Swap file spli

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

In doing a defragmentation, I notice that my swap
file (green, unmovable) is split into three separate
pieces. That could, I'd think, cause some slowing
down of operations. Any comments? Or a way to put
humpty-dumpty back together again?
--
William B. Lurie

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Hi

Please try the following article by Alex Nichol:

"Virtual Memory in Windows XP"
http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php

--

Will Denny
MS-MVP - Windows Shell/User
Please reply to the News Groups


"William B. Lurie" <billurie@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:esftsnYxEHA.1984@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> In doing a defragmentation, I notice that my swap
> file (green, unmovable) is split into three separate
> pieces. That could, I'd think, cause some slowing
> down of operations. Any comments? Or a way to put
> humpty-dumpty back together again?
> --
> William B. Lurie

 

[Dave]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

what I would do is this.

1. Change the Virtual memory settings to 5 megs and reboot.
yes the machine i will take a few to boot. once it comes back up , DEFRAG
the drive ..
2, When thats comeplete .. change the virtual memory settings back to your
previous settings
Hope this helps.

PS there are also some programs out there that can defrag your swap/virtual
memory file .. do a google search for them
-/Dave

"Will Denny" wrote:

> Hi
>
> Please try the following article by Alex Nichol:
>
> "Virtual Memory in Windows XP"
> http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php
>
> --
>
> Will Denny
> MS-MVP - Windows Shell/User
> Please reply to the News Groups
>
>
> "William B. Lurie" <billurie@nospam.org> wrote in message
> news:esftsnYxEHA.1984@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> > In doing a defragmentation, I notice that my swap
> > file (green, unmovable) is split into three separate
> > pieces. That could, I'd think, cause some slowing
> > down of operations. Any comments? Or a way to put
> > humpty-dumpty back together again?
> > --
> > William B. Lurie
>
>
>

 

[Richard]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

"William B. Lurie" <billurie@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:esftsnYxEHA.1984@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> In doing a defragmentation, I notice that my swap
> file (green, unmovable) is split into three separate
> pieces. That could, I'd think, cause some slowing
> down of operations. Any comments? Or a way to put
> humpty-dumpty back together again?
> --
> William B. Lurie

If I remember correctly from dipping into your threads from time to time you
have two drives fitted. If this is correct the most efficient way of
configuring your swap file is to put it on the drive that does not contain
your OS and programs. You will then not have these unmovable fragments on
your main drive and actual operations which use a lot of virtual memory will
be a bit faster. You will also find that defrags of your drives will not
need to be so frequent. BTW when I defrag I do it in safe mode. This runs
much faster and leaves a cleaner picture of the drive.

Richard

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

There is a neat program called pagedfrg at http://www.sysinternals.com/ that
should do what you want.

"William B. Lurie" <billurie@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:esftsnYxEHA.1984@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> In doing a defragmentation, I notice that my swap
> file (green, unmovable) is split into three separate
> pieces. That could, I'd think, cause some slowing
> down of operations. Any comments? Or a way to put
> humpty-dumpty back together again?
> --
> William B. Lurie

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Will Denny wrote:
> Hi
>
> Please try the following article by Alex Nichol:
>
> "Virtual Memory in Windows XP"
> http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php
>
Thanks for the link, Will.... I read that page fairly
quickly, and I didn't see that it answered the question
I asked, altho' it was educational. I'll read it more
carefully....

--
William B. Lurie

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Richard wrote:

> "William B. Lurie" <billurie@nospam.org> wrote in message
> news:esftsnYxEHA.1984@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
>>In doing a defragmentation, I notice that my swap
>>file (green, unmovable) is split into three separate
>>pieces. That could, I'd think, cause some slowing
>>down of operations. Any comments? Or a way to put
>>humpty-dumpty back together again?
>>--
>> William B. Lurie
>
>
> If I remember correctly from dipping into your threads from time to time you
> have two drives fitted. If this is correct the most efficient way of
> configuring your swap file is to put it on the drive that does not contain
> your OS and programs. You will then not have these unmovable fragments on
> your main drive and actual operations which use a lot of virtual memory will
> be a bit faster. You will also find that defrags of your drives will not
> need to be so frequent. BTW when I defrag I do it in safe mode. This runs
> much faster and leaves a cleaner picture of the drive.
>
> Richard
>
>
All very good points and advice, Richard. However, altho' I do use two
drives from time to time, I use the Slave only as a target for making a
full clone backup, so when I'm running 'normally' I have only one drive,
so the swap/page file has to be on that drive.

W B L

--
William B. Lurie

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

The only downside of fragmentation of the swap is

1. reduces the amount of contigious free space - probably irrelevent to most users but video people may care. But then again 3 fragments is nothing for either a swap file or a large data file.

2. Extra physical memory is needed to describe the fragments. But again this is almost nothing with only three fragments.

The data is found via the physical memory mentioned in 2. Therefore it does not read the whole file just the exact section it wants therefore fragmentation is generally irrelevent and with 3 is irrelevent.

--
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com
"William B. Lurie" <billurie@nospam.org> wrote in message news:%23YRoFefxEHA.1192@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Will Denny wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> Please try the following article by Alex Nichol:
>>
>> "Virtual Memory in Windows XP"
>> http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php
>>
> Thanks for the link, Will.... I read that page fairly
> quickly, and I didn't see that it answered the question
> I asked, altho' it was educational. I'll read it more
> carefully....
>
> --
> William B. Lurie

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

David Candy wrote:
> The only downside of fragmentation of the swap is
>
> 1. reduces the amount of contigious free space - probably irrelevent to most users but video people may care. But then again 3 fragments is nothing for either a swap file or a large data file.
>
> 2. Extra physical memory is needed to describe the fragments. But again this is almost nothing with only three fragments.
>
> The data is found via the physical memory mentioned in 2. Therefore it does not read the whole file just the exact section it wants therefore fragmentation is generally irrelevent and with 3 is irrelevent.
>
Thank you for the reassurance, David. And when reconfiguring with
only one hard drive, the newly-formed arrangement put itself together
with only one swapfile.

--
William B. Lurie