What drive for the Windows-Swapfile??

[Variable]

I have to Partitions on my HD:
C: (1GB) Only the Windows-Installation
D: (4GB) All Programs, Games and my documents and files

Should I leave the default settings so C: is used for the Swapfile or should I switch it to D: ?

cool°
Variable

[LittleKing]

My suggestion is to put it on the partion where the most activity occurs. This way the HD heads don't have to travel as far.

Here's a suggestion. I used to partition my HD the same way you are, but since then I have come to believe that you get better performance if it is one large drive, because the head doesn't have to travel as far when it's searching for system files, program files, and writing files. I could be wrong so please fill me in if I am. However, make sure the drive is defraged frequiently.

The best place to put the swap file is the least used fastest drive, if you have more than one. But since you have one drive, two partitions it does change things.

LK

[NDC]

It really wouldn't make much of a diference to tell you the truth since the Page File is going to be among other data on either partition and is going to get fragged up. And also since it's going to be on the I/O channel (the same hard drive).

I also hear people putting there Page File on the first partition since it's the fastest partition to gain full performance of the Swap File. But in my opinion, putting the OS on the first partition would make most sense since OS is priority and the Swap File should be put on the slowest partition since the Swap File is only utilized when phyisical memory is short. If your system is accessing the swap file that heavily to the point where you have to set the Swap File to the fastest partition over the OS, I think it's definetly time to get some more RAM! heck, they're at their rock bottom prices! When could be a better time to stockup on some?

The most beneficial way to have the swap file setup would be to have it on a whole seperate disk where system OS system files and appications files aren't accessed.


But if you don't have another hard disk on the system, another option would be to make a whole seperate partition for the Swap File... A Swap File dedicated partition so that it doesn't need to be seeked among other files... it will be contiguous and also less fragmentation...

[This message has been edited by NDC (edited 02-06-2001).]

[darkmallard]

There is no performance gain moving your swap file to other partitions on the same drive. You need another hard drive for increased performance. Move it here, there, anywhere you want on either partition. Like the others have said, just make certain you defrag your partitions often.

[Steve R Jones]

From jerryctx on another board:

Swap file performance can (at least, theoretically) be improved by creating a fixed size swap file.
However, the real performance issue is how often swaps are necessary.

When virtual memory (aka swap file) was developed, computers were big and had many users. The operating system gave control to each user in turn for a fraction of a second. Because each user was running a different program (or a separate copy of a program), swaps generally occurred many times a second. Optimizing the virtual memory really mattered. It might avoid the need to buy a bigger, faster computer which in those days could cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. Yes, I am an old fogey but this was still true just 10 or 15 years ago. Its still true today with computers running multi-user OS's (Windows 2000, Unix, Linux, etc) although the hardware is a lot cheaper.

However, Windows 98 is a single user system. Although it is multi-tasking, swaps are usually infrequent. For example, as I write this I have anti-virus, firewall, communications, browser and a few other processes "running". That is, their code is distributed across real and virtual memory. But swaps (according to System Monitor) are rare. The anti-virus hasn't been activated because I haven't started any processes. The firewall probably hasn't caused a swap because the only packets exchanged were normal HTTP messages (no hacker activity) and so on.

A single user tends to use the same program for minutes at a time. Even if you are editing a publication, for example, and jumping back and forth between word processing and graphic apps, you'll be switching a few times a minute, at most, compared to switches dozens of times per second for multiple users.

The memory management system keeps the most active programs (actually pieces of programs) in memory. With a single user there may be a flurry of swaps just after a new app is started. But it settles down after the most used programs have been swapped into memory.

Forgive the long winded sermon... The point is that Win 98 users probably wont notice the performance difference no matter how you configure the swap file UNLESS you are very short of real memory, say less than 32M. And memory is cheap. Buy some more and see a real improvement.

1: Install 128M memory

2: Don't worry about swap files

3: Enjoy your computer

[Variable]

Well to clear something up:
Windows uses a swapfile so large (and slow) you can hardly think it possible.
Okay I only have 64 MB of RAM but I know of people that have more than 300MB of RAM and their swapfile is still more than 160 MB large when running Photoshop and maybe two other apps.
So:

1. Your Swapfile is allways too large.
2. It is used frequently and it slows down your PC enormously because no HD is as fast as RAM
3. You want your Swapfile to be as fast as possible.

From what I gathered here is that most people say that in my case it doesn't matter where I put the Swapfile whether it is on the same partition as Win or on the same partition as my apps and games.

cool°
Variable

[Fingers]

As a counter arguement to darkmallard, the first partition on a drive is always faster than the second, and the second is always faster than the third, and so on. Partitions are created from the outside of the drive inward, and information stored on the outside tracks can be read faster than inside tracks.

Does it make a difference that you can actually see... probably not.

Swapfile Optimization Guide (http://www.rojakpot.com/Speed_Demonz/Swapfile_Optimization/Swapfile_Optimization_01.htm)

[Richard_Cranium72]

On a recent build, I used a 20g HD.

I partitioned 4gb for the drive C(primary)
and the rest as drive D.

4gb is probably too large to gain any performance as discussed here.

What size is reccomended for the C drive to gain an advantage.. that is without running the risk of making it too small..

This question is for "customer" machines only
BTW

DrVette

[NDC]

Sorry Steve, but I have to disagree with you on this one! http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif

The point is that Win 98 users probably wont notice the performance difference no matter how you configure the swap file UNLESS you are very short of real memory, say less than 32M


Hmmmmmm, so I guess having 64mb on the computers these days, Win98 would never access the page file, correct? NOT! Win98 has the worst memory management among the OS's that are being used primarily, Win98, NT4, Win2K! Even with 128mb, you will see resources drop and not returned, and then Uh Oh! page file time! As for NT4 and Win2K, that would be another story.


It is used frequently and it slows down your PC enormously because no HD is as fast as RAM

That's when you know it's time to stockup on some more RAM!

The best thing to do is set the page file to a static size, not dynamic, and have the swap file optimized for when your physical memory does get too low (which always does on Win9x).



[This message has been edited by NDC (edited 02-07-2001).]

[NDC]

Here's another link you may want to check out that relates to this topic:
http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/Forum9/HTML/002740.html

[dosmastr]

i'd have to agree with fingers,
hard drives start from the outside of the platter, and as it fills up it moves in, so C is always on the outside,

but like the man said, its not gonna make a difference you can see, also
windows might punch up the size of the swap file but not use it, its like, you didn't buy a hard drive that fit exactly what you have now, you bought one to expand on, windows does the same thing, if right now it needs 100mb of swap file, it creates a 160mb file in case a time comes for when it does need that extra 60mb
i have 320mb ram windows usually has a 0-50mb swap, but i have never seen it use more then 10mb of that swap file, however, i am not into that image editing stuff which un-doubtedly requires more overhead (more overhead then games? i'm not sure, but i think so)
you might want to put it where the action is so that you don't lose seek time, but i would say put it away from the partition with you major activities becuase you will lose more time in fragmentation then you will in seek times

yes ram is dirt cheep these days, buy 128 you can get it for 50 bucks at tiger direct www.tigerdirect.com (http://www.tigerdirect.com)

Dosmastr

[This message has been edited by dosmastr (edited 02-08-2001).]

[GSalisbury]

I can agree - load-up on memory it's cheap.

Then go into SYSTEM.INI and add to the [386Enh] section:
ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1

This basically tells windows to wait to swap until you/it really needs to.

Then, give yourself good defrag.

Then, if you have only one drive, allocate a fixed minimum-sized (2 x memory-size - smaller if free-space is not generous) swap-file on the c: drive and forget about it. Wonders will allocate it once and not trim it back (boot-up might even be a fractional nano-second faster cause it'll always be there). The c: drive free-space will go down by this allocation but you'll know that and it should stay 'fixed'. Wonders will allocate more if it needs it if you do something unusual but then trim it back when your done or give it back at the next boot. You can always scale back or remove the minimum if space becomes an issue.

If you have more than one drive, then allocate the swap-file on the least used ( non c: ) drive and don't set a minimum. Wonders will only use it if it needs it and, given enough memory, may never access it.

I have 384Mg of memory and two drives with swap on a back-end partition on 2nd drive. The swap-file is virtually always zero sized and often the drive is not even spooled-up (I use is mostly as a random backup/shuffle device).

The SYSTEM.INI setting with lots of memory and an off-line swap-file works well for me.

[This message has been edited by GSalisbury (edited 02-08-2001).]

[Richard_Cranium72]

^

[redder]

About a year and a half ago I assembled a PIII-450 system with 256 Mb RAM. I read somewhere that you didn't need a swap file with that much memory so I disabled the swap file in my PC. I use Photoshop, Illustrator and Corel Draw every day and never ran out of memory.

Just an observation for you to ponder...

[pecodude]

well i agree that win 98 is pretty dam sad at memory usage..with 256 meg of ram i set my virtual memory at 100 max and min...so its fixed size..this way windows dont recalculate swapfile size constantly causeing thoses wee stumbles in middle of a game.
also i never use patition..just 2 x 30 gig ata100 ibms in raid0 setting..so is 1 60gig drive..also i use prog called cacheman 3.8 whitch resizes my data chunks and i cant even remember when i had swapfiles ever used.
defrag every week i have 18 gig on atm..takes only 13 mins for defrag!!
cheers
PECO

[Shagnasty]

Just a personal observation...I am running
a PIII 800mhz 100mhz FSB, with 768mb PC100
Ram and Four 40gb ATA/100 HD's all with
single Partitions...I have Raid, but don't
use it, still don't trust it...I've been
checking on the Swap file...which currently
is set to allow windows to control it...So
far it normally is about 3mb in size...I just
checked it after capturing a full 15mins of
Video/Audio (File size was close to 3GB) and
the Swap file was still only 3mb...After
editing the same Video...The Swap file had
grown to 15mb, still pretty insignificant...
I'm thinking I'll probably move the Swap
file to my E: (Seldom Used and Nearly Empty)
Drive and set it to a permanent size...Just
to ease my mind...Since I'm planning to move
up to 1.5gb of PC266 DDR/SDRam...I'm thinking
the Swap file will very rarely be used or at
least not enough to be a factor at all...
Ram of all sorts especially the PC100 is just
too cheap today to allow a shortage to be a
factor...People told me 128mb is more than
enough...but I noticed a BIG difference when
I got to 256mb...Then I got out of control...

[captpete]

If your swap file is being accessed often, and usually will be at 64 MB of RAM, it will become fragmented more quickly than other files. When you degrag, you degrag each partition separately, and some partitions take longer than others depending on how often they are accessed. You will note that you do not have to degrag all of your drives at the same time, because some will not need it. One primary reason for partitioning is to get smaller file clusters so that there is not as much fragmentation. If the swap file is on the same partition as everything else, it will become fragmented over the entire drive, thus requiring the degrag of the entire drive, a time consuming event. Thus it is logical to put your swap file in its own extended partition logical drive. Then you can degrag it frequently as needed without having to do your whole HD.

[zaphod38]

catpete's response makes sense.
I recently installed Linux (Mandrake 7.2 distro) and it sets up a separate partition for the swap file, even making a recommendation for the partition size.

( If we wait a few years, it'll be a new Microsloth OS feature, born 'n' raised in Redmond :p )

Cheers !

[Richard_Cranium72]

Thanks, caddmannq