SQL Clone
SQLServerCentral is supported by Redgate
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in

Suggested Max Memory Settings for SQL Server 2005/2008

It is pretty important to make sure you set the Max Server memory setting for SQL Server 2005/2008 to something besides the default setting (which allows SQL Server to use as much memory as it wants, subject to signals from the operating system that it is under memory pressure). This is especially important with larger, busier systems that may be under memory pressure. 

This setting controls how much memory can be used by the SQL Server Buffer Pool.  If you don’t set an upper limit for this value, other parts of SQL Server, and the operating system can be starved for memory, which can cause instability and performance problems. It is even more important to set this correctly if you have “Lock Pages in Memory” enabled for the SQL Server service account (which I always do for x64 systems with more than 4GB of memory).

These settings are for x64, on a dedicated database server, only running the DB engine, (which is the ideal situation).

Physical RAM                        MaxServerMem Setting
2GB                                           1500
4GB                                           3200
6GB                                           4800
8GB                                           6400
12GB                                         10000
16GB                                         13500
24GB                                         21500
32GB                                         29000
48GB                                         44000
64GB                                         60000
72GB                                         68000
96GB                                         92000
128GB                                       124000

If you are running other SQL Server components, such as SSIS or Full Text Search, you will want to allocate less memory for the SQL Server Buffer Pool. You also want to pay close attention to how much memory is still available in Task Manager. This is how much RAM should be available in Task Manager while you are under load (on Windows Server 2003):

Physical RAM            Target Avail RAM in Task Manager
< 4GB                               512MB – 1GB
4-32GB                              1GB – 2GB
32-128GB                            2GB – 4GB
> 128GB                              > 4GB

You can use T-SQL to set your MaxServerMemory setting. The sample below sets it to 3500, which is the equivalent of 3.5GB. This setting is dynamic in SQL Server 2005/2008, which means that you can change it and it goes into effect immediately, without restarting SQL Server.

-- Turn on advanced options
EXEC  sp_configure'Show Advanced Options',1;

-- Set max server memory = 3500MB for the server
EXEC  sp_configure'max server memory (MB)',3500;

-- See what the current values are
EXEC sp_configure;

You can also change this setting in the SSMS GUI, as you see below:


Finally, I have learned that it is a good idea to temporarily adjust your MaxServerMemory setting downward by a few GB if you know you will be doing a large file copy on your database server (such as copying a large database backup file).


Posted by Dugi on 30 October 2009

Nice info about Memory configuration.

Posted by Steve Jones on 30 October 2009

Great info. I've never seen a great chart like this. Do you have a reference for picking those numbers?

Also, I thought on x86, if you go AWE, the Task manager doesn't necessarily show the correct RAM usage. Is that correct?

Posted by Glenn Berry on 30 October 2009

The chart about how much RAM should be available in Task Manager came from Slava Ok's old blog:


The rest of the numbers come from my experience at NewsGator, with SQL 2005 and 2008.

You are right that if you use AWE on x86 or if you use "Lock Pages in Memory" with x64, the SQL Server Process does not report its true memory usage in Task Manager. That is why I like to look at how much is still available in Task Manager.

Posted by Anonymous on 30 October 2009

Pingback from  My Weekly Bookmarks for October 30th | Brent Ozar - SQL Server DBA

Posted by Anonymous on 1 November 2009

links for 2009-10-31

Posted by JCass on 1 November 2009

Good post. From bitter experience with a 12G x64 system, NOT setting this value will kill the system. We complained to Microsoft because in our opinion SQL Server should work with default settings, but it does not. At least they did not charge for the support call.

Posted by Mike Kruchten on 2 November 2009

The need to set the Max Server Memory has apparently changed when running on Windows 2008, due to improvements in the memory manager.


We're giving this a try, will be interesting to see the result.

Posted by jay holovacs on 2 November 2009

Though theoretically, at least it does not require a restart on 2005, our server got unstable (failing several dbs over to the mirror) and I had to restart the service to clean things up.

(percentage wise we did not make a big change in the memory allocation)

Posted by Glenn Berry on 2 November 2009

Hi Mike,

I know that Microsoft sometimes says that you don't need to set MaxServerMemory when you are running on Windows Server 2008, but most DBAs that I know still do it. If nothing else, it is a "belt and suspenders" kind of thing.

Posted by hieuhotrung on 3 November 2009


Posted by flavio on 4 November 2009

In your article you show a table with suggested MaxServerMem Setting for x64 servers... what about SQL2005 on x86 servers?

Thank you!

Posted by Kathy Cowens on 4 November 2009

I'm with flavio - I'd like to know about SQL2005 on x86 servers as well.


Posted by emamet on 4 November 2009

Superb article.

It is extremely informative while being short.


Posted by Adam S on 4 November 2009

Very informative, I have been using similar settings myself. At least now I don't look like I am pulling numbers from the air.



Posted by Vivien Xing on 4 November 2009

Very good list.  I would like to save it within SSC, but seems no "briefcase" available here.

Posted by Steve Vassallo on 4 November 2009

The good thing is that "Lock Pages in Memory" is now available on Standard editions!


Though on Microsoft's site it always says... "Lock Pages in memory" is not requried on 64-bit systems.. what do they mean by not required?  Just that you don't have to set it? Is it required on any OS version etc?



Posted by jefy on 4 November 2009

I would like to know about SQL2005 and 2008 on x86 servers as well.

Please give a chart.



Posted by karl on 4 November 2009

How about 2000? (Yes, some of us are still on that...) I am running on a home-build 64bit with 8 Gb of RAM. Shoud I use the 6400 setting?

Posted by david.waters on 4 November 2009

Great article with sound advice.

Apart from knowing the recommendations for x86 usage I'd be interested to know how you go about configuring this setting in virtual machines. The problem being that the memory in the VM grows to accommodate the applications running in that VM.

Would you base the setting on a maximum available to the VM e.g. in VMware would you use the maximum recommended or the maximum for best performance?

Or do you monitor the memory usage and then base the setting on the peak usage?



Posted by Glenn Berry on 4 November 2009

I am going to write another post that covers x86, but here are a few quick thoughts:

First running x86 really complicates the situation. By default, x86 Windows Server 2003/2008 will only be able to access 4GB of RAM of which x86 SQL Server 2000/2005/2008 will only access 2GB of RAM (while the OS gets 2GB of RAM)

If you add the /3GB switch to the boot.ini file, then SQL Server can access 3GB (actually about 2.75GB because of MemToLeave), and the OS gets 1GB.

If you have more than 4GB of RAM, you can add the /pae switch to boot.ini, and then enable "Lock pages in memory" to enable AWE. AWE lets you access up to 64GB (less 2GB for the OS), but it can only use that extra memory for data (not for other things like procedure caches).

The moral of this is that x86 really limits your ability to use a lot of RAM compared to x64.

Posted by Glenn Berry on 4 November 2009

The question on whether to enable "Lock pages in memory" on x64 is hotly debated by some people in the community. My current take on it is this:

It was definitely needed on Windows Server 2003 RTM, running SQL Server 2005. There were some bugs in Windows Server 2003, and there were issues with third party applications and device drivers that made it a very good idea to "Lock pages" in many situations.

Windows Server 2008 and Windows Server 2008 R2 seem less vulnerable to the issues that caused SQL Server to be paged out. If you do enable "Lock pages in memory", make sure you set MaxServerMemory to an appropriate value so that the OS is not starved for memory.

Posted by jmanly on 5 November 2009

Agree, very concise article, thanks.

Can i ask, why is it a good idea to temporarily adjust your MaxServerMemory setting downward by a few GB for a large file copy on your database server?

Does the file copy consume a lot of RAM?

Last night, my sql server 2005 x64 standard on windows 2003 sp 2 x64 (4 quad cores, 32GB RAM) started paging out its process memory and then reduced its buffer pool from about 25GB to about 15GB.  There was loads of physical RAM still available, so i do not understand why the paging.  

Except .... signficant network activty at around this time.  16MB/sec out of the blue.  I have no idea what this was.  But does it sound consistent with what you have seen in your network copies?

Subsequently, i am not sure if it was the paging itself, or the running out of the 4GB page file space, which caused the dropping of memory from buffer pool.

Anyway, sorry, probably one for a separate post, but am interested in your experiences leading to your article's final comment.Thanks.

Posted by chris.page on 6 November 2009

Good article - we've just gone through our first implementation using lock pages & this helps verify what we've done in a succint manner & adds a practical element missed from other articles I read.

Posted by flavio on 6 November 2009

Just a very little addition: when activated PAE + lock pages in memory + AWE, on Windows Task Manager you could see the "sqlservr.exe" process using very little memory (about 100Mb). This is because the task manager does NOT see the memory used in AWE mode! To see the real memory used by sql server it is enough to execute (on master db):

select * from dbo.sysperfinfo where counter_name like '%Total Server Memory (KB)%'



Posted by Anonymous on 20 November 2009

Pingback from  Christian Bolton on SQL Server memory | Brent Ozar - SQL Server DBA

Posted by nesma_mounir on 11 January 2010

this is very useful,

but i have a problem that i migrated my SQL Server to Win 2008 and SQl 2008, i noticed that SQL is exceeding the Max Server memory,  i configured it to 100 GB and when i checked the Task manager i found that sqlserv.exe is consuming 107GB ......is this normal??

Posted by Azhar Parkar on 27 May 2010

Thank's for this very informative and accurate article. The memory setting in SQL is pretty easy but we always have doubts and your write up makes it very clear for junior DBA's like me.

Posted by paul.sherman on 13 June 2010

Does your experience in this area include multiple-instance database servers? SQL Server 2k8, 64-bit, Std. Ed. on Win2k8, 64-bit, x64. We have 3 instances, with local instance doing mirroring, and the other 2 instances used for DEV and UAT (tyring to save $'s on licenses). SQL Server has 2 dual-core procs, 13GB RAM, and min and max settings of 1.6GB and 3GB respectively. The 1.6GB RAM for min server memory is a (failed so far) attempt to prevent the "if 50% or less of max memory used, the op. sys. can swap to paging file" issue. We have the swap to paging a few times in early and mid-morning, but have found no tie-in with any op.sys. process that would require a lot of memory. This issue is leading us a merry chase.

Posted by manish.upadhyay on 1 July 2010

I am running SQL Server 2005 with 4 GB of memory on x86 windows 2003 machine. do you thing if i go for SQL Server 2008 with same configuration will make any diffremce?

Posted by Glenn Berry on 2 July 2010

SQL Server 2008 has a number of improvements related to memory management, so you should see some improvement.

If possible, I would try to upgrade to Windows Server 2008 R2 and SQL Server 2008 R2, with a little more than 4GB of RAM.

Posted by v.peri on 2 August 2010

if i query the sys.sysperfinfo table, my target server memory and total server memory are the same. how can i get information of SQL is willing to take more memory (we configured Max as 15375 MB. Windows 2003 server 64 bit, have 32 GB RAM Total.

Maximum Workspace Memory = 9832.92 mb                                                      

Target Server Memory      = 15375 MB

Total Server Memory  =  15375 MB                                                                                                    

if some one set up memory like this, how can i see my server has willing to take more maximum memory.                                                                                                

Posted by Glenn Berry on 3 August 2010

Unless you are running more than one instance of SQL Server on that machine, or you have lots of other stuff running on the machine, setting Max Server Memory to 15375 seems much too low for a 32GB machine. I would set your Max Server Memory to a higher number, and depending on the workload, SQL Server will eventually use the memory.

Posted by sgibbs on 13 August 2010

I accidentally set my memory use Max way too low and now I cannot connect to sql.  Is there a way to reset it or set the memory max offline, or during the startup?

Posted by jberg on 31 August 2010

any suggestions for memory settings with ReportServer active on an instance that is used as a report server ( prod copy)

Posted by Mike Anderson-233779 on 31 August 2010

@sgibbs - I think the -f startup option will reset max memory

Posted by Anna-Lena on 2 November 2010

Please can you help me to set max memory on a SQL2005 and a SQL2008 instance running on the same server. It is a Win2003 X86 server with 4 GB ram.

Posted by Indianrock on 29 November 2010

Everyone should note that changing min/max memory settings will flush your plan ( procedure ) cache.  You probably only want to do that on the weekend.

Posted by Glenn Berry on 29 November 2010

Changing the min/max memory settings will flush the cache, but that is not such a catastrophic event as it was a few years ago. Even on very busy OLTP systems, a modern CPU can recompile hundreds or thousands of query plans in a few seconds with almost no noticeable CPU pressure.

Posted by Indianrock on 29 November 2010

Glenn, I'm sure you're correct about that.  It's other things like stale statistics or very poor stats auto-created with low sampling that are more of an issue with the plan cache.  We're dealing with that now.  We upgraded recently to Windows Server 2008 R2 64-bit running SQL 2005 Enterprise 64-bit with 64GB of memory.  At the moment I'm running max memory at 59GB and min memory at 57GB and after revamping our weekend index/stats maintenance the plan cache is now at 99.9% hit rate and 6 GB.

I've just noticed that some things I didn't think twice about like detaching a test database can flush the cache also.  

Posted by ceacb on 7 January 2011

Do I need to restart the SQL service when changing the values in the GUI?


Posted by Patrick Shaw on 7 January 2011


Posted by sqlquery-101401 on 18 January 2011

do we need to set lock page in memory if sql services running on network service account?

Posted by rick 14445 on 29 January 2011

You mention :

"If you are running other SQL Server components, such as SSIS or Full Text Search, you will want to allocate less memory for the SQL Server Buffer Pool."

Does anyone have guidance on mem allocation if you are intensively using SSIS? Does SSIS have access to the SQL mem buffer allocations and if so with what priority. Or is this totally seperate and you need to set max mem for SQL to allow for SSIS memory allocations (my understanding it it the latter)

thanks for any inputs or pointers to articles dealing with mem allocation on a SQL Server that is making heavy use of SSIS and does revert to disk buffering if not enough RAM is available.

Posted by Glenn Berry on 31 January 2011

Rick 14445:  I am not aware of any specific guidance. I would lower your MaxServerMemory setting to free up more memory for SSIS, until you reduce or eliminate paging (if possible). Another alternative would be to add more RAM to the server, or to move SSIS to its own dedicated server.

This query might help you judge where you are at.

-- Good basic information about memory amounts and state

SELECT total_physical_memory_kb, available_physical_memory_kb,

      total_page_file_kb, available_page_file_kb,


FROM sys.dm_os_sys_memory OPTION (RECOMPILE);

-- You want to see "Available physical memory is high"

Posted by julia streatfield on 4 February 2011

Excellent article, wish I had found this earlier! Hope reducing max memory usage will stop our Sharepoint server crashing every month. Many thanks.

Posted by Mark Grueber on 10 February 2011

What is the experience / preference with setting the min memory? Just set max and leave min? Set min to 2GB less then Max? We have 64GB


Posted by Glenn Berry on 11 February 2011


I typically don't worry about the MinMemory setting for the instance. SQL Server will use enough memory for the BufferPool if it is under any type of load, that it is not an issue.

Posted by Mark Grueber on 15 February 2011

Thanks Glen

Posted by Mark Grueber on 15 February 2011

Or should I say .. Thanks Glenn

Posted by skraghava on 11 March 2011


But here msdn says dont set the max size.


Please suggest me on wether we should set the value or not? and why?

Posted by Glenn Berry on 11 March 2011

My advice is to set an appropriate MaxServerMemory value based on your workload, and what SQL Server components are running.

Posted by skraghava on 14 March 2011

Hi Glenn,

My server is dedicated to completely SQL Server and no other application is running excetpt for Full text search on weekend. Should i proceed in setting max memory and let it be default?

Posted by Glenn Berry on 14 March 2011


I think you should always set MaxServerMemory to somethings besides the default value. The question is what to set it at, which depends on your workloads and what you are running. I would start off and set MaxServerMemory perhaps 1.5-2GB lower to account for Full Text Search.

Posted by Denise McMillan on 17 March 2011

Do you have a list of recommended settings for 32 bit? For example, Windows 2003, 32 bit, 8Gb ram, with SQL Server 2008 sp1.  Also Windows 2008, 32 bit, 8Gb ram, with SQL Server 2008 sp1.

Thanks very much.


Posted by nico van niekerk on 30 March 2011


That's only in theory (not setting the max server memory. The theory is that SS will release memory as other applications require it, but how fast? If SS is busy with several processes and another app requires memory, even if SS suspends those processes that will release sufficient memory for the other apps, it still requires rolling those processes out to cache and clearing the RAM. If you have time-critical apps, like consuming a feed, you might just miss the boat and lose data.

I set the max memory so that I have a couple of gigs available for the system and other non-SS apps. SS is very obedient to live within its set means.

Posted by antonio on 31 March 2011

This is my server:

S.O.: Windows Server 2008 standard

CPU: 1 quad core E5520

RAM: 32 gb

DB Server: Microsoft SQL Server Standard Edition (64-bit) versione 10.0.2531.0

Web Server: IIS 7

Altri servizi: IIS FTP, Mdaemon

It is not a dedicated database server. We have applications that reach approximately 50,000 visitors per day. I set max server memory as 14 gigabytes, is a value that makes sense? Thanks

Posted by antonio on 31 March 2011

My problem is that when I start the organization of the index increases the memory of 10 gigs, and more! Why? Indexes are created on the disk? Because it increases the memory? Sorry for my english google:)

Posted by azhar.iqbal499 on 21 April 2011

Nice article. This may help me to avoid blocking of processes and restart of services as well.

Posted by azhar.iqbal499 on 21 April 2011

Nice article. This may help me to avoid blocking of processes and restart of services as well.

Posted by Grizzly Bear on 16 May 2011

I have set the Max Memory Settings on SQL Server 2008 R2 to 61440 MB on a box with 64 GB available.

OS: Windows 2008 R2 Edition

But when I run this query (below) i see the physical_memory_in_use_kb more = 64373144. How is this possible?

BTW my server re-booted automatically and the SQL Dump says Memory Usage at 99%, because of which I am diggin into this problem.

Any help will be appreciated.

SELECT physical_memory_in_use_kb,locked_page_allocations_kb,

page_fault_count, memory_utilization_percentage,

available_commit_limit_kb, process_physical_memory_low,


FROM sys.dm_os_process_memory;

Posted by rmcmanus05 on 19 September 2011

Users are experiencing Query Timeouts in an application.

I would be grateful for any suggestions

SQL Server 2008 R2

Windows Server 2008 R2 Standard (64bit)

16GB Ram

Max server memmory = 10gb

Min server memory = 0

The following are running:

- SQL server Integration Services

- SQL Full Text search

- SQL Server

- SQL Server Analysis Services

- SQL Server Browser

- SQl Server Agent

Posted by bop nam on 11 November 2011

Microsoft SQL Server is a relational database server, developed by Microsoft: It is a software product whose primary function is to store and retrieve data as requested by other software applications, be it those on the same computer or those running on another computer across a network (including the Internet). There are at least a dozen different editions of Microsoft SQL Server aimed at different audiences and for different workloads (ranging from small applications that store and retrieve data on the same computer, to millions of users and computers that access huge amounts of data from the Internet at the same time).

Posted by harry9katz on 21 November 2011


I think that the min and max memory must be the same.

Posted by nb-550155 on 14 December 2011

I heard that too.... anyone who can comment on having min and max the same? would this be best practice (and why)?

Posted by Daniel Wilson-437873 on 4 January 2012

Whatever you do ... don't turn MaxServerMem down to its minimum value of 16 MB.  You then can't connect to the server to do anything ... including correct the setting!

Now, if only I could find where the setting was stored, I'd fix it offline.  There are lots of registry entries, but nothing looks helpful so far.

Posted by twgage on 19 January 2012

Based on the absence of recommendations for settings for multiple instances of SQL, it would seem that it is advisable to only run one instance of SQL on an instance of Windows Server. Although, if it is a virtualized instance then that could just be pushing the memory-sharing decisions up to the hypervisor. I've seen that it is not recommended to use dynamic-memory allocation for HyperV guests that will be running SQL, but have also seen at least one person reporting that there are no problems doing that if using VMWare.  

Am I correct in thinking that the recommendations in the chart are strictly for Single-Instance-of-SQL on a single physical server? (Or I guess a single virtual machine without dynamic memory enabled.)

And, how are you tracking the need to increase the amount of RAM installed on the machine, or allocated to the instance? I mean, which counters do you feel give the best idea of what is being used and actually needed?

Posted by b.ozga on 24 February 2012

Hi, I just wanted to add that suggested rule didn't work in my environemt which comprises with dedicated clustered active/passive SQL Server 2008 SP1 64 bit with 96 GB installed.

I set max memory as school says to 92000, and everything seemed to be fine, but when I configured sysmonitors I noticed excessive Page Input/sec, ca. 100-200, and many peaks ca. 500-1000 every few seconds.

I couldn't find memory pressure on the system, all other memory counters indicated that everything was fine PLE >40000, BCHR >99%. So I started examine my page file, which is not so big on 5GB, as I read MS recommends 1,5 times more than RAM but proffesionals say it could be marginally low (as I have).

At the end I decided to decrease max memory to 84GB and Page Input/sec problem disappeared.

Could someone explaind me what should be suggested max memory level for my set up?

I did not mention we are running our server on Windows 2008 R2, maybe this was the reason?

Posted by Mile Higher Than Sea Level on 24 February 2012

SQL 2008 32bit on VM - 2G RAM is not enough. The page default is over the top for a simple query. Just in idle mode, the perf mon is too busy.

Microsoft needs to rethink the 2G "recommendation". Memory is cheap and 2G makes SQL 2008 look bad.

Whay not 4G of physical RAM just to avoid issues?

Posted by kim.sims on 19 February 2013

We just took over a small network with 2k3 running Sql 2005. We virtualized it, per customer requirement, and seeing somewhat of a lag in performance, that I believe a memory configuration change will solve. After reading this article and attempting same, I find that there is NO memory node in SSMS, only general, language and security....

What am I missing???


Posted by Curtis-405400 on 30 June 2013

Has anyone on this post heard of benchmarking, load/workflow testing, performance data collecting and analysis, or evening trying to learn?  Most of the questions here are looking for quick and dirty answers. What Glenn recommended was just that a recommendation - not a best practice. He pointed out basic memory configuration and elaborated on them (great starting points). He also pointed out other areas of concern when it comes to memory configuration and availability. He can’t give you exact advice on how to configure your environment, because he doesn’t know all the elements involved within it, and by the sound of it,  most of you don’t know.  Any setting that you make should be well thought-out and tested for verification. Microsoft Books Online has plenty examples of which performance counters should be used for which situation. It also contains information about the DMV/DMF that you can used to help troubleshoot memory pressure issues. The performance counters have been in place for over 15+ years, and the DMV/DMF since SQL Server 2005. Come-on people get off your butts and do your job, that’s what you get paid for!!!  Matter a fact just hire Glenn to do it for you.

Great article Glenn

Posted by DMarvez on 19 July 2013

Question........the values listed in this post (SSC) differ from this post......sqlserverperformance.wordpress.com/.../suggested-max-memory-settings-for-sql-server-20052008-2

Thoughts on which to follow?  Both appear to be for X64 dedicated servers.

Posted by Beverly Slater on 17 September 2013

Question - so if I have a non-production sql server 2008R2 x64 non-clustered and Memory size is 6144MB then to split out the maximum memory for 3 instances on that server should be 2000MB per instance and allow some left over for the operating system?

Posted by joe.subs on 21 October 2014

Hi Glenn.  

This is the best article on "SQL Memory Best Practices" ever.  I've followed this religiously in SQL 2008 ever since I read it in 2011.


I have just moved some production DBs from SQL 2008 Std on standalone servers, to a SQL 2012 Active-Passive Cluster on SQL Server 2012 Standard SP1.

1. Does this still apply in SQL 2012?  --SQL Server 11.0.3000.0 - SP1 (Standard Edition (64-bit)--  As the GUI is still there for this, I assume so!

2. Then, does it still apply in a cluster?  As the servers simply move IPs and SAN-based disk mappings, I assume so, and changing the settings once affects this regardless of which server is actually running the cluster at a given time.  I imagine I simply calc and allow more memory for the OS/Clustering functions?  In my case there is 24 GB RAM on each server.

Thanks, Joe, New Zealand.

Posted by joe.subs on 22 October 2014

Hi Glenn.  

This is the best article on "SQL Memory Best Practices" ever.  I've followed this religiously in SQL 2008 ever since I read it in 2011.


I have just moved some production DBs from SQL 2008 Std on standalone servers, to a SQL 2012 Active-Passive Cluster on SQL Server 2012 Standard SP1.

1. Does this still apply in SQL 2012?  --SQL Server 11.0.3000.0 - SP1 (Standard Edition (64-bit)--  As the GUI is still there for this, I assume so!

2. Then, does it still apply in a cluster?  As the servers simply move IPs and SAN-based disk mappings, I assume so, and changing the settings once affects this regardless of which server is actually running the cluster at a given time.  I imagine I simply calc and allow more memory for the OS/Clustering functions?  In my case there is 24 GB RAM on each server.

Thanks, Joe, New Zealand.

Leave a Comment

Please register or log in to leave a comment.