From: anton.txt@gmail.com   
      
   Erland Sommarskog:   
      
   > Even 350 MB is too low in my opinion. I have not tested   
   > vigorously, but my gut feeling is that you need at least   
   > 400 MB.   
      
   Some instances work with 192 Mb, whereas others suffocate at   
   384.  You may be correct: I have not seen this happen to an   
   instance with more than 400 Mb.   
      
   > And you been flipping between. let's say, 2 GB and 8 GB, I   
   > could have had some sympathy for you. Now I only say:   
   > don't do that.   
      
   I can hard-code a different threshold into my memory   
   balancer.   
      
   > I can certainly sympathize with that opinion, but it may   
   > not be trivial to implement. Say that you have a server   
   > with 2TB of RAM, and most of that is in use. Say now that   
   > for some reason you set "Max server memory" to 10 GB. Do   
   > you think the server will stand up? It will certainly   
   > grind to a standstill. (Although in the end it may not be   
   > entirely unresponsive, just unbearlingly slow.)   
      
   Yes, I expect it to go into turtle mode and thrash the HDD   
   and swap file, but not to die.  Another option is to   
   decrease memory usage to, say, 64 Gb and stop there with an   
   event about an impossible memory constraint.   
      
   > And 128 MB was a workable value for SQL 2005 and maybe   
   > also for SQL 2008. But not for SQL 2019.   
      
   Growing heavier, aren't they?   
      
   > I have raised this issue with Microsoft and that they need   
   > to raise the minimum value, and I have a feedback item   
   > here:   
   > https://feedback.azure.com/d365community/idea/3b7f1124-6225-ec   
   1-b6e6-000d3a4f0da0   
      
   Let us hope they pay attention.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)