January 21, 2022 at 12:00 am
Comments posted to this topic are about the item The Need for 256GB
January 21, 2022 at 8:23 am
But .. 32 cores on SQL Server Standard? I'm wrong or the limit is 24 cores?
January 21, 2022 at 9:10 am
the lesser of 4 sockets or 24 cores, yes. So realistically the limit on modern kit is 24 with the number of cores on chips these days.
That said, while I've seen some abysmally written crud in my time, I can never recall seeing a SQL Server dedicated VM/Box CPU rather than memory bound. With VMs, certainly, even on multi system consolidated boxes with, <cough> maybe not the best coding practice in place I rarely see over 4 cores necessary even on large-ish systems (as in multiple tens Tb thousands of users).
Of course if you mix apps and SQL Server on the same box, different thing entirely, but if you're doing that ...
I'm a DBA.
I'm not paid to solve problems. I'm paid to prevent them.
January 21, 2022 at 12:59 pm
Steve, I think you're confusing the request for a higher functional limit with marketing-based limits placed on products from various vendors. Asking for a higher limit on RAM for standard edition products is simply a reflection of the larger data sets and higher demands placed on purchased products by end-users.
In your examples, the vendors have responded that if you want more RAM you have to pay for more of something else. The same process applies to your Tesla. Nice car btw.
It will always be a tug-of-war between end-users (ie. companies using Sql Server) and the vendors. It always has been.
Richard
January 21, 2022 at 5:09 pm
The x1e.2xlarge EC2 instance type provides 244GB with 8 cores. Also, the upcoming x2iedn.2xlarge has 256GB with 8 cores. I see a lot of clients running 8 core instances with Standard Edition.
January 21, 2022 at 6:00 pm
Within the first few sentences of reading this, I wondered if better code would lessen that need. You pointed that out in the last paragraph.
But, I think I would tend to agree. I think the difference between the editions would be in available features, not the size of the workload.
Michael L John
If you assassinate a DBA, would you pull a trigger?
To properly post on a forum:
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/61537/
January 22, 2022 at 12:09 am
From the Article:[hr]
"I have seen a few people call for raising the RAM limit in the Standard Edition of SQL Server. In 2016, Aaron Bertrand voiced this, and for 2019, Glenn Berry asked that the limit be raised to 256GB. In the last newsletter of the year, Brent Ozar asked Santa for a 256GB limit."
I wouldn’t count on any such changes to Standard Edition. There’s too much money to be had by MS in forcing folks to go with the Enterprise Edition and whatever the equivalent is in Azure. They knew what they were doing when they defined the limits… especially when they added some of the “free” previously “Enterprise Only” features back in 2016 SP1.
“Fish on the line!” 😀
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 31, 2022 at 2:47 pm
It would be nice if they increased the DB limit in SQL Server express from 10 GB to 20 GB!
February 3, 2022 at 5:56 pm
It would be nice if they increased the DB limit in SQL Server express from 10 GB to 20 GB!
only really required if you have single tables that go over 10GB - limit is per database, not instance so you can have 20 databases each with 1 single table of 10GB
February 4, 2022 at 12:01 am
To wit... 10GB is only a physical limit. With the likes of Partitioned Views, you can get around that although that might be a good time to try and sell management on getting the Standard Edition.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply