Re: Terminal Server 32bit /PAE vs 64bit
- From: "Jerry Alan Braga" <jerry.braga@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 09:44:37 -0400
yes my boot.ini has the /pae switch. so are we using the memory or not
"Jeff Pitsch" <Jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ums2BZvlHHA.4120@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
eh I'm just going by my experience. I've not had a problem with pagefiles
at 4gb while the system has more memory. Microsoft also used to give
everyone full control rights to system directories and left everything
wide open by default, I never followed that and always locked things down.
It's entirely up to you.
I dont' remember, did you say whether the /pae switch was enabled in the
boot.ini file?
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:
but microsoft always recommends 1.5x the size of your physical memory for
the page file. I understand the more page file the more disk is involved
and the disk is the slowest but what if you run over your memory you need
to store that somewhere.
If I make the page file 4096 will I not run out of memory and force a
possible crash of the server. What about the issue of not being able to
address all my 9gb of memory.
Windows sees it via MyComputer->Properties but as a whole performance
monitor does not see it with all my processes running.
"Jeff Pitsch" <Jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:O8g6X1mlHHA.492@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
See inline:
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:
but windows recommended a 13gb page file, so we set it to none, rebootSo? Just because the OS recommends it doesn't make it a best practice.
in safe mode, defrag entire drive than added page file fixed at
recommended size.
Too much pagefile can have a huge detrimental affect on the performance
of the system. Think about it, that's 13gb of information it could
potentially be accessing from the ahrd drive. What is the slowest part
of any system? The hard drive. Again, 4gb tops.
so are you saying that we are actually using all of our 9gb of memoryUnless you have enabled the /PAE switch then Windows will only address
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.
4gb. Use performance monitor to monitor memory, cpu, etc. Just because
cpu is maxed doesn't mean cpu is the problem. It very well could be
that your pagefile is causing a lot of faults because of it's size
requiring attention from the cpu.
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.
.
- References:
- Terminal Server 32bit /PAE vs 64bit
- From: Jerry Alan Braga
- Re: Terminal Server 32bit /PAE vs 64bit
- From: Jeff Pitsch
- Re: Terminal Server 32bit /PAE vs 64bit
- From: Jerry Alan Braga
- Re: Terminal Server 32bit /PAE vs 64bit
- From: Jeff Pitsch
- Re: 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: changes not saving
- Next by Date: Re: Print spooler problems on termnal server.
- 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