Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Page File Query

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 12:03:39 AM

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

I'm new to XP. In 98SE the standard wisdom seemed to be to keep your
swap file on a separate logical drive of its own, with some debate
over size. What is the advice for Win XP SP2?
My relevant system specs are:
Processor: P4 3 GHz
RAM: 2 x 512 as dual channel
HDD: 160 GB parallel ATA 133; 8 MB cache

Dave Gillingham
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To email me remove the .private from my email address.

More about : page file query

Anonymous
January 25, 2005 12:03:40 AM

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

Dave Gillingham wrote:
> I'm new to XP. In 98SE the standard wisdom seemed to be to keep your
> swap file on a separate logical drive of its own, with some debate
> over size. What is the advice for Win XP SP2?
> My relevant system specs are:
> Processor: P4 3 GHz
> RAM: 2 x 512 as dual channel
> HDD: 160 GB parallel ATA 133; 8 MB cache

If a pagefile grows on a populated volume it might get fragmented, causing a
performance hit. This can be circumvented in two ways:

1) Use a separate page partition.

2) Set the minimum size of your pagefile high enough, so your pagefile
rarely, if ever, grows.

So yes, you can use a separate partition. But I don't think it is necessary,
especially not in your case. You have a gig of RAM, so unless you do some
very heavy computing you should not need much paging at all. Unfortunately
some Windows applications and system calls seem to malfunction if there is
no page/swap, no matter how much RAM you have, so you will probably need at
least a small pagefile. But apart from that you should be set.

My advice would be to partition your drive in at least two (maybe three)
partitions. First a relatively small C:, max 20 GB, for Windows and system
files. Then a larger D: for applications. And then maybe even an E: for data
storage. The reason for this is that your drive is fastest at the beginning
of the user space, and slower at the end. Thus you want Windows and the
pagefile on your fastest volume, which is C:. After installation (and of
course a full run of updating, including SP2) turn off the pagefile and
hibernation, defragment C: and then reenable hibernation if you think you
will use it. Then make a pagefile with an initial size of 512-1024 MB and a
maximum size of whatever you think will be free on C:. Every once in a while
when running heavy programs (I don't know what you're into, but video
editing, professional image editing or certain games might do it for you)
check the task manager and see how much page file usage it reports. If it
ever grows larger than the minimum you specified you might consider
increasing the initial value. If not, I would leave it.

Also, if you ever install a second physical drive, you might want to put
another pagefile on the first partition of it. This way any pagefile usage
will be split across two physical drives, which should increase page
performance.

Personally I have 512 MB RAM, and two pagefiles on two physical drives with
initial sizes of 512 MB each. And I have never noticed any of them growing
above this.
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 12:03:40 AM

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

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:03:39 +1000, Dave Gillingham wrote:

> I'm new to XP. In 98SE the standard wisdom seemed to be to keep your
> swap file on a separate logical drive of its own, with some debate
> over size. What is the advice for Win XP SP2?
> My relevant system specs are:
> Processor: P4 3 GHz
> RAM: 2 x 512 as dual channel
> HDD: 160 GB parallel ATA 133; 8 MB cache
>
> Dave Gillingham
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To email me remove the .private from my email address.

With one physical drive and a good amount of RAM, I would leave the
pagefile at its default settings. A primer on WinXP's virtual memory can be
found here: http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm

--
Sharon F
MS-MVP ~ Windows Shell/User
Related resources
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 12:03:40 AM

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

Win98 only kept the page file on a separate drive if the user specifically
set it up that way. Same with XP. The primary gain with using a separate
drive for the page file is to reduce head movement on the system drive. The
more memory you have in your system, the less gain there is in doing this.
You do not get any gain from putting the page file on a separate partition
of the same drive. To benefit, you need two internal hard drives with the
system on one and the page file on the other. Do not use an external or
removable drive for the page file.

--
Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
"Dave Gillingham" <dewg@private.optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:q1l9v0djclta630187ap0nf4d4sqh8l4es@4ax.com...
> I'm new to XP. In 98SE the standard wisdom seemed to be to keep your
> swap file on a separate logical drive of its own, with some debate
> over size. What is the advice for Win XP SP2?
> My relevant system specs are:
> Processor: P4 3 GHz
> RAM: 2 x 512 as dual channel
> HDD: 160 GB parallel ATA 133; 8 MB cache
>
> Dave Gillingham
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To email me remove the .private from my email address.
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 12:03:40 AM

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

In news:q1l9v0djclta630187ap0nf4d4sqh8l4es@4ax.com,
Dave Gillingham <dewg@private.optusnet.com.au> typed:

> I'm new to XP. In 98SE the standard wisdom seemed to be to
> keep your
> swap file on a separate logical drive of its own, with some
> debate
> over size.


No, it was poor "wisdom" in Windows 98, and remains poor advice
in Windows XP.

Putting the swap file (or page file) on a second partition on
your only physical drive puts it farther from the other
frequently-used data on the drive, increases head movement to and
from it (head movement is by far the slowest aspect of disk I/O),
and thereby slows down all use of the page file. It's the worst
place for it.

If you have more than one physical drive, moving the page file to
a second drive *is* generally a good thing to do, for the same
reason. It decreases head movement and speeds up using it (unless
less that second drive is much slower than the first one). As a
general rule of thumb, put the page file on the most-used
partition of the least-used physical drive. For almost everyone
with a single drive, that's C:\


> What is the advice for Win XP SP2?
> My relevant system specs are:
> Processor: P4 3 GHz
> RAM: 2 x 512 as dual channel
> HDD: 160 GB parallel ATA 133; 8 MB cache


Overriding the above, in your case, with 1024MB of RAM, unless
the applications you run are extremely demanding, it's highly
unlikely that you will use the page file at all, or if you do, it
will be very seldom. So it hardly makes a difference where it is
or how large it is. As a general rule, it's good to make the
initial size small (100-200MB), but give it a very large maximum
so it can grow if it ever (even if unlikely) needs to.

Leave it where it is, and make it 100MB-2000MB. Or even leave the
Windows default, which is much more than you need, but other than
wasting a little disk space (which you would seem to have plenty
of) won't hurt you. For more info, read Alex Nichol's article,
"Virtual Memory in Windows XP," at
http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 12:03:41 AM

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

One thing that people miss is this. Each IDE channel has one IRQ to share
among 2 possible installed drives. The two drives on this channel will
read/write sequentially. If drive 0 is reading there is no writing on drive
0 or drive 1, until the IDE controller shares out the disk activity or the
reading on drive 0 is completed. Thus, placing the pagefile on the second
drive (drive 1) of the same IDE controller gains you "nothing"!

Now, if you place the pagefile on drive 2 (attached to the secondary IDE
controller) the pagefile can be written to or read from "concurrently" with
any action on drive 0 (which is usually where the operating system is
installed) or on drive 1.

This will definitely give you a perceptible performance gain. I have tested
the various combinations repeatedly over the past 3 years while burning
CD's, ripping CD's, rendering large PhotoShop files, working with huge
AutoCAD files and converting video files. The place for the pagefile to be
is on a separate drive on another IDE controller from the operating system.
Any active programs and associated working files should be on another
controller from the pagefile also.

Because of this I have always installed the operating system, Office and any
necessary utilities (those programs that I would never run without) on drive
0. All my other programs are installed on drive 1 (both on the same IDE
controller channel). My page file is always installed either on drive 2 or
drive 3 on the second IDE controller channel.

I have set up many multiple dozens of clients computers the same way and
they have all been extremely pleased with the outcome!

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)

If you knew as much as you thought you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!


"Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(nojunk)@msn.com> wrote in message
news:%23ZaYOCjAFHA.2640@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Win98 only kept the page file on a separate drive if the user specifically
> set it up that way. Same with XP. The primary gain with using a separate
> drive for the page file is to reduce head movement on the system drive.
> The more memory you have in your system, the less gain there is in doing
> this. You do not get any gain from putting the page file on a separate
> partition of the same drive. To benefit, you need two internal hard
> drives with the system on one and the page file on the other. Do not use
> an external or removable drive for the page file.
>
> --
> Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
> "Dave Gillingham" <dewg@private.optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:q1l9v0djclta630187ap0nf4d4sqh8l4es@4ax.com...
>> I'm new to XP. In 98SE the standard wisdom seemed to be to keep your
>> swap file on a separate logical drive of its own, with some debate
>> over size. What is the advice for Win XP SP2?
>> My relevant system specs are:
>> Processor: P4 3 GHz
>> RAM: 2 x 512 as dual channel
>> HDD: 160 GB parallel ATA 133; 8 MB cache
>>
>> Dave Gillingham
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To email me remove the .private from my email address.
>
>
January 25, 2005 12:03:41 AM

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

Ken Blake wrote:
>
> No, it was poor "wisdom" in Windows 98, and remains poor advice
> in Windows XP.
>
> Putting the swap file (or page file) on a second partition on
> your only physical drive puts it farther from the other
> frequently-used data on the drive, increases head movement to and
> from it (head movement is by far the slowest aspect of disk I/O),
> and thereby slows down all use of the page file. It's the worst
> place for it.

Actually, if I remember my hard drive partition layout correctly from my
class at college, partitions (volumes) that don't use the entire drive
are 'pie-shaped', and thus - because the platter is in motion - the head
doesn't necessarily have to move any farther to (nor take any longer to
get to) any particular data on the swap file, than it would necessarily
have had to move had the swap file not been in a separate partition on
the same drive.

--
The reader should exercise normal caution and backup the Registry and
data files regularly, and especially before making any changes to their
PC, as well as performing regular virus and spyware scans. I am not
liable for problems or mishaps that occur from the reader using advice
posted here. No warranty, express or implied, is given with the posting
of this message.
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 12:03:42 AM

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

You are correct. I have not bothered moving the page file for a couple of
years because I use a fast system with 2GB of ram and SATA drives now and I
just am not displeased with performance. I did use a 20GB second IDE drive
for the page file on a previous machine but I was using a Promise ATA133 PCI
controller so everything was asynchronious; but I had forgotten that until
you mentioned it. Thanks for the reminder.

--
Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
"Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eFUKpejAFHA.208@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> One thing that people miss is this. Each IDE channel has one IRQ to share
> among 2 possible installed drives. The two drives on this channel will
> read/write sequentially. If drive 0 is reading there is no writing on
> drive 0 or drive 1, until the IDE controller shares out the disk activity
> or the reading on drive 0 is completed. Thus, placing the pagefile on the
> second drive (drive 1) of the same IDE controller gains you "nothing"!
>
> Now, if you place the pagefile on drive 2 (attached to the secondary IDE
> controller) the pagefile can be written to or read from "concurrently"
> with any action on drive 0 (which is usually where the operating system is
> installed) or on drive 1.
>
> This will definitely give you a perceptible performance gain. I have
> tested the various combinations repeatedly over the past 3 years while
> burning CD's, ripping CD's, rendering large PhotoShop files, working with
> huge AutoCAD files and converting video files. The place for the pagefile
> to be is on a separate drive on another IDE controller from the operating
> system. Any active programs and associated working files should be on
> another controller from the pagefile also.
>
> Because of this I have always installed the operating system, Office and
> any necessary utilities (those programs that I would never run without) on
> drive 0. All my other programs are installed on drive 1 (both on the same
> IDE controller channel). My page file is always installed either on drive
> 2 or drive 3 on the second IDE controller channel.
>
> I have set up many multiple dozens of clients computers the same way and
> they have all been extremely pleased with the outcome!
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Richard Urban
>
> aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)
>
> If you knew as much as you thought you know,
> You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
>
>
> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(nojunk)@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:%23ZaYOCjAFHA.2640@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Win98 only kept the page file on a separate drive if the user
>> specifically set it up that way. Same with XP. The primary gain with
>> using a separate drive for the page file is to reduce head movement on
>> the system drive. The more memory you have in your system, the less gain
>> there is in doing this. You do not get any gain from putting the page
>> file on a separate partition of the same drive. To benefit, you need two
>> internal hard drives with the system on one and the page file on the
>> other. Do not use an external or removable drive for the page file.
>>
>> --
>> Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
>> "Dave Gillingham" <dewg@private.optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:q1l9v0djclta630187ap0nf4d4sqh8l4es@4ax.com...
>>> I'm new to XP. In 98SE the standard wisdom seemed to be to keep your
>>> swap file on a separate logical drive of its own, with some debate
>>> over size. What is the advice for Win XP SP2?
>>> My relevant system specs are:
>>> Processor: P4 3 GHz
>>> RAM: 2 x 512 as dual channel
>>> HDD: 160 GB parallel ATA 133; 8 MB cache
>>>
>>> Dave Gillingham
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To email me remove the .private from my email address.
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 12:03:43 AM

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

You're very welcome!

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)

If you knew as much as you thought you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!


"Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(nojunk)@msn.com> wrote in message
news:e6QTuZkAFHA.2608@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> You are correct. I have not bothered moving the page file for a couple of
> years because I use a fast system with 2GB of ram and SATA drives now and
> I just am not displeased with performance. I did use a 20GB second IDE
> drive for the page file on a previous machine but I was using a Promise
> ATA133 PCI controller so everything was asynchronious; but I had forgotten
> that until you mentioned it. Thanks for the reminder.
>
> --
> Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
> "Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eFUKpejAFHA.208@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> One thing that people miss is this. Each IDE channel has one IRQ to share
>> among 2 possible installed drives. The two drives on this channel will
>> read/write sequentially. If drive 0 is reading there is no writing on
>> drive 0 or drive 1, until the IDE controller shares out the disk activity
>> or the reading on drive 0 is completed. Thus, placing the pagefile on the
>> second drive (drive 1) of the same IDE controller gains you "nothing"!
>>
>> Now, if you place the pagefile on drive 2 (attached to the secondary IDE
>> controller) the pagefile can be written to or read from "concurrently"
>> with any action on drive 0 (which is usually where the operating system
>> is installed) or on drive 1.
>>
>> This will definitely give you a perceptible performance gain. I have
>> tested the various combinations repeatedly over the past 3 years while
>> burning CD's, ripping CD's, rendering large PhotoShop files, working with
>> huge AutoCAD files and converting video files. The place for the pagefile
>> to be is on a separate drive on another IDE controller from the operating
>> system. Any active programs and associated working files should be on
>> another controller from the pagefile also.
>>
>> Because of this I have always installed the operating system, Office and
>> any necessary utilities (those programs that I would never run without)
>> on drive 0. All my other programs are installed on drive 1 (both on the
>> same IDE controller channel). My page file is always installed either on
>> drive 2 or drive 3 on the second IDE controller channel.
>>
>> I have set up many multiple dozens of clients computers the same way and
>> they have all been extremely pleased with the outcome!
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Richard Urban
>>
>> aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)
>>
>> If you knew as much as you thought you know,
>> You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
>>
>>
>> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(nojunk)@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23ZaYOCjAFHA.2640@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>> Win98 only kept the page file on a separate drive if the user
>>> specifically set it up that way. Same with XP. The primary gain with
>>> using a separate drive for the page file is to reduce head movement on
>>> the system drive. The more memory you have in your system, the less gain
>>> there is in doing this. You do not get any gain from putting the page
>>> file on a separate partition of the same drive. To benefit, you need
>>> two internal hard drives with the system on one and the page file on the
>>> other. Do not use an external or removable drive for the page file.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
>>> "Dave Gillingham" <dewg@private.optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:q1l9v0djclta630187ap0nf4d4sqh8l4es@4ax.com...
>>>> I'm new to XP. In 98SE the standard wisdom seemed to be to keep your
>>>> swap file on a separate logical drive of its own, with some debate
>>>> over size. What is the advice for Win XP SP2?
>>>> My relevant system specs are:
>>>> Processor: P4 3 GHz
>>>> RAM: 2 x 512 as dual channel
>>>> HDD: 160 GB parallel ATA 133; 8 MB cache
>>>>
>>>> Dave Gillingham
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To email me remove the .private from my email address.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 1:04:53 AM

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

It doesn't matter. You'll be virtually not using your swap. And it is always a seperate drive not a logical drive.

--
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com
"Dave Gillingham" <dewg@private.optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:q1l9v0djclta630187ap0nf4d4sqh8l4es@4ax.com...
> I'm new to XP. In 98SE the standard wisdom seemed to be to keep your
> swap file on a separate logical drive of its own, with some debate
> over size. What is the advice for Win XP SP2?
> My relevant system specs are:
> Processor: P4 3 GHz
> RAM: 2 x 512 as dual channel
> HDD: 160 GB parallel ATA 133; 8 MB cache
>
> Dave Gillingham
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To email me remove the .private from my email address.
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 12:09:59 AM

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

Thanks for the helpful responses. My understanding of the
recommendation to put Win98's swap file in its own partition was to
protect it from fragmentation - the defragmenter ignored the swap file
& left it fragmented. If WinXP's page file comes into play & becomes
fragmented, does the same problem occur?

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:03:39 +1000, Dave Gillingham
<dewg@private.optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>I'm new to XP. In 98SE the standard wisdom seemed to be to keep your
>swap file on a separate logical drive of its own, with some debate
>over size. What is the advice for Win XP SP2?
>My relevant system specs are:
>Processor: P4 3 GHz
>RAM: 2 x 512 as dual channel
>HDD: 160 GB parallel ATA 133; 8 MB cache
>
>Dave Gillingham
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>To email me remove the .private from my email address.

Dave Gillingham
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To email me remove the .private from my email address.
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 12:10:00 AM

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

Dave Gillingham wrote:
> Thanks for the helpful responses. My understanding of the
> recommendation to put Win98's swap file in its own partition was to
> protect it from fragmentation - the defragmenter ignored the swap file
> & left it fragmented. If WinXP's page file comes into play & becomes
> fragmented, does the same problem occur?

Yes. The easiest way to prevent this is to set an initial size high enough
so the file hardly, if ever, grows.

To defrag an already fragged pagefile there are a couple of options:

1) Turn your page file _off_, reboot, run a full defrag and then turn your
pagefile back on.

2) Use a third party defragmenter capable of defragmenting files during
startup. http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/freeware/pagedefrag.s... is a
free program that does just this.
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 12:10:00 AM

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

In news:apihv05o8g3l5l7n1ca2itvdeu47713bj4@4ax.com,
Dave Gillingham <dewg@private.optusnet.com.au> typed:

> Thanks for the helpful responses. My understanding of the
> recommendation to put Win98's swap file in its own partition
> was to
> protect it from fragmentation - the defragmenter ignored the
> swap file
> & left it fragmented. If WinXP's page file comes into play &
> becomes
> fragmented, does the same problem occur?


Fragmentation of the swap (or page) file is seldom an important
consideration, since access to it tends to be random anyway.

However seek time, moving the drive heads from the commonly used
data on one partition to the separate page file partition *is* a
big factor and can slow you down substantially. Seek time is the
slowest aspect of using a hard drive.

For those reasons, with a single drive, it's better to keep the
page file in the same partition as Windows.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup


> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:03:39 +1000, Dave Gillingham
> <dewg@private.optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>I'm new to XP. In 98SE the standard wisdom seemed to be to
>>keep your
>>swap file on a separate logical drive of its own, with some
>>debate
>>over size. What is the advice for Win XP SP2?
>>My relevant system specs are:
>>Processor: P4 3 GHz
>>RAM: 2 x 512 as dual channel
>>HDD: 160 GB parallel ATA 133; 8 MB cache
>>
>>Dave Gillingham
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To email me remove the .private from my email address.
>
> Dave Gillingham
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To email me remove the .private from my email address.
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 5:54:25 PM

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

Dave Gillingham wrote:

>I'm new to XP. In 98SE the standard wisdom seemed to be to keep your
>swap file on a separate logical drive of its own, with some debate
>over size. What is the advice for Win XP SP2?

With a single physical hard drive, leave it where it is. The important
thing is to reduce seek times by having it near other activities. And
old advice in 98 is going to mislead. Read my page
www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm


--
Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
Bournemouth, U.K. Alexn@mvps.D8E8L.org (remove the D8 bit)
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 5:55:36 PM

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

null wrote:

>Actually, if I remember my hard drive partition layout correctly from my
>class at college, partitions (volumes) that don't use the entire drive
>are 'pie-shaped', and thus - because the platter is in motion - the head
>doesn't necessarily have to move any farther to (nor take any longer to
>get to) any particular data on the swap file, than it would necessarily
>have had to move had the swap file not been in a separate partition on
>the same drive.

Quite wrong with modern PC hard drives. That was from the days of IBM
mainframes


--
Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
Bournemouth, U.K. Alexn@mvps.D8E8L.org (remove the D8 bit)
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 5:58:08 PM

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

Dave Gillingham wrote:

>Thanks for the helpful responses. My understanding of the
>recommendation to put Win98's swap file in its own partition was to
>protect it from fragmentation - the defragmenter ignored the swap file
>& left it fragmented. If WinXP's page file comes into play & becomes
>fragmented, does the same problem occur?

Provided the initial size is big enough to handle all normal use, it
will not shrink and will not fragment. It was in Win95, where it was
constantly dynamically shrunk to the minimum needed at present that the
matter arose, and the conventional wisdom is a long time dying.
Fragmentation of the file is in any case far less important than is
sometimes made out with modern size RAM


--
Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
Bournemouth, U.K. Alexn@mvps.D8E8L.org (remove the D8 bit)
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 11:17:47 PM

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

Again, thanks for your help.

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:09:59 +1000, Dave Gillingham
<dewg@private.optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>Thanks for the helpful responses. My understanding of the
>recommendation to put Win98's swap file in its own partition was to
>protect it from fragmentation - the defragmenter ignored the swap file
>& left it fragmented. If WinXP's page file comes into play & becomes
>fragmented, does the same problem occur?
>
>On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:03:39 +1000, Dave Gillingham
><dewg@private.optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>I'm new to XP. In 98SE the standard wisdom seemed to be to keep your
>>swap file on a separate logical drive of its own, with some debate
>>over size. What is the advice for Win XP SP2?
>>My relevant system specs are:
>>Processor: P4 3 GHz
>>RAM: 2 x 512 as dual channel
>>HDD: 160 GB parallel ATA 133; 8 MB cache
>>
>>Dave Gillingham
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To email me remove the .private from my email address.
>
>Dave Gillingham
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>To email me remove the .private from my email address.

Dave Gillingham
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To email me remove the .private from my email address.
!