the 1.5 is a formula
No, it is, and admittedly so by Microsoft, an empirical number derived
over long periods of time and backed up by calculated usages and memory
requirements. IIRC it was based on using windows with Microsoft
applications such as Office for normal everyday cycles of work,
including the use of Outlook. There IS a basis for the number.
it is not wrong to suggest
it or faulty to recommend
it.
It is, in the manner you have been doing it.
however if you or anyone
really wants an exact number
for the amount of pagefile/vm
the system uses, then simply
get it.
It's not simple. One needs a certain minimum level of expertise and
knowledge to get an accurate reading of possible needs under varying
conditions.
it is not hard to analyze it
nor faulty to ascertain some
elightenment.
Except you aren't heeding your own postulations here.
you will likely find and
also prove to yourself that
your system will never
use more that a couple
hundred megs of pagefile
regardless if it is set to .5
or 1.5 or 10.5 the actual
size of your ram.
BS. My pagefile is system managed. Right now it's sitting at 259 Meg
used; it displays in a hidden toolbar whenever I want to look at it.
Before I upped the amount of RAM in my system it wasn't unusual for the
pagefile to reach close to a Gig if I had several things going on at
once or had video rendering taking place. It would often sit at around
600 Meg and one time it reached 2.3 Gig on me and I was NOT rendering
video; just had a lot of apps busy. It seemed like it took forever for
it to release the memory back to the system.
ON a system such as I have now, with more RAM (just a Gig & a half),
the pagefile size typically sits around 170 Meg; enough to keep it
occupied so that "real" pagefile operations will occur on the second
physical hard drive, which now barely gets used. And which is not
fragmented, by the way. The pf number is steady, cpu occupation is
about 9%, so that indicates everything right now is pretty minimal and
nothing but a few background tasks are taking place. Actual space
allocation is seen as around 2 Gig on the drive and there are no sectors
up against it at either end.
if you prove to yourself
that none of your software
demands more pagefile than
say half the size of your ram,
then setting your vm to half
the size won't cause any
problems. thus the argument
for the 1.5 formula will prove
to be more vm than necessary.
Boy, you live in a fantasy world, I think.
the only exception is for
specialty software that is
"engineered" to demand lots
of pagefile, like video or
graphics editors.
Good grief, there are LOTS of other applications can be memory
intensive. Any spreadsheet type program with lots of calculations,
anyting with a lot of DDE goings on, multiple instance of the same
programs, etc. etc. etc..
but in these cases, you will likely
need additional ram anyways as
per the software requirements,
thus the vm will also be
larger as well.
No, pagefile USAGE will be larger. The overall pagefile size won't
likely need to be changed by the system to anything larger than it is.
but for the most part, off
the shelf software is engineered
for the average user and the
average pc configuration.
No, it's "engineered" to require the amount that makes it run most
efficiently and within the confines of the operating system and that's
all. Developers don't take into consideration the amount of RAM, VM,
etc. etc. as they write their apps.
lastly, your argument that
custom/fixed sizing of the
vm are for a certain class
of computer users is faulty.
No, it definitely is not faulty. Your thinking is though, and quite
flawed to boot.
the custom/fixed sizing of
the vm is for a certain class
of configuration where the
automatic resizing is not
managiable by windows
on some pc's.
Wow, where the hell you meant to go with that is beyond me! Sounds like
the Peter Principle becoming much more obvious here, not that it's the
first time it's been evident.
Twayne
