February 26, 2008 at 8:48 am
hello,
i want to know how many memory you place on a server sql serveur 2000 or 2005 ?
French Geek.
http://blog.developpez.com/ylarvor
I work my english 🙂
February 27, 2008 at 9:45 am
That depends on the memory need for your server. Also on the number of users, database size, no of transaction, indexed, and lot many. you need to plan for the memory and use it. Also check the MS site for the memory limitations.
Cheers,
Sugeshkumar Rajendran
SQL Server MVP
http://sugeshkr.blogspot.com
February 27, 2008 at 10:49 am
how can i test the need in memory ? with sql profiler ? with RML Utility for sql server ?
we have only 2 simultaneous users, some sql transaction can make 30 sec before finish.
we have 1 go for memory and 3 processors. I want to increase the memory but i must prove to my direction that's a good think.
French Geek.
http://blog.developpez.com/ylarvor
I work my english 🙂
February 27, 2008 at 1:59 pm
I think you may have other problems. You may want to have as much memory as the size of your databases + some for tempdb - it all depends upon how much is used and so on.
[font="Comic Sans MS"]The GrumpyOldDBA[/font]
www.grumpyolddba.co.uk
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/
February 27, 2008 at 2:28 pm
What is it that the 2 users are doing that's tying up a SQL server that way?
Unless they're accessing a LOT of data, sounds like something's very wrong. Ugly code would probably be my first guess, followed by really bad network connection, and then possibly into the server hardware?
Give us some specifics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
February 28, 2008 at 1:58 am
I'm sorry, that's true the database is smaller than 1 gigaoctet, so that's not a problem of memory!
French Geek.
http://blog.developpez.com/ylarvor
I work my english 🙂
February 28, 2008 at 8:27 am
The database is less than a GB and only with 2 users and some transaction. You can handle this efficiently with a 2GB memory with 1GB for OS and other for SQL Server but allow sql server to handle memory dynamically.
Cheers,
Sugeshkumar Rajendran
SQL Server MVP
http://sugeshkr.blogspot.com
February 29, 2008 at 5:23 am
thanks for your works...
French Geek.
http://blog.developpez.com/ylarvor
I work my english 🙂
February 29, 2008 at 9:12 am
Why dynamically?
February 29, 2008 at 9:32 am
If you assign a min and max memory SQL Server limits its usage within that and loses performance benefits of extra memory available outside.
Cheers,
Sugeshkumar Rajendran
SQL Server MVP
http://sugeshkr.blogspot.com
February 29, 2008 at 9:46 am
Understood but why not set them the same. The dynamic setting does not release memory back to the OS.
March 1, 2008 at 4:33 am
actually allowing 1 gb for sql server on a 2gb server does not allow 1gb for o/s. I'd recommend 4gb ram with no special memory settings for sql server - that should cache most of your database, you should get around 1.5gb of buffer cache.
I still think you may have other problems - not really sure where to point you to be quite honest. I've put some rdl files on my web site - these may help you analyse some part of your server performance , well probably memory and workers and may allow you to see what your running proces sis doing http://www.grumpyolddba.co.uk/monitoring/Creating%20Custom%20Reports%20for%20the%20DBA.htm
[font="Comic Sans MS"]The GrumpyOldDBA[/font]
www.grumpyolddba.co.uk
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/
Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply