Neil (nospam@nospam.net) writes:
> First, re. the 2 GB of RAM, considering that the db is not huge (two
> main tables have about 60,000 records each; a few other tables with a
> few thousand records; and then a bunch of smaller records); there are
> only about 50 users max; most of the activity is read-only, very little
> writing; and the hardware is brand new; do you think that would be
> enough, or should I push for more? I wouldn't count on the database
> being well-tuned.

More memory is not going to hurt, but the database size you indicate
certainly does not scare me.

> Second, re. the size of the disks, when you said "make sure there is at
> least 50 GB," wasn't sure if you meant 50 GB total, or 50 GB free space
> after SQL Server is installed. Here are the specs for the disks:

I meant 50 GB in total. You are not going to fill up 36 GB on the spot,
but the strategy of Microsoft definitely is to bury a lot of stuff under
C:\Windows.


--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...ads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinf...ons/books.mspx

Well, the sys admin went ahead and moved SQL Server to the D drive, when I
questioned him about it, even though I told him I'd get back to him about
it. So now SQL's on the D drive with 204 GB. But you said that most of it
will still remain on the C drive anyway. But maybe having the parts that are
on the D drive there will help the system disk.

Thanks.

"Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@sommarskog.se> wrote in message
news:Xns99BEF25D5AE6DYazorman@127.0.0.1...
> Neil (nospam@nospam.net) writes:
>> First, re. the 2 GB of RAM, considering that the db is not huge (two
>> main tables have about 60,000 records each; a few other tables with a
>> few thousand records; and then a bunch of smaller records); there are
>> only about 50 users max; most of the activity is read-only, very little
>> writing; and the hardware is brand new; do you think that would be
>> enough, or should I push for more? I wouldn't count on the database
>> being well-tuned.
>
> More memory is not going to hurt, but the database size you indicate
> certainly does not scare me.
>
>> Second, re. the size of the disks, when you said "make sure there is at
>> least 50 GB," wasn't sure if you meant 50 GB total, or 50 GB free space
>> after SQL Server is installed. Here are the specs for the disks:
>
> I meant 50 GB in total. You are not going to fill up 36 GB on the spot,
> but the strategy of Microsoft definitely is to bury a lot of stuff under
> C:\Windows.
>
>
> --
> Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarskog.se
>
> Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...ads/books.mspx
> Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinf...ons/books.mspx