Optimum page file size for windows server 2003

[Guest RossB]

What is the optimum page file size for windows server 2003. As RAM size

increases, is it really necessary to increase the pagefile size to match. It

used to be the case that MS recommended 1*RAM for pagefile size, but is it

really necessary to have an 8GB pagefile on a server with 8GB RAM, would this

not place an excessive load on the disks and waste a lot of disk space. What

is the discussion groups thoughts on this?

[Guest Floris van Haaster]

Re: Optimum page file size for windows server 2003

 

Good question...

 

Maybe there is something interesting in this article?

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/889654

 

Floris van Haaster

 

"RossB" <RossB@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:53D498D7-C577-4A4B-8C15-BB8E30E16E30@microsoft.com...

> What is the optimum page file size for windows server 2003. As RAM size

> increases, is it really necessary to increase the pagefile size to match.

> It

> used to be the case that MS recommended 1*RAM for pagefile size, but is it

> really necessary to have an 8GB pagefile on a server with 8GB RAM, would

> this

> not place an excessive load on the disks and waste a lot of disk space.

> What

> is the discussion groups thoughts on this?

[Guest Mark]

RE: Optimum page file size for windows server 2003

 

Personally I was under the impression that 2.5 GB was the max - beyond that

you had nothing but waste... I could be wrong.

 

"RossB" wrote:

> What is the optimum page file size for windows server 2003. As RAM size

> increases, is it really necessary to increase the pagefile size to match. It

> used to be the case that MS recommended 1*RAM for pagefile size, but is it

> really necessary to have an 8GB pagefile on a server with 8GB RAM, would this

> not place an excessive load on the disks and waste a lot of disk space. What

> is the discussion groups thoughts on this?

[Guest Mark]

RE: Optimum page file size for windows server 2003

 

Ok, that's way wrong.....

 

1.5 x's the RAM you have. It's necessary for the apps plus i/o's along with

dumps if your system BSOD's....

 

Maybe this will help you out...

http://technet2.microsoft.com/windowsserver/en/library/de723537-50fb-4a23-b09c-163ec1629d361033.mspx?mfr=true

 

Good Luck.

 

"Mark" wrote:

> Personally I was under the impression that 2.5 GB was the max - beyond that

> you had nothing but waste... I could be wrong.

>

> "RossB" wrote:

>

> > What is the optimum page file size for windows server 2003. As RAM size

> > increases, is it really necessary to increase the pagefile size to match. It

> > used to be the case that MS recommended 1*RAM for pagefile size, but is it

> > really necessary to have an 8GB pagefile on a server with 8GB RAM, would this

> > not place an excessive load on the disks and waste a lot of disk space. What

> > is the discussion groups thoughts on this?

[Guest RossB]

Re: Optimum page file size for windows server 2003

 

I like that article, it provides perfmon counters for working out the most

efficient page file size. They are

 

Memory: pages input/sec 10(if more put pagefile on separate drive), more

than 60, use multi disc page file.

Paging File\\% Usage No more than 70 percent

Paging File\\% Usage Peak No more than 70 percent

 

Essentially, this implies you should aim for page file usage well below 70

percent. If % usage figure is very small, you are wasting hard disk space.

 

"Floris van Haaster" wrote:

> Good question...

>

> Maybe there is something interesting in this article?

> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/889654

>

> Floris van Haaster

>

> "RossB" <RossB@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

> news:53D498D7-C577-4A4B-8C15-BB8E30E16E30@microsoft.com...

> > What is the optimum page file size for windows server 2003. As RAM size

> > increases, is it really necessary to increase the pagefile size to match.

> > It

> > used to be the case that MS recommended 1*RAM for pagefile size, but is it

> > really necessary to have an 8GB pagefile on a server with 8GB RAM, would

> > this

> > not place an excessive load on the disks and waste a lot of disk space.

> > What

> > is the discussion groups thoughts on this?

>