This forum requires Javascript to be enabled for posting content
[quote="ozbloke":25npw10b]Yep, I'm hearing you mate. But all that doesn't really explain what distinct advantages there are to having the paging file on a separate hard drive. I realise there is the possible advantage of saving space on the main drive, plus there [i:25npw10b]might[/i:25npw10b] be a very minor performance enhancement .....but other than that?[/quote:25npw10b]
1. Many GB's less to backup when you image.
2. slight performance gain under most circumstances you encounter.
3. large performance gain when you have a program that uses a lot of memory and is disk intensive.
If you were running, say, Adobe Premiere, and were transcoding a video with layers and transitions you would definitely notice a before/after in your transcoding time. If you were running say, Adobe Photoshop 64bit, and were working with a truly large image with multiple layers you would notice a before/after in your rendering time.
[quote:25npw10b]I am running Win7 [64-bit] and Vista [32-bit] in a dual boot system with 4GB RAM and the paging file on the main drive managed by Windows. I often "manipulate" very large video files; conversion, editing etc., and have never experienced any problems [speed issues included].[/quote:25npw10b]
I'm guessing the improvement would be more obvious for a 32bit user as they have less memory available to begin with.
[quote:25npw10b]It seems to be me that maintaining the paging file on a separate HDD might just be one of those geeky old wives tale type thingees....if you'll pardon all the technical jargon. LOL
Possibly something that has been perpetuated since the old 20 - 40GB hard drive/256 - 512MB RAM days? But in these days of huge capacity HDD's and mega-RAM I really doubt there would be any significant impact.[/quote:25npw10b]
With CPU's as fast as they are today, RAM amounts increasing, and HD speeds faster than ever the improvements are less noticeable to the average user.
My opinion is that placing the paging file on a second drive is good practice, even without a noticeable performance gain, if only for the time saved during imaging. Any performance gain is icing on the cake.
[quote:25npw10b]Yes it does mate. Just the kind of thing to keep a very nice, clever young feller out of mischief. [/quote:25npw10b]
Now, if we could just find such a person!
Okay mate....you win!!!
[quote:27fg7oon]Now, if we could just find such a person![/quote:27fg7oon]
LOL....well I [i:27fg7oon]definitely [/i:27fg7oon]do not meet the criteria!!
Jim, think of it in these terms:
Every piece of data you fetch from your Hard Drive requires a process similar to this:
CPU requests data from Hard Drive
<begin loop>
Hard Drive seeks out data.
Hard Drive reads data.
Hard Drive identifies next block of data (tagged on end of current block)
<loop until End of File>
Now, a given program, operation, or function could be requesting lots of data at once. No problem, it all queues up, the CPU tells the program to wait, and the data is pulled from the Hard Drive.
Now add in the paging file. When Windows needs to use it, it goes through the same process as above, but at a higher priority. Placing the paging file on a separate drive eliminates the queue as it is handled by a complete separate Hard drive. A drive that has been sitting there waiting for something to do.
If you're not using your paging file, you will not see a performance gain. When you need it though, having it on a separate drive will be very noticeable.
And....this one for free: forcing it to a set size limits fragmentation.
Thanks Zig...all makes perfect sense mate!!
HEY DAVID - I think we might have found our very nice, clever young feller!!!!!!!!
[img:1z3d55ew]http://deviationpoint.com/images/deer_lights.jpg[/img:1z3d55ew][img:1z3d55ew]http://deviationpoint.com/images/no_no_no.gif[/img:1z3d55ew]
Ha Ha! Sucker!
Interesting read, guys. I had stumbled upon this somewhere on the Internet (searched but cant' find it again, sorry), but it didn't say how big the file on the system drive should be or why you need it.
[quote="DavesComputerTips":33wirik1]Windows Vista/7/2003/2008 need at least 300MB on the boot drive for crash dumps.[/quote:33wirik1]
Am I correct to assume that this doesn't apply to Win XP and you can completely move the paging file to a 2nd HD?
[quote:33wirik1]="DavesComputerTips"1. Many GB's less to backup when you image.
...if only for the time saved during imaging[/quote:33wirik1]
Paragon Backup & Recovery (I believe all editions) allows you to exclude OS auxiliary files when imaging.
I've used this option (both on Win XP SP3 32bit and Win 7 Home Premium 64bit) and when I restored the image everything was working fine - the page file was still there at the size I had set it to.
[quote="ozbloke":33wirik1]A basic explanation (in layman's terms) would make for an enlightening and interesting article methinks.[/quote:33wirik1]
Stitch the posts together and voil
I am human
1 Guest(s)
