cyberswb wrote:I guess part of me thinks would be way too low, despite what the active memory statistics would say
cyberswb wrote:Part of this is motivated by another client who "insists" that the 8 GB memory allocated to his SQL server is "too low" (he wants 32 to 64 GB) despite peak Memory Active being just under 2.25 GB.
Vitaliy S. wrote:cyberswb wrote:I guess part of me thinks would be way too low, despite what the active memory statistics would say
What is the average and peak memory usage for this VM over 1 month? What is the current memory usage?
Vitaliy S. wrote:cyberswb wrote:Part of this is motivated by another client who "insists" that the 8 GB memory allocated to his SQL server is "too low" (he wants 32 to 64 GB) despite peak Memory Active being just under 2.25 GB.
What do other performance metrics (CPU Ready, Co-Stop, Disk Latency, the number of IOPs etc.) show for this VM? Do you have any performance issues with this SQL Server VM?
cyberswb wrote: recommends 2 GB for Windows 2008 R2 and another 4 GB for Exchange 2010, plus 5 MB per mailbox. In most VM implementations I've seen active is never over 3 GB, even peak.
cyberswb wrote:Anyway, that's why I'm question it because it's such a departure from conventional wisdom and vendor recommendations, which historically (for better or for worse) have been routinely considered ridiculous minimums and doubled in actual implementations.
Either memory usage/memory active is the real deal and we've been fooled all this time into using increasingly large amounts of RAM and assuming they're necessary, or those stats are an incomplete picture and there's some portion of the non-active/unused memory that are being used in ways we don't know.
Bottom line, I'm not saying it's wrong it's just such a disconnect from what I and everyone else has taken for granted that it seems like a paradigm changer.
cyberswb wrote:Generally performance is good and there are no complaints.
The SQL server is used for a very large application with a lot of data; on more than one occasion they've complained about performance that we generally attributed to a SAN system that was in need of an upgrade, but most of the time these problems are fixed with some kind of sheepish response about "bad queries" or "missing indexes" or some other problem unrelated to the server environment.
But I'm convinced that SQL guys are all impossible to please with performance data; they still want their own rack in the data center with physical servers they admin. Virtualization has been a loss of stature for the SQL guys.
pufferdude wrote: For example, I have an admittedly low-use AD box at a remote site with 4GB memory and Veeam wants me to lower that to 0.2GB!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest