Should I create a partition for a swapfile at beginning of 2nd 200GB HD being used for backup of first? If so, how big should it be with 1GB or RAM? 2GB of RAM? I was thinking maybe a 4GB partition, but the swap file probably won't be this big. This is for WindowsXP. Any ideas? Thank you.
swap file for XP? 2nd HD?
- Thread starter SkaarjMaster
- Start date
It should be 1.5 to 2 times larger than the amount of ram you have in your system. Example 512 megs of ram the swap should be 768 to 1024.
ZoNtO
Diamond Member
I have a 2GB page file and 1GB ram. I think for 256 and under it's recommended to just let windows manage it, and over 256 MB ram should be the 1.5 - 2x the amount. Hope that helped, I remember reading it from Maximum PC.
I tried doing this on my present working Win98SE system and it didn't like it, but this probably had something to do with each HD on a separate controller or something. It's looking like I might just set it to 1GB min and max (with 1GB or RAM) and leave it on my C: drive.
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
Win9X is ass, don't use it as a way to judge anything at all. And also don't set the min/max the same, it's stupid and there's no reason. All you end up doing is either A) wasting all that space because you never use the pagefile or B) running out of pagefile space because you set the limit too low. Just let XP manage it until you can design a better VM system than Microsoft.
Well, I doubt I'll be wasting any space with a 200GB HD and I don't think I'll run out of space with 1GB or 2GB or RAM and a 1GB swap file. Whatever I set it at, the min and max will be the same. I won't put it on the other HD though; it will remain on C: drive. Of course, if this doesn't work out, I can always change it.
I read somewhere that the best thing to do is set your max 1MB more than your min. Anyone know what this is all about?
There is no reason to create an additional partition. If you want to put it on a second drive for performance reasons just do so. MS uses swapFILES, not swap partitions.
If you ever get crash/bluescreen you won't be able to obtain a memory dump if you don't have at least enough pagefile on the boot drive to hold your physical memory. Something to consider at least.
Setting the min and max the same pretty much means that the file will stay a fixed size from the moment it's created. This makes it less likely to fragment. There's a couple things to consider here: If it was say 200MB in size before you set it to 1GB-1GB then it just grew 800MB in size and may have immediately fragmented the moment you set it when it would have stayed unfragmented if left alone. If you are using enough memory in a 1GB system to really put stress on your pagefile the amount of fragmentation won't matter much since your system is already running like a dog (hint: add more ram).
I think the big point to take away from this is there is no real reason to create a separate partition is all.
If you ever get crash/bluescreen you won't be able to obtain a memory dump if you don't have at least enough pagefile on the boot drive to hold your physical memory. Something to consider at least.
Setting the min and max the same pretty much means that the file will stay a fixed size from the moment it's created. This makes it less likely to fragment. There's a couple things to consider here: If it was say 200MB in size before you set it to 1GB-1GB then it just grew 800MB in size and may have immediately fragmented the moment you set it when it would have stayed unfragmented if left alone. If you are using enough memory in a 1GB system to really put stress on your pagefile the amount of fragmentation won't matter much since your system is already running like a dog (hint: add more ram).
I think the big point to take away from this is there is no real reason to create a separate partition is all.
I thought that 1MB thing was kinda hokie also. You guys are telling me not to create a separate partition and the guys at another forum are saying to do it. I finally got the computer running last night, but haven't got the backup HD connected yet. Just to make it easy, I probably won't do it. It didn't work very well when I set it up on my 98SE rig, so I guess I won't bother on the XP rig either; that's not saying XP wouldn't do a better job handling it though. It would be another story if 90% of the people said to do it, but it seems to be 50/50 right now. Thanks for your help!
The other forum is wrong.
Disclaimer: I don't speak in any official capacity when at this forum. I only speak on behalf of myself, but I do work at Microsoft.
SoulAssassin
Diamond Member
- Feb 1, 2001
- 6,135
- 2
- 0
Putting the swap file on a different physical spindle can increase performance (when swapping to disk) but putting on a different partition of the same physical disk is pointless.
Ok, so if I boot from a 5400 rpm 20gb drive, and put the swapfile on a new raptor, the paging will be faster?
Why would anybody do that, though? Boots would be incredibly tedious. And if the drives are equal in performance, will you get better performance with the pagefile on a separate disk? How can you actually measure this difference? Good ole "Seat of the pants" feeling? That's a bit unreliable.Conclusion: I need to read up on what a pagefile--swapfile, whatever--actually does.
Putting the paging file (XP) or swap file (9x) on a second HD makes good sense, but you should place it in a separate partition, which should be the first partition, on the second HD. Then the access time is fastest, which is good since the OS uses the paging/swap file a lot. With a large HD, I suggest at least 2GB, and 3 or 4 wouldn't hurt. Min/max ought to be the same, at the top end of the size of the partition, ie: 2-4GB. Fragmentation is not an issue, especially if you have your system set to clear the cache each time you shut down the machine. BTW, I did this with my previous Win98SE with no problems and faster swapping, so I believe it is a good idea. Good luck.
If one day, I find myself really, REALLY bored, I'll try testing the difference in performance. Sounds like more hassle than it's worth if you have 1gb+ of ram, though.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter