You guys do realize that having no pagefile does not mean you don't page right?
Tex
Dallas/Ft. Worth
XP stills pages... You lose any contriol over its placement though and much over WHAT gets paged also. Poor choice
http://forums.2cpu.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53719
http://forums.2cpu.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53719
0
Comments
Same here. The partitions on my harddrive is configured, with some personal changes, to the guide the mediaman wrote. As long as my rig feels faster than mmy last, which it surely will , i feel no need to mess with it.
Ditto
I am not a fan of cutting the drive up into a ton of partitons like many do. Your forcing the heads to move to differant parts of the disk at times when it would be faster to keep them closer. Even on a 120gb drive I generally have no more then four partitons even if I dual boot two OS's. Differant strokes for differant folks. Most people really would do better with less rather than more partitons unless your having so may deletions and insertions that your defragging and housekeeping is becoming troublesome. All my users use subdirectorys off the same Temp/Internet Temp directories and have their user files (my documents, Pics and Outlook) seperated off the OS partiton so it rarely fragments and performance holds strong a long time as there isnt much deleted or added once its setup right. The pagefile is set with a large initial size and allowed to grow. there is no downside to letting it grow, you just want the initial size set large so hopefully it won't HAVE to grow but there is no advantage to making it locked with identical start and end sizes unlike so many seem to think. You want it defragged so its beneficial to delete it and remake it after a fresh defrag so its contiguous though. Many defraggers do not defrag the pagefile. Some will though. Just like many do not defrag the mft. Another reason a system may seem slower over time.
There is tons of misinformation I think on how to setup a disk or its partitons.
XP tries to keep certain files optimized and near the front of the disk to boot faster if its setup right and defragging at times messes that up for example. Sometimes its better to defrag once after a clean install and just let XP optimize itself for several weeks based on your access patterns if you keep the temp and internet temp and crap away from the OS. There are registry tweaks to allow the windows defragger to defrag with boot optimization and it tries to keep the exe and dll's it needs to boot at the front of the disk for example. XP is so much more setup to optimize itself that today most people yank its chain more by trying to controll it when they really don't understand what its really trying to do and would be much better served by just letting it do its thing. They are continuing things that seemed sound with win98 and they really are a waste now and actualy harm the speed and don't help it. I politely disagree with much of the information on how to cut up a disk into multiple partions and why. Unless you have very special reasons you would probably be much better served with no more then two or three partitons at the most. If your cutting it up into five or more your probably jacking yourself around more then helping anything speed related. For size on image backups etc.. you might be forced to but its no advantage generally for speed.
Tex