In ,
Colin Barnhorst typed:

It is more useful if the second drive is on a different
controller
(SATA drives always are) so that you can get asynchronius
read/writes.


Yes, a second controller is best of all, but even if it's a
second physical drive on the same controller, you can often save
on drive head movement.

But this all assumes significant use of the page file. For many
of us with relatively modern machines, we have enough RAM for the
page file to be little used. If that's case, it hardly matters
where the page file is.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup



"Ken Blake" wrote in
message
...
In . uk,
brugnospamsia typed:


SNIP


Having now just set the paging file size to zero,


SNIP

I find the
performance has improved significantly


I suggest that you're either mistaken or that it's due to
some other
factor. It can not be as a result of turning off the page
file.


Well I'm fairly certain that is all I did. - made the same
sort of
difference defragging did.

I wish Windows had built-in optimisation which would simply
tell me
if adding an extra GByte of RAM would significantly improve
performance ... What I have now done for now ... as a result
of Googling (something
I should have done before I posted) is allow Windows to manage
the
paging file, but with some registry tweaks which hopefully are
a bit
more robust than taking away the safety net.

http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl...P12%26rnum%3D3

The next thing I'll probably do is put the paging file on a
second
hard drive.

Thanks for all the advice folks.

I can see I have a lot of reading to do ;-)

Jeremy