Error - template LAYOUT-DATA-WRAPPER not found

A configuration error was detected in the CGI script; the LAYOUT-DATA-WRAPPER template could not be found.

Error - template STYLE-SHEET not found

A configuration error was detected in the CGI script; the STYLE-SHEET template could not be found.

Error - template SUB-TOP-BANNER not found

A configuration error was detected in the CGI script; the SUB-TOP-BANNER template could not be found.
Subject:
From:
Hal Trachtenberg <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
PCSOFT - Personal Computer software discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 20 Jun 2000 19:17:54 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (60 lines)
I also agree with that theory. It's just that I don't see the point of using
up 320mb of disk space for  a swap file that will very rarely be accessed if
you have 128mb Ram. I used to do that when I only had 64mb Ram and I used my
second hard drive for the swap file, but it was only 160mb in size. My
second hard drive is only 540 mb, and with 128mb Ram I would have to make my
swap file 320mb. What would that leave me on my second hard drive, and why
do I need to even waste that amount on my main drive. I have not had a
single problem with my system, I can't even remember when the last time I
had a system crash or a BLSD, and I let Windows manage my swap file. I use
Norton Speed Disk to defragment my drive and I never have more than 4% to
defragment.

> I agree with Jim. This is the biggest reason I set my swap file size. If
> you let windows manage the size then it will write it wherever it wishes
on
> the C drive. When you defrag such a C drive it takes forever.
>
> You can also increase performance by putting the swap file on it's own
> partition. The best solution is to put the swap file on the first
partition
> of the second physical hard drive running as a master on the secondary
> channel of your controller. This will allow both the operating system
files
> and the swap file to be accessed simultaneously. Will you notice a
> performance difference? On a modern PC with 64 megs of ram or more
probably
> not. But try this on a older Pentium or better yet 486 and you will notice
> a difference.
>
> Still I recommend at the very least setting your swap file size to a fixed
> amount for housekeeping purposes.
>
> Mark Rode
> The NoSpin Group
>
>
> >The big advantage to setting a fixed size swap file is that
> >it does not shrink or grow.  Therefore.... once you defrag
> >the disk, the swap file will remain in one location and only that
> >one location.  Much more efficient this way.
> >
> >Jim Meagher
> >
> >From: "Hal Trachtenberg" <[log in to unmask]>
> >
> > > Hi Richard,
> > > First let me ask you why would you want to change your swap file
setting?
> > > But if you do intend to do it then the swap file should be 2.5 times
the
> > > amount of Ram you have.
>
>                 Curious about the people moderating your
>                    messages? Visit our staff web site:
>                      http://nospin.com/pc/staff.html

             Do you want to signoff PCSOFT or just change to
                    Digest mode - visit our web site:
                    http://nospin.com/pc/pcsoft.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2

LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by LISTSERV