Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Swap file question

Last response: in Windows 95/98/ME
Share
February 22, 2005 2:49:48 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

What ever became of the old win 3.x concept of a "permanent" swap file.
Seems to me that if the win98 swap file is dynamic, wouldn't it get
fragmented all over the place just like any other file? Is there a way
to prevent that from happening? I suspect that's what's responsible for
how much my home machine has slowed down over the years.
--
To reply by email remove "_nospam"

More about : swap file question

February 22, 2005 2:49:49 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Chuck wrote:
> What ever became of the old win 3.x concept of a "permanent" swap
file.
> Seems to me that if the win98 swap file is dynamic, wouldn't it get
> fragmented all over the place just like any other file?

Yes, but I assume just like other files some fragmentation is a good
thing as far as program launching speed if you take defrag's 'Rearrange
my program files so that my programs start faster' option on to the
ultimate end of that logic. IF that's a reality, then we still don't
know if defrag will work the swap file in the same manner at all. I
don't see any improvements whether I defrag or not actually, so for me
it's a moot point anyway.


> Is there a way
> to prevent that from happening?

Yes, move the swap file to a different partition, reboot and then run
defrag.


> I suspect that's what's responsible for
> how much my home machine has slowed down over the years.
> --
> To reply by email remove "_nospam"

I think you'll find a better response if you set a large minimum swap
file with no maximum provided you have plenty of free space to do that
in. It's the only 'tweak' that has actually paid off here for me and I
alway try to recommend it. 233MHz, 128 meg ram, 300 meg swap file, 327
meg free space which is cutting it too close by my standards.
http://www.adriansrojakpot.com/Speed_Demonz/Swapfile_Op...
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 10:48:01 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

W98 access to the swap file is managed much more tightly than it was in
earlier versions, and fragmentation is no longer a significant issue. You
can create a form of permanent swap file through a procedure of deleting it,
defragmenting and re-creating it, but experience suggests it's barely worth
the trouble.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"Chuck" <skilover_nospam@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:38165cF5g29urU2@individual.net...
> What ever became of the old win 3.x concept of a "permanent" swap file.
> Seems to me that if the win98 swap file is dynamic, wouldn't it get
> fragmented all over the place just like any other file? Is there a way
> to prevent that from happening? I suspect that's what's responsible for
> how much my home machine has slowed down over the years.
> --
> To reply by email remove "_nospam"
Related resources
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 5:58:31 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

The huge bulk of unmovable clusters during a Defrag is your Swap File,
Win386.swp. After that, any CVS (Compressed Volume File) may also be
big. No one should have one of those, but should get a larger hard drive
instead. Finally, in Win98, any file that is attributed BOTH "System" &
"Hidden" will be an unmoveable. If you use Thumbnail View, a "Thumbs.db"
file will be created in each folder to which you apply it. Some of those
can be large & are Attributed both System & Hidden.

I used to turn VM off, and I swear it makes for a better Defrag. The
purpose of it was to prevent other files from pussyfooting around the
bits/pieces of the Swap File during the Defrag.

HOWEVER...

(1) It is possible one may not be able to reboot with VM off. That would
be the case, if one has only 32 MB RAM. There was one poster who said he
had 64 MB & could not reboot when he turned off VM. However, "Scanreg
/Restore", choosing the most recent backup, should reset VM to being on.

(2) DO NOT "START, Programs, MS-DOS Prompt", with VM off. I had an
orderly crash doing that. Repeating the experience online to better
report it, my second crash doing it was HORRENDOUS-- it had a heartbeat!
Also, some apps will open a Windows DOS box on their own; so, beware!

Here is what I have now done...

(a) Set swap file minimum size to 300 MB, & reboot back to windows.
Do so at "Control Panel, System, Performance tab, Virtual Memory
button". This will create a 300 MB space for a swap file. It will not be
entirely contiguous. Set the minimum only.
(b) Boot to DOS
(c) SMARTDRV
(to speed up the following considerably)
(d) COPY Win386.swp Win386.jnk
(This fills in gaps between files, so that later Win386.swp will
be contiguous.)
(e) REN Win386.swp Win386.old
(Win386.swp will recreate at boot.)
(f) Boot to Windows
(Now, you have Win386.jnk, Win386.old, plus a new Win386.swp.)
(g) In Explorer, delete Win386.jnk & Win386.old. Hold Shift as clicking
to Delete to prevent it goes into the Recycle Bin!
(h) Do whatever you normally do, to keep the following from constantly
restarting.
(i) Scandisk (Thorough, usually w/o write checking)
(j) Defrag

Now I had my buffer between the swap file & the rest of my files. This
is meant to keep the swap file out of the way of the rest of the system
during a Defrag. There may have been some little bit of the swap file
still among the other files, but the vast bulk of it was one contiguous
block 300 MB away! I saw it, by pausing Defrag before it ended &
scrolling past a sea of white to the sea of red! (By the way, "REN
Win386.swp Win386.old" created a zero byte file, or I am a madman!)

Notes:
1. This need be done but once this way, except should you subsequently
delete Win386.swp. Anyhow, mine has stayed put!
2. The 300 MB swap file has moved to the root folder C:\, because a
minimum size was specified.
3. You still have a "C:\Windows\Win386.swp", but it is zero bytes in
size.
4. It has been promised "C:\Win386.swp" will never move physically on
the hard drive. Those 300 MBs will stay put. However, should the swap
file get larger than that, the excess will intermix with other files.
When the swap file shrinks, it will then return to the 300 MB area.
5. The purpose of Win386.jnk was to give the system room for growth,
before it must use disk space on the other side of the swap file. (It
does appear to work that way.)

Is it all worth it? I really think it did make a difference.


--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net
"Chuck" <skilover_nospam@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:38165cF5g29urU2@individual.net...
| What ever became of the old win 3.x concept of a "permanent" swap
file.
| Seems to me that if the win98 swap file is dynamic, wouldn't it get
| fragmented all over the place just like any other file? Is there a way
| to prevent that from happening? I suspect that's what's responsible
for
| how much my home machine has slowed down over the years.
| --
| To reply by email remove "_nospam"
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 11:28:08 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote in message
news:%23aa2A$RGFHA.3120@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> W98 access to the swap file is managed much more tightly than it was in
> earlier versions, and fragmentation is no longer a significant issue. You
> can create a form of permanent swap file through a procedure of deleting
it,
> defragmenting and re-creating it, but experience suggests it's barely
worth
> the trouble.
> --
> Jeff Richards
> MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)

Jeff, I've been told there may be an advantage in putting your swap file in
the root directory C:, (i.e. fixed @ 2*RAM) with 128 Mb). If this is true,
does the swap file get defraged, when using defrag in safe mode?
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 11:12:52 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

If you have more than one disk, then the best location for the swap file
requires you to consider the speed of the disks and the extent to which they
are (or aren't) used. A fast second disk that isn't used much is best, as
this means that the swap file probably doesn't have to co-exist with too
many other types of disk access (so head seek times are minimized) and it
won't get too fragmented. If you don't have multiple disks then the C drive
is best, as that will minimize head seek times. Fragmentation then becomes
an issue (though not a large one) and that's when people start considering a
'permanent' swap file. You can achieve some of this effect by setting a
minimum size for the swapfile. Work this out by watching the swap file size
over an extended period. Never set a maximum, as one day, for sure, the
system will need more than you have chosen.

To defrag the swap file, turn virtual memory off, restart in DOS and delete
the swap file, defrag in safe mode, and turn virtual memory back on.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"Dave D" <DRD@INVALIDdavedownton.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cvo1r4$rtc$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> snip <
>
> Jeff, I've been told there may be an advantage in putting your swap file
> in
> the root directory C:, (i.e. fixed @ 2*RAM) with 128 Mb). If this is true,
> does the swap file get defraged, when using defrag in safe mode?
!