> 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
>>>

>>
>>
>>