format of pagefile on 2nd hard drive

[Timothy Daniels]

If the OS and data files are in a partition formatted for NTFS,
is there a recommended format for a partition on another
hard drive that is dedicated as space for the pagefile? Should
the pagefile partition be NTFS also, or is there a reason why
it should be FAT32?


*TimDaniels*

 

[Rod Speed]

If the OS and data files are in a partition formatted for
NTFS, is there a recommended format for a partition
on another hard drive that is dedicated as space for
the pagefile? Should the pagefile partition be NTFS
also, or is there a reason why it should be FAT32?

Again, makes a hell of a lot more sense to have
enough physical ram so the pagefile isnt used much.

 

[Timothy Daniels]

"Rod Speed" analized:

Again, makes a hell of a lot more sense to have
enough physical ram so the pagefile isnt used much.

The RAM is maxed out for my system. It is not a
parameter that be increased anymore.

Given that a 2nd hard drive that runs at the same rpm
as the primary hard drive is available, and given that
I want to use a small portion of it for the pagefile, does
it matter what format would for that pagefile - given that
the rest of the system would be on NTFS partitions?


*TimDaniels*

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

The RAM is maxed out for my system.

Then its obviously passed its useby date if the page
file is getting used enough so that detail matters.

It is not a parameter that be increased anymore.

Wrong. You can obviously increase it by replacing the
motherboard etc with one that can have more physical ram.

Given that a 2nd hard drive that runs at the same rpm
as the primary hard drive is available, and given that
I want to use a small portion of it for the pagefile, does
it matter what format would for that pagefile - given that
the rest of the system would be on NTFS partitions?

Again, makes a hell of a lot more sense to have
enough physical ram so the pagefile isnt used much.

 

[Timothy Daniels]

"Rod Speed" summons his best:

Then its obviously passed its useby date if the page
file is getting used enough so that detail matters.

Ahhh! Yes, the loaf of bread model of RAM spoilage.

Wrong. You can obviously increase it by replacing the
motherboard etc with one that can have more physical ram.

Does your mother know you're at the keyboard again?



*TimDaniels*

 

[Eric Gisin]

When you have any large fixed-size file in NT-XP, performance does not depend
on NTFS/FAT or cluster size.

| If the OS and data files are in a partition formatted for NTFS,
| is there a recommended format for a partition on another
| hard drive that is dedicated as space for the pagefile? Should
| the pagefile partition be NTFS also, or is there a reason why
| it should be FAT32?

 

[bill]

"Rod Speed" summons his best:



Ahhh! Yes, the loaf of bread model of RAM spoilage.






Does your mother know you're at the keyboard again?



*TimDaniels*

The point is valid, even if it's not phrased well.
If your RAM is so little that you need to go to the drive for memory
space, trying to eke out a few milliseconds by tweaking the page file
isn't the best of solutions by a large margin.
The fact that this is so important to you tends to make me think that
you're doing something that requires speed. If that's so, a new,
faster MB that will allow more RAM may be well worth the investment.
Just something to think about.

 

[Timothy Daniels]

If your RAM is so little that you need to go to the drive
for memory space, trying to eke out a few milliseconds
by tweaking the page file isn't the best of solutions by a
large margin. The fact that this is so important to you
tends to make me think that you're doing something that
requires speed. If that's so, a new, faster MB that will
allow more RAM may be well worth the investment.

The 2nd drive is a freebie. It's installed. It interfaces
with an ATA/133 bus, and it spins at 7200 rpm with
8MB of cache. There is lots of room on it. The
Ultra ATA/133 dedicated channel that it is on is also
a freebie. It's there and installed as part of the
accommodation for the primary hard drive - which is
just as fast.

The RAM is maxed out. I cannot afford the time to
buy or make another computer.

I would like to avoid imaging the pagefile when I
image the primary hard drive for backup. I want to
use a small portion of the 2nd drive (which is already
installed and available for use) for a partition dedicated
to a pagefile. Did I say it's a freebie?

Given all that, is there any reason why the pagefile's
partition format should match the format of the rest
of the system? Is there any security reduction in having
the pagefile partition formatted as FAT32 instead of
NTFS?

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

Ahhh! Yes, the loaf of bread model of RAM spoilage.

You'll end up blind if you dont watch out, child.

Does your mother know you're at the keyboard again?

See above, child.

 

[Rod Speed]

The 2nd drive is a freebie. It's installed. It interfaces
with an ATA/133 bus, and it spins at 7200 rpm with
8MB of cache. There is lots of room on it. The Ultra
ATA/133 dedicated channel that it is on is also a freebie.
It's there and installed as part of the accommodation
for the primary hard drive - which is just as fast.

And no drive subsystem can ever get within
a bulls roar of the speed of physical ram.

The RAM is maxed out.

Easily fixed.

I cannot afford the time to buy or make another computer.

But plenty of time to uselessly fart around with the pagefile.

I would like to avoid imaging the pagefile when
I image the primary hard drive for backup.

Only a fool uses crude images for backup and a decent
imager doesnt include the pagefile in the image anyway.

I want to use a small portion of the 2nd drive
(which is already installed and available for use)
for a partition dedicated to a pagefile.

More fool you. The only thing that makes any sense if
the pagefile is being used significantly is more physical
ram so that doesnt happen. However it takes to do that.

Did I say it's a freebie?

Pity it will only make a very marginal difference at all.

Given all that, is there any reason why
the pagefile's partition format should
match the format of the rest of the system?

Yes, you can see even more of the scarsest resource
you currently have, physical ram, being lost to support
two file systems when otherwise there would only be one.

Is there any security reduction in having the pagefile
partition formatted as FAT32 instead of NTFS?

Yes, but security is completely irrelevant with a pagefile.
Even if it gets totally screwed due to a power flick etc,
it will be recreated from scratch on the next boot etc.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

The 2nd drive is a freebie. It's installed. It interfaces
with an ATA/133 bus, and it spins at 7200 rpm with
8MB of cache. There is lots of room on it. The
Ultra ATA/133 dedicated channel that it is on is also
a freebie. It's there and installed as part of the
accommodation for the primary hard drive - which is
just as fast.

The RAM is maxed out. I cannot afford the time to
buy or make another computer.

That is rather strange, isn't it.
You appear to have lots of time to ask stupid questions instead. Lots!

 

[bill]

The 2nd drive is a freebie. It's installed. It interfaces
with an ATA/133 bus, and it spins at 7200 rpm with
8MB of cache. There is lots of room on it. The
Ultra ATA/133 dedicated channel that it is on is also
a freebie. It's there and installed as part of the
accommodation for the primary hard drive - which is
just as fast.

The RAM is maxed out. I cannot afford the time to
buy or make another computer.

I would like to avoid imaging the pagefile when I
image the primary hard drive for backup. I want to
use a small portion of the 2nd drive (which is already
installed and available for use) for a partition dedicated
to a pagefile. Did I say it's a freebie?

Given all that, is there any reason why the pagefile's
partition format should match the format of the rest
of the system? Is there any security reduction in having
the pagefile partition formatted as FAT32 instead of
NTFS?

No, since the page file doesn't retain any data that you'd use after a
reboot anyway.
Any speed differences that may exist are so small compared to using
RAM that it's really pointless to agonize this much over it. :-(

I understand the financial restraints. I think, though, that you are
chasing rainbows trying to optimize the pagefile to this extent, as it
really doesn't make much difference. The slowdown is so much that any
slight speed improvement you may see (and I seriously doubt you'll see
much at all) will still seem horribly slow compared to having enough
RAM.
BTW, how much RAM do you have?

 

[Frank]

Timothy Daniels wrote:

| "Rod Speed" analized:
|| Timothy Daniels wrote:
||| If the OS and data files are in a partition formatted for
||| NTFS, is there a recommended format for a partition
||| on another hard drive that is dedicated as space for
||| the pagefile? Should the pagefile partition be NTFS
||| also, or is there a reason why it should be FAT32?
||
|| Again, makes a hell of a lot more sense to have
|| enough physical ram so the pagefile isnt used much.
|
| The RAM is maxed out for my system. It is not a
| parameter that be increased anymore.
|
| Given that a 2nd hard drive that runs at the same rpm
| as the primary hard drive is available, and given that
| I want to use a small portion of it for the pagefile, does
| it matter what format would for that pagefile - given that
| the rest of the system would be on NTFS partitions?
|
| *TimDaniels*

You will get a whole lot of different answers. But NO it
will not make any difference what the file system is. As
a matter of fact the bigger the FAT 32 clusters the faster
the response. You will need enough of a page file on the
system drive for a memory dump. Go here for more
information.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;307886

 

[Timothy Daniels]

BTW, how much RAM do you have?

384MB.


*TimDaniels*

 

[Timothy Daniels]

[.....] NO it will not make any difference what the
file system is. As a matter of fact the bigger the
FAT 32 clusters the faster the response. You will
need enough of a page file on the system drive for
a memory dump. Go here for more information.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;307886

Is there a way to provide the 126MB for a memory dump on
the system drive and yet have all paging be done in a partition
on another drive? It seems that by maintaining *any* pagefile
space on the system drive, that pagefile area would be used
the most - obviating the advantage of having the pagefile on
a different drive.


*TimDaniels*

 

[Eric Gisin]

|
| "Frank" wrote:
| > [.....] NO it will not make any difference what the
| > file system is. As a matter of fact the bigger the
| > FAT 32 clusters the faster the response. You will
| > need enough of a page file on the system drive for
| > a memory dump. Go here for more information.
| >
| > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;307886
|
|
| Is there a way to provide the 126MB for a memory dump on
| the system drive and yet have all paging be done in a partition
| on another drive? It seems that by maintaining *any* pagefile
| space on the system drive, that pagefile area would be used
| the most - obviating the advantage of having the pagefile on
| a different drive.
|
You don't need kernel memory dumps, so forget that pagefile. Win2k will mostly
use the pagefile on the least access and fastest drive.

 

[Rod Speed]

384MB.

Fark, way past time that dinosaur was put to sleep.

 

[bill]

384MB.


*TimDaniels*

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.

 

[Eric Gisin]

| On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 20:17:32 -0700, "Timothy Daniels"
| >> BTW, how much RAM do you have?
| > 384MB.
|
| 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.

 

[J.Clarke]

And how is that obvious? He claims it's "maxed out", but I don't
believe there's any motherboards or chipsets that have a 384MB
limit, so that means the fool's definition of "maxed out" is that
all his slots are filled.

I believe that he mentioned somewhere in a different thread that it's a
Dell Dimension PII-450. Some of the Dimension models from that era
maxed out at 384 meg, at least officially--they had BX chipsets so they
should have been able to take 512 unbuffered or 1024 registered, but
Dell may have crippled them in some way. According to the Crucial site
the Dimension V-450 has 3 DIMM slots each of which can take at most a
128 meg DIMM, which maxes him out at 384.

While his best solution is to get a new machine, there's no point in
calling him a "fool" because he has a machine that doesn't fit your own
preconceptions.