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 <dennyf@inreach.com>
To: <radiusnt@iea-software.com>
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
for
> 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
about
> 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: radiusnt-request@iea-software.com
> [mailto:radiusnt-request@iea-software.com]On Behalf Of
majordomo@essex1.com
> Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2000 10:48 AM
> To: radiusnt@iea-software.com
> 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
that
> the existing SQL is dedicated to Radius.
>
> TIA,
> Tom
> tep@essex1.com
>
>
> For more information about this list (including removal) go to:
> http://www.iea-software.com/support/maillists/liststart
>
>
> For more information about this list (including removal) go to:
> http://www.iea-software.com/support/maillists/liststart
For more information about this list (including removal) go to:
http://www.iea-software.com/support/maillists/liststart