Will
Sun Feb 29 16:12:29 CST 2004
As I won't let ****any**** Norton products anywhere near any of my PCs I =
hadn't realised this - thanks Noel.
--=20
Will Denny
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
"Noel Paton" <NoelDPspamless@btopenworld.com> wrote in message =
news:%23XZk1$w$DHA.392@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| It would do - if you used Norton SpeedDisk as defragger. This puts the
| swapfile at the front of the drive in a single block and fixes the =
size (if
| you use the 'Optimize' [sic] option)
|=20
|=20
| --=20
| Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2004, Win9x)
|=20
| Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
|
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
|=20
| Please read
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to =
NG's
|=20
| "Will Denny" <willdenny@mvps.org> wrote in message
| news:e%23l3%237w$DHA.1844@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
| Noel - I've just tried a Defrag on a Win 9x partition. The Swap file =
was
| defragmented, but couldn't be defragged and moved. Ergo - a permanent =
Swap
| File wouldn't necessarily help minimise the fragmentation of a hard
| disk/partition.
|=20
| --=20
|=20
| Will Denny
| MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
|=20
|=20
| "Noel Paton" <NoelDPspamless@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
| news:%23jyIL0w$DHA.2804@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| | perhaps - but putting the swapfile into its own partition would do =
the
| same.
| | fragmentation delays on an unused swapfile are zero anyhow!
| |
| | --=20
| | Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2004, Win9x)
| |
| | Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
| |
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
| |
| | Please read
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to =
NG's
| |
| | "JamesJ" <jjy@adelphia.net> wrote in message
| | news:%23py3fxw$DHA.3400@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| | > One more observation. Fragmentation. Wouldn't a permanent swap =
file
| | > keep fragmentation at a minimum?
| | >
| | > James
| | >
| | > "Noel Paton" <NoelDPspamless@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
| | > news:es6rdqw$DHA.2336@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
| | > > As I said before, there's almost NEVER a good reason for a huge =
(or
| even
| | > > fixed) swapfile - the more RAM you have, the less the need for =
ANY
| | > > swapfile - and most systems with 1GB+ can survive quite well on =
a
| | swapfile
| | > > of 100MB or less (if only the running apps would let it!)
| | > >
| | > > The problem arises when running apps specify the swapfile size
| required
| | on
| | > > loading - which they shouldn't (but many do). The more of that =
type
| you
| | > > have, the more VM you need - irrespective of the RAM available.
| | > >
| | > > Since ME came out, and RAM got so cheap and processor so fast, a =
lot
| of
| | > > people are running many more apps than it was originally =
envisaged
| that
| | > they
| | > > would - with resulting problems with Resources.
| | > > For some reason, many people confuse Resources with Memory - and =
the
| fun
| | > > starts.
| | > >
| | > >
| | > >
| | > > --=20
| | > > Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2004, Win9x)
| | > >
| | > > Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
| | > >
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
| | > >
| | > > Please read
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post =
messages to
| | NG's
| | > >
| | > > "JamesJ" <jjy@adelphia.net> wrote in message
| | > > news:%23TUPNmw$DHA.2524@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| | > > > I've always setup a permanent swap file and I've always used =
2.5 or
| 3
| | > > times
| | > > > my actual physical memory. I'm not a mathematician but, I have =
1 gb
| of
| | > > > installed
| | > > > RAM, isn't that 1,000 mb?
| | > > > If it's to large for Win9x I'll tone it down but why the
| discrepancy??
| | > > >
| | > > > Thanks,
| | > > > James
| | > > >
| | > > > "Noel Paton" <NoelDPspamless@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
| | > > > news:u9$lFcw$DHA.2348@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| | > > > > IIRC, it's actually 'too large' for a Win9x system, which is
| limited
| | > to
| | > > > > files of 4GB - or effectively 2GB???
| | > > > >
| | > > > > --=20
| | > > > > Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2004, Win9x)
| | > > > >
| | > > > > Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
| | > > > >
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
| | > > > >
| | > > > > Please read
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post =
messages
| to
| | > > NG's
| | > > > >
| | > > > > "Will Denny" <willdenny@mvps.org> wrote in message
| | > > > > news:eEbJAVw$DHA.1036@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| | > > > > Hi James
| | > > > >
| | > > > > I think that you need to downsize the spec. for your =
Swapfile -
| 3GBs
| | > is
| | > > > > 'rather' large.
| | > > > >
| | > > > > --=20
| | > > > >
| | > > > > Will Denny
| | > > > > MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
| | > > > >
| | > > > >
| | > > > > "JamesJ" <jjy@adelphia.net> wrote in message
| | > > > > news:OLVi2Qw$DHA.4060@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| | > > > > | I've specified a 3000 mb permanent swap file in virtual =
memory.
| | > (3000
| | > > > Min.
| | > > > > | and 3000 Max)
| | > > > > | Explorer is reporting the size of WIN386.SWP as 100 mb.
| | > > > > | Any ideas for the discrepancy?
| | > > > > |
| | > > > > | Thanks,
| | > > > > | James
| | > > > > |
| | > > > > |
| | > > > >
| | > > > >
| | > > > > ---
| | > > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
| | > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (
http://www.grisoft.com).
| | > > > > Version: 6.0.600 / Virus Database: 381 - Release Date: =
28/02/2004
| | > > > >
| | > > > >
| | > > >
| | > > >
| | > >
| | > >
| | >
| | >
| |
| |
|=20
|=20
| ---
| Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
| Checked by AVG anti-virus system (
http://www.grisoft.com).
| Version: 6.0.600 / Virus Database: 381 - Release Date: 28/02/2004
|=20
|=20
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (
http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.600 / Virus Database: 381 - Release Date: 28/02/2004