RE: Guidelines for W2K Pro PageFile Size

2001-08-20 Thread Roger Seielstad
I use an approximation of twice RAM, but usually stop once it hits about 750MB (no good reason, I just do). I always set it to be a static size, since you're inducing overhead when it expands at the same time the system is already under load. Roger

RE: Guidelines for W2K Pro PageFile Size

2001-08-18 Thread Niels Christiansen
Depending on what you're serving up from your server, I guess... For database, web, and other transactionally intensive stuff I don't really understand why you would need a swap file that big. Seems to me that you would want to add more RAM before it starts any kind of heavy swapping (and

RE: Guidelines for W2K Pro PageFile Size

2001-08-18 Thread Andrew S. Baker
The main reason to set the pagefile to a static size is so that you don't incur a performance penalty as it grows. Of course, depending on what you do, you may never even reach the 768MB number, so it might be a moot point. I prefer static. Win2K likes a larger Pagefile, and the

RE: Guidelines for W2K Pro PageFile Size

2001-08-18 Thread Troy A. Miller
: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2001 4:56 PMTo: NT System Admin IssuesSubject: RE: Guidelines for W2K Pro PageFile Size The main reason to set the pagefile to a static size is so that you don't incur a performance penalty as it grows

RE: Guidelines for W2K Pro PageFile Size

2001-08-18 Thread Dan_Rembolt
- From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2001 4:56 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Guidelines for W2K Pro PageFile Size The main reason to set the pagefile to a static size is so that you don't incur a performance penalty