November 26, 2003 at 4:53 am
Had a quad server with 2G of memory and both windows 2k standard and SQL Server standard.
Decided to add 1G of memory for 3G total figuring that SQL Server would get its 2G and windows would take the rest for its own use, giving a bit more breathing room. Relatively cheap compared to SQL Enterprise.
Installed, it runs, however, SQL still stops about 1.7G used (per task manager VM size). Enterprise manager set for "dyanmically configure" (but surprisingly shows a max on the slider of 3G).
This should be a trivial question, but every article seems to address >3G and enterprise.
Will this work (3G with Standard, expecting SQL to get a full 2G and W2K the rest).
Is there any setting I needed to change? We just popped them memory in and ran.
PS. We run IIS and some minor apps on the same server, so having the extra 1G for those plus windows seemed a good idea.
November 26, 2003 at 5:26 am
Pretty much the same scenario here. With no solution, but to use the wasted RAM on another server.
Frank
--
Frank Kalis
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Webmaster: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs
My blog: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs/frankkalis/[/url]
November 26, 2003 at 5:32 am
But isn't Windows 2K standard support to be able to support 4G?
And SQL Server 2K Standard 2G?
I mean -- did I do something dumb and miss a spec? Is this a valid configuration?
November 26, 2003 at 5:36 am
That's life.
After asking this question I found out that they (our IT management) hired exactly for this question on configuration an external consultant.
What a waste!
Frank
--
Frank Kalis
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Webmaster: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs
My blog: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs/frankkalis/[/url]
November 26, 2003 at 3:47 pm
You need SQL Server Enterprise Edition.
See BOL 'Maximum Capacity Specifications'
November 26, 2003 at 3:58 pm
Well, I knew about that table. I also new Windows standard could support 4G. I figured this mean that SQL Server standard could use 2G of the (up to) 4G.
You may be right of course. It just wasn't obvious to me.
Or maybe it is even working, maybe paging is lower. But it's hard to tel..
November 27, 2003 at 10:11 am
Sorry for not understanding... Are you saying that SQL is using 1.7G memory , Windows is using the .3G and nothing is using the additional 1 G added?
Francis
November 27, 2003 at 5:25 pm
No, SQL Server is at 1.7G, and other things appear to be using the rest of the memory (whether efficiently or not I do not know, there seems to be more available than I would expect).
But I expected SQL Server to use its whole 2G address space.
Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply