Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.configuration_manage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment (
More info?)
Pop, the pagefile does not have to be on the system partition. It can be
placed on any drive. In an XP system I would leave it right where the
installer puts it (especially with lots of ram because the pagefile will not
be used much), but some people, especially those who grew up on old and
resource starved systems, still like to move the pagefile to another drive
so that both drives can be asynchronously writing, thus speeding up
performance. This only works that way with IDE drives if they are on
different controllers (to get the asynchronous effect). With SATA drives it
works out automatically. However, what does not do any good is to put the
pagefile on a different partition of the same physical drive the system is
on. That just increases the travel distance for the read/write heads on the
one drive.
--
Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
(Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
"Pop" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:%23cYsadJEFHA.4052@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> But, but, but ...
> I thought it was agreed, the pafefile had to be in the same partition as
> the os. If that's so, then why the pro/con dialog re multiple physical
> drives?
>
> At first it all made sense, then this sidetrip confused everything.
>
>
> harryguy082589@gmail.com wrote:
>> Sorry if i wasn't clear, it is two seprate hard drives
>>
>> Colin Barnhorst (nojunk) wrote:
>>> This layout will degrade the performance of your system unless you
>>> use a second hard drive. Putting the pagefile on a partition on the
>>> same spindle just increases the travel distances for the heads. To
>>> be effective you want two hard drives each on a different controller
>>> channel. If you used this layout for Win98 and thought you were
>>> enhancing performance, you were
>>
>>> actually slowing the system down. Sorry.
> ===> Umm, sorry, as you say, but it didn't necessarily "slow" the system
> down; it may have NOT changed system speed overall, but it didn't HAVE to
> have slowed the system down unless you are counting machine cycles,
> whatever, to the point of imperceptable changes.
>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
>>> (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
>>> <harryguy082589@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1108134323.000829.292580@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > I am setting up my new instillation of windows xp with numerous
>>> > partitions to sort out my files and one of these partitions is
>>> > only for temp files. I have been able to move my pagefile and all
>>> > of the temp folders onto this partition, but I cant get the
>>> > hibernation file to move. Any ideas how?
>>> >
>>> > Thanks in advance,
>>> >
>>> > Dan
>
> Experimentation on my test laptop seem to show that the pagefile must
> indeed reside within the same partition as the operating system. There
> may be ways to SUBST or SHARE things to get to another drive letter, but
> it would, IMO, go against any improvements for lack of stability.
>
> --
> ---
> No, I won't get dressed.
> I'm retired!
>