 
| Subject: | |
| From: | |
| Reply To: | |
| Date: | Mon, 6 Jul 1998 14:52:47 -0700 |
| Content-Type: | text/plain |
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Gee, John -- you just described my setup. I have a 160MB permanent Win95 swap
file on my FAT32 non-SCSI single partition 4.3GB C drive. With my 64MB of RAM, I
haven't noticed any degradation of performance; my swap file is rarely used. On
the other hand, I do notice the convenience of the single partition, quite a
lot. I, personally, would never go back to 2GB partitions or FAT16.
Roxanne Pierce
R2 Systems, San Diego
mailto:[log in to unmask]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Chin Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 1998 10:03
>
> The larger clusters give better performance. Can you
> picture a 160MB Permanent Windows Swap File running
> on 4K clusters rather than 32K clusters (I admit hating
> cluster sizes larger than 32K; also, I usually stay FAT16
> for compatibility reasons). Think of the performance hit on
> an IDE drive, which requires CPU use for disk management.
|
|
|
