I run XP Pro.
My mobo does not support SATA.
I have several hard drives. All my HDD's are PATA and 133 MBps
My operating system partition is on the primary master HDD.
I have placed various cache files in a separate partition on a
seperate HDD.
------
QUESTION ONE
For performance, is it better to configure the HDD containing this
Cache Partition on the mobo's *secondary* IDE socket (as either
master or slave). Or could I configure the Cache Partition as
primary slave without loss of performance?
QUESTION TWO
For performance, does it matter if I move a HDD from being master to
being slave on the same IDE cable? For example, is it ok to change
my system HDD from primary master to primary slave?
------
In all cases I would always make sure there is one of my HDDs
configured as Master on an IDE cable in order to prevent possible
problems due to an unterminated cable.
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Joe S <js@foldback.net> wrote:
> I run XP Pro.
> My mobo does not support SATA.
> I have several hard drives. All my HDD's are PATA and 133 MBps
> My operating system partition is on the primary master HDD.
> I have placed various cache files in a separate partition on a
> seperate HDD.
> ------
> QUESTION ONE
> For performance, is it better to configure the HDD containing this
> Cache Partition on the mobo's *secondary* IDE socket (as either
> master or slave). Or could I configure the Cache Partition as
> primary slave without loss of performance?
Asuming you mean ''swap'' partitions, then they will slow down
a whole IDE channel, so keep them on the secondary channel with
no other HDD on that channel. Unless the swap usage is low, then
there will be no real effect.
> QUESTION TWO
> For performance, does it matter if I move a HDD from being master to
> being slave on the same IDE cable? For example, is it ok to change
> my system HDD from primary master to primary slave?
No impact at all. Master/Slave only impacte the numbering and which
drive issues and de-asserts the channel reset after power-up.
> ------
> In all cases I would always make sure there is one of my HDDs
> configured as Master on an IDE cable in order to prevent possible
> problems due to an unterminated cable.
You would think that putting the Swap file on an separate Hard Disc would be
faster than same as O/S & if that 2nd HD was on a separate IDE cable faster
still .
But I suspect there would be very little if any difference..
What WOULD (maybe) improve things a bit is how full the HD with swapfile is
..
The less full that disc the less time for Windows to find & use.
& it really helps if you go into Windows System properties & set a fixed
size for that
Swap File (about same size as your total RAM) rather than the "let Windows
manage"
default setting.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Its arguable if thats what he meant by cache partitions.
> on an separate Hard Disc would be faster than same as O/S & if that 2nd HD was on a separate IDE
> cable faster still .
It makes a lot more sense to have enough physical ram so it isnt used much instead.
> But I suspect there would be very little if any difference..
> What WOULD (maybe) improve things a bit is how full the HD with swapfile is .
You wouldnt be able to pick it in a double blind trial.
> The less full that disc the less time for Windows to find & use.
That is just plain wrong.
> & it really helps if you go into Windows System properties & set a
> fixed size for that Swap File (about same size as your total RAM) rather than the "let Windows
> manage" default setting.
Nope, not if you have enough physical ram so it isnt used much.
And its silly to be having the swap file as big as the physical ram when
you have enough physical ram to see the swap file rarely used too.
> I run XP Pro.
> My mobo does not support SATA.
> I have several hard drives. All my HDD's are PATA and 133 MBps
> My operating system partition is on the primary master HDD.
> I have placed various cache files in a separate partition on a
> seperate HDD.
> ------
> QUESTION ONE
> For performance, is it better to configure the HDD containing this
> Cache Partition on the mobo's *secondary* IDE socket (as either
> master or slave). Or could I configure the Cache Partition as
> primary slave without loss of performance?
Yes, you wouldnt be able to pick it in a double blind trial.
> QUESTION TWO
> For performance, does it matter if I move a HDD from being master to
> being slave on the same IDE cable? For example, is it ok to change
> my system HDD from primary master to primary slave?
Yes.
> ------
> In all cases I would always make sure there is one of my HDDs
> configured as Master on an IDE cable in order to prevent possible
> problems due to an unterminated cable.
It isnt the master/slave that matters, its that a drive is on the end drive connector.
On 10 Mar 2007, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> Joe S <js@foldback.net> wrote
>
>> I run XP Pro.
>> My mobo does not support SATA.
>> I have several hard drives. All my HDD's are PATA and 133 MBps
>
>> My operating system partition is on the primary master HDD.
>> I have placed various cache files in a separate partition on a
>> seperate HDD.
>
>> ------
>
>> QUESTION ONE
>> For performance, is it better to configure the HDD containing this
>> Cache Partition on the mobo's *secondary* IDE socket (as either
>> master or slave). Or could I configure the Cache Partition as
>> primary slave without loss of performance?
>
> Yes, you wouldnt be able to pick it in a double blind trial.
>
>
>> QUESTION TWO
>> For performance, does it matter if I move a HDD from being master
>> to being slave on the same IDE cable? For example, is it ok to
>> change my system HDD from primary master to primary slave?
>
> Yes.
>
>> ------
>
>> In all cases I would always make sure there is one of my HDDs
>> configured as Master on an IDE cable in order to prevent possible
>> problems due to an unterminated cable.
>
> It isnt the master/slave that matters, its that a drive is on the
> end drive connector.
Rod, I guess that is what I was trying to say!
I have 80-way cables. And I set my HDD jumpers to Cable Select.
ISTR that 80-way cables are wired such if the HDDs are Cable Select
then the end drive is the master. Am sure I will be corrected if I
am wrong.
>> QUESTION ONE
>> For performance, is it better to configure the HDD containing this
>> Cache Partition on the mobo's *secondary* IDE socket (as either
>> master or slave). Or could I configure the Cache Partition as
>> primary slave without loss of performance?
On 10 Mar 2007, Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> Asuming you mean ''swap'' partitions, then they will slow down
> a whole IDE channel, so keep them on the secondary channel with
> no other HDD on that channel. Unless the swap usage is low, then
> there will be no real effect.
>
Arno, in my "Cache Partition" I have got the swap file for WinXP.
Also in there are the index files for Desktop Search and for some
similar indexing applications. There is also some thumbnails files
for my photo viewer and a few more things like that.
The partition is about 10 GB.
I keep these files in this partition partly for better performance
but also because when the indexes get rebuilt (as they do from time
to time) then the index files are not intertwined with all the other
WinXP system files and various application files. With a separate
partition I figure that the files can be more contiguous with one
another and so can the clusters for a given file.
Joe S wrote:
> I run XP Pro.
> My mobo does not support SATA.
> I have several hard drives. All my HDD's are PATA and 133 MBps
>
> My operating system partition is on the primary master HDD.
> I have placed various cache files in a separate partition on a
> seperate HDD.
>
> ------
>
> QUESTION ONE
> For performance, is it better to configure the HDD containing this
> Cache Partition on the mobo's *secondary* IDE socket (as either
> master or slave). Or could I configure the Cache Partition as
> primary slave without loss of performance?
>
>
> QUESTION TWO
> For performance, does it matter if I move a HDD from being master to
> being slave on the same IDE cable? For example, is it ok to change
> my system HDD from primary master to primary slave?
>
> ------
>
> In all cases I would always make sure there is one of my HDDs
> configured as Master on an IDE cable in order to prevent possible
> problems due to an unterminated cable.
>
How much memory do you have?
What applications do you run?
How many applications do you have active at one time?
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 20:35:55 GMT, Joe S <js@foldback.net> wrote:
>>> QUESTION ONE
>>> For performance, is it better to configure the HDD containing this
>>> Cache Partition on the mobo's *secondary* IDE socket (as either
>>> master or slave). Or could I configure the Cache Partition as
>>> primary slave without loss of performance?
>
>
>On 10 Mar 2007, Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>> Asuming you mean ''swap'' partitions, then they will slow down
>> a whole IDE channel, so keep them on the secondary channel with
>> no other HDD on that channel. Unless the swap usage is low, then
>> there will be no real effect.
>>
>
>
>Arno, in my "Cache Partition" I have got the swap file for WinXP.
>Also in there are the index files for Desktop Search and for some
>similar indexing applications. There is also some thumbnails files
>for my photo viewer and a few more things like that.
>
>The partition is about 10 GB.
>
>I keep these files in this partition partly for better performance
>but also because when the indexes get rebuilt (as they do from time
>to time) then the index files are not intertwined with all the other
>WinXP system files and various application files. With a separate
>partition I figure that the files can be more contiguous with one
>another and so can the clusters for a given file.
You can spend endless hours horsing around with this kind of thing
and never perceive a difference in performance.
Except as a means to learn about how swapping works, which it appears
you've done, it's probably more profitable to expend your energies
elsewhere.
Joe S <js@foldback.net> wrote:
> On 10 Mar 2007, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Joe S <js@foldback.net> wrote
>>
>>> I run XP Pro.
>>> My mobo does not support SATA.
>>> I have several hard drives. All my HDD's are PATA and 133 MBps
>>
>>> My operating system partition is on the primary master HDD.
>>> I have placed various cache files in a separate partition on a
>>> seperate HDD.
>>
>>> ------
>>
>>> QUESTION ONE
>>> For performance, is it better to configure the HDD containing this
>>> Cache Partition on the mobo's *secondary* IDE socket (as either
>>> master or slave). Or could I configure the Cache Partition as
>>> primary slave without loss of performance?
>>
>> Yes, you wouldnt be able to pick it in a double blind trial.
>>
>>
>>> QUESTION TWO
>>> For performance, does it matter if I move a HDD from being master
>>> to being slave on the same IDE cable? For example, is it ok to
>>> change my system HDD from primary master to primary slave?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> ------
>>
>>> In all cases I would always make sure there is one of my HDDs
>>> configured as Master on an IDE cable in order to prevent possible
>>> problems due to an unterminated cable.
>>
>> It isnt the master/slave that matters, its that a drive is on the
>> end drive connector.
>
> Rod, I guess that is what I was trying to say!
>
> I have 80-way cables. And I set my HDD jumpers to Cable Select.
> ISTR that 80-way cables are wired such if the HDDs
> are Cable Select then the end drive is the master.
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Joe S <js@foldback.net> wrote:
>>> QUESTION ONE
>>> For performance, is it better to configure the HDD containing this
>>> Cache Partition on the mobo's *secondary* IDE socket (as either
>>> master or slave). Or could I configure the Cache Partition as
>>> primary slave without loss of performance?
> On 10 Mar 2007, Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>> Asuming you mean ''swap'' partitions, then they will slow down
>> a whole IDE channel, so keep them on the secondary channel with
>> no other HDD on that channel. Unless the swap usage is low, then
>> there will be no real effect.
>>
> Arno, in my "Cache Partition" I have got the swap file for WinXP.
> Also in there are the index files for Desktop Search and for some
> similar indexing applications. There is also some thumbnails files
> for my photo viewer and a few more things like that.
> The partition is about 10 GB.
Ah, I see. Yes, calling that a "cache partition" makes sense.
> I keep these files in this partition partly for better performance
> but also because when the indexes get rebuilt (as they do from time
> to time) then the index files are not intertwined with all the other
> WinXP system files and various application files. With a separate
> partition I figure that the files can be more contiguous with one
> another and so can the clusters for a given file.
You should put the "cache disk" on an IDE channel of its own.
A CDROM/DVD-ROM on the same channel should be ok, but another
disk will result in slowdown.
Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Joe S <js@foldback.net> wrote:
>>>> QUESTION ONE
>>>> For performance, is it better to configure the HDD containing this
>>>> Cache Partition on the mobo's *secondary* IDE socket (as either
>>>> master or slave). Or could I configure the Cache Partition as
>>>> primary slave without loss of performance?
>
>
>> On 10 Mar 2007, Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Asuming you mean ''swap'' partitions, then they will slow down
>>> a whole IDE channel, so keep them on the secondary channel with
>>> no other HDD on that channel. Unless the swap usage is low, then
>>> there will be no real effect.
>>>
>
>
>> Arno, in my "Cache Partition" I have got the swap file for WinXP.
>> Also in there are the index files for Desktop Search and for some
>> similar indexing applications. There is also some thumbnails files
>> for my photo viewer and a few more things like that.
>
>> The partition is about 10 GB.
>
> Ah, I see. Yes, calling that a "cache partition" makes sense.
>
>
>> I keep these files in this partition partly for better performance
>> but also because when the indexes get rebuilt (as they do from time
>> to time) then the index files are not intertwined with all the other
>> WinXP system files and various application files. With a separate
>> partition I figure that the files can be more contiguous with one
>> another and so can the clusters for a given file.
>
> You should put the "cache disk" on an IDE channel of its own.
> A CDROM/DVD-ROM on the same channel should be ok, but another
> disk will result in slowdown.
Wrong if the drive the OS is on isnt being used much
as is the case with most personal desktop systems.
"Joe S" <js@foldback.net> wrote...
>
> QUESTION ONE
> For performance, is it better to configure the HDD containing this
> Cache Partition on the mobo's *secondary* IDE socket (as either
> master or slave). Or could I configure the Cache Partition as
> primary slave without loss of performance?
It probably doesn't matter much at all. More important is that the pagefile
is on either the boot partition or a separate HD that is of equal or better
performance than the boot HD. Putting the pagefile on a slower HD won't
help at all.
Assuming the other IDE devices aren't used full-time, I'd opt to put the HD
with the pagefile on the secondary Master.
> QUESTION TWO
> For performance, does it matter if I move a HDD from being master to
> being slave on the same IDE cable? For example, is it ok to change
> my system HDD from primary master to primary slave?
As long as the BIOS supports booting from the slave, there should be no
performance difference. However, why would you do that? What will go on
primary Master?
John Weiss <jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet> wrote
> Joe S <js@foldback.net> wrote...
>> QUESTION ONE
>> For performance, is it better to configure the HDD containing this
>> Cache Partition on the mobo's *secondary* IDE socket (as either
>> master or slave). Or could I configure the Cache Partition as
>> primary slave without loss of performance?
> It probably doesn't matter much at all. More important is that the
> pagefile is on either the boot partition or a separate HD that is of
> equal or better performance than the boot HD. Putting the pagefile
> on a slower HD won't help at all.
> Assuming the other IDE devices aren't used full-time, I'd opt to put the HD with the pagefile on
> the secondary Master.
Makes a lot more sense to have enough physical ram so the swap
file isnt actually used due to the lack of enough physical ram.
>> QUESTION TWO
>> For performance, does it matter if I move a HDD from being master to
>> being slave on the same IDE cable? For example, is it ok to change
>> my system HDD from primary master to primary slave?
> As long as the BIOS supports booting from the slave, there should be
> no performance difference. However, why would you do that? What
> will go on primary Master?
Rod Speed wrote:
> John Weiss <jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet> wrote
>> Joe S <js@foldback.net> wrote...
>
>>> QUESTION ONE
>>> For performance, is it better to configure the HDD containing this
>>> Cache Partition on the mobo's *secondary* IDE socket (as either
>>> master or slave). Or could I configure the Cache Partition as
>>> primary slave without loss of performance?
>
>> It probably doesn't matter much at all. More important is that the
>> pagefile is on either the boot partition or a separate HD that is of
>> equal or better performance than the boot HD. Putting the pagefile
>> on a slower HD won't help at all.
>
>> Assuming the other IDE devices aren't used full-time, I'd opt to put the HD with the pagefile on
>> the secondary Master.
>
> Makes a lot more sense to have enough physical ram so the swap
> file isnt actually used due to the lack of enough physical ram.
My understanding is that unless the pagefile is set to zero, there's
probably going to be some pagefile use even with a large amount of RAM.
I didn't see any reference to the operating system in use. If its
Linux, IIRC a swapfile is required. I think the recommendation is about
twice the amount of memory. And the Linux system monitor indicates that
it does get used even if there's plenty of real memory.
> I didn't see any reference to the operating system in use. If its
> Linux, IIRC a swapfile is required. I think the recommendation is
> about twice the amount of memory. And the Linux system monitor
> indicates that it does get used even if there's plenty of real
> memory.
The more RAM, the bigger the swap file?
Apparently making an assumption about the reason you have more RAM.
John Doe wrote:
> Old Guy <olderguy@oldestguy.com> wrote:
>
>> I didn't see any reference to the operating system in use. If its
>> Linux, IIRC a swapfile is required. I think the recommendation is
>> about twice the amount of memory. And the Linux system monitor
>> indicates that it does get used even if there's plenty of real
>> memory.
>
> The more RAM, the bigger the swap file?
> Apparently making an assumption about the reason you have more RAM.
Don't know. I've been using Linux on and off for a long time, maybe ten
years, and I think its always been that way.
Doesn't windoze default to a max size 2X of memory?
>> The more RAM, the bigger the swap file?
>> Apparently making an assumption about the reason you have more
>> RAM.
>
> Don't know. I've been using Linux on and off for a long time,
> maybe ten years, and I think its always been that way.
>
> Doesn't windoze default to a max size 2X of memory?
>
My Windows XP defaults to 1536 MB with 1 GB of RAM. I don't know what
it depends on.
Old Guy <olderguy@oldestguy.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> John Weiss <jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet> wrote
>>> Joe S <js@foldback.net> wrote...
>>>> QUESTION ONE
>>>> For performance, is it better to configure the HDD containing this
>>>> Cache Partition on the mobo's *secondary* IDE socket (as either
>>>> master or slave). Or could I configure the Cache Partition as
>>>> primary slave without loss of performance?
>>> It probably doesn't matter much at all. More important is that the
>>> pagefile is on either the boot partition or a separate HD that is of
>>> equal or better performance than the boot HD. Putting the pagefile
>>> on a slower HD won't help at all.
>>> Assuming the other IDE devices aren't used full-time, I'd opt to put the HD with the pagefile on
>>> the secondary Master.
>> Makes a lot more sense to have enough physical ram so the swap
>> file isnt actually used due to the lack of enough physical ram.
> My understanding is that unless the pagefile is set to zero, there's probably going to be some
> pagefile use even with a large amount of RAM.
Yes, that's why I included the bit after my 'due to' just above.
BUT that minimal page file use only happens in the background
when there is plenty of free resources, so the location of the
page file has no impact on the performance of the system.
> I didn't see any reference to the operating system in use.
If he doesnt say, its reasonable to assume he's talking about Win.
> If its Linux, IIRC a swapfile is required. I think the recommendation is about twice the amount
> of memory.
Nope, that is completely silly. If you double the amount
of physical ram, you dont need to double the swapfile.
> And the Linux system monitor indicates that it does get used even if there's plenty of real
> memory.
Same with Win, BUT that use has no impact on
performance and so the location of it doesnt matter.
Old Guy <olderguy@oldestguy.com> wrote
> John Doe wrote
>> Old Guy <olderguy@oldestguy.com> wrote
>>> I didn't see any reference to the operating system in use. If its
>>> Linux, IIRC a swapfile is required. I think the recommendation is
>>> about twice the amount of memory. And the Linux system monitor
>>> indicates that it does get used even if there's plenty of real memory.
>> The more RAM, the bigger the swap file?
>> Apparently making an assumption about the reason you have more RAM.
> Don't know. I've been using Linux on and off for a long time, maybe ten years, and I think its
> always been that way.
Nope.
> Doesn't windoze default to a max size 2X of memory?
Nope, it defaults of a variable sized swap file that gets used as required.
John Doe wrote:
> Old Guy <olderguy@oldestguy.com> wrote:
>
>> John Doe wrote:
>
>>> The more RAM, the bigger the swap file?
>>> Apparently making an assumption about the reason you have more
>>> RAM.
>> Don't know. I've been using Linux on and off for a long time,
>> maybe ten years, and I think its always been that way.
>>
>> Doesn't windoze default to a max size 2X of memory?
>>
>
> My Windows XP defaults to 1536 MB with 1 GB of RAM. I don't know what
> it depends on.
Yeah, that's the right default. I couldn't remember is it was 150% or
200% of memory size.
Rod Speed wrote:
> Old Guy <olderguy@oldestguy.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>
>>>> Assuming the other IDE devices aren't used full-time, I'd opt to put the HD with the pagefile on
>>>> the secondary Master.
>
>>> Makes a lot more sense to have enough physical ram so the swap
>>> file isnt actually used due to the lack of enough physical ram.
>
>> My understanding is that unless the pagefile is set to zero, there's probably going to be some
>> pagefile use even with a large amount of RAM.
>
> Yes, that's why I included the bit after my 'due to' just above.
>
> BUT that minimal page file use only happens in the background
> when there is plenty of free resources, so the location of the
> page file has no impact on the performance of the system.
>
>> I didn't see any reference to the operating system in use.
>
> If he doesnt say, its reasonable to assume he's talking about Win.
>
>> If its Linux, IIRC a swapfile is required. I think the recommendation is about twice the amount
>> of memory.
>
> Nope, that is completely silly. If you double the amount
> of physical ram, you dont need to double the swapfile.
Its the way the operating system works. Not an option. So whether you
think its silly is not material.
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 21:16:27 -0600, Old Guy
<olderguy@oldestguy.com> wrote:
>John Doe wrote:
>> Old Guy <olderguy@oldestguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I didn't see any reference to the operating system in use. If its
>>> Linux, IIRC a swapfile is required. I think the recommendation is
>>> about twice the amount of memory. And the Linux system monitor
>>> indicates that it does get used even if there's plenty of real
>>> memory.
>>
>> The more RAM, the bigger the swap file?
>> Apparently making an assumption about the reason you have more RAM.
>
>Don't know. I've been using Linux on and off for a long time, maybe ten
>years, and I think its always been that way.
>
>Doesn't windoze default to a max size 2X of memory?
It will create the certain sized pagefile by default, larger
the more memory you have is an inaccurate rough guess that
may or may not apply to all users/uses, but that doesn't
mean it's actually using that much. It will access the
swapfile even with more than enough memory to run
everything, but it will be mostly designating allocations,
not paging out the contents of physical memory (until you
run out of available memory and nothing can be flushed to
use more main memory instead of the pagefile).
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 15:12:41 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>BUT that minimal page file use only happens in the background
>when there is plenty of free resources,
False
>so the location of the
>page file has no impact on the performance of the system.
False again, though of course the less it's used
simultaneous to other I/O, the less it'll matter where it
is.
>
>> I didn't see any reference to the operating system in use.
>
>If he doesnt say, its reasonable to assume he's talking about Win.
>
>> If its Linux, IIRC a swapfile is required. I think the recommendation is about twice the amount
>> of memory.
>
>Nope, that is completely silly. If you double the amount
>of physical ram, you dont need to double the swapfile.
Some would even say the pagefile can then be that much
smaller, it depends a bit on whether the user is just buying
a lot of memory because doing so is in vogue, or buying a
lot of memory to run a lot of memory intensive applications.
Some people with 1GB will use it *all*, and need a lot more
pagefile space than other people with 1GB physical memory
would.
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 12:35:27 GMT, Joe S <js@foldback.net>
wrote:
>I run XP Pro.
>My mobo does not support SATA.
>I have several hard drives. All my HDD's are PATA and 133 MBps
You're about to ask about performance, but didn't tell us
about your particular drives so there is no answer that can
be complete. Obviously all drives don't have the same
performance. This includes different brand's firmware being
better optimized for certain access patterns/uses. It may
not matter much, or it could be an additive difference as
much or more than what channel they're plugged into.
>My operating system partition is on the primary master HDD.
>I have placed various cache files in a separate partition on a
>seperate HDD.
>
>------
>
>QUESTION ONE
>For performance, is it better to configure the HDD containing this
>Cache Partition on the mobo's *secondary* IDE socket (as either
>master or slave). Or could I configure the Cache Partition as
>primary slave without loss of performance?
It would be easy to say it's better to put it on a different
PATA channel, but whether it would be a significant enough
different to realize (even in a very isolated generic test
not considering any specifics of your use) is not so
clear-cut.
You might even have other things accessing this 2nd drive
such that the cache files slow down that I/O more than they
would the OS /app drive, particularly considering that once
you have the OS loaded, the app loaded, and of course
sufficient physical memory to hold it, what remains that is
of sinificant I/O are the files that app is working with.
They too should be elsewhere besides on same drive as OS and
the app, but you can only divide up I/O so many different
ways between different drives and channels.
It is far more significant to put the simultaneous I/O on a
different drive than on a different controller channel. If
you are still lacking performance enough that you hope for
more from channel positioning, it's probably time to just
buy faster drives first.
>
>
>QUESTION TWO
>For performance, does it matter if I move a HDD from being master to
>being slave on the same IDE cable?
no
> For example, is it ok to change
>my system HDD from primary master to primary slave?
So long as the system will boot from it (which any system in
the past half-decade or more should be able to do), though
Windows expects it to be on the primary master until you
change the boot.ini file.
Old Guy <olderguy@oldestguy.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Old Guy <olderguy@oldestguy.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Assuming the other IDE devices aren't used full-time, I'd opt to put the HD with the pagefile
>>>>> on the secondary Master.
>>>> Makes a lot more sense to have enough physical ram so the swap
>>>> file isnt actually used due to the lack of enough physical ram.
>>> My understanding is that unless the pagefile is set to zero, there's probably going to be some
>>> pagefile use even with a large amount of RAM.
>> Yes, that's why I included the bit after my 'due to' just above.
>> BUT that minimal page file use only happens in the background
>> when there is plenty of free resources, so the location of the
>> page file has no impact on the performance of the system.
>>> I didn't see any reference to the operating system in use.
>> If he doesnt say, its reasonable to assume he's talking about Win.
>>> If its Linux, IIRC a swapfile is required. I think the
>>> recommendation is about twice the amount of memory.
>> Nope, that is completely silly. If you double the amount
>> of physical ram, you dont need to double the swapfile.
> Its the way the operating system works.
No it isnt.
> Not an option. So whether you think its silly is not material.
Neither is your silly claim that it actually uses twice the size of
the physical ram, regardless of how much physical ram there is.
kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> BUT that minimal page file use only happens in the
>> background when there is plenty of free resources,
> False
Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
>> so the location of the page file has no
>> impact on the performance of the system.
> False again,
Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
> though of course the less it's used simultaneous
> to other I/O, the less it'll matter where it is.
There is no impact on performance when you have enough physical
ram so that there is no need to swap out physical ram to the swap file.
The only reason Win does that is in case there is a need for more physical
ram than is installed, and that is done with free resources, because its
impossible to predict whether that will ever actually be needed.
>>> I didn't see any reference to the operating system in use.
>> If he doesnt say, its reasonable to assume he's talking about Win.
>>> If its Linux, IIRC a swapfile is required. I think the
>>> recommendation is about twice the amount of memory.
>> Nope, that is completely silly. If you double the amount
>> of physical ram, you dont need to double the swapfile.
> Some would even say the pagefile can then be that much smaller,
> it depends a bit on whether the user is just buying a lot of memory
> because doing so is in vogue, or buying a lot of memory to run a lot
> of memory intensive applications. Some people with 1GB will use it
> *all*, and need a lot more pagefile space than other people with
> 1GB physical memory would.
Irrelevant to what the OS can choose to do IN CASE
there is a need for more physical ram than is installed.
kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
> Joe S <js@foldback.net> wrote
>> I run XP Pro.
>> My mobo does not support SATA.
>> I have several hard drives. All my HDD's are PATA and 133 MBps
> You're about to ask about performance, but didn't tell us about
> your particular drives so there is no answer that can be complete.
Wrong, as always. The answer can obviously
cover all the possibilitys and so be complete.
> Obviously all drives don't have the same performance.
> This includes different brand's firmware being better
> optimized for certain access patterns/uses. It may
> not matter much, or it could be an additive difference
> as much or more than what channel they're plugged into.
Hardly ever in practice.
>> My operating system partition is on the primary master HDD.
>> I have placed various cache files in a separate partition on a
>> seperate HDD.
>> ------
>> QUESTION ONE
>> For performance, is it better to configure the HDD containing this
>> Cache Partition on the mobo's *secondary* IDE socket (as either
>> master or slave). Or could I configure the Cache Partition as
>> primary slave without loss of performance?
> It would be easy to say it's better to put it on a different PATA
> channel, but whether it would be a significant enough different
> to realize (even in a very isolated generic test not considering
> any specifics of your use) is not so clear-cut.
> You might even have other things accessing this 2nd drive
> such that the cache files slow down that I/O more than they
> would the OS /app drive, particularly considering that once
> you have the OS loaded, the app loaded, and of course
> sufficient physical memory to hold it, what remains that is
> of sinificant I/O are the files that app is working with.
> They too should be elsewhere besides on same drive as OS and
> the app, but you can only divide up I/O so many different
> ways between different drives and channels.
> It is far more significant to put the simultaneous I/O on a
> different drive than on a different controller channel. If
> you are still lacking performance enough that you hope for
> more from channel positioning, it's probably time to just
> buy faster drives first.
>> QUESTION TWO
>> For performance, does it matter if I move a HDD from
>> being master to being slave on the same IDE cable?
> no
>> For example, is it ok to change
>> my system HDD from primary master to primary slave?
>
> So long as the system will boot from it (which any system in
> the past half-decade or more should be able to do), though
> Windows expects it to be on the primary master until you
> change the boot.ini file.
On 11 Mar 2007, Old Guy <olderguy@oldestguy.com> wrote:
> Rod Speed wrote:
>> John Weiss <jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet> wrote
>>> Joe S <js@foldback.net> wrote...
>>
>>>> QUESTION ONE
>>>> For performance, is it better to configure the HDD containing
>>>> this Cache Partition on the mobo's *secondary* IDE socket (as
>>>> either master or slave). Or could I configure the Cache
>>>> Partition as primary slave without loss of performance?
>>
>>> It probably doesn't matter much at all. More important is that
>>> the pagefile is on either the boot partition or a separate HD
>>> that is of equal or better performance than the boot HD. Putting
>>> the pagefile on a slower HD won't help at all.
>>
>>> Assuming the other IDE devices aren't used full-time, I'd opt to
>>> put the HD with the pagefile on the secondary Master.
>>
>> Makes a lot more sense to have enough physical ram so the swap
>> file isnt actually used due to the lack of enough physical ram.
>
>
> My understanding is that unless the pagefile is set to zero,
> there's probably going to be some pagefile use even with a large
> amount of RAM.
>
> I didn't see any reference to the operating system in use. If its
> Linux, IIRC a swapfile is required. I think the recommendation is
> about twice the amount of memory. And the Linux system monitor
> indicates that it does get used even if there's plenty of real
> memory.
I am the OP. Way back in the original post it says I run XP.
Rod Speed wrote:
> Old Guy <olderguy@oldestguy.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Old Guy <olderguy@oldestguy.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>
>>>>>> Assuming the other IDE devices aren't used full-time, I'd opt to put the HD with the pagefile
>>>>>> on the secondary Master.
>
>>>>> Makes a lot more sense to have enough physical ram so the swap
>>>>> file isnt actually used due to the lack of enough physical ram.
>
>>>> My understanding is that unless the pagefile is set to zero, there's probably going to be some
>>>> pagefile use even with a large amount of RAM.
>
>>> Yes, that's why I included the bit after my 'due to' just above.
>
>>> BUT that minimal page file use only happens in the background
>>> when there is plenty of free resources, so the location of the
>>> page file has no impact on the performance of the system.
>
>>>> I didn't see any reference to the operating system in use.
>
>>> If he doesnt say, its reasonable to assume he's talking about Win.
>
>>>> If its Linux, IIRC a swapfile is required. I think the
>>>> recommendation is about twice the amount of memory.
>
>>> Nope, that is completely silly. If you double the amount
>>> of physical ram, you dont need to double the swapfile.
>
>> Its the way the operating system works.
>
> No it isnt.
>
>> Not an option. So whether you think its silly is not material.
>
> Neither is your silly claim that it actually uses twice the size of
> the physical ram, regardless of how much physical ram there is.
>
>
The default swapfile is configured during o/s installation. I didn't
say it was all used, just there. Its not for me to justify or you to
criticize, its just the way it is. Some of the swapfile will get used
even in systems with more real memory than the system could use. Who
cares?
If windoze is installed on a system with 4 gb of memory, why do they
create a default swapfilf of 2 gig? That's silly.
Location of system and cache partitions 
