Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (
More info?)
"Nicholas Andrade" <sdnick484@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:QYp1e.3131$zl.2462@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> Having a specific partition for the page file on the same disc as your
> root directory can be beneficial in at least one way. If you create a
> small partition (generally 3/2*your RAM, so let's say 1.5GB) and tell
> Windows to put the pagefile there at the partition's maximum capacity
> (be sure to disable capacity warning for the partition), you'll never
> need to defrag it.
That wording is throwing me. Are you simply describing a case where
the pagefile is 1.5GB and fills its own partition? If so, I'd be interested to
know the advantage in comparison to setting min size = max size = 1.5GB
and putting the pagefile on the system/boot partition. The later approach
should prevent fragmentation, assuming there was none at pagefile creation
time or it was defragged just that once.
> In general Windows does a good job of not letting
> the pagefile become overly fragmented, but if you manually set it at
> different sizes frequently, it's very possible for fragmentation to
> occur.
Using a dedicated pagefile partition is advantageous in scenarios where
the user wants the pagefile to be resized without fragmentation. But
having that partition on the same drive as the boot partition brings with
it the potential for increased seeking and reduced performance.
> Generally the largest benefit for paging times will occur if
> this small partition is the first one on the disc (the one closest to
> the center), although the difference is relatively trivial.
If you meant closest to the center of the drive (spindle), I'd be interested
to know why you think the first partition would be likely to be located
there and why you would want it there.