[dba-SQLServer] SQL Server compression

jwcolby jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com
Mon Sep 12 21:11:06 CDT 2011


 >> In any event I now have 3 processors and 8 gigs assigned to Windows 2008 and 13 processors and 
56 gigs assigned to SQL Server.

And of course that is cores, not processors.  ;)

John W. Colby
www.ColbyConsulting.com

On 9/12/2011 5:19 PM, Francisco Tapia wrote:
> very cool indeed!
>
> -Francisco
> <http://bit.ly/sqlthis>
>
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 5:34 AM, jwcolby<jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com>wrote:
>
>> I dropped in 4 more dimms and my GeekBench score is now 15K.  However CPUZ
>> is still saying that my memory is dual channel instead of quad channel.  I
>> have the correct sockets populated per the motherboard manual, 4 dimm
>> sockets per cpu sockets.  I sure would like to figure that one out.
>>
>> In any event I now have 3 processors and 8 gigs assigned to Windows 2008
>> and 13 processors and 56 gigs assigned to SQL Server.
>>
>> As I mentioned the other day I moved to page compression for all of my
>> major databases and while I do not know how it all works exactly but I now
>> have enough memory to have the two databases that I normally pull data from
>> for orders fit entirely into memory.  One database is 35 gigs and the other
>> is 15 gigs.  Supposedly the data is compressed and stored on disk.  Then it
>> is loaded off od disk and stored in memory compressed.  At the instant that
>> it is used, the data is uncompressed and any resulting data recompressed (if
>> storing) back into memory and from there back to disk.  From my readings
>> this requires more cpu power but less memory and less disk I/O.
>>
>> In my case I link these two databases by a KP/FK and pull sets of data
>> which is written back out to a different (order) order database.  The
>> business is very very different with cheap powerful hardware.
>>
>> Thank you AMD.
>>
>>
>> John W. Colby
>> www.ColbyConsulting.com
>>
>> On 9/5/2011 1:30 PM, jwcolby wrote:
>>> BTW I found something called GeekBench which I ran on my machine. It is
>> the only thing I have found
>>> that is a reasonable cost ($13) to give me numbers to compare to others.
>> My Geekbench number is
>>> ~13,500, and it pointed out to me that I am currently running the server
>> with 1/2 of the memory
>>> "bandwidth" I could be getting (the biggest reason I am adding more).
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> dba-SQLServer mailing list
>> dba-SQLServer@**databaseadvisors.com<dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com>
>> http://databaseadvisors.com/**mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver<http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver>
>> http://www.databaseadvisors.**com<http://www.databaseadvisors.com>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> dba-SQLServer mailing list
> dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
> http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
>



More information about the dba-SQLServer mailing list