2,032 reputation
719
bio website
location Wetherby, United Kingdom
age 44
visits member for 5 years, 4 months
seen yesterday
Database manager and DBA for SQL Server and Oracle. IT Operational Support manager (a technincal boss). Occasional classic ASP and C# web programmer.

Mar
24
answered Move SQL-Server Database with zero downtime
Mar
17
awarded  Nice Answer
Mar
11
answered 60Gb of Memory, 32-bit OS and PAE vs 64-bit OS
Mar
10
comment Which SQL Server version to install on Windows Server 2008 R2
+1 for information, but -1 for spelling? (Sorry if English is not your native language though)
Feb
23
accepted Powershell - Generate CSV of all locally attched printers on all PC's in a domain
Feb
23
accepted vmware ESX memory usage pattern
Feb
23
answered vmware ESX memory usage pattern
Feb
23
answered ESX Scheduler and NUMA issue
Feb
23
awarded  Tumbleweed
Feb
16
asked vmware ESX memory usage pattern
Feb
16
comment better cpu or more memory for development machine
RAM. You Need More RAM. Then More Disk Space. CPU's spend 80% of their time doing nothing. Even when they are busy they are STILL waiting for RAM!
Feb
11
answered Which performance counters are the best 5 to check the health of my SQL Server 2008 box
Feb
10
answered How to monitor activity on a single table using SQL Server profiler
Feb
10
answered How to monitor activity on a single table using SQL Server profiler
Jan
22
comment ESX 3.5 Resource Groups
Answer given to @Helvick as it is the correct explaination of Resource Group shares. But it does not answer the bullet points at the end of the question. Yes, placing 'Sharepoint' into a group gives it less shares, but that's what I want it to do. I do not want 'SharePoint' (a limited use system) to have a disproportionate share of CPU/RAM compared to more important systems (SQL Server). SharePoint should 'lose' the same amount of resources as the other systems and not be a special case. Anyway - thanks for your help.
Jan
22
accepted ESX 3.5 Resource Groups
Jan
16
answered Network cable color conventions?
Jan
13
comment ESX 3.5 Resource Groups
Thats what I thought. So while the cluster is running smoothly then it makes no difference how I set up the shares and it will not stop SharePoint (or any other server) from getting as much resource as it requires.
Jan
13
revised ESX 3.5 Resource Groups
formatting
Jan
13
comment ESX 3.5 Resource Groups
...and if a host goes down then each guest still gets the same relative number of shares (4% of less shares) but the smaller resource groups get penalised more because Dev's 14% and Low's 1% of a busy system trying to recover is not very much, and the most important systems (the live SQL servers) get propotionally MORE shares. I think...