• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Paging File

Capricorn

OSNN Senior Addict
#1
I have partitioned my Hard Drive into 3 Partitions. The System is on 'C' The Software is on 'D' and Odds and Ends on 'E' . Should I set a Paging File Size for each Partition, or just for 'C', which has set up by default?
 

Perris Calderon

Moderator
Staff member
Political User
#2
leave it on c, leave it default

as far as a paging file on every logical partition, that's a pretty good question

if all you were going to have is one physical hardrive and one pf, then the very best spot is on c

however, if you didn't need the space and you wanted to put one on every logical partition, I think there might be some kind of theoretical gain to having one on every partition

I don't think there's any way to benchmark an improvement with that configuration, I personally would just leave the default on c
 

ming

OSNN Advanced
#3
Paging file on only 1 physical drive should be placed on one single partition so that the read/write head does not have to move all over the physical disk to get information. Spreading it over multiple partitions on the same disk would most likely to decrease the performance of the OS.

If you use two or more physical HDs then you should spread them out over the 'number' of disks, but not the number of partitions created in each of the HDs.
 

Perris Calderon

Moderator
Staff member
Political User
#4
ming said:
Paging file on only 1 physical drive should be placed on one single partition so that the read/write head does not have to move all over the physical disk to get information. Spreading it over multiple partitions on the same disk would most likely to decrease the performance of the OS.

If you use two or more physical HDs then you should spread them out over the 'number' of disks, but not the number of partitions created in each of the HDs.
well, each page request will be apart from the rest, each page seak is already going al over the disk regardless, hte main reason you are right is that you want the pagefile close to the action which is on c, where the operating system is

it would be conceivable to me that having the data localized to where it's being written from might bring some kind of gain, but I'm pretty sure ming is right on this

since the os will almost definately uise only one of the pagefiles regardless of how many the os has to use, and the os will try to use the pagefile that's on the least used partition, (which is what you don't want when all you have is one hardrive), that's an optimization for multiple hardrives, not single hardrives...on a single hardrive you want the pf as close to the operating system as possible which of course is on c

having it on the least used partition is a bad idea when talking about a single physical drive...that logarythem is suppoed to be invoked for multiple hardrives

thanx for the correction
 

Capricorn

OSNN Senior Addict
#5
What I have done at the moment is to set 'C' at Custom Size. The other two partitions are each set to System Managed Size. Everything appears to be running OK.
 

Mooz

Moozically Con~foozed
#6
Hi capricorn,

from my perspective paging file optimisation tweaks give the final 2% of performance increase in windows XP. i think the days of tweaking the page file (moving it, resizing it, defrag at each boot etc) all died off somewhat with the advent of XP. this said however in a commercial environment we have seen significant page file performance increases when moving the file to a non raid disk.

i think that there is a lot to be said for the hardcore tweakers that eek every last drop of performance out of thier systems, come on weve all been there with a good ghost image of the OS and a handfull of tweaks ... just looking to make or break the OS.

again from experience i have found that some of the better speed increases give percieved speed not actual ... you know like stop the menus fading, remove animations, sure less pretty, but hella lot quicker.

good luck in your quest ....

if after all is said and done you have time to kill and want to shuffle the pagefile about ... do me two favours.

1) if you have 1 gb or more of ram, run without a pagefile period for two days and monitor the performance

2) head over to axcel's page (ggogle-fu would help) .... he always has a strong point of view on PF usage and settings.

again good luck

Mooz
 

Perris Calderon

Moderator
Staff member
Political User
#7
Mooz said:
Hi capricorn,

from my perspective paging file optimisation tweaks give the final 2% of performance increase in windows XP. i think the days of tweaking the page file (moving it, resizing it, defrag at each boot etc) all died off somewhat with the advent of XP. this said however in a commercial environment we have seen significant page file performance increases when moving the file to a non raid disk.

i think that there is a lot to be said for the hardcore tweakers that eek every last drop of performance out of thier systems, come on weve all been there with a good ghost image of the OS and a handfull of tweaks ... just looking to make or break the OS.

again from experience i have found that some of the better speed increases give percieved speed not actual ... you know like stop the menus fading, remove animations, sure less pretty, but hella lot quicker.

good luck in your quest ....

if after all is said and done you have time to kill and want to shuffle the pagefile about ... do me two favours.

1) if you have 1 gb or more of ram, run without a pagefile period for two days and monitor the performance

2) head over to axcel's page (ggogle-fu would help) .... he always has a strong point of view on PF usage and settings.

again good luck

Mooz
not a bad post but for a few points

there are really no gains "tweaking the pagefile", not even as little as 2%

all you can do to get better performacne which wouold not be noticed on a system with enough memory would be to take it off of the physical hardrive and put it on a faster bigger less used drive,

making it bigger if you have less then 512 mbs of ram, or if your memory goes under pressure (no matter how much memory you hace), and of course you can give it a defrag, which you will only have to do one time

a point those "expert tweakers" don't understand is you need a bigger pagefile with a gig of ram, not a smaller one.

the pagefile is there only if your memory goes under pressure, you want the os to be able to back every bit of memory you have, you don't want to cripple the ability to page the modified data that the pagefile is used for

don't ever reduce the size of your pageifle, that idea was a flawed carry over from 95 and is counterproductive in nt

paging isn't encouraged by having a pagefile too big, paging actually happens less often when the pagefile is ample then when it isn't there
 
Last edited:

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Latest profile posts

Hello, is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me ...
Xie
What a long strange trip it's been. =)

Forum statistics

Threads
61,961
Messages
673,239
Members
89,014
Latest member
sanoravies