SQL 2008 64 Bit Memory

Question

SQL 2008 64 Bit Memory

Spikemarks

Old Hand

Points: 379
More actions
April 23, 2010 at 3:20 am

#221758

I have a SQL Server 2008 system which runs on windows 2008 in an active passive cluster
The Server has 64 Gig of ram
At the moment SQL Server and SSAS are set as the defaults for memory allocation
We run SQL Server, SSAS and SSRS on the server however SSAS and SSRS are not utlised that much and no big cubes/reports are run/needed.
The biggest DB is 12 Gig
I thought about changing the allocation of memory to the following - Any comments
SQL Server 24 Gig
SSAS 2 Gig
Windows - Presume 2 Gig for this
SSRS - Remainder when and if needed

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply

Toby White SSCertifiable Points: 6187 More actions · Answer 1

Why not just allocate 24GB to SQL Server and let the O/S manage the rest? I guess you don't really have a problem with 64GB of memory if your biggest database is 12GB, whatever you want to do will work fine. I just wish I had that much memory 😀

Spikemarks Old Hand Points: 379 More actions · Answer 2

Sorry misinformation.

The server has 32 Gig and is 64 Bit

Toby White SSCertifiable Points: 6187 More actions · Answer 3

Yes, 32GB is what my production Servers have. In this case I would do 16GB min SQL memory, 24GB max SQL memory and let the O/S manage the rest.

Perry Whittle SSC Guru Points: 234013 More actions · Answer 4

you want to ensure the OS has at least 4GB to manage the process memory efficiently

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs" 😉

Paul White SSC Guru Points: 150468 More actions · Answer 5

http://blogs.msdn.com/slavao/archive/2006/11/13/q-a-does-sql-server-always-respond-to-memory-pressure.aspx

Paul White
All articles available on SQL.kiwi
@SQL_Kiwi

Perry Whittle SSC Guru Points: 234013 More actions · Answer 6

Paul

Good link. As Slava points out though the memory release process can be very slow especially under pressure. For that reason I, like others, err on the side of caution and allow that little extra for system RAM. This is essentially a personal preference and as Slava points out if SQL is really that memory bound you may want to consider adding more RAM, rather than squeezing performance (as some of the thread replies indicate).

Further, check the article by Jonathan Kehayias. He mentions VAS & 32 & 64 bit in more detail.

http://sqlblog.com/blogs/jonathan_kehayias/archive/2009/07/07/understanding-the-vas-reservation-aka-memtoleave-in-sql-server.aspx

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs" 😉

Paul White SSC Guru Points: 150468 More actions · Answer 7

Perry Whittle (4/24/2010)
...This is essentially a personal preference and as Slava points out if SQL is really that memory bound you may want to consider adding more RAM, rather than squeezing performance (as some of the thread replies indicate).

Yes it is a personal preference. There's really no right or wrong answer here. For the record, though, my personal preference for a 32GB server dedicated to SQL Server, would be to aim for around 2GB free at steady state.

Further, check the article by Jonathan Kehayias. He mentions VAS & 32 & 64 bit in more detail.

Yes I have read that before, but don't rate it as highly as Slava's excellent series of blogs.

Paul

Paul White
All articles available on SQL.kiwi
@SQL_Kiwi

Spikemarks Old Hand Points: 379 More actions · Answer 8

Thanks very much for all your comments. I have read the information at the link and I think that it will be very useful.

Once again Thanks