Two hard drives and Page File?

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

Guest

I have always ran two harddrives in my computers simply for the space and the
quickness of accessing things so I'm not running a 160gb drive. *only because
I can't afford 320ssci* I have always been told its smart to put your page
file on the oposite drive of your boot drive. Is this true, myth or make any
difference?
 
D.Nadeau said:
I have always ran two harddrives in my computers simply for the space and
the
quickness of accessing things so I'm not running a 160gb drive. *only
because
I can't afford 320ssci* I have always been told its smart to put your page
file on the oposite drive of your boot drive. Is this true, myth or make
any
difference?
Click to expand...
It may make a difference. However, moving the page file to a different disk
reduces the reliabity of the system.
Jim
 
Jim said:
It may make a difference. However, moving the page file to a different
disk reduces the reliabity of the system.
Jim
Click to expand...
Curious response. Can you provide supporting documentation for your claim
that having the page file to a second drive?

Bobby
 
That's what microsoft recommends...However,in system properties,page-file,
set both to "let windows manage"...
 
I have always ran two harddrives in my computers simply for the space and the
quickness of accessing things so I'm not running a 160gb drive. *only because
I can't afford 320ssci* I have always been told its smart to put your page
file on the oposite drive of your boot drive. Is this true, myth or make any
difference?
Click to expand...

Not a whole lot, but it should help "some". One piece of advice I saw
stated to leave a small part of the pagefile on your windows drive and
put the rest on another, in its own partition, which should not be
NTFS. I did that and it seemed to perform well.
 
Have been doing this since windows 98. 4GB/FAT32 ultrascsi physical hard
drive used entirely for XP, ME, and 98 swapfiles. Moved the scsi adapter,
two ultrascsi drives, and scsi cdrom to a P4 system built almost 2 years
ago.
Considered ide, but was concerned with mutual access time by the swapfile
and anything else.
Windows itself is on an ide drive. Windows runs the size constraints on the
swapfile.
Can see no detriment to performance.
Another bennie is the swapfile isn't participating in fragmenting the
default windows partition filesystem, nevermind the space not taken by the
swapfile that may be an issue on some PCs with limited hard drive space,
space is not an issue on my PC.

Can't qualify better in XP. 98/ME seem more stable. Its not any worse
performance-wise while using any of these OSes. Would highly suggest it on
PCs with software that write their own "swapfiles" like some video rendering
software. And in the method I've used, not on the ide bus.

All 3 versions of windows will recover to the default location if the user
designated swapfile location is not available. Its invisible, a slight
delay at desktop boot will occur, you won't be notified. In my case,
windows was a bit sluggish at that point, even after a reboot.
 
If you are concerned about security you may not want to put your page file on
a FAT 32 partition. Since it has less security options than an NTFS partion.
However I hear that putting the page file on a FAT 32 partition would provide
for a bit of a performance boost.
 
Care to explain how a FAT32 partition makes Paging more efficient ?
There are more misconceptions about Paging and Windows Memory
Management, than any other single aspect of the OS.
 
Back
Top