Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase ««12

SQL 2000 memory recommendations Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Wednesday, January 15, 2014 5:12 AM
SSC Rookie

SSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC Rookie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, January 30, 2014 5:25 AM
Points: 44, Visits: 68
GilaMonster (1/15/2014)
Probably means SQL doesn't need more. If you're not running load on it, it won't use more memory than it needs.

That said, that looks like 32-bit without AWE or /3GB. Is AWE enabled in SQL?


I didn't think it was an option SQL server 2000 standard, I know it is on my 2005 box.

Let me check!
Post #1531041
Posted Wednesday, January 15, 2014 5:15 AM


SSC-Forever

SSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-Forever

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 3:52 AM
Points: 42,445, Visits: 35,501
Right, standard edition.

Standard is hard-capped at 2GB of memory. It can't use more so the other 4GB of memory you have on that server is wasted. So the 1.6GB looks correct, the rest is the mem-to-leave section of memory (non-buffer memory)



Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server 2008, MVP
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability

We walk in the dark places no others will enter
We stand on the bridge and no one may pass

Post #1531042
Posted Wednesday, January 15, 2014 5:17 AM
SSC Rookie

SSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC Rookie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, January 30, 2014 5:25 AM
Points: 44, Visits: 68
GilaMonster (1/15/2014)
Right, standard edition.

Standard is hard-capped at 2GB of memory. It can't use more so the other 4GB of memory you have on that server is wasted. So the 1.6GB looks correct, the rest is the mem-to-leave section of memory (non-buffer memory)


Oh well - may as well move some of that memory to the other VM then.

Will probably decrease the memory down to 4GB. At least the OS won't be low!

Thanks for your help
Post #1531043
Posted Wednesday, January 15, 2014 5:33 AM
SSC Rookie

SSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC Rookie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, January 30, 2014 5:25 AM
Points: 44, Visits: 68
I have my test & development environments on this VM too - so figure I'm better moving these to a new box and at least allowing the live environment to keep the whole 2Gb.

D
Post #1531050
Posted Wednesday, January 15, 2014 5:38 AM


SSC-Forever

SSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-Forever

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 3:52 AM
Points: 42,445, Visits: 35,501
I'm not a fan of dev and prod on the same server (mess up dev and you can take prod down), but don't move just on account of memory, each instance of Standard edition can use up to 2GB of memory total.


Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server 2008, MVP
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability

We walk in the dark places no others will enter
We stand on the bridge and no one may pass

Post #1531055
Posted Wednesday, January 15, 2014 5:47 AM
SSC Rookie

SSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC Rookie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, January 30, 2014 5:25 AM
Points: 44, Visits: 68
GilaMonster (1/15/2014)
I'm not a fan of dev and prod on the same server (mess up dev and you can take prod down), but don't move just on account of memory, each instance of Standard edition can use up to 2GB of memory total.


I had wanted to minimise the number of operating systems we had that were out of support. But I guess 1 vs 2 2K servers is not much of worse place to be in.
- We get scored down on audits for this.

In an ideal world would look to try and improve the querying done by the application, but it's on freeze at the moment and hopefully within 12 months will be retired - so just make things better for the users is the goal (i.e. stop the timeouts!)

Thanks again Gail
Post #1531059
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase ««12

Permissions Expand / Collapse