On 9 Sep 2001, at 11:26, Rob wrote:

> Back when memory was still pretty expensive I remember that a
> recommendation for the swap file was (I think) 2.5x the amount of
> physcial ram. My question now is what is a recommendation for the
> swap file now that ram is cheaper and it is not unusal to have
> 256mb or more of physcial ram installed. The way I understand it is
> that windows requires some type of swap file to run.
> TIA
> Rob Shane
> Infinty Web Services
> www.infinitydotcom.com
> ICQ# 3433125

  Windows does not absolutely require a swap file; the option is
available to turn virtual memory off.  However, the size of (some)
Windows applications has bloated right along with typical installed
RAM configurations, and so Microsoft still doesn't recommend this
option.

  A running application has two important memory "footprints":  the
amount of per-process memory needed (this generally excludes the
program's code and DLLs, which are sharable amongst multiple
instances), and the "working set" of stuff -- data and code -- that
needs to be in real RAM to provide acceptable performance.

  For best results, your installed RAM needs to accomodate the
working sets of all your usual simultaneous applications (plus non-
swappable OS components such as drivers).
  Your swap file needs to accomodate all of the per-process memory
needs of those applications.  If it's too small, you can get "out of
memory" errors even when there's plenty of RAM left unused.

  As you can see, any simple formula linking these two is purely a
guesstimate, and might or might not be "correct" for your particular
mix of applications.
  My own experience tends to suggest, however, that for most people
the best ratio is somewhere between 1.5x and 3x; 2.5x is still a
pretty acceptable rule of thumb.

David Gillett

             PCSOFT maintains many useful files for download
                     visit our download web page at:
                  http://freepctech.com/downloads.shtml