James,

On Wed, 25 May 2005 13:40:59 -0700, James Newton, Host wrote:

> Forgot to mention: I also found a 64MB PC100 and added that to the 128 the
> SQL server was running on. It seems to have made a difference... ...but more
> is better right? 

Running SQL server (presumably under an NT-based operating system)?  Absolutely!  But it depends how much you 
need - more is useful but it doesn't always make a huge difference.  It becomes a real problem when you "run 
out" of memory.

I once had a client who ran a daily process to add data to a SQL server database, and one day instead of its 
normal 3 hours, it took 26 hours to run (a bit of a problem for a daily job!).  It turned out that the program 
checked every incoming record to see if it had already seen it before on that run, and it kept the data in 
memory as it did so.  Once the whole lot wouldn't fit into memory at once, it all had to be paged out to disk 
then back in *for each new record*!  Obviously a redesign of the program would have alleviated the problem, 
but actually it was cheaper to bung in some more memory.

> Anyone got any 64's or 128's they want to donate? 

I'll have a look round -  these are 132-pin SIMMs, aren't they?

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist