Posted by Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) on 12/19/06 12:49

"Russ Rose" <russrose@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5_-dnWp8N8-s1BrYnZ2dnUVZ_u63nZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@sommarskog.se> wrote in message
> news:Xns989DEE520DF4DYazorman@127.0.0.1...
>> Damon (Damon@china.com) writes:
>>> Thank you Kevin.
>>> Is there any solution to use 4 GB memory by sql2000?
>>
>> Upgrade to Enterprise Edition of SQL 2000.
>>
>> Which is quite more expensive than moving to SQL 2005 Standard, I
>> believe.
>
> Would a "Named Instance" on SQL 2000 Standard be able to use most of the
> remaining half of the 4GB? When I expirimented with named instances back
> in 2001 - and decided not to use them in a production environment - I only
> had 2GB in the server.


Note for say a website, as I recall, you need a CPU license for each
physical CPU in the machine for each instance (in Standard).

However, this probably won't necessarily help. It depends on the OS.

If you're running Windows 2000 Standard, you're limited to 4 GB of physical
RAM anyway.

Now, 2 gig of physical RAM can be given to a process (3 gig if compiled with
the right options, but that raises other issues here.)

So, if you have 5 gig of physical RAM and an OS that can address all of
that, in theory this could support 2 processes each using 2 gig of physical
RAM with 1 gig reserved for the OS.

If you have less memory, obviously this won't work as well.

Quite honestly, I think your best bet if you really need the memory (and
while I'm always a fan of more memory, sometimes it's just not worth it) is
to move to SQL 2005.


>
> Even if possible I'm not sure this would be a good solution, just
> wondering what the behavior is.
>
>>
>> --
>> Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarskog.se
>>
>> Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
>> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx
>> Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
>> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx
>
>

[Back to original message]