128 GB RAM, how much page file?

Microsoft Windows server 2008 r2 standar...
March 17, 2010 at 15:25:23
Specs: Windows 2008 R2, 4ghz/128gb
I have a Windows 2008 R2 server with 128 GB
of RAM, how much page file if any do I need? I
have read in some places that a 64bit
operating system doesn't need any page file
and others that it does. I don't have 1.5 x RAM
free drive space available but I am curious as
to what the best practice is.

Thank you,

Leto the just

See More: 128 GB RAM, how much page file?

Report •

March 17, 2010 at 18:10:14
You would need to run some sort of performance log or monitor to decide. It would depend on server loads. If you have enough you might use some for a ram drive.

Playing to the angels
Les Paul (1915-2009)

Report •

April 4, 2010 at 08:20:23
Performance log or monitor?

The default page size for Windows 2008 R2 is equal to the amount of RAM.

Report •

June 21, 2010 at 13:19:56
Whether a system is 64 bit or not has nothing to do with the need for a pagefile. It all depends on the workload. Some configurations will need it desperately while others not at all.

The default size of the pagefile is somewhat higher than RAM size. This is only necessary if you require a full memory dump for diagnostic purposes.

The best way to determine needed pagefile size is to monitor actual usage with Performance Monitor. Monitor the "Paging File" object, "% Usage Peak" counter during peak usage times. The initial size should be at least twice this value, with the maximum twice that.

You can also check the Commit charge. This will be the first number under the label "Page File" in Task Manager - Performance Tab. This is NOT actual pagefile usage. The second number is the Commit Limit which is roughly the sum of RAM + pagefile size. You want the peak commit charge well under the limit or bad things will happen, such as system or application failures.

A RAM drive is usually an inefficient use of memory. The system cache does most of what a RAM drive with fewer disadvantages. The are some legitimate uses for a RAM drive but not many.

Contrary to what you might read on some forums, putting the pagefile on a RAM drive is a ridiculous idea.

Report •

Related Solutions

June 21, 2010 at 14:39:38
I agree with you up to the last sentence. Why, if you could, would putting the pagefile on a ram drive be ridiculous idea?

Having pagefile operations happening in nanoseconds instead of milliseconds would be a performance increase. It would be the same if you placed the pagefile on a solid state drive.

Report •

June 23, 2010 at 12:18:16
Regarding the pagefile on a ram drive.
This is not just my idea but is shared by people who are far more qualified than I.

This thread on another forum explains it very well. Read the post by "DriverGuru", about 1/3 of the way down.


DriverGuru is Jamie Hanrahan
He is a developer of Windows device drivers and has been a consultant on the subject for many years. He has taught seminars on Windows internals to professional developers. He also has access to Windows source code.

Report •

June 23, 2010 at 15:39:50
"In taking some of this for a RAM disk you are reducing the effectiveness of this automatic, self-tuning mechanism"

Kinda what I thought. He is talking about how the impact of shrinking ram available to the system would impact ram usage.
I think the point missed here is Carl has a 128GIG of ram so any ram taken away for a ram disk would be no loss to the system at all.

Of course this depends on the apps running on this system but for most of what I have ever run 128gig of ram would never be utilized by the system/apps.

Report •

Ask Question