Thanks you all for your interesting responses and advice. Much appreciated.
Thanks
Pierre
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
---
To manage subscriptions click here:
2 CPUs should be more than enough, 16 GB of RAM is overkill.
John W. Cook
Systems Administrator
Partnership for Strong Families
From: pierre.camill...@fosterclark.com pierre.camill...@fosterclark.com
To: NT System Admin Issues ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com
Agreed.
With ~25 active users, and even a shared SQL instance, that server would be
fine with 4-6GB RAM
* *
*ASB* *http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker* *Harnessing the Advantages of
Technology for the SMB market…
*
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 7:11 AM, John Cook john.c...@pfsf.org wrote:
2 CPUs
On this rare circumstance, I am going to disagree with ASB. While tech
editing a book, I ran this exact scenario. With the SQL and SharePoint on
the same virtual guest allocated 16G, I was not happy with performance and I
was the only user.
I would suggest 32G.
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 7:19 AM,
ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com
Sent: Wed Sep 14 08:13:25 2011
Subject: Re: Query re Virtual CPUs
On this rare circumstance, I am going to disagree with ASB. While tech editing
a book, I ran this exact scenario. With the SQL and SharePoint on the same
virtual guest allocated 16G, I
Interesting. At $Work we're running Sharepoint 2010 Foundation for ~10
users on an ESX 4.1 VM with 2GB RAM and 1 vCPU, and it's plenty fast. The
database is located on another server. With only one calendar and a couple
of document libraries, I'll be the first to admit that we don't push it
IMO putting the SQL on the same server is what pushes the memory up.
Yep, isn't virtualization great for maximizing hardware. To the OP, I would
start with 16 as a test, but be prepared to increase the memory to 32. Or
maybe consider 2 guests. 1 for SQL and 1 for SharePoint.
Kevin
On Wed,
the technet doc.
From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:19 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Query re Virtual CPUs
Agreed.
With ~25 active users, and even a shared SQL instance, that server would be
fine with 4-6GB RAM
ASB
http://XeeMe.com
I setup a WSS3 (previous version) single server farm using the included MSDE
database. I had no budget and used VMware Server on a Windows 2003 build,
8GB RAM, and 5 146G drives in a Raid5 setup. I had a couple of low use (WSUS
and DPM) VMs on the host also. The WSS VM only had 1G of RAM, single
to be. If you have
1GB of content, then 16GB of RAM is more than enough.
Cheers
Ken
From: Kevin Lundy [mailto:klu...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 September 2011 8:49 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Query re Virtual CPUs
IMO putting the SQL on the same server is what pushes the memory up.
Yep
10 matches
Mail list logo
