How Much More Can I Put on This SQL Server?

We have a 4 processor (Xeon 700mhz), 3GB, SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition,
Win2K Standard, with 3 RAID Array's. Currently running about 20 databases,
75 concurrent connections. Performance monitor readings look good,
processor rarely goes above 35 percent, memory looks good, the disk drives
spike but are usually not too busy.
My question is how much more can I load on this thing (ballpark) before it
starts to get even medium stress. I'm looking for anyone with a similar
configuration, with much bigger numbers to get some idea of how fare I can
go with this machine. I have looked on www.tpc.org site and similar
configurations list 67,000 concurrent users and 87,000 tmp, but that just
doesn't seem real.
Thanks for any info.
Steven BerringerIt depends on kind of db applications you are running,
database design, overall size of databases in GB etc. A
database which is not bulky (for example more than 50gb)
in size, where most tables have a pk, and pre-defined
queries fetch one or few records at a time based on a
unique where condition, you could have few hundreds
simulaneious connections. Whereas in a data warehouse
application where you have really huge tables, users are
allowed to create and run queries as they like, and each
query ususally reads through millions of records, few
simulatneious users can saturate the system, and sometime
even one user can dominate the whole system.
Based on the information you have given, your db server
falls more into the first category, 150 or more
simultaneous users could stress the system. If possible,
you should run a stress test to see when the cpu hits 90%
or more utilization, that will be the saturation point.
i hope this answers your question to some extent. Let us
know if you have further questions.
>--Original Message--
>We have a 4 processor (Xeon 700mhz), 3GB, SQL Server 2000
Standard Edition,
>Win2K Standard, with 3 RAID Array's. Currently running
about 20 databases,
>75 concurrent connections. Performance monitor readings
look good,
>processor rarely goes above 35 percent, memory looks
good, the disk drives
>spike but are usually not too busy.
>My question is how much more can I load on this thing
(ballpark) before it
>starts to get even medium stress. I'm looking for anyone
with a similar
>configuration, with much bigger numbers to get some idea
of how fare I can
>go with this machine. I have looked on www.tpc.org site
and similar
>configurations list 67,000 concurrent users and 87,000
tmp, but that just
>doesn't seem real.
>Thanks for any info.
>Steven Berringer
>
>.
>|||Thanks for the feedback. I guess I was hoping to hear from someone who had
a similar configuration and had X number of users connected and running at
the same time. I understand the OLTP versus OLAP and good database design,
and all that, but 150 is a far cry from the 67,000 listed on the tpm web
site for a 4 processor box.
Does anyone have any real world stories?
Thanks
Steven
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1401701c3f7c3$8b5961c0$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> It depends on kind of db applications you are running,
> database design, overall size of databases in GB etc. A
> database which is not bulky (for example more than 50gb)
> in size, where most tables have a pk, and pre-defined
> queries fetch one or few records at a time based on a
> unique where condition, you could have few hundreds
> simulaneious connections. Whereas in a data warehouse
> application where you have really huge tables, users are
> allowed to create and run queries as they like, and each
> query ususally reads through millions of records, few
> simulatneious users can saturate the system, and sometime
> even one user can dominate the whole system.
> Based on the information you have given, your db server
> falls more into the first category, 150 or more
> simultaneous users could stress the system. If possible,
> you should run a stress test to see when the cpu hits 90%
> or more utilization, that will be the saturation point.
> i hope this answers your question to some extent. Let us
> know if you have further questions.
>
> >--Original Message--
> >We have a 4 processor (Xeon 700mhz), 3GB, SQL Server 2000
> Standard Edition,
> >Win2K Standard, with 3 RAID Array's. Currently running
> about 20 databases,
> >75 concurrent connections. Performance monitor readings
> look good,
> >processor rarely goes above 35 percent, memory looks
> good, the disk drives
> >spike but are usually not too busy.
> >
> >My question is how much more can I load on this thing
> (ballpark) before it
> >starts to get even medium stress. I'm looking for anyone
> with a similar
> >configuration, with much bigger numbers to get some idea
> of how fare I can
> >go with this machine. I have looked on www.tpc.org site
> and similar
> >configurations list 67,000 concurrent users and 87,000
> tmp, but that just
> >doesn't seem real.
> >
> >Thanks for any info.
> >Steven Berringer
> >
> >
> >.
> >sql

How much memory should be used ?

I am new to SQL Server 2005. When using SQL Server 2000, we usually give
3GB in which 2GB will be used for SQL Server 2000.
How much memory is recommended for running SQL Server 2005 on a Windows 2003
Server ? From MS web site, I learn that SQL Server 2005 Server can use as
much as memory that the OS supports. Can I still use 2GB memory for it or
it requires more memory ?
ThanksHi Peter
Memory usage will depend on many things, in general the more the better upto
the point where you are memory rich. The only real way to know is to start of
at a set amount and then if necessary increase it if monitoring shows that
your system can do with more. Something that will limit the amount of memory
you can dedicate to SQL Server is if your system is used for other things,
ideally a SQL server would be the only application that the server is used
for in which case you can usually let SQL Server look after it's self i.e.
don't specify a maximum, but if it is shared with other applications you will
need to be more careful.
John
"Peter" wrote:
> I am new to SQL Server 2005. When using SQL Server 2000, we usually give
> 3GB in which 2GB will be used for SQL Server 2000.
> How much memory is recommended for running SQL Server 2005 on a Windows 2003
> Server ? From MS web site, I learn that SQL Server 2005 Server can use as
> much as memory that the OS supports. Can I still use 2GB memory for it or
> it requires more memory ?
> Thanks
>
>|||Dear John,
Thank you for your advice. That Windows Server will run SQL Server 2005
only and the loading will not be heavy. I will follow your advice and don't
set any maximum for it.
Does 3GB is sufficient for my case ?
Thanks
Peter
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:14E800BF-B9B0-4D2E-B95A-FC22F71C072C@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Peter
> Memory usage will depend on many things, in general the more the better
> upto
> the point where you are memory rich. The only real way to know is to start
> of
> at a set amount and then if necessary increase it if monitoring shows that
> your system can do with more. Something that will limit the amount of
> memory
> you can dedicate to SQL Server is if your system is used for other things,
> ideally a SQL server would be the only application that the server is used
> for in which case you can usually let SQL Server look after it's self i.e.
> don't specify a maximum, but if it is shared with other applications you
> will
> need to be more careful.
> John
> "Peter" wrote:
>> I am new to SQL Server 2005. When using SQL Server 2000, we usually give
>> 3GB in which 2GB will be used for SQL Server 2000.
>> How much memory is recommended for running SQL Server 2005 on a Windows
>> 2003
>> Server ? From MS web site, I learn that SQL Server 2005 Server can use
>> as
>> much as memory that the OS supports. Can I still use 2GB memory for it
>> or
>> it requires more memory ?
>> Thanks
>>|||Hi Peter
If there is not heavy use it may be enough but you will have to try it and
see. If you are not using all the memory slots then you can expand it without
removing any of the existing memory, it would also be worthwhile making sure
what the hardware manufacture recomends regarding memory, you may have to
pair like for like. Also check cost to see what is the best use of your funds.
John
"Peter" wrote:
> Dear John,
> Thank you for your advice. That Windows Server will run SQL Server 2005
> only and the loading will not be heavy. I will follow your advice and don't
> set any maximum for it.
> Does 3GB is sufficient for my case ?
> Thanks
> Peter
> "John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:14E800BF-B9B0-4D2E-B95A-FC22F71C072C@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi Peter
> >
> > Memory usage will depend on many things, in general the more the better
> > upto
> > the point where you are memory rich. The only real way to know is to start
> > of
> > at a set amount and then if necessary increase it if monitoring shows that
> > your system can do with more. Something that will limit the amount of
> > memory
> > you can dedicate to SQL Server is if your system is used for other things,
> > ideally a SQL server would be the only application that the server is used
> > for in which case you can usually let SQL Server look after it's self i.e.
> > don't specify a maximum, but if it is shared with other applications you
> > will
> > need to be more careful.
> >
> > John
> >
> > "Peter" wrote:
> >
> >> I am new to SQL Server 2005. When using SQL Server 2000, we usually give
> >> 3GB in which 2GB will be used for SQL Server 2000.
> >>
> >> How much memory is recommended for running SQL Server 2005 on a Windows
> >> 2003
> >> Server ? From MS web site, I learn that SQL Server 2005 Server can use
> >> as
> >> much as memory that the OS supports. Can I still use 2GB memory for it
> >> or
> >> it requires more memory ?
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>