I'm sorry guys, I should have provided a lot more information than I did.
I have windows XP running inside a program called virtualbox. This is similar to emulation, as far as XP is concerned it is running on a normal machine with a 1.5ghz celeron processor, 2gb of ram, and a gigabit ethernet card. As far as the host is concerned, there is a 5gb file called XP and a program called virtualbox that is rather demanding of cpu time and ram.
In the same box as the ssd running the host, and containing the 5gb XP file, is a 4 disk raid that I wish to put the page file on. This is formatted as ext2, and behaves like a single drive as far as the host is concerned. A trick of virtualbox is to allow you to map host folders as network drives, so I can map /mnt/raid on the host as R:\ under windows, using the command net use r: \\vboxsvr\raid.
The consequence of this is that XP now believes the raid to be a network attached drive, which fits with the idea of XP not being aware that its running contained within a program. When asked, the file system is VBoxSharedFolderFS, which while better than ext2 is perhaps worse than reporting it as ntfs.
No actual network hardware is involved, so whether bandwidth remains an issue or not is hard to determine. If it is, then the connection is at least at gigabit speeds. I may be able to test the speed of the raid from within the host and from within the guest, but I'll have to learn how to do so first, and I'm not keen on losing the data on the raid to do so.
Asking windows to move the page file as normal fails in that it only lists local drives in the box which you point and click on.
The alternative work around of tell windows that it is a local drive may work, in similar fashion to telling it to treat a usb stick as a removable hard drive. One way of doing this would be to patch virtualbox, but firstly there's not a chance in hell I'm skilled enough to and secondly I suspect there is good reason why the developers have done it this way. While virtualbox is open source and windows is not, I would still prefer vandalising windows.
Finally this is not in any way an attempt at greater performance. This is on the first rig in my signature, so were it performance I was after I would do better to run vista 64 natively. The objective here is stability, there are some people at
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17987573 who strongly disagree with my previous belief that page files are irrelevant, so I'm trying to develop from that.
Id rather the system hang for ages while it writes 2gb of data over a virtual ethernet than have it go down completely to the loss of the work being done on it at the time.
Well if the first post was too brief, and this one too long, perhaps I'll get it right next time. Cheers guys
edit: I don't suppose XP does symlinks does it? Something like make page file, bodily move it without telling windows that I've done so, and put a link in its place