Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Creating Partition for virtual memory

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
Anonymous
August 14, 2004 12:24:58 AM

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

Hey guys I was reading this "tweaks" page and I read that
creating a hdd partition specifically reserved for
virtual memory can improve performance. They said that
you wont have to worry about defragging your hdd as much,
because hdd swapping causes alot of fragmentation.
Anwyays does anyone know if this is a good idea, and how
many gigabytes should virtual memory be?
thanks
Anonymous
August 14, 2004 4:46:25 AM

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

Ameer,

A good resource on Pagefiles:

Virtual memory in Windows XP
http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm

--

Anando
Microsoft MVP- Windows Shell/User
http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
http://www.mvps.org

Folder customizations
http://newdelhi.sancharnet.in/minku

Protect your PC!
http://www.microsoft.com/protect


"Ameer K." <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5edf01c481ae$46c9f630$a501280a@phx.gbl...
> Hey guys I was reading this "tweaks" page and I read that
> creating a hdd partition specifically reserved for
> virtual memory can improve performance. They said that
> you wont have to worry about defragging your hdd as much,
> because hdd swapping causes alot of fragmentation.
> Anwyays does anyone know if this is a good idea, and how
> many gigabytes should virtual memory be?
> thanks
Anonymous
August 14, 2004 5:11:39 AM

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

"Ameer K." <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5edf01c481ae$46c9f630$a501280a@phx.gbl...
> Hey guys I was reading this "tweaks" page and I read that
> creating a hdd partition specifically reserved for
> virtual memory can improve performance. They said that
> you wont have to worry about defragging your hdd as much,
> because hdd swapping causes alot of fragmentation.
> Anwyays does anyone know if this is a good idea, and how
> many gigabytes should virtual memory be?
> thanks

swap/page file golden rule - the system pagefile should be located on the
most used partition of the least used *physical* drive

creating a separate partition for the pagefile on the *same* physical drive
as Windows is a BAD idea, the drive will be forced to make continual
partition transitions during normal Windows operation, as it alternates
between the Windows drive and the pagefile drive, these transitions are more
costly, in terms of performance, than simply putting the pagefile on the
same drive (partition) as Windows.

however, if you have two or more physical drives in your system, then you
might see better performance by putting the pagefile on a different physical
drive(s). for example, assume you have 3 hard drives in your system (C:,
D:, E:) , and Windows is on C:, the pagefile can be moved from C: to either
drive D: or E: OR Windows can also span the pagefile across multiple drives,
so for example, you could have windows create 2 pagefiles on drives D: and
E:, simply select each drive in succession, click the radio button that says
'System Managed Size', press the Set button (for each drive), repeat for
each drive you want Windows to create a new pagefile on. (do NOT create a
separate partition for pagefiles, that will reduce performance, not enhance
it)

pagefiles can only be created on fixed drives, not on removeable or network
drives, so, for example, you cannot create a pagefile on external USB or
Firewire drive(s)

drive partitioning is really old-school thinking these days... it's simply
not necessary anymore, unless you're creating separate primary/bootable
partitions for multi-booting different operating systems, but for simple
data storage, and running programs, it makes more sense to simply create ONE
large partition the entire size of your drive and organize via directories,
not partitions

--
francis
Related resources
Anonymous
August 15, 2004 5:32:46 PM

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

francis gérard - typed:
> drive partitioning is really old-school thinking these days... it's
> simply not necessary anymore, unless you're creating separate
> primary/bootable partitions for multi-booting different operating
> systems, but for simple data storage, and running programs, it makes
> more sense to simply create ONE large partition the entire size of
> your drive and organize via directories, not partitions

I don't have any issues regarding your advice concerning PF placement
which is largely mirrored in the already quoted Alex N article but I do
have with the quoted para. One analogy that sticks in my mind is
likening a hard disc to a house. You can have everything in one big room
which a file system such as NTFS will allow without the pitfalls that
FAT32 can have. Different users can have their own cupboards to store
their own stuff etc. Now say you want to re-decorate or replace the
carpet - you have to shuffle everything around. Now divide that single
living space up into rooms according to purpose. The occupants now have
the option to share certain rooms & have their own private space.

Keeping one's data on the OS partition is if not actually dangerous, not
a brilliant idea. You OS starts acting up which requires reinstalling.
You have to then move all your (& possibly others) data to another
location before reformatting. OK, this is an extreme case where
reformatting is required but at the very least of having one extra
partition for personal data has to make sense.

I've moved virtually everything except the hibernate file off the OS
partition to others on the same physical disc or a 2nd one. If I mess up
the OS or want completely uninstall a certain application, I simply
overwrite my C drive with a previous image (stored on a different
partition of course) & after 20 mins, I'm back up & running without my
own data or settings being touched. There are also performance gains in
using multiple volumes such as reducing fragmentation. I even installed
most apps to another partition but usually restore both together to stop
stuff getting out of sync. Old school?

Paul
Anonymous
August 15, 2004 8:11:43 PM

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

"Lemon Jelly" <hhh@aaa.com> wrote in message
news:u7Za2PsgEHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>
> I don't have any issues regarding your advice concerning PF placement
> which is largely mirrored in the already quoted Alex N article but I do
> have with the quoted para. One analogy that sticks in my mind is likening
> a hard disc to a house. You can have everything in one big room which a
> file system such as NTFS will allow without the pitfalls that FAT32 can
> have. Different users can have their own cupboards to store their own
> stuff etc. Now say you want to re-decorate or replace the carpet - you
> have to shuffle everything around. Now divide that single living space up
> into rooms according to purpose. The occupants now have the option to
> share certain rooms & have their own private space.
>
> Keeping one's data on the OS partition is if not actually dangerous, not a
> brilliant idea. You OS starts acting up which requires reinstalling. You
> have to then move all your (& possibly others) data to another location
> before reformatting. OK, this is an extreme case where reformatting is
> required but at the very least of having one extra partition for personal
> data has to make sense.
>
> I've moved virtually everything except the hibernate file off the OS
> partition to others on the same physical disc or a 2nd one. If I mess up
> the OS or want completely uninstall a certain application, I simply
> overwrite my C drive with a previous image (stored on a different
> partition of course) & after 20 mins, I'm back up & running without my own
> data or settings being touched. There are also performance gains in using
> multiple volumes such as reducing fragmentation. I even installed most
> apps to another partition but usually restore both together to stop stuff
> getting out of sync. Old school?

your points are well-made, paul, for the most part, i agree, and that is how
i might setup a single drive system as well, depending on the size, speed,
etc of the hard drive in question. in my previous article, regarding the
multi-HDD system, i had made the assumption that the user's data would be
stored on a different physical drive, not on the same one as the OS was
installed on. in the case of a multi-HDD system, it would be better to
store valuable user data on a separate physical drive (not the same one as
the OS is installed on), which precludes the need for creating separate
partitions on each drive. but then there is the issue of moving user data
from the Windows' default locations to a different drive, Windows embeds and
buries user data all over the system drive, and although not a problem for
geeks like us, moving it all to a new location is usually beyond the scope
of the average user. when i said, 'old school' i was referring to the old
days when it was necessary to chop-up the drive into tiny partitions since
earlier versions of windows couldn't access partitions larger than, what was
it, 4GB or something like that. there are some people who still have that
mindset, and chop-up their drives into small partitions, as a way of
organizing their data. to my way of thinking, that is old-school... that's
what directories are for. organizing your programs onto a different
partition is also a good idea, but only if you can restore the registry
dependencies in the event of a crash/restore on the system drive, not to
mention all the shared .dll library files that 3rd party software installs
into the \windows\system32\ and \Program Files\Common Files\ directories.
it is possible to change the location of the \Program Files\Common Files\
directory, through the %CommonProgramFiles% environment variable, but again,
beyond the scope of most users, and that doesn't address the problem of
missing (program) files from the \system32\ directory should the operating
system require reinstallation.

anyway, as you say, data is better stored in a separate partition from the
operating system, or better still, stored on a separate physical (data)
drive.
--
francis
Anonymous
August 16, 2004 2:51:49 AM

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

francis gérard - typed:
> "Lemon Jelly" <hhh@aaa.com> wrote in message
> news:u7Za2PsgEHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>>
>> I don't have any issues regarding your advice concerning PF placement
>> which is largely mirrored in the already quoted Alex N article but I
>> do have with the quoted para. One analogy that sticks in my mind is
>> likening a hard disc to a house. You can have everything in one big
>> room which a file system such as NTFS will allow without the
>> pitfalls that FAT32 can have. Different users can have their own
>> cupboards to store their own stuff etc. Now say you want to
>> re-decorate or replace the carpet - you have to shuffle everything
>> around. Now divide that single living space up into rooms according
>> to purpose. The occupants now have the option to share certain rooms
>> & have their own private space. Keeping one's data on the OS
>> partition is if not actually dangerous,
>> not a brilliant idea. You OS starts acting up which requires
>> reinstalling. You have to then move all your (& possibly others)
>> data to another location before reformatting. OK, this is an extreme
>> case where reformatting is required but at the very least of having
>> one extra partition for personal data has to make sense.
>>
>> I've moved virtually everything except the hibernate file off the OS
>> partition to others on the same physical disc or a 2nd one. If I
>> mess up the OS or want completely uninstall a certain application, I
>> simply overwrite my C drive with a previous image (stored on a
>> different partition of course) & after 20 mins, I'm back up &
>> running without my own data or settings being touched. There are
>> also performance gains in using multiple volumes such as reducing
>> fragmentation. I even installed most apps to another partition but
>> usually restore both together to stop stuff getting out of sync. Old
>> school?
>
> your points are well-made, paul, for the most part, i agree, and that
> is how i might setup a single drive system as well, depending on the
> size, speed, etc of the hard drive in question. in my previous
> article, regarding the multi-HDD system, i had made the assumption
> that the user's data would be stored on a different physical drive,
> not on the same one as the OS was installed on. in the case of a
> multi-HDD system, it would be better to store valuable user data on a
> separate physical drive (not the same one as the OS is installed on),
> which precludes the need for creating separate partitions on each
> drive. but then there is the issue of moving user data from the
> Windows' default locations to a different drive, Windows embeds and
> buries user data all over the system drive, and although not a
> problem for geeks like us, moving it all to a new location is usually
> beyond the scope of the average user. when i said, 'old school' i
> was referring to the old days when it was necessary to chop-up the
> drive into tiny partitions since earlier versions of windows couldn't
> access partitions larger than, what was it, 4GB or something like
> that. there are some people who still have that mindset, and chop-up
> their drives into small partitions, as a way of organizing their
> data. to my way of thinking, that is old-school... that's what
> directories are for. organizing your programs onto a different
> partition is also a good idea, but only if you can restore the
> registry dependencies in the event of a crash/restore on the system
> drive, not to mention all the shared .dll library files that 3rd
> party software installs into the \windows\system32\ and \Program
> Files\Common Files\ directories. it is possible to change the
> location of the \Program Files\Common Files\ directory, through the
> %CommonProgramFiles% environment variable, but again, beyond the
> scope of most users, and that doesn't address the problem of missing
> (program) files from the \system32\ directory should the operating
> system require reinstallation.
> anyway, as you say, data is better stored in a separate partition
> from the operating system, or better still, stored on a separate
> physical (data) drive.

Thanks for the clarification Francis. As an aside, my quest to move
anything that could be moved off the OS volume got a little less
obsessive when I realised that moving the entire Documents & Settings
folder was peppered with problems to do after, rather than when
installing XP & when I realised that separating the OS & parts of the
registry hive wasn't such a bright idea, I lost even more interest in
doing so.

Regarding where Windows keeps settings, it took me quite a while to
figure out that IE6's history was partly stored in the registry (date
info) & the URLs in a user folder. As long as XP is bootable, I can run
a batch file to later restore even that - Drive Image was worth every
penny!

--
Paul
(Who is a happy bunny again, having sorted OE-Quotefix to work with
SP2!)
Anonymous
August 16, 2004 2:51:50 AM

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

"Lemon Jelly" <hhh@aaa.com> wrote in message
news:evS%23OIxgEHA.3320@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>
> Thanks for the clarification Francis. As an aside, my quest to move
> anything that could be moved off the OS volume got a little less obsessive
> when I realised that moving the entire Documents & Settings folder was
> peppered with problems to do after, rather than when installing XP & when
> I realised that separating the OS & parts of the registry hive wasn't such
> a bright idea, I lost even more interest in doing so.

if you wanna get fancy, you can create symbolic links (ntfs only) pointing
to the new target where you want to move stuff to, copy everything verbatim
to the target location (new drive or folder), then empty the contents of the
original directory and create a symbolic hardlink from the original source
to the target. i've done it to move the Program Files directory from one
location to another, it works, but i don't recommend this procedure for the
faint of heart. ;-}

for a brief description of ntfs symbolic links and a tool for creating them,
go here:

http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/source/misc.shtml#jun...

microsoft also provides a tool called LINKD which can be used for creating
symbolic links, but it's only available with the resource kit cds, which i
also have.

> Regarding where Windows keeps settings, it took me quite a while to figure
> out that IE6's history was partly stored in the registry (date info) & the
> URLs in a user folder. As long as XP is bootable, I can run a batch file
> to later restore even that - Drive Image was worth every penny!

yes indeed, too bad drive imaging isn't built right into System Restore, eh?
that would be fabulous!

> --
> Paul
> (Who is a happy bunny again, having sorted OE-Quotefix to work with SP2!)

oh really, please tell me more...

--
francis
Anonymous
August 17, 2004 3:00:14 AM

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

francis gérard - typed:
> "Lemon Jelly" <hhh@aaa.com> wrote in message
> news:evS%23OIxgEHA.3320@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>>
>> Thanks for the clarification Francis. As an aside, my quest to move
>> anything that could be moved off the OS volume got a little less
>> obsessive when I realised that moving the entire Documents &
>> Settings folder was peppered with problems to do after, rather than
>> when installing XP & when I realised that separating the OS & parts
>> of the registry hive wasn't such a bright idea, I lost even more
>> interest in doing so.
>
> if you wanna get fancy, you can create symbolic links (ntfs only)
> pointing to the new target where you want to move stuff to, copy
> everything verbatim to the target location (new drive or folder),
> then empty the contents of the original directory and create a
> symbolic hardlink from the original source to the target. i've done
> it to move the Program Files directory from one location to another,
> it works, but i don't recommend this procedure for the faint of
> heart. ;-}
> for a brief description of ntfs symbolic links and a tool for
> creating them, go here:
>
> http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/source/misc.shtml#jun...
>
> microsoft also provides a tool called LINKD which can be used for
> creating symbolic links, but it's only available with the resource
> kit cds, which i also have.

Thanks for the link - I already use Process Explorer, File Monitor & Reg
Monitor but managed to miss this one.

>> Regarding where Windows keeps settings, it took me quite a while to
>> figure out that IE6's history was partly stored in the registry
>> (date info) & the URLs in a user folder. As long as XP is bootable,
>> I can run a batch file to later restore even that - Drive Image was
>> worth every penny!
>
> yes indeed, too bad drive imaging isn't built right into System
> Restore, eh? that would be fabulous!

Although I only had problems with SR once early on, I read too many
reports regarding its lack of reliability, so disabled it on all drives,
choosing to use DI5 as a scheduled task at night instead, along with
NTBackup. SR caused very high levels of fragmentation. Fortunately, NTFS
is fairly impervious to this. Drive Image is reliable, can be scheduled
& the target location selected but isn't incremental or be triggered by
events like SR.

>> Paul
>> (Who is a happy bunny again, having sorted OE-Quotefix to work with
>> SP2!)
>
> oh really, please tell me more...

To get coloured quoting to wrap correctly: Properties, Read tab, untick
Read all messages in plain text & to show emoticons: Security tab,
untick Block images... (taken from a thread in
microsoft.private.xpsp2.outlookexpress May 2004).
--
Paul
(Who is currently trying to figure out how to get images to show in
Picture & Fax Viewer without right clicking 1st after SP2!)
Anonymous
August 17, 2004 3:00:15 AM

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

"Lemon Jelly" <hhh@aaa.com> wrote in message
news:o 9K6Z09gEHA.1048@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>
>> http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/source/misc.shtml#jun...
>>
>
> Thanks for the link - I already use Process Explorer, File Monitor & Reg
> Monitor but managed to miss this one.
>
get TCPView from his site too, that's a very handy utility for monitoring
port activity. i keep it running all the time. you'll want to change the
fonts though to make it more readable, i find tahoma 8pt pleasing enough.

> Although I only had problems with SR once early on, I read too many
> reports regarding its lack of reliability, so disabled it on all drives,
> choosing to use DI5 as a scheduled task at night instead, along with
> NTBackup. SR caused very high levels of fragmentation. Fortunately, NTFS
> is fairly impervious to this. Drive Image is reliable, can be scheduled &
> the target location selected but isn't incremental or be triggered by
> events like SR.

well you know, i think it's a bit of urban legend that ntfs is impervious to
the effects of fragmentation... ime, ntfs is just as susceptible to
fragmentation as the fat file system is. i understand the theory behind why
it's not supposed to be, but as we all know, theory is usually not the
reality. i too have disabled SR, early on i used it a couple times, it
managed to get me out of trouble once, but on another occasion it actually
removed some data files on a non-system drive that was being also being
monitored, it's not *supposed* to do that. i undid the restore, and the
files came back, so i thought, to hell with SR, it's unreliable and a waste
of resources. it should be completely replaced with a *reliable* drive
imaging utility.

please tell me more about DI5 (drive image v5, i assume you're talking
about)... and what do you use as a backup medium, to store the image?

> To get coloured quoting to wrap correctly: Properties, Read tab, untick
> Read all messages in plain text & to show emoticons: Security tab, untick
> Block images... (taken from a thread in
> microsoft.private.xpsp2.outlookexpress May 2004).

ahh ok, i used to have the 'read all messages in plain text' option enabled,
but that was before SP2, now that it blocks external content/images, i don't
worry about my e-mail address being verified by a 1 pixel gif embedded into
a html spam message. i guess that's where the second part of your tip comes
in, but i think i'll leave 'block images...' enabled, and just click on the
notification bar in OE if i want to see the images, providing it's not junk
mail, that is.

--
francis
Anonymous
August 17, 2004 1:38:54 PM

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

francis gérard wrote:
> "Lemon Jelly" <hhh@aaa.com> wrote in message
> news:o 9K6Z09gEHA.1048@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>> http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/source/misc.shtml#jun...
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the link - I already use Process Explorer, File Monitor &
>> Reg Monitor but managed to miss this one.
>>
> get TCPView from his site too, that's a very handy utility for
> monitoring port activity. i keep it running all the time. you'll
> want to change the fonts though to make it more readable, i find
> tahoma 8pt pleasing enough.
>
>> Although I only had problems with SR once early on, I read too many
>> reports regarding its lack of reliability, so disabled it on all
>> drives, choosing to use DI5 as a scheduled task at night instead,
>> along with NTBackup. SR caused very high levels of fragmentation.
>> Fortunately, NTFS is fairly impervious to this. Drive Image is
>> reliable, can be scheduled & the target location selected but isn't
>> incremental or be triggered by events like SR.
>
> well you know, i think it's a bit of urban legend that ntfs is
> impervious to the effects of fragmentation... ime, ntfs is just as
> susceptible to fragmentation as the fat file system is. i understand
> the theory behind why it's not supposed to be, but as we all know,
> theory is usually not the reality. i too have disabled SR, early on
> i used it a couple times, it managed to get me out of trouble once,
> but on another occasion it actually removed some data files on a
> non-system drive that was being also being monitored, it's not
> *supposed* to do that. i undid the restore, and the files came back,
> so i thought, to hell with SR, it's unreliable and a waste of
> resources. it should be completely replaced with a *reliable* drive
> imaging utility.
>
> please tell me more about DI5 (drive image v5, i assume you're talking
> about)... and what do you use as a backup medium, to store the image?
>
>> To get coloured quoting to wrap correctly: Properties, Read tab,
>> untick Read all messages in plain text & to show emoticons: Security
>> tab, untick Block images... (taken from a thread in
>> microsoft.private.xpsp2.outlookexpress May 2004).
>
> ahh ok, i used to have the 'read all messages in plain text' option
> enabled, but that was before SP2, now that it blocks external
> content/images, i don't worry about my e-mail address being verified
> by a 1 pixel gif embedded into a html spam message. i guess that's
> where the second part of your tip comes in, but i think i'll leave
> 'block images...' enabled, and just click on the notification bar in
> OE if i want to see the images, providing it's not junk mail, that is.

Just a comment about System Restore. It should not be used to monitor drives
other than the drive where the OS is installed. The file types it's monitors
are usually only found on the %system root% drive. It's not meant to be a
general backup program.

Frequently Asked Questions Regarding System Restore in Windows XP:
http://microsoft.com/technet/itcommunity/Newsgroups/FAQ...

System Restore Removes Files During a Restore Procedure:
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=261716

--
Ronnie Vernon
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User
Anonymous
August 17, 2004 8:51:06 PM

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

"Ronnie Vernon MVP" <ronv@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:u5SHRiHhEHA.556@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

>
> Just a comment about System Restore. It should not be used to monitor
> drives
> other than the drive where the OS is installed. The file types it's
> monitors
> are usually only found on the %system root% drive. It's not meant to be a
> general backup program.

agreed... but the SR service monitors ALL drives by default when it is
enabled, although it can be disabled on a per-drive basis, but many users
don't know this.

--
francis
Anonymous
August 18, 2004 1:57:34 AM

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

francis gérard - typed:
<Snipped>
> well you know, i think it's a bit of urban legend that ntfs is
> impervious to the effects of fragmentation... ime, ntfs is just as
> susceptible to fragmentation as the fat file system is. i understand
> the theory behind why it's not supposed to be, but as we all know,
> theory is usually not the reality.

I would tend to agree but with a *big* but - NTFS probably does fragment
as much as say FAT16 but it isn't particularly /effected/ by
fragmentation. I use Raxco's Perfect Disc2000 'cos at the time of
purchase, it out-performed both O&O or DK. I rather suspect the case for
defragmenters is somewhat over-stated. PD also had far more commandline
parameters than the competition at the time so using Task Scheduler to
wake my box from S3 Standby, defrag drives as required then go back to
sleep without even waking my CRT (or me) with complete reliability was
very satisfying. Even DI5 runs perfectly from TS at night as does
NTBackup, NAV2002 & Ad-aware.

I use Drive Image 5.01, 2 versions behind the current, the target
alternating between 2 h/ds - I don't even try to span to CDR/DVDs.
!