I have just moved the paging file in XP to my second SATA drive. I was told it was a good idea. However, im not sure if I am seeing an increase in performance in FSX. Not that it matters, although I certainly do not want to degrade performance. Was this a good idea? I have 2 gigs of ram, and have it on my second drive, along with some other backup files. I have it set to windows managed size...your opinions are gratefully welcomed.Thanks in advance.Danon O.

Would be interesting to know. I'm jsut getting my feet wet in page file tweaks...

Im no expert but my friend is. I have a Raptor 150 as my main HD and a second I keep msc stuff on. He set it up per what I have read on the forums with the paging file on it.IMO I cannot see any difference good or bad so I will just leave it.Waiting for the next amazing,incredible,you not going to beleive it,life altering FSX performance tweek.AMD FX-62,2 raptors,7900gtx,2 gigs ddr2800 yada yada yada bla bla

I just found where someone else had posted this link. It seems that's a myth. It really doesn't do much. Or at least it doesn't according to the author of the page. Your mileage may vary.Myth - "Moving the Paging File to a different partition on the same drive improves performance."Reality - "Moving the Paging File (pagefile.sys) to a different partition on the same physical hard disk drive does not improve performance. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/XPMyths.html

I stated that I have moved the paging file to a totally seperate drive, not a different partition on the same drive. Thanks though.. It would do nothing simply moving it to a seperate partition on the same drive, as the same head would have to go back and forth to read and write.Danon

Hi Danon, you won't see a performance increase. Max benefit is more smoothness. Hope this adds to thoughts. Best Jaap

Yeah that might improve round trip time. I don't seem to be having read write issues with FSX. That was the case with FS9 but FSX seems to want more in the video card department. I think I've got about all I can out of this old computer. I'm still running a Radion 9600 AGP card. One thing I noticed is that even though FPS aren't stellar in FSX the stutters are steady which helps with overall smoothness. I get better looking flight in FSX at 17 fps than I do in FS9 at 40. Get a machine that will handle it and I think FSX is going to be a fantastic sim.

I agree completely. FSX was running quite nice yesterday, I popped the fps indicator up, and it was dipping to around 15. When I am at 30 its butter. Well, I guess I have it set right then. Thanks for the input, happy flying...Danon

OS on drive C, FS on drive D, get another 20, 30 gig, (whatever is available or cheapest), and put your swap on that. That way it doesn't interfere with either OS or FS.

you won't see a performance increase. Max benefit is more smoothness.Yep. As well, the Page File is best placed at the beginning of the second drive. And the secoond drive must be at least as fast (throughput) as the OS/FS drive.Greg

Just to add to the mix ...My belief is that such tweaks as these offer less of a performance benefit as hardware performance improves with time (drives, cache-sizes etc.) That said, it never hurts to squeeze even the tiniest extra performance out of your system :-)Yes, in theory having the paging file on a separate drive (or possibly better on a separate IDE channel, or even controller, to take things to extremes!) releases the system drive for alternative activity.Additionally, you mention that you allow WIndows to size the paging file. A further optimisation you might like to try would be to size it manually, and make the min size and max size equal (say 2GB).

follow this link for paage file info and a dandy page file defrag utility, that does the job on each bootuphttp://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysintern...PageDefrag.mspxsherm

I highly recommend O&O Defrag for any kind of defrag purpose. It will defrag the page file on boot up as well if you ask it to.The best option is the Complete/Name defrag option from within O&O.It rearranges everything to be in name order and is proven to improve FS performance. I think Allen at Scenery Solutions (UT developer) tested this out and it works!

FWIW, apart from O&O, the other good defrag util is Raxco's Perfectdisk. Diskkeeper is more or less equal to XP's inbuilt defrag utility. For those who aren't aware; winXP uses Diskkeeper tech. Personally, I believe it's good enough to 'just' setup the HD(s) in optimal manner. That is: Not slicing them into multiple pieces; getting such with low, REAL seektimes, not the seektimes advertised; not falling for: More cache --> must be better... Etc. If the OS is niceley setup, using a defrag util is the icing on the cake. :-) Unfortunately, defraggers won't help to circumvent setup related probs. Please be cautious with boot-up defraggers... They can be pretty nasty. I wouldn't play around with that option too often. ;-) For those using O&O and who might not be aware: Make sure you stop O&O's background service if you don't want to be 'interrupted' every ca 60 secs. ;-) Kind regards Jaap

"For those using O&O and who might not be aware: Make sure you stop O&O's background service if you don't want to be 'interrupted' every ca 60 secs." Jaap,I wasn't aware of this! I have noticed the service running....what does it do?Glenn