1. You are viewing our forum as a guest. For full access please Register. WindowsBBS.com is completely free, paid for by advertisers and donations.

Pagefile on drive other than C:

Discussion in 'Windows XP' started by tnf150boy, 2003/03/10.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Page 2 of 3
  1. 2003/03/19
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,585
    Likes Received:
    74
    Abraxas, I´ve been thinking ...... :confused: ......

    How do You acchieve this?

    When I installed XP on my friends computer I used a Win98 start disk to partition his HardDrive and then I let the XP-CD format the system partition. As I remember it, there was no option to choose which partition to make the system partition.
    After installation I formatted his other partitions.

    From the XP-CD, can the HardDrive be partitioned and all partitions formatted before setup is run?

    Normally (?) partitons are named in sequence, C:, D:, E: and so on. If I make C: small like Yours with the pagefile, can I make the second partiton on the HardDrive, in this case D:, the active system partition?



    Thanks for Your time,
    Christer
     
    Christer,
    #21
  2. 2003/03/19
    Abraxas

    Abraxas Inactive

    Joined:
    2002/08/16
    Messages:
    2,361
    Likes Received:
    3
    I remember struggling with this, too. Most of the time, you don't even know where the new partition is located. So, I added the small partition at the beginning with Partition Magic after I had installed XP. Resized the C: partition and PM asks where you want the new partition. They recommend after but you can choose before.

    And, yes, you can make or remove partitions in XP setup, but again, I don't think it allowed the amount of control I wanted. I like C: as system.
     
    Last edited: 2003/03/19
    Abraxas,
    #22


  3. to hide this advert.

  4. 2003/03/19
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,585
    Likes Received:
    74
    Well, I could detect the scent of Partition Magic ...... ;) ...... but wasn´t sure!



    Christer
     
    Christer,
    #23
  5. 2003/03/21
    miniB

    miniB Inactive

    Joined:
    2003/03/21
    Messages:
    489
    Likes Received:
    0
    Page File more Questions

    I came looking for information on moving my pagefile ..... I found lots of info. but am a bit confused

    I have one HD which I am going to partition. I note that some think it is best to leave the whole PF within the OS. I then read about moving the whole thing to a separate partition or leaving a bit in C and have another in it's own partition.

    The suggestion to put it at the beginning of the system drive - :eek:
    I really am not used to XP yet & need this bit explained to me.

    I am not a power user with programs but still want my system to be optimised. I have done the other tweaks with system restore etc Just would like to get the PF sorted as I do want to keep fragmentation down as much as possible.

    The more I read the more confused I am. I just need HELP.......
    XP ( HE ) 30GB HD 256MB RAM & don't know what to do with my page file. Thank you in advance for any advice which can be added.:confused:
     
    miniB,
    #24
  6. 2003/03/23
    Scanjo1

    Scanjo1 Inactive

    Joined:
    2002/03/01
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm chiming in late but here's my 2 cents worth...

    I don't think it's worth the time or trouble to even mess with the PF on a single drive system beyond setting a fixed file size so it will stay put and not add to the fragmentation of the drive. Also, the system doesn't need to stop and spend time resizing it all the time as conditions change.

    On a system with more than one physical drive where they are set up as master and slave on the same IDE channel, I STILL don't think it's worth moving the PF since only one drive can be working at a time. I still set a fixed size for the same reasons stated above.

    On a system with 2 drives where one is on the primary and the other is on the secondary channel, you may finally see a small speed increase due to bus mastering and both hard drives being able to work at the same time. (eg: switching RAM to the PF while loading system files to RAM...) Benefits will be based on how the system is used though. Some people may never see any "noticable" increase no matter what they do with it! Others may see a fairly noticable increase. Regardless of what you do with the PF, you'll probably need a stop watch or a benchmarking program to tell if it helped or not.

    As was said before, recommended PF size is 1.5 times RAM size, however...if you plan to scan full page graphics at 1200 DPI resollution then I would suggest larger... ;) This may seem like an extremely foolish example but I have done it with old cracked black and white photos of my great great grandparents. The files are huge and require twice the RAM for editing since at some point in the process you actually have 2 copies of the image in RAM at the same time. The original and the new version with your changes. I'm sure there are other programs that are extremely RAM hungry as well. If you have one then you need to size your PF accordingly.

    Most speed tweaks are a cumulative effect. You need to tweak several things to start to see benefits. If you only plan to play with the page file then you're better off spending 60 seconds less in the bathroom. You'll save more time that way. :D

    Scott
     
    Scanjo1,
    #25
  7. 2003/03/23
    miniB

    miniB Inactive

    Joined:
    2003/03/21
    Messages:
    489
    Likes Received:
    0
    Glad you Chimed !

    Hi

    Every little helps me ....... I am relieved that it is not worth messing about with as this is exactly what I would be doing. Would rather spend the 60secs. in the bathroom !!!

    I have just checked my PF settings. The Initial is 384 ( 1.5 times RAM ) The max. is set at 768 - should I reduce this ?

    I do not think ( note not as of today ) I will be scanning etc as I have a desktop PC with my scanner. I would be working with photos etc but just on a very basic scale. Not even planning to use a vast editing program as this too is on the DT.

    I don't want to waste space but do not want a crash if I set it too low.

    One other thing you might be able to advise - can I turn System Restore off for my partitions or is it better to let a low level of monitoring. I have turned it off the Data partition & lowered the % in the rest. Just wondered if it was best just to let it monitor 'C' drive - sorry if this shouldn't be asked within this scenario. Will understand if it can't be answered here. :eek:
     
    miniB,
    #26
  8. 2003/03/23
    Bmoore1129

    Bmoore1129 Geek Member

    Joined:
    2002/06/11
    Messages:
    1,675
    Likes Received:
    3
    Scanjo1

    Excellent post!! Can be read and understood by all levels of experience. It takes real talent to put technocrap into logical language.:cool:
     
    Bmoore1129,
    #27
  9. 2003/03/23
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,585
    Likes Received:
    74
    I agree that Scanjo1's post was good reading! Even I could understand it but it contradicted some other information that I have about the size of the pagefile.

    The basic recommendation I´ve been given is that RAM + PAGEFILE should be equal to 0.5 GB.
    If you´ve got 256 MB RAM, the value for the PF should be 256 MB.
    If You´ve got 512 MB RAM or more, the value for the PF should be 100 MB, never be set to zero or disabled.

    These values should be set as minimum PF size and the maximum should be left unrestricted. In this way it will stay permanent for most users but it can be increased, which will make any Windows version very happy.
    If You know that an application might use a large PF, then monitor its size and increase the minimum size if it grows larger than Your current setting.

    If one follows Scanjo1's recommendation to the letter or number, then 256 MB of RAM would give a PF of 384 MB which might make sense but 1 GB of RAM would give a PF of 1.5 GB which, in most cases, is unnecessary. The basic idea is more RAM equals less PF but never less than 100 MB.

    Since my general impression is that I probably won´t notice any significant difference where-ever I choose to put the PF, I´ll put mine on D: in order not to include it in every Ghost Image I make of C:.

    Being a Norton Ghost user, I´ll disable System Restore altogether.



    Regards,
    Christer
     
    Christer,
    #28
  10. 2003/03/24
    Arie

    Arie Administrator Administrator Staff

    Joined:
    2001/12/27
    Messages:
    15,174
    Likes Received:
    412
    Well, you've been given a load of you-know-what.

    Windows 2000-XP always want to set at least a swap file of 1.5x the size as the installed memory.

    I have 1GB installed, and my swapfile (set to "System Managed ") is 1535MB.

    I have also set the system to No paging file on occasion and run for several days without problems, although Task Manager indicated it was using a PF of around 150-190MB.
     
    Arie,
    #29
  11. 2003/03/24
    martinr121 Lifetime Subscription

    martinr121 Inactive

    Joined:
    2002/01/07
    Messages:
    1,219
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is very interesting information, but, one topic not covered. If I decide to move the page file from C to D, how do you actually move it??? Step by step?
     
    martinr121,
    #30
  12. 2003/03/24
    PeteC

    PeteC SuperGeek Staff

    Joined:
    2002/05/10
    Messages:
    28,896
    Likes Received:
    389
    Martinr121

    Very straightforward!

    Right click on My Computer icon on Desktop > Properties > Advanced > Performance - Settings > Advanced > Virtual Memory - Change.

    Set 0 - 0 on C drive and whatever value you want on D drive - make it a fixed size, i.e. min and max sizes the same.
     
    PeteC,
    #31
  13. 2003/03/24
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,585
    Likes Received:
    74
    Arie,
    thanks for Your input!

    I was under the impression that the unrestricted maximum, according to the recommendation I´ve been given, took care of what Windows wants to see but that it rarely uses such a large swapfile/pagefile.

    If the minimum is set to whatever value is expected as normal plus a little more and there´s no maximum, then Windows ought to be happy being able to increase the size if it needs to.

    One thing that I´ve experienced the hard way is that WinME doesn´t like a fixed size swapfile.
    With my 256 MB RAM I first tried 2.5 times that (640 MB as min and max) which was an earlier recommendation and I immediately had low memory warnings. I increased it to 1 GB and still had low memory warnings but when I set the minimum to 256 MB and no limit to the maximum it never happened again and to my knowledge, the swapfile has never been resized.
    This is also a recommendation from Microsoft but my information might have passed its expiry date and that it´s different with WinXP.

    The main issue is to reduce fragmentation and if the swapfile/pagefile is moved to a partition other than the system partition it can be as large as is needed because it will not be included in my Ghost Image of the system partition. It would be a waste to have one or two CDs containing a useless swapfile/pagefile.

    I´m having a hard time trying to figure out why an OS is designed to use an increasingly larger pagefile with increasing amount of RAM!
    The only logical reason would be that the OS needs somewhere to put the You-Know-What that is loaded to RAM, if more Y-K-W has to be loaded to RAM.
    Just came to think of the extreme, if the computer is rarely rebooted and more and more Y-K-W is swapped/paged, when an infinite pagefile might be needed.

    Regards,
    Christer :)
     
    Christer,
    #32
  14. 2003/04/10
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,585
    Likes Received:
    74
    Earlier in this topic I mentioned that one reason for moving the pagefile off of the system partition was that it wouldn´t be included in the Ghost Image of this partition. The pagefile itself would occupy the major part of a CD.

    Now I´ve bought the latest version of Ghost (2003) and it is skipping all "one Windows session files" from the Image. On FAT32 there´s nothing included but on NTFS an empty file with the same name is included. This applies to pagefiles, swapfiles, hiberfiles etc.

    This means that one of my reasons for moving the pagefile from C: to D: is no longer valid.

    Hope someone is interested,
    Christer
     
    Last edited: 2003/04/10
    Christer,
    #33
  15. 2003/04/11
    miniB

    miniB Inactive

    Joined:
    2003/03/21
    Messages:
    489
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am !

    Hi

    Thanks for the updated information. Although I was just letting Ghost do everything as I fear if I ws to leave something out it would be a vital part !

    I had the earlier info. in my head and was wondering if I should do as suggested. I am now happier as it is Ghost 2003 I am using.

    I always welcome re-advice & appreciate the fact that you have posted. Thanks from Me

    :)
     
    miniB,
    #34
  16. 2003/04/11
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,585
    Likes Received:
    74
    Hi miniB,
    You´re welcome!

    This new behaviour of NG 2003 means that I´ll leave the pagefile on C: and set the minimum size to prevent resizing and fragmentation. I don´t think it will be as large as XP suggests though.

    See You around,
    Christer
     
    Christer,
    #35
  17. 2003/04/11
    miniB

    miniB Inactive

    Joined:
    2003/03/21
    Messages:
    489
    Likes Received:
    0
    You right again

    I took the more RAM option & reduced the size of PF. ( kept it at constant - and everything has worked so far !!!! )

    Just got more RAM in my desktop this morning ..... both LT & DT have a lot more memory now.

    My PF is intact which I like to see - bit too fussy about things fragmenting
    ;)
     
    miniB,
    #36
  18. 2003/04/11
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,585
    Likes Received:
    74
    miniB,

    how much RAM did You get for Your respective computers and what are the pagefile settings?
     
    Christer,
    #37
  19. 2003/04/11
    miniB

    miniB Inactive

    Joined:
    2003/03/21
    Messages:
    489
    Likes Received:
    0
    RAM

    Hi

    My Laptop had 256MB thus I installed another 256MB card.

    My Desktop had only 128MB - I removed this as I only have two slots & installed 2x256MB.

    Both now have 512MB which seems to be a comfortable level for XP.

    I have still to set the DT as the RAM is only in now. I have my LT set at 512MB constant - I feel I could even make it smaller but just a wee safety net for me. I am checking the system & see I have non-paged files thus could probably reduce the size again.

    I was advised to let Windows manage it but that still leaves it open to re-sizing etc. I may revert to this method but so far I have used the same amount as the installed RAM ( which is less than the 1.5 x RAM )

    I am told that it is only if doing very memory intensive things that the PF may be called on if there is not enough RAM.

    I ordered the cards from Crucial & they arrived the next day !!!
    They also have a list of PC's and the type of RAM which is compatible plus if you find it's not you can return it. What better service could one ask.

    I feel lots happier with the extra RAM - memory prices are good just now. Apparently if I had bought a few months ago it would have been more expensive. Worth having a wee look at Crucial to see what your PC can upgrade to.

    Hope this helps you this time round ;)
     
    miniB,
    #38
  20. 2003/04/11
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,585
    Likes Received:
    74
    It seems like the markets in the US and Europe doesn´t follow eachother. In Sweden, at least, RAM is now almost 50% more expensive than a couple of months ago.

    I´ll get another 256 MB stick anyway ...... :cool: ......

    Christer
     
    Christer,
    #39
  21. 2003/04/11
    Abraxas

    Abraxas Inactive

    Joined:
    2002/08/16
    Messages:
    2,361
    Likes Received:
    3
    Of course, there is still the speed advantage of having the PF on another drive, even if the drive is the same speed, since 2 sets of heads are accessing data instead of one.
     
    Abraxas,
    #40
Page 2 of 3
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Accept Learn More...