Re: Memory Issues
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
microsoft.public.sqlserver.setup only
 
Advanced search
POPULAR GROUPS

more...

 Up
Re: Memory Issues         

Group: microsoft.public.sqlserver.setup · Group Profile
Author: Russell Fields
Date: Sep 17, 2008 13:34

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...

Although you are running SQL Server 2005, you also might find it interesting
to look at the Small Business Server 2008, which specifies a second server
when running SQL Server.
http://www.microsoft.com/sbs/en/us/editions-overview.aspx

So, bottom line: Try to keep the two servers from battling for memory. If
that does not work, look into getting a second server.

RLF

"Sann" discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5DCDF5C3-6665-4798-9A6F-AB69F00DE2BC@microsoft.com...
> 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: I configured the MAX
> to
> 3GB.
> And here is the weird behavior: when the user, for example, releases
> accrued
> receipts (apparently it is a very resource consuming task in our finance
> software), the server performance reduces noticeably (imagine yourself
> working on windows XP SP3 with 64MB of RAM) and it is because the SQL
> server
> is starting to utilize the virtual memory instead of RAM. (To figure that
> out
> I ran Performance Monitor and the Avg.Disk Queue Length counter was close
> to
> a 100, when the processor remained almost idle and I still have 1 GB of
> available RAM)
> And here is the thing: While the release operation is in progress, I go to
> the Server Memory configuration screen, change the MIN setting from 0 to
> 2GB,
> hit OK and the server speeds up to the level where it is supposed to be.
> Next
> time the user starts releasing other stuff, it slows down again due to the
> same reason. And I go back to the Server Memory configuration screen,
> change
> again the MIN setting, for example, back to 0 and it triggers the server
> to
> speed up again and the Avg.Disk Queue Length counter in Performance
> Monitor
> goes from a 100 to 8-10 - where it's supposed to be.
> In other words, whenever the SQL freaks out, I have to "make" it to use
> RAM
> memory by changing MIN/MAX values in Server Memory configuration screen
> which
> is "slightly" not convenient for the SQL administrators.
>
> When users input data, run reports the server performance meets
> expectations.
> Thanks in in advance!
>
> Server hardware configuration:
> 2 x 4 3GHz processors
> 4 GB RAM and I it always has about 1GB of available memory.
> 6 SAS in RAID10
>
no comments
diggit! del.icio.us! reddit!