| Author |
Topic |
|
uberman
Posting Yak Master
159 Posts |
 Posted - 2005-07-27 : 04:08:38
|
| I am to get a new server (I dont have any control over the spec.)It will have Windows 2003 standardSql Server 2000 Standard(sp 4)not sure of the CPU specbut 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
80 Posts |
Posted - 2005-07-27 : 12:17:58
|
| can't Standart Edition use AWE ? |
 |
|
|
graz
Chief SQLTeam Crack Dealer
4149 Posts |
Posted - 2005-07-27 : 14:14:03
|
| 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. |
|
|
|
Kristen
Test
22859 Posts |
Posted - 2005-07-27 : 15:29:19
|
| 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 |
|
|
|
tkizer
Almighty SQL Goddess
38200 Posts |
Posted - 2005-07-27 : 15:32:24
|
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 |
|
|
|
Kristen
Test
22859 Posts |
Posted - 2005-07-27 : 15:42:21
|
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 |
|
|
|
tkizer
Almighty SQL Goddess
38200 Posts |
Posted - 2005-07-27 : 15:44:23
|
| 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 |
|
|
|
Kristen
Test
22859 Posts |
Posted - 2005-07-27 : 15:51:06
|
| 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.ThanksKristen |
|
|
|
tkizer
Almighty SQL Goddess
38200 Posts |
Posted - 2005-07-27 : 15:53:54
|
| 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 |
|
|
|
|
SQL Server Standard & 4GB memory