My log file size is 38 GB and database file is only 1.5
GB. Only 8 GB space is left to cover the entire disk
space. I backed up the log file and shrink the database
to 10% but it released only 3 GB disk space. What would
be the best way to further reduce the log file size and
control the growth at this point?
Thanks in advance...Hi Jessica,
It should work if u have done exactly as shown in the
below KB
INF: Shrinking the Transaction Log in SQL Server 2000 with
DBCC SHRINKFILE
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-
US;272318
Also do a frequent transaction log backups to over come
this . You can also turn the Database from FULL recovery
to SIMPLE recovery if your data is not critical so that
the log is truncated immediately.
There are some other pointers on MS site which tell why a
Tran. log grows rapidly.
HTH
--
Regards
Thirumal
www.thirumal.com
>--Original Message--
>My log file size is 38 GB and database file is only 1.5
>GB. Only 8 GB space is left to cover the entire disk
>space. I backed up the log file and shrink the database
>to 10% but it released only 3 GB disk space. What would
>be the best way to further reduce the log file size and
>control the growth at this point?
>Thanks in advance...
>.
>
Showing posts with label space. Show all posts
Showing posts with label space. Show all posts
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Control w/hidden=true displays as white space
We have a section of a report that should only be displayed if we have data
for it. We have tried putting all of the controls in a rectangle, and then
setting the visibility based on the record count. If we have zero (0) rows,
the controls are hidden, but white space is now displayed equal to the
height of the rectangle that is hidden.
We have tried moving these controls to a sub-report and we exerience the
same thing. However much vertical space the sub-report control consumes at
design time is replaced with whitespace when we hide the report. While this
is a bit better since the height of the sub-report control can be much
smaller than the report itself, it is still frustrating.
Example:
Rec A
Rec B
Rec C
When we hide Rec B, we see:
Rec A
Rec C
What we want is:
Rec A
Rec C
It seems when we hide textboxes, they do not consume any vertical space.
1) How can we also remove the white space when hiding a rectangle or
sub-report?
2) Out of curiosity, what is the rational behind this behavior? Why would
one hide a control and not want subsequent controls "moved up" to take the
hidden controls place.
SQL Server 2000 SP4
MS Reporting Services 1.0 SP2
Visual Studio.NET 2003
Thanks,
Chris?
"Chris Walls" <chwalls@.community.nospam> wrote in message
news:e2jC%23$nMGHA.3648@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> We have a section of a report that should only be displayed if we have
> data for it. We have tried putting all of the controls in a rectangle,
> and then setting the visibility based on the record count. If we have
> zero (0) rows, the controls are hidden, but white space is now displayed
> equal to the height of the rectangle that is hidden.
> We have tried moving these controls to a sub-report and we exerience the
> same thing. However much vertical space the sub-report control consumes
> at design time is replaced with whitespace when we hide the report. While
> this is a bit better since the height of the sub-report control can be
> much smaller than the report itself, it is still frustrating.
> Example:
> Rec A
> Rec B
> Rec C
> When we hide Rec B, we see:
> Rec A
> Rec C
> What we want is:
> Rec A
> Rec C
> It seems when we hide textboxes, they do not consume any vertical space.
> 1) How can we also remove the white space when hiding a rectangle or
> sub-report?
> 2) Out of curiosity, what is the rational behind this behavior? Why would
> one hide a control and not want subsequent controls "moved up" to take the
> hidden controls place.
> SQL Server 2000 SP4
> MS Reporting Services 1.0 SP2
> Visual Studio.NET 2003
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
>|||Have you tried using a table instead of independent text boxes to
display your results? If you hide the entire row (not just a single
cell) then the row below moves up.|||Hi Chris (I'm sorry to bother you but I think you could help me)
The reason I'm sending you this email is that I did find a question (see
below) which you did post in this newsgroup for almost a year ago which
indicates that you already have went through the same problem situation as
I'm right now.
May I ask which product you are using when you are merging your PDF
documents into one single document? Are you happy with your choice?
Many thanks and best regards
/Anders
To get around a MS Reporting Service limitation, instead of using
sub-reports, we may have to create individual reports in PDF format and then
merge them into a single PDF report. We have found tools that can merge PDF
files, but this presents us with another issue: page numbers. We want the
resulting merged PDF files to have continous page numbers. Is there a way
to tell MS Reporting Services to start with a specific page number when
rendering a report. Can we some how do this with a report parameter?
"Chris Walls" <chwalls@.community.nospam> wrote in message
news:e2jC%23$nMGHA.3648@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> We have a section of a report that should only be displayed if we have
> data for it. We have tried putting all of the controls in a rectangle,
> and then setting the visibility based on the record count. If we have
> zero (0) rows, the controls are hidden, but white space is now displayed
> equal to the height of the rectangle that is hidden.
> We have tried moving these controls to a sub-report and we exerience the
> same thing. However much vertical space the sub-report control consumes
> at design time is replaced with whitespace when we hide the report. While
> this is a bit better since the height of the sub-report control can be
> much smaller than the report itself, it is still frustrating.
> Example:
> Rec A
> Rec B
> Rec C
> When we hide Rec B, we see:
> Rec A
> Rec C
> What we want is:
> Rec A
> Rec C
> It seems when we hide textboxes, they do not consume any vertical space.
> 1) How can we also remove the white space when hiding a rectangle or
> sub-report?
> 2) Out of curiosity, what is the rational behind this behavior? Why would
> one hide a control and not want subsequent controls "moved up" to take the
> hidden controls place.
> SQL Server 2000 SP4
> MS Reporting Services 1.0 SP2
> Visual Studio.NET 2003
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
>
for it. We have tried putting all of the controls in a rectangle, and then
setting the visibility based on the record count. If we have zero (0) rows,
the controls are hidden, but white space is now displayed equal to the
height of the rectangle that is hidden.
We have tried moving these controls to a sub-report and we exerience the
same thing. However much vertical space the sub-report control consumes at
design time is replaced with whitespace when we hide the report. While this
is a bit better since the height of the sub-report control can be much
smaller than the report itself, it is still frustrating.
Example:
Rec A
Rec B
Rec C
When we hide Rec B, we see:
Rec A
Rec C
What we want is:
Rec A
Rec C
It seems when we hide textboxes, they do not consume any vertical space.
1) How can we also remove the white space when hiding a rectangle or
sub-report?
2) Out of curiosity, what is the rational behind this behavior? Why would
one hide a control and not want subsequent controls "moved up" to take the
hidden controls place.
SQL Server 2000 SP4
MS Reporting Services 1.0 SP2
Visual Studio.NET 2003
Thanks,
Chris?
"Chris Walls" <chwalls@.community.nospam> wrote in message
news:e2jC%23$nMGHA.3648@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> We have a section of a report that should only be displayed if we have
> data for it. We have tried putting all of the controls in a rectangle,
> and then setting the visibility based on the record count. If we have
> zero (0) rows, the controls are hidden, but white space is now displayed
> equal to the height of the rectangle that is hidden.
> We have tried moving these controls to a sub-report and we exerience the
> same thing. However much vertical space the sub-report control consumes
> at design time is replaced with whitespace when we hide the report. While
> this is a bit better since the height of the sub-report control can be
> much smaller than the report itself, it is still frustrating.
> Example:
> Rec A
> Rec B
> Rec C
> When we hide Rec B, we see:
> Rec A
> Rec C
> What we want is:
> Rec A
> Rec C
> It seems when we hide textboxes, they do not consume any vertical space.
> 1) How can we also remove the white space when hiding a rectangle or
> sub-report?
> 2) Out of curiosity, what is the rational behind this behavior? Why would
> one hide a control and not want subsequent controls "moved up" to take the
> hidden controls place.
> SQL Server 2000 SP4
> MS Reporting Services 1.0 SP2
> Visual Studio.NET 2003
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
>|||Have you tried using a table instead of independent text boxes to
display your results? If you hide the entire row (not just a single
cell) then the row below moves up.|||Hi Chris (I'm sorry to bother you but I think you could help me)
The reason I'm sending you this email is that I did find a question (see
below) which you did post in this newsgroup for almost a year ago which
indicates that you already have went through the same problem situation as
I'm right now.
May I ask which product you are using when you are merging your PDF
documents into one single document? Are you happy with your choice?
Many thanks and best regards
/Anders
To get around a MS Reporting Service limitation, instead of using
sub-reports, we may have to create individual reports in PDF format and then
merge them into a single PDF report. We have found tools that can merge PDF
files, but this presents us with another issue: page numbers. We want the
resulting merged PDF files to have continous page numbers. Is there a way
to tell MS Reporting Services to start with a specific page number when
rendering a report. Can we some how do this with a report parameter?
"Chris Walls" <chwalls@.community.nospam> wrote in message
news:e2jC%23$nMGHA.3648@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> We have a section of a report that should only be displayed if we have
> data for it. We have tried putting all of the controls in a rectangle,
> and then setting the visibility based on the record count. If we have
> zero (0) rows, the controls are hidden, but white space is now displayed
> equal to the height of the rectangle that is hidden.
> We have tried moving these controls to a sub-report and we exerience the
> same thing. However much vertical space the sub-report control consumes
> at design time is replaced with whitespace when we hide the report. While
> this is a bit better since the height of the sub-report control can be
> much smaller than the report itself, it is still frustrating.
> Example:
> Rec A
> Rec B
> Rec C
> When we hide Rec B, we see:
> Rec A
> Rec C
> What we want is:
> Rec A
> Rec C
> It seems when we hide textboxes, they do not consume any vertical space.
> 1) How can we also remove the white space when hiding a rectangle or
> sub-report?
> 2) Out of curiosity, what is the rational behind this behavior? Why would
> one hide a control and not want subsequent controls "moved up" to take the
> hidden controls place.
> SQL Server 2000 SP4
> MS Reporting Services 1.0 SP2
> Visual Studio.NET 2003
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
>
Friday, February 10, 2012
Consolidation question
I have to move a database from Server A to Server B. I have checked the space
and CPU utilization on both the servers. The database size is 5 GB and there
are 50 concurrent users.
Server A - source server
CPU utilization - <25 %
Available space - 80 Gb
Memory - 2 GB
Memory used by sqlserver.exe - 1800 MB
Memory configured for dynamic allocation by sql server upto 2GB
Server B - destination server
CPU utilization - <10 %
Available space - 80 Gb
Memory - 1795 MB
Memory used by sqlserver.exe - 1500 MB
Memory configured for dynamic allocation by sql server upto 1795 MB
How do I find out if the memory is going to be sufficient after the move? I
ma thinking of reducing the memory allocated to sql servers on both Server A
and Server B to just 1 GB and see the performance of both the servers. If
tehy perform OK at reduced memory then I will assume the memory on
destination Server B will be good enough for the new database. Any insight
will be highly appreciated. Thanks.sharman,
SQL Server uses as much space as it can in its address space unless it has
to give up memory to other processes. But this memory need is not doubled
when you bring another database and 50 users online. The impact on memory
is probably rather small. Certainly, I don't think that restricting memory
on the two servers will give you a meaningful measure for what will happen
when they are brought together on one server.
Of course, you are expecting CPU utilization to go up. Something else that
you should check on each server is the SQL Servers: Buffer Manager \ Page
Life Expectancy. If they are consistently under 300 seconds, that may
indicate that there is too little memory for the active buffer contents,
which will mean more I/O and CPU.
RLF
"sharman" <sharman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:96430D73-D40A-4961-A95C-00C7E2F0CD89@.microsoft.com...
>I have to move a database from Server A to Server B. I have checked the
>space
> and CPU utilization on both the servers. The database size is 5 GB and
> there
> are 50 concurrent users.
> Server A - source server
> CPU utilization - <25 %
> Available space - 80 Gb
> Memory - 2 GB
> Memory used by sqlserver.exe - 1800 MB
> Memory configured for dynamic allocation by sql server upto 2GB
> Server B - destination server
> CPU utilization - <10 %
> Available space - 80 Gb
> Memory - 1795 MB
> Memory used by sqlserver.exe - 1500 MB
> Memory configured for dynamic allocation by sql server upto 1795 MB
> How do I find out if the memory is going to be sufficient after the move?
> I
> ma thinking of reducing the memory allocated to sql servers on both Server
> A
> and Server B to just 1 GB and see the performance of both the servers. If
> tehy perform OK at reduced memory then I will assume the memory on
> destination Server B will be good enough for the new database. Any insight
> will be highly appreciated. Thanks.|||Hi Russell,
Thanks for the info. I did a quick check of Page Life Expectancy on both the
servers. These are the typical values that I found.
Sever to which the db will be moved = 33270 (average)
Server on which the db currently resides = varies between 282 to 378
"Russell Fields" wrote:
> sharman,
> SQL Server uses as much space as it can in its address space unless it has
> to give up memory to other processes. But this memory need is not doubled
> when you bring another database and 50 users online. The impact on memory
> is probably rather small. Certainly, I don't think that restricting memory
> on the two servers will give you a meaningful measure for what will happen
> when they are brought together on one server.
> Of course, you are expecting CPU utilization to go up. Something else that
> you should check on each server is the SQL Servers: Buffer Manager \ Page
> Life Expectancy. If they are consistently under 300 seconds, that may
> indicate that there is too little memory for the active buffer contents,
> which will mean more I/O and CPU.
> RLF
> "sharman" <sharman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:96430D73-D40A-4961-A95C-00C7E2F0CD89@.microsoft.com...
> >I have to move a database from Server A to Server B. I have checked the
> >space
> > and CPU utilization on both the servers. The database size is 5 GB and
> > there
> > are 50 concurrent users.
> >
> > Server A - source server
> > CPU utilization - <25 %
> > Available space - 80 Gb
> > Memory - 2 GB
> > Memory used by sqlserver.exe - 1800 MB
> > Memory configured for dynamic allocation by sql server upto 2GB
> >
> > Server B - destination server
> > CPU utilization - <10 %
> > Available space - 80 Gb
> > Memory - 1795 MB
> > Memory used by sqlserver.exe - 1500 MB
> > Memory configured for dynamic allocation by sql server upto 1795 MB
> >
> > How do I find out if the memory is going to be sufficient after the move?
> > I
> > ma thinking of reducing the memory allocated to sql servers on both Server
> > A
> > and Server B to just 1 GB and see the performance of both the servers. If
> > tehy perform OK at reduced memory then I will assume the memory on
> > destination Server B will be good enough for the new database. Any insight
> > will be highly appreciated. Thanks.
>
>|||Sharman,
It looks like you are on the low, but acceptable side of Page Life
Expectancy. However, reviewing your notes says that you are moving to the
server with a couple hundred megabytes less memory. So you may find
yourself experiencing some memory pressure issues when the memory load moves
machines.
It looks like you are fine with your CPU for the time being, but it would be
good to bump up your memory a bit, if you can.
You did not mention which version of OS and SQL Server you are running, but
those will make a difference in your memory options.
RLF
"sharman" <sharman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A552585E-485D-4149-B797-A014B1E2BAAA@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Russell,
> Thanks for the info. I did a quick check of Page Life Expectancy on both
> the
> servers. These are the typical values that I found.
> Sever to which the db will be moved = 33270 (average)
> Server on which the db currently resides = varies between 282 to 378
> "Russell Fields" wrote:
>> sharman,
>> SQL Server uses as much space as it can in its address space unless it
>> has
>> to give up memory to other processes. But this memory need is not
>> doubled
>> when you bring another database and 50 users online. The impact on
>> memory
>> is probably rather small. Certainly, I don't think that restricting
>> memory
>> on the two servers will give you a meaningful measure for what will
>> happen
>> when they are brought together on one server.
>> Of course, you are expecting CPU utilization to go up. Something else
>> that
>> you should check on each server is the SQL Servers: Buffer Manager \ Page
>> Life Expectancy. If they are consistently under 300 seconds, that may
>> indicate that there is too little memory for the active buffer contents,
>> which will mean more I/O and CPU.
>> RLF
>> "sharman" <sharman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:96430D73-D40A-4961-A95C-00C7E2F0CD89@.microsoft.com...
>> >I have to move a database from Server A to Server B. I have checked the
>> >space
>> > and CPU utilization on both the servers. The database size is 5 GB and
>> > there
>> > are 50 concurrent users.
>> >
>> > Server A - source server
>> > CPU utilization - <25 %
>> > Available space - 80 Gb
>> > Memory - 2 GB
>> > Memory used by sqlserver.exe - 1800 MB
>> > Memory configured for dynamic allocation by sql server upto 2GB
>> >
>> > Server B - destination server
>> > CPU utilization - <10 %
>> > Available space - 80 Gb
>> > Memory - 1795 MB
>> > Memory used by sqlserver.exe - 1500 MB
>> > Memory configured for dynamic allocation by sql server upto 1795 MB
>> >
>> > How do I find out if the memory is going to be sufficient after the
>> > move?
>> > I
>> > ma thinking of reducing the memory allocated to sql servers on both
>> > Server
>> > A
>> > and Server B to just 1 GB and see the performance of both the servers.
>> > If
>> > tehy perform OK at reduced memory then I will assume the memory on
>> > destination Server B will be good enough for the new database. Any
>> > insight
>> > will be highly appreciated. Thanks.
>>
and CPU utilization on both the servers. The database size is 5 GB and there
are 50 concurrent users.
Server A - source server
CPU utilization - <25 %
Available space - 80 Gb
Memory - 2 GB
Memory used by sqlserver.exe - 1800 MB
Memory configured for dynamic allocation by sql server upto 2GB
Server B - destination server
CPU utilization - <10 %
Available space - 80 Gb
Memory - 1795 MB
Memory used by sqlserver.exe - 1500 MB
Memory configured for dynamic allocation by sql server upto 1795 MB
How do I find out if the memory is going to be sufficient after the move? I
ma thinking of reducing the memory allocated to sql servers on both Server A
and Server B to just 1 GB and see the performance of both the servers. If
tehy perform OK at reduced memory then I will assume the memory on
destination Server B will be good enough for the new database. Any insight
will be highly appreciated. Thanks.sharman,
SQL Server uses as much space as it can in its address space unless it has
to give up memory to other processes. But this memory need is not doubled
when you bring another database and 50 users online. The impact on memory
is probably rather small. Certainly, I don't think that restricting memory
on the two servers will give you a meaningful measure for what will happen
when they are brought together on one server.
Of course, you are expecting CPU utilization to go up. Something else that
you should check on each server is the SQL Servers: Buffer Manager \ Page
Life Expectancy. If they are consistently under 300 seconds, that may
indicate that there is too little memory for the active buffer contents,
which will mean more I/O and CPU.
RLF
"sharman" <sharman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:96430D73-D40A-4961-A95C-00C7E2F0CD89@.microsoft.com...
>I have to move a database from Server A to Server B. I have checked the
>space
> and CPU utilization on both the servers. The database size is 5 GB and
> there
> are 50 concurrent users.
> Server A - source server
> CPU utilization - <25 %
> Available space - 80 Gb
> Memory - 2 GB
> Memory used by sqlserver.exe - 1800 MB
> Memory configured for dynamic allocation by sql server upto 2GB
> Server B - destination server
> CPU utilization - <10 %
> Available space - 80 Gb
> Memory - 1795 MB
> Memory used by sqlserver.exe - 1500 MB
> Memory configured for dynamic allocation by sql server upto 1795 MB
> How do I find out if the memory is going to be sufficient after the move?
> I
> ma thinking of reducing the memory allocated to sql servers on both Server
> A
> and Server B to just 1 GB and see the performance of both the servers. If
> tehy perform OK at reduced memory then I will assume the memory on
> destination Server B will be good enough for the new database. Any insight
> will be highly appreciated. Thanks.|||Hi Russell,
Thanks for the info. I did a quick check of Page Life Expectancy on both the
servers. These are the typical values that I found.
Sever to which the db will be moved = 33270 (average)
Server on which the db currently resides = varies between 282 to 378
"Russell Fields" wrote:
> sharman,
> SQL Server uses as much space as it can in its address space unless it has
> to give up memory to other processes. But this memory need is not doubled
> when you bring another database and 50 users online. The impact on memory
> is probably rather small. Certainly, I don't think that restricting memory
> on the two servers will give you a meaningful measure for what will happen
> when they are brought together on one server.
> Of course, you are expecting CPU utilization to go up. Something else that
> you should check on each server is the SQL Servers: Buffer Manager \ Page
> Life Expectancy. If they are consistently under 300 seconds, that may
> indicate that there is too little memory for the active buffer contents,
> which will mean more I/O and CPU.
> RLF
> "sharman" <sharman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:96430D73-D40A-4961-A95C-00C7E2F0CD89@.microsoft.com...
> >I have to move a database from Server A to Server B. I have checked the
> >space
> > and CPU utilization on both the servers. The database size is 5 GB and
> > there
> > are 50 concurrent users.
> >
> > Server A - source server
> > CPU utilization - <25 %
> > Available space - 80 Gb
> > Memory - 2 GB
> > Memory used by sqlserver.exe - 1800 MB
> > Memory configured for dynamic allocation by sql server upto 2GB
> >
> > Server B - destination server
> > CPU utilization - <10 %
> > Available space - 80 Gb
> > Memory - 1795 MB
> > Memory used by sqlserver.exe - 1500 MB
> > Memory configured for dynamic allocation by sql server upto 1795 MB
> >
> > How do I find out if the memory is going to be sufficient after the move?
> > I
> > ma thinking of reducing the memory allocated to sql servers on both Server
> > A
> > and Server B to just 1 GB and see the performance of both the servers. If
> > tehy perform OK at reduced memory then I will assume the memory on
> > destination Server B will be good enough for the new database. Any insight
> > will be highly appreciated. Thanks.
>
>|||Sharman,
It looks like you are on the low, but acceptable side of Page Life
Expectancy. However, reviewing your notes says that you are moving to the
server with a couple hundred megabytes less memory. So you may find
yourself experiencing some memory pressure issues when the memory load moves
machines.
It looks like you are fine with your CPU for the time being, but it would be
good to bump up your memory a bit, if you can.
You did not mention which version of OS and SQL Server you are running, but
those will make a difference in your memory options.
RLF
"sharman" <sharman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A552585E-485D-4149-B797-A014B1E2BAAA@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Russell,
> Thanks for the info. I did a quick check of Page Life Expectancy on both
> the
> servers. These are the typical values that I found.
> Sever to which the db will be moved = 33270 (average)
> Server on which the db currently resides = varies between 282 to 378
> "Russell Fields" wrote:
>> sharman,
>> SQL Server uses as much space as it can in its address space unless it
>> has
>> to give up memory to other processes. But this memory need is not
>> doubled
>> when you bring another database and 50 users online. The impact on
>> memory
>> is probably rather small. Certainly, I don't think that restricting
>> memory
>> on the two servers will give you a meaningful measure for what will
>> happen
>> when they are brought together on one server.
>> Of course, you are expecting CPU utilization to go up. Something else
>> that
>> you should check on each server is the SQL Servers: Buffer Manager \ Page
>> Life Expectancy. If they are consistently under 300 seconds, that may
>> indicate that there is too little memory for the active buffer contents,
>> which will mean more I/O and CPU.
>> RLF
>> "sharman" <sharman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:96430D73-D40A-4961-A95C-00C7E2F0CD89@.microsoft.com...
>> >I have to move a database from Server A to Server B. I have checked the
>> >space
>> > and CPU utilization on both the servers. The database size is 5 GB and
>> > there
>> > are 50 concurrent users.
>> >
>> > Server A - source server
>> > CPU utilization - <25 %
>> > Available space - 80 Gb
>> > Memory - 2 GB
>> > Memory used by sqlserver.exe - 1800 MB
>> > Memory configured for dynamic allocation by sql server upto 2GB
>> >
>> > Server B - destination server
>> > CPU utilization - <10 %
>> > Available space - 80 Gb
>> > Memory - 1795 MB
>> > Memory used by sqlserver.exe - 1500 MB
>> > Memory configured for dynamic allocation by sql server upto 1795 MB
>> >
>> > How do I find out if the memory is going to be sufficient after the
>> > move?
>> > I
>> > ma thinking of reducing the memory allocated to sql servers on both
>> > Server
>> > A
>> > and Server B to just 1 GB and see the performance of both the servers.
>> > If
>> > tehy perform OK at reduced memory then I will assume the memory on
>> > destination Server B will be good enough for the new database. Any
>> > insight
>> > will be highly appreciated. Thanks.
>>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)