3G ram for SQL server: 3gb

Showing posts with label 3gb. 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

Sunday, March 11, 2012

8 GB of RAM

I am running Windows 2003 Enterprise with 8 GB of RAM and SQL Server
Standard.
I have the switches /PAE /3GB in boot.ini
SQL max server memory is = 6656 MB
but with those settings I cannot get SQLServer to get more than 2.7 GB
of RAM
If I use the AWE switch, then SQLServer can only use 128 MB max
What's wrong?
PaulOn Dec 4, 3:42 am, pd...@.clic.net wrote:
> I am running Windows 2003 Enterprise with 8 GB of RAM and SQL Server
> Standard.
> I have the switches /PAE /3GB in boot.ini
> SQL max server memory is = 6656 MB
> but with those settings I cannot get SQLServer to get more than 2.7 GB
> of RAM
> If I use the AWE switch, then SQLServer can only use 128 MB max
> What's wrong?
> Paul
Is it SQL Server 2000 or SQL Server 2005?
If its SQL Server 2000, then AWE is not supported
If its SQL Server 2005, then check the AWE 'Run Value' in
sp_configure... if its 0, then you might want to recycle the SQL
Server service to enable the AWE
In any case i dont believe you need to have /3GB switch in boot.ini.|||Hey, of course you can use AWE on SQL Server 2000 (and also on SQL Server
2005).
You will need to run
sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
and grant the Lock Page in Memory permission to your service account. For
more details see
How to configure SQL Server to use more than 2 GB of physical memory
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750
Hope this helps,
Ben Nevarez
Senior Database Administrator
AIG SunAmerica
"dineshbabu.munugala@.gmail.com" wrote:
> On Dec 4, 3:42 am, pd...@.clic.net wrote:
> > I am running Windows 2003 Enterprise with 8 GB of RAM and SQL Server
> > Standard.
> > I have the switches /PAE /3GB in boot.ini
> >
> > SQL max server memory is = 6656 MB
> >
> > but with those settings I cannot get SQLServer to get more than 2.7 GB
> > of RAM
> >
> > If I use the AWE switch, then SQLServer can only use 128 MB max
> >
> > What's wrong?
> >
> > Paul
> Is it SQL Server 2000 or SQL Server 2005?
> If its SQL Server 2000, then AWE is not supported
> If its SQL Server 2005, then check the AWE 'Run Value' in
> sp_configure... if its 0, then you might want to recycle the SQL
> Server service to enable the AWE
> In any case i dont believe you need to have /3GB switch in boot.ini.
>|||Ben
If you are on 64-bit , you do not need AWE anymore. If the OP has SQL Server
2000 along with SP4 , make sure that he has a last hotfix especially if he
are going to enable AWE
"Ben Nevarez" <BenNevarez@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2ADA35D9-C4FA-4852-B20A-3E08F240C626@.microsoft.com...
> Hey, of course you can use AWE on SQL Server 2000 (and also on SQL Server
> 2005).
> You will need to run
> sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
> and grant the Lock Page in Memory permission to your service account. For
> more details see
> How to configure SQL Server to use more than 2 GB of physical memory
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750
> Hope this helps,
> Ben Nevarez
> Senior Database Administrator
> AIG SunAmerica
>
> "dineshbabu.munugala@.gmail.com" wrote:
>> On Dec 4, 3:42 am, pd...@.clic.net wrote:
>> > I am running Windows 2003 Enterprise with 8 GB of RAM and SQL Server
>> > Standard.
>> > I have the switches /PAE /3GB in boot.ini
>> >
>> > SQL max server memory is = 6656 MB
>> >
>> > but with those settings I cannot get SQLServer to get more than 2.7 GB
>> > of RAM
>> >
>> > If I use the AWE switch, then SQLServer can only use 128 MB max
>> >
>> > What's wrong?
>> >
>> > Paul
>> Is it SQL Server 2000 or SQL Server 2005?
>> If its SQL Server 2000, then AWE is not supported
>> If its SQL Server 2005, then check the AWE 'Run Value' in
>> sp_configure... if its 0, then you might want to recycle the SQL
>> Server service to enable the AWE
>> In any case i dont believe you need to have /3GB switch in boot.ini.|||On 3 d=E9c, 18:04, dineshbabu.munug...@.gmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 4, 3:42 am, pd...@.clic.net wrote:
> > I am running Windows 2003 Enterprise with 8 GB of RAM and SQL Server
> > Standard.
> > I have the switches /PAE /3GB in boot.ini
> > SQL max server memory is =3D 6656 MB
> > but with those settings I cannot get SQLServer to get more than 2.7 GB
> > of RAM
> > If I use the AWE switch, then SQLServer can only use 128 MB max
> > What's wrong?
> > Paul
> Is it SQL Server 2000 or SQL Server 2005?
> If its SQL Server 2000, then AWE is not supported
> If its SQL Server 2005, then check the AWE 'Run Value' in
> sp_configure... if its 0, then you might want to recycle the SQL
> Server service to enable the AWE
> In any case i dont believe you need to have /3GB switch in boot.ini.
SQL2005 Standard.
Running in 32 bits system
As soon as I use AWE, I'm stuck with 128 MB of RAM for SQL server...
(i.e. I run dbcc checkDB so that it starts using rapidly memory and I
see SQLServer.exe using not more than 128 MB of RAM in Task Manager).
Paul|||Hi
Do you have SP4 with hotfix?
Install hotfix from(http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761)
Do you see in PerfMon that SQL Server allocate 6.6GB RAM?
<pdube@.clic.net> wrote in message
news:e4a9b19a-1b95-4df7-b6d9-e8c374bfb9c0@.a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On 3 déc, 18:04, dineshbabu.munug...@.gmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 4, 3:42 am, pd...@.clic.net wrote:
> > I am running Windows 2003 Enterprise with 8 GB of RAM and SQL Server
> > Standard.
> > I have the switches /PAE /3GB in boot.ini
> > SQL max server memory is = 6656 MB
> > but with those settings I cannot get SQLServer to get more than 2.7 GB
> > of RAM
> > If I use the AWE switch, then SQLServer can only use 128 MB max
> > What's wrong?
> > Paul
> Is it SQL Server 2000 or SQL Server 2005?
> If its SQL Server 2000, then AWE is not supported
> If its SQL Server 2005, then check the AWE 'Run Value' in
> sp_configure... if its 0, then you might want to recycle the SQL
> Server service to enable the AWE
> In any case i dont believe you need to have /3GB switch in boot.ini.
SQL2005 Standard.
Running in 32 bits system
As soon as I use AWE, I'm stuck with 128 MB of RAM for SQL server...
(i.e. I run dbcc checkDB so that it starts using rapidly memory and I
see SQLServer.exe using not more than 128 MB of RAM in Task Manager).
Paul|||On 4 d=E9c, 10:45, "Uri Dimant" <u...@.iscar.co.il> wrote:
> Hi
> Do you have SP4 with hotfix?
> Install hotfix from(http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761)
> Do you see in PerfMon that SQL Server allocate 6.6GB RAM?
> <pd...@.clic.net> wrote in message
> news:e4a9b19a-1b95-4df7-b6d9-e8c374bfb9c0@.a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On 3 d=E9c, 18:04, dineshbabu.munug...@.gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> > On Dec 4, 3:42 am, pd...@.clic.net wrote:
> > > I am running Windows 2003 Enterprise with 8 GB of RAM and SQL Server
> > > Standard.
> > > I have the switches /PAE /3GB in boot.ini
> > > SQL max server memory is =3D 6656 MB
> > > but with those settings I cannot get SQLServer to get more than 2.7 GB=
> > > of RAM
> > > If I use the AWE switch, then SQLServer can only use 128 MB max
> > > What's wrong?
> > > Paul
> > Is it SQL Server 2000 or SQL Server 2005?
> > If its SQL Server 2000, then AWE is not supported
> > If its SQL Server 2005, then check the AWE 'Run Value' in
> > sp_configure... if its 0, then you might want to recycle the SQL
> > Server service to enable the AWE
> > In any case i dont believe you need to have /3GB switch in boot.ini.
> SQL2005 Standard.
> Running in 32 bits system
> As soon as I use AWE, I'm stuck with 128 MB of RAM for SQL server...
> (i.e. I run dbcc checkDB so that it starts using rapidly memory and I
> see SQLServer.exe using not more than 128 MB of RAM in Task Manager).
> Paul- Masquer le texte des messages pr=E9c=E9dents -
> - Afficher le texte des messages pr=E9c=E9dents -
SQL 2005 (9.00.3161.00)
The hotfix is for SQL 2000...
In PerfMon, I see Commited Bytes around 3.2 GB.
In Task Manager I still see SQLServer.exe using 2.7 GB. I guess then
that's just a problem related with Task Manager not showing the
correct amount of RAM used...?
Paul|||On 4 d=E9c, 14:08, pd...@.clic.net wrote:
> On 4 d=E9c, 10:45, "Uri Dimant" <u...@.iscar.co.il> wrote:
>
>
> > Hi
> > Do you have SP4 with hotfix?
> > Install hotfix from(http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761)
> > Do you see in PerfMon that SQL Server allocate 6.6GB RAM?
> > <pd...@.clic.net> wrote in message
> >news:e4a9b19a-1b95-4df7-b6d9-e8c374bfb9c0@.a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...=
> > On 3 d=E9c, 18:04, dineshbabu.munug...@.gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Dec 4, 3:42 am, pd...@.clic.net wrote:
> > > > I am running Windows 2003 Enterprise with 8 GB of RAM and SQL Server=
> > > > Standard.
> > > > I have the switches /PAE /3GB in boot.ini
> > > > SQL max server memory is =3D 6656 MB
> > > > but with those settings I cannot get SQLServer to get more than 2.7 =GB
> > > > of RAM
> > > > If I use the AWE switch, then SQLServer can only use 128 MB max
> > > > What's wrong?
> > > > Paul
> > > Is it SQL Server 2000 or SQL Server 2005?
> > > If its SQL Server 2000, then AWE is not supported
> > > If its SQL Server 2005, then check the AWE 'Run Value' in
> > > sp_configure... if its 0, then you might want to recycle the SQL
> > > Server service to enable the AWE
> > > In any case i dont believe you need to have /3GB switch in boot.ini.
> > SQL2005 Standard.
> > Running in 32 bits system
> > As soon as I use AWE, I'm stuck with 128 MB of RAM for SQL server...
> > (i.e. I run dbcc checkDB so that it starts using rapidly memory and I
> > see SQLServer.exe using not more than 128 MB of RAM in Task Manager).
> > Paul- Masquer le texte des messages pr=E9c=E9dents -
> > - Afficher le texte des messages pr=E9c=E9dents -
> SQL 2005 (9.00.3161.00)
> The hotfix is for SQL 2000...
> In PerfMon, I see Commited Bytes around 3.2 GB.
> In Task Manager I still see SQLServer.exe using 2.7 GB. I guess then
> that's just a problem related with Task Manager not showing the
> correct amount of RAM used...?
> Paul- Masquer le texte des messages pr=E9c=E9dents -
> - Afficher le texte des messages pr=E9c=E9dents -
When I say that I see 128 MB of RAM in SQLServer.exe when using AWE I
mean that's what I see in Task Manager. Am I correct looking at this
value?
Should I check PerfMon instead? Is the memory shown in TaskManager
only kernel memory and would not show all memory used by SQL?
Paul|||SP4 hotfix is not needed here as this is SQL Server 2005.
Try this to see how much memory SQL Server is using. Performance Monitor,
add SQLServer:Memory Manager - Total Server Memory (KB).
Have you granted the Lock Page in Memory permission to your service account?
See your Error log. Must show 'Address Windowing Extensions enabled' or some
AWE error message.
Hope this helps,
Ben Nevarez
Senior Database Administrator
AIG SunAmerica
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> Hi
> Do you have SP4 with hotfix?
> Install hotfix from(http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761)
> Do you see in PerfMon that SQL Server allocate 6.6GB RAM?
>
>
> <pdube@.clic.net> wrote in message
> news:e4a9b19a-1b95-4df7-b6d9-e8c374bfb9c0@.a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On 3 dÃ©c, 18:04, dineshbabu.munug...@.gmail.com wrote:
> > On Dec 4, 3:42 am, pd...@.clic.net wrote:
> >
> > > I am running Windows 2003 Enterprise with 8 GB of RAM and SQL Server
> > > Standard.
> > > I have the switches /PAE /3GB in boot.ini
> >
> > > SQL max server memory is = 6656 MB
> >
> > > but with those settings I cannot get SQLServer to get more than 2.7 GB
> > > of RAM
> >
> > > If I use the AWE switch, then SQLServer can only use 128 MB max
> >
> > > What's wrong?
> >
> > > Paul
> >
> > Is it SQL Server 2000 or SQL Server 2005?
> > If its SQL Server 2000, then AWE is not supported
> > If its SQL Server 2005, then check the AWE 'Run Value' in
> > sp_configure... if its 0, then you might want to recycle the SQL
> > Server service to enable the AWE
> >
> > In any case i dont believe you need to have /3GB switch in boot.ini.
> SQL2005 Standard.
> Running in 32 bits system
> As soon as I use AWE, I'm stuck with 128 MB of RAM for SQL server...
> (i.e. I run dbcc checkDB so that it starts using rapidly memory and I
> see SQLServer.exe using not more than 128 MB of RAM in Task Manager).
> Paul
>
>|||Sorry. I missed that you are on SQL Server 2005.
In 32 -bit you do need AWE and as Ben pointed out gran permission Lock
Page in Memory permission to your service account.
To see if SQL server uses 6GB open PerfMonitor , do not use Task Manager
Visit also http://blogs.msdn.com/slavao/
<pdube@.clic.net> wrote in message
news:f9c9559b-d836-4b7f-92d4-bfc8834aab35@.s36g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On 4 déc, 14:08, pd...@.clic.net wrote:
> On 4 déc, 10:45, "Uri Dimant" <u...@.iscar.co.il> wrote:
>
>
> > Hi
> > Do you have SP4 with hotfix?
> > Install hotfix from(http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761)
> > Do you see in PerfMon that SQL Server allocate 6.6GB RAM?
> > <pd...@.clic.net> wrote in message
> >news:e4a9b19a-1b95-4df7-b6d9-e8c374bfb9c0@.a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> > On 3 déc, 18:04, dineshbabu.munug...@.gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Dec 4, 3:42 am, pd...@.clic.net wrote:
> > > > I am running Windows 2003 Enterprise with 8 GB of RAM and SQL Server
> > > > Standard.
> > > > I have the switches /PAE /3GB in boot.ini
> > > > SQL max server memory is = 6656 MB
> > > > but with those settings I cannot get SQLServer to get more than 2.7
> > > > GB
> > > > of RAM
> > > > If I use the AWE switch, then SQLServer can only use 128 MB max
> > > > What's wrong?
> > > > Paul
> > > Is it SQL Server 2000 or SQL Server 2005?
> > > If its SQL Server 2000, then AWE is not supported
> > > If its SQL Server 2005, then check the AWE 'Run Value' in
> > > sp_configure... if its 0, then you might want to recycle the SQL
> > > Server service to enable the AWE
> > > In any case i dont believe you need to have /3GB switch in boot.ini.
> > SQL2005 Standard.
> > Running in 32 bits system
> > As soon as I use AWE, I'm stuck with 128 MB of RAM for SQL server...
> > (i.e. I run dbcc checkDB so that it starts using rapidly memory and I
> > see SQLServer.exe using not more than 128 MB of RAM in Task Manager).
> > Paul- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -
> > - Afficher le texte des messages précédents -
> SQL 2005 (9.00.3161.00)
> The hotfix is for SQL 2000...
> In PerfMon, I see Commited Bytes around 3.2 GB.
> In Task Manager I still see SQLServer.exe using 2.7 GB. I guess then
> that's just a problem related with Task Manager not showing the
> correct amount of RAM used...?
> Paul- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -
> - Afficher le texte des messages précédents -
When I say that I see 128 MB of RAM in SQLServer.exe when using AWE I
mean that's what I see in Task Manager. Am I correct looking at this
value?
Should I check PerfMon instead? Is the memory shown in TaskManager
only kernel memory and would not show all memory used by SQL?
Paul

8 GB of RAM

Thursday, February 16, 2012

4GB Ram /3GB and the memory slider in Ent Manager

If you use the /3GB switch should the memory slider in SQL Enterprise
Manager display up to 3GB or do you set manually and just assume it's
working?
2000 Advanced server and SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition.
Thanks
PaulPaul,
The maximum value of the slider should show a value of 3-something . (in my
environments it's 3455).
I would suggest not setting a fixed size, always let SQL use as much as
possible.
JP
"Paul Cahill" wrote:
> If you use the /3GB switch should the memory slider in SQL Enterprise
> Manager display up to 3GB or do you set manually and just assume it's
> working?
> 2000 Advanced server and SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition.
> Thanks
> Paul
>
>|||Thanks JP.
Have you got 4GB Ram and if so are you just using /3GB and not PAE or AWE.
I have exactly 4GB ram. If I use PAE the slider in enterprise manager shows
4GB max. With /3GB I only see 2GB.
I don't want to have the overhead of /PAE and it should not be necessary. Is
there any way to see if /3GB is working (from an NT or SQL)?
Paul
"JP de Jong" <JP de Jong@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1447D55D-C78C-41E8-87EB-FDF4C0E082D8@.microsoft.com...
> Paul,
> The maximum value of the slider should show a value of 3-something . (in
> my
> environments it's 3455).
> I would suggest not setting a fixed size, always let SQL use as much as
> possible.
> JP
> "Paul Cahill" wrote:
>> If you use the /3GB switch should the memory slider in SQL Enterprise
>> Manager display up to 3GB or do you set manually and just assume it's
>> working?
>> 2000 Advanced server and SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition.
>> Thanks
>> Paul
>>|||Paul
Just checked it for you.
We have 4GB RAM in server (Windows 2003Server). In BoOT.INI we have "/3GB
/PAE". (so we do have PAE enabled).
In properties of system (my computer) it says. Physical Address Extensions
enabled. Not sure how to check if /3GB is enabled. You're absolutelt right
that /PAE only is effective when you have more than 4 GB.
/3GB only enables applications to use more virtual memory. I'm not quite
sure if you can find that back in the gui of SQL.
JP
"Paul Cahill" wrote:
> Thanks JP.
> Have you got 4GB Ram and if so are you just using /3GB and not PAE or AWE.
> I have exactly 4GB ram. If I use PAE the slider in enterprise manager shows
> 4GB max. With /3GB I only see 2GB.
> I don't want to have the overhead of /PAE and it should not be necessary. Is
> there any way to see if /3GB is working (from an NT or SQL)?
> Paul
>
> "JP de Jong" <JP de Jong@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:1447D55D-C78C-41E8-87EB-FDF4C0E082D8@.microsoft.com...
> > Paul,
> >
> > The maximum value of the slider should show a value of 3-something . (in
> > my
> > environments it's 3455).
> >
> > I would suggest not setting a fixed size, always let SQL use as much as
> > possible.
> >
> > JP
> >
> > "Paul Cahill" wrote:
> >
> >> If you use the /3GB switch should the memory slider in SQL Enterprise
> >> Manager display up to 3GB or do you set manually and just assume it's
> >> working?
> >> 2000 Advanced server and SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Paul
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>|||Thanks JP.
Any idea why you have /PAE? I thought there's got to be an overhead for
address translation.
You don't feel like trying something for me......
Paul
"JP de Jong" <JPdeJong@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:45DC15E7-3C0D-4DD0-ACEE-732E9A8504E0@.microsoft.com...
> Paul
> Just checked it for you.
> We have 4GB RAM in server (Windows 2003Server). In BoOT.INI we have "/3GB
> /PAE". (so we do have PAE enabled).
> In properties of system (my computer) it says. Physical Address Extensions
> enabled. Not sure how to check if /3GB is enabled. You're absolutelt right
> that /PAE only is effective when you have more than 4 GB.
> /3GB only enables applications to use more virtual memory. I'm not quite
> sure if you can find that back in the gui of SQL.
> JP
> "Paul Cahill" wrote:
>> Thanks JP.
>> Have you got 4GB Ram and if so are you just using /3GB and not PAE or
>> AWE.
>> I have exactly 4GB ram. If I use PAE the slider in enterprise manager
>> shows
>> 4GB max. With /3GB I only see 2GB.
>> I don't want to have the overhead of /PAE and it should not be necessary.
>> Is
>> there any way to see if /3GB is working (from an NT or SQL)?
>> Paul
>>
>> "JP de Jong" <JP de Jong@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:1447D55D-C78C-41E8-87EB-FDF4C0E082D8@.microsoft.com...
>> > Paul,
>> >
>> > The maximum value of the slider should show a value of 3-something .
>> > (in
>> > my
>> > environments it's 3455).
>> >
>> > I would suggest not setting a fixed size, always let SQL use as much as
>> > possible.
>> >
>> > JP
>> >
>> > "Paul Cahill" wrote:
>> >
>> >> If you use the /3GB switch should the memory slider in SQL Enterprise
>> >> Manager display up to 3GB or do you set manually and just assume it's
>> >> working?
>> >> 2000 Advanced server and SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >> Paul
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>

Monday, February 13, 2012

4->8GB RAM Upgrade

I've recently upgraded a SQL 2000 Server from 4GB to 8GB of RAM. PAE, 3GB and AWE were enabled - AWE was set to ~6GB. The target SQL memory was around 4.1GB and the total SQL memory in use matched that. The VERY odd thing is this did nothing at all to help performance. It almost seems that it hampered it. Any ideas out there?

Read about AWE in 2005...

It explains that the extra memory is not used for sorts and other things that you think it would be...

Bret.

|||

Sorry...I didn't make that clear...

In 2000 it is not used for sorts and other things that would increase performance...

Thursday, February 9, 2012

3gig or 4?

I assume there would be advantages going from 3 to 4gig... anyone have
any experiences in this?|||Using AWE on a 4GB box just doesn't make much sense.
PAE (/3GB) will use 3 GB for SQL Server, so in a 4 GB box, AWE uses a fair
amount of resources (including memory) to manage the extended memory,
thereby negating most of the expected performance gain.
My experience is that you have to approach 5 GB + before AWE really shows
any gains.
Of course, it could be hardware related and YMMV.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
<davconts@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155086938.963563.37190@.m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks for the replies.
> I read the article but it doesn't really answer my question on whether
> it is worth going from 3Gig to 4gig... will SQL server be able to use
> that extra gig placed in the machine or will the OS take hold of the
> 1gig?
> Sounds like using AWE will take all the memory (besides 128 meg) unless
> a max memory setting is specified in SQL.. so in theory this could
> force it to use say 3.5gig of memory.
> But the article also suggests not using AWE for a 4gig machine.. so bit
> confused now

> I assume there would be advantages going from 3 to 4gig... anyone have
> any experiences in this?
>|||You have no need to use AWE, there are many disadvantages to using AWE as
well.
To determine if the 3GB switch will allow SQL Server to use more memory can
you tell us what the LEAST amount of free memory you see on the system?
What is that MAX amount of memory you see the SQL Server process consume?
On a side note you might not need to add the additional RAM is your buffer
cache hit ratio is already at 99%+
Paul
<davconts@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155086938.963563.37190@.m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks for the replies.
> I read the article but it doesn't really answer my question on whether
> it is worth going from 3Gig to 4gig... will SQL server be able to use
> that extra gig placed in the machine or will the OS take hold of the
> 1gig?
> Sounds like using AWE will take all the memory (besides 128 meg) unless
> a max memory setting is specified in SQL.. so in theory this could
> force it to use say 3.5gig of memory.
> But the article also suggests not using AWE for a 4gig machine.. so bit
> confused now

> I assume there would be advantages going from 3 to 4gig... anyone have
> any experiences in this?
>|||Well we are actually doing a benchmark session tomorrow.
First we are going to run with 3gig of ram, and benchmark our app/db
performance.
Then, we will restart the SQL server with an additional gig of ram (now
4 gig) and compare.
FYI It's a 20gig database. CPU for the server looks adequate from what
I can see (dual xeon). The SQL server only runs SQL 2005, and it is
exclusive to our app.

>From a benchmark we did a month or so ago, I thought the memory usage
seemed ok.
The disks seemed to be a possible bottle neck - and there seemed to be
a fair bit of paging although how much is normal paging I'm not 100%
sure.
I'm hoping that the extra ram might help reduce disk usage/paging.
Oh I should also mention that we are runing raid 10, have the mdf on
d:, ldf file on e: and tempdb on c:\
David
Paul Widner wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> You have no need to use AWE, there are many disadvantages to using AWE as
> well.
> To determine if the 3GB switch will allow SQL Server to use more memory ca
n
> you tell us what the LEAST amount of free memory you see on the system?
> What is that MAX amount of memory you see the SQL Server process consume?
> On a side note you might not need to add the additional RAM is your buffer
> cache hit ratio is already at 99%+
> Paul
> <davconts@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1155086938.963563.37190@.m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...|||I think that you will find no change or perhaps even a decreased performance
for AWE.
/AWE sets aside 1 GB for the OS AND AWE memory management extensions, and
adds a lot of processing overhead.
With /3GB, the OS still gets 1 GB, but you don't have the AWE overhead.
AWE Net change: Memory about the same, available CPU cycles reduced.
Depending upon the database, number of users, etc., I usually try to have
enough memory so that the majority of active tables are at all times in
cache. Main thing to watch for is memory page I/O. A lot of activity
indicates a need for more memory.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
<davconts@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155170138.095989.131980@.m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Well we are actually doing a benchmark session tomorrow.
> First we are going to run with 3gig of ram, and benchmark our app/db
> performance.
> Then, we will restart the SQL server with an additional gig of ram (now
> 4 gig) and compare.
> FYI It's a 20gig database. CPU for the server looks adequate from what
> I can see (dual xeon). The SQL server only runs SQL 2005, and it is
> exclusive to our app.
>
> seemed ok.
> The disks seemed to be a possible bottle neck - and there seemed to be
> a fair bit of paging although how much is normal paging I'm not 100%
> sure.
> I'm hoping that the extra ram might help reduce disk usage/paging.
> Oh I should also mention that we are runing raid 10, have the mdf on
> d:, ldf file on e: and tempdb on c:\
> David
>
> Paul Widner wrote:
>

3gig or 4?

Hey all,
Ok I have a client that currently have 3gig of memory in their SQL
Server (SQL2005).
They are using the /3gb switch in their boot.ini so in theory SQL
server should use greater than 2 gig.
Ok from my understanding, if they put in an extra 1 gig of ram to make
the server now have 4 gig, would this mean that SQL Server would use 3
gig, and the OS 1gig?
So are their any advantages from going from 3gig to 4gig? (would it
help paging for example)
Look forward to your comments
Thanks!Hi,
Read this article..
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
<davconts@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155079279.501553.287040@.i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hey all,
> Ok I have a client that currently have 3gig of memory in their SQL
> Server (SQL2005).
> They are using the /3gb switch in their boot.ini so in theory SQL
> server should use greater than 2 gig.
> Ok from my understanding, if they put in an extra 1 gig of ram to make
> the server now have 4 gig, would this mean that SQL Server would use 3
> gig, and the OS 1gig?
> So are their any advantages from going from 3gig to 4gig? (would it
> help paging for example)
> Look forward to your comments
> Thanks!
>|||That article is not exactly accurate or clear in places. For instance, it
states, "AWE memory technology is used only for the RAM that exceeds the base
4GB of RAM". That is not correct. You can enable AWE with less than 4GB of
RAM.
Linchi
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
> Hi,
> Read this article..
> http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
> Thanks
> Hari
> SQL Server MVP
> <davconts@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1155079279.501553.287040@.i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Hey all,
> >
> > Ok I have a client that currently have 3gig of memory in their SQL
> > Server (SQL2005).
> >
> > They are using the /3gb switch in their boot.ini so in theory SQL
> > server should use greater than 2 gig.
> >
> > Ok from my understanding, if they put in an extra 1 gig of ram to make
> > the server now have 4 gig, would this mean that SQL Server would use 3
> > gig, and the OS 1gig?
> >
> > So are their any advantages from going from 3gig to 4gig? (would it
> > help paging for example)
> >
> > Look forward to your comments
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
>
>|||Thanks for the replies.
I read the article but it doesn't really answer my question on whether
it is worth going from 3Gig to 4gig... will SQL server be able to use
that extra gig placed in the machine or will the OS take hold of the
1gig?
Sounds like using AWE will take all the memory (besides 128 meg) unless
a max memory setting is specified in SQL.. so in theory this could
force it to use say 3.5gig of memory.
But the article also suggests not using AWE for a 4gig machine.. so bit
confused now :)
I assume there would be advantages going from 3 to 4gig... anyone have
any experiences in this?|||Using AWE on a 4GB box just doesn't make much sense.
PAE (/3GB) will use 3 GB for SQL Server, so in a 4 GB box, AWE uses a fair
amount of resources (including memory) to manage the extended memory,
thereby negating most of the expected performance gain.
My experience is that you have to approach 5 GB + before AWE really shows
any gains.
Of course, it could be hardware related and YMMV.
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
<davconts@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155086938.963563.37190@.m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks for the replies.
> I read the article but it doesn't really answer my question on whether
> it is worth going from 3Gig to 4gig... will SQL server be able to use
> that extra gig placed in the machine or will the OS take hold of the
> 1gig?
> Sounds like using AWE will take all the memory (besides 128 meg) unless
> a max memory setting is specified in SQL.. so in theory this could
> force it to use say 3.5gig of memory.
> But the article also suggests not using AWE for a 4gig machine.. so bit
> confused now :)
> I assume there would be advantages going from 3 to 4gig... anyone have
> any experiences in this?
>|||You have no need to use AWE, there are many disadvantages to using AWE as
well.
To determine if the 3GB switch will allow SQL Server to use more memory can
you tell us what the LEAST amount of free memory you see on the system?
What is that MAX amount of memory you see the SQL Server process consume?
On a side note you might not need to add the additional RAM is your buffer
cache hit ratio is already at 99%+
Paul
<davconts@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155086938.963563.37190@.m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks for the replies.
> I read the article but it doesn't really answer my question on whether
> it is worth going from 3Gig to 4gig... will SQL server be able to use
> that extra gig placed in the machine or will the OS take hold of the
> 1gig?
> Sounds like using AWE will take all the memory (besides 128 meg) unless
> a max memory setting is specified in SQL.. so in theory this could
> force it to use say 3.5gig of memory.
> But the article also suggests not using AWE for a 4gig machine.. so bit
> confused now :)
> I assume there would be advantages going from 3 to 4gig... anyone have
> any experiences in this?
>|||Well we are actually doing a benchmark session tomorrow.
First we are going to run with 3gig of ram, and benchmark our app/db
performance.
Then, we will restart the SQL server with an additional gig of ram (now
4 gig) and compare.
FYI It's a 20gig database. CPU for the server looks adequate from what
I can see (dual xeon). The SQL server only runs SQL 2005, and it is
exclusive to our app.
>From a benchmark we did a month or so ago, I thought the memory usage
seemed ok.
The disks seemed to be a possible bottle neck - and there seemed to be
a fair bit of paging although how much is normal paging I'm not 100%
sure.
I'm hoping that the extra ram might help reduce disk usage/paging.
Oh I should also mention that we are runing raid 10, have the mdf on
d:, ldf file on e: and tempdb on c:\
David
Paul Widner wrote:
> You have no need to use AWE, there are many disadvantages to using AWE as
> well.
> To determine if the 3GB switch will allow SQL Server to use more memory can
> you tell us what the LEAST amount of free memory you see on the system?
> What is that MAX amount of memory you see the SQL Server process consume?
> On a side note you might not need to add the additional RAM is your buffer
> cache hit ratio is already at 99%+
> Paul
> <davconts@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1155086938.963563.37190@.m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> > Thanks for the replies.
> >
> > I read the article but it doesn't really answer my question on whether
> > it is worth going from 3Gig to 4gig... will SQL server be able to use
> > that extra gig placed in the machine or will the OS take hold of the
> > 1gig?
> >
> > Sounds like using AWE will take all the memory (besides 128 meg) unless
> > a max memory setting is specified in SQL.. so in theory this could
> > force it to use say 3.5gig of memory.
> > But the article also suggests not using AWE for a 4gig machine.. so bit
> > confused now :)
> >
> > I assume there would be advantages going from 3 to 4gig... anyone have
> > any experiences in this?
> >|||I think that you will find no change or perhaps even a decreased performance
for AWE.
/AWE sets aside 1 GB for the OS AND AWE memory management extensions, and
adds a lot of processing overhead.
With /3GB, the OS still gets 1 GB, but you don't have the AWE overhead.
AWE Net change: Memory about the same, available CPU cycles reduced.
Depending upon the database, number of users, etc., I usually try to have
enough memory so that the majority of active tables are at all times in
cache. Main thing to watch for is memory page I/O. A lot of activity
indicates a need for more memory.
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
<davconts@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155170138.095989.131980@.m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Well we are actually doing a benchmark session tomorrow.
> First we are going to run with 3gig of ram, and benchmark our app/db
> performance.
> Then, we will restart the SQL server with an additional gig of ram (now
> 4 gig) and compare.
> FYI It's a 20gig database. CPU for the server looks adequate from what
> I can see (dual xeon). The SQL server only runs SQL 2005, and it is
> exclusive to our app.
>>From a benchmark we did a month or so ago, I thought the memory usage
> seemed ok.
> The disks seemed to be a possible bottle neck - and there seemed to be
> a fair bit of paging although how much is normal paging I'm not 100%
> sure.
> I'm hoping that the extra ram might help reduce disk usage/paging.
> Oh I should also mention that we are runing raid 10, have the mdf on
> d:, ldf file on e: and tempdb on c:\
> David
>
> Paul Widner wrote:
>> You have no need to use AWE, there are many disadvantages to using AWE as
>> well.
>> To determine if the 3GB switch will allow SQL Server to use more memory
>> can
>> you tell us what the LEAST amount of free memory you see on the system?
>> What is that MAX amount of memory you see the SQL Server process consume?
>> On a side note you might not need to add the additional RAM is your
>> buffer
>> cache hit ratio is already at 99%+
>> Paul
>> <davconts@.gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1155086938.963563.37190@.m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> > Thanks for the replies.
>> >
>> > I read the article but it doesn't really answer my question on whether
>> > it is worth going from 3Gig to 4gig... will SQL server be able to use
>> > that extra gig placed in the machine or will the OS take hold of the
>> > 1gig?
>> >
>> > Sounds like using AWE will take all the memory (besides 128 meg) unless
>> > a max memory setting is specified in SQL.. so in theory this could
>> > force it to use say 3.5gig of memory.
>> > But the article also suggests not using AWE for a 4gig machine.. so bit
>> > confused now :)
>> >
>> > I assume there would be advantages going from 3 to 4gig... anyone have
>> > any experiences in this?
>> >
>

3GB Switch question

I am using the following:
Windows 2003 Enterprise
SQL 2000 Std SP3
6GB Ram
4 CPU's with HT turned on (3.2)
I will be running multiple instances of DB.
What should the entry in boot.ini be to best utilise the resources.
Thanks.Leon
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750
"Leon" <Lion@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23$czIrCTHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I am using the following:
> Windows 2003 Enterprise
> SQL 2000 Std SP3
> 6GB Ram
> 4 CPU's with HT turned on (3.2)
> I will be running multiple instances of DB.
> What should the entry in boot.ini be to best utilise the resources.
>
> Thanks.
>|||Thanks
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:OL1Fg0CTHHA.2212@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Leon
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750
>
> "Leon" <Lion@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23$czIrCTHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>I am using the following:
>> Windows 2003 Enterprise
>> SQL 2000 Std SP3
>> 6GB Ram
>> 4 CPU's with HT turned on (3.2)
>> I will be running multiple instances of DB.
>> What should the entry in boot.ini be to best utilise the resources.
>>
>> Thanks.
>|||To add on URI; if it is 64 bit system and SQL Server standard edition 64 bit
; then there is no need to change the memory addreesss space. This is
because 64 bit
can address more memory with out changing the BOOT.INI.
Thanks
Hari
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:OL1Fg0CTHHA.2212@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Leon
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750
>
> "Leon" <Lion@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23$czIrCTHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>I am using the following:
>> Windows 2003 Enterprise
>> SQL 2000 Std SP3
>> 6GB Ram
>> 4 CPU's with HT turned on (3.2)
>> I will be running multiple instances of DB.
>> What should the entry in boot.ini be to best utilise the resources.
>>
>> Thanks.
>|||Guys,
Is this the same for SQL 2005 Enterprise on 2003 Standard R2 server? Do I
need to make any changes to boot.ini? The document in KB is for 2000 SQL and
I can not find anything for 2005 SQL. Please help.
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
> To add on URI; if it is 64 bit system and SQL Server standard edition 64 bit
> ; then there is no need to change the memory addreesss space. This is
> because 64 bit
> can address more memory with out changing the BOOT.INI.
> Thanks
> Hari
>
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
> news:OL1Fg0CTHHA.2212@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> > Leon
> > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750
> >
> >
> >
> > "Leon" <Lion@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:%23$czIrCTHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> >>I am using the following:
> >>
> >> Windows 2003 Enterprise
> >> SQL 2000 Std SP3
> >> 6GB Ram
> >> 4 CPU's with HT turned on (3.2)
> >>
> >> I will be running multiple instances of DB.
> >>
> >> What should the entry in boot.ini be to best utilise the resources.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >
> >
>
>|||If it is 32 bit and you want the app (in this case SQL Server) to use 3GB
instead of 2GB of directly addressable memory you need to set the /3GB
switch. But I don't believe Windows2003 Std edition uses more than 2 GB to
begin with. I could be wrong on that part though. But the bottom line is the
OS needs to support the memory before SQL Server can. And starting with
SQL2005 Std Edition and up can use all the memory that the OS can access
given the correct configuration.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"George" <George@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F8306B35-4D7A-498E-AE05-7C58442A233B@.microsoft.com...
> Guys,
> Is this the same for SQL 2005 Enterprise on 2003 Standard R2 server? Do I
> need to make any changes to boot.ini? The document in KB is for 2000 SQL
> and
> I can not find anything for 2005 SQL. Please help.
> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>> To add on URI; if it is 64 bit system and SQL Server standard edition 64
>> bit
>> ; then there is no need to change the memory addreesss space. This is
>> because 64 bit
>> can address more memory with out changing the BOOT.INI.
>> Thanks
>> Hari
>>
>> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
>> news:OL1Fg0CTHHA.2212@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> > Leon
>> > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Leon" <Lion@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:%23$czIrCTHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> >>I am using the following:
>> >>
>> >> Windows 2003 Enterprise
>> >> SQL 2000 Std SP3
>> >> 6GB Ram
>> >> 4 CPU's with HT turned on (3.2)
>> >>
>> >> I will be running multiple instances of DB.
>> >>
>> >> What should the entry in boot.ini be to best utilise the resources.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Thanks.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>|||Thank you. Anyone knows how to set this correctly on 2003 Standard Server?
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> If it is 32 bit and you want the app (in this case SQL Server) to use 3GB
> instead of 2GB of directly addressable memory you need to set the /3GB
> switch. But I don't believe Windows2003 Std edition uses more than 2 GB to
> begin with. I could be wrong on that part though. But the bottom line is the
> OS needs to support the memory before SQL Server can. And starting with
> SQL2005 Std Edition and up can use all the memory that the OS can access
> given the correct configuration.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "George" <George@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:F8306B35-4D7A-498E-AE05-7C58442A233B@.microsoft.com...
> > Guys,
> >
> > Is this the same for SQL 2005 Enterprise on 2003 Standard R2 server? Do I
> > need to make any changes to boot.ini? The document in KB is for 2000 SQL
> > and
> > I can not find anything for 2005 SQL. Please help.
> >
> > "Hari Prasad" wrote:
> >
> >> To add on URI; if it is 64 bit system and SQL Server standard edition 64
> >> bit
> >> ; then there is no need to change the memory addreesss space. This is
> >> because 64 bit
> >> can address more memory with out changing the BOOT.INI.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Hari
> >>
> >>
> >> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
> >> news:OL1Fg0CTHHA.2212@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> >> > Leon
> >> > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Leon" <Lion@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:%23$czIrCTHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> >> >>I am using the following:
> >> >>
> >> >> Windows 2003 Enterprise
> >> >> SQL 2000 Std SP3
> >> >> 6GB Ram
> >> >> 4 CPU's with HT turned on (3.2)
> >> >>
> >> >> I will be running multiple instances of DB.
> >> >>
> >> >> What should the entry in boot.ini be to best utilise the resources.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>|||You might want to have a look at these. The concepts are the same.
http://sqljunkies.com/Tutorial/0D4FF40A-695C-4327-A41B-F9F2FE2D58F6.scuk
Memory
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp Using AWE Memory
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=321363 SQL Server 7 & 2000 memory
usage
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=274750 Memory config
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=283037 Large Memory Support Is
Available in Windows 2000 (AWE)
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=811891 Can not use more than 2GB of
memory
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"George" <George@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:602610CF-D97C-4E87-81F0-1B9E6BC615C3@.microsoft.com...
> Thank you. Anyone knows how to set this correctly on 2003 Standard Server?
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>> If it is 32 bit and you want the app (in this case SQL Server) to use 3GB
>> instead of 2GB of directly addressable memory you need to set the /3GB
>> switch. But I don't believe Windows2003 Std edition uses more than 2 GB
>> to
>> begin with. I could be wrong on that part though. But the bottom line is
>> the
>> OS needs to support the memory before SQL Server can. And starting with
>> SQL2005 Std Edition and up can use all the memory that the OS can access
>> given the correct configuration.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> "George" <George@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:F8306B35-4D7A-498E-AE05-7C58442A233B@.microsoft.com...
>> > Guys,
>> >
>> > Is this the same for SQL 2005 Enterprise on 2003 Standard R2 server? Do
>> > I
>> > need to make any changes to boot.ini? The document in KB is for 2000
>> > SQL
>> > and
>> > I can not find anything for 2005 SQL. Please help.
>> >
>> > "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>> >
>> >> To add on URI; if it is 64 bit system and SQL Server standard edition
>> >> 64
>> >> bit
>> >> ; then there is no need to change the memory addreesss space. This is
>> >> because 64 bit
>> >> can address more memory with out changing the BOOT.INI.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >> Hari
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
>> >> news:OL1Fg0CTHHA.2212@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> >> > Leon
>> >> > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > "Leon" <Lion@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:%23$czIrCTHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> >> >>I am using the following:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Windows 2003 Enterprise
>> >> >> SQL 2000 Std SP3
>> >> >> 6GB Ram
>> >> >> 4 CPU's with HT turned on (3.2)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I will be running multiple instances of DB.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What should the entry in boot.ini be to best utilise the resources.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>

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

Sunday, March 11, 2012

8 GB of RAM

8 GB of RAM

8 GB of RAM

Thursday, February 16, 2012

4GB Ram /3GB and the memory slider in Ent Manager

4GB Ram /3GB and the memory slider in Ent Manager

4GB Ram /3GB and the memory slider in Ent Manager

Monday, February 13, 2012

4->8GB RAM Upgrade

Thursday, February 9, 2012

3gig or 4?

3gig or 4?

3GB Switch question

3GB Switch question

3GB Switch question

3G ram for SQL server

Blog Archive

About Me