On 24 May 2000, at 22:33, Mark Rode <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> >In the second case, is there any benefit in setting the swap file to be in
> >fixed length?
>
> Yes ...the OS will not have to spend time and resources dynamically
> resizing the swap file.
> In addition a fixed size swap file will be written to the drive in one
> continuous block instead of all over the drive.

Why it will be written all over the drive if it is the only file in the drive
(notice that in the second case, there is a logical drive dedicated to the
swap file).
I thought that by using a dedicated logical drive (e.g. the first one on a
different physical drive), it will automatically be written as one
continuous block.

> >Will windows know to use the full size of the logical drive but not to try
> >more? Or perhaps we should also set a maximum size. If the logical drive
> >is on the same physical drive as the other logical drives, does the fact
> >that the swap files might be physically distant from the other files, will
> >slow down in swapping? If we make a fixed size swap file, say 5 times
> >bigger, will it take longer for Win98 to make the swapping?
>
> The idea is you set a fixed size.... say 300 meg minimum and 300 meg
> maximum. Windows will create it when you boot up and it will stay at one
> place and one size. The  OS knows exactly where it is and will use it when
> it is needed. It won't spend resources dynamically resizing it for every
> situation. You can make it bigger but there are only a handful of
> circumstances when a workstation would require a larger swap file.
>
> NT4 and Win 2000 allows you to have as many swap files as you have drives.
> Linux allows you to have....I believe it is up to six....however they can't
> be larger then 128 megs. If you aren't running a busy server that is
> swapping out to the hard drive all the time then there is little reason to
> do this and in fact multiple swap files can slow things down.

I was talking about a single swap file of a huge size - not about multiple
swap files. My question was there, because if it takes for the OS more
time to handle a swap file if it's huge, and on the other hand I solve the
problem of fragmentsation by using a dedicated hard drive, I might solve
both problems by using a dedicated drive on the one hand but not a
fixed swap on the other hand (because there will be no fragmentation
problem, and resizing will be trivial).

Thanks,

Uzi

                Curious about the people moderating your
                   messages? Visit our staff web site:
                     http://nospin.com/pc/staff.html