"richard" <rschiller@utanet.at> wrote in message
news:8780ed76.0409012254.7c039c76@posting.google.com...
> Hi,
> does anybody know what the number in parameter "locks" mean? I
> believed it is a number of locks, but if I set it to 5000 (minimum),
> it would be then 5000*96/1024 = 468Kb, but SQL Server 2000 allocates
> at start 480Kb, as sysperfinfo tells me. How is it possible? Or does
> the number mean 5000Kb? Anybody knows?
>
> Thanks
>
> Richard

"Andres Taylor" <andres@rotselleri.com> wrote in message
news:O14tfuLkEHA.3392@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hiya Richard,
>
> I'm guessing here, but could it be that they are counting with 1 KB = 1000
> B? It would make sense, since that would make your formula work, right?
>
> Let us know if you find anything else about this.
>
> /andrés
>
> "richard" <rschiller@utanet.at> wrote in message
> news:8780ed76.0409012254.7c039c76@posting.google.com...
> > Hi,
> > does anybody know what the number in parameter "locks" mean? I
> > believed it is a number of locks, but if I set it to 5000 (minimum),
> > it would be then 5000*96/1024 = 468Kb, but SQL Server 2000 allocates
> > at start 480Kb, as sysperfinfo tells me. How is it possible? Or does
> > the number mean 5000Kb? Anybody knows?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Richard
>
>

> Also, why touch this config parameter in the first place?

> Because you can?

"Andres Taylor" <andres@rotselleri.com> wrote in message
news:ON5BPXOkEHA.3536@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
> message news:%23SO$d5LkEHA.704@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > Also, why touch this config parameter in the first place?
>
> Because you can?
>
> /andrés
>
>