SQL Server Forums
Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | Forum FAQ
 
Register Now and get your question answered!
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 SQL Server 2000 Forums
 SQL Server Administration (2000)
 SQL Server Standard & 4GB memory
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

uberman
Posting Yak Master

159 Posts

Posted - 07/27/2005 :  04:08:38  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I am to get a new server (I dont have any control over the spec.)

It will have

Windows 2003 standard
Sql Server 2000 Standard(sp 4)

not sure of the CPU spec

but it will have 4GB of memory.

I see that Standard can only use 2GB of memory(?) so I was after any information on how to make the most of what I have got. Or should I just leave well alone and let Sql Server sort itself out(!)

Any advice appreciated

Stalker
Yak Posting Veteran

Russia
80 Posts

Posted - 07/27/2005 :  12:17:58  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
can't Standart Edition use AWE ?
Go to Top of Page

graz
Chief SQLTeam Crack Dealer

USA
4137 Posts

Posted - 07/27/2005 :  14:14:03  Show Profile  Visit graz's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Standard Edition will only use 2GB of RAM regardless of how AWE is configured. And since he's using Windows Server 2003 standard the OS will only support 4GB of RAM. I'd just let SQL Server tune the memory until you see a specific reason to change it.

===============================================
Creating tomorrow's legacy systems today.
One crisis at a time.
Go to Top of Page

Kristen
Test

United Kingdom
22403 Posts

Posted - 07/27/2005 :  15:29:19  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Is there some recommended wisdom if, say, SQL Server and Exchange [and the O/S of course] are sharing a server?

Lets assume the server has 4GB of RAM but bog-standard SQL, Exchange and Windows versions - can they mutually-exclusively use differents parts of the 4GB memory foot-print?

Kristen
Go to Top of Page

tkizer
Almighty SQL Goddess

USA
36941 Posts

Posted - 07/27/2005 :  15:32:24  Show Profile  Visit tkizer's Homepage  Reply with Quote
quote:

Is there some recommended wisdom if, say, SQL Server and Exchange [and the O/S of course] are sharing a server?



Yes. The recommendation is to not do this. SQL Server is a memory hog.

SQL Server will use whatever memory it can get to if it needs it. So if it's 2GB, then it'll use up to that amount. Exchange and everything else can use what's left.

Tara
Go to Top of Page

Kristen
Test

United Kingdom
22403 Posts

Posted - 07/27/2005 :  15:42:21  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Appreciate the wisdom, and circa 3-minute response , as always Tara, but folk using Small Busines Server generally want to stack as much as they can on a single server.

In general they will be making light use of SQL and Exchange - and probably have a [relatively] fire breathing dragon for a server.

And then, naturally, their use of SQL [and Exchange] will grow; and the SQL applications will probably not be written optimally, so will put more strain on SQL than a "well optimised" solution would.

Now ... if Exchange will use a differen 2GB slice than SQL does, chucking 4GB RAM in the server seems like a good/cheap move - I just don't have the hardware knowledge to know if the two apps will hapilly use [or can be pursuaded to ues] difference areas of the available memory, but I'd sure like to know the answer to that one.

Kristen
Go to Top of Page

tkizer
Almighty SQL Goddess

USA
36941 Posts

Posted - 07/27/2005 :  15:44:23  Show Profile  Visit tkizer's Homepage  Reply with Quote
I think you'd have to talk to the MS Exchange and SQL Server teams for that type of answer. Perhaps Paul will see this thread. I'd assume that each would grab memory as it needs it and it wouldn't be from a particular slice just whatever is available next.

Tara
Go to Top of Page

Kristen
Test

United Kingdom
22403 Posts

Posted - 07/27/2005 :  15:51:06  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Actually I hadn't thought of it like that - I had assumed that ABOVE the first 2GB the memory was in some way "specially addressable". Whereas reading your post suggests that addressing MORE THAN 2GB needs a special trick - in which case that's particularly encouraging because it may very well be a free-for-all - up to 2GB max. per application.

And Exchagnge is at least as much of a memory hog as SQL, so 2GB each, plus whatever-pickings for the O/S, is probably going to be a runner for Mr And Mrs Small Business.

Thanks

Kristen
Go to Top of Page

tkizer
Almighty SQL Goddess

USA
36941 Posts

Posted - 07/27/2005 :  15:53:54  Show Profile  Visit tkizer's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Well it depends on the OS level how much RAM the server can see. After that, it depends on the product how much memory each can see.

Tara
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
SQL Server Forums © 2000-2009 SQLTeam Publishing, LLC Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.08 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000