Swap lile in own partition???

  • Thread starter Thread starter Performance geek
  • Start date Start date
P

Performance geek

I have heard that you can improve the performance of
winxp swap file, by creating a 2gig fat 16 partition and
place the swap file on it. is this a fluke or will it
actually work?
 
Since Windows 3.1 I have tried every known tweak for the swap file including
buying a separate drive and having nothing but the swap file on it. I have
tried fixed min and max, 2 times ram (which is nonsense) and all the other
speed-up fixes. I never noticed nor did I ever see any data that supported
any increase in performance that translated to an "Oh Wow!" !!!! experience
for the end users.

What I do now is to run with no swapfile since I have adequate ram installed
to do so. After several months now no issues and I have to say even with no
swap file at all I am still waiting for my "Oh Wow" !! experience....
 
You probably never will get that "Oh Wow" experience. Apparently you do not
use programs/applications that stress and load up the system. The pagefile
is only used if a program/situation calls for it. Otherwise, you are running
from RAM (pretty much so, anyway). If it's not used, no manner of placement
is ever going to give you a boost.

That is why I get a kick out of watching the posters argue about it
placement.

Now, if you are using AutoCad and working with a 500 meg, multi layered
drawing, or using Photoshop and doing heavy photo editing, you "may" be able
to gain by moving/adjusting the pagefile.
 
Running Windows without a paging file is as bad an idea as some of the
others you mentioned.

Tom Swift
 
C said:
Why is that Tom? If XP needs page space it creates some ..right?
Click to expand...

Sort of, as long as you allow it. If you say "no paging file", then XP
will listen to you and not create it even if it wants to.
 
And then what happens..an out of memory error warning? I have yet to have
any performance issues. This is "swapfile debate #428 " I have posted in
since the days of Win 3.1.

My post was simply my experiences that I have found NO DIFFERENCES in
seat-of-the-pants performance no matter how the swapfile was configured. I
have set very low mins and max's and XP has reset an existing swapfile to a
larger size and notified me.

Really the best advice I think is to let XP manage it. My latest new desktop
machine had a 100M min and a 1000M max VM set right out of the box and had
512M ram factory installed besides.
 
C said:
And then what happens..an out of memory error warning? I have yet to have
any performance issues. This is "swapfile debate #428 " I have posted in
since the days of Win 3.1.

My post was simply my experiences that I have found NO DIFFERENCES in
seat-of-the-pants performance no matter how the swapfile was configured. I
have set very low mins and max's and XP has reset an existing swapfile to a
larger size and notified me.

Really the best advice I think is to let XP manage it. My latest new desktop
machine had a 100M min and a 1000M max VM set right out of the box and had
512M ram factory installed besides.
Click to expand...

Do a real experiment to test memory stress. Configure machine to have no
paging file. Pull out all but a minimum of memory, say 128 or 256,
depending on how many sticks of memory you have.

Load up a lot of really large programs. Look in task manager for the
memory usage of these programs and run many instances of them. in
task manager, watch performance. See how the machine performs will
minimum memory, e.g. it needs 'Help' from a paging file. Will be
interested to hear your results.

(Maybe XP ignores you with you tell it no paging file. dunno).

I agree 100 percent to let XP manage the paging file setup.
 
| And then what happens..an out of memory error warning? I have yet to have
| any performance issues. This is "swapfile debate #428 " I have posted in
| since the days of Win 3.1.
|
| My post was simply my experiences that I have found NO DIFFERENCES in
| seat-of-the-pants performance no matter how the swapfile was configured. I
| have set very low mins and max's and XP has reset an existing swapfile to a
| larger size and notified me.
|
| Really the best advice I think is to let XP manage it. My latest new desktop
| machine had a 100M min and a 1000M max VM set right out of the box and had
| 512M ram factory installed besides.

Here's what Microsoft has to say about it:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q314482

Larc



§§§ - Please raise temperature of mail to reply by e-mail - §§§
 
Tom said:
The page file is the subject of more misunderstanding and rumours than
almost anything else in Windows. (Remember all the conspiracy theories
surrounding index.dat?) Here's a good introduction to the page file,
including some solid ideas on how to optimize it:
http://www.microsoft.com/WindowsXP/expertzone/columns/mcfedries/03june
16.asp.

Another solid resource is this one, written by MVP Jim Eshelman:
http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm

Tom Swift
Click to expand...
_________________________________

There are a number of enlightening remarks on this page too:

http://www.blackviper.com/AskBV/XP17.htm

Here is an extract:
"How can I adjust the "Page File" or "Virtual Memory" settings?
This is valid for Windows XP Home and Pro.
Can you get rid of the page file? Yes and no. If you have a boat load
of memory (greater than 512 MB) you may be able to function just fine..
Some games require a certain amount of swap space to be created to even
run, no matter how much RAM is available. Also, under certain
conditions, sound cards go crazy (or does not function) in some games
with no swap file (and oddly enough, Age of Empires 2)."
 
Read up on ram-disks, provided you have enough RAM, and run apps that
require lots of it. It is essentially creating a swap file within the RAM
itself to do away with the much slower HD access (compared to random access
memory)
 
Since Windows 3.1 I have tried every known tweak for the swap file including
buying a separate drive and having nothing but the swap file on it. I have
tried fixed min and max, 2 times ram (which is nonsense) and all the other
speed-up fixes. I never noticed nor did I ever see any data that supported
any increase in performance that translated to an "Oh Wow!" !!!! experience
for the end users.

What I do now is to run with no swapfile since I have adequate ram installed
to do so. After several months now no issues and I have to say even with no
swap file at all I am still waiting for my "Oh Wow" !! experience....
Click to expand...

I think the Oh wow experience you are looking for would only be found
if you could load Windows into a RAM disk.

I Did this for a graphic Artist once and her Mac 9600 running Mac OS
9.1. She had just upgraded the RAM to a Gigabit.

I created a RAM disk of 512 MB's dumped an active System Folder into
the RAM disk, pointed to the RAM disk as the boot device and rebooted.

EVERYTHING was instantaneous. A machine that would take 90+ seconds
to boot was up at the desktop in under twelve seconds. We moved the
Photoshop app to the RAM disk with a 100 MB TIFF and she was so
impressed.

Until I showed her what happens when the machine is shut down, and
all the contents of RAM are lost! >:-P

Nothing in life is free, but there are a few util's that will copy
the contents of a RAM Disk to HDD on shut down and restart.
 
Back
Top