What are the benefits of Partitioning HDs and having a dedicated drive partiton for the Swap file?

[PaceMkrRep]

Hi all,

I recenlty got a new computer with a 300GB RAID 0 (2x 150GB Raptors)
as one drive and a 500GB storage drive as a second drive. I am running
Windows XP Media Center 2005 with a Core 2 Extreme processor and two
GeForce 7950 GX2 video cards set up in a quad SLI config. I also have
4GB of DDR2 800MHz SDRAM.

I'm hoping that I can get help with two questions:

1) I noticed that when I boot the system the memory cycle cout does
count all 4GB of memory, but when I am in Windows and I right click on
My Computer\Properties, it states that I have 2.25GB of memory. Is
this a limitation of the operating system?
Is there a way around this to get the whole 4GB recognized?

2) With that much hard disk space, I am wondering if there is any
performance advantage or disadvantage to setting up multiple
partitions on each of the 2 drives. I was thinking of partitioning the
RAID into a 70GB Partition for just the OS and the remainder for
programs. I was also thinking of partitioning the second 500GB drive
into 3 partitions. Two partitions of approximately 215GB each and a
third of about 20GB for the swap file. Would any of this be of any
benefit?

Finally, if I removed the swap file that Windows Automatically setup
on the C: drive with the OS and put it on the other drive in its own
dedicated partition, would that be a performance booster or not?

Thanks for your advice and help!
Thanks in advance!!!

Regards,

Steve B.

 

[R. McCarty]

With 4.0 Gigabytes of physical ram, I'd just leave the Pagefile on the
partition with XP. It's doubtful it will ever see much traffic so you can
reduce it's size which will prohibit a full memory dump. ( A separate
setting you can disable ).

See the following for some insight into Memory and Windows:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEmem.mspx

 

[Gordon]

Hi all,

I recenlty got a new computer with a 300GB RAID 0 (2x 150GB Raptors)
as one drive and a 500GB storage drive as a second drive. I am running
Windows XP Media Center 2005 with a Core 2 Extreme processor and two
GeForce 7950 GX2 video cards set up in a quad SLI config. I also have
4GB of DDR2 800MHz SDRAM.

And what are you going to do with that? Power NASA?

2) With that much hard disk space, I am wondering if there is any
performance advantage or disadvantage to setting up multiple
partitions on each of the 2 drives. I was thinking of partitioning the
RAID into a 70GB Partition for just the OS and the remainder for
programs.

That's a waste of time because if you re-install your OS you will STILL have
to re-install all your programs, as they write entries to the Registry
which is situated on the partition containing the OS - what WOULD be
beneficial is to create a separate partition for your DATA, so that in the
event of a re-install of the OS being neccesary, your data would remain
untouched.

 

[Rock]

Hi all,

I recenlty got a new computer with a 300GB RAID 0 (2x 150GB Raptors)
as one drive and a 500GB storage drive as a second drive. I am running
Windows XP Media Center 2005 with a Core 2 Extreme processor and two
GeForce 7950 GX2 video cards set up in a quad SLI config. I also have
4GB of DDR2 800MHz SDRAM.

I'm hoping that I can get help with two questions:

1) I noticed that when I boot the system the memory cycle cout does
count all 4GB of memory, but when I am in Windows and I right click on
My Computer\Properties, it states that I have 2.25GB of memory. Is
this a limitation of the operating system?
Is there a way around this to get the whole 4GB recognized?

2) With that much hard disk space, I am wondering if there is any
performance advantage or disadvantage to setting up multiple
partitions on each of the 2 drives. I was thinking of partitioning the
RAID into a 70GB Partition for just the OS and the remainder for
programs. I was also thinking of partitioning the second 500GB drive
into 3 partitions. Two partitions of approximately 215GB each and a
third of about 20GB for the swap file. Would any of this be of any
benefit?

Finally, if I removed the swap file that Windows Automatically setup
on the C: drive with the OS and put it on the other drive in its own
dedicated partition, would that be a performance booster or not?

Thanks for your advice and help!
Thanks in advance!!!

There is no need to have a separate partition for programs. Put the OS and
programs in one partition, and your data in one or more other partitions.
No need in your case to set the page file on a different partition. With
that much memory the page file won't be used much anyway. As a general rule
the more RAM, the less page file is needed. The old rule of thumb to set
the page file to 1.5x the amount of RAM does not apply. Following that rule
allocates too little page file when there is only a small amount of memory
present and way too much when there is a lot, as in your case.

See this link by the late Alex Nichol, MVP on virtual memory and setting the
page file. There is a utility on that site which you can use to monitor
page file usage and set it accordingly. In your case you might want to set
an initial size of 512MB and a maximum of 2048 MB and then monitor the
usage.

XP will show less than the 4GB of memory but what you are showing seems low.
Normally it's in the 3+ GB range. Why yours is showing only 2.25GB I don't
know. Maybe someone else will pipe up on that.

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

 

[PaceMkrRep]

And what are you going to do with that? Power NASA?



That's a waste of time because if you re-install your OS you will STILL have
to re-install all your programs, as they write entries to the Registry
which is situated on the partition containing the OS - what WOULD be
beneficial is to create a separate partition for your DATA, so that in the
event of a re-install of the OS being neccesary, your data would remain
untouched.

Is it your contention then that I leave the two drives and the page
file as they are with the exception of maybe creating a partition on
the 500GB drive that does not house the OS and using that for data.

I am just looking for the best way to set the drives and the page file
up from a practical benefit standpoint, as well as for optimal
performance.
Thanks in advance!!!

Regards,

Steve B.

 

[Ron Martell]

2) With that much hard disk space, I am wondering if there is any
performance advantage or disadvantage to setting up multiple
partitions on each of the 2 drives. I was thinking of partitioning the
RAID into a 70GB Partition for just the OS and the remainder for
programs. I was also thinking of partitioning the second 500GB drive
into 3 partitions. Two partitions of approximately 215GB each and a
third of about 20GB for the swap file. Would any of this be of any
benefit?

Finally, if I removed the swap file that Windows Automatically setup
on the C: drive with the OS and put it on the other drive in its own
dedicated partition, would that be a performance booster or not?

With regard to your RAID setup I think you should reconsider your
choice of RAID 0 for the operating system. RAID 0 is not even a true
RAID because there is no redundancy (the R in RAID stands for
Redundant). With RAID 0 your data is spread across the disks
(striped) which means that if one disk fails the entire content of the
array is lost and unrecoverable except at great expense.

RAID 0 is acceptable where the utmost in performance is desired and
other methods are in place for backup/recovery. Also a 70 gb
partition is a bit excessive for just the operating system. If you
make certain that all programs are installed on other partitions then
you could reduce the O/S partition to 20 gb or so and still have lots
of space.

Now for the swap/paging file. With more than 1 physical hard drive
the optimal performance is obtained by configuring a paging file on
each physical drive. That allows Windows to choose whichever paging
file is best situated for each specific paging operation. Also
Windows uses the paging file on the system drive (e.g. C for other
purposes as well, such as the system failure memory dumps, and these
functions will not be available if there is no paging file on that
drive.

One further point with regard to performance. A separate paging file
partition, on any drive, will often have a negative impact on the
overall performance of the computer. This is because the use of a
separate partition will most often result in increased travel
distances for the disk head mechanism as it shuttles between the
paging file partition and the other partition(s) on that drive.

The ultimate answer to all performance related issues regarding the
paging/swap file is to have sufficient RAM so as to eliminate the need
for Windows to relocate active memory content from RAM to the paging
file in order to allow that RAM to be freed up for other, currently
more important uses. With your 4 gb of RAM you are probably in that
situation.

Good luck

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
Syberfix Remote Computer Repair

"Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference
has never been in bed with a mosquito."

 

[Gerry Cornell]

Ron

Some interesting observations by all in this thread.

With regard to your RAID setup I think you should reconsider your
choice of RAID 0 for the operating system. RAID 0 is not even a true
RAID because there is no redundancy (the R in RAID stands for
Redundant). With RAID 0 your data is spread across the disks
(striped) which means that if one disk fails the entire content of the
array is lost and unrecoverable except at great expense.

RAID 0 is acceptable where the utmost in performance is desired and
other methods are in place for backup/recovery. Also a 70 gb
partition is a bit excessive for just the operating system. If you
make certain that all programs are installed on other partitions then
you could reduce the O/S partition to 20 gb or so and still have lots
of space.

Gordon makes the point that separation of operating system from
programmes is pointless because the related registry entries are with
the operating system. If you lose the registry you have to reinstall all
programmes.

What advantage do you see as being gained by separation?

Now for the swap/paging file. With more than 1 physical hard drive
the optimal performance is obtained by configuring a paging file on
each physical drive. That allows Windows to choose whichever paging
file is best situated for each specific paging operation. Also
Windows uses the paging file on the system drive (e.g. C for other
purposes as well, such as the system failure memory dumps, and these
functions will not be available if there is no paging file on that
drive.

One further point with regard to performance. A separate paging file
partition, on any drive, will often have a negative impact on the
overall performance of the computer. This is because the use of a
separate partition will most often result in increased travel
distances for the disk head mechanism as it shuttles between the
paging file partition and the other partition(s) on that drive.

The conventional wisdom with regard to placement of the page file on
the second drive was at the beginning of the drive. However, I suspect
that that was on the basis of it being used regularly. If the prospect is
that it will be used infrequently then does it not need to be placed in a
different location on the drive. Please comment.

Taking the previous point further where should you place backup files
which will only need to be accessed if something goes wrong?

The ultimate answer to all performance related issues regarding the
paging/swap file is to have sufficient RAM so as to eliminate the need
for Windows to relocate active memory content from RAM to the paging
file in order to allow that RAM to be freed up for other, currently
more important uses. With your 4 gb of RAM you are probably in that
situation.

Good luck

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
Syberfix Remote Computer Repair

"Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference
has never been in bed with a mosquito."

--

Regards.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England

Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Jonny]

Hi all,

I recenlty got a new computer with a 300GB RAID 0 (2x 150GB Raptors)
as one drive and a 500GB storage drive as a second drive. I am running
Windows XP Media Center 2005 with a Core 2 Extreme processor and two
GeForce 7950 GX2 video cards set up in a quad SLI config. I also have
4GB of DDR2 800MHz SDRAM.

I'm hoping that I can get help with two questions:

1) I noticed that when I boot the system the memory cycle cout does
count all 4GB of memory, but when I am in Windows and I right click on
My Computer\Properties, it states that I have 2.25GB of memory. Is
this a limitation of the operating system?
Is there a way around this to get the whole 4GB recognized?

No. 3GB of RAM should be noted in XP.

2) With that much hard disk space, I am wondering if there is any
performance advantage or disadvantage to setting up multiple
partitions on each of the 2 drives. I was thinking of partitioning the
RAID into a 70GB Partition for just the OS and the remainder for
programs. I was also thinking of partitioning the second 500GB drive
into 3 partitions. Two partitions of approximately 215GB each and a
third of about 20GB for the swap file. Would any of this be of any
benefit?

Go with RAID1, you'll have a backup.
Make one partition for weekly images of your C: partition as a quick restore
in the event the backup RAID drive picks up garbage when the primary RAID
drive begins to fail. Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Remainder a partition for
your files. Default swapfile is okay as is.

Finally, if I removed the swap file that Windows Automatically setup
on the C: drive with the OS and put it on the other drive in its own
dedicated partition, would that be a performance booster or not?

No. You need a dedicated bus (not ide) and hard drive (as fast or faster
than C.

 

[Ron Martell]

Gordon makes the point that separation of operating system from
programmes is pointless because the related registry entries are with
the operating system. If you lose the registry you have to reinstall all
programmes.

What advantage do you see as being gained by separation?

I have done so in the past because I was mult-booting several versions
of Windows and I wanted the same application programs to be available
for all of the installed versions of Windows. Rather than have
multiple copies of the installed files on the hard drive (one for each
version of Windows) I used a separate partition for the installed
apps. They all had to be installed separately for each version of
Windows (e.g. 98SE, Me, 2000, and XP) but there was only one set of
the main application files.

The conventional wisdom with regard to placement of the page file on
the second drive was at the beginning of the drive. However, I suspect
that that was on the basis of it being used regularly. If the prospect is
that it will be used infrequently then does it not need to be placed in a
different location on the drive. Please comment.

That location is based on the (usually mistaken) presumption that the
page file would be the most frequently accessed item on the hard
drive. I personally do not thing that the access time differences
between various physical locations on the hard drive are sufficient to
make it worth considering from a performance point of view.

Taking the previous point further where should you place backup files
which will only need to be accessed if something goes wrong?

That depends on the purpose of the backup.
a: To recover from an error such as data corruption, accidental
deletion, etc. that just happened.
b: To recover from a data entry mistake that was made last week or
last month.
c: To recover from a failed hard drive
d: To recover from a total disaster (building burns down, computer
stolen, etc.)

Each of these requires a different backup strategy.

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
Syberfix Remote Computer Repair

"Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference
has never been in bed with a mosquito."

 

[Gerry Cornell]

Ron

I have done so in the past because I was mult-booting several versions
of Windows and I wanted the same application programs to be available
for all of the installed versions of Windows. Rather than have
multiple copies of the installed files on the hard drive (one for each
version of Windows) I used a separate partition for the installed
apps. They all had to be installed separately for each version of
Windows (e.g. 98SE, Me, 2000, and XP) but there was only one set of
the main application files.

In essence separate if you are dual booting but otherwise it offers no real
advantages?

That location is based on the (usually mistaken) presumption that the
page file would be the most frequently accessed item on the hard
drive. I personally do not thing that the access time differences
between various physical locations on the hard drive are sufficient to
make it worth considering from a performance point of view.

In the past many have argued from both points of view but my feeling
is that you cannot demonstrate what is true.

That depends on the purpose of the backup.
a: To recover from an error such as data corruption, accidental
deletion, etc. that just happened.
b: To recover from a data entry mistake that was made last week or
last month.
c: To recover from a failed hard drive
d: To recover from a total disaster (building burns down, computer
stolen, etc.)

Each of these requires a different backup strategy.

Isn't preferable to place a backup of data on a separate drive from
the current files?

Do you think the arguments for putting files / folders which rapidly
fragment advanced in http://aumha.org/a/parts.htm are still valid?
A separate folder for Temporary Internet Files, Outlook Express
simplify maintenance. My system folder, apart from System
Restore fragments little and running Disk Defragment can take a
long time for small rewards. However, my Outlook Express folder
is well worth defragmenting often.


--

Regards.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England

Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Mak]

Hi,

in-line relies:

Hi all,

I recenlty got a new computer with a 300GB RAID 0 (2x 150GB Raptors)
as one drive and a 500GB storage drive as a second drive. I am running
Windows XP Media Center 2005 with a Core 2 Extreme processor and two
GeForce 7950 GX2 video cards set up in a quad SLI config. I also have
4GB of DDR2 800MHz SDRAM.

I'm hoping that I can get help with two questions:

1) I noticed that when I boot the system the memory cycle cout does
count all 4GB of memory, but when I am in Windows and I right click on
My Computer\Properties, it states that I have 2.25GB of memory. Is
this a limitation of the operating system?
Is there a way around this to get the whole 4GB recognized?

what Windows is reporting to you (2.25GB), sounds good (with the hardware
you have) to me. See, PCI devices use addresses below 4GB. With the number
of PCI devices you have (4 Video devices for a start) that address space
below 4GB gets quite big. With server class 32-bit OS, like Windows 2003
server, you could re-map RAM (that occupies the same space as PCI devices)
above 4GB, making it visible to OS, but Windows XP 32-bit would not allow
you to do that (limited to 4GB).
Have a look at basic diagram below:
numbers represent memory addresses in GB.
* - is your RAM
# - PCI addresses
In Windows XP you'll have:

0 2 4
********####
(2.25 GB of RAM visible to OS)

In Windows Server 32-bit, with /PAE switch and memory hole in BIOS to re-map
last 2 GB of RAM to above 4GB, you'll have:

0 2 4 6
****** ####******
(4GB of RAM visible to OS)

You have few options if you really need all 4GB of RAM:
1. Run Windows XP 64-bit.
2. Run Windows Server 2003 either 32-bit (check your BIOS if it allows
re-mapping first) or 64-bit.
3. Wait for Vista 64-bit.

If it were up to me, I'd relocate extra 2GB of RAM (that system can't see
anyway... well, for the exception of .25GB) to a different computer.

2) With that much hard disk space, I am wondering if there is any
performance advantage or disadvantage to setting up multiple
partitions on each of the 2 drives. I was thinking of partitioning the
RAID into a 70GB Partition for just the OS and the remainder for
programs. I was also thinking of partitioning the second 500GB drive
into 3 partitions. Two partitions of approximately 215GB each and a
third of about 20GB for the swap file. Would any of this be of any
benefit?

There *might* be a little advantage (performance vice) in creating multiple
partitions if you have stuff that you access very rarely, like patches /
installs for various programs, Office Install Cache (MSOCache) can go there,
movies that you want to keep but don't watch much and so on. Hard disk
performance is mostly driven by access time (check your HD specs). If I have
200GB HD and average access time listed for this drive is 8ms, by creating
partition of 100GB where my frequently accesses files are stored, I limit HD
heads move to this partition, effectively reducing access time in half and
gaining performance... but, this is only in cases where what I'm doing with
those files is I/O bound, and Windows has nothing else to do but wait for
I/O operation to finish. This is not normally the case, after all we
multitask and Windows can do something else while waiting.

Negative aspects of multiple partitions: 2 partitions as above 100 and 100
GB. First has 4GB free space and second 10GB of free space and I have a need
to store 11GB file. I obviously can't do that with 2 partitions without
splitting the file, but can if I were to have a single partition. Some
people advocate use of multiple partitions as way of organizing files, say
disk2\partition2 mounted as F: has MP3 files, disk2\partition3 mounted as E:
has movies and so on.... I honestly don't see anything wrong with folders.
Single folder "Multimedia" with 2 subfolders "MP3" and "Movies" looks more
manageable to me, but that's is an opinion. Same goes for backup, I can
backup just folders that I need to.

Finally, if I removed the swap file that Windows Automatically setup
on the C: drive with the OS and put it on the other drive in its own
dedicated partition, would that be a performance booster or not?

First, a nitpick - it's called paging file (pagefile.sys) not swap. The
difference is dramatic: when a process calls for more memory in Win98 (can
be a background process) Windows, to find RAM to realize this need, will
swap other process' (can be foreground) whole working set to disk - swap
file (proactive). In Windows XP, Memory Manager will "page" only bits
(pages, normally 4KB in size) of stuff that was sitting idle on RAM (first)
and will page only bits that process needs to RAM (reactive, page on
demand). Plus, only stuff that is backed up by paging files (process's
private writable address space) will go to paging file, that rest of
process's address space (like dll, exe) will be just dropped from RAM, it
won't go to page file, because it can be read back (paged in) to RAM from
original dll or exe file. Thus, when you start to page excessively in
Windows XP, you don't page only to page file, you page all over... and you
just can't find the best place on disk for every single file. I/Os to page
file are generally only 10% of the whole paging.

The stuff with the page file is not how much is in there, but how often it
is accessed (keep in mind reading-writing operations to page file are only
64KB in size, paging file is never accessed in a sequential manner, from the
beginning to the end, therefore, there is no need to place it in the
beginning of the drive - fastest place for sequential reading / writing).
The best place for your paging file is in the middle of other, frequently
accessed files, in case of single partition IIRC it is placed by default 3GB
within the disk.

The rule is - paging file should go onto the most used partition of you
least used drive - that is for when you have a lot of pagefile I/Os going,
you might notice the difference (very special cases only).
For general computing, leave it where it is now, on your system drive, you
are worried about nothing.