc



§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On 22 Jan 2005 13:20:24 -0500, adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:

| Wrong information. If you have only one disk don't partition it just
| for the swap file. If you think you need to partition the disk for
| some other reason then the right answer is (a) that the swap file
| should be in the most-used partition and (b) that unless you measure
| your system's page rate and find it's slowing you down it doesn't make
| any diff. Putting the sawpfile in C is the best option unless you do
| your own tests and if you find that you are reading the pagefile often
| then adding more RAM is a better option, if your system can take it.

Here's what Microsoft has to say about it:

To enhance performance, it is good practice to put the paging file on
a different partition and on a different physical hard disk drive.
That way, Windows can handle multiple I/O requests more quickly. When
the paging file is on the boot partition, Windows must perform disk
reading and writing requests on both the system folder and the paging
file. When the paging file is moved to a different partition, there
is less competition between reading and writing requests.

Here's the reference page:

http://support.microsoft.com/defau [...] us;Q314482

Larc



§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <v4n5v0t14ckd2npln2ek1qjtgud4jurlu3@4ax.com>,
Larc <larc-news@jupiterlink.net> wrote:
>On 22 Jan 2005 13:20:24 -0500, adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>
>| Wrong information. If you have only one disk don't partition it just
>| for the swap file. If you think you need to partition the disk for
>| some other reason then the right answer is (a) that the swap file
>| should be in the most-used partition and (b) that unless you measure
>| your system's page rate and find it's slowing you down it doesn't make
>| any diff. Putting the sawpfile in C is the best option unless you do
>| your own tests and if you find that you are reading the pagefile often
>| then adding more RAM is a better option, if your system can take it.
>
>Here's what Microsoft has to say about it:
>
>To enhance performance, it is good practice to put the paging file on
>a different partition and on a different physical hard disk drive.
>That way, Windows can handle multiple I/O requests more quickly. When
>the paging file is on the boot partition, Windows must perform disk
>reading and writing requests on both the system folder and the paging
>file. When the paging file is moved to a different partition, there
>is less competition between reading and writing requests.
>
>Here's the reference page:
>
>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q314482
>
>Larc
>
>
>
> §§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§


I read the KB article. That's the Here's what another paragraph in the
same article. The emphis is in a paging on a second spindle, which
does not contradict what I wrote.


The optimal solution is to create one paging file that is stored on
the boot partition, and then create one paging file on another
partition that is less frequently accessed on a different physical
hard disk if a different physical hard disk is
available. Additionally, it is optimal to create the second paging
file so that it exists on its own partition, with no data or
operating-system-specific files. By design, Windows uses the paging
file on the less frequently accessed partition over the paging file
on the more heavily accessed boot partition. An internal algorithm
is used to determine which paging file to use for virtual memory
management.


IMO before your do _anything_ beyond vanilla setup; pagefile on C
drive, you need to use perfmon to measure the _rate_ of paging (not
the size of the pagefile), if the paging rate is more than a few pages
per second in your application [1] then consider more memory because
eliminating a pagefile I/O op is even better than making it faster,
and only then look at partitions or spindles for swapfile.

The consensus is that a pagefile in a second partition forces two long seeks,
slowing the swap operation even more. MS says that part of the pagefile
in C, and this may be the fastest access, becasue of the short seek.

Everything MS, you, and I write is generalizations. Computer performance
tuning can only be done on a real computer running a specific application.


[1] You tune a system by measuring what it is doing in the moments you wish
it were faster. Overall averages don't mean much.


--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Bad idea. Where did you hear this???
You should use NTFS solely in your system for speed, security and stability.

--
DaveW



"David Miller" <scorpioatl@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:fpqdnTEm5YRQC2_cRVn-ow@comcast.com...
>I read one one site to partition the drive that will solely contain the
>Windows XP Swap File in FAT32 instead of NTFS. Is there a reason for this?
>I'm going to be setting up a 2gb partition for the swap but have to figure
>out this variable.
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:csu5h8$9dm$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <fpqdnTEm5YRQC2_cRVn-ow@comcast.com>,
> David Miller <scorpioatl@comcast.net> wrote:
>>I read one one site to partition the drive that will solely contain the
>>Windows XP Swap File in FAT32 instead of NTFS. Is there a reason for
>>this?
>>I'm going to be setting up a 2gb partition for the swap but have to figure
>>out this variable.
>>
>>
>
>
> Wrong information. If you have only one disk don't partition it just
> for the swap file. If you think you need to partition the disk for
> some other reason then the right answer is (a) that the swap file
> should be in the most-used partition and (b) that unless you measure
> your system's page rate and find it's slowing you down it doesn't make
> any diff. Putting the sawpfile in C is the best option unless you do
> your own tests and if you find that you are reading the pagefile often
> then adding more RAM is a better option, if your system can take it.
>

This would be on a second drive not the primary. Just a separate partition
on the second drive that would keep it separate from data.

I'm taking it that it doesn't matter. So oh well.