Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    Platinum Lounger
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    5,016
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Partitioning Issues (longish)

    This more or less continues on from the <!post=Backup Strategy,341018>Backup Strategy<!/post> thread in the Windows 98 lounge. I thought it had become general enough to divert to this lounge.

    Having followed the wealth of advice I gleaned <img src=/S/thankyou.gif border=0 alt=thankyou width=40 height=15>, particularly from DocWatson and WyllyWylly, I have established a variety of functional partitions... still a work in progress. My own setup is currently a "hybrid" of a lot of ideas - for instance, I have a 10GB drive dedicated purely to backup functions, sitting in the kind of "hot swap" bay recommended by bigaldoc. I have also tried to incorporate some ideas from this article, from which I've quoted in italics below. So now I'm looking for comment on a few specifics that have arisen:

    DEDICATED SWAP FILE PARTITION
    [i]I recommend that you make the swap file partition

  2. #2
    Uranium Lounger
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    7,089
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Partitioning Issues (longish)

    I like long answers. <img src=/S/grin.gif border=0 alt=grin width=15 height=15>
    <blockquote><hr>I recommend that you make the swap file partition
    -Mark

  3. #3
    Platinum Lounger
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    5,016
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Partitioning Issues (longish)

    Good stuff! Thanks Mark. I'm sure the reported free space for the swap file is some sort of quirky behaviour - as I said, it was a brand new empty partition of about a GB. All the other partitions - used and empty - reported sensible values. It's working though, which is the important thing. The rest seems to be an "as you wish" or "leave it alone" choice... makes things easy.

    The only thing I don't understand re: the second hard drive<hr>Split your swap file between this and the primary drive. <hr>How (and why) would I do this?

    thanks

    Alan

    Edited - BTW, the old drive is (significantly I believe) slower than the new one.

  4. #4
    Uranium Lounger
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    7,089
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Partitioning Issues (longish)

    How?

    In the System Properties applet from Control Panel (or however you get there), assigen half of the swap file's space to one drive, and half to the other.

    Why?

    Because Windows NT/2000/XP can talk to both IDE channels efficiently, so whatever hard drive movement is involved is inexorably cut in half. Whether the drives have differernt spin speed (5200 vs 7200 RPM) is irrelevant; you are splitting the access time between two physical units and your performance should definitely see an improvement.

    As a side note, Cowboy for one prefers to disable swap file usage altogether. I avoid this because the Windows NT/XP kernel was designed to make use of a swap file, regardless of the amount of installed RAM. The more RAM the better, but Windows likes to have a swap file in case there is a need for it. Disk space is cheap. Avoiding design concepts seems an unnecessary step, but as always, your mileage may vary.
    -Mark

  5. #5
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
    Posts
    5,054
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 417 Times in 346 Posts

    Re: Partitioning Issues (longish)

    Hi Mark,

    I think Alan's running Win 98SE which, as far as I know, doesn't support drive spanning witht the swap file.

    Cheers
    Cheers,

    Paul Edstein
    [MS MVP - Word]

  6. #6
    Uranium Lounger
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    7,089
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Partitioning Issues (longish)

    Correct, Windows 98 is different in that regard.
    -Mark

  7. #7
    Platinum Lounger
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    5,016
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Partitioning Issues (longish)

    OK, that explains why I was baffled by it. To me (more specifically my budget) 98SE is the latest & greatest <img src=/S/grin.gif border=0 alt=grin width=15 height=15>. I'll dream on, with just a single swap file location. Mind you, what you say about using 2 channels "simultaneously" makes perfect sense - a pity it's restricted to NT et al.

    cheers

    Alan

  8. #8
    Uranium Lounger
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    7,089
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Partitioning Issues (longish)

    Try not to think of it in terms of restricting. The NT platform was designed differently and the ability to use the disk subsystem the way that it does comes from that heritage. There really was (is?) no way to make Windows 9x work the same way because of its DOS underpinnings. When Microsoft designed the NT kernel, they did not have to worry about backwards compatibility nor were they constrained by the existing software architecture (because there wasn't any).

    Still...would be nice, though, wouldn't it?
    -Mark

  9. #9
    Silver Lounger
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    West Long Branch, New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    1,921
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 9 Times in 7 Posts

    Re: Partitioning Issues (longish)

    Hi Alan,

    your observation:
    =====

    DEDICATED SWAP FILE PARTITION
    I recommend that you make the swap file partition

  10. #10
    Platinum Lounger
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    5,016
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Partitioning Issues (longish)

    Hi Fred

    I suspect that this (in my case) is a bug in the way Free Space is reported.
    E: and G: below supposedly have 0MB free but, in fact, their stats are:
    E: 494MB free
    G: 942MB free
    when empty. Partially filled or empty, this dialog always shows 0MB free for these smaller partitions. It reports OK on partitions bigger than a couple of Gigs.

    Alan

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •