Re: Paging File - Issues with increasing size?
- From: "Anna Clark" <anna.clark(remove this)@verizon.net>
- Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 22:11:40 -0500
Hi Alan:
I am going to stick my neck out (again) and give you some info that I have
read several times in MS docs, and may have even seen Super inject. That is
that there IS an advantage to having more than one page file if they each
meet the requirements and recommendations as listed by Super in his reply...
that there be sufficient room on the disk, and that neither of them be more
than "reasonable" by which I take MS to mean that 1.5 RAM.
The reason, according to this documentation, was/is that the OS is smart
enough to figure out which spindles are busy, and therefore will use the
page file that is most advantageous.
For this reason, and for the reasons given in Super's answer, many have been
known to use an entirely separate drive for the page file. Not on the OS or
the Data spindles or partitions.
BTW, I have at least once had Windows object to a very large page file.
Performance became so bad that I looked at every known setting before
hitting on this one. Funny part was that Windows itself had increased the
size of the page file. I never did find out why Windows did this, but
setting it back to the "correct" size fixed the performance issues.
Regards:
Anna Clark
"SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <not@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eOcMIDNGHHA.1816@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You will realise very little benefit from increasing your paging filebeyond
1.5 times real RAM.free
Also, NTFS performance is related to the percentage of free space, 15GB
on a 150GB partition is 10% and a paging file on this would suffer fromlack
of free space, 15GB free on a 30GB partition would behave better. ie. It's
no use giving us a number unless we have something to relate it to.
"Alan" <alan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eltxezMGHHA.960@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi,
We are running SBS 2003 Prem (Exchange, ISA, Symantec Corporate, etc)
on a server with 1Gb of physical memory.
I have budgeted to increase that to 2Gb, but I won't be able to do
that until Apr 2007.
In the meantime, is there likely to be any issue if I increase the
page file size from 2048MB to, say, 4095MB (or even 8192MB)?
I have read the article on the limit of 4,095MB
(http://support.microsoft.com/?id=237740) and whilst we could go past
that, for now I am thinking of just setting it to 4,095MB on the grounds
it is still twice what we currently have.
There is plenty of free disk space on both the system and data
partitions (more than 15GB on the system where the page file sits) and
it doesn't increase much (we rarely install any new apps on the DC) so
I am not worried about that. The system partition is on two mirrored
drives and the data partition is on four drives in RAID5
configuration.
Is there any downside to making the page file bigger?
Thanks,
Alan.
--
The views expressed are my own, and not those of my employer or anyone
else associated with me.
My current valid email address is:
1bupdvc02@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This is valid as is. It is not munged, or altered at all.
It will be valid for AT LEAST one month from the date of this post.
If you are trying to contact me after that time,
it MAY still be valid, but may also have been
deactivated due to spam. If so, and you want
to contact me by email, try searching for a
more recent post by me to find my current
email address.
The following is a (probably!) totally unique
and meaningless string of characters that you
can use to find posts by me in a search engine:
ewygchvboocno43vb674b6nq46tvb
.
- References:
- Re: Paging File - Issues with increasing size?
- From: SuperGumby [SBS MVP]
- Re: Paging File - Issues with increasing size?
- Prev by Date: Re: GPO Prevent Saving To Desktops ??
- Next by Date: Re: Reinstall Exchange on SBS 2003 SP1
- Previous by thread: Re: Paging File - Issues with increasing size?
- Next by thread: Re: Paging File - Issues with increasing size?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
