DJGold

CJ Greiner · Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 3:42 am Post subject: Setting up a new laptop

In setting up a new laptop, I'm planning on using several partitions on the hard drive -- one for the primary, and one or two for music and video.

How have you guys found it best to set up your hard drives and file systems?

Thanks!

DJPete · Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 5:13 am Post subject:

Haven't partitianed a drive since 1990 -- back when the OS couldn't handle more than 30 MB --

It will be interesting to see what kind of reasons somebody comes up with!

DJ Teddy Bear · Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 8:34 am Post subject:

I'm with Pete.

Unless your drive is so huge, or your OS is so old, that the hard drive size is bigger than the OS can handle, why partition?

SirWolfy · Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 9:01 am Post subject:

Unless your laptop is sporting two HDDs, I would recommend making at least one additional partition large enough to hold the Virtual Memory / Paging File. Setting the VM to 1.5 x RAM for the minimum size and 2.5 x RAM for the maximum size will greatly improve efficiency over Windows default settings. Additionally, by moving the VM to it's own dedicated partition will greatly reduce fragementation; which is performance robbing itself.

On a personal-opinion note, you are brave soul using a laptop for video...lol ;)

Bryan Durio · Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 8:01 pm Post subject:

I would even go so far as to say, set the Min and Max VM size to the same setting. I wouldn't want Windows to resize the VM when I'm playing music. I want as much of the CPU time as possible spent on running my application, not doing housework.

dokai · Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 10:22 pm Post subject:

CJ - What kind of laptop did you end up with?

CJ Greiner · Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 10:25 pm Post subject:

I've heard of the separate partition for the VM before... are there any drawbacks to having it there?

I have 1 GB of memory, but I can always go up to 2 GB... which number should I use to set the VM?

Are those larger-than-normal VM settings? How does it make it better than the normal settings?

Thanks!

SirWolfy · Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 3:45 pm Post subject:

Bryan Durio wrote: I would even go so far as to say, set the Min and Max VM size to the same setting. I wouldn't want Windows to resize the VM when I'm playing music. I want as much of the CPU time as possible spent on running my application, not doing housework.

The only time that Windows resizes the VM is as you open or close programs, song files are buffered in RAM. So to avoid any additional reading / writing to the HDD, have open all of the programs that you will use during the course of a gig and the problem is avoided.

Setting a static VM size is not a good idea due to the fact of opening numerous programs in Windows before a gig, reduces the amount of RAM that is available for buffering music files. This will make a system even more prone to hiccups or system crashes than letting Windows manage the file. If you are going to move the VM to it's own partition, then the minimum and maximum setting needs to be properly set.

1.5 x RAM = Minimum VM
2.5 x RAM = Maximum VM

Quote:
...are there any drawbacks to having it there?

No. When the VM is properly set as described above, there are no drawbacks to it. Fragmentation is greatly reduced on the C:\ or boot partition and system performance noticably improves in all cases.

Quote:
I have 1 GB of memory, but I can always go up to 2 GB... which number should I use to set the VM?

1GB = 1024MB
1.5 x 1024 = 1536MB Minimum
2.5 x 1024 = 2560MB Maximum

When the time comes that you bump that up to 2GB, follow the same steps above to modify the VM.

2GB = 2048MB
1.5 x 2048 = 3072MB Minimum
2.5 x 2048 = 5120MB Maximum

Quote:
Are those larger-than-normal VM settings? How does it make it better than the normal settings?

Yes and no. Since Windows 2K, Billy Gate's crew has gotten the lower or minimum settings right finally; however they still allow for no maximum, which mean that it is possible with some poorly written programs that cause a condition known as memory leaks, to grow to sizes of 5GB and larger. One anaology that everyone seems to understand is this; allowing Windows to manage the maximum size of the VM is like handing the US Senate several trillion dollars and telling to balance the budget, they always end up using more than necessary.

There's an entire chapter in my book dedicated to explainging this and other optimizations techniques for your CPS.

CJ Greiner · Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:01 pm Post subject:

So it looks like I could use a partition just a little larger than 5 Gig for this...

Thanks!

SirWolfy · Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:12 pm Post subject:

Yes, you will want to make the partition slightly larger than 5GB (5120MB) for the future upgrade to your RAM. For example, a partition about 5150MB in size will more than do the trick.

srothkin · Joined: July 18th, 2004 Posts: 58 Location: Ossining, NY

SirWolfy wrote:
The only time that Windows resizes the VM is as you open or close programs, song files are buffered in RAM.

Not true. Windows will resize the VM when a program asks windows to allocate it more memory and the amount of memory the program asks for is more than the remaining free virtual memory. Programs can do this at ANY time, not just when they are opened.

SirWolfy wrote:
Setting a static VM size is not a good idea due to the fact of opening numerous programs in Windows before a gig, reduces the amount of RAM that is available for buffering music files. This will make a system even more prone to hiccups or system crashes than letting Windows manage the file.

Not entirely true. As long as the VM size (including physical ram) is large enough for what you expect to use, there should not be any problems. If a program gets greedy or out of control, it will fail when the system runs out of memory. Note that it can do this regardless of whether you fix the VM size or not -- if the page file / VM size is not fixed, it will run out of memory when it hits the maximum VM size or when the hard disk fills up, which ever comes first.

The only real downside to fixing the vm size is that if you fix it too large, you're wasting disk space. But with the size of today's disks, who cares!

BTW, the system takes a pretty big performance hit when windows increases the page file because all the vm is in use. That could definitely cause playback glitches. Fixing the pagefile size prevents that from happening. Instead, allocation of additional memory simply fails. You can then gain more memory back by closing memory that you don't need.

BTW, I have fixed the page file sizes on my systems for years.

SirWolfy wrote:
1.5 x RAM = Minimum VM
2.5 x RAM = Maximum VM

This is one of those frequently quoted but non-sensical recomendations. Page file / VM size should be set based on what you expect to be needed by the programs you run, NOT by the physical memory you have.

For example, suppose you have 1GB of physical RAM. By the above recommmendation, a user would pick a page file size of 2.5GB giving a total of 3.5GB of virtual memory available to Windows (minus whatever gets gobbled up by the hardware and isn't really available to windows).

Now suppose you run a bunch of programs and you need 5gb of virtual memory to run all of it. With the above scenario, it won't work. To run that workload, you need to increase the virtual memory to a total of at least 5GB. You could do that either by increasing the page file size to 4GB or by adding another 1.5GB of physical RAM. Either way will work, but adding physical ram *may* allow the workload to run faster (that all depends on how much of the virtual memory is used the bulk of the time which in turn drives how much the CPU has to page data in/out of disk).

BTW, if you allocate a fixed pagefile size, there's no need to put it on a separate partition to avoid fragmentation. Just follow these steps:

Go to control panel, double click System.
Click the Advanced tab.
Click the Settings button.
Click the Advanced tab.
Click the Change button under virtual memory.
Click the dot for No paging file and then click the Set button.
Click OK until you get out of the System control panel.

Reboot.

Defragment your C drive.

Go back into the control panel and back to the virtual memory settings. This time click the dot next to Custom Size. Pick a size that you want to dedicate to a page file (that you don't expect to exceed). Put that number in BOTH the Initial and Maximum size fields, and click Set, and then Ok. Then reboot again.

You will now have a fixed size page file that is contiguous (unfragmented) and will always remain that way.

SirWolfy · Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 10:11 pm Post subject:

Quote:
Not true. Windows will resize the VM when a program asks windows to allocate it more memory and the amount of memory the program asks for is more than the remaining free virtual memory. Programs can do this at ANY time, not just when they are opened.

In the context of playing audio and visual files, inccorect. The VM is allocated for the programs when the programs are opened, moving files to and from playlists, searching for files, playing them etc. use buffered (volatile / RAM) memory, not VM. Unless you are planning to editing files while you are gigging, nothing you do playing a music file will effect the VM, period.

Quote:
Not entirely true. As long as the VM size (including physical ram) is large enough for what you expect to use, there should not be any problems. If a program gets greedy or out of control, it will fail when the system runs out of memory. Note that it can do this regardless of whether you fix the VM size or not -- if the page file / VM size is not fixed, it will run out of memory when it hits the maximum VM size or when the hard disk fills up, which ever comes first.

The only real downside to fixing the vm size is that if you fix it too large, you're wasting disk space. But with the size of today's disks, who cares!

BTW, the system takes a pretty big performance hit when windows increases the page file because all the vm is in use. That could definitely cause playback glitches. Fixing the pagefile size prevents that from happening. Instead, allocation of additional memory simply fails. You can then gain more memory back by closing memory that you don't need.

This is the reason that the VM is set to the specifications that I mentioned before and placed on it's own partition; by specifying the size, the potential for problems directly related to VM resizing is completely eliminated and therefore a moot point. If the VM is set properly as I outlined above(coincedently an IT Industry Standard), there is no hogging the entire drive or anything else that you mentioned.

Set it correctly the first time and there will be no problems...

Quote:
BTW, I have fixed the page file sizes on my systems for years.

And doing so incorrectly I might add.

Quote:
This is one of those frequently quoted but non-sensical recomendations. Page file / VM size should be set based on what you expect to be needed by the programs you run, NOT by the physical memory you have.

Where have you come up with this mis-informed drivel? VM IS set in direct relation the amount of physical RAM installed on any given system. It has always been set by the total amount of RAM. Since before the first commercially available computers became available in 1982!

Seriously Steve, this is one of the most basic concepts of the hardware / software portion A+ Certification... You DO at least have an A+ Certification correct? You may review it by checking out pages 573 - 579 CompTIA A+ Certification Manual (3rd Edition).

Quote:
BTW, if you allocate a fixed pagefile size, there's no need to put it on a separate partition to avoid fragmentation.

And when I run a marathon, I think I will limit myself to running with just one leg too... Setting a fixed VM makes about as much sense as running an 8 cylinder on just half of the engine; it's inefficient and serves no logical / useful purpose.

Set the VM correctly by IT Industry accepted standards, not what someone reads off of a bunch of chat boards, web sites or picked up half-baked as a hobby or tinkering, and there will be no problems.

DJ dmm · Joined: September 2nd, 2005 Posts: 6 Location: Erie, PA

CJ,

What brand of laptop did you get? What are the specs.

Looking to get one to DJ and Video DJ.

Please advise.

CJ Greiner · Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 11:55 pm Post subject:

Hi DJ dmm.

I went shopping for a cheapo (~$600) laptop to work with while on a trip, and to use for simple presentations to clients.

But... you know how it goes...
I didn't like the small screensize of the model I was initially looking at, so I started looking at the ones with 15.4" screens, which of course made the price go up a little.
Then I stuck with my requirement that the laptop have Windows XP PRO installed - not "XP Home"... which limited my choices a little further.

What I ended up with was a $950 computer:
HP Pavillion DV4272us Quote: Product Name
dv4272us

US Product Number EH478UA#ABA
Microprocessor 1.86 GHz Intel® Centrino™ Mobile Technology featuring Intel® Pentium® M Processor 750
Microprocessor Cache 2MB L2 Cache
Memory 1024MB 533MHz DDR System Memory (2 Dimm)
Memory Max 2048MB
Video Graphics Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 900
Video Memory up to 128mb shared
Hard Drive 100GB (4200RPM) Hard Drive
Diskette Drive External USB Floppy Drive available for customers via hpshopping.com or local retailers
Multimedia Drive DVD¡ÀR/RW and CD-RW Combo Drive with Double Layer Support
Display 15.4¡± WXGA High-Definition BrightView Widescreen (1280 x 800) Display
Fax/Modem High speed 56k modem
Network Card Integrated 10/100BASE-T Ethernet LAN (RJ-45 connector)
Wireless Connectivity Intel® PRO/Wireless 2200 802.11BG WLAN
Sound Altec Lansing
Keyboard 101-key compatible & 2 Quick Launch Buttons
Pointing Device Touch Pad with dedicated vertical Scroll Up/Down pad; HP QuickPlay Music and DVD Buttons
PC Card Slots 1 ExpressCard/54 Slot (also supports ExpressCard/34) & 1 Type I/II 32-bit card bus (also support 16-bit)

External Ports 4 Universal Serial Bus USB 2.0
1 VGA (15-pin)
1 RJ-11 (modem)
1 TV-Out (S-video)
1 RJ -45 (LAN)
1 Expansion Port 2 connector
1 headphone-out
1 microphone-in
1 IEEE 1394 Firewire(4-pin)
1 Consumer IR (Remote Receiver)

Dimensions 14.11"(W) x 10.15"(L) x1.32"(min) / 1.67"(max)(H)
Weight 6.5lbs
Security Kensington® MicroSaver lock slot
Power-on password
Accepts 3rd party security lock devices

Power 65W AC adapter
6-Cell Lithium-Ion (43Whr)

What's In The Box HP Mobile Remote Control; Mobile Stereo Earbud Headphones (1 pair)

Software
Operating System:

Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional Edition+Service Pack 2
Security and Support:

Symantec™ Norton Internet Security 2005™ (including 60 days complimentary live update)
HP Total Care Help & Support Center
Adobe™ Acrobat Reader
Recovery DVD
Multimedia:

Sonic Digital Media Plus
InterVideo WinDVD
Microsoft Zones.com
Apple iTunes and Apple iTunes Music Store
InterVideo Home Theater
HP Quick Play
Muvee AutoProducer DVD Edition with Burning
Microsoft® Windows® Movie Maker
Microsoft® Windows Media Player
HP Image Zone Plus photo and imaging software
Productivity and Finance:

Microsoft ® Works
Microsoft® Money
Microsoft® MSN Encarta Plus
Microsoft® Office 2003 Student and Teacher Edition: 60 day trial version

_________________________

As it turns out, I can actually use this computer for DJing. It works great with both audio and video.

I've tested it so far with MobileDJPro and MixMeister and it runs flawlessley. I haven't had a chance to run it with SwiftElite (I haven't bothered to go grab the USB dongle from my DJ Rackmount yet,) and I can't run DJPower on it until I switch the Parallel-Port dongle for a USB dongle... or until I get a docking station with a parallel port on it.

I also haven't had a chance to run LightJockey at the same time as the audio/video yet, but based on the current performance, I suspect it'll work just fine.
_________________________

If you're looking for a laptop to run video shows, mine just happens to run fine, but for a truly reliable video jock computer I'd spend almost twice as much to make sure the video card had dedicated memory and would even consider installing the max possible RAM on the motherboard.

DJPete · Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 3:28 am Post subject:

Hi CJ,

What Store did you find this @

srothkin · Joined: July 18th, 2004 Posts: 58 Location: Ossining, NY

Let me start my response by stating that it is not my intention to have a "flame war". I am merely trying to put out information that people can use.

SirWolfy wrote:
In the context of playing audio and visual files, inccorect. The VM is allocated for the programs when the programs are opened, moving files to and from playlists, searching for files, playing them etc. use buffered (volatile / RAM) memory, not VM. Unless you are planning to editing files while you are gigging, nothing you do playing a music file will effect the VM, period.

Actually, that depends on how the authors of the playback program(s) AND any device drivers that used wrote their code. Perhaps for some operations, they decide they need to malloc some more memory on the fly. Without looking at their code, you can't say they don't. And you can't make generalizations like the above for all player programs out there unless you've looked at the code for all of them.

SirWolfy wrote:
Quote:
BTW, the system takes a pretty big performance hit when windows increases the page file because all the vm is in use.

This is the reason that the VM is set to the specifications that I mentioned before and placed on it's own partition; by specifying the size, the potential for problems directly related to VM resizing is completely eliminated and therefore a moot point. If the VM is set properly as I outlined above(coincedently an IT Industry Standard), there is no hogging the entire drive or anything else that you mentioned.

The performance hit is due to the processor being forced to wait while more disk space is allocated to the page file so that it can complete the paging out of some data in order to allocate more memory and/or page something else in. Moving the page file to its own disk won't necessarily prevent that performance hit. And simply putting it on a different partition of the same disk certainly won't change anything since the same disk controller is still being used.

BTW, your outline is not an industry standard. Other sources (including PC Magazine) disagree and propose exactly what I have stated.

SirWolfy wrote:
And doing so incorrectly I might add.

Not incorrectly. Doing it exactly as specified at one time in PC Magazine. I'm pretty sure I've seen it in other sources as well.

SirWolfy wrote:
Quote:
This is one of those frequently quoted but non-sensical recomendations. Page file / VM size should be set based on what you expect to be needed by the programs you run, NOT by the physical memory you have.

Where have you come up with this mis-informed drivel? VM IS set in direct relation the amount of physical RAM installed on any given system. It has always been set by the total amount of RAM. Since before the first commercially available computers became available in 1982!

Where have YOU come up with YOUR misinformed drivel? Maybe the DEFAULTS are set the way you say. If that was the ONLY right way to do it, Microsoft wouldn't allow people to change it. Go back and carefully re-read what I wrote, and you will see it makes sense.

The ONLY reason for having a page file is because you need to use more memory the physical RAM you have access to. Therefore it makes perfect sense that the size of the pagefile is based on the amount of memory you need to use. True that will be related to the amount of physical memory you have, but it will be an inverse relationship -- given a fixed amount of virtual memory required, the page file size will need to be BIGGER if the physical ram size is smaller.

SirWolfy wrote:
Seriously Steve, this is one of the most basic concepts of the hardware / software portion A+ Certification... You DO at least have an A+ Certification correct? You may review it by checking out pages 573 - 579 CompTIA A+ Certification Manual (3rd Edition).

Anybody can hang out a shingle and create certification courses. It doesn't automatically make what they say correct.

SirWolfy wrote:

Quote:
BTW, if you allocate a fixed pagefile size, there's no need to put it on a separate partition to avoid fragmentation.

And when I run a marathon, I think I will limit myself to running with just one leg too... Setting a fixed VM makes about as much sense as running an 8 cylinder on just half of the engine; it's inefficient and serves no logical / useful purpose.

And what do you think you do when you set an upper limit on your VM size? In fact, if the user sets a smaller upper limit by your recommendations, than the fixed size of my recommendations, they will actually have a tighter limit under your recommendations than mine -- you will have the one leg, not me.

Furthermore, when Windows needs to increase the pagefile size it is like temporarily shutting down 4 of the 8 cylinders.

If you accept the 2.5 x ram formula as "gospel" for the upper limit, why not set that as the lower limit too? You end up being no further constrained than with the variable size you suggested. And if you're allocating a separate partition just for the pagefile it would have had to be at least the 2.5 x ram size anyway, so you don't lose any usable hard disk space by setting both the lower and upper limits to the 2.5 x ram size. But you do avoid the performance hit of a pagefile resize. And if you do run out of memory, you know that either you have to add more physical ram or increase the size of the pagefile beyond your 2.5 x ram limit.

SirWolfy wrote:
Set the VM correctly by IT Industry accepted standards, not what someone reads off of a bunch of chat boards, web sites or picked up half-baked as a hobby or tinkering, and there will be no problems.

PC Magazine is not a chat board or half-baked hobby. And I've been a computer professional since 1984. My undergraduate degree is in computer science, and I've taken masters-level courses in compiler and operating system design. I'm not some yokel hobbyist as you suggest.

CJ Greiner · Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 8:03 am Post subject:

Check out the uninformed drivel:

:drinking:

(I didn't want to be left out of being accused of posting uninformed drivel!)

________________________

Okay.... down to business!
________________________

I actually invited Steve over to post on this topic because he had posted some interesting ideas on the DraxWorx forum. Here's a few thoughts based on my reading:

I have my A+ certification too -- and I really think Steve's info is worth a second look.

Here's why:

One of the things Steve is referring to is "Total Virtual Memory". If the programs you are running require 3 Gig of RAM, and you only have 1 Gig of RAM, then your pagefile must be at least 2 Gig. (1 Gig RAM + 2 Gig Pagefile = 3 Gig Total Virtual Memory.)

It seems reasonable to think that problems arise when the system changes the pagefile size. The system is doing some major restructuring of its resources, and this takes processing power. If this happens during a time when you're running memory-intensive software (Audio/Video mixing...), then it can result in "freezing" of your programs (i.e. angry clients) while the pagefile is resized.

If you fix the size at the largest size that you want it to be (Example: 5 Gig), isn't that just as effective, if not more so, than setting the low end at 3 Gig and the high end at 5 Gig? Your pagefile would always be the largest size that you would ever expect it to grow to.
(In other words... avoid ever letting pagefile changes affect the computer -- ever.)

The lower limit: If you're going to use a lower and upper limit, I certainly agree that the lower limit should be larger than the available RAM. AND... I certainly agree that this number has always been associated with the available RAM for good reason: you want room for the operating system to be able to swap the entire RAM if necessary... plus a little working room.
The number commonly seen for this is 1.5 x RAM.

The upper limit: It seems like everywhere I look, there's a different number associated with this. The reason this is a "soft" number is because there's no tellin' what a user is going to require, because everyone uses their computer differently. That's why there's the selection that allows Windows to manage your pagefile for you: it will adjust the pagefile size for you based on your individual needs.
IF however, you decide to fix the upper limit yourself, then it should definitely be set higher than you would ever need so that you never run into that "brick wall".

I've seen different numbers associated with the upper limit: 2.5x, 3.0x... and these numbers (depending on who's dispensing the advice) are multiplied against two different numbers: The available RAM, and the Lower Limit.
Example: If the available RAM is 1.0 Gig lower limit is set at 1.5 Gig, one source said to multiply the 1.0 Gig RAM by 3.0 to get an upper limit of 3.0 Gig.
Another source said to use the 1.5 Gig lower limit number, and multiply by 3.0 to get an upper limit of 4.5 Gig.

** Note: Here's a website that talks about pagefile/memory allocation:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;555223

That Microsoft article references a larger article, which includes this info:
http://members.shaw.ca/bsanders/WindowsGeneralWeb/RAMVirtualMemoryPageFileEtc.htm
Quote: A common recommendation is to make the page file 1.5 times the size of the installed RAM. This recommendation makes sense only for computers with small amounts of RAM (256 MB or less). For example, there is usually not much point in allocating a page file that is 3 GB if the computer has 2 GB of RAM. The objective in such RAM rich systems is to avoid using the pagefile at all by providing sufficient RAM that all virtual memory can be in RAM all the time. If the virtual memory in use exceeds the amount of installed RAM, performance will suffer and having a larger pagefile will not help this situation.

... and also:

Quote: If the minimum and maximum pagefile sizes are not the same, the pagefile will initially be allocated to the minimum size, then expanded as more space is needed, up to the maximum. On most systems, this will mean that the pagefile will be fragmented, possibly in widely separated parts of the disk. If there is a significant amount of paging activity, this can lead to unnecessary performance degradation. Setting the minimum and maximum the same size may still result in a fragmented pagefile, but does reduce the likelihood of serious fragmentation. If the system is paging heavily and the pagefile is heavily fragmented, consider moving the pagefile to a newly formatted partition on a separate disk.

The best way to size the pagefile is to monitor how much of the pagefile is in use and the system paging activity. If very little of the pagefile is ever used, there is not much point in having a large minimum size. Conversely if the pagefile is typically 80% or more used, increasing the minimum size may be advantageous. See 2.8. Monitoring RAM and Virtual Memory usage for more information about monitoring memory and pagefile use.

For best performance when there actually is paging activity, the pagefile should be on a disk that is otherwise not used or that has very little activity. If possible, the page file should be created on a freshly formatted disk partition (or one that has been de-fragmented). This will usually ensure that the pagefile is contiguous on disk, thus minimizing head motion and increasing performance.

However, if there is significant paging activity, the best way to improve performance is to add more RAM. This will be far more effective in improving performance than any optimization of the pagefile location or size.

Here's something I do know: The best performance gain is achieved by putting the pagefile on a separate PHYSICAL disk from the operating system, allowing the disc controller to access the drives simultaneously. If the pagefile is on the same physical disk as the operating system, the drive controller still must access the operating system OR the pagefile... but can't do it simultaneously, so the only advantage to having a separate partition for the pagefile is to prevent fragmentation -- which can also be prevented by setting a high Lower Limit.

The disadvantage to having the pagefile on a separate partition is that the OS can't do a memory dump. (This may not be a big deal, depending on who you ask.)

CJ Greiner · Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 12:20 pm Post subject:

DJPete wrote: Hi CJ,

What Store did you find this @

CompUSA

It was the last of the 4200 series that they had in stock.

Now they're stocking the 4300 series... with lower specs. Not sure how that makes any sense! 8)

SirWolfy · Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 3:12 pm Post subject:

Quote:
Here's something I do know: The best performance gain is achieved by putting the pagefile on a separate PHYSICAL disk from the operating system, allowing the disc controller to access the drives simultaneously. If the pagefile is on the same physical disk as the operating system, the drive controller still must access the operating system OR the pagefile... but can't do it simultaneously, so the only advantage to having a separate partition for the pagefile is to prevent fragmentation...

Agreed. The optimum solution is another HDD on a different IDE channel or on another bus. Not a particularly viable solution on a laptop however...

As far as magazine articles, experience, decorative wall coverings, etc. dare I say that appearantly all three of us have it in spades, so I am not going to get into a peeing contest over it; do what you want. However I will say that your comments and that of the articles are contrary to what the experts have to say, that wrote the books and certification manuals / training programs from the 80's until present day as well as everything that I have been taught. I give recurringly published authors more weight / validity / credibility than any ten magazine articles any day of the week.

Anyway, you have your opinions and ideas, I have mine; guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

srothkin · Joined: July 18th, 2004 Posts: 58 Location: Ossining, NY

CJ Greiner wrote: Here's something I do know: The best performance gain is achieved by putting the pagefile on a separate PHYSICAL disk from the operating system

For heavy use multimedia systems it would probably be more important for the page file to be on a different physical disk than the media files that are most frequently accessed -- that's where the bulk of the hard disk access probably will be.