Re: Page File Query

From: Colin Barnhorst (colinbarharst(nojunk)_at_msn.com)
Date: 01/24/05 

Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:58:34 -0700

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.
>>
>>
>
>