Pagefile placement

[JDPower]

Was just wondering what the optimimum place on the hard drive is for the pagefile? I'm asking as I tried Paragons defragger this week and it moves the pagefile to about 3% into the disk, this seems a little close to the start IMO.

So where on the disk do you think the pagefile should be placed for optimum performance of the computer as a whole? And would it ever be a worthy addition to JKDefrag to move the pagefile to an optimum position or is that (as I suspect) extremely difficult/impossible to code and not worth the hassle of adding to JKD?

(BTW I think JKDefrag is far better than Paragon's defragger, miles faster and better optimisation strategies :wink: )

[jeroen]

what the optimimum place on the hard drive is for the pagefile?

I think that can only be answered by measuring. It depends on several factors, such as how much memory the computer has, how much of that memory is used, how frequently the swapfile is used, and which other files on disk are frequently used. I think on most computers the pagefile is not used so much, so does not have to be at the front of the disk.

is that (as I suspect) extremely difficult/impossible to code and not worth the hassle of adding to JKD?

JkDefrag is based on the Microsoft defragmentation API and can only move a file if the API can move the file. The API has differences between the Windows versions. On Windows Vista is can move just about all files, including the MFT.

[pYjamas]

Having the pagefile on a different physical disk than your OS makes a difference. But there's three choices as I see it that you could make and I'm wondering what would be best.

If you have two harddrives or more what would be best?

My setup: I have two 250 gb satadrives so what would be best for me:

1. disk1: partition1: pagefile, partition2: windows
    disk2: storage

2. disk1: partition1: pagefile, partition2: storage
    disk2: partition1: windows, partition2: storage

3. disk1: partition1: windows, partition2: storage
    disk2: partition1: pagefile, partition2: storage

Having the pagefile on the start of the disk should be most beneficial but having the OS on the second disk I'm not so sure. Granted the OS is still on the start of the second disk so it shouldn't matter right?

What about having storage on the same disk as the pagefile and OS? Does  that degrade performance or does regular defragging keep the performance up?

[jeroen]

Number 1 is definitiely no-no, because the second partition on a harddisk is considerably slower than the first partition. Number 2 and 3 will have the exact same speed.

I think you are attaching too much importance to the pagefile. If your computer has enough memory then the pagefile is not used that much.

[pYjamas]

Of course, having enough memory means the pagefile won't be used that much but having the pagefile on the fastest part of the disk would be the best in any case.

[jeroen]

having the pagefile on the fastest part of the disk would be the best in any case.

No. The begin of the harddisk is the fastest part, and that's where the files should be placed that will benefit the most. If the pagefile is not used (a lot) then it should be placed it at the end of data on the disk.

[pYjamas]

But wouldn't operations like extracting rar-archives improve if the pagefile was at the beginning of the second harddrive in my system? Having the pagefile at the end of the second harddrive can't be better even if it's not used that much. Do you agree?

[jeroen]

If you have 2 harddisks to play with then go ahead, place the pagefile at the begin of the second harddisk. It can't hurt. But I can only repeat; if your computer has enough memory then the pagefile will not be used much. So I don't think it matters much where you place it. Perhaps a better use for the begin of the second harddisk would be the "c:/Program Files" directory. Or maybe the temp directories.

[pYjamas]

But placing the program files on the first part of the disk isn't very optimal for general application speed in windows i think.

Having the tempfiles on the first part of disk1 and pagefile on the first part of disk2, that would be a good setup yes?

just a quick question? what defragging-method is the best for the temp/pagefile-partition? The a3 or any of the sorting methods?

[jeroen]

But placing the program files on the first part of the disk isn't very optimal for general application speed in windows i think.

Why not?

Having the tempfiles on the first part of disk1 and pagefile on the first part of disk2, that would be a good setup yes?

Windows has to go on the first part of disk 1. On the second disk I think first the temp files, followed by the program files. The pagefile at the end of the first or or the second disk.

just a quick question? what defragging-method is the best for the temp/pagefile-partition? The a3 or any of the sorting methods?

I think a3.

[JDPower]

what the optimimum place on the hard drive is for the pagefile?

I think that can only be answered by measuring. It depends on several factors, such as how much memory the computer has, how much of that memory is used, how frequently the swapfile is used, and which other files on disk are frequently used. I think on most computers the pagefile is not used so much, so does not have to be at the front of the disk.

Thanks for the reply. I suspected that to be the case but was surprised that Paragons defragger moved it so close to the front of the disk. I even filled up my drive with a few gig of extra files and ran it again to see if it took into account the amount of files on the disk and it still placed it near the start.

Oh well, I'll know to stick with good ole JKDefrag in future :wink:

[schitzn]

But wouldn't operations like extracting rar-archives improve if the pagefile was at the beginning of the second harddrive in my system? Having the pagefile at the end of the second harddrive can't be better even if it's not used that much. Do you agree?

Absolutely not.  Most compression algorithm read the source archive in set chunks, decode and then dump this to the uncompressed file immediately.  Its basicly read from disk to memory (zip file->memory) in a set chunk size, then this chunk is decoded in memory and flushed to disk normally directly to the uncompressed file. Windows would never see a need to use the pagefile for the purpose of extraction, unless it was in a critically low memory state.  Pagefile normally absorbs any dormant memory that has not been accessed for a while.

what the optimimum place on the hard drive is for the pagefile?

When talking about a single drive, Jeroen is absolutely spot on.  However when speaking about multiple drives,  having the pagefile split over several disks, specifically ones that each have their own SATA connection to the main board, increases the bandwidth availability to flush and retrieve data from the slow disk to fast memory.  This is a theory I've read, and although Im not familiar with how the mechanics in the pagefile work, this does sound logical and I'd assume MS programmed Windows to take advantage of this type of situation.

[jeroen]

having the pagefile split over several disks

Ah yes, I forgot about that possibility.