(XP) Virtual memory setting on storage HDD?

[Pikarya]

This PC has 2GB of ram, running Windows XP.

Are these settings correct for both my main, and storage drives?

http://imgshack.info/images/wdmjbrplgx74vq6tpdqr.jpg

http://imgshack.info/images/b423mitycc79y7nrblv.jpg

From my understading, the formula is "1024mb = 1gb". So "2048 * 1.5 = 3072".

As for my second HDD. Do I need to do the same? By default it is set as "No Page File". Is this correct?

[Furtwangler]

I would think that setting the second as a paging file if its a permanent HDD would be good because then your computer can pull from 2 diff places, thus increasing speed. I may be wrong tho.

[Ratatapa]

As i remember (keep in mind this is far) but you only need 1 pagefile, for the system even with more disk. and like Furt said to Increase speed would be better to put it on another partition or Drive.

So in this case you should put your pagefile on the D: only, but wait and see what the other gotta say first

[Pikarya]

Ah I see, so *possibly* I would need to have my C:/ drive (Raptor 150GB/OS HDD) with "No Page file".

and for the D:/ drive (Caviar 500GB/Storage HDD) I should put a Custom pagefile of "3069"?

[Kohan]

I would think that setting the second as a paging file if its a permanent HDD would be good because then your computer can pull from 2 diff places, thus increasing speed. I may be wrong tho.

This is a popular but untrue bit of advice. The page file should be on the same partition as your Windows installation.

[Akucaen]

This is a popular but untrue bit of advice. The page file should be on the same partition as your Windows installation.

Why's that now? It would seem to me that while there's a delay in the controller copying data from one drive to the other, that setup would save drive health (less drive thrashing) and time if the file is larger than the onboard cache of the drive.

Like, in my particular setup, I put windows and games on C:\, media and the pagefile on D:\. It seems to work out fine, although I still want to buy an iRAM and use that 'drive' as a pagefile drive.

[Kohan]

Unless you have a HDD dedicated strictly to the page file and nothing but, it isn't going to save anything when you have the same amount of abuse taking place, but simply in a different location. Windows is capable of accessing a page file wherever you put it, but it uses it more efficiently if it's located in the same place as the OS itself, since that's what it was designed around (as the very vast majority of users will never modify its settings).

Also, as you mentioned, there is going to be a delay in manipulating and using the data, and if you're doing it for performance, why do you want a delay, even if it's virtually unnoticeable? Plus, if it's a data drive, you're probably going to be streaming different things from it at different times, such as video, audio, et cetera, and that'll complicate things further.

The best thing to do is use a third party piece of software to move the swap file, located on your Windows partition, to the fastest area of the disk (the front). Various applications can optimize your swap file like this. That reduces thrashing and increases performance more than anything else possibly could, by significantly reducing the amount of travel the HDD's heads actually have to do.

One thing that's also worth noting -- though it doesn't relate to this specific case -- is putting a page file on another partition on the same drive is useless, as in that case it's best to put it in the same partition as Windows. It's the same physical HDD, there's no performance boost.

[Spekkio]

an additional benefit from keeping it on your OS drive is if you keep your data on a separate drive from your OS, the disk thrashing your OS drive does in the daily course of events (such as accessing your page file for example) will not put an undue stress on your data drive. the upshot of this is when your OS drive decides its had enough and quits (more likely to happen sooner on a heavily exercised drive) your data drive still remains alive. then you only have to reinstall your OS and programs rather than having to desperately rummage through your dead data drive trying to recover your important pictures from your last vacation or your records from your business.

[Pikarya]

Did I do it right?

http://imgshack.info/images/tkjb16snwly856jzb6r.jpg

[Raineer]

Did I do it right?

http://imgshack.info/images/tkjb16snwly856jzb6r.jpg

Works but I usually put it towards the inside of the drive. Your setup should keep it from getting fragmented, but I think XP and up does a decent job of that anyways as long as you don't dual-boot from that drive.

[Alphavision]

I still want to buy an iRAM and use that 'drive' as a pagefile drive.

Isn't that counter-productive? I don't see any value in putting the pagefile on an iRAM unless you are maxed out on physical memory and run applications with memory usage that exceeds the maximum allowable by your motherboard/OS to reduce disk thrashing. You're better off adding more RAM if you still have room for it.

Memory in general is a hierarchy of different physical implementations, with trade-offs between cost, speed, size, and volatility. The OS manages the memory so the most frequently and likely to be accessed data is populated in the higher tiers.

[High speed, low capacity]
Registers (volatile)
Caches (volatile)
DRAM (volatile)
SRAM (non-volatile)
Hard Disks (non-volatile)
[Low speed, high capacity]

One performance improving usage I see of an iRAM is to install an OS or game on it to reduce the delay of initial cache-misses that defer all the way to the hard disk when a TLB is unpopulated. This results in fast boot up times or game texture/model loading. The problem is the iRAM uses DRAM, which is volatile, and some management needs to be done for usability. (i.e. backing up the entire iRAM drive to a hard disk on shutdown and restoring it on startup) SSDs are more cost effective for this application with slightly less performance and non-volatile data. This method is also wasteful, since data that might not be accessed very much at all is taking up space in a fast and expensive resource.

[Kohan]

Did I do it right?

http://imgshack.info/images/tkjb16snwly856jzb6r.jpg

You made a partition on the same HDD for the swap file, and restricted its size, so I'd say no, that's not what you want to do. There is no performance gain whatsoever from putting a swap file in a separate partition on the same physical HDD.

Further up in the thread, we talked about what's best to do. You'll either want to put it in the same partition as Windows, using third-party software to optimize the swap file's data to the front of the drive, or you'll want a separate HDD that is used only for the swap file -- nothing else.

Any other kind of swap file placement doesn't help performance.

If you don't want to change it though, it's not like you'll really notice.

[Pikarya]

Yeah, as you mentioned theres a 90% chance I'll probably never even notice the significant increase of doing it this way. Especially with a modern setup. But it was mainly out of boredom of researching google on the topic.

I'll probably just go back to 3067mb of pagefile/custom back on the 10K raptor drive main partition.