re: Question about 'Stop Windows from Wildly Accessing your Hard Disk'
Sunday, June 15, 2003 at 11:56 pm
Windows XP Annoyances Discussion Forum
Posted by Miss X
(89 messages posted)
No, no, that wasn't patronizing at all, it's just what i needed to know! So i'll
lower it and let it tho be in the c drive, as i just have 1 real harddrive here...
I don't run games but i multitask lots, eg, it's pretty common i have 10 copies if
ie open, few graphics editors, ftp, html editor.. so, maybe it's best i'll lower
the size of it in periods ? and keep eye on taskmanager (I don't run english OS so
the term might be incorrect) and check which works the best.
I made few service changes last night and this pc didn't boot up today, so will have
to go few steps back:(
Fun, fun...lol
Thank you for all the information, and prompt explanations!
:=)
On Sunday, June 15, 2003 at 9:23 pm, Magician wrote:
>Couple of things I think I should mention.
>
>Moving your swap file to a different PHYSICAL drive is an excellent idea, moving
>to a LOGICAL drive (on the same physical disk) is not so good. It will just make
>the system run slower since it cannot access the pagefile in parallel to reading
>the executable etc, it needs instead to halt one read/write operation, scan the
disk
>to the pagefile, write the data to the pagefile, halt that operation and scan the
>disk back to the original read/write operation. On physically separate disks those
>two tasks can be carried out nearly in parallel and the performance benefit on a
>system that uses its pagefile a lot is noticable.
>
>Which carries me onto the next point, do you need to set your pagefile to 1.5x your
>RAM? No, not if you have more the 512MB, as you do. Like Ricer46 says, its common
>sense. the pagefile is used as an overflow when the RAM is full and unless you are
>doing some seriously memory intensive stuff (DVD editting maybe?) you will have
a
>hard time overflowing 768MB
>
>Do the maths quickly, if I have 64MB for RAM then a 96MB pagefile makes sense, if
>I have 512MB or RAM then a 768MB pagefile is silly. I personally have 1gig of RAM
>and I DO NOT need a 1.5gig pagefile! XP uses maybe 140MB (or 200MB if you have all
>your services running - see the excellent Black Viper site Ricer46 pointed you too),
>that leaves around 600MB of RAM for XP to use, it doesn't need 768MB of pagefile
>too. I would recommend 100MB pagefile (some games complain if they can't see a pagefile,
>even if that dont need it).
>
>I'm not trying to sound patronizing (apologies if I do), I'm just trying tto give
>you a solid reply.
>
>Just have fun with it :-)
>
>
>
>
|
