|
pc
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Swap file usage
people here would know. I'm going to add a new hard drive to my system. It will be a 7200RPM PATA 133 drive with an 8MB buffer. My current drive is a 7200RPM PATA 100 drive with a 2MB buffer. Would it be better to put my swap file on the old drive all by itself, or put it on the new fast drive along with Windows 2000? Thanks HC That is what I would do. I like to use a second drive for doing internal
system backups, and keeping archived files. In all our computers we are using second hard disks. We have the swap file working on them. We found that this gives a bit of a speed increase. -- Jerry G. ====== "HC" <e**@removethis.toao.net> wrote in message news:Q85Wd.839$gJ3.533@clgrps13...Dunno if this is *quite* the right newsgroup, but this seems like something people here would know. I'm going to add a new hard drive to my system. It will be a 7200RPM PATA 133 drive with an 8MB buffer. My current drive is a 7200RPM PATA 100 drive with a 2MB buffer. Would it be better to put my swap file on the old drive all by itself, or put it on the new fast drive along with Windows 2000? Thanks HC On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 22:18:24 GMT, "HC"
<e**@removethis.toao.net> wrote: >Dunno if this is *quite* the right newsgroup, but this seems like something It depends on what you'd be doing when exceeding physical>people here would know. > >I'm going to add a new hard drive to my system. It will be a 7200RPM PATA >133 drive with an 8MB buffer. My current drive is a 7200RPM PATA 100 drive >with a 2MB buffer. Would it be better to put my swap file on the old drive >all by itself, or put it on the new fast drive along with Windows 2000? > >Thanks >HC > memory. Windows does I/O to pagefile otherwise but that's not nearly so significant. Hopefully your system has enough memory that it's never dependent on the HDD for virtual memory needs. Just running the OS, it's far harder to need swap space on a modern system due to vastly better equipped systems. Most any PC has 256MB these days and yet WinXP itself doesn't need over 160MB. Applictions on the other hand may make up a larger portion of memory used (in some cases) such that IF you had this kind of typical need, you'd be better off putting swapfile on some other drive than that used by the application and/or it's data files. Bascially the goal is to look at which is making the most demands from your HDD(s) and putting the swap file on the least-used drive (assuming all are moderately new, fast drives- Yours is modern enough to qualify if less than a couple years old, give or take ( excluding early 7K2 drives, a ~4 year old 20GB 7K2 drive is quite a bit slower than a new 120GB 7K2 drive, regardless of the cache sizes.) HC wrote:
> I'm going to add a new hard drive to my system. It will be a 7200RPM PATA My intuition says it probably doesn't make a noticeable difference. Our > 133 drive with an 8MB buffer. My current drive is a 7200RPM PATA 100 drive > with a 2MB buffer. Would it be better to put my swap file on the old drive > all by itself, or put it on the new fast drive along with Windows 2000? single-user systems operate fairly much in a read-a-page, write-a-page mode and wait for the I/O operation to complete after each one. If you select a different drive there is a very small probability that it will be in exactly the right place to start the next transfer where as the first drive will have to wait for a bit until the disk turns to the right place. Most of the time, the second disk will have to wait in the same way however. I believe the right thing to do is buy lots of RAM so that the swap file doesn't get used at all. Set its size to 0. Create a small partition at the beginning of the old hard drive for the page file. Don't set the pagefile size to 0; it will most likely cause a system crash. Your temp directory should also be on the old drive.
HC wrote: > > Dunno if this is *quite* the right newsgroup, but this seems like something > people here would know. > > I'm going to add a new hard drive to my system. It will be a 7200RPM PATA > 133 drive with an 8MB buffer. My current drive is a 7200RPM PATA 100 drive > with a 2MB buffer. Would it be better to put my swap file on the old drive > all by itself, or put it on the new fast drive along with Windows 2000? > > Thanks > HC -- Mike Walsh West Palm Beach, Florida, U.S.A. On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 14:19:49 GMT, Mike Walsh <mikew***@sbcglobal.net>
wrote: Show quoteHide quote > Wondering; would it matter if the drives were on the same IDE channel>Create a small partition at the beginning of the old hard drive for the page file. Don't set the pagefile size to 0; it will most likely cause a system crash. Your temp directory should also be on the old drive. > >HC wrote: >> >> Dunno if this is *quite* the right newsgroup, but this seems like something >> people here would know. >> >> I'm going to add a new hard drive to my system. It will be a 7200RPM PATA >> 133 drive with an 8MB buffer. My current drive is a 7200RPM PATA 100 drive >> with a 2MB buffer. Would it be better to put my swap file on the old drive >> all by itself, or put it on the new fast drive along with Windows 2000? >> >> Thanks >> HC or not, as to whether it's faster to be on the second drive? jack wrote:
> Using separate cables won't make any difference. Worst case scenario with both on the same cable is they will both run with UDMA mode 5. > On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 14:19:49 GMT, Mike Walsh <mikew***@sbcglobal.net> > wrote: > > >Create a small partition at the beginning of the old hard drive for the page file. Don't set the pagefile size to 0; it will most likely cause a system crash. Your temp directory should also be on the old drive. > Wondering; would it matter if the drives were on the same IDE channel > or not, as to whether it's faster to be on the second drive? -- Mike Walsh West Palm Beach, Florida, U.S.A. 
Other interesting topics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
