SBS2008 memory requirements
|
Prev: Event 1521 roaming profile
Next: Another interesting thing - since the MS updates - Winmail.datagain
From: Leythos on 16 Jun 2010 18:44 In article <25DDD445-AD40-436B-86D5-20CA39F16EB7(a)microsoft.com>, Joe2 @discussions.microsoft.com says... > > Hum, I stated my question incorrectly. I knew it could be on one box using VM > for both. My question is can they both be on one physical box, as they exist > in SBS2003, with SQL running inside of SBS2008? That is what I seem to be > reading in some of the post?? We're going to find out soon, at one of my customers. We just moved from SBS 2003 Prem to SBS 2008 Std because they didn't need SQL, but, after a few months it appears they want to add a CRM package and it integrates with their production tracking ACCESS (currently) database package. The vendor that provides both packages stated they need to have MS SQL and can't support Access... We're going to be installing a stand-alone SQL on top of the SBS 2008 Standard, but it's a Dell 610 series with dual CPU's and will be upgraded to 16GB RAM (only 11 users total). I may look into a SBS 2008 Std to Prem upgrade, but I've not looked into it yet. -- You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that. Trust yourself. spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
From: Charlie Russel - MVP on 16 Jun 2010 20:27 Not less than 6, even for a tiny office. 8 GB a more realistic minimum for 1-5 users. 12 is gettting to the small office sweet spot. Without SQL. As you go beyond that very small office, move up in RAM as required. I'm guessing that at 50 users and above you'll need to be at 24 or 32 GB of RAM, depending on the Exchange load. -- Charlie. http://msmvps.com/blogs/russel "Joe#2" <Joe2(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:B75372D1-9D1B-4532-A67F-4B9F80B52F49(a)microsoft.com... > All this time with SBS2003, weve had 4gigs of memory and did everything > inside of that, like it or not. 1 user or 75 users, ISA, SQL, or what > ever - > still 4 gigs. > > Now I am getting ready to migrate some users to SBS 2008 and can go to > what > 4 terabyes of memory? What would that be for, a replacement of a old Cray > computer!!! > > Anyway, Obviously I could still use 4 gigs on the new box, or inthe case > of > SQL, a new box with 4 gigs on it too. > > BUT! I always wonder, should I go with mayby 6gigs, or 12 gigs? It does > add > not a small cost to the customer. > > Those of you that have done SBS2008, generally speaking is there a sweet > spot that is really a minimum perhaps? From a PRACTICAL viewpoint, is > there a > reasonable figure to start out with?
From: Russ (SBITS.Biz) [SBS-MVP] on 16 Jun 2010 21:06 Thanks Larry -- Russell Grover - SBITS.Biz [SBS-MVP] MCP, MCPS, MCNPS, SBSC Remote Small Business Server/Computer Support - www.SBITS.Biz BPOS - Microsoft Online Services - www.BPOSMadeEasy.com Easy Redirect to Microsoft's New SBS Public Support Forum - www.SBSRepair.com "Larry Struckmeyer[SBS-MVP]" <lstruckmeyer(a)mis-wizards.com> wrote in message news:4e683515181748ccdb863d8d947f(a)news.microsoft.com... > Yes, one physical box is allowed, but not recommended. No application > "ought" to be on a DC, but with SBS the team makes exceptions. Also, the > hardware (memory) requirements are such now that both SQL and Exchange > might, could, may, sometimes can put a strain on a single server. (Don't > want anyone to say that I said you should not run Exchange and SQL on one > physical box because of memory constraints. Maybe you should and maybe > you shouldn't for a whole host of reasons.) > >
From: Brian Cryer on 17 Jun 2010 05:51 "Joe#2" <Joe2(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:B75372D1-9D1B-4532-A67F-4B9F80B52F49(a)microsoft.com... > All this time with SBS2003, weve had 4gigs of memory and did everything > inside of that, like it or not. 1 user or 75 users, ISA, SQL, or what > ever - > still 4 gigs. > > Now I am getting ready to migrate some users to SBS 2008 and can go to > what > 4 terabyes of memory? What would that be for, a replacement of a old Cray > computer!!! You find a motherboard that will let you install 4TB of RAM! (grin) > Anyway, Obviously I could still use 4 gigs on the new box, or inthe case > of > SQL, a new box with 4 gigs on it too. > > BUT! I always wonder, should I go with mayby 6gigs, or 12 gigs? It does > add > not a small cost to the customer. My experience with a low number of users (like with Charlie) is that 6GB seems to be a realistic minimum. I have 8GB in my SBS box but according to task manager its only using 6GB. Whether you need more than that depends on what you intend to be doing with it and how many users you have. If you are not sure then I suggest starting with 8GB but making sure that you have room to expand later to 16GB (or perhaps 32GB). > Those of you that have done SBS2008, generally speaking is there a sweet > spot that is really a minimum perhaps? From a PRACTICAL viewpoint, is > there a > reasonable figure to start out with? Less than 10 users I'd expect 8GB to be adequate (assuming no heavy third party aps on the server). Beyond that and I can't speak from experience (yet!) -- Brian Cryer http://www.cryer.co.uk/brian
From: Joe#2 on 17 Jun 2010 10:18
Thanks all for the input. Just the information I needed. I tried to check answered on all of the replys but apparently it only allows one. "Joe#2" wrote: > All this time with SBS2003, weve had 4gigs of memory and did everything > inside of that, like it or not. 1 user or 75 users, ISA, SQL, or what ever - > still 4 gigs. > > Now I am getting ready to migrate some users to SBS 2008 and can go to what > 4 terabyes of memory? What would that be for, a replacement of a old Cray > computer!!! > > Anyway, Obviously I could still use 4 gigs on the new box, or inthe case of > SQL, a new box with 4 gigs on it too. > > BUT! I always wonder, should I go with mayby 6gigs, or 12 gigs? It does add > not a small cost to the customer. > > Those of you that have done SBS2008, generally speaking is there a sweet > spot that is really a minimum perhaps? From a PRACTICAL viewpoint, is there a > reasonable figure to start out with? |