geeman@best.com
Mon, 18 May 1998 15:49:47 -0700
Peter -
The primary drawback of the solutions you mention is that these file system
add-ons are 16-bit, requiring Windows to page via MS-DOS. This would seem
to have substantial performance implications, at least in theory. Or are
there native 32bit versions available now?
At 09:39 AM 5/19/98, Peter Gutmann wrote:
>pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz (Peter Gutmann) writes:
>
>>>>OTOH, [Windows 95 only] if (starting at the W95 desktop) you right
click "My
>>>>computer" and then, in succession, click Properties, Performance, Virtual
>>>>Memory, and choose to set the virtual memory to 0 (specifically allowed as
>>>>noted in the Help for that window), then and only then, could you say that
>>>>swapping does not occur. Cautions: (1) reboot required before and
after, (2)
>>>>you will need a lot of real memory installed. How much memory? That
might
>>>>be an example on an unshared secret. <g>
>
>>>One caveat when doing this: I don't know about Win95, but under 3.1 turning
>>>off swapping would cause Windows to crash when you ran low on memory or
when
>>>you'd left it running for awhile (anything from a few days to a week, I
can't
>>>remember the exact timing). Creating a small RAM drive and allocating a
>>>token swapfile (say, a few hundred K) on it fixes this.
>
>>Peter, is there any reason one can't put a window's swap-file on a SFS
>>partition?
>
>None at all, there are a number of people doing this right now. For those
who
>don't know, SFS is a transparent disk encryption program for DOS/Windows
(there
>are several others also available, eg Secure Device, Secure Drive), what
you do
>with these is create a temporary swap file on the encrypted partition. The
>downside is a slight slowdown in access due to the encryption, the actual use
>of a temporary vs permanent swapfile seems to make almost no difference.
>
>Peter.
>
>
>
>
>
The following archive was created by hippie-mail 7.98617-22 on Fri Aug 21 1998 - 17:17:27 ADT