With SQL Express (either 2005 or 2008 edition) there is a limit of 1GB memory and 1 CPU that can be used. What I'm wondering, is if two instances are installed on the same machine, would they use the same CPU and same 1GB of memory? Or, would they use potentially two different CPU's and 2GB memory?
The limitations are per-instance. Each instance is limited to its own 1 CPU and 1GB RAM.
You can have up to 16 instances of SQL Server Express Edition on a system.
Also in MSDE, the predecessor to SQL Server Express, the limitations were per-instance.
I can't speak for sure, but most likely they would be able to use separate CPUs and memory. It would be pretty tricky for them to coordinate to share memory like that. My suspicion is that each instance will run the same irrespective of other instances being present (at least in the respect you're talking about).
Suppose your system has 4 CPU and suppose 4 GB memory, and 2 instances of sql express, then each express will make utilization of one CPU and 1 GB Memory .
Hope it helps
Related
I would really like a surface pro, but I need to run SQL server.
I just wanted to know if the specs I posted in the question are sufficient enough to run SQL server smoothly?
Yes, that's way more than enough. SQL server itself doesn't need much resources, although it really depends on how much data you put in it and what kind of queries you run
I have 32 GB physical memory server. When I am starting my server its taking 18gb memory when the server and SQL Server 2008 R2 will up. But after few hours SQL Server will be taking up 23gb or more cached size going 4939 or more. What is the cause of this problem and how can I see which queries making this problem?`
SQL loves memory, it'll use what it needs to, especially when caching data. The very nature of caching data is using memory. If your concerned about leaving a little memory for the server or other processes running on your server, then set a max memory amount to SQL.
I'm managing middle sized company database. Recently we have massive system upgrade and switched to virtual machine environment. After deployment, we are having performance issues, Apparently SQL Server on the upgraded system works slower than the old configuration.
Here are the configurations:
Old Server: SQL Server 2008, 10gb Ram, Intel Xeon E5420 x2 (Physical Machine) runs on Windows Server 2008
New Server: SQL Server 2014, 64gb Ram, Intel E5 2660 x4 (virtual machine) runs on Windows Server 2012
Very basic IO performance comparison follows as:
new server:
old server:
Even with the most basic operation:
select * from table
from most used tables runs more amount of time to retrieve result. Also stored procedures run slower.
Example:
new server: 01:39 minute, 3285365 rows
old server: 01:00 minute, 3339738 rows
I have no idea what could cause this problem. Any help will be appreciated.
Edit:
Both servers has same sql configuration
tempdb and datadb is seperated
This probably isn't what you want to hear, but VMs are always slower than physical servers, because of the overhead of implementing the VM. Also the 2660 has MUCH less L2 cache than the old processor.
I'm not sure what to tell you except to make sure that the VM for the SQL Server, has as much RAM and cores allocated to it as you can spare, and that SQL Server is configured to actually use them.
Also, disk I/O is a big deal. Are the drives and controllers for both systems similar?
VMWare has a whitepaper on the subject, so at least you're not alone. 8-)
http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/solutions/SQL_Server_on_VMware-Best_Practices_Guide.pdf
I just want to know that how I can allocate more memory to MSSQL management studio, so that it takes less time to run long queries. because I have to import and manipulate large amount of data form access files and other, where as I have 32 Gb ram for this purpose. so tell me solutions.
thanks
SQL Server Management Studio (SSMS) is just a client tool.
If queries are running too long, the issue will be at the actual SQL Server. You can assign extra memory there by using SSMS to connect to the server, right-click it, and then select Properties.
On the Memory page, you can configure how much maximum RAM you want to assign to SQL Server. In your situation, I'd not assign more than 30 GB (leave some for the OS. In case your SQL Server is not the only application running on the machine, assign even less).
If you're dealing with large amounts of data that need to be imported, RAM might not be the issue, though. Most likely the bottleneck will be the disk system. Use Performance Monitor to try and get a clue as to where the real bottleneck is.
Some ways to enhance performance for the disk system is to ensure your drives are configured properly (General rule of thumb is to place transaction logs on RAID 1 partitions, and data on RAID 10 (or 5)). If you can afford it, place indexes on separate RAID partitions. Also make sure the database and drives are regularly defragged.
We have an 8 Core, 16GB RAM server that has SQL Server 2008 running on it. When we perform large queries on millions of rows the RAM usage goes up to 15.7GB and then even file browsing, opening excel etc gets really slow.
So does SQL Server really release memory when another process needs it or am I having another issue? We don't have any other major programs running on this server.
We've set a max memory usage of 14GB for SQL Server.
Thanks all for any enlightenment or trouble shooting ideas.
Yes it does. See SQLOS's memory manager: responding to memory pressure for details how this works. But what exactly means to have 'memory pressure' it depends from machine to machine and from OS version to OS version, see Q & A: Does SQL Server always respond to memory pressure?. If you want to reserve more memory for applications (I'm not even bother to ask why you browse files and use Excel on a machine dedicated to SQL Server....) then you should lower the mas server memory until it leaves enough for your entertainment.
SQL server does NOT release memory. It takes all the memory it can get up to the MaxMemory setting and it stays there.