3G ram for SQL server: setting

Showing posts with label setting. Show all posts

Monday, March 19, 2012

8Gb RAM for SQL Server 2000 on Win 2003

What the setting should be (/3Gb, PAE, AWE) for the best utilization of
8GB RAM for SQL Server 2000 running on Win 2003?
ThanksHi,
After this you will have to do this:-
Probably you could configure 6 GB for SQL Server: Login as SA using query
analyzer and do:-
sp_configure 'show advanced options', 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure 'max server memory', 6144
RECONFIGURE
GO
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"vlad" <vesmusor@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158846464.619887.179240@.h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> What the setting should be (/3Gb, PAE, AWE) for the best utilization of
> 8GB RAM for SQL Server 2000 running on Win 2003?
> Thanks
>|||Thanks for your reply, Hari. Does it mean I need to use both /3GB and
/PAE switches for this configuration?
Hari Prasad wrote:
> Hi,
> After this you will have to do this:-
> Probably you could configure 6 GB for SQL Server: Login as SA using query
> analyzer and do:-
> sp_configure 'show advanced options', 1
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> sp_configure 'max server memory', 6144
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> Thanks
> Hari
> SQL Server MVP
> "vlad" <vesmusor@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1158846464.619887.179240@.h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > What the setting should be (/3Gb, PAE, AWE) for the best utilization of
> > 8GB RAM for SQL Server 2000 running on Win 2003?
> >
> > Thanks
> >|||You need to use PAE (and SQL Server use AWE) to have 32 but app on 32 bit OS access > 2GB memory.
Whether you use 3GB or not is up to you. For a system with 8BG memory, it is probably a good idea to
use 3GB. Google for "Slava Oks" and read the Blogs, this will give you more information so you
understand the ins and outs of setting 3GB, PAE and also AWE.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"vlad" <vesmusor@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158848235.068934.133350@.i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks for your reply, Hari. Does it mean I need to use both /3GB and
> /PAE switches for this configuration?
> Hari Prasad wrote:
>> Hi,
>> After this you will have to do this:-
>> Probably you could configure 6 GB for SQL Server: Login as SA using query
>> analyzer and do:-
>> sp_configure 'show advanced options', 1
>> RECONFIGURE
>> GO
>> sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
>> RECONFIGURE
>> GO
>> sp_configure 'max server memory', 6144
>> RECONFIGURE
>> GO
>> Thanks
>> Hari
>> SQL Server MVP
>> "vlad" <vesmusor@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1158846464.619887.179240@.h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> > What the setting should be (/3Gb, PAE, AWE) for the best utilization of
>> > 8GB RAM for SQL Server 2000 running on Win 2003?
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>|||Doesn't this all assume he's running Enterprise Edition of SQL Server?
I thought non enterprise version didn't address this much RAM?
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:eHS1C9a3GHA.3344@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> You need to use PAE (and SQL Server use AWE) to have 32 but app on 32 bit
> OS access > 2GB memory.
> Whether you use 3GB or not is up to you. For a system with 8BG memory, it
> is probably a good idea to use 3GB. Google for "Slava Oks" and read the
> Blogs, this will give you more information so you understand the ins and
> outs of setting 3GB, PAE and also AWE.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "vlad" <vesmusor@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1158848235.068934.133350@.i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Thanks for your reply, Hari. Does it mean I need to use both /3GB and
>> /PAE switches for this configuration?
>> Hari Prasad wrote:
>> Hi,
>> After this you will have to do this:-
>> Probably you could configure 6 GB for SQL Server: Login as SA using
>> query
>> analyzer and do:-
>> sp_configure 'show advanced options', 1
>> RECONFIGURE
>> GO
>> sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
>> RECONFIGURE
>> GO
>> sp_configure 'max server memory', 6144
>> RECONFIGURE
>> GO
>> Thanks
>> Hari
>> SQL Server MVP
>> "vlad" <vesmusor@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1158846464.619887.179240@.h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> > What the setting should be (/3Gb, PAE, AWE) for the best utilization
>> > of
>> > 8GB RAM for SQL Server 2000 running on Win 2003?
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>|||Correct. I assumed EE as no edition was mentioned in the original post...
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Nick" <no.thanks@.nowhere.com> wrote in message news:enNh7uk3GHA.1796@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Doesn't this all assume he's running Enterprise Edition of SQL Server?
> I thought non enterprise version didn't address this much RAM?
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
> message news:eHS1C9a3GHA.3344@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> You need to use PAE (and SQL Server use AWE) to have 32 but app on 32 bit
>> OS access > 2GB memory.
>> Whether you use 3GB or not is up to you. For a system with 8BG memory, it
>> is probably a good idea to use 3GB. Google for "Slava Oks" and read the
>> Blogs, this will give you more information so you understand the ins and
>> outs of setting 3GB, PAE and also AWE.
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>>
>> "vlad" <vesmusor@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1158848235.068934.133350@.i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Thanks for your reply, Hari. Does it mean I need to use both /3GB and
>> /PAE switches for this configuration?
>> Hari Prasad wrote:
>> Hi,
>> After this you will have to do this:-
>> Probably you could configure 6 GB for SQL Server: Login as SA using
>> query
>> analyzer and do:-
>> sp_configure 'show advanced options', 1
>> RECONFIGURE
>> GO
>> sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
>> RECONFIGURE
>> GO
>> sp_configure 'max server memory', 6144
>> RECONFIGURE
>> GO
>> Thanks
>> Hari
>> SQL Server MVP
>> "vlad" <vesmusor@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1158846464.619887.179240@.h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> > What the setting should be (/3Gb, PAE, AWE) for the best utilization
>> > of
>> > 8GB RAM for SQL Server 2000 running on Win 2003?
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>>
>

8Gb RAM for SQL Server 2000 on Win 2003

Saturday, February 25, 2012

64 bit vs 32 bit with same RAM.

If I’m setting up a server, and I don’t plan on putting a lot of RAM(4GB
maybe 8GB) in it, will 64bit still be better?
thanks
If I'm to make a choice in the specific situation that you described and my
databases have always been on the 32-bit platform, I would most likely just
leave them on 32-bit until I run tests to determine if there is any benefits
going to 64 bit at all.
But there is always this issue of 'scaling forward' to take advantage of
what's coming in computing, and 64-bit generally speaking would put you in a
better position to scale forward. Of course, for your particular app, scaling
forward may or may not be relevant.
Now, note that 64-bit does carry some overhead in terms of larger data
structures and so on. Not all workloads will automatically benefit
performance wise from moving to 64-bit. For instance, if the data set of your
workloads can fit largely in memory, you may find 32-bit faster than 64-bit.
Linchi
"Jason" wrote:

> If I’m setting up a server, and I don’t plan on putting a lot of RAM(4GB
> maybe 8GB) in it, will 64bit still be better?
> thanks

64 bit vs 32 bit with same RAM.

If Iâ'm setting up a server, and I donâ't plan on putting a lot of RAM(4GB
maybe 8GB) in it, will 64bit still be better?
thanksIf I'm to make a choice in the specific situation that you described and my
databases have always been on the 32-bit platform, I would most likely just
leave them on 32-bit until I run tests to determine if there is any benefits
going to 64 bit at all.
But there is always this issue of 'scaling forward' to take advantage of
what's coming in computing, and 64-bit generally speaking would put you in a
better position to scale forward. Of course, for your particular app, scaling
forward may or may not be relevant.
Now, note that 64-bit does carry some overhead in terms of larger data
structures and so on. Not all workloads will automatically benefit
performance wise from moving to 64-bit. For instance, if the data set of your
workloads can fit largely in memory, you may find 32-bit faster than 64-bit.
Linchi
"Jason" wrote:
> If Iâ'm setting up a server, and I donâ't plan on putting a lot of RAM(4GB
> maybe 8GB) in it, will 64bit still be better?
> thanks

64 bit TextFile ConnectionString unable to dynamically change?

Hello,

On a 64bit Itanium cluster, I'm having a problem dynamically setting the ConnectionString of a TextFile Source using the "EvaluateAsExpression" = True and setting the ConnectionString using an expression from a variable. I get the error message:

-1073647612,0x,The result of the expression "@.[User::vFullFilePath]" on property "ConnectionString" cannot be written to the property. The expression was evaluated, but cannot be set on the property.

This is not a problem at all on a 32bit machine. I can run the same package on 32bit and it runs fine.

The funny thing is, I'm able to dynamically change the ConnectionString of a Logfile that we're writing all of the errors to, which I believe is using a TextFile Destination connection under the covers somehow (I'm using the SSIS Logging, to a textfile).

Can anyone confirm if this is a problem in 64bit?

Thanks,

Andy

It just dawned on me that this may be due to the fact that I'm using "LocalHost" as a servername rather than my cluster name when I set up the UNC Path. I'll change that and see if it runs. I'm guessing that has to be the problem. Silly me.

Friday, February 24, 2012

64 bit memory and AWE ?

Hi There

I have installed 64 bit Standard Edition SS 2005 on a 64 bit WOndows Server 2003 R2 platform.

When i go to Memory setting for this instance i set max server memory to 6 Gig.

I am presuming i do not have to enable AWE, sicne everything is 64 bit.

Is this correct ?

Thanx

AWE is used for 32-bit OS due to 32-bit system can only address 4GB memory in conventual way, so it need to set /PAE in boot.ini file and set AWE enabled in SQL server.

but for 64-bit OS and SQL server (both 2000 and 2005) do not need to set this option.

64 bit memory and AWE ?

Hi There

I have installed 64 bit Standard Edition SS 2005 on a 64 bit WOndows Server 2003 R2 platform.

When i go to Memory setting for this instance i set max server memory to 6 Gig.

I am presuming i do not have to enable AWE, sicne everything is 64 bit.

Is this correct ?

Thanx

AWE is used for 32-bit OS due to 32-bit system can only address 4GB memory in conventual way, so it need to set /PAE in boot.ini file and set AWE enabled in SQL server.

but for 64-bit OS and SQL server (both 2000 and 2005) do not need to set this option.

64 bit max memory setting for SQL 2005

We have 32GB of RAM on x64 bit Windows 2003 SP2 and SQL 2005 SP2 64 bit as
well.
This box only serves for SQL Server application
So I have been receiving some mixed recommendations about max and min memory
settings
They are
1) Just leave it as default which is 0 for min and 2147483647 for max
2) Put a default of around 15 or 20GB for min and 2147483647 for max i.e. do
not set a max setting but set a min setting so that when SQL Server starts
up, it has enough memory committed at the beginning.
3) Leave the default of 0 for min but set max to say 28GB i.e. have a max
setting
Please let me know whats the best way to go about this.
ThanksWhat is best for you may not be best for others but in general there is no
need to set a min setting if SQL Server is the only app on the server. But I
always set a MAX to ensure the OS and any other temporary processes such as
Term Services, Notepad, WinZip etc. that usually get run have enough all the
time. With 32GB I would set the MAX at 28 or 29 and see how that works out.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Hassan" <hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Op6o550PIHA.4712@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> We have 32GB of RAM on x64 bit Windows 2003 SP2 and SQL 2005 SP2 64 bit as
> well.
> This box only serves for SQL Server application
> So I have been receiving some mixed recommendations about max and min
> memory settings
> They are
> 1) Just leave it as default which is 0 for min and 2147483647 for max
> 2) Put a default of around 15 or 20GB for min and 2147483647 for max i.e.
> do not set a max setting but set a min setting so that when SQL Server
> starts up, it has enough memory committed at the beginning.
> 3) Leave the default of 0 for min but set max to say 28GB i.e. have a max
> setting
> Please let me know whats the best way to go about this.
> Thanks
>|||Andrew,
What about leaving it to the default of 2147483647 ?
Would that cause SQL to use all 32 GB if it needs to ?
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:%23V2%23TM1PIHA.3676@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> What is best for you may not be best for others but in general there is no
> need to set a min setting if SQL Server is the only app on the server. But
> I always set a MAX to ensure the OS and any other temporary processes such
> as Term Services, Notepad, WinZip etc. that usually get run have enough
> all the time. With 32GB I would set the MAX at 28 or 29 and see how that
> works out.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> Solid Quality Mentors
>
> "Hassan" <hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Op6o550PIHA.4712@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> We have 32GB of RAM on x64 bit Windows 2003 SP2 and SQL 2005 SP2 64 bit
>> as well.
>> This box only serves for SQL Server application
>> So I have been receiving some mixed recommendations about max and min
>> memory settings
>> They are
>> 1) Just leave it as default which is 0 for min and 2147483647 for max
>> 2) Put a default of around 15 or 20GB for min and 2147483647 for max i.e.
>> do not set a max setting but set a min setting so that when SQL Server
>> starts up, it has enough memory committed at the beginning.
>> 3) Leave the default of 0 for min but set max to say 28GB i.e. have a max
>> setting
>> Please let me know whats the best way to go about this.
>> Thanks
>>
>|||64 bit has less overhead than 32 bit when dealing with large amounts of
memory but the OS still needs x amount of memory to operate properly. Even
though the memory in 64 bit can be dynamic sql server can still get to a
point where it may want to fight with the OS for every last bit of memory.
If you have Lock Pages in Memory set (which you should) it can be slow to
respond. There is no need to put it into that situation.
http://blogs.msdn.com/slavao/archive/2006/11/13/q-a-does-sql-server-always-respond-to-memory-pressure.aspx
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Hassan" <hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OAsXbW1PIHA.4752@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Andrew,
> What about leaving it to the default of 2147483647 ?
> Would that cause SQL to use all 32 GB if it needs to ?
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:%23V2%23TM1PIHA.3676@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> What is best for you may not be best for others but in general there is
>> no need to set a min setting if SQL Server is the only app on the server.
>> But I always set a MAX to ensure the OS and any other temporary processes
>> such as Term Services, Notepad, WinZip etc. that usually get run have
>> enough all the time. With 32GB I would set the MAX at 28 or 29 and see
>> how that works out.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> Solid Quality Mentors
>>
>> "Hassan" <hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Op6o550PIHA.4712@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> We have 32GB of RAM on x64 bit Windows 2003 SP2 and SQL 2005 SP2 64 bit
>> as well.
>> This box only serves for SQL Server application
>> So I have been receiving some mixed recommendations about max and min
>> memory settings
>> They are
>> 1) Just leave it as default which is 0 for min and 2147483647 for max
>> 2) Put a default of around 15 or 20GB for min and 2147483647 for max
>> i.e. do not set a max setting but set a min setting so that when SQL
>> Server starts up, it has enough memory committed at the beginning.
>> 3) Leave the default of 0 for min but set max to say 28GB i.e. have a
>> max setting
>> Please let me know whats the best way to go about this.
>> Thanks
>>
>|||I suggest you to read the following article, it'll make your mind clear
about min\max server memory options.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms180797.aspx
--
Ekrem Önsoy
"Hassan" <hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Op6o550PIHA.4712@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> We have 32GB of RAM on x64 bit Windows 2003 SP2 and SQL 2005 SP2 64 bit as
> well.
> This box only serves for SQL Server application
> So I have been receiving some mixed recommendations about max and min
> memory settings
> They are
> 1) Just leave it as default which is 0 for min and 2147483647 for max
> 2) Put a default of around 15 or 20GB for min and 2147483647 for max i.e.
> do not set a max setting but set a min setting so that when SQL Server
> starts up, it has enough memory committed at the beginning.
> 3) Leave the default of 0 for min but set max to say 28GB i.e. have a max
> setting
> Please let me know whats the best way to go about this.
> Thanks
>

64 bit max memory setting for SQL 2005

Thursday, February 9, 2012

3rd party replication tools

Hi all,
We need to setup a simple 2 way replication between 2 independent sites to
synchronize the data between them.
It looks to us that setting up the native SQL Server replication is somewhat
an overkill for our needs.
We are worried about the administrative overhead and problems associated
with it.
Reading the posts here on this newsgroup only elevated our concerns :-)
I would like to know if you have any recommendations for a simple and
reliable 3rd party replication tools to do the job.
The servers (clustered WIN2K machines with SQL Server 2000 SP3 Ent.) will be
located on the east and west coast, connected by a fast and reliable ISP
backbone.
backup network will be a VPN over the internet.
The allowed time delta of data sync is about 5 minutes max, faster is
better.
Replicated data size will be less than 1MB/hour in each direction.
any comments and recomendations will be appreciated.
Thank in advance,
Amy
If you think you are going to have problems with SQL Server replication,
imagine the problems you will have with 3rd partly replication products
which actually use SQL Server replication under the covers (i.e. data
mirror).
Just because this newsgroup is pretty active doesn't mean that replication
is problematic?
Think of it like divorce attorneys. All they see are failed marriages, and
so they are pretty pessimistic about marriages. Simiarly, just because this
newsgroup deals with replication doesn't mean that it can't be made to be
bullet proof.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a book on SQL Server replication?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
"Amy" <XXXNOSPAMXXX___l.a@.usa.com> wrote in message
news:%23ZQHVRJgEHA.3948@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> We need to setup a simple 2 way replication between 2 independent sites to
> synchronize the data between them.
> It looks to us that setting up the native SQL Server replication is
somewhat
> an overkill for our needs.
> We are worried about the administrative overhead and problems associated
> with it.
> Reading the posts here on this newsgroup only elevated our concerns :-)
> I would like to know if you have any recommendations for a simple and
> reliable 3rd party replication tools to do the job.
> The servers (clustered WIN2K machines with SQL Server 2000 SP3 Ent.) will
be
> located on the east and west coast, connected by a fast and reliable ISP
> backbone.
> backup network will be a VPN over the internet.
> The allowed time delta of data sync is about 5 minutes max, faster is
> better.
> Replicated data size will be less than 1MB/hour in each direction.
> any comments and recomendations will be appreciated.
> Thank in advance,
> Amy
>
>
|||Thanks Hilary,
I think i get you.
BTW: The remark about the newsgroup was not meant seriously :-)
We have experience on another larger system with SQL Server replication but
on that system (13 Servers with multiple merge and transactional
replications) the demands were pretty complex so we chose the native system.
The system works great until something happens and it fails. Sometimes it's
a breeze to recover, on other times we have spent white nights recovering
and reinitializing it.
For this system, the demands are really simple.
Just sync around 5 tables both ways.
We have considered writing a custom SQL / c# asynchronous application with
simple queue tables that will use DTS / linked servers to do the trick.
We have also checked the option of using diff tools like red gate's data
compare and sqldiff. Although it's not their true purpose, we feel it might
just work.
This should be very easy to recover and reinitialize J
I was wondering if anyone has tried this approach before and any other
comments you may have on this issue.
Thanks again,
Amy
"Hilary Cotter" <hilaryk@.att.net> wrote in message
news:eNkFfiJgEHA.1196@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> If you think you are going to have problems with SQL Server replication,
> imagine the problems you will have with 3rd partly replication products
> which actually use SQL Server replication under the covers (i.e. data
> mirror).
> Just because this newsgroup is pretty active doesn't mean that replication
> is problematic?
> Think of it like divorce attorneys. All they see are failed marriages, and
> so they are pretty pessimistic about marriages. Simiarly, just because
this[vbcol=seagreen]
> newsgroup deals with replication doesn't mean that it can't be made to be
> bullet proof.
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Looking for a book on SQL Server replication?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
>
> "Amy" <XXXNOSPAMXXX___l.a@.usa.com> wrote in message
> news:%23ZQHVRJgEHA.3948@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
to[vbcol=seagreen]
> somewhat
will
> be
>
|||I wish I could tell you that replication has been problem free for me, and I
have never had to tear everything down and start from scratch. But
occasionally I have. Sometimes it has been due to bugs, and sometimes due to
errors I have made in deployment.
Without knowing exactly why you are running into the errors you are
experiencing which force you to reinitialize, regenerate, and redistribute
your snapshots, its hard for me to comment on what approach you should take.
The temptation is always great to believe that you can cobble together
something that will work better than the solution that Microsoft has
provided us. However, when you use replication and it fails you can always
call Microsoft at 2:00 am and get support. When you cobble together a system
of your own design it is always fragile, and could break with the next
schema change, service pack, version upgrade, reinitialization or even the
next transaction. Then again, you might come up with something that is
bullet proof.
Your decision will have to be based on where your skill levels lie - i.e.
with SQL Server replication, or something you cobble together yourself.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a book on SQL Server replication?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
"Amy" <XXXNOSPAMXXX___l.a@.usa.com> wrote in message
news:ug8fjnKgEHA.2896@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Hilary,
>
> I think i get you.
> BTW: The remark about the newsgroup was not meant seriously :-)
>
> We have experience on another larger system with SQL Server replication
but
> on that system (13 Servers with multiple merge and transactional
> replications) the demands were pretty complex so we chose the native
system.
> The system works great until something happens and it fails. Sometimes
it's
> a breeze to recover, on other times we have spent white nights recovering
> and reinitializing it.
>
> For this system, the demands are really simple.
> Just sync around 5 tables both ways.
>
> We have considered writing a custom SQL / c# asynchronous application with
> simple queue tables that will use DTS / linked servers to do the trick.
> We have also checked the option of using diff tools like red gate's data
> compare and sqldiff. Although it's not their true purpose, we feel it
might[vbcol=seagreen]
> just work.
> This should be very easy to recover and reinitialize J
>
> I was wondering if anyone has tried this approach before and any other
> comments you may have on this issue.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Amy
>
> "Hilary Cotter" <hilaryk@.att.net> wrote in message
> news:eNkFfiJgEHA.1196@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
replication[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
> this
be[vbcol=seagreen]
sites[vbcol=seagreen]
> to
associated[vbcol=seagreen]
:-)[vbcol=seagreen]
> will
ISP
>

3GB once again

Hi,
No there is no memory Limit for SQL Standard edition.. Using SP_CONFIGURE enable the option 'AWE Enabled' by setting the value to 1. After that set the max server memory
value to 3 GB for your SQL Server.
Thanks
Hari
"Axel Bender" <axel_bender@.t-online.de> wrote in message news:eq76ee$unj$00$1@.news.t-online.com...
Hi,
In the following configuration:
- SQL Server 2005 Standard SP1
- Windows 2003 Server R2 Standard
- 4 GB physical memory
- /3GB and /UserVA=3072 in boot.ini
the maximum amount of memory I can configure SQL Server to use (Options dialog) is 2 GB.
I found contradictory statements in the Web (see below) as well as in the MS SQL Server docs (limited by OS memory) for the Standard Edition.
Is there a 2 GB limit for SQL Server 2005 Standard on Windows 2003 Server?
thx
Axel
Hari
It is correct to 32 bit version as I understood . For 64 bit version you have to grant permission to the account on Lock Page memory and there is not reason to enable AWE.
"Hari Prasad" <hari_prasad_k@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:OQf$TaSSHHA.4260@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
Hi,
No there is no memory Limit for SQL Standard edition.. Using SP_CONFIGURE enable the option 'AWE Enabled' by setting the value to 1. After that set the max server memory
value to 3 GB for your SQL Server.
Thanks
Hari
"Axel Bender" <axel_bender@.t-online.de> wrote in message news:eq76ee$unj$00$1@.news.t-online.com...
Hi,
In the following configuration:
- SQL Server 2005 Standard SP1
- Windows 2003 Server R2 Standard
- 4 GB physical memory
- /3GB and /UserVA=3072 in boot.ini
the maximum amount of memory I can configure SQL Server to use (Options dialog) is 2 GB.
I found contradictory statements in the Web (see below) as well as in the MS SQL Server docs (limited by OS memory) for the Standard Edition.
Is there a 2 GB limit for SQL Server 2005 Standard on Windows 2003 Server?
thx
Axel

Monday, March 19, 2012

8Gb RAM for SQL Server 2000 on Win 2003

8Gb RAM for SQL Server 2000 on Win 2003

8Gb RAM for SQL Server 2000 on Win 2003

Saturday, February 25, 2012

64 bit vs 32 bit with same RAM.

64 bit vs 32 bit with same RAM.

64 bit TextFile ConnectionString unable to dynamically change?

Friday, February 24, 2012

64 bit memory and AWE ?

64 bit memory and AWE ?

64 bit max memory setting for SQL 2005

64 bit max memory setting for SQL 2005

64 bit max memory setting for SQL 2005

Thursday, February 9, 2012

3rd party replication tools

3GB once again

3G ram for SQL server

Blog Archive

About Me