Re: Terminal Server 32bit /PAE vs 64bit
- From: "Jerry Alan Braga" <jerry.braga@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 16:34:45 -0400
but windows recommended a 13gb page file, so we set it to none, reboot in
safe mode, defrag entire drive than added page file fixed at recommended
size.
so are you saying that we are actually using all of our 9gb of memory and
that our applications are actually addressing it because the task manager
performance tab never ever cracks 4gb of memory usage. What is the best way
to monitor this stuff as I have seen thru the task manager performance tab
our dl380 dual core 2 cpu G3 server hit 100% cpu for 10 seconds or more at
a time.
we are also running into "the system has reached the maximum size allowed
for the system part of the registry. Additional storage requests will be
ignored." I thought that xp, and 2003 did not have a limit, what could this
be as this message is never logged in the event view just on the console
itself.
we also run into userenv errors 1508 SYSTEM
---------
Windows was unable to load the registry. This is often caused by
insufficient memory or insufficient security rights.
DETAIL - Insufficient system resources exist to complete the requested
service. for C:\Documents and Settings\jacquieb\ntuser.dat
For more information, see Help and Support Center at
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/events.asp.
followed by event 1500 "actual user"
--------
Windows cannot log you on because your profile cannot be loaded. Check that
you are connected to the network, or that your network is functioning
correctly. If this problem persists, contact your network administrator.
DETAIL - Insufficient system resources exist to complete the requested
service.
I am not sure what these are but I wonder if there are all related somehow ?
"Jeff Pitsch" <Jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:em3MdQmlHHA.4960@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
1) A 32-bit system cannot use more than 4gb of memory without PAE. PAE
is ok but it will cut down on your kernel memory because it requires more
PTE's to handle the extra addressing. Never EVER use the /3gb switch on a
terminal server. Before any of this though, I would go ahead and do some
real performance monitoring with something other than task manager. Your
problem may not be memory but the fact that you have a 13gb page file.
You really shouldn't have anymore than 4gb tops.
Jeff Pitsch
Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server
Citrix Technology Professional
Provision Networks VIP
Forums not enough?
Get support from the experts at your business
http://jeffpitschconsulting.com
Jerry Alan Braga wrote:
We currently are running 2 win2003 EE sp2 terminal servers in an active
directory domain that get their romaing profiles for the TS users from
the DC. We are now running into performance issues (cpu/memory) as it
seems from the task manager performance monitor that we cannot use more
than 3.9gb of memory even though we have 9gb installed and have a 13gb
page file (suggested by windows) and have the /pae switch enabled in the
boot.ini without the /3gb switch.
My question is that does not the /pae along with win2003 EE give the
ability of using up 16gb like it says for our applications. Our
applications are 32bit based an I know about the 32bit limit of memory
addressing but is that not what the /pae and win2003 EE supposed to
address. Or does 64bit win2003 EE actually give you that through the WOW
emulator to 32bit applications.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Terminal Server 32bit /PAE vs 64bit
- From: Jeff Pitsch
- Re: Terminal Server 32bit /PAE vs 64bit
- From: Vera Noest [MVP]
- Re: Terminal Server 32bit /PAE vs 64bit
- References:
- Terminal Server 32bit /PAE vs 64bit
- From: Jerry Alan Braga
- Re: Terminal Server 32bit /PAE vs 64bit
- From: Jeff Pitsch
- Terminal Server 32bit /PAE vs 64bit
- Prev by Date: Re: Help Client connect to terminal server problem??
- Next by Date: Re: Ink API and Terminal Services App Deployment
- Previous by thread: Re: Terminal Server 32bit /PAE vs 64bit
- Next by thread: Re: Terminal Server 32bit /PAE vs 64bit
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading