Multiple Paging Files

[phoenix]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

I am trying to configure multiple (two) paging files for better efficiency,
but something interesting is happening!

I have 2GB RAM, C: drive is 10K rpm, D: is RAID 0 7.2K rpm; E-G: drives are
external firewire 7.2K drives recognized by "My Computer" as local drives.
Current paging file is located entirely on D drive...but when I point to this
drive to allocate "scratch disks" for several Adobe applications, a warning
window (from within the Adobe product) appears which states that it is not
necessairly a good idea to designate the drive with a paging file as a
scratch disk (perhaps because XP and the application might access the same
drive concurrently, thus reducing efficiency?)

So...I decided to maintain the same amount of paging file space by dividing
it across two different physical drives. My intent was to put 1/3 of the
amount on the C: drive (which contains the OS/system files), and 2/3 of the
amount on the G: drive (external firewire). The allocation is set properly
in the "Advanced" tab under system properties, the amount totals correctly,
and then I reboot as required for the changes to take effect.

After the reboot, I double check system properties, and although it is still
showing the proper allocation for both drives, the total reported availabe is
only the portion allocated to the C: drive.

So...the bottom line questions are...1. Should I leave the entire paging
file on the D drive as originally configured and still run the Adobe scratch
disks from that RAID 0 drive (ignoring Adobe's recommendation)(because that
is why I wanted to use the RAID configuration in the first place...as a fast
scratch drive!)?; 2. Should I put the entire paging file on the C drive and
accept a (probably) small performance degredation with XP so that the D drive
is completely available as a scratch drive?; 3. Should I go back to my
original plan and split two paging files between the C and G drives because
XP will really use the paging file on the G drive (the external firewire
drive) because although the reported total is wrong, both paging files will
be recognized/used properly by XP?

TIA for your comments!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

With 2 Gig RAM, why do you think that you need a paging file? the paging
file is supposed to be used after the RAM is full.

However, if you must have one, place it on the fastest internal disk.

As for the Adobe warning, that might have been relavent when PCs had less
than 128 Meg of RAM and used several 100s of Meg of paging file. I would
not worry about it on your PC.

"Phoenix" <Phoenix@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B5DFC59A-30BD-403B-9DC7-9DD15D490685@microsoft.com...
>I am trying to configure multiple (two) paging files for better efficiency,
> but something interesting is happening!
>
> I have 2GB RAM, C: drive is 10K rpm, D: is RAID 0 7.2K rpm; E-G: drives
> are
> external firewire 7.2K drives recognized by "My Computer" as local drives.
> Current paging file is located entirely on D drive...but when I point to
> this
> drive to allocate "scratch disks" for several Adobe applications, a
> warning
> window (from within the Adobe product) appears which states that it is not
> necessairly a good idea to designate the drive with a paging file as a
> scratch disk (perhaps because XP and the application might access the same
> drive concurrently, thus reducing efficiency?)
>
> So...I decided to maintain the same amount of paging file space by
> dividing
> it across two different physical drives. My intent was to put 1/3 of the
> amount on the C: drive (which contains the OS/system files), and 2/3 of
> the
> amount on the G: drive (external firewire). The allocation is set
> properly
> in the "Advanced" tab under system properties, the amount totals
> correctly,
> and then I reboot as required for the changes to take effect.
>
> After the reboot, I double check system properties, and although it is
> still
> showing the proper allocation for both drives, the total reported availabe
> is
> only the portion allocated to the C: drive.
>
> So...the bottom line questions are...1. Should I leave the entire paging
> file on the D drive as originally configured and still run the Adobe
> scratch
> disks from that RAID 0 drive (ignoring Adobe's recommendation)(because
> that
> is why I wanted to use the RAID configuration in the first place...as a
> fast
> scratch drive!)?; 2. Should I put the entire paging file on the C drive
> and
> accept a (probably) small performance degredation with XP so that the D
> drive
> is completely available as a scratch drive?; 3. Should I go back to my
> original plan and split two paging files between the C and G drives
> because
> XP will really use the paging file on the G drive (the external firewire
> drive) because although the reported total is wrong, both paging files
> will
> be recognized/used properly by XP?
>
> TIA for your comments!

 

[phoenix]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Bob

According to my research, Microsoft recommends that you have some type of
paging file no matter how much memory that you have...because some core
functions use it, and other third party programs may look for a paging file,
and if they don't find it, they will return error messages.

I will be running several process intensive programs (i.e. Adobe Premiere
Pro, Audition, etc.) and I'm just trying to strike a happy balance as I don't
have a co-processor...but I figured I'd make up the difference (a little bit)
with more RAM, a tweaked processor, and lots of HD space!

"Bob Harris" wrote:

> With 2 Gig RAM, why do you think that you need a paging file? the paging
> file is supposed to be used after the RAM is full.
>
> However, if you must have one, place it on the fastest internal disk.
>
> As for the Adobe warning, that might have been relavent when PCs had less
> than 128 Meg of RAM and used several 100s of Meg of paging file. I would
> not worry about it on your PC.
>
> "Phoenix" <Phoenix@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:B5DFC59A-30BD-403B-9DC7-9DD15D490685@microsoft.com...
> >I am trying to configure multiple (two) paging files for better efficiency,
> > but something interesting is happening!
> >
> > I have 2GB RAM, C: drive is 10K rpm, D: is RAID 0 7.2K rpm; E-G: drives
> > are
> > external firewire 7.2K drives recognized by "My Computer" as local drives.
> > Current paging file is located entirely on D drive...but when I point to
> > this
> > drive to allocate "scratch disks" for several Adobe applications, a
> > warning
> > window (from within the Adobe product) appears which states that it is not
> > necessairly a good idea to designate the drive with a paging file as a
> > scratch disk (perhaps because XP and the application might access the same
> > drive concurrently, thus reducing efficiency?)
> >
> > So...I decided to maintain the same amount of paging file space by
> > dividing
> > it across two different physical drives. My intent was to put 1/3 of the
> > amount on the C: drive (which contains the OS/system files), and 2/3 of
> > the
> > amount on the G: drive (external firewire). The allocation is set
> > properly
> > in the "Advanced" tab under system properties, the amount totals
> > correctly,
> > and then I reboot as required for the changes to take effect.
> >
> > After the reboot, I double check system properties, and although it is
> > still
> > showing the proper allocation for both drives, the total reported availabe
> > is
> > only the portion allocated to the C: drive.
> >
> > So...the bottom line questions are...1. Should I leave the entire paging
> > file on the D drive as originally configured and still run the Adobe
> > scratch
> > disks from that RAID 0 drive (ignoring Adobe's recommendation)(because
> > that
> > is why I wanted to use the RAID configuration in the first place...as a
> > fast
> > scratch drive!)?; 2. Should I put the entire paging file on the C drive
> > and
> > accept a (probably) small performance degredation with XP so that the D
> > drive
> > is completely available as a scratch drive?; 3. Should I go back to my
> > original plan and split two paging files between the C and G drives
> > because
> > XP will really use the paging file on the G drive (the external firewire
> > drive) because although the reported total is wrong, both paging files
> > will
> > be recognized/used properly by XP?
> >
> > TIA for your comments!
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

"the paging file is supposed to be used after the RAM is full."

No - it's not that simple. Programs will reserve virtual memory no matter
how much RAM you have.

Ted Zieglar

"Bob Harris" <rharris270[SPAM]@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u8Dgum53EHA.3820@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> With 2 Gig RAM, why do you think that you need a paging file? the paging
> file is supposed to be used after the RAM is full.
>
> However, if you must have one, place it on the fastest internal disk.
>
> As for the Adobe warning, that might have been relavent when PCs had less
> than 128 Meg of RAM and used several 100s of Meg of paging file. I would
> not worry about it on your PC.
>
> "Phoenix" <Phoenix@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:B5DFC59A-30BD-403B-9DC7-9DD15D490685@microsoft.com...
>>I am trying to configure multiple (two) paging files for better
>>efficiency,
>> but something interesting is happening!
>>
>> I have 2GB RAM, C: drive is 10K rpm, D: is RAID 0 7.2K rpm; E-G: drives
>> are
>> external firewire 7.2K drives recognized by "My Computer" as local
>> drives.
>> Current paging file is located entirely on D drive...but when I point to
>> this
>> drive to allocate "scratch disks" for several Adobe applications, a
>> warning
>> window (from within the Adobe product) appears which states that it is
>> not
>> necessairly a good idea to designate the drive with a paging file as a
>> scratch disk (perhaps because XP and the application might access the
>> same
>> drive concurrently, thus reducing efficiency?)
>>
>> So...I decided to maintain the same amount of paging file space by
>> dividing
>> it across two different physical drives. My intent was to put 1/3 of the
>> amount on the C: drive (which contains the OS/system files), and 2/3 of
>> the
>> amount on the G: drive (external firewire). The allocation is set
>> properly
>> in the "Advanced" tab under system properties, the amount totals
>> correctly,
>> and then I reboot as required for the changes to take effect.
>>
>> After the reboot, I double check system properties, and although it is
>> still
>> showing the proper allocation for both drives, the total reported
>> availabe is
>> only the portion allocated to the C: drive.
>>
>> So...the bottom line questions are...1. Should I leave the entire paging
>> file on the D drive as originally configured and still run the Adobe
>> scratch
>> disks from that RAID 0 drive (ignoring Adobe's recommendation)(because
>> that
>> is why I wanted to use the RAID configuration in the first place...as a
>> fast
>> scratch drive!)?; 2. Should I put the entire paging file on the C drive
>> and
>> accept a (probably) small performance degredation with XP so that the D
>> drive
>> is completely available as a scratch drive?; 3. Should I go back to my
>> original plan and split two paging files between the C and G drives
>> because
>> XP will really use the paging file on the G drive (the external firewire
>> drive) because although the reported total is wrong, both paging files
>> will
>> be recognized/used properly by XP?
>>
>> TIA for your comments!
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

You can't put a paging file on a removable drive. It doesn't really matter what you do. You won't be able to measure the difference. But most efficient is big files on both drives. If adobe is using D: XP will page to C: If adobe or anything is using C: (as is likely most of the time) XP will page to D:. Of course paging in can only be done from where the data is.

--
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com
"Phoenix" <Phoenix@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:B5DFC59A-30BD-403B-9DC7-9DD15D490685@microsoft.com...
>I am trying to configure multiple (two) paging files for better efficiency,
> but something interesting is happening!
>
> I have 2GB RAM, C: drive is 10K rpm, D: is RAID 0 7.2K rpm; E-G: drives are
> external firewire 7.2K drives recognized by "My Computer" as local drives.
> Current paging file is located entirely on D drive...but when I point to this
> drive to allocate "scratch disks" for several Adobe applications, a warning
> window (from within the Adobe product) appears which states that it is not
> necessairly a good idea to designate the drive with a paging file as a
> scratch disk (perhaps because XP and the application might access the same
> drive concurrently, thus reducing efficiency?)
>
> So...I decided to maintain the same amount of paging file space by dividing
> it across two different physical drives. My intent was to put 1/3 of the
> amount on the C: drive (which contains the OS/system files), and 2/3 of the
> amount on the G: drive (external firewire). The allocation is set properly
> in the "Advanced" tab under system properties, the amount totals correctly,
> and then I reboot as required for the changes to take effect.
>
> After the reboot, I double check system properties, and although it is still
> showing the proper allocation for both drives, the total reported availabe is
> only the portion allocated to the C: drive.
>
> So...the bottom line questions are...1. Should I leave the entire paging
> file on the D drive as originally configured and still run the Adobe scratch
> disks from that RAID 0 drive (ignoring Adobe's recommendation)(because that
> is why I wanted to use the RAID configuration in the first place...as a fast
> scratch drive!)?; 2. Should I put the entire paging file on the C drive and
> accept a (probably) small performance degredation with XP so that the D drive
> is completely available as a scratch drive?; 3. Should I go back to my
> original plan and split two paging files between the C and G drives because
> XP will really use the paging file on the G drive (the external firewire
> drive) because although the reported total is wrong, both paging files will
> be recognized/used properly by XP?
>
> TIA for your comments!