Re: Installed 6 gigs of Ram in Vista Ultimate x64 and its slowern
Re: Installed 6 gigs of Ram in Vista Ultimate x64 and its slowern
All you have to do is go to
www.microsoft.com, type in 'page
file size' and you will be presented with numerous articles
to peruse.
KB889654 has this in it:
Important Supportability Information: This article is
specifically for computers that do not need kernel mode or
full memory dump analysis. For business-critical servers
where business processes require to server to capture
physical memory dumps for analysis, the traditional model of
the page file should be at least the size of physical ram
plus 1 MB, or 1.5 times the default physical RAM. This makes
sure that the free disk space of the operating system
partition is large enough to hold the OS, hotfixes,
installed applications, installed services, a dump file, and
the page file. On a server that has 32 GB of memory, drive C
may have to be at least 86 GB to 90 GB. This is 32 GB for
memory dump, 48 GB for the page file (1.5 times the physical
memory), 4 GB for the operating system, and 2 to 4 GB for
the applications, the installed services, the temp files,
and so on. Remember that a driver or kernel mode service
leak could consume all free physical RAM. Therefore, a
Windows Server 2003 x64 SP1-based server in 64-bit mode with
32GB of RAM could have a 32 GB kernel memory dump file,
where you would expect only a 1 to 2 GB dump file in 32-bit
mode. This behavior occurs because of the greatly increased
memory pools. For more information, click the following
article number to view the article in the Microsoft
Knowledge Base: 294418
(
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/294418/) Comparison of
32-bit and 64-bit memory architecture for 64-bit editions of
Windows XP and Windows Server 2003
And that's directly from the genuine, official Microsoft web
site. what more can you ask for?
Rune Moberg wrote:
> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbmail.dk> wrote in message
> news:epytrh3VIHA.4448@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Oh - this is much too old that I can possibly remember - attached
>> here, you can check with the Windows System Recommendations for my
>> setup which runs on '2GB'.
>
> I am intimately familiar with that dialog box.
>
> As I said, it is a generic recommendation and I've never seen anyone
> backing it up. I've asked some microsofties about this, and no answer
> there either.
>
> I would be very surprised if you could find a benchmark showing an
> increase in performance by increasing the pagefile size from half a GB
> to 6GB on a 4GB memory system...
>
> This question has been discussed over at the sysinternals.com forums
> without any conclusion there either. (other than "make sure you don't
> run out of virtual memory and you'll be fine")
>
> But think about this for a while. What are you trying to gain by
> increasing the size of the pagefile? System stability? (You'd think
> there would be a warning then) Increase in performance? (How? By leaving
> the system with more opportunity to use the disk instead of physical
> memory?)
>
> I know you need a pagefile on the system drive in order to generate a
> memory dump. You need the pagefile to support memory mapped files, but
> these are limited to 2GB (assuming 32-bit Windows) anyway and 2GB memory
> mapped files aren't all that common.
>
>> I do vaguely remember something about the claim you make, but this
>> goes all the way back to Windows 3.11 and the 'plus 11MB' doesn't make
>> sense since
>
> The +11MB recommendation was the NT 3.1 - 4.0 recommendation IIRC. I do
> not recall the 16 bit recommendation, and it has no bearing here since
> there is a big difference between swapping (win 3.11) and paging (NT 3.1
> +).
>
> +11MB or 1.5X the size of physical memory doesn't really matter. Both
> settings will work just fine in most situations given the amount of
> system memory we're talking about here... They're both overkill. (but
> disk space is cheap, and it doesn't hurt... Except for those of us using
> SCSI drives)
>
>> matter, but it is (and has been) firmly supported by almost everyone
>> plus the Devil and his Grandma since as long as I can remember,
>> Windowswize.
>
> I have seen almost everyone plus the devil and his grandma suggest
> regular re-installation cycles of Windows XP, but that does not make
> them right. Most people, when it comes to computers, are simply
> parroting old "truths". There are many Windows myths out there, and this
> is most likely one of them. I doubt the devil and his grandma can come
> up with any reasonable explanation as to why they made their
> recommendation.
>
, where it sits,