Tuesday, March 20, 2012

/3GB with 3.7GB RAM?

Hi All,
SQL Server 2000 Ent.Ed. is running on Windows 2000 Adv. Server.
It's a dedicated sql server; no clustering and no replication.
I would like to increase max memory of sql server process by leaving 1GB for
kernal/OS.
If I use /3GB and set "max server memory" to 2.7GB, will OS be able to have
1GB or 3.7GB - 3GB = 7MB ?
Thanks,
Ada
SQL Server DBA
Ada
How much memory does the server have?
Why would you think that changing a memory from a default will be
beneficial?
http://support.microsoft.com/default...274750&sd=tech
"Ada" <Ada@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:390E7800-A4CD-4F18-AC52-C9FF26C5DF7C@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> SQL Server 2000 Ent.Ed. is running on Windows 2000 Adv. Server.
> It's a dedicated sql server; no clustering and no replication.
> I would like to increase max memory of sql server process by leaving 1GB
> for
> kernal/OS.
> If I use /3GB and set "max server memory" to 2.7GB, will OS be able to
> have
> 1GB or 3.7GB - 3GB = 7MB ?
> Thanks,
> Ada
> SQL Server DBA
|||Uri,
It's 3.7GB.
To be able to utilize existing physical memory.
Ada
SQL Server DBA
"Uri Dimant" wrote:

> Ada
> How much memory does the server have?
> Why would you think that changing a memory from a default will be
> beneficial?
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...274750&sd=tech
> "Ada" <Ada@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:390E7800-A4CD-4F18-AC52-C9FF26C5DF7C@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Ada
Please read a topic in BOL about set up max memory in SQL Server.
"Ada" <Ada@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:923E5CDC-1E94-40EA-AC1E-A918FD68A670@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Uri,
> It's 3.7GB.
> To be able to utilize existing physical memory.
> Ada
> SQL Server DBA
>
> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
|||Uri,
I read the article and the topic on BOL. They don't have the answer.
Ada
SQL Server DBA
"Uri Dimant" wrote:

> Ada
> Please read a topic in BOL about set up max memory in SQL Server.
>
> "Ada" <Ada@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:923E5CDC-1E94-40EA-AC1E-A918FD68A670@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Ada
Have you read the article that I posted ?
Here is another one
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/291988/
"Ada" <Ada@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6960BEF0-1F2F-4009-9CB6-80CF6EF60DED@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Uri,
> I read the article and the topic on BOL. They don't have the answer.
> Ada
> SQL Server DBA
>
> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
|||Uri,
I read those articles after they published. I just wanted what my
understanding to be confirmed. Otherwise I need to make the change and run
sy.mon. t make sure. It's not easy to do it on a prod box.
If I use /3GB and set "max server memory" to 2.7GB, will OS be able to have
1GB or 3.7GB - 3GB = 700MB ?
My understanding is that it will be limited to 700MB, and 0.3GB on user-mode
will be wasted. All I need is a Yes or No.
Thanks,
Ada
SQL Server DBA
"Uri Dimant" wrote:

> Ada
> Have you read the article that I posted ?
> Here is another one
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/291988/
>
> "Ada" <Ada@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6960BEF0-1F2F-4009-9CB6-80CF6EF60DED@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||It's obvious how NT partitions memory when you have <=2GB or >=4GB but what
about 3.75GB
If the /3GB switch is used with 3.75GB does this mean:
NT gets 0.75GB and applications get 3.0GB
or
NT gets 1.00GB and applications get 2.75GB
Paul
I guess
"Ada" <Ada@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BD42BFD4-1ABF-4375-9A91-00EEFE544C6A@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Uri,
> I read those articles after they published. I just wanted what my
> understanding to be confirmed. Otherwise I need to make the change and run
> sy.mon. t make sure. It's not easy to do it on a prod box.
> If I use /3GB and set "max server memory" to 2.7GB, will OS be able to
> have
> 1GB or 3.7GB - 3GB = 700MB ?
> My understanding is that it will be limited to 700MB, and 0.3GB on
> user-mode
> will be wasted. All I need is a Yes or No.
> Thanks,
> Ada
> SQL Server DBA
>
> "Uri Dimant" wrote:

No comments:

Post a Comment