I concur most wholeheartedly. :)
============================================================== ASB - http://www.ultratech-llc.com/KB/?File=~MoreInfo.TXT ============================================================== "Cheaper, Faster, Better -- Pick Any TWO" -----Original Message----- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 1:48 PM To: NT 2000 Discussions Subject: RE: Optimizing the page file on a 4GB Server System My experience is that partitions are bad for performance. It all boils down to simple physics - the heads can't be in two places at once, and there is a finite time required to transition between the two partitions. Now - I'm all for separate "spindles"[1] for the OS/apps and data. If swap performance is very critical, separate swap spindles are also good. ------------------------------------------------------ Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA [1] Realistically separate arrays > -----Original Message----- > From: Len Conrad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 1:41 PM > To: NT 2000 Discussions > Subject: RE: Optimizing the page file on a 4GB Server System > > > I've seen someone argue strongly for running a single, giant > partition of > max Gb esp. with NTFS from w2k and xp, versus separate > partitions like this: > > system (os ) > > progs ( applications ) > > swap (only one in the system, never need defragging) > > data1 (data2, etc) > > (SQL) logging to separate disk. > > All the non-swap partitions would have the tiniest swap > areas. I think I > remember each parition must have some swap, at least for NT4. > > comments? > > > > Len --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.393 / Virus Database: 223 - Release Date: 9/30/2002 ------ You are subscribed as [email protected] Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
