A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

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.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » Customizing Windows XP
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Page File



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 28th 10, 09:53 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
John Callaway
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 85
Default 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  
Old January 28th 10, 03:23 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
Leonard Grey[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,048
Default 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  
Old January 28th 10, 03:23 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
Leonard Grey[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,048
Default 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

  #6  
Old January 28th 10, 04:26 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
Ken Blake, MVP
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,402
Default 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  
Old January 28th 10, 04:26 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
Ken Blake, MVP
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,402
Default 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  
Old January 30th 10, 12:55 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
John Callaway
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 85
Default 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  
Old January 30th 10, 12:55 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
John Callaway
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 85
Default 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  
Old January 30th 10, 01:04 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
Ken Blake, MVP
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,402
Default 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  
Old January 30th 10, 01:04 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
Ken Blake, MVP
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,402
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.