![]() | |
![]() |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
| |||
| |||
|
#2
| |||
| |||
|
|
I have been told by someone who ought to know that setting Max Memory on a SQL server instance through the Properties-->Memory tab in SSMS has no effect in the above environment. Is this correct? |
|
We have a Windows 2008 R2 box with IIS 7.5 and SQL 2008 R2 x64 on it and I want to ensure SQL doesn't grab all the memory leaving IIS and the .NET service struggling. Do I need to do anything or is the memory management up to the task these days? |
#3
| |||
| |||
|
|
Even if SQL Server is the only process on the machine, it's usually better to limit the memory anyway, even if it theory it should not be necessary. You'll have to elaborate on that one, Erland. I don't recall seeing this in |
#4
| |||
| |||
|
|
JimLad (jamesdbirch (AT) yahoo (DOT) co.uk) writes: I have been told by someone who ought to know that setting Max Memory on a SQL server instance through the Properties-->Memory tab in SSMS has no effect in the above environment. Is this correct? No. "Max Server Memory" is always honored. Alhtough what you really control is the size of the buffer cache, and SQL Server may use memory outside of that. But that is usually not a lot. Compared to the buffer pool it's not a lot, but it's not so small you can |
#5
| |||
| |||
|
|
You'll have to elaborate on that one, Erland. I don't recall seeing this in any recommendation anywhere, and frankly I don't see why this is useful. I've never had a server where auto-managed memory was a problem, except of course the ones running Analysis Services and other memory hogs (for which the setting is intended). |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |