"Unmovable" files really fragmented

You have gone off topic and should start a new thread.

There are some really experienced users here and many of them will not see your question in this thread.

All defrag programs take a while the first time they are used; thereafter they will defrag at their 'normal' speed.

As mentioned I only used Vopt for a while and it zipped along after being used once. I doubt that I could be persuaded from Norton's SpeedDisk unless something new comes along which surpasses it with my modus operandi.

 

How come you didn't say anything to the hijackers on my thread earlier?

 

I wasn't around at the time - I don't come here that often. I didn't see any of the posts until shortly before my entering it. Too many contributors can ruin a thread but I reckoned that you may benefit from the link I provided. As it turns out I was right.

 

No, don't take it literly. I did the same thing to my own post. I was just making conversation. Sory about that, didn't mean to offend you. I have a tendancy to do that. I'm trying to work on it. It's good for me to see people respond, that way I know how it effects people. That will help me stop. I welcome anything you have to say, that's why I come to BBS's like this. Chris.

 

Blimey, I didn't read it like that - I thought you had made a grammatical error!

 

Just to understand this a little more.
I set my swap to 512. I have 512mb of RAM. That's about a Gig, total. *If I had a Gig of RAM installed and, disabled the swap, that would be the same but way faster, since there's no swap?


*I wouldn't run this computer that way, just wondering about the concept. Thaks, Chirs.

 

Correct, but it would not be expedient to disable the swap. I increased from 128 to 384 and have had no Swapfile Usage since except for one app, which is rarely used. I've put a small semi-permanent swap on a separate partition. It will rarely, if ever, get used but if it is then I'm covered. The likelehood of going over the top, ie the minimum, is even less but if it does I'm still covered. The 'over the top' bit will be dynamic.

Yep, you've got the concept.

 

You have yours on a separate partition after reading the link you provided? I thought that wan't as good?

I was thinking when I reformat, I kind of want to have a separate partitioned swap. Your set up sounds interesting.

How big of HD do you have? How do you have your Drive partitioned? What I'm wondering is, if your main drive is C, swap is D? Then maybe another partition? How big is C? If swap is D, that would tell me how far the swap partition is from the edge of the drive.

I think I read somwhare that the computer always sets up the main drive as C. I am asuming you can't set a separate swap as C on the outside of the drive? Although if it hardly ever gets accessed, it probable doen't matter that much. I'm tring to grasp your set up in my mind so when I reformat (when I get XP) I can decide how I want to set mine up. Thank you very much, Chris.

 

Before I upgraded from 128 to 384 I had my swap on C: at the edge and much larger than it is now. I've always advocated a semi-permanent swap and found no contradictions in the link.

Since I go months on end now without needing a swap why deprive frequently accessed material the fastest part of the disk? The link is about optimizing the swap file. I don't need one now so the link is rendered academic; for the most part as I do have an app which pushes my system to its limits.

If you have Swapfile Usage then don't go down my route; a separate partition is not the answer. I can see where your thoughts are going but the next leap is a separate drive with the swap on that. Think about that one. I nearly did but with the extra Ram and the type of use my system gets involved in, mainly programming, I have no need for another in that context. Another drive would be useful but for different reasons.

As you said "Although if it hardly ever gets accessed, it probable doen't matter that much." Ultimately, if it never gets used it doesn't matter at all!

When you get XP just sling a GB of Ram at it. If your m.o. still needs a swap file then sling another Gb at it. 21st century computers don't need swapfiles. Thats probably famous last words - no doubt someone at Pasedena or somewhere will come back and say they've just run a simulation of something or other requiring a swap of 10 Gb on their 5Gb machine. There'll always be someone who cannot wait for the generation after the next one let alone the next one!