Greetings. Having some difficulty consolidating on the appropriate memory
setup for the following configuration:
2 node cluster, Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition SP1 with SQL 2000 Enterprise
Edition SP4. There are 6 virtual SQL servers installed. Generally we run
one (primary) virtual server all by itself on the first node, and the other 5
(secondary) all bunched up on the second node. The primary virtual server
has recently begun having problems with performance. We are hung up on a
debate over the proper memory configuration. Both nodes have 10.0 GB of RAM.
We already have /PAE set on both nodes. We intentionally have not set /3GB
switch in the past, because in the event of a node failure, all 6 SQL
instances will end up on one node, possibly using 12.0GB of RAM, and causing
it's own problems. The virtual SQL servers all actually max out at about 1.7
GB (at least I have never seen them any higher), I assume that is some SQL or
OS quirk that keeps it close to 2.0GB max.
Now we are at the point where the primary virtual servers performance, even
when it is sitting all by itself, is becoming an issue. The Microsoft
documentation says for 8GB to use /3GB and /PAE. For 16GB to use /PAE
without /3GB, because if you accidentally cut off OS RAM to 1GB, you will
cause problems for the /PAE when addressing 16GB. Also, I have seen some
Microsoft documents that say "Generally you will not need to use AWE and /3GB
at the same time." My understanding is that /3GB actually is sort of "false
advertising", in that it was intended for 4GB systems. It really just tells
the OS to only reserve 1GB for itself, and give the rest to applications
(generally 3GB).
So here are the actual questions:
If I use /PAE WITHOUT /3GB on a system with 10.0GB, and then turn on SQL AWE
and set the max SQL RAM to 8.0GB, is that any different than if I use /PAE
AND /3GB on the same system, turn on AWE and set the max SQL RAM to 8.0GB?
What if I do both scenarios with a max SQL RAM of 9.0GB? Since I only have
10.0GB, will SQL be refused the extra 1.0GB in the scenario without the /3GB
switch because 2.0GB are reserved for the OS?
And finally, in my real world case, SQL is only ever using that 1.7 GB right
now... Should I start by just adding the /3GB switch without turning on AWE
in SQL to see if can even find use for the extra 1.0GB available before going
over the top and assigning an extra 6.0 GB or 7.0 GB? Will SQL actually make
use of all that RAM?
I know that is mostly theoretical. Hoping an expert can share some
understanding with me on what is otherwise guesswork on my part.
- Dan
dbanick@.axentis.comThe /3GB really has nothing to do with AWE other than the fact you should
not turn it on when you are using 12GB or more. THis is because the OS
needs more memory to handle the PTE's and such with the more memory above
4GB it has to manage. 16GB is a hard cut off but 12 is my practical limit.
Your issue is not so much the /3GB but the AWE. If you turn on AWE you will
have effectively choked out the other instances if they fail over to that
machine. AWE memory in SQL2000 is not dynamic. That is one of the main
reasons why you need to set an upper limit with the MAX Memory setting. YOu
have to be extremely careful when using AWE in a cluster due to that fact.
In SQL2005 AWE can be dynamic and you don't have to worry as much about it.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Dan Banick" <Dan Banick@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:31AE3BA6-C00D-4435-A876-A2A4B3042ADB@.microsoft.com...
> Greetings. Having some difficulty consolidating on the appropriate memory
> setup for the following configuration:
> 2 node cluster, Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition SP1 with SQL 2000
> Enterprise
> Edition SP4. There are 6 virtual SQL servers installed. Generally we run
> one (primary) virtual server all by itself on the first node, and the
> other 5
> (secondary) all bunched up on the second node. The primary virtual server
> has recently begun having problems with performance. We are hung up on a
> debate over the proper memory configuration. Both nodes have 10.0 GB of
> RAM.
> We already have /PAE set on both nodes. We intentionally have not set
> /3GB
> switch in the past, because in the event of a node failure, all 6 SQL
> instances will end up on one node, possibly using 12.0GB of RAM, and
> causing
> it's own problems. The virtual SQL servers all actually max out at about
> 1.7
> GB (at least I have never seen them any higher), I assume that is some SQL
> or
> OS quirk that keeps it close to 2.0GB max.
> Now we are at the point where the primary virtual servers performance,
> even
> when it is sitting all by itself, is becoming an issue. The Microsoft
> documentation says for 8GB to use /3GB and /PAE. For 16GB to use /PAE
> without /3GB, because if you accidentally cut off OS RAM to 1GB, you will
> cause problems for the /PAE when addressing 16GB. Also, I have seen some
> Microsoft documents that say "Generally you will not need to use AWE and
> /3GB
> at the same time." My understanding is that /3GB actually is sort of
> "false
> advertising", in that it was intended for 4GB systems. It really just
> tells
> the OS to only reserve 1GB for itself, and give the rest to applications
> (generally 3GB).
> So here are the actual questions:
> If I use /PAE WITHOUT /3GB on a system with 10.0GB, and then turn on SQL
> AWE
> and set the max SQL RAM to 8.0GB, is that any different than if I use /PAE
> AND /3GB on the same system, turn on AWE and set the max SQL RAM to 8.0GB?
> What if I do both scenarios with a max SQL RAM of 9.0GB? Since I only
> have
> 10.0GB, will SQL be refused the extra 1.0GB in the scenario without the
> /3GB
> switch because 2.0GB are reserved for the OS?
> And finally, in my real world case, SQL is only ever using that 1.7 GB
> right
> now... Should I start by just adding the /3GB switch without turning on
> AWE
> in SQL to see if can even find use for the extra 1.0GB available before
> going
> over the top and assigning an extra 6.0 GB or 7.0 GB? Will SQL actually
> make
> use of all that RAM?
> I know that is mostly theoretical. Hoping an expert can share some
> understanding with me on what is otherwise guesswork on my part.
> - Dan
> dbanick@.axentis.com
Showing posts with label windows. Show all posts
Showing posts with label windows. Show all posts
Friday, March 30, 2012
Memory allocation for complex cluster setup
Greetings. Having some difficulty consolidating on the appropriate memory
setup for the following configuration:
2 node cluster, Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition SP1 with SQL 2000 Enterprise
Edition SP4. There are 6 virtual SQL servers installed. Generally we run
one (primary) virtual server all by itself on the first node, and the other
5
(secondary) all bunched up on the second node. The primary virtual server
has recently begun having problems with performance. We are hung up on a
debate over the proper memory configuration. Both nodes have 10.0 GB of RAM
.
We already have /PAE set on both nodes. We intentionally have not set /3GB
switch in the past, because in the event of a node failure, all 6 SQL
instances will end up on one node, possibly using 12.0GB of RAM, and causing
it's own problems. The virtual SQL servers all actually max out at about 1.
7
GB (at least I have never seen them any higher), I assume that is some SQL o
r
OS quirk that keeps it close to 2.0GB max.
Now we are at the point where the primary virtual servers performance, even
when it is sitting all by itself, is becoming an issue. The Microsoft
documentation says for 8GB to use /3GB and /PAE. For 16GB to use /PAE
without /3GB, because if you accidentally cut off OS RAM to 1GB, you will
cause problems for the /PAE when addressing 16GB. Also, I have seen some
Microsoft documents that say "Generally you will not need to use AWE and /3G
B
at the same time." My understanding is that /3GB actually is sort of "false
advertising", in that it was intended for 4GB systems. It really just tells
the OS to only reserve 1GB for itself, and give the rest to applications
(generally 3GB).
So here are the actual questions:
If I use /PAE WITHOUT /3GB on a system with 10.0GB, and then turn on SQL AWE
and set the max SQL RAM to 8.0GB, is that any different than if I use /PAE
AND /3GB on the same system, turn on AWE and set the max SQL RAM to 8.0GB?
What if I do both scenarios with a max SQL RAM of 9.0GB? Since I only have
10.0GB, will SQL be refused the extra 1.0GB in the scenario without the /3GB
switch because 2.0GB are reserved for the OS?
And finally, in my real world case, SQL is only ever using that 1.7 GB right
now... Should I start by just adding the /3GB switch without turning on AWE
in SQL to see if can even find use for the extra 1.0GB available before goin
g
over the top and assigning an extra 6.0 GB or 7.0 GB? Will SQL actually mak
e
use of all that RAM?
I know that is mostly theoretical. Hoping an expert can share some
understanding with me on what is otherwise guesswork on my part.
- Dan
dbanick@.axentis.comThe /3GB really has nothing to do with AWE other than the fact you should
not turn it on when you are using 12GB or more. THis is because the OS
needs more memory to handle the PTE's and such with the more memory above
4GB it has to manage. 16GB is a hard cut off but 12 is my practical limit.
Your issue is not so much the /3GB but the AWE. If you turn on AWE you will
have effectively choked out the other instances if they fail over to that
machine. AWE memory in SQL2000 is not dynamic. That is one of the main
reasons why you need to set an upper limit with the MAX Memory setting. YOu
have to be extremely careful when using AWE in a cluster due to that fact.
In SQL2005 AWE can be dynamic and you don't have to worry as much about it.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Dan Banick" <Dan Banick@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:31AE3BA6-C00D-4435-A876-A2A4B3042ADB@.microsoft.com...
> Greetings. Having some difficulty consolidating on the appropriate memory
> setup for the following configuration:
> 2 node cluster, Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition SP1 with SQL 2000
> Enterprise
> Edition SP4. There are 6 virtual SQL servers installed. Generally we run
> one (primary) virtual server all by itself on the first node, and the
> other 5
> (secondary) all bunched up on the second node. The primary virtual server
> has recently begun having problems with performance. We are hung up on a
> debate over the proper memory configuration. Both nodes have 10.0 GB of
> RAM.
> We already have /PAE set on both nodes. We intentionally have not set
> /3GB
> switch in the past, because in the event of a node failure, all 6 SQL
> instances will end up on one node, possibly using 12.0GB of RAM, and
> causing
> it's own problems. The virtual SQL servers all actually max out at about
> 1.7
> GB (at least I have never seen them any higher), I assume that is some SQL
> or
> OS quirk that keeps it close to 2.0GB max.
> Now we are at the point where the primary virtual servers performance,
> even
> when it is sitting all by itself, is becoming an issue. The Microsoft
> documentation says for 8GB to use /3GB and /PAE. For 16GB to use /PAE
> without /3GB, because if you accidentally cut off OS RAM to 1GB, you will
> cause problems for the /PAE when addressing 16GB. Also, I have seen some
> Microsoft documents that say "Generally you will not need to use AWE and
> /3GB
> at the same time." My understanding is that /3GB actually is sort of
> "false
> advertising", in that it was intended for 4GB systems. It really just
> tells
> the OS to only reserve 1GB for itself, and give the rest to applications
> (generally 3GB).
> So here are the actual questions:
> If I use /PAE WITHOUT /3GB on a system with 10.0GB, and then turn on SQL
> AWE
> and set the max SQL RAM to 8.0GB, is that any different than if I use /PAE
> AND /3GB on the same system, turn on AWE and set the max SQL RAM to 8.0GB?
> What if I do both scenarios with a max SQL RAM of 9.0GB? Since I only
> have
> 10.0GB, will SQL be refused the extra 1.0GB in the scenario without the
> /3GB
> switch because 2.0GB are reserved for the OS?
> And finally, in my real world case, SQL is only ever using that 1.7 GB
> right
> now... Should I start by just adding the /3GB switch without turning on
> AWE
> in SQL to see if can even find use for the extra 1.0GB available before
> going
> over the top and assigning an extra 6.0 GB or 7.0 GB? Will SQL actually
> make
> use of all that RAM?
> I know that is mostly theoretical. Hoping an expert can share some
> understanding with me on what is otherwise guesswork on my part.
> - Dan
> dbanick@.axentis.comsql
setup for the following configuration:
2 node cluster, Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition SP1 with SQL 2000 Enterprise
Edition SP4. There are 6 virtual SQL servers installed. Generally we run
one (primary) virtual server all by itself on the first node, and the other
5
(secondary) all bunched up on the second node. The primary virtual server
has recently begun having problems with performance. We are hung up on a
debate over the proper memory configuration. Both nodes have 10.0 GB of RAM
.
We already have /PAE set on both nodes. We intentionally have not set /3GB
switch in the past, because in the event of a node failure, all 6 SQL
instances will end up on one node, possibly using 12.0GB of RAM, and causing
it's own problems. The virtual SQL servers all actually max out at about 1.
7
GB (at least I have never seen them any higher), I assume that is some SQL o
r
OS quirk that keeps it close to 2.0GB max.
Now we are at the point where the primary virtual servers performance, even
when it is sitting all by itself, is becoming an issue. The Microsoft
documentation says for 8GB to use /3GB and /PAE. For 16GB to use /PAE
without /3GB, because if you accidentally cut off OS RAM to 1GB, you will
cause problems for the /PAE when addressing 16GB. Also, I have seen some
Microsoft documents that say "Generally you will not need to use AWE and /3G
B
at the same time." My understanding is that /3GB actually is sort of "false
advertising", in that it was intended for 4GB systems. It really just tells
the OS to only reserve 1GB for itself, and give the rest to applications
(generally 3GB).
So here are the actual questions:
If I use /PAE WITHOUT /3GB on a system with 10.0GB, and then turn on SQL AWE
and set the max SQL RAM to 8.0GB, is that any different than if I use /PAE
AND /3GB on the same system, turn on AWE and set the max SQL RAM to 8.0GB?
What if I do both scenarios with a max SQL RAM of 9.0GB? Since I only have
10.0GB, will SQL be refused the extra 1.0GB in the scenario without the /3GB
switch because 2.0GB are reserved for the OS?
And finally, in my real world case, SQL is only ever using that 1.7 GB right
now... Should I start by just adding the /3GB switch without turning on AWE
in SQL to see if can even find use for the extra 1.0GB available before goin
g
over the top and assigning an extra 6.0 GB or 7.0 GB? Will SQL actually mak
e
use of all that RAM?
I know that is mostly theoretical. Hoping an expert can share some
understanding with me on what is otherwise guesswork on my part.
- Dan
dbanick@.axentis.comThe /3GB really has nothing to do with AWE other than the fact you should
not turn it on when you are using 12GB or more. THis is because the OS
needs more memory to handle the PTE's and such with the more memory above
4GB it has to manage. 16GB is a hard cut off but 12 is my practical limit.
Your issue is not so much the /3GB but the AWE. If you turn on AWE you will
have effectively choked out the other instances if they fail over to that
machine. AWE memory in SQL2000 is not dynamic. That is one of the main
reasons why you need to set an upper limit with the MAX Memory setting. YOu
have to be extremely careful when using AWE in a cluster due to that fact.
In SQL2005 AWE can be dynamic and you don't have to worry as much about it.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Dan Banick" <Dan Banick@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:31AE3BA6-C00D-4435-A876-A2A4B3042ADB@.microsoft.com...
> Greetings. Having some difficulty consolidating on the appropriate memory
> setup for the following configuration:
> 2 node cluster, Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition SP1 with SQL 2000
> Enterprise
> Edition SP4. There are 6 virtual SQL servers installed. Generally we run
> one (primary) virtual server all by itself on the first node, and the
> other 5
> (secondary) all bunched up on the second node. The primary virtual server
> has recently begun having problems with performance. We are hung up on a
> debate over the proper memory configuration. Both nodes have 10.0 GB of
> RAM.
> We already have /PAE set on both nodes. We intentionally have not set
> /3GB
> switch in the past, because in the event of a node failure, all 6 SQL
> instances will end up on one node, possibly using 12.0GB of RAM, and
> causing
> it's own problems. The virtual SQL servers all actually max out at about
> 1.7
> GB (at least I have never seen them any higher), I assume that is some SQL
> or
> OS quirk that keeps it close to 2.0GB max.
> Now we are at the point where the primary virtual servers performance,
> even
> when it is sitting all by itself, is becoming an issue. The Microsoft
> documentation says for 8GB to use /3GB and /PAE. For 16GB to use /PAE
> without /3GB, because if you accidentally cut off OS RAM to 1GB, you will
> cause problems for the /PAE when addressing 16GB. Also, I have seen some
> Microsoft documents that say "Generally you will not need to use AWE and
> /3GB
> at the same time." My understanding is that /3GB actually is sort of
> "false
> advertising", in that it was intended for 4GB systems. It really just
> tells
> the OS to only reserve 1GB for itself, and give the rest to applications
> (generally 3GB).
> So here are the actual questions:
> If I use /PAE WITHOUT /3GB on a system with 10.0GB, and then turn on SQL
> AWE
> and set the max SQL RAM to 8.0GB, is that any different than if I use /PAE
> AND /3GB on the same system, turn on AWE and set the max SQL RAM to 8.0GB?
> What if I do both scenarios with a max SQL RAM of 9.0GB? Since I only
> have
> 10.0GB, will SQL be refused the extra 1.0GB in the scenario without the
> /3GB
> switch because 2.0GB are reserved for the OS?
> And finally, in my real world case, SQL is only ever using that 1.7 GB
> right
> now... Should I start by just adding the /3GB switch without turning on
> AWE
> in SQL to see if can even find use for the extra 1.0GB available before
> going
> over the top and assigning an extra 6.0 GB or 7.0 GB? Will SQL actually
> make
> use of all that RAM?
> I know that is mostly theoretical. Hoping an expert can share some
> understanding with me on what is otherwise guesswork on my part.
> - Dan
> dbanick@.axentis.comsql
Memory Allocation 8192
I have windows 2003 with 4 CPU's and 32GB of memory running multiple
instances of SQL. Server sees the full 32GB of memory without any problems
with the /PAE option enabled. Problem is when a instance is configured for
the exact size of 8192mb the instance has a hard time starting. It fails
multiple times and what when a normal startup takes 30 seconds can now 10
minutes or more to get going. Any instance goes back to normal by changing
to a different number other than 8192 as the memory allocation. Just curious
if any else has seen this problem with this "magic" number.
We have seen this problem, and I believe that a fix is being considered for SQL 2000 SP4.
Thanks!
Ryan Stonecipher
Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
"Rich" <Rich@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:C90B5CAD-773E-4A75-8A99-06DBFC8A3C6C@.microsoft.com...
I have windows 2003 with 4 CPU's and 32GB of memory running multiple
instances of SQL. Server sees the full 32GB of memory without any problems
with the /PAE option enabled. Problem is when a instance is configured for
the exact size of 8192mb the instance has a hard time starting. It fails
multiple times and what when a normal startup takes 30 seconds can now 10
minutes or more to get going. Any instance goes back to normal by changing
to a different number other than 8192 as the memory allocation. Just curious
if any else has seen this problem with this "magic" number.
|||Ryan, were you not assisting on replication a year or 2 ago ?
"Ryan Stonecipher [MSFT]" <ryanston@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:u3CXMbKhEHA.1656@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
We have seen this problem, and I believe that a fix is being considered for
SQL 2000 SP4.
Thanks!
Ryan Stonecipher
Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
"Rich" <Rich@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C90B5CAD-773E-4A75-8A99-06DBFC8A3C6C@.microsoft.com...
I have windows 2003 with 4 CPU's and 32GB of memory running multiple
instances of SQL. Server sees the full 32GB of memory without any problems
with the /PAE option enabled. Problem is when a instance is configured for
the exact size of 8192mb the instance has a hard time starting. It fails
multiple times and what when a normal startup takes 30 seconds can now 10
minutes or more to get going. Any instance goes back to normal by changing
to a different number other than 8192 as the memory allocation. Just
curious
if any else has seen this problem with this "magic" number.
sql
instances of SQL. Server sees the full 32GB of memory without any problems
with the /PAE option enabled. Problem is when a instance is configured for
the exact size of 8192mb the instance has a hard time starting. It fails
multiple times and what when a normal startup takes 30 seconds can now 10
minutes or more to get going. Any instance goes back to normal by changing
to a different number other than 8192 as the memory allocation. Just curious
if any else has seen this problem with this "magic" number.
We have seen this problem, and I believe that a fix is being considered for SQL 2000 SP4.
Thanks!
Ryan Stonecipher
Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
"Rich" <Rich@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:C90B5CAD-773E-4A75-8A99-06DBFC8A3C6C@.microsoft.com...
I have windows 2003 with 4 CPU's and 32GB of memory running multiple
instances of SQL. Server sees the full 32GB of memory without any problems
with the /PAE option enabled. Problem is when a instance is configured for
the exact size of 8192mb the instance has a hard time starting. It fails
multiple times and what when a normal startup takes 30 seconds can now 10
minutes or more to get going. Any instance goes back to normal by changing
to a different number other than 8192 as the memory allocation. Just curious
if any else has seen this problem with this "magic" number.
|||Ryan, were you not assisting on replication a year or 2 ago ?
"Ryan Stonecipher [MSFT]" <ryanston@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:u3CXMbKhEHA.1656@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
We have seen this problem, and I believe that a fix is being considered for
SQL 2000 SP4.
Thanks!
Ryan Stonecipher
Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
"Rich" <Rich@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C90B5CAD-773E-4A75-8A99-06DBFC8A3C6C@.microsoft.com...
I have windows 2003 with 4 CPU's and 32GB of memory running multiple
instances of SQL. Server sees the full 32GB of memory without any problems
with the /PAE option enabled. Problem is when a instance is configured for
the exact size of 8192mb the instance has a hard time starting. It fails
multiple times and what when a normal startup takes 30 seconds can now 10
minutes or more to get going. Any instance goes back to normal by changing
to a different number other than 8192 as the memory allocation. Just
curious
if any else has seen this problem with this "magic" number.
sql
Memory Allocation 8192
I have windows 2003 with 4 CPU's and 32GB of memory running multiple
instances of SQL. Server sees the full 32GB of memory without any problems
with the /PAE option enabled. Problem is when a instance is configured for
the exact size of 8192mb the instance has a hard time starting. It fails
multiple times and what when a normal startup takes 30 seconds can now 10
minutes or more to get going. Any instance goes back to normal by changing
to a different number other than 8192 as the memory allocation. Just curiou
s
if any else has seen this problem with this "magic" number.We have seen this problem, and I believe that a fix is being considered for
SQL 2000 SP4.
Thanks!
Ryan Stonecipher
Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
"Rich" <Rich@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:C90B5CAD-773E-
4A75-8A99-06DBFC8A3C6C@.microsoft.com...
I have windows 2003 with 4 CPU's and 32GB of memory running multiple
instances of SQL. Server sees the full 32GB of memory without any problems
with the /PAE option enabled. Problem is when a instance is configured for
the exact size of 8192mb the instance has a hard time starting. It fails
multiple times and what when a normal startup takes 30 seconds can now 10
minutes or more to get going. Any instance goes back to normal by changing
to a different number other than 8192 as the memory allocation. Just curiou
s
if any else has seen this problem with this "magic" number.|||Ryan, were you not assisting on replication a year or 2 ago ?
"Ryan Stonecipher [MSFT]" <ryanston@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in messa
ge
news:u3CXMbKhEHA.1656@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
We have seen this problem, and I believe that a fix is being considered for
SQL 2000 SP4.
Thanks!
Ryan Stonecipher
Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
"Rich" <Rich@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C90B5CAD-773E-4A75-8A99-06DBFC8A3C6C@.microsoft.com...
I have windows 2003 with 4 CPU's and 32GB of memory running multiple
instances of SQL. Server sees the full 32GB of memory without any problems
with the /PAE option enabled. Problem is when a instance is configured for
the exact size of 8192mb the instance has a hard time starting. It fails
multiple times and what when a normal startup takes 30 seconds can now 10
minutes or more to get going. Any instance goes back to normal by changing
to a different number other than 8192 as the memory allocation. Just
curious
if any else has seen this problem with this "magic" number.
instances of SQL. Server sees the full 32GB of memory without any problems
with the /PAE option enabled. Problem is when a instance is configured for
the exact size of 8192mb the instance has a hard time starting. It fails
multiple times and what when a normal startup takes 30 seconds can now 10
minutes or more to get going. Any instance goes back to normal by changing
to a different number other than 8192 as the memory allocation. Just curiou
s
if any else has seen this problem with this "magic" number.We have seen this problem, and I believe that a fix is being considered for
SQL 2000 SP4.
Thanks!
Ryan Stonecipher
Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
"Rich" <Rich@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:C90B5CAD-773E-
4A75-8A99-06DBFC8A3C6C@.microsoft.com...
I have windows 2003 with 4 CPU's and 32GB of memory running multiple
instances of SQL. Server sees the full 32GB of memory without any problems
with the /PAE option enabled. Problem is when a instance is configured for
the exact size of 8192mb the instance has a hard time starting. It fails
multiple times and what when a normal startup takes 30 seconds can now 10
minutes or more to get going. Any instance goes back to normal by changing
to a different number other than 8192 as the memory allocation. Just curiou
s
if any else has seen this problem with this "magic" number.|||Ryan, were you not assisting on replication a year or 2 ago ?
"Ryan Stonecipher [MSFT]" <ryanston@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in messa
ge
news:u3CXMbKhEHA.1656@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
We have seen this problem, and I believe that a fix is being considered for
SQL 2000 SP4.
Thanks!
Ryan Stonecipher
Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
"Rich" <Rich@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C90B5CAD-773E-4A75-8A99-06DBFC8A3C6C@.microsoft.com...
I have windows 2003 with 4 CPU's and 32GB of memory running multiple
instances of SQL. Server sees the full 32GB of memory without any problems
with the /PAE option enabled. Problem is when a instance is configured for
the exact size of 8192mb the instance has a hard time starting. It fails
multiple times and what when a normal startup takes 30 seconds can now 10
minutes or more to get going. Any instance goes back to normal by changing
to a different number other than 8192 as the memory allocation. Just
curious
if any else has seen this problem with this "magic" number.
Memory Allocation 8192
I have windows 2003 with 4 CPU's and 32GB of memory running multiple
instances of SQL. Server sees the full 32GB of memory without any problems
with the /PAE option enabled. Problem is when a instance is configured for
the exact size of 8192mb the instance has a hard time starting. It fails
multiple times and what when a normal startup takes 30 seconds can now 10
minutes or more to get going. Any instance goes back to normal by changing
to a different number other than 8192 as the memory allocation. Just curious
if any else has seen this problem with this "magic" number.This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--=_NextPart_000_0016_01C4846C.1D613220
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
We have seen this problem, and I believe that a fix is being considered =for SQL 2000 SP4.
Thanks!
Ryan Stonecipher
Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
"Rich" <Rich@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message =news:C90B5CAD-773E-4A75-8A99-06DBFC8A3C6C@.microsoft.com...
I have windows 2003 with 4 CPU's and 32GB of memory running multiple instances of SQL. Server sees the full 32GB of memory without any =problems with the /PAE option enabled. Problem is when a instance is =configured for the exact size of 8192mb the instance has a hard time starting. It =fails multiple times and what when a normal startup takes 30 seconds can now =10 minutes or more to get going. Any instance goes back to normal by =changing to a different number other than 8192 as the memory allocation. Just =curious if any else has seen this problem with this "magic" number.
--=_NextPart_000_0016_01C4846C.1D613220
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=EF=BB=BF<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
&
We have seen this problem, and =I believe that a fix is being considered for SQL 2000 SP4.
Thanks!
Ryan Stonecipher
Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
"Rich" wrote in message news:C90=B5CAD-773E-4A75-8A99-06DBFC8A3C6C@.microsoft.com...I have windows 2003 with 4 CPU's and 32GB of memory running multiple instances of SQL. Server sees the full 32GB of memory =without any problems with the /PAE option enabled. Problem is when a =instance is configured for the exact size of 8192mb the instance has a hard =time starting. It fails multiple times and what when a normal =startup takes 30 seconds can now 10 minutes or more to get going. =Any instance goes back to normal by changing to a different number =other than 8192 as the memory allocation. Just curious if any else has =seen this problem with this "magic" number.
--=_NextPart_000_0016_01C4846C.1D613220--|||Ryan, were you not assisting on replication a year or 2 ago ?
"Ryan Stonecipher [MSFT]" <ryanston@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:u3CXMbKhEHA.1656@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
We have seen this problem, and I believe that a fix is being considered for
SQL 2000 SP4.
Thanks!
Ryan Stonecipher
Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
"Rich" <Rich@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C90B5CAD-773E-4A75-8A99-06DBFC8A3C6C@.microsoft.com...
I have windows 2003 with 4 CPU's and 32GB of memory running multiple
instances of SQL. Server sees the full 32GB of memory without any problems
with the /PAE option enabled. Problem is when a instance is configured for
the exact size of 8192mb the instance has a hard time starting. It fails
multiple times and what when a normal startup takes 30 seconds can now 10
minutes or more to get going. Any instance goes back to normal by changing
to a different number other than 8192 as the memory allocation. Just
curious
if any else has seen this problem with this "magic" number.
instances of SQL. Server sees the full 32GB of memory without any problems
with the /PAE option enabled. Problem is when a instance is configured for
the exact size of 8192mb the instance has a hard time starting. It fails
multiple times and what when a normal startup takes 30 seconds can now 10
minutes or more to get going. Any instance goes back to normal by changing
to a different number other than 8192 as the memory allocation. Just curious
if any else has seen this problem with this "magic" number.This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--=_NextPart_000_0016_01C4846C.1D613220
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
We have seen this problem, and I believe that a fix is being considered =for SQL 2000 SP4.
Thanks!
Ryan Stonecipher
Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
"Rich" <Rich@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message =news:C90B5CAD-773E-4A75-8A99-06DBFC8A3C6C@.microsoft.com...
I have windows 2003 with 4 CPU's and 32GB of memory running multiple instances of SQL. Server sees the full 32GB of memory without any =problems with the /PAE option enabled. Problem is when a instance is =configured for the exact size of 8192mb the instance has a hard time starting. It =fails multiple times and what when a normal startup takes 30 seconds can now =10 minutes or more to get going. Any instance goes back to normal by =changing to a different number other than 8192 as the memory allocation. Just =curious if any else has seen this problem with this "magic" number.
--=_NextPart_000_0016_01C4846C.1D613220
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=EF=BB=BF<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
&
We have seen this problem, and =I believe that a fix is being considered for SQL 2000 SP4.
Thanks!
Ryan Stonecipher
Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
"Rich"
--=_NextPart_000_0016_01C4846C.1D613220--|||Ryan, were you not assisting on replication a year or 2 ago ?
"Ryan Stonecipher [MSFT]" <ryanston@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:u3CXMbKhEHA.1656@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
We have seen this problem, and I believe that a fix is being considered for
SQL 2000 SP4.
Thanks!
Ryan Stonecipher
Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
"Rich" <Rich@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C90B5CAD-773E-4A75-8A99-06DBFC8A3C6C@.microsoft.com...
I have windows 2003 with 4 CPU's and 32GB of memory running multiple
instances of SQL. Server sees the full 32GB of memory without any problems
with the /PAE option enabled. Problem is when a instance is configured for
the exact size of 8192mb the instance has a hard time starting. It fails
multiple times and what when a normal startup takes 30 seconds can now 10
minutes or more to get going. Any instance goes back to normal by changing
to a different number other than 8192 as the memory allocation. Just
curious
if any else has seen this problem with this "magic" number.
Memory allocation ?
I am running SQL Server 2000 Enterprise edition on Windows Server 2003
Enterprise, do I need to do anything special to utilize >2GB of Ram?
We have 4GB, but I don't think we are using very much of it. Is there a
easy way I can find out what we are currently limited to?
I read somewhere on groups that if "SQLServer:Buffer Manager - Page life
expectancy" in perfmon dips below 300 it could be a sign of too little ram.
Thanks!Jesse
Have you tried to switch in the .ini file \3GB? SQL Server will be able to
use 2GB and 1GB for OS.
"Jesse Gardner" <ih8spam@.badcrc.com> wrote in message
news:2sdv2bF1j6t65U1@.uni-berlin.de...
> I am running SQL Server 2000 Enterprise edition on Windows Server 2003
> Enterprise, do I need to do anything special to utilize >2GB of Ram?
> We have 4GB, but I don't think we are using very much of it. Is there a
> easy way I can find out what we are currently limited to?
> I read somewhere on groups that if "SQLServer:Buffer Manager - Page life
> expectancy" in perfmon dips below 300 it could be a sign of too little
ram.
>
> Thanks!
Enterprise, do I need to do anything special to utilize >2GB of Ram?
We have 4GB, but I don't think we are using very much of it. Is there a
easy way I can find out what we are currently limited to?
I read somewhere on groups that if "SQLServer:Buffer Manager - Page life
expectancy" in perfmon dips below 300 it could be a sign of too little ram.
Thanks!Jesse
Have you tried to switch in the .ini file \3GB? SQL Server will be able to
use 2GB and 1GB for OS.
"Jesse Gardner" <ih8spam@.badcrc.com> wrote in message
news:2sdv2bF1j6t65U1@.uni-berlin.de...
> I am running SQL Server 2000 Enterprise edition on Windows Server 2003
> Enterprise, do I need to do anything special to utilize >2GB of Ram?
> We have 4GB, but I don't think we are using very much of it. Is there a
> easy way I can find out what we are currently limited to?
> I read somewhere on groups that if "SQLServer:Buffer Manager - Page life
> expectancy" in perfmon dips below 300 it could be a sign of too little
ram.
>
> Thanks!
Memory allocation ?
I am running SQL Server 2000 Enterprise edition on Windows Server 2003
Enterprise, do I need to do anything special to utilize >2GB of Ram?
We have 4GB, but I don't think we are using very much of it. Is there a
easy way I can find out what we are currently limited to?
I read somewhere on groups that if "SQLServer:Buffer Manager - Page life
expectancy" in perfmon dips below 300 it could be a sign of too little ram.
Thanks!
Jesse
Have you tried to switch in the .ini file \3GB? SQL Server will be able to
use 2GB and 1GB for OS.
"Jesse Gardner" <ih8spam@.badcrc.com> wrote in message
news:2sdv2bF1j6t65U1@.uni-berlin.de...
> I am running SQL Server 2000 Enterprise edition on Windows Server 2003
> Enterprise, do I need to do anything special to utilize >2GB of Ram?
> We have 4GB, but I don't think we are using very much of it. Is there a
> easy way I can find out what we are currently limited to?
> I read somewhere on groups that if "SQLServer:Buffer Manager - Page life
> expectancy" in perfmon dips below 300 it could be a sign of too little
ram.
>
> Thanks!
Enterprise, do I need to do anything special to utilize >2GB of Ram?
We have 4GB, but I don't think we are using very much of it. Is there a
easy way I can find out what we are currently limited to?
I read somewhere on groups that if "SQLServer:Buffer Manager - Page life
expectancy" in perfmon dips below 300 it could be a sign of too little ram.
Thanks!
Jesse
Have you tried to switch in the .ini file \3GB? SQL Server will be able to
use 2GB and 1GB for OS.
"Jesse Gardner" <ih8spam@.badcrc.com> wrote in message
news:2sdv2bF1j6t65U1@.uni-berlin.de...
> I am running SQL Server 2000 Enterprise edition on Windows Server 2003
> Enterprise, do I need to do anything special to utilize >2GB of Ram?
> We have 4GB, but I don't think we are using very much of it. Is there a
> easy way I can find out what we are currently limited to?
> I read somewhere on groups that if "SQLServer:Buffer Manager - Page life
> expectancy" in perfmon dips below 300 it could be a sign of too little
ram.
>
> Thanks!
Memory allocation
I'm getting ready to build a new SQL 2000 server. Due to budget constraints
,
I am going to be building SQL Standard on Windows 2000 Standard. I'm unclea
r
as to whether or not, in this scenario, I can allocate more than 2 GB of RAM
.
I know you can put a switch in the boot.ini if you're running Advanced
Server, but is this switch useable with Windows 2000 Standard?
Thanks,
MarshaThe Books Online <architec.chm::/8_ar_ts_8dbn.htm> states that SQL 2000 SE
has a 2GB memory limit. Also, the /3GB boot.ini switch is unsupported under
Windows 2000 Standard as described in
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/291988. The /3GB is available with Windows
2000 Standard but only for testing purposes.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Marsha" <Marsha@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CD2B35E4-A9FA-48B8-A466-AF6E687321F3@.microsoft.com...
> I'm getting ready to build a new SQL 2000 server. Due to budget
> constraints,
> I am going to be building SQL Standard on Windows 2000 Standard. I'm
> unclear
> as to whether or not, in this scenario, I can allocate more than 2 GB of
> RAM.
> I know you can put a switch in the boot.ini if you're running Advanced
> Server, but is this switch useable with Windows 2000 Standard?
> Thanks,
> Marsha|||Thank you for your response.
"Marsha" wrote:
> I'm getting ready to build a new SQL 2000 server. Due to budget constrain
ts,
> I am going to be building SQL Standard on Windows 2000 Standard. I'm uncl
ear
> as to whether or not, in this scenario, I can allocate more than 2 GB of R
AM.
> I know you can put a switch in the boot.ini if you're running Advanced
> Server, but is this switch useable with Windows 2000 Standard?
> Thanks,
> Marsha|||Note that Windows 2003 Standard supports up to 4GB RAM, according to
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsser...s.msp
x.
However, SQL2000 Standard still only supports 2GB so it doesn't currently
help.
If you look to the future however, SQL2005 standard will support "unlimited"
RAM when run on 64-bit systems like the new AMD Opterons. This would require
Windows 2003/64 or whatever it's called. I've heard that MS is going to
offer a free upgrade from XP or W2k3 to the 64bit equivalent edition. So
depending on the memory limitations MS sets on W2k3/64 Standard you may be
able to use significantly more RAM in the not too distant future.
Here's a link to some SQL2005 info.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/2005/p...005features.asp
Mike Kruchten
"Marsha" <Marsha@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:EFC6C0D6-514D-4729-B985-C0E800891D12@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thank you for your response.
> "Marsha" wrote:
>
,
I am going to be building SQL Standard on Windows 2000 Standard. I'm unclea
r
as to whether or not, in this scenario, I can allocate more than 2 GB of RAM
.
I know you can put a switch in the boot.ini if you're running Advanced
Server, but is this switch useable with Windows 2000 Standard?
Thanks,
MarshaThe Books Online <architec.chm::/8_ar_ts_8dbn.htm> states that SQL 2000 SE
has a 2GB memory limit. Also, the /3GB boot.ini switch is unsupported under
Windows 2000 Standard as described in
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/291988. The /3GB is available with Windows
2000 Standard but only for testing purposes.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Marsha" <Marsha@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CD2B35E4-A9FA-48B8-A466-AF6E687321F3@.microsoft.com...
> I'm getting ready to build a new SQL 2000 server. Due to budget
> constraints,
> I am going to be building SQL Standard on Windows 2000 Standard. I'm
> unclear
> as to whether or not, in this scenario, I can allocate more than 2 GB of
> RAM.
> I know you can put a switch in the boot.ini if you're running Advanced
> Server, but is this switch useable with Windows 2000 Standard?
> Thanks,
> Marsha|||Thank you for your response.
"Marsha" wrote:
> I'm getting ready to build a new SQL 2000 server. Due to budget constrain
ts,
> I am going to be building SQL Standard on Windows 2000 Standard. I'm uncl
ear
> as to whether or not, in this scenario, I can allocate more than 2 GB of R
AM.
> I know you can put a switch in the boot.ini if you're running Advanced
> Server, but is this switch useable with Windows 2000 Standard?
> Thanks,
> Marsha|||Note that Windows 2003 Standard supports up to 4GB RAM, according to
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsser...s.msp
x.
However, SQL2000 Standard still only supports 2GB so it doesn't currently
help.
If you look to the future however, SQL2005 standard will support "unlimited"
RAM when run on 64-bit systems like the new AMD Opterons. This would require
Windows 2003/64 or whatever it's called. I've heard that MS is going to
offer a free upgrade from XP or W2k3 to the 64bit equivalent edition. So
depending on the memory limitations MS sets on W2k3/64 Standard you may be
able to use significantly more RAM in the not too distant future.
Here's a link to some SQL2005 info.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/2005/p...005features.asp
Mike Kruchten
"Marsha" <Marsha@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:EFC6C0D6-514D-4729-B985-C0E800891D12@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thank you for your response.
> "Marsha" wrote:
>
Memory allocation
I'm getting ready to build a new SQL 2000 server. Due to budget constraints,
I am going to be building SQL Standard on Windows 2000 Standard. I'm unclear
as to whether or not, in this scenario, I can allocate more than 2 GB of RAM.
I know you can put a switch in the boot.ini if you're running Advanced
Server, but is this switch useable with Windows 2000 Standard?
Thanks,
MarshaThe Books Online <architec.chm::/8_ar_ts_8dbn.htm> states that SQL 2000 SE
has a 2GB memory limit. Also, the /3GB boot.ini switch is unsupported under
Windows 2000 Standard as described in
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/291988. The /3GB is available with Windows
2000 Standard but only for testing purposes.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Marsha" <Marsha@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CD2B35E4-A9FA-48B8-A466-AF6E687321F3@.microsoft.com...
> I'm getting ready to build a new SQL 2000 server. Due to budget
> constraints,
> I am going to be building SQL Standard on Windows 2000 Standard. I'm
> unclear
> as to whether or not, in this scenario, I can allocate more than 2 GB of
> RAM.
> I know you can put a switch in the boot.ini if you're running Advanced
> Server, but is this switch useable with Windows 2000 Standard?
> Thanks,
> Marsha|||Thank you for your response.
"Marsha" wrote:
> I'm getting ready to build a new SQL 2000 server. Due to budget constraints,
> I am going to be building SQL Standard on Windows 2000 Standard. I'm unclear
> as to whether or not, in this scenario, I can allocate more than 2 GB of RAM.
> I know you can put a switch in the boot.ini if you're running Advanced
> Server, but is this switch useable with Windows 2000 Standard?
> Thanks,
> Marsha|||Note that Windows 2003 Standard supports up to 4GB RAM, according to
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/features/compareeditions.mspx.
However, SQL2000 Standard still only supports 2GB so it doesn't currently
help.
If you look to the future however, SQL2005 standard will support "unlimited"
RAM when run on 64-bit systems like the new AMD Opterons. This would require
Windows 2003/64 or whatever it's called. I've heard that MS is going to
offer a free upgrade from XP or W2k3 to the 64bit equivalent edition. So
depending on the memory limitations MS sets on W2k3/64 Standard you may be
able to use significantly more RAM in the not too distant future.
Here's a link to some SQL2005 info.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/2005/productinfo/sql2005features.asp
Mike Kruchten
"Marsha" <Marsha@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:EFC6C0D6-514D-4729-B985-C0E800891D12@.microsoft.com...
> Thank you for your response.
> "Marsha" wrote:
>> I'm getting ready to build a new SQL 2000 server. Due to budget
>> constraints,
>> I am going to be building SQL Standard on Windows 2000 Standard. I'm
>> unclear
>> as to whether or not, in this scenario, I can allocate more than 2 GB of
>> RAM.
>> I know you can put a switch in the boot.ini if you're running Advanced
>> Server, but is this switch useable with Windows 2000 Standard?
>> Thanks,
>> Marsha
I am going to be building SQL Standard on Windows 2000 Standard. I'm unclear
as to whether or not, in this scenario, I can allocate more than 2 GB of RAM.
I know you can put a switch in the boot.ini if you're running Advanced
Server, but is this switch useable with Windows 2000 Standard?
Thanks,
MarshaThe Books Online <architec.chm::/8_ar_ts_8dbn.htm> states that SQL 2000 SE
has a 2GB memory limit. Also, the /3GB boot.ini switch is unsupported under
Windows 2000 Standard as described in
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/291988. The /3GB is available with Windows
2000 Standard but only for testing purposes.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Marsha" <Marsha@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CD2B35E4-A9FA-48B8-A466-AF6E687321F3@.microsoft.com...
> I'm getting ready to build a new SQL 2000 server. Due to budget
> constraints,
> I am going to be building SQL Standard on Windows 2000 Standard. I'm
> unclear
> as to whether or not, in this scenario, I can allocate more than 2 GB of
> RAM.
> I know you can put a switch in the boot.ini if you're running Advanced
> Server, but is this switch useable with Windows 2000 Standard?
> Thanks,
> Marsha|||Thank you for your response.
"Marsha" wrote:
> I'm getting ready to build a new SQL 2000 server. Due to budget constraints,
> I am going to be building SQL Standard on Windows 2000 Standard. I'm unclear
> as to whether or not, in this scenario, I can allocate more than 2 GB of RAM.
> I know you can put a switch in the boot.ini if you're running Advanced
> Server, but is this switch useable with Windows 2000 Standard?
> Thanks,
> Marsha|||Note that Windows 2003 Standard supports up to 4GB RAM, according to
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/features/compareeditions.mspx.
However, SQL2000 Standard still only supports 2GB so it doesn't currently
help.
If you look to the future however, SQL2005 standard will support "unlimited"
RAM when run on 64-bit systems like the new AMD Opterons. This would require
Windows 2003/64 or whatever it's called. I've heard that MS is going to
offer a free upgrade from XP or W2k3 to the 64bit equivalent edition. So
depending on the memory limitations MS sets on W2k3/64 Standard you may be
able to use significantly more RAM in the not too distant future.
Here's a link to some SQL2005 info.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/2005/productinfo/sql2005features.asp
Mike Kruchten
"Marsha" <Marsha@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:EFC6C0D6-514D-4729-B985-C0E800891D12@.microsoft.com...
> Thank you for your response.
> "Marsha" wrote:
>> I'm getting ready to build a new SQL 2000 server. Due to budget
>> constraints,
>> I am going to be building SQL Standard on Windows 2000 Standard. I'm
>> unclear
>> as to whether or not, in this scenario, I can allocate more than 2 GB of
>> RAM.
>> I know you can put a switch in the boot.ini if you're running Advanced
>> Server, but is this switch useable with Windows 2000 Standard?
>> Thanks,
>> Marsha
Memory allocation
I'm getting ready to build a new SQL 2000 server. Due to budget constraints,
I am going to be building SQL Standard on Windows 2000 Standard. I'm unclear
as to whether or not, in this scenario, I can allocate more than 2 GB of RAM.
I know you can put a switch in the boot.ini if you're running Advanced
Server, but is this switch useable with Windows 2000 Standard?
Thanks,
Marsha
The Books Online <architec.chm::/8_ar_ts_8dbn.htm> states that SQL 2000 SE
has a 2GB memory limit. Also, the /3GB boot.ini switch is unsupported under
Windows 2000 Standard as described in
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/291988. The /3GB is available with Windows
2000 Standard but only for testing purposes.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Marsha" <Marsha@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CD2B35E4-A9FA-48B8-A466-AF6E687321F3@.microsoft.com...
> I'm getting ready to build a new SQL 2000 server. Due to budget
> constraints,
> I am going to be building SQL Standard on Windows 2000 Standard. I'm
> unclear
> as to whether or not, in this scenario, I can allocate more than 2 GB of
> RAM.
> I know you can put a switch in the boot.ini if you're running Advanced
> Server, but is this switch useable with Windows 2000 Standard?
> Thanks,
> Marsha
|||Thank you for your response.
"Marsha" wrote:
> I'm getting ready to build a new SQL 2000 server. Due to budget constraints,
> I am going to be building SQL Standard on Windows 2000 Standard. I'm unclear
> as to whether or not, in this scenario, I can allocate more than 2 GB of RAM.
> I know you can put a switch in the boot.ini if you're running Advanced
> Server, but is this switch useable with Windows 2000 Standard?
> Thanks,
> Marsha
|||Note that Windows 2003 Standard supports up to 4GB RAM, according to
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...editions.mspx.
However, SQL2000 Standard still only supports 2GB so it doesn't currently
help.
If you look to the future however, SQL2005 standard will support "unlimited"
RAM when run on 64-bit systems like the new AMD Opterons. This would require
Windows 2003/64 or whatever it's called. I've heard that MS is going to
offer a free upgrade from XP or W2k3 to the 64bit equivalent edition. So
depending on the memory limitations MS sets on W2k3/64 Standard you may be
able to use significantly more RAM in the not too distant future.
Here's a link to some SQL2005 info.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/2005/pr...05features.asp
Mike Kruchten
"Marsha" <Marsha@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:EFC6C0D6-514D-4729-B985-C0E800891D12@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thank you for your response.
> "Marsha" wrote:
I am going to be building SQL Standard on Windows 2000 Standard. I'm unclear
as to whether or not, in this scenario, I can allocate more than 2 GB of RAM.
I know you can put a switch in the boot.ini if you're running Advanced
Server, but is this switch useable with Windows 2000 Standard?
Thanks,
Marsha
The Books Online <architec.chm::/8_ar_ts_8dbn.htm> states that SQL 2000 SE
has a 2GB memory limit. Also, the /3GB boot.ini switch is unsupported under
Windows 2000 Standard as described in
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/291988. The /3GB is available with Windows
2000 Standard but only for testing purposes.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Marsha" <Marsha@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CD2B35E4-A9FA-48B8-A466-AF6E687321F3@.microsoft.com...
> I'm getting ready to build a new SQL 2000 server. Due to budget
> constraints,
> I am going to be building SQL Standard on Windows 2000 Standard. I'm
> unclear
> as to whether or not, in this scenario, I can allocate more than 2 GB of
> RAM.
> I know you can put a switch in the boot.ini if you're running Advanced
> Server, but is this switch useable with Windows 2000 Standard?
> Thanks,
> Marsha
|||Thank you for your response.
"Marsha" wrote:
> I'm getting ready to build a new SQL 2000 server. Due to budget constraints,
> I am going to be building SQL Standard on Windows 2000 Standard. I'm unclear
> as to whether or not, in this scenario, I can allocate more than 2 GB of RAM.
> I know you can put a switch in the boot.ini if you're running Advanced
> Server, but is this switch useable with Windows 2000 Standard?
> Thanks,
> Marsha
|||Note that Windows 2003 Standard supports up to 4GB RAM, according to
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...editions.mspx.
However, SQL2000 Standard still only supports 2GB so it doesn't currently
help.
If you look to the future however, SQL2005 standard will support "unlimited"
RAM when run on 64-bit systems like the new AMD Opterons. This would require
Windows 2003/64 or whatever it's called. I've heard that MS is going to
offer a free upgrade from XP or W2k3 to the 64bit equivalent edition. So
depending on the memory limitations MS sets on W2k3/64 Standard you may be
able to use significantly more RAM in the not too distant future.
Here's a link to some SQL2005 info.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/2005/pr...05features.asp
Mike Kruchten
"Marsha" <Marsha@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:EFC6C0D6-514D-4729-B985-C0E800891D12@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thank you for your response.
> "Marsha" wrote:
Memory -again
Hi
I am starting a new thread so that is easy to follow.
We have 6GB of memory on Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition SQL 2000 Enterprise
Edition.
We have used /PAE switch and /3GB switch in boot.ini
We have run following commands on SQL server so that SQL server can use 5GB
of memory
exec sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
reconfigure
go
exec sp_configure "max server memory" 5120
reconfigure
go
We have rebooted the box several times.
Problem
When we run sp_configure, we get the following values
Name min max config_value run_value
max server memory (MB) 4 2147483647 5120 5120
but when we look properties in Enterprise manager
we see that “Use a fixed memory size(MB)” is set to 3583 MB.
How do we get it to use more memory and is it correct that it is marked as
“Use a fixed memory size(MB)” and not “Dynamically configure SQL serve
r
memory”
Regards,
AmarHi Amar
The user account that the SQL Server service is running under needs to have
"Lock pages in memory" permissions (this is what AWE does).
Have you checked this?
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
"Amar" <Amar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A287F3C6-3D2F-46C6-8CC6-D8D84B1F9160@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I am starting a new thread so that is easy to follow.
> We have 6GB of memory on Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition SQL 2000
> Enterprise
> Edition.
> We have used /PAE switch and /3GB switch in boot.ini
> We have run following commands on SQL server so that SQL server can use
> 5GB
> of memory
> exec sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
> reconfigure
> go
> exec sp_configure "max server memory" 5120
> reconfigure
> go
>
> We have rebooted the box several times.
> Problem
> When we run sp_configure, we get the following values
> Name min max config_value run_value
> max server memory (MB) 4 2147483647 5120 5120
>
> but when we look properties in Enterprise manager
> we see that "Use a fixed memory size(MB)" is set to 3583 MB.
> How do we get it to use more memory and is it correct that it is marked as
> "Use a fixed memory size(MB)" and not "Dynamically configure SQL server
> memory"
>
> Regards,
> Amar
>|||Have you tried setting awe enabled "on"
exec sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
go
reconfigure with override
You might want to consider setting min and max server memory to whatever
value you want SQL Server to use.
Keith
"Amar" <Amar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A287F3C6-3D2F-46C6-8CC6-D8D84B1F9160@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I am starting a new thread so that is easy to follow.
> We have 6GB of memory on Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition SQL 2000
> Enterprise
> Edition.
> We have used /PAE switch and /3GB switch in boot.ini
> We have run following commands on SQL server so that SQL server can use
> 5GB
> of memory
> exec sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
> reconfigure
> go
> exec sp_configure "max server memory" 5120
> reconfigure
> go
>
> We have rebooted the box several times.
> Problem
> When we run sp_configure, we get the following values
> Name min max config_value run_value
> max server memory (MB) 4 2147483647 5120 5120
>
> but when we look properties in Enterprise manager
> we see that "Use a fixed memory size(MB)" is set to 3583 MB.
> How do we get it to use more memory and is it correct that it is marked as
> "Use a fixed memory size(MB)" and not "Dynamically configure SQL server
> memory"
>
> Regards,
> Amar
>|||To enable the Lock Page in Memory option
1.. On the Start menu, click Run, and then in the Open box, type
gpedit.msc.
2.. On the Group Policy console, expand Computer Configuration, and then
expand Windows Settings.
3.. Expand Security Settings, and then expand Local Policies.
4.. Select the Users Rights Assignment check box.
The policies will be displayed in the details pane.
5.. In the details pane, double-click Lock pages in memory.
6.. In the Local Security Policy Setting dialog box, click Add.
7.. In the Select Users or Groups dialog box, add an account with
privileges to run sqlservr.exe.
--
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Greg Linwood" wrote:
> Hi Amar
> The user account that the SQL Server service is running under needs to hav
e
> "Lock pages in memory" permissions (this is what AWE does).
> Have you checked this?
> Regards,
> Greg Linwood
> SQL Server MVP
> "Amar" <Amar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:A287F3C6-3D2F-46C6-8CC6-D8D84B1F9160@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||7.. In the Select Users or Groups dialog box, add an account with
privileges to run sqlservr.exe.
This is slightly mis-leading, depending on how you interpret it..
You don't select an account "with privileges to run sqlservr.exe" - you
select the user user account that the sql server service is configured to
log on as (I'm sure this is what you meant though).
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:C6C91370-14A0-4C99-87F7-8C842B6C2E0F@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> To enable the Lock Page in Memory option
> 1.. On the Start menu, click Run, and then in the Open box, type
> gpedit.msc.
> 2.. On the Group Policy console, expand Computer Configuration, and then
> expand Windows Settings.
> 3.. Expand Security Settings, and then expand Local Policies.
> 4.. Select the Users Rights Assignment check box.
> The policies will be displayed in the details pane.
> 5.. In the details pane, double-click Lock pages in memory.
> 6.. In the Local Security Policy Setting dialog box, click Add.
> 7.. In the Select Users or Groups dialog box, add an account with
> privileges to run sqlservr.exe.
> --
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
>
> "Greg Linwood" wrote:
>
I am starting a new thread so that is easy to follow.
We have 6GB of memory on Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition SQL 2000 Enterprise
Edition.
We have used /PAE switch and /3GB switch in boot.ini
We have run following commands on SQL server so that SQL server can use 5GB
of memory
exec sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
reconfigure
go
exec sp_configure "max server memory" 5120
reconfigure
go
We have rebooted the box several times.
Problem
When we run sp_configure, we get the following values
Name min max config_value run_value
max server memory (MB) 4 2147483647 5120 5120
but when we look properties in Enterprise manager
we see that “Use a fixed memory size(MB)” is set to 3583 MB.
How do we get it to use more memory and is it correct that it is marked as
“Use a fixed memory size(MB)” and not “Dynamically configure SQL serve
r
memory”
Regards,
AmarHi Amar
The user account that the SQL Server service is running under needs to have
"Lock pages in memory" permissions (this is what AWE does).
Have you checked this?
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
"Amar" <Amar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A287F3C6-3D2F-46C6-8CC6-D8D84B1F9160@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I am starting a new thread so that is easy to follow.
> We have 6GB of memory on Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition SQL 2000
> Enterprise
> Edition.
> We have used /PAE switch and /3GB switch in boot.ini
> We have run following commands on SQL server so that SQL server can use
> 5GB
> of memory
> exec sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
> reconfigure
> go
> exec sp_configure "max server memory" 5120
> reconfigure
> go
>
> We have rebooted the box several times.
> Problem
> When we run sp_configure, we get the following values
> Name min max config_value run_value
> max server memory (MB) 4 2147483647 5120 5120
>
> but when we look properties in Enterprise manager
> we see that "Use a fixed memory size(MB)" is set to 3583 MB.
> How do we get it to use more memory and is it correct that it is marked as
> "Use a fixed memory size(MB)" and not "Dynamically configure SQL server
> memory"
>
> Regards,
> Amar
>|||Have you tried setting awe enabled "on"
exec sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
go
reconfigure with override
You might want to consider setting min and max server memory to whatever
value you want SQL Server to use.
Keith
"Amar" <Amar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A287F3C6-3D2F-46C6-8CC6-D8D84B1F9160@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I am starting a new thread so that is easy to follow.
> We have 6GB of memory on Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition SQL 2000
> Enterprise
> Edition.
> We have used /PAE switch and /3GB switch in boot.ini
> We have run following commands on SQL server so that SQL server can use
> 5GB
> of memory
> exec sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
> reconfigure
> go
> exec sp_configure "max server memory" 5120
> reconfigure
> go
>
> We have rebooted the box several times.
> Problem
> When we run sp_configure, we get the following values
> Name min max config_value run_value
> max server memory (MB) 4 2147483647 5120 5120
>
> but when we look properties in Enterprise manager
> we see that "Use a fixed memory size(MB)" is set to 3583 MB.
> How do we get it to use more memory and is it correct that it is marked as
> "Use a fixed memory size(MB)" and not "Dynamically configure SQL server
> memory"
>
> Regards,
> Amar
>|||To enable the Lock Page in Memory option
1.. On the Start menu, click Run, and then in the Open box, type
gpedit.msc.
2.. On the Group Policy console, expand Computer Configuration, and then
expand Windows Settings.
3.. Expand Security Settings, and then expand Local Policies.
4.. Select the Users Rights Assignment check box.
The policies will be displayed in the details pane.
5.. In the details pane, double-click Lock pages in memory.
6.. In the Local Security Policy Setting dialog box, click Add.
7.. In the Select Users or Groups dialog box, add an account with
privileges to run sqlservr.exe.
--
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Greg Linwood" wrote:
> Hi Amar
> The user account that the SQL Server service is running under needs to hav
e
> "Lock pages in memory" permissions (this is what AWE does).
> Have you checked this?
> Regards,
> Greg Linwood
> SQL Server MVP
> "Amar" <Amar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:A287F3C6-3D2F-46C6-8CC6-D8D84B1F9160@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||7.. In the Select Users or Groups dialog box, add an account with
privileges to run sqlservr.exe.
This is slightly mis-leading, depending on how you interpret it..
You don't select an account "with privileges to run sqlservr.exe" - you
select the user user account that the sql server service is configured to
log on as (I'm sure this is what you meant though).
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:C6C91370-14A0-4C99-87F7-8C842B6C2E0F@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> To enable the Lock Page in Memory option
> 1.. On the Start menu, click Run, and then in the Open box, type
> gpedit.msc.
> 2.. On the Group Policy console, expand Computer Configuration, and then
> expand Windows Settings.
> 3.. Expand Security Settings, and then expand Local Policies.
> 4.. Select the Users Rights Assignment check box.
> The policies will be displayed in the details pane.
> 5.. In the details pane, double-click Lock pages in memory.
> 6.. In the Local Security Policy Setting dialog box, click Add.
> 7.. In the Select Users or Groups dialog box, add an account with
> privileges to run sqlservr.exe.
> --
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
>
> "Greg Linwood" wrote:
>
Memory -again
Hi
I am starting a new thread so that is easy to follow.
We have 6GB of memory on Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition SQL 2000 Enterprise
Edition.
We have used /PAE switch and /3GB switch in boot.ini
We have run following commands on SQL server so that SQL server can use 5GB
of memory
exec sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
reconfigure
go
exec sp_configure "max server memory" 5120
reconfigure
go
We have rebooted the box several times.
Problem
When we run sp_configure, we get the following values
Name min max config_value run_value
max server memory (MB) 4 2147483647 5120 5120
but when we look properties in Enterprise manager
we see that â'Use a fixed memory size(MB)â' is set to 3583 MB.
How do we get it to use more memory and is it correct that it is marked as
â'Use a fixed memory size(MB)â' and not â'Dynamically configure SQL server
memoryâ'
Regards,
AmarHi Amar
The user account that the SQL Server service is running under needs to have
"Lock pages in memory" permissions (this is what AWE does).
Have you checked this?
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
"Amar" <Amar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A287F3C6-3D2F-46C6-8CC6-D8D84B1F9160@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I am starting a new thread so that is easy to follow.
> We have 6GB of memory on Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition SQL 2000
> Enterprise
> Edition.
> We have used /PAE switch and /3GB switch in boot.ini
> We have run following commands on SQL server so that SQL server can use
> 5GB
> of memory
> exec sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
> reconfigure
> go
> exec sp_configure "max server memory" 5120
> reconfigure
> go
>
> We have rebooted the box several times.
> Problem
> When we run sp_configure, we get the following values
> Name min max config_value run_value
> max server memory (MB) 4 2147483647 5120 5120
>
> but when we look properties in Enterprise manager
> we see that "Use a fixed memory size(MB)" is set to 3583 MB.
> How do we get it to use more memory and is it correct that it is marked as
> "Use a fixed memory size(MB)" and not "Dynamically configure SQL server
> memory"
>
> Regards,
> Amar
>|||Have you tried setting awe enabled "on"
exec sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
go
reconfigure with override
You might want to consider setting min and max server memory to whatever
value you want SQL Server to use.
Keith
"Amar" <Amar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A287F3C6-3D2F-46C6-8CC6-D8D84B1F9160@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I am starting a new thread so that is easy to follow.
> We have 6GB of memory on Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition SQL 2000
> Enterprise
> Edition.
> We have used /PAE switch and /3GB switch in boot.ini
> We have run following commands on SQL server so that SQL server can use
> 5GB
> of memory
> exec sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
> reconfigure
> go
> exec sp_configure "max server memory" 5120
> reconfigure
> go
>
> We have rebooted the box several times.
> Problem
> When we run sp_configure, we get the following values
> Name min max config_value run_value
> max server memory (MB) 4 2147483647 5120 5120
>
> but when we look properties in Enterprise manager
> we see that "Use a fixed memory size(MB)" is set to 3583 MB.
> How do we get it to use more memory and is it correct that it is marked as
> "Use a fixed memory size(MB)" and not "Dynamically configure SQL server
> memory"
>
> Regards,
> Amar
>|||To enable the Lock Page in Memory option
1.. On the Start menu, click Run, and then in the Open box, type
gpedit.msc.
2.. On the Group Policy console, expand Computer Configuration, and then
expand Windows Settings.
3.. Expand Security Settings, and then expand Local Policies.
4.. Select the Users Rights Assignment check box.
The policies will be displayed in the details pane.
5.. In the details pane, double-click Lock pages in memory.
6.. In the Local Security Policy Setting dialog box, click Add.
7.. In the Select Users or Groups dialog box, add an account with
privileges to run sqlservr.exe.
--
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Greg Linwood" wrote:
> Hi Amar
> The user account that the SQL Server service is running under needs to have
> "Lock pages in memory" permissions (this is what AWE does).
> Have you checked this?
> Regards,
> Greg Linwood
> SQL Server MVP
> "Amar" <Amar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:A287F3C6-3D2F-46C6-8CC6-D8D84B1F9160@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi
> > I am starting a new thread so that is easy to follow.
> >
> > We have 6GB of memory on Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition SQL 2000
> > Enterprise
> > Edition.
> >
> > We have used /PAE switch and /3GB switch in boot.ini
> >
> > We have run following commands on SQL server so that SQL server can use
> > 5GB
> > of memory
> >
> > exec sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
> > reconfigure
> > go
> >
> > exec sp_configure "max server memory" 5120
> > reconfigure
> > go
> >
> >
> > We have rebooted the box several times.
> >
> > Problem
> >
> > When we run sp_configure, we get the following values
> >
> > Name min max config_value run_value
> > max server memory (MB) 4 2147483647 5120 5120
> >
> >
> > but when we look properties in Enterprise manager
> > we see that "Use a fixed memory size(MB)" is set to 3583 MB.
> >
> > How do we get it to use more memory and is it correct that it is marked as
> > "Use a fixed memory size(MB)" and not "Dynamically configure SQL server
> > memory"
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Amar
> >
>
>|||7.. In the Select Users or Groups dialog box, add an account with
privileges to run sqlservr.exe.
This is slightly mis-leading, depending on how you interpret it..
You don't select an account "with privileges to run sqlservr.exe" - you
select the user user account that the sql server service is configured to
log on as (I'm sure this is what you meant though).
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:C6C91370-14A0-4C99-87F7-8C842B6C2E0F@.microsoft.com...
> To enable the Lock Page in Memory option
> 1.. On the Start menu, click Run, and then in the Open box, type
> gpedit.msc.
> 2.. On the Group Policy console, expand Computer Configuration, and then
> expand Windows Settings.
> 3.. Expand Security Settings, and then expand Local Policies.
> 4.. Select the Users Rights Assignment check box.
> The policies will be displayed in the details pane.
> 5.. In the details pane, double-click Lock pages in memory.
> 6.. In the Local Security Policy Setting dialog box, click Add.
> 7.. In the Select Users or Groups dialog box, add an account with
> privileges to run sqlservr.exe.
> --
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
>
> "Greg Linwood" wrote:
>> Hi Amar
>> The user account that the SQL Server service is running under needs to
>> have
>> "Lock pages in memory" permissions (this is what AWE does).
>> Have you checked this?
>> Regards,
>> Greg Linwood
>> SQL Server MVP
>> "Amar" <Amar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:A287F3C6-3D2F-46C6-8CC6-D8D84B1F9160@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hi
>> > I am starting a new thread so that is easy to follow.
>> >
>> > We have 6GB of memory on Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition SQL 2000
>> > Enterprise
>> > Edition.
>> >
>> > We have used /PAE switch and /3GB switch in boot.ini
>> >
>> > We have run following commands on SQL server so that SQL server can use
>> > 5GB
>> > of memory
>> >
>> > exec sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
>> > reconfigure
>> > go
>> >
>> > exec sp_configure "max server memory" 5120
>> > reconfigure
>> > go
>> >
>> >
>> > We have rebooted the box several times.
>> >
>> > Problem
>> >
>> > When we run sp_configure, we get the following values
>> >
>> > Name min max config_value run_value
>> > max server memory (MB) 4 2147483647 5120 5120
>> >
>> >
>> > but when we look properties in Enterprise manager
>> > we see that "Use a fixed memory size(MB)" is set to 3583 MB.
>> >
>> > How do we get it to use more memory and is it correct that it is marked
>> > as
>> > "Use a fixed memory size(MB)" and not "Dynamically configure SQL server
>> > memory"
>> >
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Amar
>> >
>>
I am starting a new thread so that is easy to follow.
We have 6GB of memory on Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition SQL 2000 Enterprise
Edition.
We have used /PAE switch and /3GB switch in boot.ini
We have run following commands on SQL server so that SQL server can use 5GB
of memory
exec sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
reconfigure
go
exec sp_configure "max server memory" 5120
reconfigure
go
We have rebooted the box several times.
Problem
When we run sp_configure, we get the following values
Name min max config_value run_value
max server memory (MB) 4 2147483647 5120 5120
but when we look properties in Enterprise manager
we see that â'Use a fixed memory size(MB)â' is set to 3583 MB.
How do we get it to use more memory and is it correct that it is marked as
â'Use a fixed memory size(MB)â' and not â'Dynamically configure SQL server
memoryâ'
Regards,
AmarHi Amar
The user account that the SQL Server service is running under needs to have
"Lock pages in memory" permissions (this is what AWE does).
Have you checked this?
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
"Amar" <Amar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A287F3C6-3D2F-46C6-8CC6-D8D84B1F9160@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I am starting a new thread so that is easy to follow.
> We have 6GB of memory on Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition SQL 2000
> Enterprise
> Edition.
> We have used /PAE switch and /3GB switch in boot.ini
> We have run following commands on SQL server so that SQL server can use
> 5GB
> of memory
> exec sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
> reconfigure
> go
> exec sp_configure "max server memory" 5120
> reconfigure
> go
>
> We have rebooted the box several times.
> Problem
> When we run sp_configure, we get the following values
> Name min max config_value run_value
> max server memory (MB) 4 2147483647 5120 5120
>
> but when we look properties in Enterprise manager
> we see that "Use a fixed memory size(MB)" is set to 3583 MB.
> How do we get it to use more memory and is it correct that it is marked as
> "Use a fixed memory size(MB)" and not "Dynamically configure SQL server
> memory"
>
> Regards,
> Amar
>|||Have you tried setting awe enabled "on"
exec sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
go
reconfigure with override
You might want to consider setting min and max server memory to whatever
value you want SQL Server to use.
Keith
"Amar" <Amar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A287F3C6-3D2F-46C6-8CC6-D8D84B1F9160@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I am starting a new thread so that is easy to follow.
> We have 6GB of memory on Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition SQL 2000
> Enterprise
> Edition.
> We have used /PAE switch and /3GB switch in boot.ini
> We have run following commands on SQL server so that SQL server can use
> 5GB
> of memory
> exec sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
> reconfigure
> go
> exec sp_configure "max server memory" 5120
> reconfigure
> go
>
> We have rebooted the box several times.
> Problem
> When we run sp_configure, we get the following values
> Name min max config_value run_value
> max server memory (MB) 4 2147483647 5120 5120
>
> but when we look properties in Enterprise manager
> we see that "Use a fixed memory size(MB)" is set to 3583 MB.
> How do we get it to use more memory and is it correct that it is marked as
> "Use a fixed memory size(MB)" and not "Dynamically configure SQL server
> memory"
>
> Regards,
> Amar
>|||To enable the Lock Page in Memory option
1.. On the Start menu, click Run, and then in the Open box, type
gpedit.msc.
2.. On the Group Policy console, expand Computer Configuration, and then
expand Windows Settings.
3.. Expand Security Settings, and then expand Local Policies.
4.. Select the Users Rights Assignment check box.
The policies will be displayed in the details pane.
5.. In the details pane, double-click Lock pages in memory.
6.. In the Local Security Policy Setting dialog box, click Add.
7.. In the Select Users or Groups dialog box, add an account with
privileges to run sqlservr.exe.
--
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Greg Linwood" wrote:
> Hi Amar
> The user account that the SQL Server service is running under needs to have
> "Lock pages in memory" permissions (this is what AWE does).
> Have you checked this?
> Regards,
> Greg Linwood
> SQL Server MVP
> "Amar" <Amar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:A287F3C6-3D2F-46C6-8CC6-D8D84B1F9160@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi
> > I am starting a new thread so that is easy to follow.
> >
> > We have 6GB of memory on Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition SQL 2000
> > Enterprise
> > Edition.
> >
> > We have used /PAE switch and /3GB switch in boot.ini
> >
> > We have run following commands on SQL server so that SQL server can use
> > 5GB
> > of memory
> >
> > exec sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
> > reconfigure
> > go
> >
> > exec sp_configure "max server memory" 5120
> > reconfigure
> > go
> >
> >
> > We have rebooted the box several times.
> >
> > Problem
> >
> > When we run sp_configure, we get the following values
> >
> > Name min max config_value run_value
> > max server memory (MB) 4 2147483647 5120 5120
> >
> >
> > but when we look properties in Enterprise manager
> > we see that "Use a fixed memory size(MB)" is set to 3583 MB.
> >
> > How do we get it to use more memory and is it correct that it is marked as
> > "Use a fixed memory size(MB)" and not "Dynamically configure SQL server
> > memory"
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Amar
> >
>
>|||7.. In the Select Users or Groups dialog box, add an account with
privileges to run sqlservr.exe.
This is slightly mis-leading, depending on how you interpret it..
You don't select an account "with privileges to run sqlservr.exe" - you
select the user user account that the sql server service is configured to
log on as (I'm sure this is what you meant though).
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:C6C91370-14A0-4C99-87F7-8C842B6C2E0F@.microsoft.com...
> To enable the Lock Page in Memory option
> 1.. On the Start menu, click Run, and then in the Open box, type
> gpedit.msc.
> 2.. On the Group Policy console, expand Computer Configuration, and then
> expand Windows Settings.
> 3.. Expand Security Settings, and then expand Local Policies.
> 4.. Select the Users Rights Assignment check box.
> The policies will be displayed in the details pane.
> 5.. In the details pane, double-click Lock pages in memory.
> 6.. In the Local Security Policy Setting dialog box, click Add.
> 7.. In the Select Users or Groups dialog box, add an account with
> privileges to run sqlservr.exe.
> --
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
>
> "Greg Linwood" wrote:
>> Hi Amar
>> The user account that the SQL Server service is running under needs to
>> have
>> "Lock pages in memory" permissions (this is what AWE does).
>> Have you checked this?
>> Regards,
>> Greg Linwood
>> SQL Server MVP
>> "Amar" <Amar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:A287F3C6-3D2F-46C6-8CC6-D8D84B1F9160@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hi
>> > I am starting a new thread so that is easy to follow.
>> >
>> > We have 6GB of memory on Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition SQL 2000
>> > Enterprise
>> > Edition.
>> >
>> > We have used /PAE switch and /3GB switch in boot.ini
>> >
>> > We have run following commands on SQL server so that SQL server can use
>> > 5GB
>> > of memory
>> >
>> > exec sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
>> > reconfigure
>> > go
>> >
>> > exec sp_configure "max server memory" 5120
>> > reconfigure
>> > go
>> >
>> >
>> > We have rebooted the box several times.
>> >
>> > Problem
>> >
>> > When we run sp_configure, we get the following values
>> >
>> > Name min max config_value run_value
>> > max server memory (MB) 4 2147483647 5120 5120
>> >
>> >
>> > but when we look properties in Enterprise manager
>> > we see that "Use a fixed memory size(MB)" is set to 3583 MB.
>> >
>> > How do we get it to use more memory and is it correct that it is marked
>> > as
>> > "Use a fixed memory size(MB)" and not "Dynamically configure SQL server
>> > memory"
>> >
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Amar
>> >
>>
Memory -again
Hi
I am starting a new thread so that is easy to follow.
We have 6GB of memory on Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition SQL 2000 Enterprise
Edition.
We have used /PAE switch and /3GB switch in boot.ini
We have run following commands on SQL server so that SQL server can use 5GB
of memory
exec sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
reconfigure
go
exec sp_configure "max server memory" 5120
reconfigure
go
We have rebooted the box several times.
Problem
When we run sp_configure, we get the following values
Nameminmaxconfig_valuerun_value
max server memory (MB)4214748364751205120
but when we look properties in Enterprise manager
we see that “Use a fixed memory size(MB)” is set to 3583 MB.
How do we get it to use more memory and is it correct that it is marked as
“Use a fixed memory size(MB)” and not “Dynamically configure SQL server
memory”
Regards,
Amar
Hi Amar
The user account that the SQL Server service is running under needs to have
"Lock pages in memory" permissions (this is what AWE does).
Have you checked this?
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
"Amar" <Amar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A287F3C6-3D2F-46C6-8CC6-D8D84B1F9160@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I am starting a new thread so that is easy to follow.
> We have 6GB of memory on Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition SQL 2000
> Enterprise
> Edition.
> We have used /PAE switch and /3GB switch in boot.ini
> We have run following commands on SQL server so that SQL server can use
> 5GB
> of memory
> exec sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
> reconfigure
> go
> exec sp_configure "max server memory" 5120
> reconfigure
> go
>
> We have rebooted the box several times.
> Problem
> When we run sp_configure, we get the following values
> Name min max config_value run_value
> max server memory (MB) 4 2147483647 5120 5120
>
> but when we look properties in Enterprise manager
> we see that "Use a fixed memory size(MB)" is set to 3583 MB.
> How do we get it to use more memory and is it correct that it is marked as
> "Use a fixed memory size(MB)" and not "Dynamically configure SQL server
> memory"
>
> Regards,
> Amar
>
|||Have you tried setting awe enabled "on"
exec sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
go
reconfigure with override
You might want to consider setting min and max server memory to whatever
value you want SQL Server to use.
Keith
"Amar" <Amar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A287F3C6-3D2F-46C6-8CC6-D8D84B1F9160@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I am starting a new thread so that is easy to follow.
> We have 6GB of memory on Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition SQL 2000
> Enterprise
> Edition.
> We have used /PAE switch and /3GB switch in boot.ini
> We have run following commands on SQL server so that SQL server can use
> 5GB
> of memory
> exec sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
> reconfigure
> go
> exec sp_configure "max server memory" 5120
> reconfigure
> go
>
> We have rebooted the box several times.
> Problem
> When we run sp_configure, we get the following values
> Name min max config_value run_value
> max server memory (MB) 4 2147483647 5120 5120
>
> but when we look properties in Enterprise manager
> we see that "Use a fixed memory size(MB)" is set to 3583 MB.
> How do we get it to use more memory and is it correct that it is marked as
> "Use a fixed memory size(MB)" and not "Dynamically configure SQL server
> memory"
>
> Regards,
> Amar
>
|||To enable the Lock Page in Memory option
1.. On the Start menu, click Run, and then in the Open box, type
gpedit.msc.
2.. On the Group Policy console, expand Computer Configuration, and then
expand Windows Settings.
3.. Expand Security Settings, and then expand Local Policies.
4.. Select the Users Rights Assignment check box.
The policies will be displayed in the details pane.
5.. In the details pane, double-click Lock pages in memory.
6.. In the Local Security Policy Setting dialog box, click Add.
7.. In the Select Users or Groups dialog box, add an account with
privileges to run sqlservr.exe.
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Greg Linwood" wrote:
> Hi Amar
> The user account that the SQL Server service is running under needs to have
> "Lock pages in memory" permissions (this is what AWE does).
> Have you checked this?
> Regards,
> Greg Linwood
> SQL Server MVP
> "Amar" <Amar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:A287F3C6-3D2F-46C6-8CC6-D8D84B1F9160@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||7.. In the Select Users or Groups dialog box, add an account with
privileges to run sqlservr.exe.
This is slightly mis-leading, depending on how you interpret it..
You don't select an account "with privileges to run sqlservr.exe" - you
select the user user account that the sql server service is configured to
log on as (I'm sure this is what you meant though).
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:C6C91370-14A0-4C99-87F7-8C842B6C2E0F@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> To enable the Lock Page in Memory option
> 1.. On the Start menu, click Run, and then in the Open box, type
> gpedit.msc.
> 2.. On the Group Policy console, expand Computer Configuration, and then
> expand Windows Settings.
> 3.. Expand Security Settings, and then expand Local Policies.
> 4.. Select the Users Rights Assignment check box.
> The policies will be displayed in the details pane.
> 5.. In the details pane, double-click Lock pages in memory.
> 6.. In the Local Security Policy Setting dialog box, click Add.
> 7.. In the Select Users or Groups dialog box, add an account with
> privileges to run sqlservr.exe.
> --
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
>
> "Greg Linwood" wrote:
I am starting a new thread so that is easy to follow.
We have 6GB of memory on Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition SQL 2000 Enterprise
Edition.
We have used /PAE switch and /3GB switch in boot.ini
We have run following commands on SQL server so that SQL server can use 5GB
of memory
exec sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
reconfigure
go
exec sp_configure "max server memory" 5120
reconfigure
go
We have rebooted the box several times.
Problem
When we run sp_configure, we get the following values
Nameminmaxconfig_valuerun_value
max server memory (MB)4214748364751205120
but when we look properties in Enterprise manager
we see that “Use a fixed memory size(MB)” is set to 3583 MB.
How do we get it to use more memory and is it correct that it is marked as
“Use a fixed memory size(MB)” and not “Dynamically configure SQL server
memory”
Regards,
Amar
Hi Amar
The user account that the SQL Server service is running under needs to have
"Lock pages in memory" permissions (this is what AWE does).
Have you checked this?
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
"Amar" <Amar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A287F3C6-3D2F-46C6-8CC6-D8D84B1F9160@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I am starting a new thread so that is easy to follow.
> We have 6GB of memory on Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition SQL 2000
> Enterprise
> Edition.
> We have used /PAE switch and /3GB switch in boot.ini
> We have run following commands on SQL server so that SQL server can use
> 5GB
> of memory
> exec sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
> reconfigure
> go
> exec sp_configure "max server memory" 5120
> reconfigure
> go
>
> We have rebooted the box several times.
> Problem
> When we run sp_configure, we get the following values
> Name min max config_value run_value
> max server memory (MB) 4 2147483647 5120 5120
>
> but when we look properties in Enterprise manager
> we see that "Use a fixed memory size(MB)" is set to 3583 MB.
> How do we get it to use more memory and is it correct that it is marked as
> "Use a fixed memory size(MB)" and not "Dynamically configure SQL server
> memory"
>
> Regards,
> Amar
>
|||Have you tried setting awe enabled "on"
exec sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
go
reconfigure with override
You might want to consider setting min and max server memory to whatever
value you want SQL Server to use.
Keith
"Amar" <Amar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A287F3C6-3D2F-46C6-8CC6-D8D84B1F9160@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I am starting a new thread so that is easy to follow.
> We have 6GB of memory on Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition SQL 2000
> Enterprise
> Edition.
> We have used /PAE switch and /3GB switch in boot.ini
> We have run following commands on SQL server so that SQL server can use
> 5GB
> of memory
> exec sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
> reconfigure
> go
> exec sp_configure "max server memory" 5120
> reconfigure
> go
>
> We have rebooted the box several times.
> Problem
> When we run sp_configure, we get the following values
> Name min max config_value run_value
> max server memory (MB) 4 2147483647 5120 5120
>
> but when we look properties in Enterprise manager
> we see that "Use a fixed memory size(MB)" is set to 3583 MB.
> How do we get it to use more memory and is it correct that it is marked as
> "Use a fixed memory size(MB)" and not "Dynamically configure SQL server
> memory"
>
> Regards,
> Amar
>
|||To enable the Lock Page in Memory option
1.. On the Start menu, click Run, and then in the Open box, type
gpedit.msc.
2.. On the Group Policy console, expand Computer Configuration, and then
expand Windows Settings.
3.. Expand Security Settings, and then expand Local Policies.
4.. Select the Users Rights Assignment check box.
The policies will be displayed in the details pane.
5.. In the details pane, double-click Lock pages in memory.
6.. In the Local Security Policy Setting dialog box, click Add.
7.. In the Select Users or Groups dialog box, add an account with
privileges to run sqlservr.exe.
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Greg Linwood" wrote:
> Hi Amar
> The user account that the SQL Server service is running under needs to have
> "Lock pages in memory" permissions (this is what AWE does).
> Have you checked this?
> Regards,
> Greg Linwood
> SQL Server MVP
> "Amar" <Amar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:A287F3C6-3D2F-46C6-8CC6-D8D84B1F9160@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||7.. In the Select Users or Groups dialog box, add an account with
privileges to run sqlservr.exe.
This is slightly mis-leading, depending on how you interpret it..
You don't select an account "with privileges to run sqlservr.exe" - you
select the user user account that the sql server service is configured to
log on as (I'm sure this is what you meant though).
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:C6C91370-14A0-4C99-87F7-8C842B6C2E0F@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> To enable the Lock Page in Memory option
> 1.. On the Start menu, click Run, and then in the Open box, type
> gpedit.msc.
> 2.. On the Group Policy console, expand Computer Configuration, and then
> expand Windows Settings.
> 3.. Expand Security Settings, and then expand Local Policies.
> 4.. Select the Users Rights Assignment check box.
> The policies will be displayed in the details pane.
> 5.. In the details pane, double-click Lock pages in memory.
> 6.. In the Local Security Policy Setting dialog box, click Add.
> 7.. In the Select Users or Groups dialog box, add an account with
> privileges to run sqlservr.exe.
> --
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
>
> "Greg Linwood" wrote:
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
memory 64bit windows , 32 bit Sql
I have found that orig tested 64 bit on our 64bit windows 2003
server...about 1 year ago...and company decided to use sql 32 bit on the
64bit os
what was the excuse used to persuade them to use 32bit vs 64bit? (note I said
excuse not reason) If you are going to invest in a 64bit architecture and 64bit
OS - it is beyond insanity to install a 32bit database.
>
what was the excuse used to persuade them to use 32bit vs 64bit? (note I
said excuse not reason) If you are going to invest in a 64bit architecture
and 64bit OS - it is beyond insanity to install a 32bit database.
>
--
Michael Austin.
Database Consultant|||mike (vettes_n_jets@.yahoo.com) writes:
Now, wait! The only sql64 that in beta alone was Liberty, the 64-bit
version of SQL 2000. If that version was an option for them, it means
that your 64-bit box is an Itanium machine. As far as I know there is
quite a performance penalty running 32-bit programs on Itanium.
The cause could very well be that the query plans for some common queries
have gone awry.
>
Now, wait! The only sql64 that in beta alone was Liberty, the 64-bit
version of SQL 2000. If that version was an option for them, it means
that your 64-bit box is an Itanium machine. As far as I know there is
quite a performance penalty running 32-bit programs on Itanium.
>
It's a different thing, if the machine is an x64 box. Particularly, if
you are running SQL 2000, since there is no x64 version of SQL 2000.
If you are running SQL 2005, the 64-bit version is still to prefer, I
guess, but there is no direct penalty for running the 32-bit version
on x64.
>
>
The cause could very well be that the query plans for some common queries
have gone awry.
>
I would run profiler and capture events that run more than, say, 100 ms.
The events to include are RPC:Completed, SQL:BatchCompleted, SP:Completed,
SP:StmtCompleted and SP:Recompile.
>
>
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
>
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx
server...about 1 year ago...and company decided to use sql 32 bit on the
64bit os
my question and any information is very welcome
is there any things in need to know about awe with
memory above 4g ...whilst using 32 bit sql on a 64bit os
i want to increase the memory on the server but
i really don't know what im up against since this is
mixed system 32 bit sql and 64 bit os
thanks
mikemike wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
I have found that orig tested 64 bit on our 64bit windows 2003
server...about 1 year ago...and company decided to use sql 32 bit on the
64bit os
>
my question and any information is very welcome
>
is there any things in need to know about awe with
memory above 4g ...whilst using 32 bit sql on a 64bit os
i want to increase the memory on the server but
i really don't know what im up against since this is
mixed system 32 bit sql and 64 bit os
>
thanks
mike
>
>
>
what was the excuse used to persuade them to use 32bit vs 64bit? (note I said
excuse not reason) If you are going to invest in a 64bit architecture and 64bit
OS - it is beyond insanity to install a 32bit database.
--
Michael Austin.
Database Consultant|||I agree with you michael...the excuse (reason) i was given is that they did
not trust sql64 at the time...just out of beta
so im trying to figure out why the system has come to a crawl...i know i
have to re-write alot of the stored procs
but the system waas moving along ok...and all of a sudden, come to a crawl
running same as before this super slow down
Nas Drives working ok, Network speaking ok
public net is 10/100, private network 10/100/1000
hard ware is 4 cpu...sql has 3, 4g mem (more mem required) 2.8 cpu's
so any information is welcome...
thanks
mike
"Michael Austin" <maustin@.firstdbasource.comwrote in message
news:0UXeh.4340$Gr2.1021@.newssvr21.news.prodigy.ne t...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mike wrote:
>
Quote:
Originally Posted by
>I have found that orig tested 64 bit on our 64bit windows 2003
>server...about 1 year ago...and company decided to use sql 32 bit on the
>64bit os
>>
>my question and any information is very welcome
>>
>is there any things in need to know about awe with
>memory above 4g ...whilst using 32 bit sql on a 64bit os
>i want to increase the memory on the server but
>i really don't know what im up against since this is
>mixed system 32 bit sql and 64 bit os
>>
>thanks
>mike
>>
>>
>>
>
what was the excuse used to persuade them to use 32bit vs 64bit? (note I
said excuse not reason) If you are going to invest in a 64bit architecture
and 64bit OS - it is beyond insanity to install a 32bit database.
>
--
Michael Austin.
Database Consultant|||mike (vettes_n_jets@.yahoo.com) writes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
I agree with you michael...the excuse (reason) i was given is that they
did not trust sql64 at the time...just out of beta
Now, wait! The only sql64 that in beta alone was Liberty, the 64-bit
version of SQL 2000. If that version was an option for them, it means
that your 64-bit box is an Itanium machine. As far as I know there is
quite a performance penalty running 32-bit programs on Itanium.
It's a different thing, if the machine is an x64 box. Particularly, if
you are running SQL 2000, since there is no x64 version of SQL 2000.
If you are running SQL 2005, the 64-bit version is still to prefer, I
guess, but there is no direct penalty for running the 32-bit version
on x64.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
but the system waas moving along ok...and all of a sudden, come to a >
crawl running same as before this super slow down
The cause could very well be that the query plans for some common queries
have gone awry.
I would run profiler and capture events that run more than, say, 100 ms.
The events to include are RPC:Completed, SQL:BatchCompleted, SP:Completed,
SP:StmtCompleted and SP:Recompile.
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx|||thanks for the information
Mike
"Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@.sommarskog.sewrote in message
news:Xns9896EFBA39B23Yazorman@.127.0.0.1...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mike (vettes_n_jets@.yahoo.com) writes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
>I agree with you michael...the excuse (reason) i was given is that they
>did not trust sql64 at the time...just out of beta
>
Now, wait! The only sql64 that in beta alone was Liberty, the 64-bit
version of SQL 2000. If that version was an option for them, it means
that your 64-bit box is an Itanium machine. As far as I know there is
quite a performance penalty running 32-bit programs on Itanium.
>
It's a different thing, if the machine is an x64 box. Particularly, if
you are running SQL 2000, since there is no x64 version of SQL 2000.
If you are running SQL 2005, the 64-bit version is still to prefer, I
guess, but there is no direct penalty for running the 32-bit version
on x64.
>
Quote:
Originally Posted by
>but the system waas moving along ok...and all of a sudden, come to a >
>crawl running same as before this super slow down
>
The cause could very well be that the query plans for some common queries
have gone awry.
>
I would run profiler and capture events that run more than, say, 100 ms.
The events to include are RPC:Completed, SQL:BatchCompleted, SP:Completed,
SP:StmtCompleted and SP:Recompile.
>
>
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
>
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx
Memory - Windows 2k3 Ent Ed, SQL 2k Ent Ed Version 2040
This is my environment:
Memory - Windows 2k3 Ent Ed, SQL 2k Ent Ed Version 2040
Have a total of 8 GB of memory.
Should I do the following ?
1. /3GB
2. /PAE
3. Enable AWE in SQL Server
Thanks,
RangaHello,
To make use of the extended memory, please modify the Boot.ini and enable
the AWE option. Make sure that apart from these you need to
make the SQL Server memory parameter static.
Take a look into below URL:-
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750
Thanks
Hari
"Ranga" <Ranga@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:617459F8-8E93-4687-AF1A-4B7175D7E9AA@.microsoft.com...
> This is my environment:
> Memory - Windows 2k3 Ent Ed, SQL 2k Ent Ed Version 2040
> Have a total of 8 GB of memory.
> Should I do the following ?
> 1. /3GB
> 2. /PAE
> 3. Enable AWE in SQL Server
> Thanks,
> Ranga
Memory - Windows 2k3 Ent Ed, SQL 2k Ent Ed Version 2040
Have a total of 8 GB of memory.
Should I do the following ?
1. /3GB
2. /PAE
3. Enable AWE in SQL Server
Thanks,
RangaHello,
To make use of the extended memory, please modify the Boot.ini and enable
the AWE option. Make sure that apart from these you need to
make the SQL Server memory parameter static.
Take a look into below URL:-
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750
Thanks
Hari
"Ranga" <Ranga@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:617459F8-8E93-4687-AF1A-4B7175D7E9AA@.microsoft.com...
> This is my environment:
> Memory - Windows 2k3 Ent Ed, SQL 2k Ent Ed Version 2040
> Have a total of 8 GB of memory.
> Should I do the following ?
> 1. /3GB
> 2. /PAE
> 3. Enable AWE in SQL Server
> Thanks,
> Ranga
Memory - Windows 2k3 Ent Ed, SQL 2k Ent Ed Version 2040
This is my environment:
Memory - Windows 2k3 Ent Ed, SQL 2k Ent Ed Version 2040
Have a total of 8 GB of memory.
Should I do the following ?
1. /3GB
2. /PAE
3. Enable AWE in SQL Server
Thanks,
RangaHello,
To make use of the extended memory, please modify the Boot.ini and enable
the AWE option. Make sure that apart from these you need to
make the SQL Server memory parameter static.
Take a look into below URL:-
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750
Thanks
Hari
"Ranga" <Ranga@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:617459F8-8E93-4687-AF1A-4B7175D7E9AA@.microsoft.com...
> This is my environment:
> Memory - Windows 2k3 Ent Ed, SQL 2k Ent Ed Version 2040
> Have a total of 8 GB of memory.
> Should I do the following ?
> 1. /3GB
> 2. /PAE
> 3. Enable AWE in SQL Server
> Thanks,
> Ranga
Memory - Windows 2k3 Ent Ed, SQL 2k Ent Ed Version 2040
Have a total of 8 GB of memory.
Should I do the following ?
1. /3GB
2. /PAE
3. Enable AWE in SQL Server
Thanks,
RangaHello,
To make use of the extended memory, please modify the Boot.ini and enable
the AWE option. Make sure that apart from these you need to
make the SQL Server memory parameter static.
Take a look into below URL:-
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750
Thanks
Hari
"Ranga" <Ranga@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:617459F8-8E93-4687-AF1A-4B7175D7E9AA@.microsoft.com...
> This is my environment:
> Memory - Windows 2k3 Ent Ed, SQL 2k Ent Ed Version 2040
> Have a total of 8 GB of memory.
> Should I do the following ?
> 1. /3GB
> 2. /PAE
> 3. Enable AWE in SQL Server
> Thanks,
> Ranga
Memory - Windows 2k3 Ent Ed, SQL 2k Ent Ed Version 2040
This is my environment:
Memory - Windows 2k3 Ent Ed, SQL 2k Ent Ed Version 2040
Have a total of 8 GB of memory.
Should I do the following ?
1. /3GB
2. /PAE
3. Enable AWE in SQL Server
Thanks,
Ranga
Hello,
To make use of the extended memory, please modify the Boot.ini and enable
the AWE option. Make sure that apart from these you need to
make the SQL Server memory parameter static.
Take a look into below URL:-
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750
Thanks
Hari
"Ranga" <Ranga@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:617459F8-8E93-4687-AF1A-4B7175D7E9AA@.microsoft.com...
> This is my environment:
> Memory - Windows 2k3 Ent Ed, SQL 2k Ent Ed Version 2040
> Have a total of 8 GB of memory.
> Should I do the following ?
> 1. /3GB
> 2. /PAE
> 3. Enable AWE in SQL Server
> Thanks,
> Ranga
sql
Memory - Windows 2k3 Ent Ed, SQL 2k Ent Ed Version 2040
Have a total of 8 GB of memory.
Should I do the following ?
1. /3GB
2. /PAE
3. Enable AWE in SQL Server
Thanks,
Ranga
Hello,
To make use of the extended memory, please modify the Boot.ini and enable
the AWE option. Make sure that apart from these you need to
make the SQL Server memory parameter static.
Take a look into below URL:-
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750
Thanks
Hari
"Ranga" <Ranga@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:617459F8-8E93-4687-AF1A-4B7175D7E9AA@.microsoft.com...
> This is my environment:
> Memory - Windows 2k3 Ent Ed, SQL 2k Ent Ed Version 2040
> Have a total of 8 GB of memory.
> Should I do the following ?
> 1. /3GB
> 2. /PAE
> 3. Enable AWE in SQL Server
> Thanks,
> Ranga
sql
Memory - PAE, AWE, /3GB
I have a box
windows 2003 ent ed with 8GB or ram
issue is its only seeing 4GB memory and not the 6 I set it at
I set the instance to enable AWE
what am I missing ? /3GB ? /PAE
I want SQL Server to use 6gb and leave 2GB for windows and company
ThanksI take it you are using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition which can take advantage
of the PAE switch.
In your boot.ini file enable /PAE, and then in QA do this:
sp_configure 'show advanced options', 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure 'max server memory', 6144
RECONFIGURE
GO
Consult http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/274750 for more info.
--
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Buk Usu" <bukusu@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uXWsnAj8GHA.568@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I have a box
> windows 2003 ent ed with 8GB or ram
> issue is its only seeing 4GB memory and not the 6 I set it at
> I set the instance to enable AWE
> what am I missing ? /3GB ? /PAE
> I want SQL Server to use 6gb and leave 2GB for windows and company
> Thanks
>|||do i need /3gb ?
should i remove it ?
"Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uxL4CTj8GHA.1188@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I take it you are using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition which can take
>advantage of the PAE switch.
> In your boot.ini file enable /PAE, and then in QA do this:
> sp_configure 'show advanced options', 1
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> sp_configure 'max server memory', 6144
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> Consult http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/274750 for more info.
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
> RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
> This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
> positions, strategies or opinions.
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
>
> "Buk Usu" <bukusu@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uXWsnAj8GHA.568@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>I have a box
>> windows 2003 ent ed with 8GB or ram
>> issue is its only seeing 4GB memory and not the 6 I set it at
>> I set the instance to enable AWE
>> what am I missing ? /3GB ? /PAE
>> I want SQL Server to use 6gb and leave 2GB for windows and company
>> Thanks
>|||remove it!
--
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Buk Usu" <bukusu@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eUkvy3k8GHA.3760@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> do i need /3gb ?
> should i remove it ?
>
> "Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uxL4CTj8GHA.1188@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>I take it you are using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition which can take
>>advantage of the PAE switch.
>> In your boot.ini file enable /PAE, and then in QA do this:
>> sp_configure 'show advanced options', 1
>> RECONFIGURE
>> GO
>> sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
>> RECONFIGURE
>> GO
>> sp_configure 'max server memory', 6144
>> RECONFIGURE
>> GO
>> Consult http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/274750 for more
>> info.
>> --
>> Hilary Cotter
>> Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
>> RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
>> This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
>> positions, strategies or opinions.
>> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
>> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
>> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
>> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
>>
>> "Buk Usu" <bukusu@.gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:uXWsnAj8GHA.568@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>I have a box
>> windows 2003 ent ed with 8GB or ram
>> issue is its only seeing 4GB memory and not the 6 I set it at
>> I set the instance to enable AWE
>> what am I missing ? /3GB ? /PAE
>> I want SQL Server to use 6gb and leave 2GB for windows and company
>> Thanks
>>
>|||Thanks Hillary
I ended up fixing the issue - but had to apply
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=7C407047-3F1F-48B8-9E4C-DC32875E1961&displaylang=en
Fix: Not All Memory is Available When AWE is Enabled on a Computer Running
32-bit Version of SQL Server 2000 SP4 (899761)
all looks ok now
"Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23YXmEPr8GHA.2288@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> remove it!
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
> RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
> This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
> positions, strategies or opinions.
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
>
> "Buk Usu" <bukusu@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eUkvy3k8GHA.3760@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> do i need /3gb ?
>> should i remove it ?
>>
>> "Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@.gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:uxL4CTj8GHA.1188@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>I take it you are using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition which can take
>>advantage of the PAE switch.
>> In your boot.ini file enable /PAE, and then in QA do this:
>> sp_configure 'show advanced options', 1
>> RECONFIGURE
>> GO
>> sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
>> RECONFIGURE
>> GO
>> sp_configure 'max server memory', 6144
>> RECONFIGURE
>> GO
>> Consult http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/274750 for more
>> info.
>> --
>> Hilary Cotter
>> Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
>> RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
>> This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
>> positions, strategies or opinions.
>> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
>> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
>> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
>> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
>>
>> "Buk Usu" <bukusu@.gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:uXWsnAj8GHA.568@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>I have a box
>> windows 2003 ent ed with 8GB or ram
>> issue is its only seeing 4GB memory and not the 6 I set it at
>> I set the instance to enable AWE
>> what am I missing ? /3GB ? /PAE
>> I want SQL Server to use 6gb and leave 2GB for windows and company
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>
windows 2003 ent ed with 8GB or ram
issue is its only seeing 4GB memory and not the 6 I set it at
I set the instance to enable AWE
what am I missing ? /3GB ? /PAE
I want SQL Server to use 6gb and leave 2GB for windows and company
ThanksI take it you are using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition which can take advantage
of the PAE switch.
In your boot.ini file enable /PAE, and then in QA do this:
sp_configure 'show advanced options', 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure 'max server memory', 6144
RECONFIGURE
GO
Consult http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/274750 for more info.
--
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Buk Usu" <bukusu@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uXWsnAj8GHA.568@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I have a box
> windows 2003 ent ed with 8GB or ram
> issue is its only seeing 4GB memory and not the 6 I set it at
> I set the instance to enable AWE
> what am I missing ? /3GB ? /PAE
> I want SQL Server to use 6gb and leave 2GB for windows and company
> Thanks
>|||do i need /3gb ?
should i remove it ?
"Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uxL4CTj8GHA.1188@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I take it you are using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition which can take
>advantage of the PAE switch.
> In your boot.ini file enable /PAE, and then in QA do this:
> sp_configure 'show advanced options', 1
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> sp_configure 'max server memory', 6144
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> Consult http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/274750 for more info.
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
> RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
> This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
> positions, strategies or opinions.
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
>
> "Buk Usu" <bukusu@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uXWsnAj8GHA.568@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>I have a box
>> windows 2003 ent ed with 8GB or ram
>> issue is its only seeing 4GB memory and not the 6 I set it at
>> I set the instance to enable AWE
>> what am I missing ? /3GB ? /PAE
>> I want SQL Server to use 6gb and leave 2GB for windows and company
>> Thanks
>|||remove it!
--
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Buk Usu" <bukusu@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eUkvy3k8GHA.3760@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> do i need /3gb ?
> should i remove it ?
>
> "Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uxL4CTj8GHA.1188@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>I take it you are using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition which can take
>>advantage of the PAE switch.
>> In your boot.ini file enable /PAE, and then in QA do this:
>> sp_configure 'show advanced options', 1
>> RECONFIGURE
>> GO
>> sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
>> RECONFIGURE
>> GO
>> sp_configure 'max server memory', 6144
>> RECONFIGURE
>> GO
>> Consult http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/274750 for more
>> info.
>> --
>> Hilary Cotter
>> Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
>> RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
>> This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
>> positions, strategies or opinions.
>> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
>> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
>> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
>> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
>>
>> "Buk Usu" <bukusu@.gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:uXWsnAj8GHA.568@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>I have a box
>> windows 2003 ent ed with 8GB or ram
>> issue is its only seeing 4GB memory and not the 6 I set it at
>> I set the instance to enable AWE
>> what am I missing ? /3GB ? /PAE
>> I want SQL Server to use 6gb and leave 2GB for windows and company
>> Thanks
>>
>|||Thanks Hillary
I ended up fixing the issue - but had to apply
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=7C407047-3F1F-48B8-9E4C-DC32875E1961&displaylang=en
Fix: Not All Memory is Available When AWE is Enabled on a Computer Running
32-bit Version of SQL Server 2000 SP4 (899761)
all looks ok now
"Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23YXmEPr8GHA.2288@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> remove it!
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
> RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
> This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
> positions, strategies or opinions.
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
>
> "Buk Usu" <bukusu@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eUkvy3k8GHA.3760@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> do i need /3gb ?
>> should i remove it ?
>>
>> "Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@.gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:uxL4CTj8GHA.1188@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>I take it you are using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition which can take
>>advantage of the PAE switch.
>> In your boot.ini file enable /PAE, and then in QA do this:
>> sp_configure 'show advanced options', 1
>> RECONFIGURE
>> GO
>> sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
>> RECONFIGURE
>> GO
>> sp_configure 'max server memory', 6144
>> RECONFIGURE
>> GO
>> Consult http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/274750 for more
>> info.
>> --
>> Hilary Cotter
>> Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
>> RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
>> This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
>> positions, strategies or opinions.
>> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
>> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
>> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
>> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
>>
>> "Buk Usu" <bukusu@.gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:uXWsnAj8GHA.568@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>I have a box
>> windows 2003 ent ed with 8GB or ram
>> issue is its only seeing 4GB memory and not the 6 I set it at
>> I set the instance to enable AWE
>> what am I missing ? /3GB ? /PAE
>> I want SQL Server to use 6gb and leave 2GB for windows and company
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>
memory - PAE / AWE...........
My server is a mssql2000 sp3 server in windows 2000
advanced server.
My server has 3 GB of memory. PAE is enables in the
boot.ini. My memory to mssql is unrestricted. In the task
manager, the memory of mssql shows as 2.7GB. I still have
page faults at 9,27,6683 for 21 days of non-reboot.
Is MSSQL really using 2.7 GB? DO I need more memory?
What is the 'awe enabled' option all about?
regards,
bharathIf you have only 3 GB then the only switch you need in boot.ini is /3GB, you
don't need /PAE. Assuming you have SQL2000 Enterprise Edition then SQL
Server will be able to use the memory. You don't need to enable awe when you
only have 3GB of RAM.Which counter are you using to determine page faults ?
--
HTH
Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
I support PASS - the definitive, global
community for SQL Server professionals -
http://www.sqlpass.org
"bharath" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0a1701c3d5b6$f9aec310$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> My server is a mssql2000 sp3 server in windows 2000
> advanced server.
> My server has 3 GB of memory. PAE is enables in the
> boot.ini. My memory to mssql is unrestricted. In the task
> manager, the memory of mssql shows as 2.7GB. I still have
> page faults at 9,27,6683 for 21 days of non-reboot.
> Is MSSQL really using 2.7 GB? DO I need more memory?
> What is the 'awe enabled' option all about?
> regards,
> bharath
advanced server.
My server has 3 GB of memory. PAE is enables in the
boot.ini. My memory to mssql is unrestricted. In the task
manager, the memory of mssql shows as 2.7GB. I still have
page faults at 9,27,6683 for 21 days of non-reboot.
Is MSSQL really using 2.7 GB? DO I need more memory?
What is the 'awe enabled' option all about?
regards,
bharathIf you have only 3 GB then the only switch you need in boot.ini is /3GB, you
don't need /PAE. Assuming you have SQL2000 Enterprise Edition then SQL
Server will be able to use the memory. You don't need to enable awe when you
only have 3GB of RAM.Which counter are you using to determine page faults ?
--
HTH
Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
I support PASS - the definitive, global
community for SQL Server professionals -
http://www.sqlpass.org
"bharath" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0a1701c3d5b6$f9aec310$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> My server is a mssql2000 sp3 server in windows 2000
> advanced server.
> My server has 3 GB of memory. PAE is enables in the
> boot.ini. My memory to mssql is unrestricted. In the task
> manager, the memory of mssql shows as 2.7GB. I still have
> page faults at 9,27,6683 for 21 days of non-reboot.
> Is MSSQL really using 2.7 GB? DO I need more memory?
> What is the 'awe enabled' option all about?
> regards,
> bharath
Memory
i have a Windows 2000 Advanced Server machine service pack 4 (build 2195) i
have a 1.73 gigahertz AMD Athlon XP processor and im wondering how much
memory i can put in the server without it crashing i would appreciate it if u
could reply. thank you.Ummm...as much as the motherboard will support? Check with the board
manufacturer...
--
Kevin Hill
President
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.
www.experts-exchange.com - experts compete for points to answer your
questions
"needhelpman" <needhelpman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0ED5AA99-9F18-4DBD-AD00-2ABA9E77524B@.microsoft.com...
>i have a Windows 2000 Advanced Server machine service pack 4 (build 2195) i
> have a 1.73 gigahertz AMD Athlon XP processor and im wondering how much
> memory i can put in the server without it crashing i would appreciate it
> if u
> could reply. thank you.|||i meant how much memory can the SQL server take berfore the network crashes
--
tha best man
"Kevin3NF" wrote:
> Ummm...as much as the motherboard will support? Check with the board
> manufacturer...
> --
> Kevin Hill
> President
> 3NF Consulting
> www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
> www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.
> www.experts-exchange.com - experts compete for points to answer your
> questions
>
> "needhelpman" <needhelpman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0ED5AA99-9F18-4DBD-AD00-2ABA9E77524B@.microsoft.com...
> >i have a Windows 2000 Advanced Server machine service pack 4 (build 2195) i
> > have a 1.73 gigahertz AMD Athlon XP processor and im wondering how much
> > memory i can put in the server without it crashing i would appreciate it
> > if u
> > could reply. thank you.
>
>|||memory has nothing to do with networking.
It all depends on how much memory you can afford and how much your
motherboard supports. Then comes the issue of if the edition of windows you
are using supports the amount of memory.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"needhelpman" <da1yellabone@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:C962D4A4-4DD9-4C94-A5A6-04D068DFF272@.microsoft.com...
>i meant how much memory can the SQL server take berfore the network crashes
> --
> tha best man
>
> "Kevin3NF" wrote:
>> Ummm...as much as the motherboard will support? Check with the board
>> manufacturer...
>> --
>> Kevin Hill
>> President
>> 3NF Consulting
>> www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
>> www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.
>> www.experts-exchange.com - experts compete for points to answer your
>> questions
>>
>> "needhelpman" <needhelpman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:0ED5AA99-9F18-4DBD-AD00-2ABA9E77524B@.microsoft.com...
>> >i have a Windows 2000 Advanced Server machine service pack 4 (build
>> >2195) i
>> > have a 1.73 gigahertz AMD Athlon XP processor and im wondering how much
>> > memory i can put in the server without it crashing i would appreciate
>> > it
>> > if u
>> > could reply. thank you.
>>|||The amount of memory SQL Server can use is dependant on the OS edition and
the SQL Edition. Please see the Maximum Capacity Specs in BooksOnLine for
exactly what these are.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"needhelpman" <da1yellabone@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:C962D4A4-4DD9-4C94-A5A6-04D068DFF272@.microsoft.com...
>i meant how much memory can the SQL server take berfore the network crashes
> --
> tha best man
>
> "Kevin3NF" wrote:
>> Ummm...as much as the motherboard will support? Check with the board
>> manufacturer...
>> --
>> Kevin Hill
>> President
>> 3NF Consulting
>> www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
>> www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.
>> www.experts-exchange.com - experts compete for points to answer your
>> questions
>>
>> "needhelpman" <needhelpman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:0ED5AA99-9F18-4DBD-AD00-2ABA9E77524B@.microsoft.com...
>> >i have a Windows 2000 Advanced Server machine service pack 4 (build
>> >2195) i
>> > have a 1.73 gigahertz AMD Athlon XP processor and im wondering how much
>> > memory i can put in the server without it crashing i would appreciate
>> > it
>> > if u
>> > could reply. thank you.
>>sql
have a 1.73 gigahertz AMD Athlon XP processor and im wondering how much
memory i can put in the server without it crashing i would appreciate it if u
could reply. thank you.Ummm...as much as the motherboard will support? Check with the board
manufacturer...
--
Kevin Hill
President
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.
www.experts-exchange.com - experts compete for points to answer your
questions
"needhelpman" <needhelpman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0ED5AA99-9F18-4DBD-AD00-2ABA9E77524B@.microsoft.com...
>i have a Windows 2000 Advanced Server machine service pack 4 (build 2195) i
> have a 1.73 gigahertz AMD Athlon XP processor and im wondering how much
> memory i can put in the server without it crashing i would appreciate it
> if u
> could reply. thank you.|||i meant how much memory can the SQL server take berfore the network crashes
--
tha best man
"Kevin3NF" wrote:
> Ummm...as much as the motherboard will support? Check with the board
> manufacturer...
> --
> Kevin Hill
> President
> 3NF Consulting
> www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
> www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.
> www.experts-exchange.com - experts compete for points to answer your
> questions
>
> "needhelpman" <needhelpman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0ED5AA99-9F18-4DBD-AD00-2ABA9E77524B@.microsoft.com...
> >i have a Windows 2000 Advanced Server machine service pack 4 (build 2195) i
> > have a 1.73 gigahertz AMD Athlon XP processor and im wondering how much
> > memory i can put in the server without it crashing i would appreciate it
> > if u
> > could reply. thank you.
>
>|||memory has nothing to do with networking.
It all depends on how much memory you can afford and how much your
motherboard supports. Then comes the issue of if the edition of windows you
are using supports the amount of memory.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"needhelpman" <da1yellabone@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:C962D4A4-4DD9-4C94-A5A6-04D068DFF272@.microsoft.com...
>i meant how much memory can the SQL server take berfore the network crashes
> --
> tha best man
>
> "Kevin3NF" wrote:
>> Ummm...as much as the motherboard will support? Check with the board
>> manufacturer...
>> --
>> Kevin Hill
>> President
>> 3NF Consulting
>> www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
>> www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.
>> www.experts-exchange.com - experts compete for points to answer your
>> questions
>>
>> "needhelpman" <needhelpman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:0ED5AA99-9F18-4DBD-AD00-2ABA9E77524B@.microsoft.com...
>> >i have a Windows 2000 Advanced Server machine service pack 4 (build
>> >2195) i
>> > have a 1.73 gigahertz AMD Athlon XP processor and im wondering how much
>> > memory i can put in the server without it crashing i would appreciate
>> > it
>> > if u
>> > could reply. thank you.
>>|||The amount of memory SQL Server can use is dependant on the OS edition and
the SQL Edition. Please see the Maximum Capacity Specs in BooksOnLine for
exactly what these are.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"needhelpman" <da1yellabone@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:C962D4A4-4DD9-4C94-A5A6-04D068DFF272@.microsoft.com...
>i meant how much memory can the SQL server take berfore the network crashes
> --
> tha best man
>
> "Kevin3NF" wrote:
>> Ummm...as much as the motherboard will support? Check with the board
>> manufacturer...
>> --
>> Kevin Hill
>> President
>> 3NF Consulting
>> www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
>> www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.
>> www.experts-exchange.com - experts compete for points to answer your
>> questions
>>
>> "needhelpman" <needhelpman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:0ED5AA99-9F18-4DBD-AD00-2ABA9E77524B@.microsoft.com...
>> >i have a Windows 2000 Advanced Server machine service pack 4 (build
>> >2195) i
>> > have a 1.73 gigahertz AMD Athlon XP processor and im wondering how much
>> > memory i can put in the server without it crashing i would appreciate
>> > it
>> > if u
>> > could reply. thank you.
>>sql
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)