2nd HDD and the swapfile?

15 replies [Last post]
Searcher22
Offline
Joined: Oct 1 2000

Hi All

I now have my 30GB IBM Deskstar £126.00 close to reasonable price?

I currently have my OS drive multi partitioned including a small area for the swap file. Having been previously advised that to put the swap file on a separate partition was best!

Now with the secondary drive to be used for capture render etc i.e all things DV do I keep my swap file on drive 1 or set upa partition on the new drive?

Any thoughts and advice please, what do you do?

Many thanks

Laurence

GAK
Offline
Joined: Feb 10 2001

I am awaiting delivery of my DiamondMax +60 40GB UIDE100 - £99+vat from Ebuyer and am wondering about the same issues.

I think the choices are boot drive, separate partition on boot drive, separate partition on videodrive. My boot drive is UDMA33 and my motherboard can't support better. (I'd rather save my money for a new motherboard than spend it on a Promise etc. controller.

GAK
Offline
Joined: Feb 10 2001

I have now searched the Forum & have come up with several earlier posts including: http://www.dvdoctor.net/cgi-bin/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000006.html
My conclusions so far:

1.Get more memory so that swapfile useage is minimised

2.Either fix the size of the Swap file or give it its own partition (or physical disk drive). The aim is to avoid fragmenting swap file. I guess a separate disk is not the answer if (as in my case) it is slower than the others.

3.Using the video drive may cause the heads to flying between different bits of the disk so is probably not first choice.

4.I think I recall from somewhere that the swapfile is best located at the physical outer edge of the disk rather than the middle. I think this means in the first partition of the disk drive, but having ruled out the video drive this means the C drive, and I don't know how you do that.

5.Norton Utilities if you have it may be able to do your thinking for you - based on some of the advice in the above posting.

So, I think I'll create three partitions on my 8.4Gb boot disk. One for standard boot, one to boot to a clean video editing set up, one for the swapfile while video editing.
I'll create two partitions on my video editing disk - one for a swap file when I'm not doing video editing.

Does that sound at all sensible?

Gavin

[This message has been edited by GAK (edited 28 April 2001).]

Searcher22
Offline
Joined: Oct 1 2000

Hi Gavin

Very valid thoughts.

As I said my current setup is 1st drive has five partitions one of which is allocated to the swap file - I am not clear on how the allocation to disk area is prioritised?

I will probably do what you are thinking that is set up my new drive with a 524MB for swap file, incidently I have increased the RAM from 128 to 256MB.

By doing this a least the choice of function can be "tested"

Laurence

[This message has been edited by Searcher22 (edited 28 April 2001).]

Keitht
Offline
Joined: Jan 8 2001

Laurence
If you haven't actually purchased the drive yet look as www.pcindex.co.uk. You get price comparisons of about 15 resellers. Best price today for 30gig IBM is £113 including p&p.

Regards Keith

tim@work
Offline
Joined: Apr 30 2001

Hi all,

The advice for more RAM is definatley the way forward, ie to avoid as much swapping as possible. Also, another HDD is best (even if it is the slow one). I would use this disk for storing normal office docs and similar flat file stuff (no programs). With this disk being 99% dedicated to the swapfile even if it is slow, will whip the arse off any CPU with the swap on the same disk as the system.

Also, stick the DV disk on a separate controller to the system disk.

Tim

GAK
Offline
Joined: Feb 10 2001
Quote:
Also, stick the DV disk on a separate controller to the system disk.

Thanks for the advice Tim .
Following your advice would leave my DVD on the same controller as the DV disk. Might this impair performance? Do I need to disable or anything?

tim@work
Offline
Joined: Apr 30 2001

quote:Originally posted by GAK:

Following your advice would leave my DVD on the same controller as the DV disk. Might this impair performance? Do I need to disable or anything?

It will not impair performance unless you are accessing data from the DVD at the same time as doing any editing/capturing. Just physically residing on the same controller will not effect performance, only when data is read/written. It makes sense to have your DV disk on the same controller as the DVD as I presume this is the least used of all your storage.

Tim

Assimilator1
Offline
Joined: May 12 2001

Tim@work
>>>With this disk being 99% dedicated to the swapfile even if it is slow, will whip the arse off any CPU with the swap on the same disk as the system.<<<<

You got a link to prove & explain that? ,I seem to remember the opposite reading from an old site.The theory was that reading from another drive slows things down.

I've found the article I was thinking of (it had moved sites sometime back) ,lets see if I remember rightly!
http://www.adriansrojakpot.com/Speed_Demonz/Swapfile_Optimization/Swapfile_Optim ization_01.htm

The guide has been updated since I last read it

------------------
Want to search for ALIEN signals?SETI@home.
Want to join a helpful & friendly team? Team Anandtech

[This message has been edited by Assimilator1 (edited 12 May 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Assimilator1 (edited 12 May 2001).]

Join mankinds ultimate search SETI@Home
Team Anandtech 6th place :)

Assimilator1
Offline
Joined: May 12 2001

Here's the part of the article referring to swap file placing ,re HDD's http://www.adriansrojakpot.com/Speed_Demonz/Swapfile_Optimization/Swapfile_Optimization_17.htm

Basically if you have both HDD's on the SAME IDE channel do NOT put the swap file on the non system disc as this will slow down swap file access (2 HDD's on the same channel cannot be accessed at the same time).

------------------
Want to search for ALIEN signals?SETI@home.
Want to join a helpful & friendly team? Team Anandtech

Join mankinds ultimate search SETI@Home
Team Anandtech 6th place :)

GAK
Offline
Joined: Feb 10 2001

quote:Originally posted by Assimilator1:
Here's the part of the article referring to swap file placing ,re HDD's http://www.adriansrojakpot.com/Speed_Demonz/Swapfile_Optimization/Swapfile_Optim ization_17.htm

Basically if you have both HDD's on the SAME IDE channel do NOT put the swap file on the non system disc as this will slow down swap file access (2 HDD's on the same channel cannot be accessed at the same time).

Assimilator, that's a brilliant link - thanks - not just the answers but sufficient 'evidence' to make it convincing.

Here's the part of the article referring to swap file placing ,re HDD's

Bob: The conclusions from all ot this, and the link to the article really should be added to FAQ (and published in CV?). Perhaps call it "Hard Drives, video editing and the swap file"

I think the conclusions from this and other posts are as follows but, since I don't yet have a video editing set up maybe I have missed a few things?:

Ideally have a separate hard drive for video files. This should ideally use a separate ide channel to your boot disk.

Consider a dual boot arrangement so that you can maintain a clean (fast and less likely to crash) set up for video editing.

Consider the use of drive caddies - (i) so you can have multiple video drives for work in progress; (ii) as an alternative to dual booting a second hard drive.

A good in depth article on swap file size and location may be found at this link: [url=http://www.adriansrojakpot.com/Speed_Demonz/Swapfile_Optimization/Swapfile_Optimization_17.htm]http://www.adriansrojakpot.com/Speed_Demonz/Swapfile_Optimization/Swapfile_Optimization_17.htm
but basically, BUY MORE MEMORY to minimise the need for a swap file and:

locate the swap file on your boot drive, in the first partition. Make it either of fixed size or at least set the minimum size generously. (Unless you have a third hard drive, at least half as fast as the others and on a different (ie third) IDE channel.

Use a utility like Norton Speed Disk to Optimise the swap file. This will ensure it (or at least the fixed part of it) is not fragmented and is placed as near to the beginning of the disk as possible.

Don't set the fixed/mimimum size too excessively as it will occupy the fastest part of the drive and stop other programmes from doing the same.

[This message has been edited by GAK (edited 13 May 2001).]

johnpr98
Offline
Joined: Aug 20 1999

I have (for a while) been recommending using a seperate IDE channel for the Video drive(s)

It works for me, I know not everyone agrees as the second IDE channel is supposed to be slower with reduced performance.

Current Read is 23MB/S Write 18MB/S

It does the business for me (Updated info from my Optimisation page

IDE1 (Master) Maxtor 17GB 5400 C:\Windows & software + Partitioned as E:\MSPreview files & MSP Temp F:\Windows 2000

IDE1 (Slave) CDROM

IDE2 (Master)Maxtor 40GB 5400 Video files

IDE2 (Slave) Maxtor 40GB 5400 Video files

I don't have a seperate drive for my swap file, but I can see the advantage.

John Price
http://www.johnpr98.com

[This message has been edited by johnpr98 (edited 13 May 2001).]

johnpr98
 
If you have any Forum Suggestions please post them here

tim.callaghan
Offline
Joined: Apr 4 2001

Hi Assimilator,

I have read the link and it proves interesting.

All I know is that my suggestion is textbook to microsoft and most other publications. Sometimes general belief is wrong and the guy with the theory maybe right. It has worked for me all the time with this setup and I have noticed increases in speed when the pagefile/swapfile is on a separate disk regardless of the channel.

I don't recommend having the pagefile on the same disk when memory performance is key. I have no tests to prove this, but with everybody else having this recommendation I know who I'll be going with. In the instance of video capture/editing I would not advise the pagefile disk being on the same controller as the video disk as they will be the two most accessed disks.

Again, in theory the science makes sense, but so does the bs science they put on slimming pills (?). I'm going to stick with general concensus.

Tim

[This message has been edited by tim.callaghan (edited 14 May 2001).]

David
Offline
Joined: Apr 5 1999

Ahhhh! This one has reared it's head again!

One thing I did a long time ago was create a separate partition, on the HDD that also had the system partition, purely for the swap file.

This had two benefits ...

1) The swap file wouldn't scatter itself over the system drive, and hence the system drive maintained a state of less fragmentation for much longer, and

2) Starting the 'puter at the commnad prompt means you can periodically delete the residual swap file and hence ensure a very defragmented swap file also.

This configuration didn't necessarily give instantaneous blistering performance improvement, but it did prevent performance fall-off that had been experienced before - in video editing and in other apps.

D

[This message has been edited by David (edited 14 May 2001).]

David
Offline
Joined: Apr 5 1999

Ahhhh! This one has reared it's head again!

One thing I did a long time ago was create a separate partition, on the HDD that also had the system partition, purely for the swap file.

This had two benefits ...

1) The swap file wouldn't scatter itself over the system drive, and hence the system drive maintained a state of less fragmentation for much longer, and

2) Starting the 'puter at the commnad prompt means you can periodically delete the residual swap file and hence ensure a very defragmented swap file also.

This configuration didn't necessarily give instantaneous performance improvement, but it did prevent performance fall-off that had been experienced before - in video editing and in other apps.

D

Searcher22
Offline
Joined: Oct 1 2000

Hi All

This thread has become quite involved!!

I am still struggling to get my Prem6 running "jerky" free. Any AVI file still runs perfectly in Win Media Player i.e. low resource demand but the clip and timeline in P6 is jerky and fast playing after about 3 seconds.

Sorry, I have no wish to change the direction of the thread but in case you need to ask, I have tried all the updates VIA, Adobe, Microsoft etc and tweaks suggested here and everywhere I can find!!

The only hardware issue I have not tried is what Johnpr advises

IDE 1 OS and software disk

IDE 1 slave CD-ROM

IDE 2 Video drive

What about the fact that most CD-ROM drives run in Mode 4 which I thought was the next "speed" down from ATA66.

What impact does this have on the program(s) running. I appreciate that the most speed is required when accessing the Video files themselves and if as the thread suggests 2 HDD on the same channel can not "work" simultaneously then putting them on separate IDEs would be good.

But what about the swapfile running at Mode 4 speed.

So, one and all (especially John ?) what about the above issues