Optimal place for pagefile.sys

[Guest]

There are controversial recommendations about pagefile.sys location.
It’s clear, that hard drive is the slowest part in the pc chain and
determines optimal system performance.

Actually, ntfs slow down performance, and majority users don’t need ntfs.
FAT32 file system is simpler, and windows run faster from FAT32. Down side is
loosing indexing searching and file encryption. Do you need they ???????

Actually 4-5 GB size is optimal for the first winxp partition, enough to
keep winxp and Program Files, but easy to keep system partition clean, in
good condition, incl., faster defragmenting. All rest would better to place
on other storage partition, especially Encyclopedia and games with a lot of
small files. I keep winxp, pagefile.sys, and Program Files on 3 GB partition.
Also I keep pagefile.sys as a single fragment in optimal position between
winxp system files and all other.

After fresh winxp installation I set at system partition pagefile.sys = No,
and reboot. I prefer to reboot to Linux, from where remove pagefile.sys and
use simple Linux script to delete a huge amount never used small files such
as pictures, .html (do this periodically, you also may do this less effective
using winxp “Searchâ€). Next, reboot to winxp and run disk defragmenter to
move all remain files to the partition beginning. When all files will be at
the beginning, set pagefile.sys; it should be placed as a single unmovable
fragment next after winxp file; if not, repeat operation again several times.
All rest installation will be placed after pagefile.sys. Eventually, winxp
will move less frequently used files to partition end, incl., winxp files
replacing they by frequently used program files, but unmovable pagefile.sys
will stay in optimal position in close to frequently used system files that
reduce hard disk magnetic head tossing and improve system performance. Of
course, in the case of several hard drives, it would be better to place
pagefile.sys on other drive allowing simultaneously reading from one drive
and write to another.

I have one hard drive, and do as said above, but I’m not sure that it’s
correct, as I’m not sure how modern hard drive work. May be, somebody
explain???

I visited several manufacture websites, but found only promotion
information. My concern is as follow. How many magnetic disks inside a modern
(40-120 GB) hard drive; if one, one or two sided; if two sided, how magnetic
heads work? Independently, or not, i.e., if disk two sided with two magnetic
heads, can one head reads on one side, and simultaneously, second head writes
on another????? If so, it would be better to place pagefile.sys on the
partition on the end of the disk, in not, my method is the best.

I’ll appreciate any information.
Best, Alex

 

[Carey Frisch [MVP]]

Windows XP performs best when installed on a NTFS partition
and the virtual memory is managed by the system and the page
file remains on the same Windows XP partition.

Actually, 4-5 GB size is NOT optimal for the first Win XP partition.
You should use at least a 10GB partition.

Benchmarking on Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/sysperf/benchmark.mspx

NTFS Preinstallation and Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/winpreinst/ntfs-preinstall.mspx

Virtual Memory in Windows XP
http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php

[Courtesy of MS-MVP Alex Nichol]

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User
Microsoft Newsgroups

Be Smart! Protect Your PC!
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/default.mspx

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:

| There are controversial recommendations about pagefile.sys location.
| It’s clear, that hard drive is the slowest part in the pc chain and
| determines optimal system performance.
|
| Actually, ntfs slow down performance, and majority users don’t need ntfs.
| FAT32 file system is simpler, and windows run faster from FAT32. Down side is
| loosing indexing searching and file encryption. Do you need they ???????
|
| Actually 4-5 GB size is optimal for the first winxp partition, enough to
| keep winxp and Program Files, but easy to keep system partition clean, in
| good condition, incl., faster defragmenting. All rest would better to place
| on other storage partition, especially Encyclopedia and games with a lot of
| small files. I keep winxp, pagefile.sys, and Program Files on 3 GB partition.
| Also I keep pagefile.sys as a single fragment in optimal position between
| winxp system files and all other.
|
| After fresh winxp installation I set at system partition pagefile.sys = No,
| and reboot. I prefer to reboot to Linux, from where remove pagefile.sys and
| use simple Linux script to delete a huge amount never used small files such
| as pictures, .html (do this periodically, you also may do this less effective
| using winxp “Searchâ€). Next, reboot to winxp and run disk defragmenter to
| move all remain files to the partition beginning. When all files will be at
| the beginning, set pagefile.sys; it should be placed as a single unmovable
| fragment next after winxp file; if not, repeat operation again several times.
| All rest installation will be placed after pagefile.sys. Eventually, winxp
| will move less frequently used files to partition end, incl., winxp files
| replacing they by frequently used program files, but unmovable pagefile.sys
| will stay in optimal position in close to frequently used system files that
| reduce hard disk magnetic head tossing and improve system performance. Of
| course, in the case of several hard drives, it would be better to place
| pagefile.sys on other drive allowing simultaneously reading from one drive
| and write to another.
|
| I have one hard drive, and do as said above, but I’m not sure that it’s
| correct, as I’m not sure how modern hard drive work. May be, somebody
| explain???
|
| I visited several manufacture websites, but found only promotion
| information. My concern is as follow. How many magnetic disks inside a modern
| (40-120 GB) hard drive; if one, one or two sided; if two sided, how magnetic
| heads work? Independently, or not, i.e., if disk two sided with two magnetic
| heads, can one head reads on one side, and simultaneously, second head writes
| on another????? If so, it would be better to place pagefile.sys on the
| partition on the end of the disk, in not, my method is the best.
|
| I’ll appreciate any information.
| Best, Alex

 

[Martin]

There are controversial recommendations about pagefile.sys location.
It's clear, that hard drive is the slowest part in the pc chain and
determines optimal system performance.

SNIPPED>


I visited several manufacture websites, but found only promotion
information. My concern is as follow. How many magnetic disks inside a
modern
(40-120 GB) hard drive; if one, one or two sided; if two sided, how
magnetic
heads work? Independently, or not, i.e., if disk two sided with two
magnetic
heads, can one head reads on one side, and simultaneously, second head
writes
on another????? If so, it would be better to place pagefile.sys on the
partition on the end of the disk, in not, my method is the best.

I'll appreciate any information.
Best, Alex

Say a hard drive has two physical discs inside...
Thinking about the theory that the outer tracks of a hard drive are faster
than the inner tracks - hence the idea of pagefile location being important.
The pagefile - in the case of a hard drive with two physical discs - could
just as easily sit on the outer tracks of either disc.
Either would satisfy the purist that they had acheived their goal.

Yet on disc defragmenter's drive map it would appear that a pagefile on the
'second' disc - on it's outer tracks - is just occupying an area say mid-way
between inner and outer tracks on a single disc hard drive...

Martin.

 

[Guest]

One can disable the PagingExecutive in xp thru the registry,this sets the
NT Executive to RAM instead of the page file,also haveing 2 hds installed
with the slave set as page file increases performance.

 

[Guest]

As I said, there are controversial recommendations. I read many times that
FAT32 is simpler, so faster (of course, less secure). I run may be not the
best pc (mobile Athlon XP overclocked to 2000+, DDR400, and 360 MHz fsb
mobo). When I reinstalled winxp from ntfs to FAT32 as described above,
program started to open significantly faster (and this is the main
frustration for ordinary users)

As for controversially, e.g., this site said:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q314482&ID=kb;en-us;Q314482

To enhance performance, it is good practice to put the paging file ON A
DIFFERENT PARTITION and on a different physical hard disk drive. That way,
Windows can handle multiple I/O requests more quickly. When the paging file
is on the boot partition, Windows must perform disk reading and writing
requests on both the system folder and the paging file. WHEN THE PAGING FILE
IS MOVED TO A DIFFERENT PARTITION, THERE IS LESS COMPETITION BETWEEN READING
AND WRITING REQUESTS.
======

Windows XP performs best when installed on a NTFS partition
and the virtual memory is managed by the system and the page
file remains on the same Windows XP partition.

Actually, 4-5 GB size is NOT optimal for the first Win XP partition.
You should use at least a 10GB partition.

Benchmarking on Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/sysperf/benchmark.mspx

NTFS Preinstallation and Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/winpreinst/ntfs-preinstall.mspx

Virtual Memory in Windows XP
http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php

[Courtesy of MS-MVP Alex Nichol]

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User
Microsoft Newsgroups

Be Smart! Protect Your PC!
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/default.mspx

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:

| There are controversial recommendations about pagefile.sys location.
| It’s clear, that hard drive is the slowest part in the pc chain and
| determines optimal system performance.
|
| Actually, ntfs slow down performance, and majority users don’t need ntfs.
| FAT32 file system is simpler, and windows run faster from FAT32. Down side is
| loosing indexing searching and file encryption. Do you need they ???????
|
| Actually 4-5 GB size is optimal for the first winxp partition, enough to
| keep winxp and Program Files, but easy to keep system partition clean, in
| good condition, incl., faster defragmenting. All rest would better to place
| on other storage partition, especially Encyclopedia and games with a lot of
| small files. I keep winxp, pagefile.sys, and Program Files on 3 GB partition.
| Also I keep pagefile.sys as a single fragment in optimal position between
| winxp system files and all other.
|
| After fresh winxp installation I set at system partition pagefile.sys = No,
| and reboot. I prefer to reboot to Linux, from where remove pagefile.sys and
| use simple Linux script to delete a huge amount never used small files such
| as pictures, .html (do this periodically, you also may do this less effective
| using winxp “Searchâ€). Next, reboot to winxp and run disk defragmenter to
| move all remain files to the partition beginning. When all files will be at
| the beginning, set pagefile.sys; it should be placed as a single unmovable
| fragment next after winxp file; if not, repeat operation again several times.
| All rest installation will be placed after pagefile.sys. Eventually, winxp
| will move less frequently used files to partition end, incl., winxp files
| replacing they by frequently used program files, but unmovable pagefile.sys
| will stay in optimal position in close to frequently used system files that
| reduce hard disk magnetic head tossing and improve system performance. Of
| course, in the case of several hard drives, it would be better to place
| pagefile.sys on other drive allowing simultaneously reading from one drive
| and write to another.
|
| I have one hard drive, and do as said above, but I’m not sure that it’s
| correct, as I’m not sure how modern hard drive work. May be, somebody
| explain???
|
| I visited several manufacture websites, but found only promotion
| information. My concern is as follow. How many magnetic disks inside a modern
| (40-120 GB) hard drive; if one, one or two sided; if two sided, how magnetic
| heads work? Independently, or not, i.e., if disk two sided with two magnetic
| heads, can one head reads on one side, and simultaneously, second head writes
| on another????? If so, it would be better to place pagefile.sys on the
| partition on the end of the disk, in not, my method is the best.
|
| I’ll appreciate any information.
| Best, Alex

 

[Carey Frisch [MVP]]

Not based on my experience. A clean install of Windows XP
on a drive formatted NTFS is faster, more secure, and less prone
to file corruption in the event of a sudden shutdown.

Relocating the Page File apart from the operating system
simply adds additional seek time and performance degradation.

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User
Microsoft Newsgroups

Be Smart! Protect Your PC!
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/default.mspx

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:

| As I said, there are controversial recommendations. I read many times that
| FAT32 is simpler, so faster (of course, less secure). I run may be not the
| best pc (mobile Athlon XP overclocked to 2000+, DDR400, and 360 MHz fsb
| mobo). When I reinstalled winxp from ntfs to FAT32 as described above,
| program started to open significantly faster (and this is the main
| frustration for ordinary users)
|
| As for controversially, e.g., this site said:
| http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q314482&ID=kb;en-us;Q314482
|
| To enhance performance, it is good practice to put the paging file ON A
| DIFFERENT PARTITION and on a different physical hard disk drive. That way,
| Windows can handle multiple I/O requests more quickly. When the paging file
| is on the boot partition, Windows must perform disk reading and writing
| requests on both the system folder and the paging file. WHEN THE PAGING FILE
| IS MOVED TO A DIFFERENT PARTITION, THERE IS LESS COMPETITION BETWEEN READING
| AND WRITING REQUESTS.
| ======
|

 

[Guest]

P.S. I run Prime5 benchmark tests for both cases without big differences in
results. But as i said, programs and windows move visiblely faster from
FAT32.
On 3 GB FAT32 partition i keep winxp, 350 MB pagefile, MathCAD, AuthoCAD,
AOL, Natural Speaker, big dictionaries, and have at least, 1 GB free, that
guarantee system performance. All rest is on storage partition. My winxp runs
OK.
But may be somebody gives me a hitch about my question.

Windows XP performs best when installed on a NTFS partition
and the virtual memory is managed by the system and the page
file remains on the same Windows XP partition.

Actually, 4-5 GB size is NOT optimal for the first Win XP partition.
You should use at least a 10GB partition.

Benchmarking on Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/sysperf/benchmark.mspx

NTFS Preinstallation and Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/winpreinst/ntfs-preinstall.mspx

Virtual Memory in Windows XP
http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php

[Courtesy of MS-MVP Alex Nichol]

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User
Microsoft Newsgroups

Be Smart! Protect Your PC!
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/default.mspx

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:

| There are controversial recommendations about pagefile.sys location.
| It’s clear, that hard drive is the slowest part in the pc chain and
| determines optimal system performance.
|
| Actually, ntfs slow down performance, and majority users don’t need ntfs.
| FAT32 file system is simpler, and windows run faster from FAT32. Down side is
| loosing indexing searching and file encryption. Do you need they ???????
|
| Actually 4-5 GB size is optimal for the first winxp partition, enough to
| keep winxp and Program Files, but easy to keep system partition clean, in
| good condition, incl., faster defragmenting. All rest would better to place
| on other storage partition, especially Encyclopedia and games with a lot of
| small files. I keep winxp, pagefile.sys, and Program Files on 3 GB partition.
| Also I keep pagefile.sys as a single fragment in optimal position between
| winxp system files and all other.
|
| After fresh winxp installation I set at system partition pagefile.sys = No,
| and reboot. I prefer to reboot to Linux, from where remove pagefile.sys and
| use simple Linux script to delete a huge amount never used small files such
| as pictures, .html (do this periodically, you also may do this less effective
| using winxp “Searchâ€). Next, reboot to winxp and run disk defragmenter to
| move all remain files to the partition beginning. When all files will be at
| the beginning, set pagefile.sys; it should be placed as a single unmovable
| fragment next after winxp file; if not, repeat operation again several times.
| All rest installation will be placed after pagefile.sys. Eventually, winxp
| will move less frequently used files to partition end, incl., winxp files
| replacing they by frequently used program files, but unmovable pagefile.sys
| will stay in optimal position in close to frequently used system files that
| reduce hard disk magnetic head tossing and improve system performance. Of
| course, in the case of several hard drives, it would be better to place
| pagefile.sys on other drive allowing simultaneously reading from one drive
| and write to another.
|
| I have one hard drive, and do as said above, but I’m not sure that it’s
| correct, as I’m not sure how modern hard drive work. May be, somebody
| explain???
|
| I visited several manufacture websites, but found only promotion
| information. My concern is as follow. How many magnetic disks inside a modern
| (40-120 GB) hard drive; if one, one or two sided; if two sided, how magnetic
| heads work? Independently, or not, i.e., if disk two sided with two magnetic
| heads, can one head reads on one side, and simultaneously, second head writes
| on another????? If so, it would be better to place pagefile.sys on the
| partition on the end of the disk, in not, my method is the best.
|
| I’ll appreciate any information.
| Best, Alex

 

[Guest]

Thanks for information. Let say i have 4 equal partitions. What partition
will be better for pagefile to reduce magnetic head tossing.

 

[Guest]

Relocating the Page File apart from the operating system

simply adds additional seek time and performance degradation.

OK, I’m just looking how to reduce a magnetic head tossing in the case of
only one physical hard drive.
I reinstalled win2k server, winxp home, winxp pro, win2003 server many times
on ntfs and fat32 without big differences (I never concerned about security).

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User
Microsoft Newsgroups

 

[R. McCarty]

I think you'll find the overall performance difference between Fat32 &
NTFS is at best 1-2%. I've tested both IDE & SCSI drives in both of
those formats and the difference is negligible. The key to NTFS is that
it is the NT,2000,XP's native disk format and the Operating System
is tuned for use with NTFS.

Cluster size is sometimes more relative to speed than the format type.
(Just ask someone who converted to NTFS and ended up with 512
Byte Cluster Size - instead of the 4K "Standard".)

Regarding the Pagefile - You can move it, Tweak it, port it to another
physical drive..... In the end, if you have 256 or greater memory, the
usage of the Pagefile is minimal. The only advice is don't turn the thing
off - XP needs it, if just to "Park" the average 30-45 Megabytes that
my system keeps in mine (128 Minimum Size) during normal use. You
can discuss all the nuances about it, but when the former DEC coders
wrote the original NT 3.51, they brought all their knowledge from the
creation of the OS for VAX Computers, called VMS (Virtual Memory
System). The only reason to have 1.5-2X*Mem, Pagefile is to perform
a Full memory dump, hardly a common occurrence outside of running
down BSOD's.

Since disk space isn't a big concern, it's probably O.K, to let XP handle
the Pagefile. I would agree that putting the Pagefile on a separate disk
is a good change, in my own case because I use a SCSI drive system.

P.S. I run Prime5 benchmark tests for both cases without big differences
in
results. But as i said, programs and windows move visiblely faster from
FAT32.
On 3 GB FAT32 partition i keep winxp, 350 MB pagefile, MathCAD, AuthoCAD,
AOL, Natural Speaker, big dictionaries, and have at least, 1 GB free, that
guarantee system performance. All rest is on storage partition. My winxp
runs
OK.
But may be somebody gives me a hitch about my question.

Windows XP performs best when installed on a NTFS partition
and the virtual memory is managed by the system and the page
file remains on the same Windows XP partition.

Actually, 4-5 GB size is NOT optimal for the first Win XP partition.
You should use at least a 10GB partition.

Benchmarking on Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/sysperf/benchmark.mspx

NTFS Preinstallation and Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/winpreinst/ntfs-preinstall.mspx

Virtual Memory in Windows XP
http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php

[Courtesy of MS-MVP Alex Nichol]

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User
Microsoft Newsgroups

Be Smart! Protect Your PC!
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/default.mspx

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:

| There are controversial recommendations about pagefile.sys location.
| It's clear, that hard drive is the slowest part in the pc chain and
| determines optimal system performance.
|
| Actually, ntfs slow down performance, and majority users don't need
ntfs.
| FAT32 file system is simpler, and windows run faster from FAT32. Down
side is
| loosing indexing searching and file encryption. Do you need they
???????
|
| Actually 4-5 GB size is optimal for the first winxp partition, enough
to
| keep winxp and Program Files, but easy to keep system partition clean,
in
| good condition, incl., faster defragmenting. All rest would better to
place
| on other storage partition, especially Encyclopedia and games with a
lot of
| small files. I keep winxp, pagefile.sys, and Program Files on 3 GB
partition.
| Also I keep pagefile.sys as a single fragment in optimal position
between
| winxp system files and all other.
|
| After fresh winxp installation I set at system partition pagefile.sys =
No,
| and reboot. I prefer to reboot to Linux, from where remove pagefile.sys
and
| use simple Linux script to delete a huge amount never used small files
such
| as pictures, .html (do this periodically, you also may do this less
effective
| using winxp "Search"). Next, reboot to winxp and run disk defragmenter
to
| move all remain files to the partition beginning. When all files will
be at
| the beginning, set pagefile.sys; it should be placed as a single
unmovable
| fragment next after winxp file; if not, repeat operation again several
times.
| All rest installation will be placed after pagefile.sys. Eventually,
winxp
| will move less frequently used files to partition end, incl., winxp
files
| replacing they by frequently used program files, but unmovable
pagefile.sys
| will stay in optimal position in close to frequently used system files
that
| reduce hard disk magnetic head tossing and improve system performance.
Of
| course, in the case of several hard drives, it would be better to place
| pagefile.sys on other drive allowing simultaneously reading from one
drive
| and write to another.
|
| I have one hard drive, and do as said above, but I'm not sure that it's
| correct, as I'm not sure how modern hard drive work. May be, somebody
| explain???
|
| I visited several manufacture websites, but found only promotion
| information. My concern is as follow. How many magnetic disks inside a
modern
| (40-120 GB) hard drive; if one, one or two sided; if two sided, how
magnetic
| heads work? Independently, or not, i.e., if disk two sided with two
magnetic
| heads, can one head reads on one side, and simultaneously, second head
writes
| on another????? If so, it would be better to place pagefile.sys on the
| partition on the end of the disk, in not, my method is the best.
|
| I'll appreciate any information.
| Best, Alex

 

[Guest]

Situation with several hard drives is clear. I pointed it from the beginning
in my post. But what to do in the case on only one hard drive?? Is there any
opportunity that other magnetic heads work independently from one that flows
over winxp files???????

the mskb article is often misrepresented

it suggests putting the pagefile on another partition ONLY if it will
go to a completely different hardrive.

this will really only be true if the hardrive is big enough, fast
enough and not used hardly at all...it is not one size fits all

however what is one size fits all is that creating a partition
dedicated to the pagefile on the SAME hardrive that the os is on will
bring a hit

this is clear as you put in caps the part about the differant hardrive,
but left out the most important part of the paragraph, (on a differant
hardrive)

here's how the quote should have read if you were going to emphasize
the most important part of the paragraph;

To enhance performance, it is good practice to put the paging file on a
differant partition and ON A DIFFERANT PHYSICAL HARD DISC DRIVE,
Windows can handle multiple I/O requests more quickly

As I said, there are controversial recommendations. I read many times
that
FAT32 is simpler, so faster (of course, less secure). I run may be not
the
best pc (mobile Athlon XP overclocked to 2000+, DDR400, and 360 MHz
fsb
mobo). When I reinstalled winxp from ntfs to FAT32 as described above,
program started to open significantly faster (and this is the main
frustration for ordinary users)

As for controversially, e.g., this site said:
http://tinyurl.com/3xet

To enhance performance, it is good practice to put the paging file ON
A
DIFFERENT PARTITION and on a different physical hard disk drive. That
way,
Windows can handle multiple I/O requests more quickly. When the paging
file
is on the boot partition, Windows must perform disk reading and
writing
requests on both the system folder and the paging file. WHEN THE PAGING
FILE
IS MOVED TO A DIFFERENT PARTITION, THERE IS LESS COMPETITION BETWEEN
READING
AND WRITING REQUESTS.
======

Windows XP performs best when installed on a NTFS partition
and the virtual memory is managed by the system and the page
file remains on the same Windows XP partition.

Actually, 4-5 GB size is NOT optimal for the first Win XP partition.
You should use at least a 10GB partition.

Benchmarking on Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/sysperf/benchmark.mspx

NTFS Preinstallation and Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/winpreinst/ntfs-preinstall.mspx

Virtual Memory in Windows XP
http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php

[Courtesy of MS-MVP Alex Nichol]

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User
Microsoft Newsgroups

Be Smart! Protect Your PC!
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/default.mspx

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:

| There are controversial recommendations about pagefile.sys location.
| It’s clear, that hard drive is the slowest part in the pc chain and
| determines optimal system performance.
|
| Actually, ntfs slow down performance, and majority users don’t need ntfs.
| FAT32 file system is simpler, and windows run faster from FAT32. Down side is
| loosing indexing searching and file encryption. Do you need they ???????
|
| Actually 4-5 GB size is optimal for the first winxp partition, enough to
| keep winxp and Program Files, but easy to keep system partition clean, in
| good condition, incl., faster defragmenting. All rest would better to place
| on other storage partition, especially Encyclopedia and games with a lot of
| small files. I keep winxp, pagefile.sys, and Program Files on 3 GB partition.
| Also I keep pagefile.sys as a single fragment in optimal position between
| winxp system files and all other.
|
| After fresh winxp installation I set at system partition pagefile.sys = No,
| and reboot. I prefer to reboot to Linux, from where remove pagefile.sys and
| use simple Linux script to delete a huge amount never used small files such
| as pictures, .html (do this periodically, you also may do this less effective
| using winxp “Searchâ€Â). Next, reboot to winxp and run disk defragmenter to
| move all remain files to the partition beginning. When all files will be at
| the beginning, set pagefile.sys; it should be placed as a single unmovable
| fragment next after winxp file; if not, repeat operation again several times.
| All rest installation will be placed after pagefile.sys. Eventually, winxp
| will move less frequently used files to partition end, incl., winxp files
| replacing they by frequently used program files, but unmovable pagefile.sys
| will stay in optimal position in close to frequently used system files that
| reduce hard disk magnetic head tossing and improve system performance. Of
| course, in the case of several hard drives, it would be better to place
| pagefile.sys on other drive allowing simultaneously reading from one drive
| and write to another.
|
| I have one hard drive, and do as said above, but I’m not sure that it’s
| correct, as I’m not sure how modern hard drive work. May be, somebody
| explain???
|
| I visited several manufacture websites, but found only promotion
| information. My concern is as follow. How many magnetic disks inside a modern
| (40-120 GB) hard drive; if one, one or two sided; if two sided, how magnetic
| heads work? Independently, or not, i.e., if disk two sided with two magnetic
| heads, can one head reads on one side, and simultaneously, second head writes
| on another????? If so, it would be better to place pagefile.sys on the
| partition on the end of the disk, in not, my method is the best.
|
| I’ll appreciate any information.
| Best, Alex

 

[David Candy]

Fat32 is quicker on small hard drives. But has some significantly slow aspects that apply to most people in some degree.

1. Both Fats on the Fat drive is kept in memory (can be 100s of meg). With NTFS only 200K of the partion's metadata is kept in memory.

Take a 32 meg partition.
33 554 432 bytes in 4096 bytes clusters = 8102 clusters = 8102 * 4 bytes per fat entry *2 Fats = 64K.

Take a 32 gig partition
34 359 738 368 bytes in 4096 clusters = 8 388 608 clusters = 18.3 Meg * 4 * 2 = 144 meg of Fat.

2. Directories store files in the order added in Fat 32 and in alphabetical order in NTFS.

I have 2400 files in system32. On average Fat systems will need 1200 directories accesses to find a given file. It starts at file 1 and then file 2 etc untill it finds it. Because NTFS alphabetises entries it can use a quick search (look at file 1200, is the file being searched for above or below, if above half the difference, so check file 600, etc. So a maximun of 12 or 13 accesses compared to an average of 1200 (from 1 to 2400).

So there is more to speed than just accessing files.
--
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com

As I said, there are controversial recommendations. I read many times that
FAT32 is simpler, so faster (of course, less secure). I run may be not the
best pc (mobile Athlon XP overclocked to 2000+, DDR400, and 360 MHz fsb
mobo). When I reinstalled winxp from ntfs to FAT32 as described above,
program started to open significantly faster (and this is the main
frustration for ordinary users)

As for controversially, e.g., this site said:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q314482&ID=kb;en-us;Q314482

To enhance performance, it is good practice to put the paging file ON A
DIFFERENT PARTITION and on a different physical hard disk drive. That way,
Windows can handle multiple I/O requests more quickly. When the paging file
is on the boot partition, Windows must perform disk reading and writing
requests on both the system folder and the paging file. WHEN THE PAGING FILE
IS MOVED TO A DIFFERENT PARTITION, THERE IS LESS COMPETITION BETWEEN READING
AND WRITING REQUESTS.
======

Windows XP performs best when installed on a NTFS partition
and the virtual memory is managed by the system and the page
file remains on the same Windows XP partition.

Actually, 4-5 GB size is NOT optimal for the first Win XP partition.
You should use at least a 10GB partition.

Benchmarking on Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/sysperf/benchmark.mspx

NTFS Preinstallation and Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/winpreinst/ntfs-preinstall.mspx

Virtual Memory in Windows XP
http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php

[Courtesy of MS-MVP Alex Nichol]

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User
Microsoft Newsgroups

Be Smart! Protect Your PC!
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/default.mspx

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:

| There are controversial recommendations about pagefile.sys location.
| It’s clear, that hard drive is the slowest part in the pc chain and
| determines optimal system performance.
|
| Actually, ntfs slow down performance, and majority users don’t need ntfs.
| FAT32 file system is simpler, and windows run faster from FAT32. Down side is
| loosing indexing searching and file encryption. Do you need they ???????
|
| Actually 4-5 GB size is optimal for the first winxp partition, enough to
| keep winxp and Program Files, but easy to keep system partition clean, in
| good condition, incl., faster defragmenting. All rest would better to place
| on other storage partition, especially Encyclopedia and games with a lot of
| small files. I keep winxp, pagefile.sys, and Program Files on 3 GB partition.
| Also I keep pagefile.sys as a single fragment in optimal position between
| winxp system files and all other.
|
| After fresh winxp installation I set at system partition pagefile.sys = No,
| and reboot. I prefer to reboot to Linux, from where remove pagefile.sys and
| use simple Linux script to delete a huge amount never used small files such
| as pictures, .html (do this periodically, you also may do this less effective
| using winxp “Searchâ€). Next, reboot to winxp and run disk defragmenter to
| move all remain files to the partition beginning. When all files will be at
| the beginning, set pagefile.sys; it should be placed as a single unmovable
| fragment next after winxp file; if not, repeat operation again several times.
| All rest installation will be placed after pagefile.sys. Eventually, winxp
| will move less frequently used files to partition end, incl., winxp files
| replacing they by frequently used program files, but unmovable pagefile.sys
| will stay in optimal position in close to frequently used system files that
| reduce hard disk magnetic head tossing and improve system performance. Of
| course, in the case of several hard drives, it would be better to place
| pagefile.sys on other drive allowing simultaneously reading from one drive
| and write to another.
|
| I have one hard drive, and do as said above, but I’m not sure that it’s
| correct, as I’m not sure how modern hard drive work. May be, somebody
| explain???
|
| I visited several manufacture websites, but found only promotion
| information. My concern is as follow. How many magnetic disks inside a modern
| (40-120 GB) hard drive; if one, one or two sided; if two sided, how magnetic
| heads work? Independently, or not, i.e., if disk two sided with two magnetic
| heads, can one head reads on one side, and simultaneously, second head writes
| on another????? If so, it would be better to place pagefile.sys on the
| partition on the end of the disk, in not, my method is the best.
|
| I’ll appreciate any information.
| Best, Alex

 

[Alex Nichol]

I have one hard drive, and do as said above, but I’m not sure that it’s
correct, as I’m not sure how modern hard drive work. May be, somebody
explain???

On a modern size large RAM there is likely to be little traffic to the
page file, so things are somewhat academic.

The slowest aspect of hard drive access by far is head seek across
cylinders. So the file is best nearest where the action is. If you
have a second physical drive, over there, in a partition used for other
data is theoretically good, because activity there is probably low
If a single drive, make C rather larger than you have, and keep the file
there.

If you do put the file in a different partition, leave a notional one on
C: (say initial 2 max 50) which will probably never come into existence,
but the system is inclined to sulk without the possibility.

Read more at www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm

 

[Alex Nichol]

I think you'll find the overall performance difference between Fat32 &
NTFS is at best 1-2%. I've tested both IDE & SCSI drives in both of
those formats and the difference is negligible. The key to NTFS is that
it is the NT,2000,XP's native disk format and the Operating System
is tuned for use with NTFS.

File system is not really relevant in relation to page file. The VM
system has locations of clusters used available in memory and goes there
direct

Cluster size is sometimes more relative to speed than the format type.
(Just ask someone who converted to NTFS and ended up with 512
Byte Cluster Size - instead of the 4K "Standard".)

4K is optimal, as that is the size used internally in the Intel CPU
architecture, and this means the IO can be done direct without need to
buffer first

 

[Guest]

So, to improve system performance, such trick may has sense (we are talking
about theory, of course). Keep something at partition beginning (you can copy
there even on new ntfs partition from Linux, or previous windows OS), and
next, make new winxp installation. What do you think about this???
Thanks, Alex

if you had a file that needed to have the best performance over any
other file, the very best place on the disc for efficiency would be
dead center of the majority of the action...(NOT THE BEGINNING OF THE
DRIVE AS MOST PEOPLE BELIEVE)

now, do you think the pagefile deserves this location?

and then you have to concider if that location far from the operationg
system?

though it's all just academia, I'm pretty sure if we're talking about a
single hardrive, the pagefile needs to be on "c" for shortest seeks.

Situation with several hard drives is clear. I pointed it from the
beginning
in my post. But what to do in the case on only one hard drive?? Is
there any
opportunity that other magnetic heads work independently from one that
flows
over winxp files???????

the mskb article is often misrepresented

it suggests putting the pagefile on another partition ONLY if it will
go to a completely different hardrive.

this will really only be true if the hardrive is big enough, fast
enough and not used hardly at all...it is not one size fits all

however what is one size fits all is that creating a partition
dedicated to the pagefile on the SAME hardrive that the os is on will
bring a hit

this is clear as you put in caps the part about the differant hardrive,
but left out the most important part of the paragraph, (on a differant
hardrive)

here's how the quote should have read if you were going to emphasize
the most important part of the paragraph;

mskb Wrote:


To enhance performance, it is good practice to put the paging file on a
differant partition and ON A DIFFERANT PHYSICAL HARD DISC DRIVE,
Windows can handle multiple I/O requests more quickly


Alex52 Wrote:
As I said, there are controversial recommendations. I read many times
that
FAT32 is simpler, so faster (of course, less secure). I run may be not
the
best pc (mobile Athlon XP overclocked to 2000+, DDR400, and 360 MHz
fsb
mobo). When I reinstalled winxp from ntfs to FAT32 as described above,
program started to open significantly faster (and this is the main
frustration for ordinary users)

As for controversially, e.g., this site said:
http://tinyurl.com/3xet

To enhance performance, it is good practice to put the paging file ON
A
DIFFERENT PARTITION and on a different physical hard disk drive. That
way,
Windows can handle multiple I/O requests more quickly. When the paging
file
is on the boot partition, Windows must perform disk reading and
writing
requests on both the system folder and the paging file. WHEN THE PAGING
FILE
IS MOVED TO A DIFFERENT PARTITION, THERE IS LESS COMPETITION BETWEEN
READING
AND WRITING REQUESTS.
======

:

Windows XP performs best when installed on a NTFS partition
and the virtual memory is managed by the system and the page
file remains on the same Windows XP partition.

Actually, 4-5 GB size is NOT optimal for the first Win XP partition.
You should use at least a 10GB partition.

Benchmarking on Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/sysperf/benchmark.mspx

NTFS Preinstallation and Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/winpreinst/ntfs-preinstall.mspx

Virtual Memory in Windows XP
http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php

[Courtesy of MS-MVP Alex Nichol]

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User
Microsoft Newsgroups

Be Smart! Protect Your PC!
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/default.mspx


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:

| There are controversial recommendations about pagefile.sys
location.
| It’s clear, that hard drive is the slowest part in the pc chain
and
| determines optimal system performance.
|
| Actually, ntfs slow down performance, and majority users don’t
need ntfs.
| FAT32 file system is simpler, and windows run faster from FAT32.
Down side is
| loosing indexing searching and file encryption. Do you need they
???????
|
| Actually 4-5 GB size is optimal for the first winxp partition,
enough to
| keep winxp and Program Files, but easy to keep system partition
clean, in
| good condition, incl., faster defragmenting. All rest would better
to place
| on other storage partition, especially Encyclopedia and games with
a lot of
| small files. I keep winxp, pagefile.sys, and Program Files on 3 GB
partition.
| Also I keep pagefile.sys as a single fragment in optimal position
between
| winxp system files and all other.
|
| After fresh winxp installation I set at system partition
pagefile.sys = No,
| and reboot. I prefer to reboot to Linux, from where remove
pagefile.sys and
| use simple Linux script to delete a huge amount never used small
files such
| as pictures, .html (do this periodically, you also may do this less
effective
| using winxp “Searchâ€ÂÂ). Next, reboot to winxp and run disk
defragmenter to
| move all remain files to the partition beginning. When all files
will be at
| the beginning, set pagefile.sys; it should be placed as a single
unmovable
| fragment next after winxp file; if not, repeat operation again
several times.
| All rest installation will be placed after pagefile.sys.
Eventually, winxp
| will move less frequently used files to partition end, incl., winxp
files
| replacing they by frequently used program files, but unmovable
pagefile.sys
| will stay in optimal position in close to frequently used system
files that
| reduce hard disk magnetic head tossing and improve system
performance. Of
| course, in the case of several hard drives, it would be better to
place
| pagefile.sys on other drive allowing simultaneously reading from
one drive
| and write to another.
|
| I have one hard drive, and do as said above, but I’m not sure
that it’s
| correct, as I’m not sure how modern hard drive work. May be,
somebody
| explain???
|
| I visited several manufacture websites, but found only promotion
| information. My concern is as follow. How many magnetic disks
inside a modern
| (40-120 GB) hard drive; if one, one or two sided; if two sided, how
magnetic
| heads work? Independently, or not, i.e., if disk two sided with two
magnetic
| heads, can one head reads on one side, and simultaneously, second
head writes
| on another????? If so, it would be better to place pagefile.sys on
the
| partition on the end of the disk, in not, my method is the best.
|
| I’ll appreciate any information.
| Best, Alex




--
perris
------------------------------------------------------------------------
perris's Profile: http://forum.osnn.net/member.php?userid=17
View this thread: http://forum.osnn.net/showthread.php?t=56830

 

[Guest]

The only reason to have 1.5-2X*Mem, Pagefile is to perform

a Full memory dump,

Actually, it may be correct. When I set pagefile min/max 10-500 MB winxp
keeps it ~ 51 MB majority times (I’m not gamer, and full memory dump is off).

Another curiosity. Eventually, winxp moves some files at the second part of
the partition. What these files are?? I believed that they are less used
files, and wanted to remove they (e.g., by resizing partition), but after
this discussion I’m not sure again, as it may be more faster place at disk
middle??????
Best, Alex

 

[Guest]

I'm sorry Alex, I don't really understand your question, however, the

I simply wanted to say that to prevent winxp installation on the disk very
beginning, it would be better to occupy this place before winxp installation.

Meanwhile, thank very much for useful information, incl., from your website;
and following your links it’s better to surf my post from your website than
from winxp newsgroup.
Thanks.

 

[Guest]

Dear Perris

I read your interesting website, may be missed something, but several
questions still remain.

1. I’ve found from this post that ordinary hard drive has two magnetic
disks (two sided both, I believe). If cylinder (sectors) numbering is
straight from the first disk inner radius to outer radius, and back on the
other side, and repeated again on the second disk, the disk performance
should be distributed along the hard drive as two sinusoidal half-waves, with
two maximum at ¼ and ¾. If so, there is a sense to divide the drive for 5
partitions: two at ¼ and ¾ for operation systems (winxp and Linux in my
case), and the disk beginning, middle, and the end for storage. Is it
correct, or cylinder numbering has other order or many partitions are bad??

2. What we are talking about – theory or reality? Is there serious
difference in performance along a hard drive? Is there benchmarks number for
disk performance along magnetic disks?

3. After disk defragmenter I see one blue bunch of files at the partition
beginning, next big free gap, and a blue bunch of file at the second part of
the partition (with unmovable green pagefile somewhere between). What type of
files in the second bunch? Before this post I believed that winxp moves less
used files to the partition end. But after this post I’m not sure again. May
be (only may be) the “clever†winxp moves most frequently used files to place
with most effective disk performance (as in my disk)?? What do you think
about this?

Are you really 101 years old???
Thanks for help and Best, Alex