I run XP Pro.
My mobo does not support SATA.
I have several hard drives. All my HDD's are PATA and 133 MBps

My operating system partition is on the primary master HDD.
I have placed various cache files in a separate partition on a
seperate HDD.

------

QUESTION ONE
For performance, is it better to configure the HDD containing this
Cache Partition on the mobo's *secondary* IDE socket (as either
master or slave). Or could I configure the Cache Partition as
primary slave without loss of performance?


QUESTION TWO
For performance, does it matter if I move a HDD from being master to
being slave on the same IDE cable? For example, is it ok to change
my system HDD from primary master to primary slave?

------

In all cases I would always make sure there is one of my HDDs
configured as Master on an IDE cable in order to prevent possible
problems due to an unterminated cable.

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Joe S <js@foldback.net> wrote:
Asuming you mean ''swap'' partitions, then they will slow down
a whole IDE channel, so keep them on the secondary channel with
no other HDD on that channel. Unless the swap usage is low, then
there will be no real effect.

No impact at all. Master/Slave only impacte the numbering and which
drive issues and de-asserts the channel reset after power-up.

Master/slave has no impact on termination.

Arno

You would think that putting the Swap file on an separate Hard Disc would be
faster than same as O/S & if that 2nd HD was on a separate IDE cable faster
still .
But I suspect there would be very little if any difference..
What WOULD (maybe) improve things a bit is how full the HD with swapfile is
..
The less full that disc the less time for Windows to find & use.
& it really helps if you go into Windows System properties & set a fixed
size for that
Swap File (about same size as your total RAM) rather than the "let Windows
manage"
default setting.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Trimble Bracegirdle <no-spam@Spam.Not> wrote:

Its arguable if thats what he meant by cache partitions.

It makes a lot more sense to have enough physical ram so it isnt used much instead.

You wouldnt be able to pick it in a double blind trial.

That is just plain wrong.

Nope, not if you have enough physical ram so it isnt used much.

And its silly to be having the swap file as big as the physical ram when
you have enough physical ram to see the swap file rarely used too.

Joe S <js@foldback.net> wrote

Yes, you wouldnt be able to pick it in a double blind trial.


Yes.

It isnt the master/slave that matters, its that a drive is on the end drive connector.

On 10 Mar 2007, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Rod, I guess that is what I was trying to say!

I have 80-way cables. And I set my HDD jumpers to Cable Select.

ISTR that 80-way cables are wired such if the HDDs are Cable Select
then the end drive is the master. Am sure I will be corrected if I
am wrong.

On 10 Mar 2007, Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote:

Arno, in my "Cache Partition" I have got the swap file for WinXP.
Also in there are the index files for Desktop Search and for some
similar indexing applications. There is also some thumbnails files
for my photo viewer and a few more things like that.

The partition is about 10 GB.

I keep these files in this partition partly for better performance
but also because when the indexes get rebuilt (as they do from time
to time) then the index files are not intertwined with all the other
WinXP system files and various application files. With a separate
partition I figure that the files can be more contiguous with one
another and so can the clusters for a given file.

Joe S wrote:
How much memory do you have?

What applications do you run?

How many applications do you have active at one time?

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 20:35:55 GMT, Joe S <js@foldback.net> wrote:

You can spend endless hours horsing around with this kind of thing
and never perceive a difference in performance.
Except as a means to learn about how swapping works, which it appears
you've done, it's probably more profitable to expend your energies
elsewhere.

--Vic

Joe S <js@foldback.net> wrote:
Correct.

No, you are correct.

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Joe S <js@foldback.net> wrote:


Ah, I see. Yes, calling that a "cache partition" makes sense.


You should put the "cache disk" on an IDE channel of its own.
A CDROM/DVD-ROM on the same channel should be ok, but another
disk will result in slowdown.

Arno

Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote:
Wrong if the drive the OS is on isnt being used much
as is the case with most personal desktop systems.

"Joe S" <js@foldback.net> wrote...
It probably doesn't matter much at all. More important is that the pagefile
is on either the boot partition or a separate HD that is of equal or better
performance than the boot HD. Putting the pagefile on a slower HD won't
help at all.

Assuming the other IDE devices aren't used full-time, I'd opt to put the HD
with the pagefile on the secondary Master.


As long as the BIOS supports booting from the slave, there should be no
performance difference. However, why would you do that? What will go on
primary Master?

John Weiss <jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet> wrote
Makes a lot more sense to have enough physical ram so the swap
file isnt actually used due to the lack of enough physical ram.

Rod Speed wrote:

My understanding is that unless the pagefile is set to zero, there's
probably going to be some pagefile use even with a large amount of RAM.

I didn't see any reference to the operating system in use. If its
Linux, IIRC a swapfile is required. I think the recommendation is about
twice the amount of memory. And the Linux system monitor indicates that
it does get used even if there's plenty of real memory.

Old Guy <olderguy@oldestguy.com> wrote:

The more RAM, the bigger the swap file?
Apparently making an assumption about the reason you have more RAM.

John Doe wrote:
Don't know. I've been using Linux on and off for a long time, maybe ten
years, and I think its always been that way.

Doesn't windoze default to a max size 2X of memory?

Old Guy <olderguy@oldestguy.com> wrote:

My Windows XP defaults to 1536 MB with 1 GB of RAM. I don't know what
it depends on.

Old Guy <olderguy@oldestguy.com> wrote
Yes, that's why I included the bit after my 'due to' just above.

BUT that minimal page file use only happens in the background
when there is plenty of free resources, so the location of the
page file has no impact on the performance of the system.

If he doesnt say, its reasonable to assume he's talking about Win.

Nope, that is completely silly. If you double the amount
of physical ram, you dont need to double the swapfile.

Same with Win, BUT that use has no impact on
performance and so the location of it doesnt matter.

Old Guy <olderguy@oldestguy.com> wrote
Nope.

Nope, it defaults of a variable sized swap file that gets used as required.