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?
I use Performance Monitor to find out if Exchange suffering to run, when I
release "stuff" in my accounting software, I checked before and after I
adjust the memory settings and there are no troubles.
In other words, Exchange feels Ok running next to SQL.
"Russell Fields" wrote:
> 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
>>
>
>
>
