Defrag swap file

My Win98 machine's HD is partitioned into C: & D:, 2 gigabytes each,
and the swap file is on C: I've notice, during the defrag of C:, there
are certain blocks of spread-out clusters that never get moved. I am
assuming they are the swap file. Would the swap file function better
if all the clusters were contiguous?

If I defragged D:, then moved the swap file to D:, and rebooted, would
that defrag the swap file?

If so, and once again, how do I do that correctly, move the swap file
to D:? I recall starting to do that once, but all the ominous MS
warning messages (Unstable, Unuseable, Doom) caused me to back off.

Since I keep data on D: and programs on C:, should I keep the swap file
on C: or D:?

What is the optimum size for the swap file? Or is that best left to
Win98 to manage?

"MBIEnt" wrote in message
oups.com...

My Win98 machine's HD is partitioned into C: & D:, 2 gigabytes each,
and the swap file is on C: I've notice, during the defrag of C:, there
are certain blocks of spread-out clusters that never get moved. I am
assuming they are the swap file.

No: some other system files may occupy fixed locations.
The swap file has no fixed location (and by default no fixed
size.) If you have plenty of RAM you may find your swap file
is dated many days old and/or size 0.

Would the swap file function better
if all the clusters were contiguous?

No.

If I defragged D:, then moved the swap file to D:, and rebooted, would
that defrag the swap file?

There is no point in defragging the swap file. Just put it on a
fast drive that has enough free space (e.g. 100 Mb.)

If so, and once again, how do I do that correctly, move the swap file
to D:? I recall starting to do that once, but all the ominous MS
warning messages (Unstable, Unuseable, Doom) caused me to back off.

/ start / settings / control panel / system / performance.
Select the box marked VIRTUAL MEMORY
Select second button (Let me manage . . .)
and fill in the blanks to select drive letter and size
(minimum 0, maximum 100 Mb.) Then select OK
and reboot.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

"MBIEnt" wrote in news:1144681457.367931.200770
@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

My Win98 machine's HD is partitioned into C: & D:, 2 gigabytes each,
and the swap file is on C: I've notice, during the defrag of C:, there
are certain blocks of spread-out clusters that never get moved. I am
assuming they are the swap file.

Files which are in use cannot be defragged. So it can also be a buch of
exe's and dll's

Would the swap file function better
if all the clusters were contiguous?

Yes.

If I defragged D:, then moved the swap file to D:, and rebooted, would
that defrag the swap file?

Yes.


If so, and once again, how do I do that correctly, move the swap file
to D:? I recall starting to do that once, but all the ominous MS
warning messages (Unstable, Unuseable, Doom) caused me to back off.

Rightclick 'My Computer'-Properties-Tab performance-Virtual memory

Don't bother about the warnings. It will work fine.


Since I keep data on D: and programs on C:, should I keep the swap file
on C: or D:?

Assuming C: and D: are two partitions on the same disk, I would prefer C:
Program files doesn't change as much as data, I hope, so the disk will
not get fragged that much. It is also possible that the C: partition is
faster. When it are different drives, take the fastest.


What is the optimum size for the swap file? Or is that best left to
Win98 to manage?

When you put the minimum and maximum size the same, it will be static,
and it will not get fragged. But then W98 cannot manage it. Seeing the
size of your partitions, I suppose you've got 128 MB memory. In that case
I would fix it on 384 MB. When you get 'Low on virtual memory' messages,
make it 512

System Properties, Performance, Virtual Memory, Disable virtual memory,
OK, Yes, OK. Then Defrag. Then manage your own SF. The advise on size
parameters and location are varied and even on whether or not to manage your
own SF. If I remember correctly, the outer ring (cylinder) of the HDD is the
fastest so the first partition after C would be the SF (correct me if I'm
wrong). If you have a second drive (physical) then the first partition on
that drive would be the fastest...provided it does not share the bus with
another drive. A controller card would be the optimum setup. And the size of
that partition should reflect the amount of RAM installed, the type of
computing you do...content creation or something else that would benefit
from a large fixed SF, and the program load running at once. Possibly a GB
at most unless you work with DVD's...not likely on a W98 box.
If the SF is "fixed" then it isn't susceptible to fragmentation as the
normal C drive understands it. But then your data is on D so that is where
the fragmentation will occur. However, when you disable the SF in order to
defrag the whole drive you must have sufficient RAM to allow the machine to
boot and get you back into System Properties. I have done this with as
little as 64MB RAM. I'm sure you have more. Others will have more technical
info as this issue has been analyzed more than any other.

HTH,
DTV
"MBIEnt" wrote in message
oups.com...
My Win98 machine's HD is partitioned into C: & D:, 2 gigabytes each,
and the swap file is on C: I've notice, during the defrag of C:, there
are certain blocks of spread-out clusters that never get moved. I am
assuming they are the swap file. Would the swap file function better
if all the clusters were contiguous?

If I defragged D:, then moved the swap file to D:, and rebooted, would
that defrag the swap file?

If so, and once again, how do I do that correctly, move the swap file
to D:? I recall starting to do that once, but all the ominous MS
warning messages (Unstable, Unuseable, Doom) caused me to back off.

Since I keep data on D: and programs on C:, should I keep the swap file
on C: or D:?

What is the optimum size for the swap file? Or is that best left to
Win98 to manage?

I believe Don's answers are correct with the exception of setting a maximum
setting for a swap file. There is no reason whatsoever for setting a maximum
setting. Considering the low cost of ram, it makes no sense to even be
fooling with a swap file since it is dozens ( maybe hundreds) of times
slower than ram. The thing to do is monitor your swap file usage and if it
is being used, add some ram. If it is not being used, then all your
questions are moot. The system monitor (SYSMON.EXE) will measure swap file
usage.
--
Regards


Ron Badour, MS MVP for W98
Tips: http://home.satx.rr.com/badour
Knowledge Base Info:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=kbinfo



"MBIEnt" wrote in message
oups.com...
My Win98 machine's HD is partitioned into C: & D:, 2 gigabytes each,
and the swap file is on C: I've notice, during the defrag of C:, there
are certain blocks of spread-out clusters that never get moved. I am
assuming they are the swap file. Would the swap file function better
if all the clusters were contiguous?

If I defragged D:, then moved the swap file to D:, and rebooted, would
that defrag the swap file?

If so, and once again, how do I do that correctly, move the swap file
to D:? I recall starting to do that once, but all the ominous MS
warning messages (Unstable, Unuseable, Doom) caused me to back off.

Since I keep data on D: and programs on C:, should I keep the swap file
on C: or D:?

What is the optimum size for the swap file? Or is that best left to
Win98 to manage?

Once you get if defragged, you can prevent it from re-fraggging by setting
the same value for max as for min on the swap file size.

If disk space ever gets to be an issue, simply get a larger disk. Most PCs
can handle at least 2 hard drives, some over 4. Given the description of
the PC, look for a drive under 32Gig, since the PC may be too old to support
larger drives. You might even find one in the 4-30Gig range "used" in a
small PC shop that does upgrades. Or maybe a friend has one laying around
from his own upgrade.

If you do get a separate disk, definitely place the swap file there.

As for more RAM instead of worrying about a swap file, that works on newer
PCs, but older ones had hard limits on the amount of RAM they could handle.
Still, if you have not yet maxed out your RAM, it really is better than any
sized swap file on any disk.


"MBIEnt" wrote in message
oups.com...
My Win98 machine's HD is partitioned into C: & D:, 2 gigabytes each,
and the swap file is on C: I've notice, during the defrag of C:, there
are certain blocks of spread-out clusters that never get moved. I am
assuming they are the swap file. Would the swap file function better
if all the clusters were contiguous?

If I defragged D:, then moved the swap file to D:, and rebooted, would
that defrag the swap file?

If so, and once again, how do I do that correctly, move the swap file
to D:? I recall starting to do that once, but all the ominous MS
warning messages (Unstable, Unuseable, Doom) caused me to back off.

Since I keep data on D: and programs on C:, should I keep the swap file
on C: or D:?

What is the optimum size for the swap file? Or is that best left to
Win98 to manage?

"Don Phillipson" wrote:


/ start / settings / control panel / system / performance.
Select the box marked VIRTUAL MEMORY
Select second button (Let me manage . . .)
and fill in the blanks to select drive letter and size
(minimum 0, maximum 100 Mb.) Then select OK
and reboot.


Never repeat never specify a maximum size limit for Virtual Memory in
Windows 9x. There is no benefit that can ever be achieved by doing
so. The only possible outcomes, in order of decreasing probability
and increasing severity, a
- Reduced performance as your system reduces disk cache in order to
meet the total memory needs of your loaded applications and data
files.
- Applications refusing to load due to "insufficient memory" errors.
- Applications crashing due to "out of memory" errors resulting in
loss of data and possible corruption of data files.
- Total system lockups or crashes due to "out of memory" errors
resulting in loss of data and possible file corruption.

All of the benefits purportedly achieved by having a fixed or
permanent swap file can in fact be obtained by specifying a minimum
size only.

In Windows 95 there is some benefit to setting a minimum size for the
Virtual Memory. Use the System Monitor utility that comes with
Windows and track "memory manager - swap file size" for several days
of normal to heavy use. Set the minimum size to some convenient value
that is about 10% larger than the largest value seen with System
Monitor. This will reduce the overhead involved in Windows 95
creating a new swap file each startup and resizing it frequently as
applications are loaded.

Windows98 and WinMe use a "sticky" swap file logic that has Windows
start up with a swap file equal to the largest size regularly needed
in recent previous operating sessions so there is less need to set a
minimum with these Windows versions.

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference
has never been in bed with a mosquito."

Ingeborg wrote:


When you put the minimum and maximum size the same, it will be static,
and it will not get fragged. But then W98 cannot manage it. Seeing the
size of your partitions, I suppose you've got 128 MB memory. In that case
I would fix it on 384 MB. When you get 'Low on virtual memory' messages,
make it 512

That is bad advice. See my reply to Don Phillipson.

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference
has never been in bed with a mosquito."

Well, that certainly clears all of that up. I now know exactly what to
do. Since I'm not having any problems, besides having an older
computer that now seems slow compared to the new ones. Just thought
defragging the swap file might speed things up. Yes, I have the RAM
maxed out, 128 MB.

Will probably follow my own advice, If ain't broke, don't fix it.

Thanks again to all of you guys for responding. This is a nice
community of really concerned citizens.

| I've notice, during the defrag of C:, there
| are certain blocks of spread-out clusters that never get moved. I am
| assuming they are the swap file.

Those are system files, & probably it is best to let them be. I'm sure
there are files that have been made to be System & Hidden for a purpose.
Defrag won't move them, but there is a secret way to do it. (In Win95,
either S or H prevents moving; in Win98, it must be both.)

What shows in Defrag are clusters, which are the smallest unit Windows
can handle in the file system. Cluster size depends on the size of the
partition. A file of even one byte will occupy an entire cluster. The
"unmovables" that show up as red-cornered clusters in Defrag are
clusters that contain...

(1) Files that are both System & Hidden, as shown in Properties. The
number of these is likely small, but some are large & will fill many
clusters...

(a) "START button, Programs, MS-DOS Prompt"
(b) DIR C: /ASH /S /V /P

Here is mine...
C:\DIR C: /ASH /S /V /P
....snip
Name Size
IO SYS 222,390 04-23-99 10:22p 12-15-03 RHS
DRVSPACE BIN 69,632 04-23-99 10:22p 04-14-04 RHS
VIDEOROM BIN 65,536 07-30-01 6:02p 04-14-04 HS
DETLOG TXT 73,728 03-24-03 4:07a 04-07-04 HS A
....snip
Total files listed:
9 file(s) 435,831 bytes
4 dir(s) 6,461.88 MB free

Also, you will get more (& big ones), if you have turned on Thumbnails.

THUMBS DB 89,600 12-14-03 2:36a 12-14-03 HS
THUMBS DB 219,648 07-01-03 10:51p 12-16-03 HS A
THUMBS DB 48,640 06-22-03 11:08p 12-16-03 HS A

A Thumbs.db appears in every folder in which Thumbnail View is turned
on, it seems. (Now, I have turned it off, & they have all disappeared.)

Those that are attributed System+Hidden can be Defragged this way...
"START button, Run, Defrag /p". The "/p" does it.

(2) BUT the real bulk of "unmovables" is likely the swap file,
Win386.swp. Would you like to know how to move it out of the way?

(3) Any CVF (Compressed Volume File), which no one should have. Get a
larger hard drive instead.



--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR

"MBIEnt" wrote in message
oups.com...
| My Win98 machine's HD is partitioned into C: & D:, 2 gigabytes each,
| and the swap file is on C: I've notice, during the defrag of C:,
there
| are certain blocks of spread-out clusters that never get moved. I am
| assuming they are the swap file. Would the swap file function better
| if all the clusters were contiguous?
|
| If I defragged D:, then moved the swap file to D:, and rebooted, would
| that defrag the swap file?
|
| If so, and once again, how do I do that correctly, move the swap file
| to D:? I recall starting to do that once, but all the ominous MS
| warning messages (Unstable, Unuseable, Doom) caused me to back off.
|
| Since I keep data on D: and programs on C:, should I keep the swap
file
| on C: or D:?
|
| What is the optimum size for the swap file? Or is that best left to
| Win98 to manage?
|