Picking drive for the hibernation file

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?)

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
15 answers Last reply
More about picking drive hibernation file
  1. 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?)

    The hibernation file must remain on the same partition as
    the Windows XP operating system. Do not attempt to move
    it to another partition as it will cease to function as designed.

    --
    Carey Frisch
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows XP - Shell/User
    Microsoft Newsgroups

    Be Smart! Protect Your PC!
    http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/default.mspx

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    "harryguy" wrote:

    | 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
    |
  2. 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?)

    Hi Dan,

    Simply put: You can't. Hiberfil.sys *must* remain on the system partition.

    --
    Best of Luck,

    Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
    http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
    Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
    www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
    Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

    <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
    >
  3. 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?)

    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.

    --
    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
    >
  4. 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?)

    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.
    >
    > --
    > 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
    > >
  5. 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?)

    "Carey Frisch [MVP]" wrote in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:
    >The hibernation file must remain on the same partition as
    >the Windows XP operating system. Do not attempt to move
    >it to another partition as it will cease to function as designed.

    Out of curiosity, what happens if I delete it while Windows XP is
    running normally? Is anything crried over from one hibernation
    period to te next, or is the file created anew each time the
    computer goes into hibernation?

    --

    Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
    http://OakRoadSystems.com/
  6. 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?)

    Moreover, to place pagefile in another partition doesn't improve the performance. It's better to place it in another hard disk (when provided).

    "Carey Frisch [MVP]" <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> escribió en el mensaje news:uSOV7xEEFHA.560@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
    > The hibernation file must remain on the same partition as
    > the Windows XP operating system. Do not attempt to move
    > it to another partition as it will cease to function as designed.
    >
    > --
    > Carey Frisch
    > Microsoft MVP
    > Windows XP - Shell/User
    > Microsoft Newsgroups
    >
    > Be Smart! Protect Your PC!
    > http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/default.mspx
    >
    > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > "harryguy" wrote:
    >
    > | 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
    > |
  7. 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?)

    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!
  8. 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!
    >
  9. 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?)

    The hibernate file has to be on the system partition - period. The pagefile
    can be relocated. They are two different things. What Colin was referring to
    is that it is usually inefficient to put the pagefile on another partition
    that is on the same hard drive.

    --
    Best of Luck,

    Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
    http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
    Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
    www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
    Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

    "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!
    >
  10. 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?)

    "" wrote in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:
    >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)

    I wouldn't be too sure about that last statement. I've got a GB of
    RAM, and I'm running only my newsreader and browser, and the page
    file is 1.3 GB.

    --

    Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
    http://OakRoadSystems.com/
  11. 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?)

    That does not mean the computer is going there very much. It probably
    isn't. Anyway, I'm sure about what I said.

    One of the reasons not to have a large page file on a system with ample ram
    is that too many of the pages have staledated by the time the next hit
    occurs and that just wastes time since the system is going to have to
    refresh anyway. It might as well have done that in the first place.

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
    news:375g0sF580kq6U1@individual.net...
    > "" wrote in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:
    >>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)
    >
    > I wouldn't be too sure about that last statement. I've got a GB of
    > RAM, and I'm running only my newsreader and browser, and the page
    > file is 1.3 GB.
    >
    > --
    >
    > Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
    > http://OakRoadSystems.com/
  12. 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?)

    Doesn't mean it's using it. The system default is to set the initial size at
    1.5 times the amount of installed ram. That's overkill unless a full memory
    dump on system failure is useful to you. Set the initial size at 100MB and
    see if it ever grows.

    --
    Best of Luck,

    Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
    http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
    Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
    www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
    Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

    "Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
    news:375g0sF580kq6U1@individual.net...
    > "" wrote in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:
    >>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)
    >
    > I wouldn't be too sure about that last statement. I've got a GB of
    > RAM, and I'm running only my newsreader and browser, and the page
    > file is 1.3 GB.
    >
    > --
    >
    > Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
    > http://OakRoadSystems.com/
  13. 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?)

    "Rick "Nutcase" Rogers" wrote in
    microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:
    >"Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
    >news:375g0sF580kq6U1@individual.net...
    >> I wouldn't be too sure about that last statement. I've got a GB of
    >> RAM, and I'm running only my newsreader and browser, and the page
    >> file is 1.3 GB.

    >Doesn't mean it's using it. The system default is to set the initial size at
    >1.5 times the amount of installed ram. That's overkill unless a full memory
    >dump on system failure is useful to you. Set the initial size at 100MB and
    >see if it ever grows.

    Thanks for the suggestion. I know from Alex Nichols' article that
    setting min = max = a fixed multiple of RAM size is wrong, but I
    never picked up on the idea of setting the initial value low.

    --

    Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
    http://OakRoadSystems.com/
  14. 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?)

    Stan Brown wrote:
    > "Rick "Nutcase" Rogers" wrote in
    > microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:
    >
    >>"Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
    >>news:375g0sF580kq6U1@individual.net...
    >>
    >>>I wouldn't be too sure about that last statement. I've got a GB of
    >>>RAM, and I'm running only my newsreader and browser, and the page
    >>>file is 1.3 GB.
    >
    >
    >>Doesn't mean it's using it. The system default is to set the initial size at
    >>1.5 times the amount of installed ram. That's overkill unless a full memory
    >>dump on system failure is useful to you. Set the initial size at 100MB and
    >>see if it ever grows.
    >
    >
    > Thanks for the suggestion. I know from Alex Nichols' article that
    > setting min = max = a fixed multiple of RAM size is wrong, but I
    > never picked up on the idea of setting the initial value low.
    >

    If you set the intial value low, be sure to keep a close eye on the
    current size of the swap file. If the size increases past 100MB, you'll
    want to set a larger minimum. The goal is a non-fragmented page file.

    --
    Bob Dietz
  15. 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?)

    "Bob Dietz" wrote in microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support:
    >Stan Brown wrote:
    (1 GB RAM)
    >> Thanks for the suggestion. I know from Alex Nichols' article that
    >> setting min = max = a fixed multiple of RAM size is wrong, but I
    >> never picked up on the idea of setting the initial value low.
    >
    >If you set the intial value low, be sure to keep a close eye on the
    >current size of the swap file. If the size increases past 100MB, you'll
    >want to set a larger minimum. The goal is a non-fragmented page file.

    It seems to be staying at 102,400 KB -- exactly the 100 MB minimum
    I created it as. (I gave it a max of 1512 MB.)

    --

    Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
    http://OakRoadSystems.com/
Ask a new question

Read More

Configuration Hibernation Microsoft Windows XP