Moving Paging File to another Partition

[rubyrubyroo]

just look at your advanced system properties screen again and tell me how many page files it displays as anthing other than "none" it'll be 1 or 2 either "C:" or "C: and D:" will have active page files I'm gessing the former is true.

 

[gregrocker]

Unfortunately if you move the Paging or Hibernation files or User folders to another HD, Win7 Backup Imaging will want to include that partition in the image since it contains System Files.

You might want to check out other imaging apps like Acronis True Image which comes free with any WD or Seagate HD in the mix, as some don't include the paging or hibernation files.

Meanwhile you can disable and delete the paging and hibernation file when you make the image, then turn it back on afterwards.

 

[MilesAhead]

Unfortunately if you move the Paging or Hibernation files or User folders to another HD, Win7 Backup Imaging will want to include that partition in the image since it contains System Files.

You might want to check out other imaging apps like Acronis True Image which comes free with any WD or Seagate HD in the mix, as some don't include the paging or hibernation files.

Meanwhile you can disable and delete the paging and hibernation file when you make the image, then turn it back on afterwards.

+1 I know Macrium Reflect and Easus ToDo also do not save the page file in backup images. The free versions of both now have USB 3.0 support in their Linux Boot CDs.

 

[rubyrubyroo]

thenoo,

hey man - did you go ahead and try to fix it? and just not reply (to everyne who tried to help you) or did you "cut the red wire" when you should have cut the "blue one"?!?!?!!! (me hopes not! )

just havn't heard a peep

Mike

 

[DerekGCWhite]

Thenoo,

I used the following method:
1) Create a partition a bit beggier that file file you require, in my case 8GB memory MS suggested around 16GB of pagefile so I created a partition of 35GB to allow for 16GB of memory an a bit more - I do this as it removes any fragmentation from the Pagefile and the only IO to that partition is PageFile IO
2) Use the Advance Setting to create a Pagefile the max=min=recommended, but on the new Partition, say drive P:
3) Specify No Page file on drive C:
4) Apply changes
5) Reboot the system

Word of caution - the only place Windows can put memory dumps is into a PageFile on the System drive thus if you move the pagefile to a different partition you will never get any system dump if you have a BSOD

If you are looking to speed up IO access to various areas of the system information have you considered using RAID0? I have just put all my data on a 3 disc RAID5 array and the system (and all system files) on a 2 disc RAID0 array. I now have a system that if you blink you miss the opening up MS Word/Excel/etc. I have not done any scientific analysis on the speed difference but the system is VERY much faster

I have 60GB of SSD as cache to go in in front of the RAID0 to make it even faster when I can get the System drive over to RAID0

 

[MilesAhead]

Thenoo,

I used the following method:
1) Create a partition a bit beggier that file file you require, in my case 8GB memory MS suggested around 16GB of pagefile so I created a partition of 35GB to allow for 16GB of memory an a bit more - I do this as it removes any fragmentation from the Pagefile and the only IO to that partition is PageFile IO
2) Use the Advance Setting to create a Pagefile the max=min=recommended, but on the new Partition, say drive P:
3) Specify No Page file on drive C:
4) Apply changes
5) Reboot the system

Word of caution - the only place Windows can put memory dumps is into a PageFile on the System drive thus if you move the pagefile to a different partition you will never get any system dump if you have a BSOD

If you are looking to speed up IO access to various areas of the system information have you considered using RAID0? I have just put all my data on a 3 disc RAID5 array and the system (and all system files) on a 2 disc RAID0 array. I now have a system that if you blink you miss the opening up MS Word/Excel/etc. I have not done any scientific analysis on the speed difference but the system is VERY much faster

I have 60GB of SSD as cache to go in in front of the RAID0 to make it even faster when I can get the System drive over to RAID0

Sounds like you have it perfected. It's too bad there aren't more options when setting these things up. On Linux you have much more flexibility. You can have swap partitions, swap files(created dynamically if needed) and also schemes such as using secondary swap only if primary swap is exhausted, round robin etc..

Esp. where the dump file is hard wired there should be an option to dynamically create the page file when needed. I mean, this is primitive stuff. I was doing round robins swaps across 2 physical drives in Linux over 10 years ago.

 

[DerekGCWhite]

I cut my teeth in the world of mainframes when 128MB was a massive system that got man to the moon and back and discs had to be turned on one at a time because the Battersea Power Station could not cope if we started them all together

Squeezing every drop of IO out of the system was the order of the day

I have found that using RAID0 has extended the life of my smaller discs and I now get stunning speeds from simple 7200 rpm 32mb cache because there are multiple channels to each bit of data

I trust not to far off thread, please remove if it is

 

[rubyrubyroo]

Derek,
Greetings! Your stepwise method is basically the general consensus I think that has been arrived at (short the size of the partition/pagefile, which I am not interesting in opposing n or agreeing in this thread)

but as to the RAID and use of solid-state technologies and whatnot, as alternative methods of speed increasing a system, I think that is outside of the scope of the users PARTICULAR reason for the post (making a smaller drive size image for a backup) and the users problems seemed to pose problems that your steps did not address in the form of an additional copy of the same page file and if it should/could be deleted along with how.

Your information does seem to be correct to me though in the general sense. Although I never knew that about the dumb files, re:BSOD messages. Are you sure? Not dumped elsewhere maybe? or need to be set to be dumped elsewhere?... if it is true, than that is interesting info, I'll definitely check it out later, and I'll rep ya if your right (also do you know what systems this may or may not apply to?)

Thanks!
Mike

 

[rubyrubyroo]

no not to far! ! (off topic) esp. considering thread starter is "at large"!

also wasn't that 3 c64's on apollo-13?

Mike

 

[rubyrubyroo]

And stop cutting your teeth, it's a bad habit!! also it's kinda like schrtching on chalkboards with reallly big nails for me in my mind's ear to hear about someone doing such things (real or expressions!)


MIKE:shock:

 

[MilesAhead]

I cut my teeth in the world of mainframes when 128MB was a massive system that got man to the moon and back and discs had to be turned on one at a time because the Battersea Power Station could not cope if we started them all together

Squeezing every drop of IO out of the system was the order of the day

I have found that using RAID0 has extended the life of my smaller discs and I now get stunning speeds from simple 7200 rpm 32mb cache because there are multiple channels to each bit of data

I trust not to far off thread, please remove if it is

All I'm saying is it's way past time for some meaningful system settings in Windows. It wasn't an attack on you. You've done what can be done with the settings available.

Filtering swap through the file system after all this time shows they only care about the next glitzy looking thing that will be abandoned when the buzz wears off(see Gadgets thread.)

edit: I mention it because what you did with the page file on its own partition is emulating a swap partition. The system should just give you the option. It's not like it's some arcane newly-discovered theorem. It's been in use on other systems for a long timne.


And why does a system dump have to have a page file? Seems to me OS/2 used a dump file way back in the 90s.

All I can figure is the guys from DEC who wrote NT are dead or retired and they haven't been replaced with anyone of similar competence.

 

[rubyrubyroo]

Oh I agree Miles...windows is focused on the general audience, not the ideal situation for each one's experience (it would seem to me at least) and $$$-wise it makes sence...so i cant say i blame them.
(NOT MS EMPLOYEES IN GENERAL NECESSARILY - just the Co. conceptual design)

but we may be getting WAY off topic but you're absolutely right - focus on making these types of things simpler to do... I think more people would appreciate it than the "numbers" say would.....

Mike

 

[Cypherdude]

In an attempt to move my paging file from my C: Partition , due to my unfamiliararity with the process , I've now got this file on both my C: drive and the new desired Partiton.

Is it OK now to simply delete this file from the C: Partition , thus leaving me with only one paging file on this other Partition ?

My reason for using this process is an attempt to reduce the size of an Image File of my C: Partition .

It is possible to have a Page File on multiple partitions. It is not recommended to have your paging file on a different partition which is on the same hard drive as Windows. The reason is your drive will have to work harder because it must read both partitions:
1) The first partition with Windows
2) The other partition with the page file

Your hard drive would have to constantly switch between reading your Windows partition and the partition with the page file. This will reduce performance and increase wear on your hard drive.

However, if you have multiple separately running hard drives (nonRAIDed) it is actually recommended to create your page file on your nonWindows (nonO/S) running drives. If you have 2 drives, you can create your page file on the first partition on the second drive and remove the page file on the first drive. If you have 3 drives, you can create half your page file on the first partition on the second drive and create the other half of your page file on the first partition of the third drive. Of course, you would do this using the "Advanced System Properties" dialog, not Windows Explorer.

This will increase performance because your Windows hard drive will not be forced to deal with your page file. Your controller can deal with multiple hard drives much faster. If you have 3 hard drives, your 2nd and 3rd drives will divide the work and increase performance even more. I have 3 hard drives and have done the above. I have noticed a performance increase.

When I make a backup, I simply make a copy of the Windows partition using my partition software. I do not use the Windows 7 backup program. I do not know the effects placing the page file on other drives would have on the Windows 7 backup program.

The following can be used for reference:
1) Microsoft's Tech·Ed Europe 2009 Pushing the Limits of Windows video at 33min:00sec to 36min:33sec regarding page file size

2) Windows 7 Inside Out on page 726 regarding performance over multiple HDD's

You might want to download the "Pushing the Limits of Windows" WMV video file and view the entire video. It has other information you will find useful. In fact, you might want to download and view all of the Mark Russinovich videos. They have a lot of useful information. You should also download and install his free Sysinternals utilities (now bought by Microsoft), particularly Process Explorer and Process Monitor.

Good luck

 

[OldMX]

In an attempt to move my paging file from my C: Partition , due to my unfamiliararity with the process , I've now got this file on both my C: drive and the new desired Partiton.

Is it OK now to simply delete this file from the C: Partition , thus leaving me with only one paging file on this other Partition ?

My reason for using this process is an attempt to reduce the size of an Image File of my C: Partition .

TL;DR, if you have a single disk, leave the pagefile alone, ALL imaging softwares around ignore the PF, so its useless to mess with it to decrease image size.

 

[DerekGCWhite]

The only thing I would add to this post is:

1. Forcing the Page file to have the same maximum and minimum page file size removes an problems of Page File fragmentation however;
2. Ensuring the PC has the correct amount of RAM is the most effective way of speeding up the system as the Page File is then unlikely to be accessed

 

[rubyrubyroo]

TL;DR, if you have a single disk, leave the pagefile alone, ALL imaging softwares around ignore the PF, so its useless to mess with it to decrease image size.

I agree, there's no reason to move the PF on a one HDD sys! But just to clarify, MOST imaging SW will not copy the PF, although some apps will, offer a full bit-by-bit raw-image of the ENTIRE drive which, does in fact copy the PF, HF, REGF's, SYSV, etc. irregardless of special file attributes/status. I don't remember ever needing it with a win 7 sys, but I see no reason why it would differ from vista/xp/etc.

Mike

 

[Dinesh]

Hi there, found a tutorial for this issue: Virtual Memory Paging File - Change - Vista Forums