Quote:
Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay
OK, SQL.EXE has two instances that appear to be running, those two and store.exe seem to be the three biggest culprits. Pretty sure store.exe has something to do with Exchange. Between the 3 of them, they seem to be taking up almost two gigs of RAM all on their own. I opened up the SQL database manager and the default RAM useage seemed to be 2 Petabytes, that seems excessive. After looking around the net, most seem to think it doesn't need more that 100 meg.
So this server is being used for exchange, our agency manager (we are a insurance brokerage) and some quoting software. The rest is really just file hosting. We don't move much data around or in & out of the office but for what it does, it should be MUCH faster IMO. It was very fast at first but like I've said, myself and others have noticed a gradual slow down over the past months.
I dunno....you guys know more than I do so I'll leave it alone for now.
I guess back to my main question for those that know, is 98% utilization normal? Would adding more RAM speed up the server or am I wasting money doing so?
|
Likely a Windows Server 2008 SBS (small business server edition), if its running SQL and Exchange (which it is).
Short answer to the question - 98% utilization is normal, and what you want (all resources being efficiently used to support all processes). Additional RAM will always help speed up a database or mail server - it allows a larger portion of the data set to be kept in RAM, for stored procedures to remain compiled in memory and ready to go, for temporary indexes, etc.
A server with processors that are 90% idle, and half the RAM unallocated is a waste of resources. Ideally you want all your RAM in use, and the processors humming along at a decent utilization (but not so heavily loaded that processes are waiting for scheduling to run, of course)