Hi all,

I recenlty got a new computer with a 300GB RAID 0 (2x 150GB Raptors)
as one drive and a 500GB storage drive as a second drive. I am running
Windows XP Media Center 2005 with a Core 2 Extreme processor and two
GeForce 7950 GX2 video cards set up in a quad SLI config. I also have
4GB of DDR2 800MHz SDRAM.

I'm hoping that I can get help with two questions:

1) I noticed that when I boot the system the memory cycle cout does
count all 4GB of memory, but when I am in Windows and I right click on
My Computer\Properties, it states that I have 2.25GB of memory. Is
this a limitation of the operating system?
Is there a way around this to get the whole 4GB recognized?

2) With that much hard disk space, I am wondering if there is any
performance advantage or disadvantage to setting up multiple
partitions on each of the 2 drives. I was thinking of partitioning the
RAID into a 70GB Partition for just the OS and the remainder for
programs. I was also thinking of partitioning the second 500GB drive
into 3 partitions. Two partitions of approximately 215GB each and a
third of about 20GB for the swap file. Would any of this be of any
benefit?

Finally, if I removed the swap file that Windows Automatically setup
on the C: drive with the OS and put it on the other drive in its own
dedicated partition, would that be a performance booster or not?

Thanks for your advice and help!
Thanks in advance!!!

Regards,

Steve B.

1. The 4GB limit is sort of a limit of the operating system. Basically, for
a 32-bit OS, you have a limit of 4GB. You get up to 16GB or more on a 64-bit
OS, such as XP64 (but then you run into other problems).

So (you're thinking), why does XP not recognize that I have 4GB? The problem
is that the OS can only address 4GB of memory, regardless of where it is
located. And where is there additional memory? Remember that swap file? That
is included in the total. Additionally, your motherboard takes a tiny bit of
memory for itself.

2 & 3. You could eliminate the swap file, forcing XP to utilize more memory.
However, some programs will not run if the swap file is eliminated. Also,
XPs own memory optimizer requires a swap file to work. By the way, the swap
file works best on the primary partition of the least used drive on a
seperate cable. Therefore, if you have a partition that is not on the XP
drive, and is not on the same cable as XP, it will improve speed (slightly).
Otherwise, don't waste your time.

I have a system similar to yours except I have 8800s and 1.3TB of disk
space.

Courtney sends...

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi all,
>
> I recenlty got a new computer with a 300GB RAID 0 (2x 150GB Raptors)
> as one drive and a 500GB storage drive as a second drive. I am running
> Windows XP Media Center 2005 with a Core 2 Extreme processor and two
> GeForce 7950 GX2 video cards set up in a quad SLI config. I also have
> 4GB of DDR2 800MHz SDRAM.
>
> I'm hoping that I can get help with two questions:
>
> 1) I noticed that when I boot the system the memory cycle cout does
> count all 4GB of memory, but when I am in Windows and I right click on
> My Computer\Properties, it states that I have 2.25GB of memory. Is
> this a limitation of the operating system?
> Is there a way around this to get the whole 4GB recognized?
>
> 2) With that much hard disk space, I am wondering if there is any
> performance advantage or disadvantage to setting up multiple
> partitions on each of the 2 drives. I was thinking of partitioning the
> RAID into a 70GB Partition for just the OS and the remainder for
> programs. I was also thinking of partitioning the second 500GB drive
> into 3 partitions. Two partitions of approximately 215GB each and a
> third of about 20GB for the swap file. Would any of this be of any
> benefit?
>
> Finally, if I removed the swap file that Windows Automatically setup
> on the C: drive with the OS and put it on the other drive in its own
> dedicated partition, would that be a performance booster or not?
>
> Thanks for your advice and help!
> Thanks in advance!!!
>
> Regards,
>
> Steve B.

Courtney wrote:
> 1. The 4GB limit is sort of a limit of the operating system. Basically, for
> a 32-bit OS, you have a limit of 4GB. You get up to 16GB or more on a 64-bit
> OS, such as XP64 (but then you run into other problems).
>
> So (you're thinking), why does XP not recognize that I have 4GB? The problem
> is that the OS can only address 4GB of memory, regardless of where it is
> located. And where is there additional memory? Remember that swap file? That
> is included in the total. Additionally, your motherboard takes a tiny bit of
> memory for itself.
>
> 2 & 3. You could eliminate the swap file, forcing XP to utilize more memory.
> However, some programs will not run if the swap file is eliminated. Also,
> XPs own memory optimizer requires a swap file to work. By the way, the swap
> file works best on the primary partition of the least used drive on a
> seperate cable. Therefore, if you have a partition that is not on the XP
> drive, and is not on the same cable as XP, it will improve speed (slightly).
> Otherwise, don't waste your time.
>
> I have a system similar to yours except I have 8800s and 1.3TB of disk
> space.
>
> Courtney sends...
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>I recenlty got a new computer with a 300GB RAID 0 (2x 150GB Raptors)
>>as one drive and a 500GB storage drive as a second drive. I am running
>>Windows XP Media Center 2005 with a Core 2 Extreme processor and two
>>GeForce 7950 GX2 video cards set up in a quad SLI config. I also have
>>4GB of DDR2 800MHz SDRAM.
>>
>>I'm hoping that I can get help with two questions:
>>
>>1) I noticed that when I boot the system the memory cycle cout does
>>count all 4GB of memory, but when I am in Windows and I right click on
>>My Computer\Properties, it states that I have 2.25GB of memory. Is
>>this a limitation of the operating system?
>>Is there a way around this to get the whole 4GB recognized?
>>
>>2) With that much hard disk space, I am wondering if there is any
>>performance advantage or disadvantage to setting up multiple
>>partitions on each of the 2 drives. I was thinking of partitioning the
>>RAID into a 70GB Partition for just the OS and the remainder for
>>programs. I was also thinking of partitioning the second 500GB drive
>>into 3 partitions. Two partitions of approximately 215GB each and a
>>third of about 20GB for the swap file. Would any of this be of any
>>benefit?
>>
>>Finally, if I removed the swap file that Windows Automatically setup
>>on the C: drive with the OS and put it on the other drive in its own
>>dedicated partition, would that be a performance booster or not?
>>
>>Thanks for your advice and help!
>>Thanks in advance!!!
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Steve B.
>
>
>

A 32bit OS has a total address space of 2^32 bytes, or 4GB. Some of those
addresses point to memory, and some point to I/O registers; so, you can never
get the entire 4GB of RAM to be addressed. There is a boot-time switch
(/3GB? maybe) that allows more RAM to be addressed by apps; google will
help you find it and an explanation of what it does.

The swapfile is not part of the 4GB. If it were, this PC -- which has a
4GB swapfile -- would not be able to address any RAM.

Moving the swapfile from the boot HD to another HD (not just another part.
on the boot HD) might boost performance, but probably very little on a PC
with >2GB of RAM. After all, WinWhatever does not use the swapfile until
all of RAM is allocated. And it is usually unwise to not have a swapfile,
since that can cause strange crashes & hangs & other fun. As an alternative
to fooling with the swapfile, if you have apps that use temp files, point
those temp files to the non-boot HD; and, spread your data files around; and,
(uninstall then) reinstall your apps on that other HD.
--
Cheers, Bob

Bob Willard wrote:
>
> A 32bit OS has a total address space of 2^32 bytes, or 4GB. Some of
> those addresses point to memory, and some point to I/O registers; so,
> you can never get the entire 4GB of RAM to be addressed. There is a
> boot-time switch (/3GB? maybe) that allows more RAM to be addressed

Don't use the /3GB switch. This can actually slow down your system. When a
process is started in Windows it is given 2 GB of RAM to use irregardless of
how much actual RAM is installed or how much the program needs. The /3GB
switch changes this to 3 GB at the expense of the Windows kernel. Normally
the kernel gets the other 2 GB of address space. With the /3GB switch the
kernel is forced to live in 1 GB which can cause more paging and slow things
down. Use the /PAE switch and live with whatever RAM your motherboard allows
Windows to see or switch to a 64 bit OS if your CPU and motherboard support
it. Don't use the /3GB switch unless you have an application that needs it.
Usually it's used on SQL servers and stuff like that.
--
Kerry
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>Hi all,
>
See the answer that I posted to your indentical question in the
Windowsxp.general newsgroup.

You should not post the same question multiple times to different
newsgroups. If you think that it is appropriate to ask the question
in more than one newsgroup (and sometimes it is) then you should
multipost the question, which means that all of the newsgroups posted
to are included in the one posted message.

That way the responders will know that the question has been posted to
multiple places and they will not waste time researching an answer for
something that they have previously answered in another newsgroup.

Good luck

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
Syberfix Remote Computer Repair

"Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference
has never been in bed with a mosquito."