Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
cjp
Yak Posting Veteran
69 Posts |
 Posted - 2009-02-02 : 05:50:16
|
| I run a large medical database on SQLS 2005 sp2. We are thinking of upgrading my main box since our huge database is about to get even bigger. At the moment, the built size, indexed, is nearly 200 GB (and about 1.3 billion rows of data, shared between 3 big tables and 3 small ones). The built size is likely to increase to at least 250 GB in the near future.Recently, I was reading an internet thread in which a few people argued that you can have too much memory as well as too little. I didn't really follow all the details but it seems sensible to run my proposed spec past experts to see what you think.We are planning the following:64-bit SQLS 2005 (I will upgrade to sp 3)Intel Xeon E5420 2.5 Ghz cpu (quad-core)8 GB ECC RAMIntel Server mobo4 hard disksThis is very close to what I am running at the moment, and it works well. However, the spec includes provision for increasing RAM to 16 GB and for fitting another cpu - ie going to 8 processor cores.Will SQLS 2005 use everything reliably and efficiently if we go to 16 GB RAM and to two Xeons?Thanks.Chris |
|
|
|
|
|
machine spec to run SQLS 05 effectively