• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

USB memory disk as a paging file for virtual memory?

A

ARTOSOFT

New Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
369 (0.05/day)
Location
Singapore
Hi,

I want to know your opinion about usb memory disk as a paging file for windows virtual memory.

I am trying to set paging file on usb memory disk, but it is looks windows don't like it and simply ignore it and create paging file on my c:\ drive. It is looks like paging file is created on usb memory disk, but when I check, there is no swap file on usb memory disk. The usb memory disk still empty.

Anyone have experience on it?

Regards,
Arto.
 
Hard Drive > usb stick
it's faster
 
waste of time anyways.. just make sure your system has enough real memory.. if it has.. windows wont use its pagefile in any meaningfull way so it dosnt matter where u put it..

when windows had to make do with 32 megs of ram it mattered.. now it dosnt..

trog
 
ARTOSOFT said:
Hi,

I want to know your opinion about usb memory disk as a paging file for windows virtual memory.

I am trying to set paging file on usb memory disk, but it is looks windows don't like it and simply ignore it and create paging file on my c:\ drive. It is looks like paging file is created on usb memory disk, but when I check, there is no swap file on usb memory disk. The usb memory disk still empty.

Anyone have experience on it?

Regards,
Arto.
Click to expand...

Well, I have actual experience & tried it on USB 1.0 stuff...

I tried it years ago on Windows XP, using a SanDisk card via an external USB reader for it (by SanDisk, all USB 1.0 stuff)...

Not EXACTLY the same, but not worth it...

E.G.-> Too slow of a medium apparently, because once I tried it? Well, it got me TONS of read/write errors as well, often corrupting the SanDisk memory card.

APK

P.S.=> VISTA is supposedly going to be able to use USB memory sticks in this capacity OR one like it (extending your system RAM on the mobo), but most likely USB 2.0, because the speed for it is better than what I tried it on (USB 1.0)... we will see how it works out then, once it releases & folks try it... apk
 
Last edited:
I agree with everyone else on this matter, a USB paging file isn't really worth it. You'd get much better pagefile performance by buying a cheap second hard drive and putting it on that.
 
Alec§taar said:
Well, I have actual experience & tried it on USB 1.0 stuff...

I tried it years ago on Windows XP, using a SanDisk card via an external USB reader for it (by SanDisk, all USB 1.0 stuff)...

Not EXACTLY the same, but not worth it...

E.G.-> Too slow of a medium apparently, because once I tried it? Well, it got me TONS of read/write errors as well, often corrupting the SanDisk memory card.

APK

P.S.=> VISTA is supposedly going to be able to use USB memory sticks in this capacity OR one like it (extending your system RAM on the mobo), but most likely USB 2.0, because the speed for it is better than what I tried it on (USB 1.0)... we will see how it works out then, once it releases & folks try it... apk
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing.

Yes, I read on the net, Vista maybe better for this matter.

In several test, I found if I set the paging file size myself, it will slowing down the system. My benchmark show improvement when I set windows to manage page file size.

Thank you everyone.

Regards,
Arto.
 
Jimmy 2004 said:
I agree with everyone else on this matter, a USB paging file isn't really worth it. You'd get much better pagefile performance by buying a cheap second hard drive and putting it on that.
Click to expand...
After reading many source on the nets, I agree with you. But, memory upgrade should be better than adding second hard drive (if money doesn't matter). Too bad, memory price is going up for these few months :twitch: .

Regards,
Arto.
 
usb is way too slow, but the bigger problem is that flash has a limited number of write cycles. so if you write the same block 100k times you cant write to it any more
 
W1zzard said:
usb is way too slow, but the bigger problem is that flash has a limited number of write cycles. so if you write the same block 100k times you cant write to it any more
Click to expand...

I didn't konw that... does that mean that if I use my USB flash drive loads it will 'wear out'?
 
We needs some benchmarks between hdds and usb2.0 thumb drives.
 
Jimmy 2004 said:
I didn't konw that... does that mean that if I use my USB flash drive loads it will 'wear out'?
Click to expand...

yep but during normal use this will not matter .. assume 10 writes to the same sector a day and it will still hold over 3 years.
 
ktr said:
We needs some benchmarks between hdds and usb2.0 thumb drives.
Click to expand...

usb 2.0 is limited to about 30 mb/s data rate at the interface .. check my scythe kama connect review for a comparison
 
30mb/s of usb vs 60mb/s of hdd...

what was vista devs thinking...
 
flash memory is slow.. cheap thow i just bought pair of 1 gig sd cards for 11 quid each.. now ten of those for 110 quid.. hmmmm.. shame they aint a bit faster.. he he

in fact a 1 gig sd card in a baby sd card only reader makes more sense than the stick things.. at least u can bung the card in anything..

trog

ps.. it would be usefull as win pe type boot device thow.. an any operating system u like on a memory stick seems a good idea..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top