SQL Server 2000 Memory issue

[EKKC]

SQL Server takes up 1.7GB of the available 4GB RAM (8GB pagefile total now) on a server i have here... after leaving it on running without reboot for a few months...

besides rebooting, is there a way to make SQL release some of the memory? on reboot it only takes up a few hundred MBs...

 

[EKKC]

actually never mind, used google and checked a few articles. this is normal behavior and not a memory leak... oh well

 

[Cheetah8799]

Yep, normal. MS SQL will eat it all soon enough.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Don't forget to use Connection.Close() in your code. Those open connections can destroy a server.

 

[bunker]

Set SQL server to use a fixed amount of ram. That's what I do. That pig of a program doesn't need all 4 gigs dammit!

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: bunker
Set SQL server to use a fixed amount of ram. That's what I do. That pig of a program doesn't need all 4 gigs dammit!

It's a DBMS. Why would you put 4 GB of RAM on a DB server and not want the DBMS to use it?

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: bunker
Set SQL server to use a fixed amount of ram. That's what I do. That pig of a program doesn't need all 4 gigs dammit!

It's a DBMS. Why would you put 4 GB of RAM on a DB server and not want the DBMS to use it?

A lot of small to mid-sized companies don't use dedicated DB servers, especially for development. It may also be running an Exchange Server, CMS or CRM Server, or many other things.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: bunker
Set SQL server to use a fixed amount of ram. That's what I do. That pig of a program doesn't need all 4 gigs dammit!

It's a DBMS. Why would you put 4 GB of RAM on a DB server and not want the DBMS to use it?

A lot of small to mid-sized companies don't use dedicated DB servers, especially for development. It may also be running an Exchange Server, CMS or CRM Server, or many other things.

Yeah, and a lot of small companies are asking for trouble. If you can afford the licenses for SQL Server, you can afford to get a separate server for database and mail. I've been at a company that ran several vital services on the same server, and it's just asking for trouble.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: bunker
Set SQL server to use a fixed amount of ram. That's what I do. That pig of a program doesn't need all 4 gigs dammit!

It's a DBMS. Why would you put 4 GB of RAM on a DB server and not want the DBMS to use it?

A lot of small to mid-sized companies don't use dedicated DB servers, especially for development. It may also be running an Exchange Server, CMS or CRM Server, or many other things.

Yeah, and a lot of small companies are asking for trouble. If you can afford the licenses for SQL Server, you can afford to get a separate server for database and mail. I've been at a company that ran several vital services on the same server, and it's just asking for trouble.

SQL Server is very cheap/free if you have an MSDN subscription or you are a Microsoft Partner. For low traffic servers, I can understand saving money by running several things on one server.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: joshsquall
SQL Server is very cheap/free if you have an MSDN subscription or you are a Microsoft Partner. For low traffic servers, I can understand saving money by running several things on one server.

The SQL Server that comes with MSDN is only licensed for development use, not a production evironment.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: joshsquall
SQL Server is very cheap/free if you have an MSDN subscription or you are a Microsoft Partner. For low traffic servers, I can understand saving money by running several things on one server.

The SQL Server that comes with MSDN is only licensed for development use, not a production evironment.

Okay? That's what I'm talking about. As a general guideline, clients usually don't buy MSDN subscriptions. They buy individual software, where they are footing the bill. For development, sharing servers is okay. If you have less than a thousand people in your office, you'll probably never even notice any performance problems. Updates/downtime will affect all shared systems, but these should occur during non-peak hours anyway.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: joshsquall
SQL Server is very cheap/free if you have an MSDN subscription or you are a Microsoft Partner. For low traffic servers, I can understand saving money by running several things on one server.

The SQL Server that comes with MSDN is only licensed for development use, not a production evironment.

Okay? That's what I'm talking about. As a general guideline, clients usually don't buy MSDN subscriptions. They buy individual software, where they are footing the bill. For development, sharing servers is okay. If you have less than a thousand people in your office, you'll probably never even notice any performance problems. Updates/downtime will affect all shared systems, but these should occur during non-peak hours anyway.

So you'd run your mail server on the same server as your development SQL?

 

[bunker]

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: bunker
Set SQL server to use a fixed amount of ram. That's what I do. That pig of a program doesn't need all 4 gigs dammit!

It's a DBMS. Why would you put 4 GB of RAM on a DB server and not want the DBMS to use it?

Because we run a geospatial application server on it that also needs some ram. The software must run on the same box as the RDBMS and requires some of that memory as well. There are many similar situations.