any point in putting more than 2Gb ram in machine for standard edition ?

if a member server runs 2000 or 2003 with SQL server standard edition is
there any point putting more than 2Gb of ram in the machine ?
i.e i base this on 2Gb being the max for Sql server 200.
thanks for your advice
Scott
Standard edition is limited to 2GB so the additional memory won't be used by
SQL Server directly. However, the OS requires memory too so you should
consider this as well as memory needed by other apps. I usually spec 3GB
for a dedicated SQL Server 2000 running Standard Edition.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"scott" <aintnoapmhere@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23T2POP72FHA.632@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> if a member server runs 2000 or 2003 with SQL server standard edition is
> there any point putting more than 2Gb of ram in the machine ?
> i.e i base this on 2Gb being the max for Sql server 200.
> thanks for your advice
> Scott
>
|||"scott" <aintnoapmhere@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23T2POP72FHA.632@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> if a member server runs 2000 or 2003 with SQL server standard edition is
> there any point putting more than 2Gb of ram in the machine ?
> i.e i base this on 2Gb being the max for Sql server 200.
> thanks for your advice
> Scott
>
Yes.
Don't forget about the O/S and any other stuff that is going on. Put at
least 3GB in the box. 1 for the O/S and 2 for SQL. ;-)
Rick Sawtell
MCT, MCSD, MCDBA
|||brilliant. many thanks
scott

any point in putting more than 2Gb ram in machine for standard edition ?

if a member server runs 2000 or 2003 with SQL server standard edition is
there any point putting more than 2Gb of ram in the machine ?
i.e i base this on 2Gb being the max for Sql server 200.
thanks for your advice
ScottStandard edition is limited to 2GB so the additional memory won't be used by
SQL Server directly. However, the OS requires memory too so you should
consider this as well as memory needed by other apps. I usually spec 3GB
for a dedicated SQL Server 2000 running Standard Edition.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"scott" <aintnoapmhere@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23T2POP72FHA.632@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> if a member server runs 2000 or 2003 with SQL server standard edition is
> there any point putting more than 2Gb of ram in the machine ?
> i.e i base this on 2Gb being the max for Sql server 200.
> thanks for your advice
> Scott
>|||"scott" <aintnoapmhere@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23T2POP72FHA.632@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> if a member server runs 2000 or 2003 with SQL server standard edition is
> there any point putting more than 2Gb of ram in the machine ?
> i.e i base this on 2Gb being the max for Sql server 200.
> thanks for your advice
> Scott
>
Yes.
Don't forget about the O/S and any other stuff that is going on. Put at
least 3GB in the box. 1 for the O/S and 2 for SQL. ;-)
Rick Sawtell
MCT, MCSD, MCDBA|||brilliant. many thanks
scott

any point in putting more than 2Gb ram in machine for standard edition ?

if a member server runs 2000 or 2003 with SQL server standard edition is
there any point putting more than 2Gb of ram in the machine ?
i.e i base this on 2Gb being the max for Sql server 200.
thanks for your advice
ScottStandard edition is limited to 2GB so the additional memory won't be used by
SQL Server directly. However, the OS requires memory too so you should
consider this as well as memory needed by other apps. I usually spec 3GB
for a dedicated SQL Server 2000 running Standard Edition.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"scott" <aintnoapmhere@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23T2POP72FHA.632@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> if a member server runs 2000 or 2003 with SQL server standard edition is
> there any point putting more than 2Gb of ram in the machine ?
> i.e i base this on 2Gb being the max for Sql server 200.
> thanks for your advice
> Scott
>|||"scott" <aintnoapmhere@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23T2POP72FHA.632@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> if a member server runs 2000 or 2003 with SQL server standard edition is
> there any point putting more than 2Gb of ram in the machine ?
> i.e i base this on 2Gb being the max for Sql server 200.
> thanks for your advice
> Scott
>
Yes.
Don't forget about the O/S and any other stuff that is going on. Put at
least 3GB in the box. 1 for the O/S and 2 for SQL. ;-)
Rick Sawtell
MCT, MCSD, MCDBA|||brilliant. many thanks
scott

any issues with sql2k on win2k3?

we're about to upgrade from
win2000, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual p3 900mhz, 2gb ram
to
win2003, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual xeon 3ghz hyperthreaded,
2gb ram
the only issue i could find at microsoft was the sql install issue
where win2003 wants sql sp3. any other issues to watch for?
do some people claim better performance by limiting sql server to use
only the two physical processors instead of the two physical processors
and the two logical processors?
"ch" <ch@.dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:41A36D56.E36EF4A7@.dontemailme.com...
> we're about to upgrade from
> win2000, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual p3 900mhz, 2gb ram
> to
> win2003, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual xeon 3ghz hyperthreaded,
> 2gb ram
> the only issue i could find at microsoft was the sql install issue
> where win2003 wants sql sp3. any other issues to watch for?
I think you're covered, operating systems are comparable? In otherwords,
Windows 2000 Standard and Windows 2003 Standard?

> do some people claim better performance by limiting sql server to use
> only the two physical processors instead of the two physical processors
> and the two logical processors?
I prefer not to tinker with processor settings, rather allow the operating
system to manage the processors. in addition, Windows Server 2003 and SQL
Server 2000 does a fairly good job of dynamic memory and interfacing with
the processors. You could always run some benchmarks as there are always
certain situations, applications, etc where manual intervention may be
warranted.
Steve

any issues with sql2k on win2k3?

we're about to upgrade from
win2000, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual p3 900mhz, 2gb ram
to
win2003, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual xeon 3ghz hyperthreaded,
2gb ram
the only issue i could find at microsoft was the sql install issue
where win2003 wants sql sp3. any other issues to watch for?
do some people claim better performance by limiting sql server to use
only the two physical processors instead of the two physical processors
and the two logical processors?"ch" <ch@.dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:41A36D56.E36EF4A7@.dontemailme.com...
> we're about to upgrade from
> win2000, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual p3 900mhz, 2gb ram
> to
> win2003, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual xeon 3ghz hyperthreaded,
> 2gb ram
> the only issue i could find at microsoft was the sql install issue
> where win2003 wants sql sp3. any other issues to watch for?
I think you're covered, operating systems are comparable? In otherwords,
Windows 2000 Standard and Windows 2003 Standard?

> do some people claim better performance by limiting sql server to use
> only the two physical processors instead of the two physical processors
> and the two logical processors?
I prefer not to tinker with processor settings, rather allow the operating
system to manage the processors. in addition, Windows Server 2003 and SQL
Server 2000 does a fairly good job of dynamic memory and interfacing with
the processors. You could always run some benchmarks as there are always
certain situations, applications, etc where manual intervention may be
warranted.
Steve

any issues with sql2k on win2k3?

we're about to upgrade from
win2000, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual p3 900mhz, 2gb ram
to
win2003, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual xeon 3ghz hyperthreaded,
2gb ram
the only issue i could find at microsoft was the sql install issue
where win2003 wants sql sp3. any other issues to watch for?
do some people claim better performance by limiting sql server to use
only the two physical processors instead of the two physical processors
and the two logical processors?"ch" <ch@.dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:41A36D56.E36EF4A7@.dontemailme.com...
> we're about to upgrade from
> win2000, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual p3 900mhz, 2gb ram
> to
> win2003, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual xeon 3ghz hyperthreaded,
> 2gb ram
> the only issue i could find at microsoft was the sql install issue
> where win2003 wants sql sp3. any other issues to watch for?
I think you're covered, operating systems are comparable? In otherwords,
Windows 2000 Standard and Windows 2003 Standard?
> do some people claim better performance by limiting sql server to use
> only the two physical processors instead of the two physical processors
> and the two logical processors?
I prefer not to tinker with processor settings, rather allow the operating
system to manage the processors. in addition, Windows Server 2003 and SQL
Server 2000 does a fairly good job of dynamic memory and interfacing with
the processors. You could always run some benchmarks as there are always
certain situations, applications, etc where manual intervention may be
warranted.
Steve