I am interested in feedback on something I was thinking about doing.

I created a 2nd partition with it's own drive letter.

I thought about putting a  fixed size pagefile on it.
It "seems" like that the pagefile defragmentation would them be limited to a small area of the disk.

I use JKDefrag.

Any thoughts?

Thanks.
Posted on 2010-03-20 12:41:33 by skywalker
Why bother? With a fixed-size pagefile, it's not going to be fragmented anyway - a separate partition would only really make sense if it was on a separate physical harddrive.

And obviously, the thing that works best is simply to stuff enough RAM in the machine that you won't ever need the pagefile and can simply disable it :)
Posted on 2010-03-20 13:15:30 by f0dder
Unless the second partition is on its own physical drive, there's not much gain/benefit from your efforts.

Windows may seem like offers "variable" size swap, but it seemingly does it in fixed size chunks anyhow.

BTW: JKDefrag (<=3.x) is now called MyDefrag (>=4.x)... go ahead and upgrade ;)
Posted on 2010-03-20 13:36:42 by SpooK

Why bother? With a fixed-size pagefile, it's not going to be fragmented anyway - a separate partition would only really make sense if it was on a separate physical harddrive.

And obviously, the thing that works best is simply to stuff enough RAM in the machine that you won't ever need the pagefile and can simply disable it :)


I have a 2nd drive, but it's slower that my main drive.

I just found out that the main partition is considerably faster that any secondary partition.

Posted on 2010-03-20 16:42:35 by skywalker
I just found out that the main partition is considerably faster that any secondary partition.

This is precisely because of changing circumference. The same applies to CDs/DVDs. Nero Burning ROM allows you to set a "priority" for each file. Files with higher priority will be burned in faster locations.

As for the partition thingy: Buy yourself a decent SSD - it makes Windows 7 boot up in 10-15 secs from after POST. You put the swapfile on it and then there is no need to worry about stuff like separate partitions, etc. It WILL be fast. SSDs have seek times <1ms. It REALLY makes a difference.

I myself now have OCZ Agility as the system drive (Windows 7 pro 64-bit) and WD15EARS as the data drive. I experience no lags whatsoever regardless of what I do.
Posted on 2010-03-20 22:34:56 by ti_mo_n

As for the partition thingy: Buy yourself a decent SSD.


When I started my reply, I got sidetracked for about 15 minutes looking at DRAM drives (e.g. Gigabyte's i-RAM) as an option.

Looks like the DRAM drive idea has outright yielded to NAND flash for SSD technology, although I'd rather have a RAM drive for swap as there would be no worry about write optimizations or maximum write cycles.
Posted on 2010-03-20 23:11:54 by SpooK

I just found out that the main partition is considerably faster that any secondary partition.


As for the partition thingy: Buy yourself a decent SSD - it makes Windows 7 boot up in 10-15 secs from after POST. You put the swapfile on it and then there is no need to worry about stuff like separate partitions, etc. It WILL be fast. SSDs have seek times <1ms. It REALLY makes a difference.



I would venture a guess that a SSD won't work in .386 system which uses PCI slots.

Posted on 2010-03-20 23:34:19 by skywalker

I would venture a guess that a SSD won't work in .386 system which uses PCI slots.


A SSD drive is meant to be different internally, but supply the same size (2.5/3.5") enclosure and electrical/physical/logical interfaces. This means you are concerned with PATA/IDE vs SATA and not PCI vs PCIe.

If you are talking about a dated system without SATA, you can search for a IDE SSD drive. Here is a 32GB and 64GB IDE version by Transcend.

You can also pop for a SATA PCI Card, but I suppose at that rate you'd rather save up for a better computer overall.
Posted on 2010-03-21 00:00:20 by SpooK
If you have enough cash to put a SSD in a system, you'd have enough cash to put more RAM in it as well - "swap on a SSD" sounds really silly to me :)

SSDs are nice, though. I got my hands on an intel x25-e which I use for system drive, and it makes a world of difference for application startup time.
Posted on 2010-03-21 01:04:18 by f0dder

If you have enough cash to put a SSD in a system, you'd have enough cash to put more RAM in it as well - "swap on a SSD" sounds really silly to me :)


Assuming that RAM isn't maxed out already :!:
Posted on 2010-03-21 04:17:37 by SpooK
Assuming that RAM isn't maxed out already :!:

...Which is true in my case ^^'
Posted on 2010-03-21 07:10:28 by ti_mo_n

...Which is true in my case ^^'


That's always a fun situation.

Part of your setup reflects what I would like to have, but I still would want the DRAM Drive for swap :twisted:

OS Drive: SATA SSD
Data Drive: SATA HDD (e.g. WD Black)
Swap Drive: SATA DRD (pure RAM modules w/ SATA interface)

With that kind of power, I could manage to get nothing of significance done in much less time :P
Posted on 2010-03-21 11:46:30 by SpooK
Swapfile on a Flash drive? Did Flash tech improve so much during the last 2-3 years, that this drive won't die in a year of hard (ab)use?
(I'm looking at the collection of dead Flash pen-drives and devices here)
Posted on 2010-03-21 15:09:31 by Ultrano
Good question - there's probably quite some quality difference in the flash cells used in SSDs compared to über-cheap USB pendrives, even if both are MLC.

I still believe that, generally, if you need swap you're Doing It WrongTM. Btw it's a damn shame (and kinda lame) that those DRAM-drives are connected via SATA... sure, you do get überlow latency, but limiting something that's capable of, what, 6GB/s or more to SATA-II 300MB/s seems really silly. And last time I looked (granted, a couple of years ago), there weren't even any SATA-II versions out yet, so you were capped at 150MB/s :)
Posted on 2010-03-21 16:47:44 by f0dder
From my experience, Windows 7 manages the swap memory much better than XP (and Vista). It won't perform needless swaps (notorious thing on XP) and it will always favor RAM (XP tends to page out background idle processes "just because it can" even if you have like 60% of RAM free). Additionally, modern SSDs scatter writes around the whole physical space to prevent localized abuse of NAND cells.
AND win7 supports the TRIM command which further prolongs the life of an SSD.
AND win7 actually detects SSD drives as SSDs and does things like disabling background defragmentation on them.

So, yeah, now is the time when you can buy an SSD for a system drive and use it for at least 2 years without any problems (read: dead blocks) and 3-4 years overall.


Part of your setup reflects what I would like to have, but I still would want the DRAM Drive for swap :twisted:

OS Drive: SATA SSD
Data Drive: SATA HDD (e.g. WD Black)
Swap Drive: SATA DRD (pure RAM modules w/ SATA interface)

:ith that kind of power, I could manage to get nothing of significance done in much less time :P

Now I want to try it! :twisted:
:P
Posted on 2010-03-21 19:26:45 by ti_mo_n


If you have enough cash to put a SSD in a system, you'd have enough cash to put more RAM in it as well - "swap on a SSD" sounds really silly to me :)


Assuming that RAM isn't maxed out already :!:


I went that route and doubled my ram for $15. (256 -> 512 MB) Will get it this week.

I am curious as to how much improvement I would get going from a 700 Mhz to a 1.6 Mhz.
Sometimes my system uses a full 100 % when some programs startup.

I have seen some systems that have integrated graphics that use some of the system ram.

Can a video card be added and "un-integrate" that ram?


Posted on 2010-03-23 18:19:08 by skywalker
Can a video card be added and "un-integrate" that ram?

Depends on the BIOS. Look for an option like that in the BIOS setup utility (aka BIOS config).
Posted on 2010-03-23 19:07:43 by ti_mo_n