Solved SSD; Moved 'Users' and 'ProgData', SP1 OK. About 'Program Files'?

[USASAgencyman]

Unattend .xml answer file worked great on 2600K build, updates are smooth, machine stable for 8 x 8 folding at 100% all cores, and as much varied work as I could throw at it all the while.

I have read about the idea of moving Program Files too, but don't know if the risk is worth it. I like keeping C:\ as small as possible, but are there common programs that will barf if they don't find Program Files on C:\?

If anyone has done this, did you use the Unattend answer file method on build?

Thanks in advance for any input, about to trash my own current build on this SR2.

Bruce

 

[stormy13]

Bruce welcome to the Seven Forums.

A much easier option than trying to move the Program Files folder (which I'm not even sure if it is possible) is to just install your programs to the HDD. Most programs give a custom option during install where you can choose where to install it, usually just by changing the drive letter in the "install to" line. Doing that you then end up with a "new" Program Files folder as well. Just install those programs that either don't cooperate and let you choose, or those that ideally should be on C (AV, etc).

 

[USASAgencyman]

Stormy,

I had to go with something this afternoon and decided to be happy building it with 'Users' and 'ProgramData' on D:\, -and against trying to build with Program Files moved to D:\, and have done as you said, loaded most all of them to D:\ by using the dialog boxes for the path option.

I had never been aware of how high of a percentage of programs allow this. I had just been going with the suggested path to the usual C:\. Only a few insisted on C:\, and a few I decided myself to place there for reasons I can only attribute to - gut feeling.

So I have a much leaner SSD now; only 57 Gb used out of the 120 odd Gb available, versus having almost 3/4 of it consumed, and most of my usual list is now installed.

Thanks for taking the time to reply,
Bruce

 

[startas]

Do you move these folders to another ssd or to simple hdd ? because if you are moving your folders to hdd, then your ssd is useless.

 

[USASAgencyman]

In the case of this customer's machine, we have 16 Gb RAM, so the most used parts of the program are loaded from HDD and run with little swapping, and the goal is to have a very large Scratchpad on C:\ for the Adobe batch renderings, etc.

You bring up an interesting concept though. Now I have to consider which programs might be hampered by having user and Program Data Folders, as well as program files when so installed on D:\.

Thanks for the input. This is not solved yet.

The best solution will come when very large and affordable SSDs evolve.

Bruce

 

[cluberti]

Be aware that moving the ProgramData folder will break servicing, so the next time a service pack or a major servicing engine patch comes out you're going to be rebuilding rather than upgrading. Just be aware that folder is finnicky when it comes to servicing, and one of the drawbacks of moving it means you can't service the OS going forward. Moving the rest is technically OK, although for Program Files it is usually better to leave that alone (due to UAC trust paths being broken if you move it) and just force installation for new programs to the \Program Files folder on whichever drive you desire. I have had updates in the past for both Windows and other software packages that don't work or don't work properly due to the location. If you've tested the apps and they work OK from a different location (technically they should, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they always will), you should be OK.

 

[USASAgencyman]

SP1 installed smoothly

I only hope that is a prediction for smooth sailing ahead on small or major updates.

I read the threads on moving such things after O.S. is up, but decided to move them during the build, so with some luck, Windows will notice the current paths.

Bruce

 

[DeaconFrost]

I wouldn't have moved any of those files off of the SSD, to be honest. What's the point of a fast drive if you move so much off of it? I ran with a 64 GB SSD for a while, and only moved my games to a spinner.

 

[USASAgencyman]

I wouldn't have moved any of those files off of the SSD, to be honest. What's the point of a fast drive if you move so much off of it? I ran with a 64 GB SSD for a while, and only moved my games to a spinner.

I'm still trying to learn the basics. The first go around, I had only about a third of the drive left after O.S. and lots of programs, which seemed less than a good starting point, knowing how C: always soon filled up.

The main programs in this case are the Adobe CS. I actually DO have them on C:, as well as some others.

I have zero experience with tracking RAM use and virtual memory usage during large batch processes,

Also, in my experience, even short HD vids consume vast resources of memory and disk. I want as much room as possible on the SSD C: for all this.

I don't give a rat's posterior about how fast most of the daily routine apps load when launching.

Still, I have much to research; I have, until recently, been mostly unaware of the discussions about the need to do the relocation, or the arguments that it fails to help.

But all input helps steer me, this thread, toward resolution.

Thanks for all responses.
Bruce

 

[whs]

So I have a much leaner SSD now; only 57 Gb used out of the 120 odd Gb available, versus having almost 3/4 of it consumed, and most of my usual list is now installed.

Why are you actually doing that. Do you want to save the space on the SSD for a rainy day. And I do not think it is a good idea all together - maybe for large games, but not for the bread and butter programs. My systems run on 60GB SSDs and I never moved a program file of which I have 24.500 in the x64 and x86 folders together (as per Properties).

 

[USASAgencyman]

Why are you actually doing that. Do you want to save the space on the SSD for a rainy day.

Yes! People will continually add things. So part of the objective is to continue to have the 'scratchpad' space to render large batches of large images, or very large vid file editing. And as I already stated, the main large program IS on the SSD.

And I do not think it is a good idea all together - maybe for large games, but not for the bread and butter programs. My systems run on 60GB SSDs and I never moved a program file of which I have 24.500 in the x64 and x86 folders together (as per Properties).

This is not about gaming either, customer does not game.

 

[whs]

If you move the user files to the HDD, eliminate the hiberfile, make the pagefile 2GBs and remove all the junk that came with the system, you should not have more than 20GBs for the system. You can add a LOT of programs before that will grow to 30GBs.

 

[USASAgencyman]

I just checked, 128 Gb SSD drive is already about 50%. What does your laptop have on C:?

BTW, I have no problem with pagefile being large. Try some HD editing sometime. I was amazed at the demands, and no I didn't have time to do measurements then.

 

[whs]

What on earth is on this C: partition. If I were you, I would check that with WinDirStat. Also check the shadowstorage with the following command:

vssadmin list shadowstorage

because the allocated shadowstorage will not show in WinDirStat.

 

[USASAgencyman]

Allocated shadow, 3.34 Gb, Max 6 Gb.

From WinDirStat. Sorry, -forgot to get rid of hiberfile on this build, and a few other things, back to 40 Gb used 80 free. Windows 13.5, a pagefile of 24 Gb equal to RAM.

Rest is program files mainly.

 

[whs]

Who needs a pagefile of 24GB - unless you plan for BSODs. I would reduce it to 2GB.

 

[USASAgencyman]

The rule of thumb is over 4 Gb RAM no pagefile needed at all?

I think about editing uncompressed HD video running 100Mb/sec. and wonder if that's still the case? Until I do some testing, I only have some guidelines tossed around by video production guys. Who knows; I might be able to get by with just a single 40 Mb HDD, a Celeron 400 and 512 MB RAM...

 

[whs]

You have to have some pagefile because programs do use it even if there is plenty of available RAM. But 2GB will largely serve the purpose. If you eliminate the pagefile all together, the system will create a temporary pagefile every time you boot. And that is not a desirable configuration.

 

[startas]

Well, i have disabled pagefile even with 3 gb ram, and never noticed anything bad. Anyway, if you are doing some serious video editing, then maybe you can just buy another ssd ? Because, if it's serious video editing, then it must be your job, not hobby.

 

[USASAgencyman]

We don't yet know how much serious video work he will be doing, but has a lot of material from other continents, as well as thousands of stills, and wants enough hardware to get started without any upgrades for a while, other than storage. He had already become unhappy with his old machine due to slowness just in Illustrator.

If necessary I'll put in two or even four larger SSDs, and save the spinners for routine backup outside of RAID.

It is no hobby, he hates to even think about how a computer needs maintenance and upgrades and servicing. I call it a job.