Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (
More info?)
Al Franz wrote:
> Interesting Clyde what you did. Does putting the pagefile on a fast drive
> makes a big difference, that is noticable? Do you think one could put the
> page file on a flash memory device also, if they still make these? Was
> thinking of getting a 10K RPM drive for my main drive but don't really want
> to divide up all my stuff into multiple partitions. I enjoyed reading what
> you did.
>
>
>
> "Clyde" <clyde@world.comedy> wrote in message
> news:eLOdnUAhNKKYDE_fRVn-3g@comcast.com...
>
>>Brett Miller wrote:
>>
>>>I found a 70 Gig WD SATA HD for around $230. It had a 10k rpm,
>>>seek time around 7ns. Data transfer was MAYBE 150 (?) Second.
>>>I compaired this to a 200 GIG WD ATA HD for around 1/2 the price.
>>>7,500 RPM
>>>Seek <15ms
>>>XFER 130
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't know why one would by a SATA. It was not significantly
>>>faster, though the seek seed was twice as fast..
>>>
>>>I don't see any reason to buy one.
>>>
>>>Also, what is up with the 8meg cache? Is this some iron wall that
>>>cannot be surpassed, or is there no reason to do better?
>>>I would think that a min of 128megs up to 1 gig would be much better.
>>>
>>>Comments?
>>>
>>
>>I have the WD 36.7 GB SATA HD that runs at 10K. It only does two things.
>>One, it's where my Windows XP Pro pagefile is for as fast virtual memory
>>as I can get. Second, it is the first Scratch Disk for Photoshop.
>>Photoshop does its own memory management and needs it's own swap space.
>>
>>This setup runs WAY faster on this HD than on other 7200 rpm HD - even
>>with SATA. It looks like this HD is actually fast enough to use SATA.
>>
>>That's why I paid for the fast HD. For me, the $116 was well worth it.
>>Your mileage may vary.
>>
>>Clyde
>
>
>
The short answer - Yes. There is a noticeable speed increase by using
the SATA 10K for swapping. I didn't time it before, because I didn't
think it would make that much difference. (I also believe in real-world
speed differences. i.e. I had better notice it or it doesn't matter.)
Well, it makes more of a difference than I thought. I'm very happy with it.
Interestingly, it seems to make more of a difference with Photoshop's
swapping than XP's. Photoshop does it's own memory management and will
always create and use a swap file, no matter how much memory you have.
Photoshop runs MUCH quicker now. It doesn't seem like that would make
that much difference, but it does.
Then again, the older IBM Datastar 7200 rpm 60 GB drive that I was using
for pagefile and Photoshop stratch disk may be slower than I thought
too. It didn't seem so at the time, but now...
I do have my daughter's computer setup with the Pagefile on an external
Firewire drive. That is a pretty slow 13 GB drive, but it works fine.
She doesn't do much that pushes it, but it does work. So, this isn't a
great test for speed, but it does prove that XP doesn't mind an external
location for it's Pagefile.
Therefore, XP should be able to handle its Pagefile on USB flash memory.
From what I've read, those do vary a fair bit in speed. If anyone tries
this, let us know.
Of course, flash memory big enough for some work as a Photoshop stratch
disc may cost more than the WD 10K drive. That probably isn't too many
people here anyway.
Thanks,
Clyde
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram