Show us your hard drive performance

would it be better on the same drive but another partition as the o/s if that drive was faster or another drive altogether that was slightly slower?

swarfega said:

You could put it on another partition on the same drive. Some recommend that but my personal preferance is a separate physical hard drive preferably with 32mb cache buffer and at least 7200rpm.

Having pagefile on another partition is still preferable to having it on the same partition as the OS.

cool thnx for ya help! ill give it a try, though im not sure how or what to expect in the performance side of it

i already had my 1tb main drive partitioned into 3 drives win7 7057x64, win vista ultx64, that weird 200mb partition it makes upon installing windowz and now a partition i made for the pagefile 20gb total and set the pagefile for 6gb min max and will do the same for vistorium.

and then there were 4...

my other samsung (backup) drive is hardly a performer compared to the 1tb seagate, but the other debate i was thinking is that it will still but the extra load on the same drive as the o/s, but will it still be better than using the lower spec drive???

The Windows managed size seen here is 3.582gb for the 4gb of memory installed. For customizing the larger 5gb-6gb would be a though for the 32bit Windows. Some definitely prefer seeing the paging file designated to a separate partition or drive on gaming builds.

With the 64bit kernel you are seeing less requirement there for the paging file to begin with. But even with 32bit Windows whether 7, Vista, or XP some will go further and actually disable the creation of it from the start as another way to boost performance on the 32bit side.

Meanwhile I have to find out what's so different about the Green Power 500gb WD over the typical Caviar SE models for suddenly getting the tuner card running plus now being able to record video on 7! Getting back to that old HD Tune maybe a look there will have soime indication for that!



There doesn't seen to be anything odd about this drive compared to the others with the only difference being the 7077 build.

well this is with my drive and a seperate partition on it as page file, my other screen shot with the pagefile on the same o/s partition is somewhere in this thread.


EDIT my sammy sung

With XP, Vista, and the 7 builds they all see the paging file on the same partition so that wouldn't work here too well. The image there was simply a repeat test on the same drive again. That was with the 251 again as well since I forgot to copy the 255 over. oops!

Gee? I'm batting a thousand today! That was the Vista /7 64bit there while something interesting came up on the 7077 drive namely 14.7ms over the other drives seeing the usual 13.5ms?

Night Hawk said:

With XP, Vista, and the 7 builds they all see the paging file on the same partition so that wouldn't work here too well. The image there was simply a repeat test on the same drive again. That was with the 251 again as well since I forgot to copy the 255 over. oops!

Gee? I'm batting a thousand today! That was the Vista /7 64bit there while something interesting came up on the 7077 drive namely 14.7ms over the other drives seeing the usual 13.5ms?

maybe the cpu usage something to do with your access time? cpu usage=hdd usage?

bloke said:

maybe the cpu usage something to do with your access time? cpu usage=hdd usage?

That's always possible since I always seem to be busy doing something here.

Actually I suspect it has to do with being taken out of the external enclosure for internal use being one of the Green Power series. That's supposed the energy efficient line of drives like the 1tb that was already in use. The regular Cavier line has the faster access time seen there.