Unmoveable System Files other than pagefile and hiberfil?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

  1. Posts : 2,171
    Windows 7 Ultimate x64
       #11

    bbearren said:
    And yes, the pagefile is the first partition on the second disk, 4.5GB FAT32 with a 4GB fixed pagefile. I use the same setup with every machine.
    Oops. I mentioned FAT where it should be FAT32 due to file size. Corrected my earlier post.
      My Computer


  2. Posts : 23
    Windows 7 Ultimate x64
       #12

    bbearren said:
    And yes, the pagefile is the first partition on the second disk, 4.5GB FAT32 with a 4GB fixed pagefile. I use the same setup with every machine.
    Does using FAT32 make any difference vs NTFS? I just read a couple of accounts said it made no difference at all.
      My Computer


  3. Posts : 2,171
    Windows 7 Ultimate x64
       #13

    Oubadah said:
    Does using FAT32 make any difference vs NTFS? I just read a couple of accounts said it made no difference at all.
    Don't know how noticable it would be (speedwise). But you would have to think it could be faster because you would definitely avoid all the extra stuff NTFS does in the background (journaling/indexing/permissions/etc.).

    Plus, Windows tends to want to put some default folders on NTFS volumes even when you tell it not to (System Volume Imformation, $Recycle Bin). At least XP Pro did that. It was not too easy to get rid of them permanently. There were other programs that I've messed around with that wanted to add default folders to any NTFS volumes they ran across. Right off the bat I remember that AVG antivirus always added a Quarantine directory to every NTFS volume it ever scanned, even if it left it empty. I like clean volumes!!
      My Computer


  4. Posts : 23
    Windows 7 Ultimate x64
       #14

    sibbil said:
    Oubadah said:
    Does using FAT32 make any difference vs NTFS? I just read a couple of accounts said it made no difference at all.
    Don't know how noticable it would be (speedwise). But you would have to think it could be faster because you would definitely avoid all the extra stuff NTFS does in the background (journaling/indexing/permissions/etc.).

    Plus, Windows tends to want to put some default folders on NTFS volumes even when you tell it not to (System Volume Imformation, $Recycle Bin). At least XP Pro did that. It was not too easy to get rid of them permanently. There were other programs that I've messed around with that wanted to add default folders to any NTFS volumes they ran across. Right off the bat I remember that AVG antivirus always added a Quarantine directory to every NTFS volume it ever scanned, even if it left it empty. I like clean volumes!!

    Does it affect anything else having partitions with different file systems on the same disk?
      My Computer


  5. Posts : 2,171
    Windows 7 Ultimate x64
       #15

    Oubadah said:
    Does it affect anything else having partitions with different file systems on the same disk?
    Nope. At least not anything that I ever encoutered (I mean, when you say anything, I feel I need to qualify that answer). The FAT32 partition resides just fine with NTFS partitions. I've cloned, moved, erased, backed up, whatever, with no problem.

    And anyway, whatever filesystem you go with, it's easy enough to reformat to the other filesystem.
      My Computer


  6. Posts : 23
    Windows 7 Ultimate x64
       #16

    sibbil said:
    Oubadah said:
    Does it affect anything else having partitions with different file systems on the same disk?
    Nope. At least not anything that I ever encoutered (I mean, when you say anything, I feel I need to qualify that answer). The FAT32 partition resides just fine with NTFS partitions. I've cloned, moved, erased, backed up, whatever, with no problem.
    Yes those were the sort of thing I had in mind.

    A question for bbearren, would you still use the 4GB pagefile size for systems with more RAM? (16GB)
      My Computer


  7. Posts : 23
    Windows 7 Ultimate x64
       #17

    sibbil said:
    Plus, Windows tends to want to put some default folders on NTFS volumes even when you tell it not to (System Volume Imformation, $Recycle Bin). At least XP Pro did that. It was not too easy to get rid of them permanently. There were other programs that I've messed around with that wanted to add default folders to any NTFS volumes they ran across. Right off the bat I remember that AVG antivirus always added a Quarantine directory to every NTFS volume it ever scanned, even if it left it empty. I like clean volumes!!
    On this side-topic, I just checked the contents of a drive that hasn't been used (by me) for anything other than storing and running a couple of installers (drivers) when I was first setting up Windows. So why is there a msdownld.tmp there?

      My Computer


  8. whs
    Posts : 26,210
    Vista, Windows7, Mint Mate, Zorin, Windows 8
       #18

    1. The only limitation you have with Fat32 is that the maximum blocksize you can can write to it is 4GBs. That is rarely a problem, but e.g. Windows data backup may use that blocksize if you backup a chunk of data that is over 4GB large. But most other programs (even imaging programs) would break it down into 4GB blocks.

    2. With your kind of RAM, the maximum pagefile size I would use is 2GB - maybe even 1GB.
      My Computer


  9. Posts : 120
    7 Ultimate x64/7 Home Premium x64
       #19

    Oubadah said:
    A question for bbearren, would you still use the 4GB pagefile size for systems with more RAM? (16GB)
    Yes. I have 8GB RAM on this machine but only a 4GB pagefile. The size I chose is based more on habit than reason. With 32-bit XP, the maximum pagefile size was 4,095MB, 1MB shy of 4GB, which was the fixed pagefile size I always used.

    In addition to the (maybe unnoticable) slight speed increase of having the pagefile on the first partition of a second HDD, having a pagefile of fixed size on a dedicated partition eliminates fragmentation of the pagefile, another (maybe unoticable) slight speed increase, so I chose Windows' maximum allowable pagefile size so that a fixed size wouldn't cause a problem. This holds true (eliminating fragmentation of the pagefile) even if the dedicated partition is on the same HDD. Eliminating some fragmentation on a HDD never hurts.

    In all the time I've been using this setup, I have never had a virtual memory problem, so I continue to setup the pagefile this way. On a 1TB HDD, I won't miss the space; it's just a set it and forget it type of thing.

    Windows will always use the pagefile, regardless of the amount of RAM installed on a machine (unless one eliminates the pagefile), to page out the parts of the kernel (and other bits) that are used in the actual launch of the OS, but don't have much further use once the Windows environment is up and running.

    For some more exotic manipulations of Windows, visit my website.
      My Computer


  10. whs
    Posts : 26,210
    Vista, Windows7, Mint Mate, Zorin, Windows 8
       #20

    The pagefile performance discussion for systems with 4, 6, 8 or 16GBs of RAM is really useless. Look into Process Monitor > Memory tab. The graph on the bottom right will show you how many hard page faults you will get - practically zero. There is only the odd process that generates a page fault here and there - even if there is plenty of available RAM.

    So whether the pagefile is large or small, on this partition or disk or another partition or disk is completely irrelevant. If there are no page faults to start with, there is nothing you can "optimize".
      My Computer


 
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

  Related Discussions
Our Sites
Site Links
About Us
Windows 7 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 7" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

© Designer Media Ltd
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:18.
Find Us