Unsolved
This post is more than 5 years old
33 Posts
0
15563
Optimzing Windows paging file functionality by using multiple non-system drives
As stated in Microsoft XP’s Help file under: [paging files size, changing related topics Managing computer memory], it is clearly desirable to remove the Windows paging file from the system drive and keep it on another physical drive. It is further recommended therein that the paging file be spread out among more than one physical hard drive (excluding the partitioning of any drive for this purpose).
This is what I am looking to do in my Dell desktop pc. Besides the system drive, there is room to install two
available SATA hard drives. One drive is 160GB, the other is 250GB. I would use one drive to store mostly WAV files of CD audio tracks and other audio files. The other drive I would use to store mostly flash and other video files.
But upon their installation, the first thing I would do is to split the Windows paging file between both drives.
However, the 160GB drive has 16MB cache and the 250GB drive has 8MB cache.
Regarding what was said above in XP’s Help file about dividing the Windows paging file among one or more
non-system file hard drives, please explain which choice below would generally give the better virtual memory performance:
Is it better to load the entire paging file on the 160GB drive, because it has a 16MB cache?
Also, unlike the other drive, this one is a single platter drive.
OR
Is it better to load a portion of the Windows paging file between both drives, even though
the 250GB drive’s cache memory is only half the size as that of the 160GB drive?
Last question: If I chose instead to only install one of these two hard drives for dedicated
storage of audio and video files and to store the paging file, which one of the above two is
best to use: the 250GB/8MB cache or the 160GB/16MB cache?
Please also provide technical grounds for the suggested course of action in this situation.
Thanks
PETER345
5.8K Posts
0
May 4th, 2008 14:00
For all practical purposes, the cache size is unlikely to make a major difference. Presumably the drive with the larger cache might be a bit faster (presuming RPM are the same).
If you really want to optimize the performance of your machine, I would add memory instead to minimize the usage of the swap file in the first place.
You should also consider that the more drives you use, the higher the probability of suffering a HD crash.
Just my two cents.
Peter
raffaella
33 Posts
0
May 4th, 2008 18:00
Like my Dell 8300 desktop’s system drive, both the storage hard drives are 7200RPM.
As for adding more memory, I have 2.256GB installed. I considered removing the 256MB,
using that in my other desktop and buying another 1 or 2GBs to install here, however
sensible a purchase for an aging Pentium IV 3.4GHz pc.
At the same time, the conclusion reached by what I thought to be credible sources was that
the paging file always helps rather than hurts system speed, even if I had the full 4GB of RAM
installed-providing that the drive storing that file was: a.) not the system drive, b.) running at the
same or higher platter speed as the system drive, c.) has the same or faster read and/or write
speed as the system drive and d.) has the same or larger cache memory.
Is this true? All hard drive performance being equal, does the paging file enhance system speed,
however little, regardless of the amount of RAM?
Again, in Windows XP’s help file, Microsoft says that the paging file size should either a.) be
set to allow Windows to automatically decide the proper size or b.) be set by the user to 1.5
times the amount of hard RAM installed. That would be 3.384GB, in my case.
Or should it actually be set to a much smaller size? If the latter, please at least give a ballpark
estimate and explain why this is so.
In any case, I will soon be loading M-Powered ProTools on my system drive, mainly to rip
CDs and apply Serato’s excellent Pitch n’ Time Pro and some EQ to those WAV files.
ProTools becomes unstable if the audio files it works on are stored with it on the system drive,
so a dedicated storage drive needs to be installed anyway. That’s what then prompted me to
think of storing the paging file on it, since Microsoft said it’s best to keep it off the system
drive too. So going with the 160GB/16MB cache storage drive seems most sensible to
achieve both ends.
PETER345
5.8K Posts
0
May 4th, 2008 19:00
I wasn't saying that the page file hurts system speed. Rather, I was saying that you are better off having more memory so that the page file is used less.
I can't imagine you are going to need a page file that big (3.4G) but to some degree it doesn't hurt if you have the disk space.
The performance of the page file doesn't matter that much if you don't use it (much). If you are using it significantly then you'd be better off with more memory. If you can't get any more memory in the machine, then optimizing the page file will be helpful. But your overall performance will still be bad.
Peter
raffaella
33 Posts
0
May 4th, 2008 21:00
Thanks for the good advice. Though 3.4GB is nothing for drives large, money might be
well spent adding more memory, even for a desktop this old. Besides hard-drive based
virtual memory, even on these speedy drives, is certainly not as fast as the solid-state
kind.
Speaking of speed, I will soon be loading M-Powered ProTools on the same Dell Pentium IV
3.4GHz desktop. ProTools will become unstable if the audio files it works on are stored with
it on the system drive. So again, my reason for adding a dedicated audio file storage drive.
Furthermore, ProTools does not tolerate any kind of RAID configuration, so neither a speed
boost nor a mirrored drive file safety backup benefit from a RAID 1 or RAID 0 pair of drives
is possible.
Both the system drive (storing Windows XP SP2 and ProTools) and the WAV file storage
drive are 7200RPM SATA. And the desktop’s Intel 875p motherboard has two SATA ports.
However, I am curious about one thing: Is a speed boost possible if one or both drives were
instead run by a separate non-RAID controller card?
If this happens to be true, please explain why. And if it will, in fact, make the pc run noticeably
faster, please suggest one or more specific make and model cards.
System drive: Seagate ST3120813AS Audio file storage drive: Western Digital WD1601ABYS
Thank you.
PETER345
5.8K Posts
0
May 4th, 2008 22:00
I don't believe that running the HDs from separate controller cards will help. However, having separate controllers is good. So you should get somewhat better performance from putting HDs on separate IDE controllers (i.e. each has the controller to itself) rather than on the same controller. SATA doesn't have this issue.
Peter