NOOB needs help !!!!

[hansje]

Thanks general_koffi...I feel no NOOB anymore

hansje.

[shaihulud]

Th

e best thing u can do is to move th swap file to the non os drive.

The first rule of swap file optimization is to have it on the fastest drive before moving it to any partition. The swap file will perform better on the 200GB drive. It has a higher density, more cache, and more robust core logics.

The reason as to why you should not use cable select is due to:

1).You have to have a supporting cable
2).There is no standard to the type of supporting cable
3).The end user should have physical and logical control of his partitions

It can work, but it is completely unnecessary due to the ease of terminating already present with the devices. It is either a master or a slave on the channel installed. If the user is going to shunt to cable select, you might as well terminate accordingly as master or salve. You are allowing yourself for more probable issues by using cable select, but with same amount of work.

I would recommend using a primary partition and not to logically divide it. Drive segregation, as in multiple drive on different channels, can give better performance but you have to know how to configure it. Windows can queue the drives on individual channels and do multiple read/write concurrently. So if you are to physically place them on separate channels you can have a marginally better performance. This is why you see many say move the swap file, however they incorrectly state as to why and how.

If you are to load a game onto the extended partition D:, with Windows being on the primary partition C:, you will cause the drive to fill the queue and wait for resolution longer. Although, this can be minimal, it depends on the activity necessary. If the system has a minimal amount of RAM installed, around 512MB, and you are using certain applications you will have a lot of thrashing between the logical partitions. Not just for swapping, but any read/write needed by the system. Placing the swap on the 80GB drive will alleviate it somewhat, but you will still have to wait for the transfer to terminate due to it possibly being on the same channel since it is IDE. This is where SCSI is superior.

For example, my drive configuration is SATA drive C:, PATA drive D:, PATA drive E:. All of the drives have primary partitions without any extended. C: contains the operating system, applications installed, and swap file. D: is only for games. E: is for any archival usage, nothing but a data store. Since the SATA is my fastest drive I am following one of the primary rules to swap file placement, and it is on the third channel. Drive D: and E: are on the primary IDE channel, however the only activity from the drives is at necessary moments, so waiting for terminating transfers to happen does not prevent optimum operation. Since C: and D: are on separate channels my read and writes can be concurrent. So a read/write of game and a read/write of swap/OS happen concurrently. This is a more optimum setting.

[hansje]

Woow, sounds a little complicated for me...but thanks for the info.

What to do in my situation ??

C: >> Windows and swap (Seagate 200GB)

D: >> Games and other things (WD 80GB)

hansje

[hansje]

I have:

Primary IDE Master >> WD 80BG
Secundary IDE Master >> DVD
Secundary IDE Slave >> CD/writer
First SATA Master >> Seagate 200GB

Better Seagate third SATA Master ??

hansje.

[shaihulud]

If the last post is your physical topology, then the only thing I would personally change is the logical extended partition to primary partition for the 200GB drive. Seems complicated, but it really is not. Its just verbose.

[3 of 7]

If you do image backups (ghost/acronis etc) you'll want to move your swap file off the C: drive, it'll make your images a lot smaller and marginaly increase the speed of your system..

[hansje]

I saw somewhere:

You can get better overclocking results by moving Sata 1 or 2 to port 3 or 4 ????

I feel a NOOB again, can you write it down for me...the easy way

Maybe my brains are a little tired at the moment don't know for sure

hansje.

[hansje]

I have SATA Seagate 200GB and IDE WD 80GB.

Final conclusion ??

hansje

Just saw this:
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;314482


To enhance performance, it is good practice to put the paging file on a different partition and on a different physical hard disk drive. That way, Windows can handle multiple I/O requests more quickly. When the paging file is on the boot partition, Windows must perform disk reading and writing requests on both the system folder and the paging file. When the paging file is moved to a different partition, there is less competition between reading and writing requests.

The optimal solution is to create one paging file that is stored on the boot partition, and then create one paging file on another partition that is less frequently accessed on a different physical hard disk if a different physical hard disk is available. Additionally, it is optimal to create the second paging file so that it exists on its own partition, with no data or operating-system-specific files. By design, Windows uses the paging file on the less frequently accessed partition over the paging file on the more heavily accessed boot partition. An internal algorithm is used to determine which paging file to use for virtual memory management.

When you put a paging file on its own partition, the paging file does not become fragmented, and this counts as another definite advantage. If a paging file resides on a partition that contains other data, it may experience fragmentation as it expands to satisfy the extra virtual memory that is required. An unfragmented paging file leads to faster virtual memory access and to a greater chance of a dump-file capture that is free of significant errors.

SO TWO PAGING FILES ??

Also:
However you want the pagefile on the least-used drive and the most-used partition.

How to do this...looks strange, like putting petrol in the car you like most, but also the car your not driving that much !!??

[Acid8000]

Originally Posted by hansje

SO TWO PAGING FILES ??

That's what I'd do if I had two physical drives.

[hansje]

I mostly play Games...so,

C: Seagate 200GB with Windows and Pagefile

D: WD 80GB with a Pagefile and Games

Or:

C: Windows and Pagefile 20GB (Seagate)
D: 180GB Games (Seagate)
E: WD 80GB Pagefile

This an option

hansje.

[Acid8000]

Second option.

[shaihulud]

The second option would not be the better. The partition segregation needs to be physical not logical,and should follow fast drive rule first and foremost.

The provided Microsoft references is general and does not take into consideration of hardware limitations. If your system hard drives were connected to a SCSI host bus interface, this would be perfectly fine However, you are using SATA and PATA drives which have intrinsic limitations to transfers due to operating system handling and hardware limitation. Note, with Windows XP and its page file handling the page file does not fragment easily nor often.

[hansje]

Primary IDE Master >> WD 80BG
Secundary IDE Master >> DVD
Secundary IDE Slave >> CD/writer
First SATA Master >> Seagate 200GB

This is OK ??

The partition segregation needs to be physical not logical,and should follow fast drive rule first and foremost.

Thanks for all your help...but I am still confused

Lets start again...in windows (blue screen) I see my Seagate and WD, its possible to make partitions over there and install. Windows.
What to do ??

Thanks.

hansje.

[hansje]

If you have multiple Hard Drives installed it is beneficial to locate the Page File on the Hard Drive XP is not installed to; but only where the other Hard Drive is of a similar or better performance, e.g. if you have a SATA Drive and ATA 100 Drive the Page File should be located on the SATA Drive regardless as it is notably faster.

I have:
C: Windows and Pagefile 20GB (Seagate)
D: 180GB Games (Seagate)
E: WD 80GB Pagefile

shaihulud...you were right

If I buy this second hand one ????
Seagate Barracuda 40 GB 7200.7 8MB Cache SATA HD

Better choice to put the Page-File on ????

hansje ??

[shaihulud]

Sorry, been busy with holidays. Well, honestly, you need to configure your system in the way that it feels satisfactory to you. But there is a rule of thumb concerning hardware configuration. Some do not know these, many have them all wrong.

The rules for hard drives is primary partitions, and faster/fastest is used before anything else. The first issue is that the SATA drive is logically partitioned into 2 partitions (20GB/180GB). This is not physically two drives on the same, nor independent channels. So any access to the system partition and the extended partition will take longer than two segregated physical drives.

Even if you were to purchase another drive the page file, unless the new drive is faster, should be located on the system partition. The real trick is locate it on a drive that will not have access or can concurrently (at the same time) be accessed. So if you are to purchase this new drive. If all the drives are partitioned as primary no extended partitions are created, and you locate the page file on the system partition you would have a good disk queue and concurrent activity. If you are to keep your currect configuration I would still place the page file on the 20GB system partition.

You should chose SATA over PATA not due to it being faster, but due to it being first party DMA. This is more of a protocol true bus mastering. Also SATA transfer clocks are faster and more robust than the latter clocks of third party DMA.

Really, this is all a minimal effect on the system. But I have found it to be a bit more in particular circumstances. This is why configurations are suggested. When in particular cases arise you have nominal usage of system resources. This is why you baseline.