Bootpartition FAT16 fastest?

[Extravert]

Hello

I'm experimenting which is faster.

1. Windows X64 on a single NTFS partition created by the sutup routine or

2. Windows X64 on two volumes with lining out partition by Paragon Partion Manager?

1: Normally people will install their version on a NTFS partition and rather they use the inbox defragmenter. It don't matter how you optimize it, but this case is a daily situation.

2. Harddisk in 2 partitions. Partition one is an 4096 MB FAT16 partition with 64Kb chunks. On this partition only the bootfiles and the pagefile exist. In total 9 files in 2 GB.

The second huge partition is created by PPM and has 16 KB chunks instead of 4 KB and a far smaller logfile (4 MB vs 64 MB). On this partition Windows exists and another software managed by O&O defrag. This is NTFS.

On the second harddisk another data remains like the 1st line back-up (I use the 3-line back-up strategy, dataconsistency highly assured )

I seriously asks which is faster?

Why?

I know that the FAT of the first partition remains in memory and is only 128 KB in size (65536 units * 2 bytes). So by Microsofts wallpaper FAT16 ought to be bloody fast. So that's the reason I park the pagefile on it.

On the first partition there are only 9 files in 2 GB, so there's neglectable slack).

My system is not brandnew and I want the most out of it. I've paid for it

I'll edit this post:

Research shows a performancedrop of 17% on accessingspeeds when the pagefile resides on an another partition than the Windows own partition.

I don't understand it properly because FAT16 ought to be faster as NTFS like searching the pagefile, but is isn't. I was wrong.

I don't know exacly why, but the pagefile on the same partition as Windows XP is fastest. Many other circumstances will fail in approaching

the performance when reside on the systemdisk and not on the Bootdisk or somewhere else.

I thought I've had found something usefull to you all, but not this time

Edited January 5, 2008 by Extravert