|
|
|
SSC-Addicted
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, May 10, 2013 3:20 PM
Points: 481,
Visits: 311
|
|
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Server Administration
Swarndeep
http://talksql.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
|
Say Hey Kid
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Sunday, May 12, 2013 11:07 PM
Points: 693,
Visits: 1,027
|
|
| I selected "nothing" however I've had issues in the past with the default "max server memory" setting being set at 2147483647 MB on 64 bit systems. Setting the max to a level less than the total OS memory has improved performance on a number of boxes.
|
|
|
|
|
SSC Veteran
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 7:13 AM
Points: 256,
Visits: 223
|
|
Hi foxxo
Nice TIP. Any idea Why this improve performance ??
|
|
|
|
|
SSCommitted
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, January 11, 2013 8:20 AM
Points: 1,608,
Visits: 373
|
|
3 GB Switch is supported for 32 bit editions. It tell operating system to allocate 2 GB RAM to OS and 2 GB RAM to other program such as SQL Or Exchange, if 4 GB RAM is installed. Well, almost. MSDN (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms791558.aspx) statesOn 32-bit versions of Windows, the /3GB parameter enables 4 GT RAM Tuning, a feature that enlarges the user-mode virtual address space to 3 GB and restricts the kernel-mode components to the remaining 1 GB. Anyway, thanks for the good question. These are parameters considered rather seldomly which may heavily affect the performance of your system.
Best regards, Dietmar Weickert.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Fame
       
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 4:11 PM
Points: 3,390,
Visits: 3,403
|
|
foxxo (1/7/2010) I selected "nothing" however I've had issues in the past with the default "max server memory" setting being set at 2147483647 MB on 64 bit systems. Setting the max to a level less than the total OS memory has improved performance on a number of boxes.
That has been my experience as well. Thanks for bringing that up.
|
|
|
|
|
SSCrazy
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 6:16 AM
Points: 2,862,
Visits: 2,464
|
|
It has been ours aw well. It appears that if one reserves the minimum memory necessary to make the OS happy, and anything else that may be running - then take the rest for SQL Server, things work mor harmoniously. It will also redice to some point some of the system performance issues as it works with what it is told to use. As long as the OS has enough memory to not utilize paging it is happy. This is actually a throwback to the early years when SQL Server was Sybase. After MS took over at the version they did, they made a lot of rule changes to try to distance themselves. MS and I had numerous arguments over best practices and they finally conformed
Steve Jimmo Sr DBA “If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a Nation gone under." - Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Fame
       
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 4:11 PM
Points: 3,390,
Visits: 3,403
|
|
Glenn Berry has a good article on the subject on this site.
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/blogs/glennberry/archive/2009/10/29/suggested-max-memory-settings-for-sql-server-2005_2F00_2008.aspx
|
|
|
|
|
SSC Rookie
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 6:13 PM
Points: 44,
Visits: 933
|
|
yes, the question would be better if talked about: what do you need to do for sql server recognize more than 2GB of memory in an 64bit environment?
to allocate the max memory available on the windows server is a suicide.. 
--------------------- Alex Rosa http://www.keep-learning.com/blog
|
|
|
|
|
SSC Eights!
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 10:46 AM
Points: 911,
Visits: 831
|
|
| There should be a 4th option: set the maximum Memory SQL can use.
|
|
|
|
|
SSCoach
         
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 6:30 PM
Points: 18,733,
Visits: 12,330
|
|
|
|
|