adding 2 or more vitural machines for sql server.

hi,
the virtual sql servers are sharing the same windwos RAM memory, utilize
processor(s) and Disk IO?
What's is the diff between creating virtual sql servers and adding more sql
instances in one sql server?
1. each Virtual server need sql and windows licenses. sql instanses no need
additional one.
THnaks
If you create two virtual servers, then you need ram for two operating
systems as well as SQL Server. If you create two named instance on one
virtual server, then ram is needed for one operating system, and two sql
servers.
Mohit K. Gupta
B.Sc. CS, Minor Japanese
MCTS: SQL Server 2005
"mecn" wrote:

> hi,
> the virtual sql servers are sharing the same windwos RAM memory, utilize
> processor(s) and Disk IO?
> What's is the diff between creating virtual sql servers and adding more sql
> instances in one sql server?
> 1. each Virtual server need sql and windows licenses. sql instanses no need
> additional one.
> THnaks
>
>
>
>
sql

adding 2 or more vitural machines for sql server.

hi,
the virtual sql servers are sharing the same windwos RAM memory, utilize
processor(s) and Disk IO?
What's is the diff between creating virtual sql servers and adding more sql
instances in one sql server?
1. each Virtual server need sql and windows licenses. sql instanses no need
additional one.
THnaksIf you create two virtual servers, then you need ram for two operating
systems as well as SQL Server. If you create two named instance on one
virtual server, then ram is needed for one operating system, and two sql
servers.
--
Mohit K. Gupta
B.Sc. CS, Minor Japanese
MCTS: SQL Server 2005
"mecn" wrote:
> hi,
> the virtual sql servers are sharing the same windwos RAM memory, utilize
> processor(s) and Disk IO?
> What's is the diff between creating virtual sql servers and adding more sql
> instances in one sql server?
> 1. each Virtual server need sql and windows licenses. sql instanses no need
> additional one.
> THnaks
>
>
>
>

adding 2 or more vitural machines for sql server.

hi,
the virtual sql servers are sharing the same windwos RAM memory, utilize
processor(s) and Disk IO?
What's is the diff between creating virtual sql servers and adding more sql
instances in one sql server?
1. each Virtual server need sql and windows licenses. sql instanses no need
additional one.
THnaksIf you create two virtual servers, then you need ram for two operating
systems as well as SQL Server. If you create two named instance on one
virtual server, then ram is needed for one operating system, and two sql
servers.
Mohit K. Gupta
B.Sc. CS, Minor Japanese
MCTS: SQL Server 2005
"mecn" wrote:

> hi,
> the virtual sql servers are sharing the same windwos RAM memory, utilize
> processor(s) and Disk IO?
> What's is the diff between creating virtual sql servers and adding more sq
l
> instances in one sql server?
> 1. each Virtual server need sql and windows licenses. sql instanses no nee
d
> additional one.
> THnaks
>
>
>
>

added memory - disk now full

We have a win 2000 server with SQL Server 2K.

Over the weekend, they added 4GB of RAM to the existing 4GB.

They did not enable AWE, nor /PAE /3GB. THat is planned for after an upgrade to 2003, this was in theory just to get the hardware stuff out of the way.

When I left on friday, there was 3.5GB on our data drive, which is typical although much too low. (we are also adding space to the SAN next weekend)

The problem is, when I came in this morning, there was only 9MB left on our data drive. I did request that they run update useage on the main database, but that would only help matters, wouldn't it?

Could the disk space problem be due to the memory addition?

Physical memory is paged in and out from and to the paging file. If you system is setup so the paging file size is system managed, the paging file size will be ~150-300% of physical ram. Adding 4 GB of RAM would have increased the paging file size by quite a bit, hence the change in free disk space.|||IMO, a system with 8GB of memory should disable paging. That is not a widely-shared point of view, however. I disable paging on my 2GB dev. system.

add memory?

Hi,
I'm checking my performance of sql 2000 ent. on a w2k adv. server. There
are 2gb's of memory available. the server is dedicated for sql server
(at least i think it is).
I've noticed that the counter sql server: cache manager - cache hit
ratio is on average 67-70. The counter sql server:buffer manager -
buffer cache hit ratio is always above 99%. SQL Server uses dynamic mem
alloc.
All other import counters like processor and physical disk shows low values.
Could there be a memory bottleneck where the asigned cache for sql is
too low?You donâ't have a memory issue.
From SQL Server Books Online (BOL):
â'SQL Server: Cache Manager Object
The Cache Manager object provides counters to monitor how Microsoft® SQL
Serverâ?¢ uses memory to store objects such as stored procedures, ad hoc and
prepared Transact-SQL statements, and triggers.â'
Any SP, Trigger or Transact-SQL statements which are being called for the
1st time will not have an Execution Plan kept in the Cache. Besides, there
are many scenarios when SQL Server decides to generate a fresh Execution
Plan.
Have a look at the â'Execution Plan Caching and Reuseâ' topic in the BOL.
"Jason" wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm checking my performance of sql 2000 ent. on a w2k adv. server. There
> are 2gb's of memory available. the server is dedicated for sql server
> (at least i think it is).
> I've noticed that the counter sql server: cache manager - cache hit
> ratio is on average 67-70. The counter sql server:buffer manager -
> buffer cache hit ratio is always above 99%. SQL Server uses dynamic mem
> alloc.
> All other import counters like processor and physical disk shows low values.
> Could there be a memory bottleneck where the asigned cache for sql is
> too low?
>

add memory?

Hi,
I'm checking my performance of sql 2000 ent. on a w2k adv. server. There
are 2gb's of memory available. the server is dedicated for sql server
(at least i think it is).
I've noticed that the counter sql server: cache manager - cache hit
ratio is on average 67-70. The counter sql server:buffer manager -
buffer cache hit ratio is always above 99%. SQL Server uses dynamic mem
alloc.
All other import counters like processor and physical disk shows low values.
Could there be a memory bottleneck where the asigned cache for sql is
too low?You don’t have a memory issue.
From SQL Server Books Online (BOL):
“SQL Server: Cache Manager Object
The Cache Manager object provides counters to monitor how Microsoft? SQL
Server? uses memory to store objects such as stored procedures, ad hoc and
prepared Transact-SQL statements, and triggers.”
Any SP, Trigger or Transact-SQL statements which are being called for the
1st time will not have an Execution Plan kept in the Cache. Besides, there
are many scenarios when SQL Server decides to generate a fresh Execution
Plan.
Have a look at the ‘Execution Plan Caching and Reuse’ topic in the BOL.
"Jason" wrote:

> Hi,
> I'm checking my performance of sql 2000 ent. on a w2k adv. server. There
> are 2gb's of memory available. the server is dedicated for sql server
> (at least i think it is).
> I've noticed that the counter sql server: cache manager - cache hit
> ratio is on average 67-70. The counter sql server:buffer manager -
> buffer cache hit ratio is always above 99%. SQL Server uses dynamic mem
> alloc.
> All other import counters like processor and physical disk shows low value
s.
> Could there be a memory bottleneck where the asigned cache for sql is
> too low?
>