Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Dream Machine ( Build your own PC ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Clarence Dodge who wrote (7309)	4/27/1999 9:36:00 AM
From: Spots	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14778

>> [By isolated] I just mean drives that have there own OS and require a restart to switch to Still don't completely understand. Is the drive on-line when not booted or isn't it? It sounds like it is, but I don't know if you're yanking it out or not for sure. I don't really think you can accomplish more than adding complexity without corresponding value that way, but maybe so. If you really regularly boot back and forth between to OS instances, you're sure adding a lot of pain. Anyhow, assuming you have two drives on line each with a paging file, there is nothing to be gained by having separate page files for each OS you boot. The page files are useless except to the currently running OS, so you might as well share them. If you have 128 mb memory and decided to double that in page file, then 128 on each drive aggregates 256. That's what I meant. You would specify 128 mb on each drive in each OS instance. The arguments I know about for fixing the page file sizes (i.e., min size = max size) are: 1) you can force them to be allocated once and for all initially, which if done on an unfragmented drive means the page files are not fragmented, improving performance. 2) You are sure you have disk space for whatever virtual memory size you have decided to implement. There are other minor advantages. There may well be other major ones too that I don't know about or have forgotten. The major advantage I know about of not fixing page file sizes (min < max) is to allow for a larger virtual memory than you think you need, just in case. I do not know how to make the trade off. On my systems (or at least the one I use most), the min is twice real memory and the max is about 1/3 larger. This is NOT a recommendation, it just happens to be the way mine are set. I continue to be concerned about the amount of file cache and non-paged kernel memory that gets reserved as a percent of real memory as the page file size (in aggregate) increases. These concerns may well be unfounded. Spots