Is FAT16 faster than FAT32?

[Noriaki]

I'm going to make a partition at the beginning of my 7200rpm drive specifically for virtual memory for windows 98SE and Win2k, what is the faster file system to use for this?

Also, how do I make a FAT16 drive with FDISK in Win98SE?

 

[AndyHui]

FAT16 should be faster than FAT32....the table is much smaller.

When you enter FDISK, it should give you the option of supporting large hard disks. Answer NO to this. This will make FDISK perform in FAT16 mode.

 

[Davegod75]

depends on how big you are making the partition.

 

[Noriaki]

Somewhere between 1 and 2 gigs.
512-1024MB each for Win98 and Win2k (I don't believe in dynamic swap files, so I make them hella big so I won't run out)
I only need like 3 Gigs for linux...

So I figure like 1/2-1gig Win2k Swap, 1/2-1gig Win98 swap, 5.5-7gig linux, 1/2-1gig linux swap.

That should about cover my 9,100,000,000 byte hard drive.

So would you make the partition for Win2k and Win98 FAT16 or 32?

 

[SUOrangeman]

FYI: Win2K/NT and Win9x can use the same swap. Just set it up on the NT/2K side and then tell Win9x to use the same file via system.ini.

Read the sig. Get some ideas. Have a great day.

-SUO

 

[Noriaki]

<< FYI: Win2K/NT and Win9x can use the same swap. Just set it up on the NT/2K side and then tell Win9x to use the same file via system.ini. >>



Really? Funky. Thx for the tip.

 

[Noriaki]

I read that before SUO, it's a great piece.
Very very helpful I infact have it bookmarked

I didn't see in there how to point Win98SE to the swap file used by Win2k tho?

Edit: Or is it really easy and I just need to edit like 1 line in the system.ini ?

 

[Mday]

it's not the same swap file. trust me, the os regenerates (sorta) the swap...

 

[SUOrangeman]

Since you likely won't be running Win2k/NT/9x at the same time, using the same file is bot really a problem.

On the Win2K side, make the pafe file permanent (for example, I set it to 384MB, no more, no less).

On Win9x, I opened system.ini and edited the following sections. Note that the numerical values are in KB (I think ) and the semicolons are comments:

[386Enh]
;PagingDrive=C: This line is not needed if the next line is used and vice-versa. Without specifying the filename, I think win386.swp or winswp.386 is used. I fergetz.
PagingFile=C:\pagefile.sys
MinPagingFileSize=327680
MaxPagingFileSize=327680
ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1

[vcache]
;MinFileCache=MaxFileCache=25% of RAM in MB * 1024 KB/MB
MinFileCache=65536
MaxFileCache=65536
Chunksize=512
NameCache=2048
DirectoryCache=48

 

[Noriaki]

Thanks SUO!


<< Since you likely won't be running Win2k/NT/9x at the same time, using the same file is bot really a problem. >>

Hehe no I won't be, that's be an interesting trick though

Is that CacheSize = 25% of main memory a guideline or a requirement?

Edit: and do you put the CacheSize in both Win98 and Win2k? I've always set my pagefile size to constant, but I've enver seen the cache size thing before..

 

[Whitedog]

&quot;512-1024MB each for Win98 and Win2k (I don't believe in dynamic swap files, so I make them hella big so I won't run out)&quot;

Umm, that's sounds dynamic to me... sort of... If you have the disk space, your pagefile (swapfile) should ALWAYS be Static! meaning 1024-1024.
You should also make sure it contains zero fragments, one continuous file. The reason you want a static file is it will never fragment and put holes in your drive... performance, Right!

MS says you need &quot;your memory +10MBs&quot; free space for swapfile. I say 540 as minimum if you have the disk space.

The easiest way to create a zero fragmented pagefile (if you're using a seperate partition or drive for it) is move the pagefile off of that drive and either defrag it or format it... THEN move the pagefile to that drive and make it &quot;static&quot;!

Hope that helps...

Also BTW, on track with the topic, it should be FAT... Since it's only one file it has to read, and you don't need more than 2gigs... you don't benifit from either the small cluster size and large partitions which you gain from using FAT32. Disk access is faster using FAT.

If you &quot;can&quot; use the pagefile for both Win98 and Win2K (I didn't know this either... good find ) I would just create a single FAT partition on the 9gig drive of 1024 and just use that entire partition for the pagefile.

 

[bongod]

a good guideline is pagefile size = 2x your system ram. so 128mb ram = 256 mb pagefile. If you only have 1 hard drive, i wouldn't bother making a partition for the sole purpose of paging. as long as its static and unfragmented its somewhat arbitrary where your pagefile exists on the disk.. your disk heads are all over the place as it is, and no matter what it will have to _move_ to get to the pagefile. best way to get some fast paging performance, is to get a few extra drives that are just partitioned for paging, and mass storage - not OS drives. then, (and i'm not sure if this is possible in ME but it is on NT) slice your page file across those partitions. super fast.

the speed difference between fat32 and fat16 is negligible. the lookup/cluster size is not whats slowing you down.

 

[Noriaki]

Heheh that wasn't very clear what I meant..
&quot;512-1024MB&quot;

By this I meant I make them 512, or 768, or 1024 or something like that.
Somewhere between 1/2 and 1 gig static size.

 

[SUOrangeman]

Nori-

I set up the page file in Win2K/NT to some static size (384MB in my case).

Then, on the WIn9x size, I edit the system.ini to use the same file ... keeping the size parameters the same.

-SUO