Re: [RadiusNT] SQL Server and RadiusNT

Danny Sinang ( (no email) )
Fri, 21 Apr 2000 09:48:03 +0800

Hi Denny,

I'm just starting to use SQL Server 6.5 and Emerald.

Where do I check how much RAM SQL Server uses ?

- Danny Sinang

----- Original Message -----
From: Denny Figuerres <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2000 2:58 AM
Subject: RE: [RadiusNT] SQL Server and RadiusNT

> What changed?
> You may not need to move it depending on what the conditions are.
> For example:
> RAM, many folks setup a server with say 128 megs of ram, when your calls
> table is small and your number of terminal servers is small that's ok.
> But if you have more calls records to manage you may just need more ram
> SQL Server to run well.
> If you have not done so checkout information on how to use performance
> monitor to view things like:
> Cache hit ratio, number of writes, number of reads, number of transactions
> and other stats.
> Unless you a) have huge numbers of users or b) have a weak server (IE: old
> Pentium 100, no raid hardware etc...) you do *have* to split them.
> Well in fact there are some arguments why you should (can we say build a
> more robust system here )
> But if you are just running low on ram well...
> In my exp. 128 megs is only enough ram to test SQL server or run a few
> hundred accounts.
> 256 megs or more is 100% better.
> Depending on what that box is running NT may need 64 megs just to build a
> good "working set" in ram.
> Also if you have not changed the default setting SQL server only gets
> 16 megs of ram which is *WAY* to low
> For any real call logging.
> When if first used RadiusNT I've ran logging for 20,000 + accounts on 128
> megs by just killing all the "extra" junk and tuning SQL servers ram.
> That ran fine for quite a while and the performance began to drag when the
> calls table grew to over 2 million records. Even then it was "OK"
> So at that point you need to either trim the table or have more ram.
> That box by the way was (as I recall):
> PII 400
> 128 Megs
> Adaptec ARO-1130 Raid Port
> 6 4.5 Gig Ultra SCSI Disks in a Raid 5 config with one hot spare.
> No Web, Mail,Print, fileshare or other services on that box ...
> Just NT,SQL and RadiusNT.
> PS: that load was *Accounting* records no authentication was on that box.
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> []On Behalf Of
> Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2000 10:48 AM
> To:
> Subject: [RadiusNT] SQL Server and RadiusNT
> I am running RadiusNT Enterprise and SQL 6.5 on the same server at this
> time. The system has handled remarkably well in the past, but it is
> starting to show degredation in performance. I am planning to move the
> radius database over to a new dedicated SQL server and wanted to know the
> advantages/disadvantages of separating my Radius and SQL server. Note
> the existing SQL is dedicated to Radius.
> TIA,
> Tom
> For more information about this list (including removal) go to:
> For more information about this list (including removal) go to:

For more information about this list (including removal) go to: