Re: Allocating memory
From: Andrew J. Kelly (sqlmvpnooospam_at_shadhawk.com)
Date: 03/01/05
- Next message: Sam: "database restore"
- Previous message: Michael C#: "Re: Overhead of Multiple SQL Calls"
- In reply to: David: "Re: Allocating memory"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 16:50:41 -0500
No that may not do what you want. The Min setting states that when SQL
Server grabs that much it will not release any below that amount back to the
OS. If Exchange gets the memory first then Sql Server may never reach the
MIN value. The only way to grab it and hold it right off the bat is to use
the Fixed amount. And if Exchange is that much of a hog it may never
release any back to Sql Server so the MAX setting would be useless.
-- Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP "David" <daman@biteme.com> wrote in message news:%23tbRt$nHFHA.576@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... > The server has 1.5GB RAM. What if I set the SQL memory to 512 (min) and > 1536 (max)? Wouldn't that force SQL to have at least 512? Customer > could care less if mail is a little slow. > > David > > > > *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com *** > Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
- Next message: Sam: "database restore"
- Previous message: Michael C#: "Re: Overhead of Multiple SQL Calls"
- In reply to: David: "Re: Allocating memory"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
