sphere Posted July 14, 2002 Share Posted July 14, 2002 I have a 20gb (5400rpm) and a 80gb (7200rpm) HDD on Windows XP Pro. What is the optimal page file settings and which drive(s) do I allocate it to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Posted July 14, 2002 Share Posted July 14, 2002 i have 1 and a half MB in percentage (150%) from my Ram Menory in a drive away from my OS drive... i think that's the correct way to do it but i'm not sure... anyone ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoZigzagColt45 Posted July 14, 2002 Share Posted July 14, 2002 Really depends on what software your going to use. For the most optimal page file it should be in its own FAT16 partition away from system files. I have mine set to 400 min & max in a 500 meg FAT16 partition & a dynamic page file (windows default) on my boot drive. Even better if you have two HDDs one static page file on each drive & a dynamic page file on your boot drive. My Computer Management Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToastGodSupreme Posted July 14, 2002 Share Posted July 14, 2002 Originally posted by TwoZigzagColt45 Really depends on what software your going to use. For the most optimal page file it should be in its own FAT16 partition away from system files. I have mine set to 400 min & max in a 500 meg FAT16 partition & a dynamic page file (windows default) on my boot drive. Even better if you have two HDDs one static page file on each drive & a dynamic page file on your boot drive. My Computer Management FAT16?? Mind explaining why that's better than using fat32 or ntfs? (your post intrigued me, so I want to know more, hence my asking) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoZigzagColt45 Posted July 14, 2002 Share Posted July 14, 2002 FAT16 is the least compressed and is accessed quicker FAT32 has more compression and is slower to access NTFS is slower still, it is a very complex filing system & is excellent at compressing files the only reason it can keep up with FAT32 is because of its dynamic nature (MFT meta data files) this kind of filing structure will only hinder the page file. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickapetch Posted July 14, 2002 Share Posted July 14, 2002 so you just set a 400 mb.min/max for progarm page file on a 500 mb. fat partition. and use default size for system cache on boot/system ntfs partition. please, corr me if i'm wrong. Thanks, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoZigzagColt45 Posted July 14, 2002 Share Posted July 14, 2002 Yes mickapetch spot on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glowstick Posted July 14, 2002 Share Posted July 14, 2002 Dude, there's nothing compressed at all on FAT16, FAT32 or NTFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoZigzagColt45 Posted July 14, 2002 Share Posted July 14, 2002 sorry I was over simplifying I meant in relation to the cluster size NTFS is able store larger files in less space Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtksxp Posted July 14, 2002 Share Posted July 14, 2002 Originally posted by TwoZigzagColt45 Really depends on what software your going to use. For the most optimal page file it should be in its own FAT16 partition away from system files. I have mine set to 400 min & max in a 500 meg FAT16 partition & a dynamic page file (windows default) on my boot drive. Even better if you have two HDDs one static page file on each drive & a dynamic page file on your boot drive. My Computer Management TwoZigzagColt45: Your last sentence intrigues me. I have two HDD's and one static page file on each. If I am reading your last sentence, I come up with three page files!(one static on each and a dynamic one on the boot drive?). My surmise is that you mean two page files, one static on the "slave drive" and a dynamic one on the boot/OS drive. My experience has demonstrated that if I use this configuration, the dynamic page file is not defragmented as well (I use Diskeeper). Please clarify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeza Posted July 14, 2002 Share Posted July 14, 2002 why would you need two pagefiles in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoZigzagColt45 Posted July 14, 2002 Share Posted July 14, 2002 :p Yes I have three page files 2 x 400meg fixed 1 on each HDD in its own FAT16 partition & 256meg windows managed on the boot drive. the dynamic page file is not defragmented as well try this; defrag your page file http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/freeware...agedefrag.shtml increase this page file to a stupid size say 2gig now the page file will be allocated a new place on the disc in more open space then resize back to its original size & it should keep its new location on the disc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
montane Posted July 14, 2002 Share Posted July 14, 2002 What's wrong about letting Windows to manage the page file? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoZigzagColt45 Posted July 14, 2002 Share Posted July 14, 2002 windows uses a percentage of ram to work out the page file: in a 256meg system this can be set to low(382meg initial size), resulting in a performance hit when all the page file is used. Increase your minimum to say 500meg(custom) & then let windows manage it - the initial size will stay at the size you have set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glowstick Posted July 14, 2002 Share Posted July 14, 2002 sorry I was over simplifying I meant in relation to the cluster size NTFS is able store larger files in less space Still wrong, FAT clusters or NTFS clusters, no difference. A cluster is just the place on disk where a packet of data is in. If it's a 4kb FAT32 cluster or a 4kb NTFS cluster, no difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Posted July 14, 2002 Share Posted July 14, 2002 what about if you have 512MB of ram... a pagefile is needed than ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesseract Posted July 14, 2002 Share Posted July 14, 2002 use_imagination: yes, even if you have 512 Mb of ram, you would still need a paging file. not a very big one, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Posted July 14, 2002 Share Posted July 14, 2002 thanks cody! about what 256Mb of page file if you have 512 of ram ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesseract Posted July 14, 2002 Share Posted July 14, 2002 that sounds reasonable. generally if you have more than 256MB of ram you would want to have a page file roughly of half the size of the amount of your physical memory. ;) please tell us how your system performs after you apply the changes. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Posted July 14, 2002 Share Posted July 14, 2002 Originally posted by codyg11 please tell us how your system performs after you apply the changes. :) well i'm only gonna upgrade tomorrow, i have 256right now gonna have more memory and processor power hehe :) but i will sure tell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoZigzagColt45 Posted July 14, 2002 Share Posted July 14, 2002 How to Configure Paging Files for Optimization and Recovery in Windows XP (Q314482) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeza Posted July 14, 2002 Share Posted July 14, 2002 i use 128 MB pagefile with 512 mb of ram :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Posted July 14, 2002 Share Posted July 14, 2002 The default, or recommended, paging file size is equal to 1.5 times the total amount of RAM. if i have 512 that means i would have to have a 700 and something page file... god dammit i only have a 6.4GB disk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesseract Posted July 14, 2002 Share Posted July 14, 2002 Originally posted by use_imagination if i have 512 that means i would have to have a 700 and something page file... god dammit i only have a 6.4GB disk I think that only applies to systems with 256 MB of RAM or less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Posted July 14, 2002 Share Posted July 14, 2002 Originally posted by codyg11 I think that only applies to systems with 256 MB of RAM or less. yeah i guess you're right but M$ dosen't specify and only use a generic term :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts