4GB Ram for SQL

Hi all,
I have a new server with 4GB Ram and I want SQL server
use most of ram.
I have licences for Windows 2003 standard and enterprise
servers and SQL 2000 standard and enterprise servers.
Could anyone tell me which versions of Win2003 and
SQL2000 is better for SQL perforemance.
Thanks
MIkeHow many processors? Is anything else running on the box, or is it
dedicated to SQL Server? How busy will the server be? You can also list
the brand/model of server which might help.
"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:175b01c4b569$e7919d90$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> I have a new server with 4GB Ram and I want SQL server
> use most of ram.
> I have licences for Windows 2003 standard and enterprise
> servers and SQL 2000 standard and enterprise servers.
> Could anyone tell me which versions of Win2003 and
> SQL2000 is better for SQL perforemance.
> Thanks
> MIke|||Hi Derrick,
Thanks your reply
It is IBM xSeries 345 with Dual 3.06GHz CPUs and 4GB ram,
which is Payroll server and will have SQL server and
application software on.
Thanks
Mike
>--Original Message--
>How many processors? Is anything else running on the
box, or is it
>dedicated to SQL Server? How busy will the server be?
You can also list
>the brand/model of server which might help.
>
>"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
>news:175b01c4b569$e7919d90$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
>> Hi all,
>> I have a new server with 4GB Ram and I want SQL server
>> use most of ram.
>> I have licences for Windows 2003 standard and
enterprise
>> servers and SQL 2000 standard and enterprise servers.
>> Could anyone tell me which versions of Win2003 and
>> SQL2000 is better for SQL perforemance.
>> Thanks
>> MIke
>
>.
>|||You have to use SQL Server Enterprise to access more than 2 GB of memory.
Not sure if you can run that on Win2003 Standard or if you need Enterprise.
However since you have a separate payroll application running on the same
SQL Server box you wouldn't want to have SQL eat up all the memory.
"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:175b01c4b569$e7919d90$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> I have a new server with 4GB Ram and I want SQL server
> use most of ram.
> I have licences for Windows 2003 standard and enterprise
> servers and SQL 2000 standard and enterprise servers.
> Could anyone tell me which versions of Win2003 and
> SQL2000 is better for SQL perforemance.
> Thanks
> MIke|||I'd run Windows 2003 Enterprise and SQL Server Standard if I were you. You
will only want SQL Server using 2GB of RAM anyway if the app is on there
also. I would actually recommend setting the max memory for SQL to 1GB and
monitoring performance. You can then set up higher if need be.
The reason for this is licensing cost. You'll save yourself about $26,000
going this route. If you need Enterprise Edition, you will also need more
RAM. 4GB won't cut it because you don't want to starve the app out. You
also don't want to use the /3GB switch if it's a shared app/sql server.
That IBM has 8 memory slots if my recollection is right, so upgrading
shouldn't be a problem later. It's easy to upgrade to EM. You don't want
to have to reinstall the OS later though if 2003 standard doesn't work for
you.
"Peter Yao" <peteryao@.NoSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OLXQPMYtEHA.3572@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> You have to use SQL Server Enterprise to access more than 2 GB of memory.
> Not sure if you can run that on Win2003 Standard or if you need
Enterprise.
> However since you have a separate payroll application running on the same
> SQL Server box you wouldn't want to have SQL eat up all the memory.
> "Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:175b01c4b569$e7919d90$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> > Hi all,
> > I have a new server with 4GB Ram and I want SQL server
> > use most of ram.
> > I have licences for Windows 2003 standard and enterprise
> > servers and SQL 2000 standard and enterprise servers.
> > Could anyone tell me which versions of Win2003 and
> > SQL2000 is better for SQL perforemance.
> > Thanks
> > MIke
>|||Thanks a lot
MIke
>--Original Message--
>I'd run Windows 2003 Enterprise and SQL Server Standard
if I were you. You
>will only want SQL Server using 2GB of RAM anyway if the
app is on there
>also. I would actually recommend setting the max memory
for SQL to 1GB and
>monitoring performance. You can then set up higher if
need be.
>The reason for this is licensing cost. You'll save
yourself about $26,000
>going this route. If you need Enterprise Edition, you
will also need more
>RAM. 4GB won't cut it because you don't want to starve
the app out. You
>also don't want to use the /3GB switch if it's a shared
app/sql server.
>That IBM has 8 memory slots if my recollection is right,
so upgrading
>shouldn't be a problem later. It's easy to upgrade to
EM. You don't want
>to have to reinstall the OS later though if 2003
standard doesn't work for
>you.
>
>"Peter Yao" <peteryao@.NoSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:OLXQPMYtEHA.3572@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> You have to use SQL Server Enterprise to access more
than 2 GB of memory.
>> Not sure if you can run that on Win2003 Standard or if
you need
>Enterprise.
>> However since you have a separate payroll application
running on the same
>> SQL Server box you wouldn't want to have SQL eat up
all the memory.
>> "Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
>> news:175b01c4b569$e7919d90$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
>> > Hi all,
>> > I have a new server with 4GB Ram and I want SQL
server
>> > use most of ram.
>> > I have licences for Windows 2003 standard and
enterprise
>> > servers and SQL 2000 standard and enterprise servers.
>> > Could anyone tell me which versions of Win2003 and
>> > SQL2000 is better for SQL perforemance.
>> > Thanks
>> > MIke
>>
>
>.
>