PHWinfo - Afficher un message

04/10/2007, 09h57

Hi Neil,

I think you are over-excited about this migration. I know, you are trying to
learn more about things and make yourself confident about this stuff. But
the info we can share here with you is very general. SQL Server does not
have a general configuration. It always depends.

I and most of my friends here maybe can say that 500MB DB is a small
database. But nobody knows what's going on in your environment. Your queries
may have been written very badly and consume too much memory or processor
resources. Then it would be lie to say "2GB of RAM is enough for a 500MB
DB". Or your queries may be written very well, but there could be too many
complex transactions which consume too much resources.

So, you need to analyse your system yourself. Determine your needs and
configure your new environment according to your needs. I don't believe that
there is someone here who can definitely say "Window Server 2003 and SQL
Server 2005 and 2GB of RAM is going to be OK and you will not have any
problem with your new environment".

It's you who is going to find your questions' answers.

If you have anything that lingers in your mind, do not hasitate asking.
However, it's not possible to analyse your system by this way.

--
Ekrem Önsoy

"Neil" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:0zSMi.54850$Um6.35492@newssvr12.news.prodigy. net...
> Right, forgot to mention the size of the DB (but did mention the general
> number of records in another post here). The db is about half a gig in
> size. So not very big at all.
>
> Re. upgrade OS/SQL, my original post stated: "We are migrating to a new
> server, running Server 2003 SP2, and SQL Server
> 2005." That is what we are upgrading to. You're saying that's not
> sufficient?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Neil
>
>
> "Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com> wrote in
> message news:13g6uqbd3mtkefe@corp.supernews.com...
>> "Neil" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
>> news:8OFMi.1576$oA2.30@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>> Well, we certainly don't have anywhere near 14 million transactions a
>>> day (most of the activity is reads, and, even that is not a huge
>>> amount). But with only 2 GB RAM, what would be left for SQL, 1 GB? That
>>> doesn't seem like a lot.
>>
>> Again, depends a lot on your DB and its needs. If the DB is 10 GB in
>> size but 90% of all queries involve 250MB of data (which is not uncommon)
>> then you'll be fine.
>>
>> So it's really hard to say. From a previous post of yours, I'd say it
>> sounds like it should be fine. But memory is fairly cheap, toss in
>> another 2GB if you're concerned (above that you probably need to upgrade
>> your OS/SQL versions, which is not so cheap.)
>>
>>
>> --
>> Greg Moore
>> SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
>> Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html
>>
>>
>
>

04/10/2007, 09h57	#16
Ekrem Önsoy Messages: n/a Hébergeur:	Re: SQL Configuration - RAM Hi Neil, I think you are over-excited about this migration. I know, you are trying to learn more about things and make yourself confident about this stuff. But the info we can share here with you is very general. SQL Server does not have a general configuration. It always depends. I and most of my friends here maybe can say that 500MB DB is a small database. But nobody knows what's going on in your environment. Your queries may have been written very badly and consume too much memory or processor resources. Then it would be lie to say "2GB of RAM is enough for a 500MB DB". Or your queries may be written very well, but there could be too many complex transactions which consume too much resources. So, you need to analyse your system yourself. Determine your needs and configure your new environment according to your needs. I don't believe that there is someone here who can definitely say "Window Server 2003 and SQL Server 2005 and 2GB of RAM is going to be OK and you will not have any problem with your new environment". It's you who is going to find your questions' answers. If you have anything that lingers in your mind, do not hasitate asking. However, it's not possible to analyse your system by this way. -- Ekrem Önsoy "Neil" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message news:0zSMi.54850$Um6.35492@newssvr12.news.prodigy. net... > Right, forgot to mention the size of the DB (but did mention the general > number of records in another post here). The db is about half a gig in > size. So not very big at all. > > Re. upgrade OS/SQL, my original post stated: "We are migrating to a new > server, running Server 2003 SP2, and SQL Server > 2005." That is what we are upgrading to. You're saying that's not > sufficient? > > Thanks! > > Neil > > > "Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com> wrote in > message news:13g6uqbd3mtkefe@corp.supernews.com... >> "Neil" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message >> news:8OFMi.1576$oA2.30@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com... >>> Well, we certainly don't have anywhere near 14 million transactions a >>> day (most of the activity is reads, and, even that is not a huge >>> amount). But with only 2 GB RAM, what would be left for SQL, 1 GB? That >>> doesn't seem like a lot. >> >> Again, depends a lot on your DB and its needs. If the DB is 10 GB in >> size but 90% of all queries involve 250MB of data (which is not uncommon) >> then you'll be fine. >> >> So it's really hard to say. From a previous post of yours, I'd say it >> sounds like it should be fine. But memory is fairly cheap, toss in >> another 2GB if you're concerned (above that you probably need to upgrade >> your OS/SQL versions, which is not so cheap.) >> >> >> -- >> Greg Moore >> SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available! >> Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html >> >> > >