format of pagefile on 2nd hard drive

[Timothy Daniels]

Thanks again, Jef.


*TimDaniels*

 

[Rod Speed]

J.Clarke wrote

<This is getting comical.>

Yep, you're becoming a complete laughing stock.

More RAM is not an option.

More ram is ALWAYS an option.

And he was rubbing your nose in your basic stupidity that
EITHER 384MB is enough physical ram and the pagefile
isnt being used for other than the XP startup ops, OR
the pagefile is being used a lot BECAUSE you dont have
enough physical ram, in which case you can fiddle with the
detail of the pagefile until the cows come home if you like, it
wont help worth a damn with a decent performance hard drive.

I am a student and I can't afford to
spend $250 for 784MB of new RAM.

Doesnt cost anything like that.

I also have available (at no extra cost) a fast 2nd hard drive, and
I have available (at no extra cost) an unused ATA/133 channel.

See above.

The only time I push the system is doing Java/C#
compilations and testing software that uses runtime services.

So your claim that you have enough physical ram is just plain wrong.

I'm assuming the compilations make use of the pagefile space.

Depends on which compiler you are using.

I also assume defragging uses the pagefile
space to reassemble and reorder blocks of files.

Dud assumption.

And only fools who havent got a clue obsessively defrag anyway.

Since I have the 2nd hard drive and the 2nd
ATA/133 channel, why not use them? They're free!

Because if you dont have enough physical ram, it will
make sweet **** all difference when the boot drive
is a decent modern performance drive, bonehead.

Try it and see.

Bet you wont have the balls to admit
that it makes sweet **** all difference.

And everyone keeps telling you that the pagefile
does NOT get included in the image file.

Get sillier by the minute. You'll get the same effect by moving
some stuff off the boot drive to the other drive, stupid.

More fool you.

Wrong question, stupid.

Who needs a practical difference?

Anyone analy obsessing about which to use, fool.

Who's agonizing?

You, fool.

I've asked some simple questions in the interest
of understanding and utilizing my system better
without spending a bunch of money,

And EVERYONE with a clue has kept telling you
what been spelt out a number times at the top, stupid.

and everyone starts making value judgements

Wrong. As always. Everyone has been rubbing YOUR stupid
nose in the basics that you cant manage to grasp, stupid.

about what *else* I should do

Because thats the only thing that matters, ****wit.

instead of just answering the simple questions.

Wrong questions, fool.

Must I first justify my intentions before
anyone will proffer some simple answers?

Everyone has been providing simple
answers right from the start, wanker.

If those questions had simply been answered,

Its simply answered right at the top, ****wit.

this thread would have been 2 postings long.

Wrong. As always. Anyone with any sense would
have pointed out the complete irrelevancy of the
'simple answers' you keep demanding, child.

Just what are you 'studying', child ?

Hope its not rocket science. You'll fail.

 

[J.Clarke]

<http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php> should tell you everything you want
to know about dinking with pagefiles. It took me less than two minutes
to find that with Google.

:> >


<This is getting comical.> More RAM is not an option. I
am a student and I can't afford to spend $250 for 784MB
of new RAM.

Do you need 768 meg to achieve your objectives? Why would you pay $250?
You can get 256 meg DIMMs from Crucial for 65 bucks a shot.

I also have available(at no extra cost) a fast
2nd hard drive, and I have available (at no extra cost) an
unused ATA/133 channel. The only time I push the system
is doing Java/C# compilations and testing software that
uses runtime services. I'm assuming the compilations make
use of the pagefile space.

Only when the compilation cannot be performed in the available physical
memory.

I also assume defragging uses the
pagefile space to reassemble and reorder blocks of files.

Only when the defrag cannot be performed using the available physical
memory.

The pagefile is used for two purposes in Windows. One is to use cheap
disk space as a slow supplement to RAM--the pagefile is under that
circumstance treated by application programs as just more RAM and it is
not used differently by them than is any other RAM. The other is to
hold a dump of the system RAM in the event of a crash for the purposes
of debugging. For that purpose the pagefile on drive C and only the
pagefile on drive C is used.

Any time your system is paging it is running much more slowly than it
would if it did not need to page.

Since I have the 2nd hard drive and the 2nd ATA/133 channel,
why not use them? They're free!

The question is not whether to use them. The question is whether using
them to hold a pagefile will gain you anything.

I also intend to
periodically "ghost" the primary drive image to a
removable backup hard drive. I figure I could reduce
the time a little bit if the pagefile area doesn't have to
be copied, and it's possible that de-frags of the primary
drive would take a little less time if there's no pagefile
to work around. And in the unlikely event that the
primary drive starts getting congested, the area normally
taken for the pagefile would be available for storage.
So, for a zero cash outlay, I've decided to utilize a small
portion of the 2nd hard drive. All that I've been asking
is how best to do that - and *only* that.

[.......]
No need to agonize over NTFS vs FAT vs FAT32
or cluster size or any of that stuff--those will have a very tiny
effect on system performance if the page file is heavily utilized--
if it's not then they aren't going to make one iota of practical
difference.

Who needs a practical difference?

If you don't need a practical difference then why did you ask the
question?

Who's agonizing?

Anybody who really cares about fine tuning the pagefile is agonizing.

I've asked some simple questions in the interest of
understanding and utilizing my system better without
spending a bunch of money, and everyone starts making
value judgements about what *else* I should do instead
of just answering the simple questions.

That's because what you propose to do is going to have very little
effect on the performance of your system and is usually not worth the
effort.

Must I first justify
my intentions before anyone will proffer some simple
answers? If those questions had simply been answered,
this thread would have been 2 postings long.

It would help if you were clear in what you were asking. Is your
question "what can I do to my system to make compiles faster" or is your
question "I have an extra drive, what is the best way to use it?" or is
your question "what is the optimal configuration for a pagefile given
384 meg of RAM and two drives, one of which is currently empty?" Or is
it something else?

 

[bill]

|
| >| >|
| >| >| Hmmm...
| >| >| Obviously an *old* computer. :-(
| >| >| I understand your desire to speed things up, but, honestly, with
| >| >| something that old, you're trying to put fancy rims on a Vega. Nothing
| >| >| you can do will speed that up to any discernable amount.
| >| >| Sorry.
| >| >
| >| >Stupid Troll. He has plenty of memory.
| >| >
| >| Does that mean he has more than you have?
| >| I'm intrigued by your comment. Why, when he says his system has to use
| >| virtual memory, do you say he's got plenty of RAM?
| >
| >Windows 2K/XP always pages out, no matter how much RAM you have. You don't
| >have a clue, do you?
|
| Yes, I do.
| I'm also capable of talking without attacking, something you evidently
| can't do.

You've demonstrated you are a troll. I am pointing out the obvious.

| Now, try this: it's obvious that the OP is using his pagefile because
| he doesn't have enough RAM for the work he's doing.
| >
And your point is? Enabling the pagefile improves performance unless you are
really short of RAM.

| >I doubt the OP has problems with excessive pagefile activity. I don't with
| >255MB and Win2K, and everything is fast. I even have 140MB available now.
| >
| >Almost nobody bothers measuring activity with perfmon. It's rarely a
problem.
|
| So you know what's going on with the OP's systyem better than he does?
| How do you manage that?
|
Years of experience. What I observe on my system applies to the majority of
others.

Talk about being a troll!

 

[J.Clarke]

I should have looked there first.




I don't need *any* RAM to achieve my objective,
which is added use for my 2nd hard drive which has
gobs of free space.

Then take all the RAM out of your machine since you say you don't need
it.

Now, you say that you want "added use for your 2nd hard drive which has
gobs of free space". Then you go on about a pagefile. If you put a
pagefile on that drive for the purpose of increasing performance then
you will be unable to use any of the rest of that "gobs of free space"
because if you use it then you'll defeat the purpose of putting a
pagefile on a separate drive.

Ten days ago it was $85/256DIMM at Crucial, but
even $65 is more than I want to spend.




You object to what I'm doing based on your opinion
that it will not gain me anything. But so what? It's free!
And whether it's worth *my* while to do it is not the subject
of the post.




Why must I give a reason for what I want to do?

Because people are more likely to take their valuable time to answer
your question if they believe that it is motivated by something other
than idle curiosity.

I asked a question on the best way to do something,
not *whether* that something should be done.

The best way to do it is to go into the Windows Control Panel and just
do it.

And why does that bother you?

I though you wanted to learn about your machine. You've been taught
something about your machine now--that something is that what you
propose doing is a waste of time. I'm sorry if you don't like the way
the universe works, but you need to learn to deal.

It's what I've been asking from start to finish of this
thread - What format

What "format"? If you're using NTFS then the "format" is NTFS, so
you've answered your own question.

would be faster in use for a
pagefile partition placed on a 2nd hard drive, given
that the system drive uses NTFS?

If, as you claim above, you need NO RAM in your machine to do what you
want to do, (what do you do with it, use it for a paperweight?) then
there is no "format" or "configuration" or "arrangement" or
"organization" or "tweak" or any other method of implementation of a
pagefile that will be "faster in use". You see, that's the problem--you
say you want "faster in use" but then you say that you don't care about
performance and then you say that you aren't using up all the available
RAM so the pagefile won't be utilized to any significant extent anyway,
so WHAT IN THE H-E-DOUBLE-TOOTHPICS DO YOU WANT TO ACCOMPLISH?

 

[J.Clarke]

"Rod Speed" speedo'd:>


You're so cute when you talk dirty!

I can't believe this has happened. For the first time in my life I
agree completely with something that Rod Speed has said. Was that Satan
I saw down at the mall shopping for a fur coat? Is that a hog bristle
that just fell out of the sky?

 

[Timothy Daniels]

<http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php> should tell you
everything you want to know about dinking with pagefiles.
It took me less than two minutes to find that with Google.

I should have looked there first.

Do you need 768 meg to achieve your objectives?

I don't need *any* RAM to achieve my objective,
which is added use for my 2nd hard drive which has
gobs of free space.

Why would you pay $250? You can get 256 meg
DIMMs from Crucial for 65 bucks a shot.

Ten days ago it was $85/256DIMM at Crucial, but
even $65 is more than I want to spend.

The question is not whether to use them. The question is
whether using them to hold a pagefile will gain you anything.

You object to what I'm doing based on your opinion
that it will not gain me anything. But so what? It's free!
And whether it's worth *my* while to do it is not the subject
of the post.

If you don't need a practical difference then why did you ask the
question?

Why must I give a reason for what I want to do?
I asked a question on the best way to do something,
not *whether* that something should be done.

That's because what you propose to do is going
to have very little effect on the performance of your
system and is usually not worth the effort.

And why does that bother you?

It would help if you were clear in what you were asking.
Is your question "what can I do to my system to make
compiles faster" or is your question "I have an extra drive,
what is the best way to use it?" or is your question "what
is the optimal configuration for a pagefile given 384 meg
of RAM and two drives, one of which is currently empty?"
Or is it something else?

It's what I've been asking from start to finish of this
thread - What format would be faster in use for a
pagefile partition placed on a 2nd hard drive, given
that the system drive uses NTFS?


*TimDaniels*

 

[Timothy Daniels]

"Rod Speed" speedo'd:>

Yep, you're becoming a complete laughing stock.

More ram is ALWAYS an option.

And he was rubbing your nose in your basic stupidity that
EITHER 384MB is enough physical ram and the pagefile
isnt being used for other than the XP startup ops, OR
the pagefile is being used a lot BECAUSE you dont have
enough physical ram, in which case you can fiddle with the
detail of the pagefile until the cows come home if you like, it
wont help worth a damn with a decent performance hard drive.

Doesnt cost anything like that.

See above.

So your claim that you have enough physical ram is just plain wrong.

Depends on which compiler you are using.

Dud assumption.

And only fools who havent got a clue obsessively defrag anyway.

Because if you dont have enough physical ram, it will
make sweet **** all difference when the boot drive
is a decent modern performance drive, bonehead.

Try it and see.

Bet you wont have the balls to admit
that it makes sweet **** all difference.

And everyone keeps telling you that the pagefile
does NOT get included in the image file.

Get sillier by the minute. You'll get the same effect by moving
some stuff off the boot drive to the other drive, stupid.

More fool you.

Wrong question, stupid.

Anyone analy obsessing about which to use, fool.

You, fool.

And EVERYONE with a clue has kept telling you
what been spelt out a number times at the top, stupid.

Wrong. As always. Everyone has been rubbing YOUR stupid
nose in the basics that you cant manage to grasp, stupid.

Because thats the only thing that matters, ****wit.

Wrong questions, fool.

Everyone has been providing simple
answers right from the start, wanker.

Its simply answered right at the top, ****wit.

Wrong. As always. Anyone with any sense would
have pointed out the complete irrelevancy of the
'simple answers' you keep demanding, child.

Just what are you 'studying', child ?

Hope its not rocket science. You'll fail.

You're so cute when you talk dirty!


*TimDaniels*

 

[Rod Speed]

Some silly bone headed child claiming to be
Timothy Daniels <[email protected]>
desperately attempted to bullshit its
way out of its predicament in message
and fooled absolutely no one at all except one other fool.

 

[Rod Speed]

J.Clarke wrote

I should have looked there first.

You should indeed. Stupid expecting anyone to put such a
succinct summary of the basics into a newsgroup post for you.

Lazy expecting anyone to use google to find that for you too.

Just what are you 'studying' again ?

I don't need *any* RAM to achieve my objective,

Its a stupid 'objective'

which is added use for my 2nd hard
drive which has gobs of free space.

And if you do in fact have enough physical ram to ensure that
your system doesnt use the page file except at boot time, you'll
find it wont make any difference dinking around putting the pagefile
on that drive and that you would be MUCH better off just using it
for normal file storage or the destination for backup files etc.

Ten days ago it was $85/256DIMM at Crucial,

Even someone as stupid as you should be able
to grasp that that is quite a bit less than $250

but even $65 is more than I want to spend.

More fool you if your system is actually
using the pagefile much except at boot time.

Yes, but what is being discussed is whether there
is any point in using the FOR THE PAGEFILE.

He's right.

You object to what I'm doing based on your opinion

It aint an opinion, its trivially verifiable FACT you fool.

that it will not gain me anything. But so what? It's free!

Why should anyone waste their time spelling out
the detail of what is a pointless exercise by you
when you are too lazy to even use google yourself ?

And whether it's worth *my* while
to do it is not the subject of the post.

Corse it is if you expect anyone to bother
with your anal obsessive behaviour.

Why must I give a reason for what I want to do?

Because you want useful answers, fool.

I asked a question on the best way to do something,
not *whether* that something should be done.

More fool you.

And why does that bother you?

Doesnt 'bother' anyone. We're just rubbing your stupid
little nose in the pointlessness of what you are trying to do.

Yes, you may well be just another stupid kid who is such
a complete bonehead that the only way he will ever be able
to get the pointlessness of what he is trying to do thru his
thick skull is to actually try it and see that it achieves nothing
useful. You could have done that DAYS ago and you have
been told repeatedly what is the most promising config to try.

Basically use the same file system as you are already
using on the boot drive to minimise the consumption of
physical ram by having two file systems using that ram,
and with 4K clusters for the pagefile if you are going to use
NTFS as it appears you are using already for the boot drive.

It's what I've been asking from start to finish of this
thread - What format would be faster in use for a
pagefile partition placed on a 2nd hard drive, given
that the system drive uses NTFS?

You've had that answered a number of times already.

And your nose has been repeatedly rubbed in
the pointlessness of what you are trying to do too.

Even you should be able to try it and see too.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

"Rod Speed" speedo'd:>

[snip]

You're so cute when you talk dirty!

I can't believe this has happened. For the first time in my life I
agree completely with something that Rod Speed has said.

It's obvious that you have a screw loose.
Go back to the 'school of hard knocks' and have your head examined.

Was that Satan I saw down at the mall shopping for a fur coat?

Perhaps you were standing in front of a mirror?

 

[Timothy Daniels]

"J.Clarke" lost it:

Then take all the RAM out of your machine since you say you don't need
it.

Now, you say that you want "added use for your 2nd hard drive which has
gobs of free space". Then you go on about a pagefile. If you put a
pagefile on that drive for the purpose of increasing performance then
you will be unable to use any of the rest of that "gobs of free space"
because if you use it then you'll defeat the purpose of putting a
pagefile on a separate drive.


Because people are more likely to take their valuable time to answer
your question if they believe that it is motivated by something other
than idle curiosity.


The best way to do it is to go into the Windows Control Panel and just
do it.


I though you wanted to learn about your machine. You've been taught
something about your machine now--that something is that what you
propose doing is a waste of time. I'm sorry if you don't like the way
the universe works, but you need to learn to deal.


What "format"? If you're using NTFS then the "format" is NTFS, so
you've answered your own question.


If, as you claim above, you need NO RAM in your machine to do what you
want to do, (what do you do with it, use it for a paperweight?) then
there is no "format" or "configuration" or "arrangement" or
"organization" or "tweak" or any other method of implementation of a
pagefile that will be "faster in use". You see, that's the problem--you
say you want "faster in use" but then you say that you don't care about
performance and then you say that you aren't using up all the available
RAM so the pagefile won't be utilized to any significant extent anyway,
so WHAT IN THE H-E-DOUBLE-TOOTHPICS DO YOU WANT TO ACCOMPLISH?


--

<hee, hee>
You and Speedo Rod are the same guy, aren't you?



*TimDaniels*

 

[Timothy Daniels]

"Rod Speed" railed:

Some silly bone headed child claiming to be
Timothy Daniels <[email protected]>
desperately attempted to bullshit its
way out of its predicament in message
and fooled absolutely no one at all except one other fool.

You're cute when you're exposed, Speedo.


*TimDaniels*

 

[J.Clarke]

"J.Clarke" lost it:



<hee, hee>
You and Speedo Rod are the same guy, aren't you?

As a matter of fact I killfiled Rod Speed at least a year ago.

 

[Rod Speed]

Some silly bone headed child claiming to be
Timothy Daniels <[email protected]>
desperately attempted to bullshit its
way out of its predicament in message
and fooled absolutely no one at all except one other fool.

 

[Rod Speed]

Some silly bone headed child claiming to be
Timmy Daniels <[email protected]>
desperately attempted to bullshit its
way out of its predicament in message
and fooled absolutely no one at all except one other fool.