Hi,
We intend to get a new Windows 2003 standard server with 8GB Ram. We will
also be installing SQL 2005 standard on the same system.
We are aware that Windows 2003 standard server supports up to 4GB Ram and
SQL 2005 standard support up to the maximum ram the server has.
Our question is will SQL 2005 standard maximise all the 8GB ram available on
the server even though it is installed on a Windows 2003 standard server
supports only up to 4GB Ram?
Thanks.
Hi
I'm sure it is relevant to SQL Server 2005 too.
http://support.microsoft.com/default...274750&sd=tech
"Mousehunt" <Mousehunt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D994E07B-2082-4E4A-A1AF-B18CB9C630F4@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> We intend to get a new Windows 2003 standard server with 8GB Ram. We will
> also be installing SQL 2005 standard on the same system.
> We are aware that Windows 2003 standard server supports up to 4GB Ram and
> SQL 2005 standard support up to the maximum ram the server has.
> Our question is will SQL 2005 standard maximise all the 8GB ram available
> on
> the server even though it is installed on a Windows 2003 standard server
> supports only up to 4GB Ram?
> Thanks.
|||On a 32bit Windows standard server you're limited to 3GB application address
space with the /3GB switch in boot.ini
On a 64bit Windows standard server system you're limited to 4GB RAM total
You'd need Windows 2003 Enterprise 32 or 64 bit to use all of your 8GB
There really isn't any point in putting more than 4GB in a standard server
as it'll never be used
Peter Lawton
"Mousehunt" <Mousehunt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D994E07B-2082-4E4A-A1AF-B18CB9C630F4@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> We intend to get a new Windows 2003 standard server with 8GB Ram. We will
> also be installing SQL 2005 standard on the same system.
> We are aware that Windows 2003 standard server supports up to 4GB Ram and
> SQL 2005 standard support up to the maximum ram the server has.
> Our question is will SQL 2005 standard maximise all the 8GB ram available
> on
> the server even though it is installed on a Windows 2003 standard server
> supports only up to 4GB Ram?
> Thanks.
|||The x64 version of Windows Server 2003 standard supports 32GB of RAM.
32-bit is 4gb only, so if you are using 32-bit, you will need to get Server
2003 Enterprise. Note that SQL 2005 Standard supports the maximum that the
OS supports, 32-bit or 64-bit.
"Mousehunt" <Mousehunt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D994E07B-2082-4E4A-A1AF-B18CB9C630F4@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> We intend to get a new Windows 2003 standard server with 8GB Ram. We will
> also be installing SQL 2005 standard on the same system.
> We are aware that Windows 2003 standard server supports up to 4GB Ram and
> SQL 2005 standard support up to the maximum ram the server has.
> Our question is will SQL 2005 standard maximise all the 8GB ram available
> on
> the server even though it is installed on a Windows 2003 standard server
> supports only up to 4GB Ram?
> Thanks.
|||This is not true for the x64 version of Windows Server 2003 Standard. Don't
know about Itanium.
http://support.microsoft.com/KB/888732
"Peter Lawton" <devnull@.fakedomain.com> wrote in message
news:uEV$ceTMGHA.2828@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> On a 32bit Windows standard server you're limited to 3GB application
> address space with the /3GB switch in boot.ini
> On a 64bit Windows standard server system you're limited to 4GB RAM total
> You'd need Windows 2003 Enterprise 32 or 64 bit to use all of your 8GB
> There really isn't any point in putting more than 4GB in a standard server
> as it'll never be used
> Peter Lawton
> "Mousehunt" <Mousehunt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:D994E07B-2082-4E4A-A1AF-B18CB9C630F4@.microsoft.com...
>
Showing posts with label 8gb. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 8gb. Show all posts
Friday, March 9, 2012
Maximum memory that SQL 2005 standard can use....
Hi,
We intend to get a new Windows 2003 standard server with 8GB Ram. We will
also be installing SQL 2005 standard on the same system.
We are aware that Windows 2003 standard server supports up to 4GB Ram and
SQL 2005 standard support up to the maximum ram the server has.
Our question is will SQL 2005 standard maximise all the 8GB ram available on
the server even though it is installed on a Windows 2003 standard server
supports only up to 4GB Ram?
Thanks.Hi
I'm sure it is relevant to SQL Server 2005 too.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;274750&sd=tech
"Mousehunt" <Mousehunt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D994E07B-2082-4E4A-A1AF-B18CB9C630F4@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> We intend to get a new Windows 2003 standard server with 8GB Ram. We will
> also be installing SQL 2005 standard on the same system.
> We are aware that Windows 2003 standard server supports up to 4GB Ram and
> SQL 2005 standard support up to the maximum ram the server has.
> Our question is will SQL 2005 standard maximise all the 8GB ram available
> on
> the server even though it is installed on a Windows 2003 standard server
> supports only up to 4GB Ram?
> Thanks.|||On a 32bit Windows standard server you're limited to 3GB application address
space with the /3GB switch in boot.ini
On a 64bit Windows standard server system you're limited to 4GB RAM total
You'd need Windows 2003 Enterprise 32 or 64 bit to use all of your 8GB
There really isn't any point in putting more than 4GB in a standard server
as it'll never be used
Peter Lawton
"Mousehunt" <Mousehunt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D994E07B-2082-4E4A-A1AF-B18CB9C630F4@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> We intend to get a new Windows 2003 standard server with 8GB Ram. We will
> also be installing SQL 2005 standard on the same system.
> We are aware that Windows 2003 standard server supports up to 4GB Ram and
> SQL 2005 standard support up to the maximum ram the server has.
> Our question is will SQL 2005 standard maximise all the 8GB ram available
> on
> the server even though it is installed on a Windows 2003 standard server
> supports only up to 4GB Ram?
> Thanks.|||The x64 version of Windows Server 2003 standard supports 32GB of RAM.
32-bit is 4gb only, so if you are using 32-bit, you will need to get Server
2003 Enterprise. Note that SQL 2005 Standard supports the maximum that the
OS supports, 32-bit or 64-bit.
"Mousehunt" <Mousehunt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D994E07B-2082-4E4A-A1AF-B18CB9C630F4@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> We intend to get a new Windows 2003 standard server with 8GB Ram. We will
> also be installing SQL 2005 standard on the same system.
> We are aware that Windows 2003 standard server supports up to 4GB Ram and
> SQL 2005 standard support up to the maximum ram the server has.
> Our question is will SQL 2005 standard maximise all the 8GB ram available
> on
> the server even though it is installed on a Windows 2003 standard server
> supports only up to 4GB Ram?
> Thanks.|||This is not true for the x64 version of Windows Server 2003 Standard. Don't
know about Itanium.
http://support.microsoft.com/KB/888732
"Peter Lawton" <devnull@.fakedomain.com> wrote in message
news:uEV$ceTMGHA.2828@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> On a 32bit Windows standard server you're limited to 3GB application
> address space with the /3GB switch in boot.ini
> On a 64bit Windows standard server system you're limited to 4GB RAM total
> You'd need Windows 2003 Enterprise 32 or 64 bit to use all of your 8GB
> There really isn't any point in putting more than 4GB in a standard server
> as it'll never be used
> Peter Lawton
> "Mousehunt" <Mousehunt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:D994E07B-2082-4E4A-A1AF-B18CB9C630F4@.microsoft.com...
>> Hi,
>> We intend to get a new Windows 2003 standard server with 8GB Ram. We will
>> also be installing SQL 2005 standard on the same system.
>> We are aware that Windows 2003 standard server supports up to 4GB Ram and
>> SQL 2005 standard support up to the maximum ram the server has.
>> Our question is will SQL 2005 standard maximise all the 8GB ram available
>> on
>> the server even though it is installed on a Windows 2003 standard server
>> supports only up to 4GB Ram?
>> Thanks.
>
We intend to get a new Windows 2003 standard server with 8GB Ram. We will
also be installing SQL 2005 standard on the same system.
We are aware that Windows 2003 standard server supports up to 4GB Ram and
SQL 2005 standard support up to the maximum ram the server has.
Our question is will SQL 2005 standard maximise all the 8GB ram available on
the server even though it is installed on a Windows 2003 standard server
supports only up to 4GB Ram?
Thanks.Hi
I'm sure it is relevant to SQL Server 2005 too.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;274750&sd=tech
"Mousehunt" <Mousehunt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D994E07B-2082-4E4A-A1AF-B18CB9C630F4@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> We intend to get a new Windows 2003 standard server with 8GB Ram. We will
> also be installing SQL 2005 standard on the same system.
> We are aware that Windows 2003 standard server supports up to 4GB Ram and
> SQL 2005 standard support up to the maximum ram the server has.
> Our question is will SQL 2005 standard maximise all the 8GB ram available
> on
> the server even though it is installed on a Windows 2003 standard server
> supports only up to 4GB Ram?
> Thanks.|||On a 32bit Windows standard server you're limited to 3GB application address
space with the /3GB switch in boot.ini
On a 64bit Windows standard server system you're limited to 4GB RAM total
You'd need Windows 2003 Enterprise 32 or 64 bit to use all of your 8GB
There really isn't any point in putting more than 4GB in a standard server
as it'll never be used
Peter Lawton
"Mousehunt" <Mousehunt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D994E07B-2082-4E4A-A1AF-B18CB9C630F4@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> We intend to get a new Windows 2003 standard server with 8GB Ram. We will
> also be installing SQL 2005 standard on the same system.
> We are aware that Windows 2003 standard server supports up to 4GB Ram and
> SQL 2005 standard support up to the maximum ram the server has.
> Our question is will SQL 2005 standard maximise all the 8GB ram available
> on
> the server even though it is installed on a Windows 2003 standard server
> supports only up to 4GB Ram?
> Thanks.|||The x64 version of Windows Server 2003 standard supports 32GB of RAM.
32-bit is 4gb only, so if you are using 32-bit, you will need to get Server
2003 Enterprise. Note that SQL 2005 Standard supports the maximum that the
OS supports, 32-bit or 64-bit.
"Mousehunt" <Mousehunt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D994E07B-2082-4E4A-A1AF-B18CB9C630F4@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> We intend to get a new Windows 2003 standard server with 8GB Ram. We will
> also be installing SQL 2005 standard on the same system.
> We are aware that Windows 2003 standard server supports up to 4GB Ram and
> SQL 2005 standard support up to the maximum ram the server has.
> Our question is will SQL 2005 standard maximise all the 8GB ram available
> on
> the server even though it is installed on a Windows 2003 standard server
> supports only up to 4GB Ram?
> Thanks.|||This is not true for the x64 version of Windows Server 2003 Standard. Don't
know about Itanium.
http://support.microsoft.com/KB/888732
"Peter Lawton" <devnull@.fakedomain.com> wrote in message
news:uEV$ceTMGHA.2828@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> On a 32bit Windows standard server you're limited to 3GB application
> address space with the /3GB switch in boot.ini
> On a 64bit Windows standard server system you're limited to 4GB RAM total
> You'd need Windows 2003 Enterprise 32 or 64 bit to use all of your 8GB
> There really isn't any point in putting more than 4GB in a standard server
> as it'll never be used
> Peter Lawton
> "Mousehunt" <Mousehunt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:D994E07B-2082-4E4A-A1AF-B18CB9C630F4@.microsoft.com...
>> Hi,
>> We intend to get a new Windows 2003 standard server with 8GB Ram. We will
>> also be installing SQL 2005 standard on the same system.
>> We are aware that Windows 2003 standard server supports up to 4GB Ram and
>> SQL 2005 standard support up to the maximum ram the server has.
>> Our question is will SQL 2005 standard maximise all the 8GB ram available
>> on
>> the server even though it is installed on a Windows 2003 standard server
>> supports only up to 4GB Ram?
>> Thanks.
>
Maximum memory that SQL 2005 standard can use....
Hi,
We intend to get a new Windows 2003 standard server with 8GB Ram. We will
also be installing SQL 2005 standard on the same system.
We are aware that Windows 2003 standard server supports up to 4GB Ram and
SQL 2005 standard support up to the maximum ram the server has.
Our question is will SQL 2005 standard maximise all the 8GB ram available on
the server even though it is installed on a Windows 2003 standard server
supports only up to 4GB Ram?
Thanks.Hi
I'm sure it is relevant to SQL Server 2005 too.
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...;274750&sd=tech
"Mousehunt" <Mousehunt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D994E07B-2082-4E4A-A1AF-B18CB9C630F4@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> We intend to get a new Windows 2003 standard server with 8GB Ram. We will
> also be installing SQL 2005 standard on the same system.
> We are aware that Windows 2003 standard server supports up to 4GB Ram and
> SQL 2005 standard support up to the maximum ram the server has.
> Our question is will SQL 2005 standard maximise all the 8GB ram available
> on
> the server even though it is installed on a Windows 2003 standard server
> supports only up to 4GB Ram?
> Thanks.|||On a 32bit Windows standard server you're limited to 3GB application address
space with the /3GB switch in boot.ini
On a 64bit Windows standard server system you're limited to 4GB RAM total
You'd need Windows 2003 Enterprise 32 or 64 bit to use all of your 8GB
There really isn't any point in putting more than 4GB in a standard server
as it'll never be used
Peter Lawton
"Mousehunt" <Mousehunt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D994E07B-2082-4E4A-A1AF-B18CB9C630F4@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> We intend to get a new Windows 2003 standard server with 8GB Ram. We will
> also be installing SQL 2005 standard on the same system.
> We are aware that Windows 2003 standard server supports up to 4GB Ram and
> SQL 2005 standard support up to the maximum ram the server has.
> Our question is will SQL 2005 standard maximise all the 8GB ram available
> on
> the server even though it is installed on a Windows 2003 standard server
> supports only up to 4GB Ram?
> Thanks.|||The x64 version of Windows Server 2003 standard supports 32GB of RAM.
32-bit is 4gb only, so if you are using 32-bit, you will need to get Server
2003 Enterprise. Note that SQL 2005 Standard supports the maximum that the
OS supports, 32-bit or 64-bit.
"Mousehunt" <Mousehunt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D994E07B-2082-4E4A-A1AF-B18CB9C630F4@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> We intend to get a new Windows 2003 standard server with 8GB Ram. We will
> also be installing SQL 2005 standard on the same system.
> We are aware that Windows 2003 standard server supports up to 4GB Ram and
> SQL 2005 standard support up to the maximum ram the server has.
> Our question is will SQL 2005 standard maximise all the 8GB ram available
> on
> the server even though it is installed on a Windows 2003 standard server
> supports only up to 4GB Ram?
> Thanks.|||This is not true for the x64 version of Windows Server 2003 Standard. Don't
know about Itanium.
http://support.microsoft.com/KB/888732
"Peter Lawton" <devnull@.fakedomain.com> wrote in message
news:uEV$ceTMGHA.2828@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> On a 32bit Windows standard server you're limited to 3GB application
> address space with the /3GB switch in boot.ini
> On a 64bit Windows standard server system you're limited to 4GB RAM total
> You'd need Windows 2003 Enterprise 32 or 64 bit to use all of your 8GB
> There really isn't any point in putting more than 4GB in a standard server
> as it'll never be used
> Peter Lawton
> "Mousehunt" <Mousehunt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:D994E07B-2082-4E4A-A1AF-B18CB9C630F4@.microsoft.com...
>
We intend to get a new Windows 2003 standard server with 8GB Ram. We will
also be installing SQL 2005 standard on the same system.
We are aware that Windows 2003 standard server supports up to 4GB Ram and
SQL 2005 standard support up to the maximum ram the server has.
Our question is will SQL 2005 standard maximise all the 8GB ram available on
the server even though it is installed on a Windows 2003 standard server
supports only up to 4GB Ram?
Thanks.Hi
I'm sure it is relevant to SQL Server 2005 too.
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...;274750&sd=tech
"Mousehunt" <Mousehunt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D994E07B-2082-4E4A-A1AF-B18CB9C630F4@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> We intend to get a new Windows 2003 standard server with 8GB Ram. We will
> also be installing SQL 2005 standard on the same system.
> We are aware that Windows 2003 standard server supports up to 4GB Ram and
> SQL 2005 standard support up to the maximum ram the server has.
> Our question is will SQL 2005 standard maximise all the 8GB ram available
> on
> the server even though it is installed on a Windows 2003 standard server
> supports only up to 4GB Ram?
> Thanks.|||On a 32bit Windows standard server you're limited to 3GB application address
space with the /3GB switch in boot.ini
On a 64bit Windows standard server system you're limited to 4GB RAM total
You'd need Windows 2003 Enterprise 32 or 64 bit to use all of your 8GB
There really isn't any point in putting more than 4GB in a standard server
as it'll never be used
Peter Lawton
"Mousehunt" <Mousehunt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D994E07B-2082-4E4A-A1AF-B18CB9C630F4@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> We intend to get a new Windows 2003 standard server with 8GB Ram. We will
> also be installing SQL 2005 standard on the same system.
> We are aware that Windows 2003 standard server supports up to 4GB Ram and
> SQL 2005 standard support up to the maximum ram the server has.
> Our question is will SQL 2005 standard maximise all the 8GB ram available
> on
> the server even though it is installed on a Windows 2003 standard server
> supports only up to 4GB Ram?
> Thanks.|||The x64 version of Windows Server 2003 standard supports 32GB of RAM.
32-bit is 4gb only, so if you are using 32-bit, you will need to get Server
2003 Enterprise. Note that SQL 2005 Standard supports the maximum that the
OS supports, 32-bit or 64-bit.
"Mousehunt" <Mousehunt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D994E07B-2082-4E4A-A1AF-B18CB9C630F4@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> We intend to get a new Windows 2003 standard server with 8GB Ram. We will
> also be installing SQL 2005 standard on the same system.
> We are aware that Windows 2003 standard server supports up to 4GB Ram and
> SQL 2005 standard support up to the maximum ram the server has.
> Our question is will SQL 2005 standard maximise all the 8GB ram available
> on
> the server even though it is installed on a Windows 2003 standard server
> supports only up to 4GB Ram?
> Thanks.|||This is not true for the x64 version of Windows Server 2003 Standard. Don't
know about Itanium.
http://support.microsoft.com/KB/888732
"Peter Lawton" <devnull@.fakedomain.com> wrote in message
news:uEV$ceTMGHA.2828@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> On a 32bit Windows standard server you're limited to 3GB application
> address space with the /3GB switch in boot.ini
> On a 64bit Windows standard server system you're limited to 4GB RAM total
> You'd need Windows 2003 Enterprise 32 or 64 bit to use all of your 8GB
> There really isn't any point in putting more than 4GB in a standard server
> as it'll never be used
> Peter Lawton
> "Mousehunt" <Mousehunt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:D994E07B-2082-4E4A-A1AF-B18CB9C630F4@.microsoft.com...
>
Monday, February 20, 2012
Max Woprked threads
We consistently have between 550 and 600 connections. The server has 8gb of ram and is a dediocated sql server (advanced and enterpirse editions so awe has been enabled) would performance inpro9ve if the mas threats is set to say 550?
Moses
I prefer using a default value of the max worker threads. Microsoft states
that it is best for most systems.
Before you changed the default value did you recieve the message from SQL
Server "The working thread limit of 255 has been reached."?
"Moses" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1C89340C-DF46-42BC-BA9D-46427C6D1CE9@.microsoft.com...
> We consistently have between 550 and 600 connections. The server has 8gb
of ram and is a dediocated sql server (advanced and enterpirse editions so
awe has been enabled) would performance inpro9ve if the mas threats is set
to say 550?
|||You don't need anywhere near as many worker threads as you have users.
Unless you are seeing entries in the error log stating you are running out
of worker threads I would not touch that setting.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Moses" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1C89340C-DF46-42BC-BA9D-46427C6D1CE9@.microsoft.com...
> We consistently have between 550 and 600 connections. The server has 8gb
of ram and is a dediocated sql server (advanced and enterpirse editions so
awe has been enabled) would performance inpro9ve if the mas threats is set
to say 550?
Moses
I prefer using a default value of the max worker threads. Microsoft states
that it is best for most systems.
Before you changed the default value did you recieve the message from SQL
Server "The working thread limit of 255 has been reached."?
"Moses" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1C89340C-DF46-42BC-BA9D-46427C6D1CE9@.microsoft.com...
> We consistently have between 550 and 600 connections. The server has 8gb
of ram and is a dediocated sql server (advanced and enterpirse editions so
awe has been enabled) would performance inpro9ve if the mas threats is set
to say 550?
|||You don't need anywhere near as many worker threads as you have users.
Unless you are seeing entries in the error log stating you are running out
of worker threads I would not touch that setting.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Moses" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1C89340C-DF46-42BC-BA9D-46427C6D1CE9@.microsoft.com...
> We consistently have between 550 and 600 connections. The server has 8gb
of ram and is a dediocated sql server (advanced and enterpirse editions so
awe has been enabled) would performance inpro9ve if the mas threats is set
to say 550?
Max Woprked threads
We consistently have between 550 and 600 connections. The server has 8gb of ram and is a dediocated sql server (advanced and enterpirse editions so awe has been enabled) would performance inpro9ve if the mas threats is set to say 550?Moses
I prefer using a default value of the max worker threads. Microsoft states
that it is best for most systems.
Before you changed the default value did you recieve the message from SQL
Server "The working thread limit of 255 has been reached."?
"Moses" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1C89340C-DF46-42BC-BA9D-46427C6D1CE9@.microsoft.com...
> We consistently have between 550 and 600 connections. The server has 8gb
of ram and is a dediocated sql server (advanced and enterpirse editions so
awe has been enabled) would performance inpro9ve if the mas threats is set
to say 550?|||You don't need anywhere near as many worker threads as you have users.
Unless you are seeing entries in the error log stating you are running out
of worker threads I would not touch that setting.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Moses" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1C89340C-DF46-42BC-BA9D-46427C6D1CE9@.microsoft.com...
> We consistently have between 550 and 600 connections. The server has 8gb
of ram and is a dediocated sql server (advanced and enterpirse editions so
awe has been enabled) would performance inpro9ve if the mas threats is set
to say 550?
I prefer using a default value of the max worker threads. Microsoft states
that it is best for most systems.
Before you changed the default value did you recieve the message from SQL
Server "The working thread limit of 255 has been reached."?
"Moses" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1C89340C-DF46-42BC-BA9D-46427C6D1CE9@.microsoft.com...
> We consistently have between 550 and 600 connections. The server has 8gb
of ram and is a dediocated sql server (advanced and enterpirse editions so
awe has been enabled) would performance inpro9ve if the mas threats is set
to say 550?|||You don't need anywhere near as many worker threads as you have users.
Unless you are seeing entries in the error log stating you are running out
of worker threads I would not touch that setting.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Moses" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1C89340C-DF46-42BC-BA9D-46427C6D1CE9@.microsoft.com...
> We consistently have between 550 and 600 connections. The server has 8gb
of ram and is a dediocated sql server (advanced and enterpirse editions so
awe has been enabled) would performance inpro9ve if the mas threats is set
to say 550?
Max Woprked threads
We consistently have between 550 and 600 connections. The server has 8gb of
ram and is a dediocated sql server (advanced and enterpirse editions so awe
has been enabled) would performance inpro9ve if the mas threats is set to sa
y 550?Moses
I prefer using a default value of the max worker threads. Microsoft states
that it is best for most systems.
Before you changed the default value did you recieve the message from SQL
Server "The working thread limit of 255 has been reached."?
"Moses" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1C89340C-DF46-42BC-BA9D-46427C6D1CE9@.microsoft.com...
> We consistently have between 550 and 600 connections. The server has 8gb
of ram and is a dediocated sql server (advanced and enterpirse editions so
awe has been enabled) would performance inpro9ve if the mas threats is set
to say 550?|||You don't need anywhere near as many worker threads as you have users.
Unless you are seeing entries in the error log stating you are running out
of worker threads I would not touch that setting.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Moses" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1C89340C-DF46-42BC-BA9D-46427C6D1CE9@.microsoft.com...
> We consistently have between 550 and 600 connections. The server has 8gb
of ram and is a dediocated sql server (advanced and enterpirse editions so
awe has been enabled) would performance inpro9ve if the mas threats is set
to say 550?
ram and is a dediocated sql server (advanced and enterpirse editions so awe
has been enabled) would performance inpro9ve if the mas threats is set to sa
y 550?Moses
I prefer using a default value of the max worker threads. Microsoft states
that it is best for most systems.
Before you changed the default value did you recieve the message from SQL
Server "The working thread limit of 255 has been reached."?
"Moses" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1C89340C-DF46-42BC-BA9D-46427C6D1CE9@.microsoft.com...
> We consistently have between 550 and 600 connections. The server has 8gb
of ram and is a dediocated sql server (advanced and enterpirse editions so
awe has been enabled) would performance inpro9ve if the mas threats is set
to say 550?|||You don't need anywhere near as many worker threads as you have users.
Unless you are seeing entries in the error log stating you are running out
of worker threads I would not touch that setting.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Moses" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1C89340C-DF46-42BC-BA9D-46427C6D1CE9@.microsoft.com...
> We consistently have between 550 and 600 connections. The server has 8gb
of ram and is a dediocated sql server (advanced and enterpirse editions so
awe has been enabled) would performance inpro9ve if the mas threats is set
to say 550?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)