🚀 go-pugleaf

sas52992@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Sanjay Ashok Sheth) writes:
>colfelt@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew BW Colfelt) writes:
>>sas52992@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Sanjay Ashok Sheth) writes:

>However, if you change the PageOverCommit var.
>to a value > 4, you change the Max. Recommended Size and can get even
>bigger swapfiles.


This has all been very interesting, but in my
journeys I have come to believe that the point
of maxing out the swapfile is moot; you can
create a monster swapfile but you'll run out of
System Resources before the swapfile gets full.
(At least this is what happened last night when I 
experimented with various sizes.)

So I guess Windows IS smarter than I am when 
recommending swapfile sizes!

Now I ask:  

Are system resources allocated to instances of an
application, or both instances and contents of
running applications.

That is, if one copy of Excel is running with no 
active document, does it take up the same amount 
of resources as another copy of Excel running with 
a large active document?

It would appear that the two copies of Excel require
different amounts of MEMORY, but do they require different
amounts of SRs also?

Following this line of reasoning, it seems that it
would only be a desktop cluttered with memory-hungry,
resource-wise applications that would benefit from a
gigantic swapfile.  

How well does this fit?  


-- 
Andrew          
Colfelt@ucsu.Colorado.EDU
--