how to install xp and pagefile

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Hello,
I have two drives, a fast 200Gb and much slower 30Gb, and I want to put XP
installation and the pagefile on separate drives. Since one drive is twice as
fast as the other would this be a good idea ?
and if so which should I put on which drive for the best performance ?
TIA,
 
Hello,
I have two drives, a fast 200Gb and much slower 30Gb, and I want to put XP
installation and the pagefile on separate drives. Since one drive is twice as
fast as the other would this be a good idea ?
and if so which should I put on which drive for the best performance ?
TIA,
Click to expand...

In this case I would ether dump 30-GB drive at all, or probably (that is
discussible though) move the main part of the paging file to it -- but
only in case this drive is placed at the separate cable (IDE-1 -- if
200-GB drive is at IDE-0, or any IDE -- if 200-GB drive is SATA one).
Read also:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;308417
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;314482
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;315270

No problem to use this small drive to store the data, that is using not
often (like archives etc.) -- than you can place it to the same IDE
channel (same ribbon cable) as the 200-GB drive.

Don't forget, that if you use 200-GB drive -- you must install WinXP
with SP1 as minimum (SP2 is preferred: even WinXP-SP1 installation
causes sometimes the troubles with the drives greater than 160 GB). With
no SPs you can work only at your own risk, and only after you read and
use the MS KB 303013 article,
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q303013

--
Mikhail Zhilin
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
http://www.aha.ru/~mwz
Sorry, no technical support by e-mail.
Please reply to the newsgroups only.
======
 
thank you

Mikhail Zhilin said:
In this case I would ether dump 30-GB drive at all, or probably (that is
discussible though) move the main part of the paging file to it -- but
only in case this drive is placed at the separate cable (IDE-1 -- if
200-GB drive is at IDE-0, or any IDE -- if 200-GB drive is SATA one).
Read also:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;308417
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;314482
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;315270

No problem to use this small drive to store the data, that is using not
often (like archives etc.) -- than you can place it to the same IDE
channel (same ribbon cable) as the 200-GB drive.

Don't forget, that if you use 200-GB drive -- you must install WinXP
with SP1 as minimum (SP2 is preferred: even WinXP-SP1 installation
causes sometimes the troubles with the drives greater than 160 GB). With
no SPs you can work only at your own risk, and only after you read and
use the MS KB 303013 article,
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q303013

--
Mikhail Zhilin
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
http://www.aha.ru/~mwz
Sorry, no technical support by e-mail.
Please reply to the newsgroups only.
======
Click to expand...
 
Have you measured the performance of the two drives, or are you just
comparing their specs?

The reason I ask is that most drives don't perform up to their potential in
real-world computers...just because you have UltraDMA/133 doesn't mean
you're going to get 133 Mbps...more likely you're going to get something
like 60 or 70 Mbps burst speed when you measure it. This is largely because
it is easy to make the interface super-fast and add cache, but far far
harder to make the drive heads read data faster from the platters. If you
measure, it's possible that your drive's performance isn't so far apart.

-John O
 
Back
Top