Which of my drives should I put swap-file on?
I'm running Windows 98 SE
Right. My primary HD is a 30GB ATA100 7200rpm 2MB-cache IBM Deskstar (connected to onboard ASUS A7V Promise ATA100 controller). My secondary HD is a 10GB ATA66 5400rpm 2MB-cache Western Digital drive (connected to motherboard's primary (ATA66)IDE port). Would I get better performance by putting the swap-file on the slower secondary drive (on it's own partition) or should I just leave it as it is (on my primary drive as it is by default)?
BTW, regardless of which drive I put it on, I will just let Windows manage the swap-file size. If it makes any difference, I have 256MB of RAM and my priority for performance is for games.
First of all, how much phyiscal memory do you have on your system. Chances are, swapfile may not be utilized much if you have memory over 256MB in most cases. On the other hand, if you use a lot of memory hungry applications such as image editors, that would be a different story.
I would make the swapfile static and put it on the second hard drive even if it's slower. Read the link below to decide how big you should make the swapfile size...
[This message has been edited by NDC (edited 06-27-2001).]
Well I've got 256MB of physical memory (my AGP aperture is 128MB) and I think you're right that my swapfile isn't used much. The most intensive things I run on my comp are games like Black & White, Quake 3, Grand Prix 3 and Deus Ex. Apart from that I just use email, Internet Explorer and a bit of Paint Shop Pro.
Thanks for the reply (and the link). I'll put the swapfile on my slower secondary drive but (even after reading that swapfile size doc) I'll just let Windows manage the size of it. I'm not keen on specifying the swapfile size but maybe I will in the future. The swapfile will be exclusivly on the primary partition anyway so hopefully it won't get fragmented.
Leave the swap file on the primary drive. Defrag the system and use Norton's or Nuts & Bolts etc. to optimize the swap file. Set your virtual memory to user defined and make the minimum and maximum size the same, about 1.5 times your ram. Yes this will make a difference, but not enough that you can see it. You have enough ram that the swap file will rarely be used.
It will be barely used, so why 1.5 times the amount of physical memory?
[This message has been edited by NDC (edited 06-30-2001).]
elroy: thanks for the post but I'm confused now Do you mean that I will actually get better performance by leaving it on drive C:? Or do you mean the performance gain by putting it on drive D: would be neglegable?
I was pretty sure that giving the swapfile it's own drive (on it's own cable) was a good thing. I just wanted to make sure that the fact it is a slightly slower drive wouldn't be a problem.
I've been keeping an eye on the swapfile size since putting it on drive D: (drive E: is also on my secondary drive but it's just backup/storage). When I bootup, it's about 50-60MB. After playing Quake 3, it was about 270MB (the biggest I've seen it so far was 280). I'm gonna keep monitoring it's size and I'll see just how big I can make it (play some games and then run several apps at once with loads of browser windows and images open). When I really get to know what sort of sizes it gets to, I'll start thinking about maybe making it a fixed size. From what I've seen so far, setting it to 1.5 times my RAM (256) would probably be enough.
elroy: I've just read an excellent article that you posted a link to in another thread www.rojakpot.com/Speed_Demonz/Swapfile_Optimization/Swapfile_Optimization_01.htm Here's a bit of it.
"And as mentioned earlier, if the second hard disk is more than half as slow as the first hard disk, then the performance of your swapfile may be worse off. The idea is great but the implementation is a bit problematic. But if your second hard disk is at least half as fast as your first hard disk and you have more than two IDE controllers, then the way is clear - move the swapfile to the second hard disk."
As for making my swapfile a permanent size, after reading that article I may set the minimum size to 1.5X my RAM but not set a maximum (a "semi-permanent size").
Thanks again to you both. Job's a good'n
As I have mentioned to you in my earlier posts, that's what most sites tell you to do... Set the Page File size to at least 1x or 1.5x times the physical memory you have on the system. But why would you want to waste disk space on something you're not even using to its full extent? You even said yourself that your system is barley touching the page file...A big waste of disk space in my opinion...
I also told you why they recommend you setting the Page File size to at lease 1x the size of the pysical memory on the system, for memory dumps... As I have mentioned to you before, there is absolutely nothing you can do with that memory dump file other than to delete it.
Um, I don't understand what you mean by these memory dump files. Are they created in the swapfile or as a file elsewhere?
I was reluctant before to set the swapfile size till after reading that article that I just posted a link to. I didn't know you could create say a 384Meg swapfile that could grow in size if needed. I still won't be setting the size for a while yet though (if I ever do).
As for wasting disk space, I've got plenty to waste (especially on my now almost redundant secondary drive). I only said that I thought the swapfile probably wasn't being used much, I was surprised to find it was about 270-280MB after just a quick go of Quake 3. Whether this is these memory dumps of which you speak I don't know and (if performance doesn't suffer at all) I don't care. My priority is performance (especially those annoying little pauses in games), I could happily sacrifice several gigs if it gave me a performance boost.
As for Windows 2000, it is created in the drwatson folder as user.dmp. As for windows 98, it's created as a tmp file under Windows\Temp... Since you don't mimd wasting the additional disk space, I guess don't worry about it then..
Cheers for that. Now all worries about my swapfile are gone
New Security Features Planned for Firefox 4
Another Laptop Theft Exposes 21K Patients' Data
Oracle Hits to Road to Pitch Data Center Plans
Microsoft Preps Array of Windows Patches
Microsoft Nears IE9 Beta With Final Preview
Simplified Analytics Improve CRM, BI Tools
Android Passes RIM as Top Mobile OS in 2Q
VMware Updates Hyperic System Management
File Monitoring Key to Enterprise Security
LinkedIn Snaps Up SaaS Player mSpoke