Hi Jonathan,

Thank you for your comments. I really appreciate you taking the time to provide feedback. I can certainly appreciate your frustrations and concerns. I will endeavour to alleviate them as best I can.

May I start by mentioning that this is my first attempt at writing an article and that being an experienced and talented author yourself, I am sure you can appreciate that the finer qualities of writing are honed in both time and practice. It goes without saying that there is still much I have to learn and I would certainly appreciate any guidance you have to offer.

The article I wrote is intended to raise people’s awareness to the fact that there is more to SQL Server Memory configuration than solely setting the maximum server memory or AWE settings etc. It is not intended to be a detailed walkthrough of SQL Servers memory architecture, which I’m sure you’ll agree, is a very in depth topic indeed.

With regard to your first point, concerning the source of the T-SQL code, to the best of my knowledge the code is both available and widely used in SQL Server circles. Perhaps I have mistakenly assumed that it is a standard DMV query script. Incidentally, this fact was raised with the Editor prior to publication of the article.

It of course goes without saying however that credit must be given where it is indeed due and so thank you for bringing this to my attention. If you could please provide me with the appropriate reference/s I will see to it that the article is amended accordingly and promptly.

Second, the statement regarding SSIS as being allocated from VAS is indeed inaccurate. Thank you for pointing this out and again I will see to it that the article is amended accordingly.

I will also look to incorporate your comments with regard to the applicability of the –g parameter to 32 bit instances, for improved clarity. In fairness however, the article does allude to using caution when applying the –g parameter however perhaps not sufficiently enough for all reader’s benefit.

Inexperience of writing aside, it is still not acceptable to include inaccurate information. As you very well point out, the topic of choice is complex and intricate. In future I will ensure to have work proof read by peers kind enough to do so and if per chance you were to offer that would be gratefully received.

You also kindly put forward some excellent suggestions for improvements to the article, such as additional background discussions surrounding VAS. Perhaps, time permitting you would like to engage in further discussions concerning this or even look to collaborate together on an improved version?

Once again thank you for your comments and feedback. I hope I have moved toward alleviating at least some of your concerns.