NTFS or FAT32 for my swap partition?

[mOrphine]

i am using win2k on an NTFS partition and have my swap file on a seperate partition which is using FAT32, wondering if it makes any difference in performance if i convert the partition to NTFS?

i have a partition for games in FAT32 also, actually, all my other partitions (for storing files like mp3) are in FAT32. would it make any difference if i change them to NTFS or should i keep them as FAT32?

thanx

 

[Chuck]

Making them NTFS would make them slower I think (never tried it though). I've always belived that if you need the features of NTFS (permisions, etc..) then you've got to use it. But if you don't then stick to FAT32.

HTH.

 

[BCYL]

I think the performance difference between NTFS and FAT32 is very minimum, at least nothing you will notice...

 

[jhu]

how about using fat16? since it's just one big file...

 

[mOrphine]

yeah, i heard NTFS is slower than FAT32 which is why i kept my swap partition as FAT32, just wondering if i should convert it to NTFS since that is win2k's native file system.

now FAT16... that's a thought heh

 

[Conroy9]

yeah, i heard fat16 is better if it's <512mb..
i'm very curious about the performance differences too

 

[SUOrangeman]

I don't think the traditional arguements against NTFS will apply to swap. Chances are that the page file will be contiguous (if you do a good job, hehe). Considering that the bits will fly on and off the drive at the same speed, the differences between the filesystems is likely negligible.

-SUO

 

[Tweakin]

The only thing I have found that makes any difference (small at that) is to create a small 1 gig partition at the beginning of your second drive (assuming that you have one) and placing the W2K swap file there. That way W2K has access to the fastest portion of the drive, and it's also on a seperate channel. I also run this partition Fat32.

 

[nasty]

The main differince between fat16/32 and ntfs, besides security, is the way it manages its entries. Fat16/32 stores its entries as one long list it has to scroll to, to find the entrie you requested.

NTFS stores its entries as a database! This means that when you are searching a lot of small files, NTFS wil outperforme FAT16/32. Your concern is about a swapfile (one single file).

This means that FAT16/32 is faster than NTFS.

 

[Conroy9]

I'm going to have 2 drives set up; I was planning to put my system and swapfile on my fast 75gxp drive, but would it be better to put the swapfile at the beginning of the slow drive instead?
or move the system to the slow drive and the swapfile at the beginning of the fast drive?

Conroy

 

[LocutusX]

- Put your system AND swapfile on your fast drive
- Use your slow drive for storing MP3s

 

[SUOrangeman]

Hmmm, I'd beg to differ with the last statement. In my only two-disk system, I put the swap on the slower drive. Why?

The heads on the main disk can just hover over the software/data portion of the disk while the heads on the other drive can just hover over the swap area. Less head movement, to me, lower access time, which equals faster resonse times.

If you only have one drive, the heads will have to constant go between software/data and swap areas. Ideally, you'd want swap and software/data comingled (that doesn't mean fragmented)on the outer tracks. Unfortunately, especially in the case mentioned in my dissertation (multiple OSes), the ideal situation may not be as important use as efficient usage of disk space.

-SUO

 

[dukdukgoos]

FAT16 would be fastest for a swap file partition. Try to have it on another physical drive from your OS for better performance.

 

[Motorheader]

If you are talking partitions, doesn't make much of a performance difference. If you are talking drives, you gain better performance with swap off another drive. This holds true for all versions of NT based OS's - each drive only has to do one thing - not two.

 

[LocutusX]

You're right, SUO. Here's a MS TechNet article which corresponds with what you're saying:

Link

 

[Conroy9]

hm, what that technet article says makes sense
however, they don't specify how big of a swapfile you should make on the boot partition.. i assume it only has to be as big as the size of the crash dump, but i don't know what that would be

any ideas?

Conroy