> 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."
>
> You also identified SQL Server as the process doing the paging, so it is
> probably (my assumption) SQL Server that is struggling with its memory
> needs. So, try setting its Max memory settings to 1GB. It will use more
> than that, because not all memory use comes from that block, but give that a
> try. If this avoids paging, then you are OK again. Small SQL Server
> installations will work better if they limit their memory use enough not to
> impact the operating system.
>
> So, I am not in the position to defend Small Business Server nor Mr Cherry.
> I just know from you that you have memory problems. I hope that this helps
> a little bit.
>
> RLF
>
>
>
> "Sann" discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:510F079A-BAA2-4F2B-8E9A-1BCCC8B90219@microsoft.com...

>> 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
>>>>

>>>
>>>
>>>

>
>
>