I love this post two...though it's probably best on it's own topic...anyway, let me debate a coupla points;
according to
this white paper, Microsoft proves (to itself anyway) that fat is not faster in XP. they also say in that paper that optimization does not take place across partitions...what's perceived as a performance gain in partitions will be shortlived, as the OS cannot optimize file locations for seek times.
BTW...they also tell you here that the myth of placeng files on the edges are counter productive...file location that need to be accesed often belong in the middle of the disk
another point... it's fine to have a static page file if you are setting the page to a huge, huge value, but even then, there is absolutely nothing sacrificed by leaving expansion enabledc...the remains static at all times ...unless there is a dire need to increase...you see...dynamic is the same as static, unless you are about to crash or hang something...you aren't saving anything by setting the file static,,,.
also, by default, debugging is not dumping the whole code, you have to set that.
XP wants to be able to let you use all of the ram that you have installed...it doesn't matter if your needs for your ram are not as high as your ram...xp anticipates the need for all of the ram...it wants to be able to create addresses for faults...these are not used unless necessary, ram is always used when it's available...the fact that the page file is active in no way indicates page is used instead of ram.
for those that haven't followed this discussion on otherthreads...do not lower your page file...serves no purpose, and you will suffer a huge performance hit when the day comes that you are actually usung the ram you have installed...plus it's totally unnecessary to make the file static...you gain nothing, and sacrifice a safety margin...
thanx again, two for your excellent post...
I'm hoping it's moved to it's own topic...morre people will get something out of it there