IIRC the 1.5 was back when we had smaller amounts of ram...because the initial foot print of the OS's in RAM was pretty big in comparison to the smaller amount of ram of the days. I think that this rule of thumb has just hung on over the years.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 2:49 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: Why is the min. rec. paging file size 1.5x? > > My memory is failing me as to why the recommended minimum paging file > is 1.5x > RAM. Why not 1x or 2x? Why 1.5x specifically? > > I'm almost positive I used to know why - but my google-fu and personal > list archive are also failing me today. > > I'm interested because I've got a new junior subboardinate whom I'm > trying to instill a general understanding of concepts with, along with > the benefits of creating and using a personal reference database. > Plus, I hate not knowing the "why" for something... :-) > > Here are my current notes on paging file optimization: > > http://www.espinola.net/wiki/Paging_file_optimization > > Not detailed (yet), but they are to the point. Would anyone care to > take a peek and tell me if I'm missing something? > > TIA! > > -- > ME2 > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
