If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Page File
I have XP SP2, 2 Gig on my laptop. My 80 Gig HD is partitioned 32/48
for C & D respectively. I am satisfied with the performance, however I would like to increase efficiency if practical. My question is: Would setting up another partition dedicated for the page file only be worth the effort or do I run the risk of creating more problems than necessary? JPC |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Page File
Dedicating a partition to the page file prevents it from being
fragmented, which in turn improves a computer's performance. On paper. In the real world, and especially with today's faster hardware, you won't notice any difference at all. As in: zero. --- Leonard Grey Errare humanum est John Callaway wrote: I have XP SP2, 2 Gig on my laptop. My 80 Gig HD is partitioned 32/48 for C & D respectively. I am satisfied with the performance, however I would like to increase efficiency if practical. My question is: Would setting up another partition dedicated for the page file only be worth the effort or do I run the risk of creating more problems than necessary? JPC |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Page File
Dedicating a partition to the page file prevents it from being fragmented, which in turn improves a computer's performance. On paper. In the real world, and especially with today's faster hardware, you won't notice any difference at all. As in: zero. --- Leonard Grey Errare humanum est John Callaway wrote: I have XP SP2, 2 Gig on my laptop. My 80 Gig HD is partitioned 32/48 for C & D respectively. I am satisfied with the performance, however I would like to increase efficiency if practical. My question is: Would setting up another partition dedicated for the page file only be worth the effort or do I run the risk of creating more problems than necessary? JPC |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Page File
NO
only real advantage in moving page file would be to the first partition of a second disk, not just to another partition of the same disk. "John Callaway" wrote in message ... I have XP SP2, 2 Gig on my laptop. My 80 Gig HD is partitioned 32/48 for C & D respectively. I am satisfied with the performance, however I would like to increase efficiency if practical. My question is: Would setting up another partition dedicated for the page file only be worth the effort or do I run the risk of creating more problems than necessary? JPC |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Page File
NO
only real advantage in moving page file would be to the first partition of a second disk, not just to another partition of the same disk. "John Callaway" wrote in message ... I have XP SP2, 2 Gig on my laptop. My 80 Gig HD is partitioned 32/48 for C & D respectively. I am satisfied with the performance, however I would like to increase efficiency if practical. My question is: Would setting up another partition dedicated for the page file only be worth the effort or do I run the risk of creating more problems than necessary? JPC |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Page File
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 03:53:54 -0500, John Callaway
wrote: I have XP SP2, 2 Gig on my laptop. My 80 Gig HD is partitioned 32/48 for C & D respectively. I am satisfied with the performance, however I would like to increase efficiency if practical. My question is: Would setting up another partition dedicated for the page file only be worth the effort or do I run the risk of creating more problems than necessary? That's not at all a good idea, but the reason is performance, not problems. It puts the page file farther from the other data on the drive, so the drive heads have to travel farther to get to and from the page file. That will slow you down rather than improve performance. However, how much it slows you down depends on how much the page file is used, and that depends on how much RAM you have. The more RAM, the less page file use, and for many people these days, the difference in performance is so slight as to be unnoticeable. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003 Please Reply to the Newsgroup |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Page File
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 03:53:54 -0500, John Callaway
wrote: I have XP SP2, 2 Gig on my laptop. My 80 Gig HD is partitioned 32/48 for C & D respectively. I am satisfied with the performance, however I would like to increase efficiency if practical. My question is: Would setting up another partition dedicated for the page file only be worth the effort or do I run the risk of creating more problems than necessary? That's not at all a good idea, but the reason is performance, not problems. It puts the page file farther from the other data on the drive, so the drive heads have to travel farther to get to and from the page file. That will slow you down rather than improve performance. However, how much it slows you down depends on how much the page file is used, and that depends on how much RAM you have. The more RAM, the less page file use, and for many people these days, the difference in performance is so slight as to be unnoticeable. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003 Please Reply to the Newsgroup |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Page File
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 08:26:00 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote: On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 03:53:54 -0500, John Callaway wrote: I have XP SP2, 2 Gig on my laptop. My 80 Gig HD is partitioned 32/48 for C & D respectively. I am satisfied with the performance, however I would like to increase efficiency if practical. My question is: Would setting up another partition dedicated for the page file only be worth the effort or do I run the risk of creating more problems than necessary? That's not at all a good idea, but the reason is performance, not problems. It puts the page file farther from the other data on the drive, so the drive heads have to travel farther to get to and from the page file. That will slow you down rather than improve performance. However, how much it slows you down depends on how much the page file is used, and that depends on how much RAM you have. The more RAM, the less page file use, and for many people these days, the difference in performance is so slight as to be unnoticeable. Thanks for all the info! I guess I will well enough alone. JPC |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Page File
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 08:26:00 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote: On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 03:53:54 -0500, John Callaway wrote: I have XP SP2, 2 Gig on my laptop. My 80 Gig HD is partitioned 32/48 for C & D respectively. I am satisfied with the performance, however I would like to increase efficiency if practical. My question is: Would setting up another partition dedicated for the page file only be worth the effort or do I run the risk of creating more problems than necessary? That's not at all a good idea, but the reason is performance, not problems. It puts the page file farther from the other data on the drive, so the drive heads have to travel farther to get to and from the page file. That will slow you down rather than improve performance. However, how much it slows you down depends on how much the page file is used, and that depends on how much RAM you have. The more RAM, the less page file use, and for many people these days, the difference in performance is so slight as to be unnoticeable. Thanks for all the info! I guess I will well enough alone. JPC |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Page File
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:55:42 -0500, John Callaway
wrote: On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 08:26:00 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote: On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 03:53:54 -0500, John Callaway wrote: I have XP SP2, 2 Gig on my laptop. My 80 Gig HD is partitioned 32/48 for C & D respectively. I am satisfied with the performance, however I would like to increase efficiency if practical. My question is: Would setting up another partition dedicated for the page file only be worth the effort or do I run the risk of creating more problems than necessary? That's not at all a good idea, but the reason is performance, not problems. It puts the page file farther from the other data on the drive, so the drive heads have to travel farther to get to and from the page file. That will slow you down rather than improve performance. However, how much it slows you down depends on how much the page file is used, and that depends on how much RAM you have. The more RAM, the less page file use, and for many people these days, the difference in performance is so slight as to be unnoticeable. Thanks for all the info! I guess I will well enough alone. You're welcome. Glad to help. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003 Please Reply to the Newsgroup |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Page File
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:55:42 -0500, John Callaway wrote: On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 08:26:00 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote: On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 03:53:54 -0500, John Callaway wrote: I have XP SP2, 2 Gig on my laptop. My 80 Gig HD is partitioned 32/48 for C & D respectively. I am satisfied with the performance, however I would like to increase efficiency if practical. My question is: Would setting up another partition dedicated for the page file only be worth the effort or do I run the risk of creating more problems than necessary? That's not at all a good idea, but the reason is performance, not problems. It puts the page file farther from the other data on the drive, so the drive heads have to travel farther to get to and from the page file. That will slow you down rather than improve performance. However, how much it slows you down depends on how much the page file is used, and that depends on how much RAM you have. The more RAM, the less page file use, and for many people these days, the difference in performance is so slight as to be unnoticeable. Thanks for all the info! I guess I will well enough alone. You're welcome. Glad to help. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003 Please Reply to the Newsgroup |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|