Paging File: Much benefit in using another SSD for it?

[tom2u]

I've got a few extra small SSD drives lying around so I decided to use one for XP's paging file. Seems to work fine but I'm not sure how much better it is. Is there any test that I can use to test the difference in performance? Does anyone know what programs this would most benefit? If it doesn't make much of a difference I'd rather just use a partition on D drive where all of my data is presently stored for the paging file. The biggest headache I face now is HD movies (using a Radeon 1gb 5450 card) and websites that have a lot of content. Because of a ram issue I'm presently only using 1 stick of 800mhz DDR2 ram.

 

[Saga Lout]

You would have to be looking at finely tuned benchmark testing to find out the benefit, if any. There is definitely a benefit in defragging pagefile.sys at least weekly and placing it on a separate drive lessens the need for that because the fragments don't get mixed up with other files. Beyond that, I'd say a nearly twelve year old OS, almost eight years past its last Service Pack, won't get much faster with just one tweak.

 

[tom2u]

That last sentence was pretty funny.
I never thought about defragging it. Great idea.
So you don't think I'd notice any performance downgrade if I moved the pagefile from the SSD drive to a typical 7200 rpm Sata drive?

 

[Saga Lout]

So you don't think I'd notice any performance downgrade if I moved the pagefile from the SSD drive to a typical 7200 rpm Sata drive?

I can't see how it could be noticeable in normal day to day use but freeing up that SSD in favour of an older disk is a good idea. Until the cost of SSD drives comes down considerably, I will only be using them for their maximum capabilities and not just to store one file, however important it is.

There's a lot to be said for allowing XP to manage and set the size of pagefile.sys.