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 (7621)	5/25/1999 9:26:00 PM
From: Spots	Respond to of 14778

>>The page file partition I'm trying out (E:) is 1811 mb. I made the page file there 1300mb initial and 1750mb max. Would there be an advantage to a 1750-1750 sizing? Assuming you created the partition only for a page file (which is my inference from your comments), my reaction is you gain nothing by having the page file smaller than the maximum. The real answer is, I'm not sure. Just as I'm not sure if there is significant overhead from having a large page file relative to memory size. I believe from what I've read and seen (as well as some of my own experiments) that the smallish page files Microsoft recommends are due to paranoia about suggesting the Windows requires--oh horrors!--DISK SPACE. But, I don't know. This is part inference and part guess. A better guess is that whatever overhead is required for 1300-1700 MB is also required for 1700 MB, except for the preallocation of (horrors!) disk space. With disk space down now under a penny a MB, I'm fresh out of shrecklichkeit at using a few MB of disk space. Of course, so is Mcrs*Ft; just look at the size of the latest Office install (not to mention the Visual Studio development environment, which comes in near a gigabyte. In a word -- paahh. Dishonest as the president or congress, either being a mortal insult in my book. Sorry, I digress, but anybody says that to me better be prepared to choose weapons! Not that I'm likely to be challenged (though I'M prepared to be), because those cravens to a man and a women of 'em will hide behind the farthest lily they can get to ... (stop it, Spots).

To: Clarence Dodge who wrote (7621)	5/25/1999 10:32:00 PM
From: Zeuspaul	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14778

And how about using my fastest access time drive,which would be the scsi for the page file partition? I will throw in a guess FWIW. Your SCSI drive may have an advantage in addition to drive access speed..for the page file. You may gain from some type of parallel write capability. For example..strictly a guess..if NT is on Master IDE and page file is on Slave IDE on the same channel..one might assume that the IDE controller would bottleneck the data flow..I believe it can only access one drive at a time on the same channel. If NT is on Master IDE and page is on SCSI then two controllers are in play. Both controllers may be able to act at the same time...assuming NT is smart enough. The same may be true for two drives on different IDE channels..although two separate controllers ie IDE and SCSI may have a bigger advantage?? Some argue that IDE and SCSI should not be mixed. I do not know why and I do not know if there is any merit. Perhaps it is because one uses more system resources..ie why waste IRQs? All SCSI does have parallel write capability. Why not spring for a pair of 10000 RPM SCSI drives<g>? Zeuspaul