New
#31
here's a good article from the microsoft site on setting the pagefile.. Microsoft support
here's a good article from the microsoft site on setting the pagefile.. Microsoft support
To go to the OP's original post regarding paging file size on a 4GB system (CPU cores don't matter much for this sort of thing, really), it's probably useful to do some thorough testing going forward the next time you get curious. Windows does indeed do a good job of managing the paging file, but you can still do it better if you're willing to be up on it (and unlike previous versions of Windows, you don't really *need* a large paging file, in fact you can usually get away with a very small one if you're careful). I posted something previously that I come back to time and time again about how to test your virtual memory settings to see what will work best (as well as CPU usage, and I may add some disk usage perfmon steps once I get my hands on an SSD and a few more RAID setups to test with) under your workload. Windows is very conservative in it's paging file configuration, and while that may work fine, you still have the ability to push more data into RAM and keep it out of the paging file when not necessary. Technically these steps could be used for any version of Windows, but it's generally easier to do this on Win7 than it was even on Vista.
If I find the msdn blog on this topic, I'll post it for you. What it boils down to is to just use the Win 7 defaults. The blog post was esssential from Russonivitch (Of SysInternals fame) on paging files and his recommendation as to how to determine the optimal size of paging file for your system and the apps and load that you run. There was a length discussion there with contributors from people who had written the MS software related to paging.
Authoritative and debunks even many of the microsoft myths re virtual memory:
Pushing the Limits of Windows: Virtual Memory - Mark's Blog - Site Home - TechNet Blogs