Hello All!

Recently I’ve installed SQL 2005 Workgroup edition on SBS 2003 R2 box that
is also running Exchange, configured it - most of the settings I left by
default, except the Server Memory Options settings...

Sann,

Well, you are running two potentially large database systems, SQL Server and
Exchange, both of which want lots of resources. So, I am inclined to think
that the two servers are battling for access to memory. (And maybe I/O as
well.)

You should limit the amount of memory that both SQL Server and Exchange
Server use to a maximum amount that lets them coexist peacefully. (Denny
Cherry (below) recommends limiting SQL Server to under 1 GB, but I have no
personal experience with the best memory settings for this combination.)
See your SBS instructions as well as the SQL Server and Exchange guidance on
memory settings.

You might find this note interesting:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa997379(EXCHG.80).aspx
Running SQL Server on the same computer as a production Exchange mailbox
server is not recommended. Both SQL Server and Exchange mailbox servers
consume a large amount of memory and disk resources to operate optimally.

Of course, that article also goes on to say that Small Business Server is
optimized to handle this case. However, Denny Cherry disagrees:
http://searchsqlserver.techtarget.com/expert/KnowledgebaseAnswer/0,289625,sid87_gci1304934...

Hello Russell,

Thanks for your prompt reply.

Even MS recommends to run Exchange and SQL on different machines, I would
desagree with it because of 2 reasons: SQL and Exchange DBs are relatively
small (in my case) and there is always free RAM memory. And MS claims that
they specifically designed SBS to run SQL and Exchange on one box.
Guidance says that SQL is smart enough guy to optimally utilize the RAM:
when necessary it will consume needed amount of memory and then release it
when the RAM is not needed.

Per Denny Cherry you are suggesting to limit SQL Server to under 1GB. That
applys to the problem that he was responding to. (The guy, who asked the
question, has mentioned that his SBS has only 2 GB of RAM, mine has 4GB)

How do you adjust the memory usage setting on Exchange?

My Exchange uses only ~600 MB of RAM at all times. SQL - ~1.7GB. There is
always ~1 GB of available RAM out of 4. I can't understand why SQL is trying
to use virtual memory, not the rest of the memory + virtual if needed during
only some transactions? Maybe the problem is in the poor-designed software?

Sann,

Obviously I have never run your particular environment and I agree with you
that Microsoft (pre-2008) has stated that SBS will support running both
Exchange and SQL Server. And, FWIW, I figured that your Exchange was
probably small.

Nonetheless, you identified memory problems and large amounts of paging.
So, you have symptoms of a problem.

Regarding Exchange memory use, it sounds more limited than SQL Server, but
you can look at this KB article:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/815372

Interestingly, this article specifically comments: "Because Microsoft Small
Business Server installs as an integrated domain controller and Exchange
server, we also do not recommend setting the /3GB switch when you run
Exchange Server 2003 in a Small Business Server environment."

Russell,

I changed the MAX setting to 1 GB.
Started one of the releasing processes in the finance software - had to
change the MIN setting from 1024 to 0 to "boost" the SQL performance. MAX is
still 1024. After SQL switched from doing paging to RAM, the paging dropped,
but not to a desired level: from a 100 it went to ~60-80. With value 3GB in
MAX setting paging is about 8-10 on a scale 100. So basically any change in
memory setting would improve SQL performance even I change MIN or MAX value
by 1 MB. And still ~1 GB is available.

The article you recommended honestly is too complicated/confusing to
understand and my Exchange runs smoothly regardless SQL is running slow or
normal, hence I'm not going to mess with it. Instead I will try to play more
with SQL (memory) settings.

Thanks again,

"Russell Fields" wrote: