Performance gains of putting Windows pagefile on separate partition (same disk)

1. On hard disks, throughput and seeking is often faster towards the beginning of the disk, because that data is stored closer to the outer area of the disk, which has more sectors per cylinder. Thus, creating the swap at the beginning of the disk might improve performance.

2. For a 2.6 Linux kernel, there is no performance difference between a swap partition and an unfragmented swap file. When a swap partition/file is enabled by swapon, the 2.6 kernel finds which disk blocks the swapfile is stored on, so that when it comes time to swap, it doesn't have to deal with the filesystem at all.

Thus, if the swapfile isn't fragmented, it's exactly as if there were a swap partition at its same location. Or put another way, you'd get identical performance if you used a swap partition raw, or formatted it with a filesystem and then created a swapfile that filled all space, since either way on that disk there is a contiguous region used for swapping, which the kernel uses directly.

So if one creates the swapfile when the filesystem is fresh (thus ensuring it's not fragmented and at the beginning of the volume), performance should be identical to having a swap partition just before the volume. Further, if one created the swapfile say in the middle of the volume, with files on either side, one might get better performance, since there's less seeking to swap.

On Linux, if the swapfile is created unfragmented, and never expanded, it cannot become fragmented, at least with normal filesystems like ext3/4. It will always use the same disk blocks, which are contiguous.

I conclude that about the only benefit of a dedicated swap partition is guaranteed unfragmentation when you need to expand it; if your swap will never be expanded, a file created on a fresh filesystem doesn't require an extra partition.

Disk Subsystem: Here's an article from Microsoft re: partition alignment in SQL Server 2008: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd758814.aspx

The theory explained in the article is why I'm giving you the link, not 'cuz I think you'll be running SQL Server. The workload of a file server is less apt to be as touchy about partition alignment as SQL Server, but every little bit helps.

NTFS:

You can disable last access time stamping in NTFS with:

fsutil behavior set disablelastaccess 1

You can disble short filename creation (if you have no apps that need it) with:

fsutil behavior set disable8dot3 1

Think about the best NTFS cluster size for the kinds of files you're going to be putting on the box. In general, you want to have as large a cluster size as you can get away with, balancing that against wasted space for sub-cluster-sized files. You also want to try and match your cluster size to your RAID stripe size (and, as was said above, have your stripes aligned to your clusters).

There's a theory that most reads are seqential, so the stripe size (which is typically the minimum read of the RAID controller) should be a multiple of the cluster size. That depends on the specific workload of the server and you'd need to measure it to know for sure. I'd keep them the same.

If you're going to have a large number of small files you may want to start with a larger reserve for the NTFS master file table (MFT) to prevent future MFT fragmentation. As well as talking about the fsutil command above, this document describes the "MFT zone" setting: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc785435(WS.10).aspx Basically, you want to reserve as much disk space for the MFT as you think you'll need, based on a predicted number of files you'll have on the volume, to try and prevent MFT fragmentation.

A general guide from Microsoft on NTFS performance optimization is available here: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc767961.aspx It's an old document, but it gives some decent background nonetheless. Don't necessarily try any of the "tech stuff" it says to do, but get concepts out of it.

Layout:

You'll have religious arguments with people re: separating the OS and data. For this particular application, I'd probably pile everything into one partition. Someone will come along and tell you that I'm wrong. You can decide yourself. I see no logical reason to "make work" down the road when the OS partition fills up. Since they're not separate RAID volumes, there's no performance benefit to separating the OS and data into partitions. (It would be a different story if they were different spindles...)

Shadow Copies:

Shadow copy snapshots can be stored in the same volume, or on another volume. I don't have a lot of background on the performance concerns associated with shadow copies, so I'm going to stop there before I say something dumb.