Paging File location opinions

I have been contemplating this for a while, so I wanted to see what my fellow freaks here had to say.

I have a RAID-0 with two SATA raptors as my primary drive with XP Pro.
I also have a 250GB SATA WD drive, with normal specs of a PATA interfaced drive, hence its just storage space with SATA technology for some extra stability.

So, where should I keep my paginf file, on drive C (RAID HDD) or drive D (250GB HDD).

My rationality is that using a non-primary disk will be a speed boost, but if my primary disk is so much faster than my secondary disk, will it really matter?

I think it will so-to-speak cancel each other out and that my performance will remain the same, wherever I direct the paginf file to be.

What do you guys think??? :slight_smile:

It makes a couple things puke and I have to turn it back on when I use them, but for the most part my puter runs fine without it. The way you’re “supposed” to do it is to have it on a separate partiton from your os that is double the maximum ammount of system ram you will ever have. Most people have like 1gb of ram and make a 3gb partition to avoid low disk space warnings. Most people that have a raid 0 put it on there. You’re also supposed to set the max size for the page file to 1.5 times your system ram. This is supposed to be the best config for performance. If you don’t play games that require huge ammounts of ram try running witout a page file. Most things just give a warning before they puke. The only times I need it are for a couple games and when I’m editing uncompressed images. I tried editing a 4.5 gb dvd data iso with win iso and it crashed without warning from this. I’m eventually going to upgrade to 1.5 gb of ram, then I shouldn’t need a pagefile at all.

@Deer Slayer

I’m not asking how large to make it, I know about that, I am asking where its better to place given my configuration.

It would certainly be faster if you dropped that useless RAID-0 array and run JBOD instead.
Raptor 1 --> Sys + Games
Raptor 2 --> Swap + Temp etc
//Danne

the speed boost comes from having the swap file on a different hard drive than the operating system - which makes for quicker writes when a file not in the page file needs to be placed there. if all you use the “storage drive” for is actual storage, and no program files/executables, then it should provide a minimal speed boost to move the page file there.

i have also seen sites that state “if you have a raid-0 array, use it for your page file”. in all truth, i doubt you will notice a difference with the page file in either place, unless one causes crashes/instability.

You’ve obviously never played with two raptors in RAID-0.
I think you should read this thread:
http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=73241&highlight=atto+benchmark
Its a whopping difference, I too thought as you do now, then realised after rdgrimes post that I was wrong.

I also think my performance will stay the same, I guess I posted here to see if anyone else tried it with better results.

If the other drive is not under any additional load when swapfile access is likely, then it may improve things.

If the other drive will be under load, then keep the swapfile on the raid

Those Raptors may be dynamite fast, but the heads cannot be in two places at once - and the fact there are two of them makes no difference in a raid array.

@ xtacydima
And you obviously think that you know better than what you actually do.

If you haven’t gotten the hint by now, we’ll spell it out for you: there is no place, and no need for a RAID-0 array on a desktop computer. The real world performance increases are negligible at best and the reduction in reliability, thanks to a halving of the mean time between failure, makes RAID-0 far from worth it on the desktop.

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2101&p=1
Was it anything more you wanted?
//Danne

OK, great, your opinion is noted.

Now if you have anything to actually contribute to the start of my thread, please do so.

So far you nothing but question why, well why this or why that, what difference does it make to you. I didn’t ask you if its better or if I should make it.

The point is I have, and enjoy my RAID-0 array, as do many other people.

Your thread in no way answers my question, nor contributes to it. Stop posting useless information and opinions. Stick to the thread topic.

You do this all the time and I have kept quiet for some time now, if you want your opinion regarding RAID’s start a new thread about them. You are more than welcome to do so. I am sure people will respond to your inquiry’s.

i’ll have to go with keeping the paging file off the same physical drive(s) that the operating system resides on. this way, the array doesn’t have to perform paging file duties and is free to do other things.

I told you the fastest solution and you get pissed because you were wrong, great attitude.
Oh well, just put it on a seprate partition on the 250Gb drive to prevent fragmentation if you want the second fastest solution.
//Danne

Put the paging file on a different drive in its own partition but make sure that this hd is not slower than the primary device but the least used in the box.

my 2 cents

The real world performance increases are negligible at best and the reduction in reliability, thanks to a halving of the mean time between failure, makes RAID-0 far from worth it on the desktop.
According to anandtech i’d fail to find any use of a raid array not just the desktop. Negligible speed increase and reduction in reliability makes it worthless for any use. Thats a lot of negativity for a technology well established and proven to give at least a 30% speed boost on quality controllers with good hdd (ie raptors).

Being ironic doesnt improve your reasoning and it is also uncalled for.

@ Hemispasm
RAID 0 only improves sequential reads and writes more or less, you very rarely get those “types” of writes and reads while working on a desktop. Access time (which is the main bottleneck) isn’t improved at all which also StorageReview.com along with Anandtech points out. 30% performance increase? Feel free to point me in that direction, ATTO and SiSoft Sandra are useless benchmarks since they’re mostly based on sequential reads and writes not real life performance. If you edit huge (20+) audio and video files RAID 0 may give you a performance increase.
//Danne

@ Hemispasm
RAID 0 only improves sequential reads and writes more or less
DiiZzY i agree with you in general but you have to undestand that this is not the point here - the thread’s subject matter is about page file location suggestions and not about the usefulness of a RAID 0 array. Going off topic with this only shows direspect to the one that started the thread.

Its like someone saying “i have this problem with Nero” and one replying “Nero is junk for this and this reason use software X” - do you get my point? :wink:

Assuming that he wants the highest possible performance (why would you go for WD Raptors in RAID-0 otherwise?) that information wasn’t off topic.
Anyhow, he also got the question answered with his current setup.
About your example, take a look in the MPEG-4 forum, that form of recommendations/discussions occurs quite frequently there without any complaints.
//Danne

I’d suggest small pagefile on the raid0 on remainder on the other.

About your example, take a look in the MPEG-4 forum, that form of recommendations/discussions occurs quite frequently there without any complaints.
Thats because i am not/cant be everywhere :stuck_out_tongue:
plus thats up to the mods over there to draw/set the border lines.

Just leave this be.

OK, I am trying it on my second 250GB HDD. I will see if any performance increases with my next cd.

For those curious, I do tape restoration for some odd impossible to get music from other countries, that my dad and some of his friends have on tape. I have to input the entire tape as a wave file, and slowly break up the wave into segemnts and restore (I use steinberg clean). I generally render a wave file of 500 - 600 megs and I noticed a huge boost with the RAID on this.

Lets see if the paging file helps any by being on a different HDD :wink:

I’ll keep you guys posted.