I understand that - Im just looking for the basis of the recommendation. -- ME2
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:57 PM, johonn2 _ <[email protected]> wrote: > It is not recommended anymore......on newer running systems. Ask yourself > does it make sense if you have a server with 16GB of ram to have a 24GB - > 48GB page file? Even if it has 8GB of RAM you are talking 12GB to 24GB page > file. That is a waste of space today. > > Yes in the past 1.5x RAM was used because RAM was not widely available in > the sizes it is now. In Reality, today you should be monitoring/bench > marking your computers/servers to see what the maximum amount you need. > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Micheal Espinola Jr > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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/> ~
