February 27, 2012 at 1:34 am
Has anyone had the experience of supporting SQL Server 2008 R2 enterprise -64 bit with 256 GB RAM capcity. How was the performance of SQL Server ?
Regards,
Raj
February 28, 2012 at 1:39 am
Raj,
I don't think you will get any general useful answers to your question. Performance is depending on so many things besides RAM. What about CPU's (how many and how fast) and most importantly what is the load of the server. Database design and size, how many concurrent users, query design, indexes etc.
I think all we could say is that it will probably perform better than the same server with just 128 GB of RAM, but how much better I couldn't tell without doing some tests first.
[font="Verdana"]Markus Bohse[/font]
February 28, 2012 at 1:46 am
Thanks for the response. But I am looking for first hand experience of folks who have had 256 GB RAM SQL Server. The case studies are mostly from microsoft site , so I am looking for first hand experiences.
1) Has anyone used SQL Server with 256 GB RAM?
2) Was it any different from administering ordinary SQL Server machines?
Regards,
Raj
February 28, 2012 at 7:36 am
I guess I really don't understand what you are asking. The amount of memory in a server really doesn't make any difference to how one administers SQL Server. I have servers with 2 gig of memory and some with 48 gig of memory and it is the same. No matter what you should cap SQL Server memory and leave memory free so the Operating system and other apps can grab memory if needed.
February 28, 2012 at 11:28 am
Our production SQL Server 2005 instance has 256GB memory - We upgraded our database servers a while ago and went from 64GB to 256GB.
There isn't really anything different to note about using 256GB memory. As mentioned, you will want to set the max server memory to leave additional memory free for the o/s and other processes.
The more memory you have the more query plans and data pages you can cache. With a larger buffer pool, you should see your page life expectancy and buffer cache hit ratio increase. Fetching pages from memory is much faster than disk (even if you are using solid state), so performance will improve. As less data pages need to be fetched from disk, the I/O load on your system is also reduced.
How much of an impact the extra memory has will depend on your system.
Hope this helps,
David
DBA Dash - Free, open source monitoring for SQL Server
February 28, 2012 at 8:35 pm
wiseman82 (2/28/2012)
Our production SQL Server 2005 instance has 256GB memory - We upgraded our database servers a while ago and went from 64GB to 256GB.There isn't really anything different to note about using 256GB memory. David
Thats precisely what I need. Thanks.
Regards,
Raj
March 1, 2012 at 4:52 am
arr.nagaraj (2/28/2012)
Thanks for the response. But I am looking for first hand experience of folks who have had 256 GB RAM SQL Server. The case studies are mostly from microsoft site , so I am looking for first hand experiences.1) Has anyone used SQL Server with 256 GB RAM?
2) Was it any different from administering ordinary SQL Server machines?
There is what is called "Large Page Allocation". Please see the following links for more information.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/psssql/archive/2009/06/05/sql-server-and-large-pages-explained.aspx
Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply