April 7, 2011 at 4:36 pm
I would like to reach out to other companies with a 2 terabyte sql server database. How much ram do you recommend having on the server?
The database will be used heavily for querying and reporting.
The server currently has 24 gig but find it hard to believe that will be enough. The largest table is 120 gig growing aggresivly every day. Is my guess of having enough ram for the largest table to fit in a good idea?
As we all know, the more data in the cache the better the queries will run, having to goto the hard disk for reads will be much slower.
sql server 2008 enterprise 64bit.
windows 2008 r2 64 bit
Thanks
CB
April 7, 2011 at 7:52 pm
There is no hard and fast rule but generally speaking ram is cheap and SQL Server loves RAM.
Our department has two server pushing >1TB. The first has 32GB. The second server is used for analytics and it has 128GB. I pushed hard to get 128GB over 64GB. At the time (about year ago) the price difference for 128GB over 64GB was ~$4K. Best $4K ever spent (well it is easy to say that when it isn't personally your money 🙂 ).
I would gladly trade half the CPU power for twice the RAM. While we occasionally redline the CPU for most applications peak CPU usage is "bursty", however having more RAM in SQL Server buffer pool is a continual benefit. The SQL OS does a good job of optimizing the buffer
April 7, 2011 at 8:29 pm
cbabino71 (4/7/2011)
I would like to reach out to other companies with a 2 terabyte sql server database. How much ram do you recommend having on the server?
As much as you can afford. 😉
I know for our ~500 GB DB server I am pushing for 120 GB of RAM because it isn't very expensive. (And to get it past the budget I dropped the CPU one level.)
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply