Why change registry size and when?

[Top Spin]

I see a lot of posts here about increasing the registry size. Is this
something that I should do periodically? How often? When?

What is the right size? Can it be too big?

Checking my system settings, I see that mine is as follows:

Current registry size: 27MB

Maximum registry size (MB): 1639

Is 27MB about "normal"?

That "1639" seems like an odd size? I have no idea where it came from.
Does it look OK?

How can I tell what a good size is?

Thanks

 

[Dave Patrick]

This link may help.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/techinfo/reskit/en-us/regentry/46653.asp

--
Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft MVP [Windows NT/2000 Operating Systems]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect.

:
| I see a lot of posts here about increasing the registry size. Is this
| something that I should do periodically? How often? When?
|
| What is the right size? Can it be too big?
|
| Checking my system settings, I see that mine is as follows:
|
| Current registry size: 27MB
|
| Maximum registry size (MB): 1639
|
| Is 27MB about "normal"?
|
| That "1639" seems like an odd size? I have no idea where it came from.
| Does it look OK?
|
| How can I tell what a good size is?
|
| Thanks
|
| --
| For email, use Usenet-20031220 at spamex.com

 

[Dave Patrick]

This link may help.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/techinfo/reskit/en-us/regentry/46653.asp

--
Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft MVP [Windows NT/2000 Operating Systems]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect.

:
| I see a lot of posts here about increasing the registry size. Is this
| something that I should do periodically? How often? When?
|
| What is the right size? Can it be too big?
|
| Checking my system settings, I see that mine is as follows:
|
| Current registry size: 27MB
|
| Maximum registry size (MB): 1639
|
| Is 27MB about "normal"?
|
| That "1639" seems like an odd size? I have no idea where it came from.
| Does it look OK?
|
| How can I tell what a good size is?
|
| Thanks
|
| --
| For email, use Usenet-20031220 at spamex.com

 

[Mark V]

I see a lot of posts here about increasing the registry size. Is
this something that I should do periodically? How often? When?

What is the right size? Can it be too big?

Checking my system settings, I see that mine is as follows:

Current registry size: 27MB

Maximum registry size (MB): 1639

Is 27MB about "normal"?

That "1639" seems like an odd size? I have no idea where it came
from. Does it look OK?

How can I tell what a good size is?

27MB is "about normal".
My rule is to set the Maximum about 30% larger than Current.

Generally slow growth will be seen over time as applications etc. are
installed. If the reported size is growing rapidly or for no
apparent reason, then concern, research and determination is
warranted. If the Max is set too high you may not notice (no
warning/event log) that the size has increased substantially.

Mine (W2K) is 25 and my max is 35 FWIW.

 

[Mark V]

I see a lot of posts here about increasing the registry size. Is
this something that I should do periodically? How often? When?

What is the right size? Can it be too big?

Checking my system settings, I see that mine is as follows:

Current registry size: 27MB

Maximum registry size (MB): 1639

Is 27MB about "normal"?

That "1639" seems like an odd size? I have no idea where it came
from. Does it look OK?

How can I tell what a good size is?

27MB is "about normal".
My rule is to set the Maximum about 30% larger than Current.

Generally slow growth will be seen over time as applications etc. are
installed. If the reported size is growing rapidly or for no
apparent reason, then concern, research and determination is
warranted. If the Max is set too high you may not notice (no
warning/event log) that the size has increased substantially.

Mine (W2K) is 25 and my max is 35 FWIW.

 

[Top Spin]

27MB is "about normal".
My rule is to set the Maximum about 30% larger than Current.

Is that "1639" really 1,639 MB (1.6 GB)? If so, it's 6,000% larger
than the 27MB. Is that a problem?

Generally slow growth will be seen over time as applications etc. are
installed. If the reported size is growing rapidly or for no
apparent reason, then concern, research and determination is
warranted. If the Max is set too high you may not notice (no
warning/event log) that the size has increased substantially.

So the only downsides to a large max is wasted disk space and lack of
a warning? I could reduce the max to 39 MB and save 1GB of HDD space
and still have space for 50% growth.

 

[Top Spin]

27MB is "about normal".
My rule is to set the Maximum about 30% larger than Current.

Is that "1639" really 1,639 MB (1.6 GB)? If so, it's 6,000% larger
than the 27MB. Is that a problem?

Generally slow growth will be seen over time as applications etc. are
installed. If the reported size is growing rapidly or for no
apparent reason, then concern, research and determination is
warranted. If the Max is set too high you may not notice (no
warning/event log) that the size has increased substantially.

So the only downsides to a large max is wasted disk space and lack of
a warning? I could reduce the max to 39 MB and save 1GB of HDD space
and still have space for 50% growth.

 

[Leonard Severt [MSFT]]

Is that "1639" really 1,639 MB (1.6 GB)? If so, it's 6,000% larger
than the 27MB. Is that a problem?


So the only downsides to a large max is wasted disk space and lack of
a warning? I could reduce the max to 39 MB and save 1GB of HDD space
and still have space for 50% growth.

The disk space is not allocated until it is needed. I don't know of any
other overhead. So the reason to reduce the max is so you can get a
warning. I also generally set my max at 35 or 40 on systems. On some big
application or terminal servers though the registry might be more like
70 meg in size.

Leonard Severt

Windows 2000 Server Setup Team

 

[Leonard Severt [MSFT]]

Is that "1639" really 1,639 MB (1.6 GB)? If so, it's 6,000% larger
than the 27MB. Is that a problem?


So the only downsides to a large max is wasted disk space and lack of
a warning? I could reduce the max to 39 MB and save 1GB of HDD space
and still have space for 50% growth.

The disk space is not allocated until it is needed. I don't know of any
other overhead. So the reason to reduce the max is so you can get a
warning. I also generally set my max at 35 or 40 on systems. On some big
application or terminal servers though the registry might be more like
70 meg in size.

Leonard Severt

Windows 2000 Server Setup Team

 

[Mark V]

Is that "1639" really 1,639 MB (1.6 GB)? If so, it's 6,000% larger
than the 27MB. Is that a problem?

So the only downsides to a large max is wasted disk space and lack
of a warning? I could reduce the max to 39 MB and save 1GB of HDD
space and still have space for 50% growth.

See Leonard's post.

Just to be certain, you are looking at the "Maximum Registry Size"
limit (and not the paging file sizes) right?

 

[Mark V]

Is that "1639" really 1,639 MB (1.6 GB)? If so, it's 6,000% larger
than the 27MB. Is that a problem?

So the only downsides to a large max is wasted disk space and lack
of a warning? I could reduce the max to 39 MB and save 1GB of HDD
space and still have space for 50% growth.

See Leonard's post.

Just to be certain, you are looking at the "Maximum Registry Size"
limit (and not the paging file sizes) right?

 

[Top Spin]

If true, it is ridiculous <G>

If what is true? I presume you mean that my setting is 1639 is
ridiculous. Why? Mr. Severt says that no space is allocated until
needed.

In any case, that's not what I asked. I asked if the number in the
little box (1639 in my case) really represents MB, as the legend
indicates. I don;t be,ieve you answered that question.

See Leonard's post.

Just to be certain, you are looking at the "Maximum Registry Size"
limit (and not the paging file sizes) right?

Since you seem to doubt me, here's the data from the whole VBirtual
Memory panel:

Drive [Volume Label] Paging File Size (MB)
C: [HARDDISK] 1046 - 1046 (selected)
D: [OS_INSTALL]

Paging file size for selected drive

Drive: C: [HARDDISK]
Space available: 7500 MB

Initial size (MB): 1046
Maximum size (MB): 1046

Total paging file size for all drives

Minimum allowed: 2 MB
Recommended: 766 MB
Currently allocated: 1046 MB

Registry size

Current registry size: 27 MB
Maximum registry size (MB): 1039

 

[Top Spin]

If true, it is ridiculous <G>

If what is true? I presume you mean that my setting is 1639 is
ridiculous. Why? Mr. Severt says that no space is allocated until
needed.

In any case, that's not what I asked. I asked if the number in the
little box (1639 in my case) really represents MB, as the legend
indicates. I don;t be,ieve you answered that question.

See Leonard's post.

Just to be certain, you are looking at the "Maximum Registry Size"
limit (and not the paging file sizes) right?

Since you seem to doubt me, here's the data from the whole VBirtual
Memory panel:

Drive [Volume Label] Paging File Size (MB)
C: [HARDDISK] 1046 - 1046 (selected)
D: [OS_INSTALL]

Paging file size for selected drive

Drive: C: [HARDDISK]
Space available: 7500 MB

Initial size (MB): 1046
Maximum size (MB): 1046

Total paging file size for all drives

Minimum allowed: 2 MB
Recommended: 766 MB
Currently allocated: 1046 MB

Registry size

Current registry size: 27 MB
Maximum registry size (MB): 1039

 

[Mark V]

If what is true? I presume you mean that my setting is 1639 is
ridiculous. Why? Mr. Severt says that no space is allocated until
needed.

If the figure "1639" is truely in the the Max Reg Size box,
it is is ridiculous because the registry could never grow to anywhere
near that size in a working a boootable system. Clearly this figure,
whether it can be considered legal or not, whether it generates any
error or not, is far outside the range of normal/exoected/useful
values. I would assume that it is simply being ignored and not
generating any error. Or it may be that a Max Registry Size of 1639
MB is accepted but in practice useless.

That's my take FWIW. Perahps another poster has more experience with
this.

In any case, that's not what I asked. I asked if the number in the
little box (1639 in my case) really represents MB, as the legend
indicates. I don;t be,ieve you answered that question.

The digits in the box are intended to represent size in mega-bytes,
but are either invalid or ignored or at the least unusable in a real
system. You would have to contact Microsoft for additional
information. I have no idea how such an entry (1639) is being
handled/interpreted/ignored...

Since you seem to doubt me, here's the data from the whole VBirtual
Memory panel:

It is not a personal doubt issue. Occasionaly posters read one thing
and write another either through ignorance _or_ a simple mistake. I
simply wished to confirm what you said you were seeing since the
figure is so far outside anything "normal". That's all. No personal
offense intended. It was a question of confirmation.

Drive [Volume Label] Paging File Size (MB)
C: [HARDDISK] 1046 - 1046 (selected)
D: [OS_INSTALL]

Paging file size for selected drive

Drive: C: [HARDDISK]
Space available: 7500 MB

Initial size (MB): 1046
Maximum size (MB): 1046

Total paging file size for all drives

Minimum allowed: 2 MB
Recommended: 766 MB
Currently allocated: 1046 MB

Registry size

Current registry size: 27 MB
Maximum registry size (MB): 1039

 

[Mark V]

If what is true? I presume you mean that my setting is 1639 is
ridiculous. Why? Mr. Severt says that no space is allocated until
needed.

If the figure "1639" is truely in the the Max Reg Size box,
it is is ridiculous because the registry could never grow to anywhere
near that size in a working a boootable system. Clearly this figure,
whether it can be considered legal or not, whether it generates any
error or not, is far outside the range of normal/exoected/useful
values. I would assume that it is simply being ignored and not
generating any error. Or it may be that a Max Registry Size of 1639
MB is accepted but in practice useless.

That's my take FWIW. Perahps another poster has more experience with
this.

In any case, that's not what I asked. I asked if the number in the
little box (1639 in my case) really represents MB, as the legend
indicates. I don;t be,ieve you answered that question.

The digits in the box are intended to represent size in mega-bytes,
but are either invalid or ignored or at the least unusable in a real
system. You would have to contact Microsoft for additional
information. I have no idea how such an entry (1639) is being
handled/interpreted/ignored...

Since you seem to doubt me, here's the data from the whole VBirtual
Memory panel:

It is not a personal doubt issue. Occasionaly posters read one thing
and write another either through ignorance _or_ a simple mistake. I
simply wished to confirm what you said you were seeing since the
figure is so far outside anything "normal". That's all. No personal
offense intended. It was a question of confirmation.

Drive [Volume Label] Paging File Size (MB)
C: [HARDDISK] 1046 - 1046 (selected)
D: [OS_INSTALL]

Paging file size for selected drive

Drive: C: [HARDDISK]
Space available: 7500 MB

Initial size (MB): 1046
Maximum size (MB): 1046

Total paging file size for all drives

Minimum allowed: 2 MB
Recommended: 766 MB
Currently allocated: 1046 MB

Registry size

Current registry size: 27 MB
Maximum registry size (MB): 1039