|
|
Posted by David Portas on 11/05/06 22:18
David wrote:
> Thanks for the reply. I will check the link now. The reason we are
> moving to MS SQL 2000, is because we received it with a server a while
> ago. However, due to time constaints it was never setup, as i only had
> 4 days on-site, and other things took priority.
>
> I know we need two users for one of the databases, and may
> unfortunately need 8 for the other so ill check on that now thanks.
>
> There is another query as well, if possible. I was looking into
> performance of it and obviously it depends on the structure of the
> databases. We are not sure if we trust the suppliers of each database,
> to make them run efficiently. Therefore apart from wrapping the SQL
> servers, in Virtual Machines, and limiting the virtual machines use of
> the CPU, is there any other way to control the resources used by the
> server, in order to stop it using the full resources of the machine, in
> case of bad structuring?
>
> Thanks again for the reply, hope you had a good weekend
>
> David
>
>
>
You can restrict the number of processors and the number of threads
used by SQL Server. You can also limit the amount of RAM available to
it. You'll find those settings under the Properties option if you
right-click on the server in Enterprise Manager.
Unless you have other more demanding applications on the same server it
is usually better to allow SQL Server to manage those things for
itself. SQL Server works best with as much RAM as possible and it will
automatically yield resources to other processes that need them.
--
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|