SQL server 2005 hardware configuration

  • Hi I have used SQL server 2005 enterprises edition, windows server 2003, RAM size 3GB, hard disk Sata400GB my database size upto 150GB this sufficient for my hardware configuration plz any one to suggest me.

  • Power if the name of the game:

    If your are into Enterprise manger, i suggest you use more than 3GB RAM and Configure the AWE / PAE Switch.(requires a good discussion)

    As far as the Data Space goes, Have you tracked your Database Growth PAttern,i.e. how does you Database Grow in a month/Week/Year. So consider this and Plan your Storage needs.

    NOTE: If you are using x64 the AWE is not needed and cannot be configured.

  • Guru (7/14/2008)


    this sufficient for my hardware configuration plz any one to suggest me.

    Depends what you're going to do with it.

    I would strongly suggest a RAID array rather than a single disk, and preferably more than one array. It is not recommended to keep the data and log files on the same physical disk as the OS and the swap file

    Gail Shaw
    Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
    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
  • from memory, (forgive the pun) Windows 2003 server Enterprise shouldnt need a /PAE switch.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    "Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs" 😉

  • Guru (7/14/2008)


    Hi I have used SQL server 2005 enterprises edition, windows server 2003, RAM size 3GB, hard disk Sata400GB my database size upto 150GB this sufficient for my hardware configuration plz any one to suggest me.

    1) Why pay for Enterprise Edition on a server with a paltry 3GB of RAM? Std Edition would sufice here. Perhaps you need other Enterprise Edition Only features?

    2) 3GB of RAM will almost certainly not be sufficient for 150GB of databases, unless it is well indexed and only a small fraction of data is routinely hit.

    3) Sure hope that isn't a single 400GB drive, becauase that too will die a horrible death if there is any reasonable activity on the server.

    4) CPU situation wasn't mentioned, but given the other facts I bet CPUs will be underpowered as well.

    Best,
    Kevin G. Boles
    SQL Server Consultant
    SQL MVP 2007-2012
    TheSQLGuru on googles mail service

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply