Besides, who needs a pagefile anymore - it's still miles better to simply
have more ram. It's not like Ram is expensive.
There are still programs out there, that will not run, or will not
run well, without a pagefile. Besides, if you do have a lot of
physical ram your pagefile won't see much action so it is a moot
point. And I agree with Gregs assessment.
---------
Brian
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Winterlight
<[email protected]>wrote:
> At 11:37 AM 2/1/2011, you wrote:
>
>> This is exactly why you shouldn't have your windows pagefile on your SSD.
>>
>
> I don't think so... from
>
>
>
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2009/05/05/support-and-q-a-for-solid-state-drives-and.aspx
>
>
>
> Should the pagefile be placed on SSDs?
>
> Yes. Most pagefile operations are small random reads or larger sequential
> writes, both of which are types of operations that SSDs handle well.
>
> In looking at telemetry data from thousands of traces and focusing on
> pagefile reads and writes, we find that
> Pagefile.sys reads outnumber pagefile.sys writes by about 40 to 1,
> Pagefile.sys read sizes are typically quite small, with 67% less than or
> equal to 4 KB, and 88% less than 16 KB.
> Pagefile.sys writes are relatively large, with 62% greater than or equal to
> 128 KB and 45% being exactly 1 MB in size.
>
> In fact, given typical pagefile reference patterns and the favorable
> performance characteristics SSDs have on those patterns, there
are few files
> better than the pagefile to place on an SSD.
>
