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

4GB string store limit: which file extensions?

The string store file has a 4GB size limit, as has been discussed previously (see the link below). I wanted to get some more info on that from one of the developers. Which file extensions are the ones we should be worrying about? Just .ksstore, .asstore, .bsstore, and .string.data?

I wanted to continue the thread at http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1629820&SiteID=1 but was unable to get a reply.

Got an answer at http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1629820&SiteID=1

4GB string store limit: which file extensions?

The string store file has a 4GB size limit, as has been discussed previously (see the link below). I wanted to get some more info on that from one of the developers. Which file extensions are the ones we should be worrying about? Just .ksstore, .asstore, .bsstore, and .string.data?

I wanted to continue the thread at http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1629820&SiteID=1 but was unable to get a reply.

Got an answer at http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1629820&SiteID=1

4GB sql file

I have a 4GB SQL db that is used for Backup Exec, but the file has
reached the maximum file size for the file system. I have tried
upgrading from 2000 to 2005 but I do not get any more options, such as
shrink or to do maintenance on the db through the Enterprise manager.
Is my install stuck on the msde license and won't let me install the
full blown sql server until I reboot the server? ThanksHi
If you have 4GB database and thinking to upgrare to SQL Server 2005 , you DO
NOT have MSDE ,MSDE has a limit 2GB
http://dimantdatabasesolutions.blogspot.com/2007/04/whats-version-of-sql-server.html
<jooooooohn@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191878238.775355.215520@.r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>I have a 4GB SQL db that is used for Backup Exec, but the file has
> reached the maximum file size for the file system. I have tried
> upgrading from 2000 to 2005 but I do not get any more options, such as
> shrink or to do maintenance on the db through the Enterprise manager.
> Is my install stuck on the msde license and won't let me install the
> full blown sql server until I reboot the server? Thanks
>|||jooooooohn@.gmail.com wrote:
> I have a 4GB SQL db that is used for Backup Exec, but the file has
> reached the maximum file size for the file system. I have tried
> upgrading from 2000 to 2005 but I do not get any more options, such as
> shrink or to do maintenance on the db through the Enterprise manager.
> Is my install stuck on the msde license and won't let me install the
> full blown sql server until I reboot the server? Thanks
It's not clear if you are hitting the limit of the FAT32 file system or
the limit of MSDE/SQL Express. If the file system is the problem, then
change it to NTFS. If you already use NTFS, then try to shrink the file
using OSQL.EXE. For example, you can try DBCC SHRINKFILE(1,1). Which is
the big file: the MDF (data file) or the LDF (log file) ?
For more information, see Books Online topics for DBCC SHRINKFILE and
DBCC SHRINKDATABASE.
--
Razvan Socol
SQL Server MVP

4GB size limtation on SQL server express

Hi,

I would like to know what problems will occur when I try to create a database that exceed the size limit of 4GB ?

Thanks

Moving to the SQL Server Express forum.|||SQL Server will provide an error message and the attempt to create a database exceeding 4GB will fail.|||

hi,

as Arnie already pointed out, SQLExpress will throw an exception..

this exception is little misleading as it reports
Server: Msg 1105, Level 17, State 2, Line 6
Could not allocate space for object 'a' in database 'test' because the 'PRIMARY' filegroup is full.

I do actually think another exception should be raised, something like
Err 1827: CREATE/ALTER database failed becouse the resulting cumulative database size would exceed your licensed limit of xxxx mb per database.

but this is another story
regards

4GB Ram for SQL

Hi all,
I have a new server with 4GB Ram and I want SQL server
use most of ram.
I have licences for Windows 2003 standard and enterprise
servers and SQL 2000 standard and enterprise servers.
Could anyone tell me which versions of Win2003 and
SQL2000 is better for SQL perforemance.
Thanks
MIkeHow many processors? Is anything else running on the box, or is it
dedicated to SQL Server? How busy will the server be? You can also list
the brand/model of server which might help.
"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:175b01c4b569$e7919d90$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> I have a new server with 4GB Ram and I want SQL server
> use most of ram.
> I have licences for Windows 2003 standard and enterprise
> servers and SQL 2000 standard and enterprise servers.
> Could anyone tell me which versions of Win2003 and
> SQL2000 is better for SQL perforemance.
> Thanks
> MIke|||Hi Derrick,
Thanks your reply
It is IBM xSeries 345 with Dual 3.06GHz CPUs and 4GB ram,
which is Payroll server and will have SQL server and
application software on.
Thanks
Mike
>--Original Message--
>How many processors? Is anything else running on the
box, or is it
>dedicated to SQL Server? How busy will the server be?
You can also list
>the brand/model of server which might help.
>
>"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
>news:175b01c4b569$e7919d90$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
>> Hi all,
>> I have a new server with 4GB Ram and I want SQL server
>> use most of ram.
>> I have licences for Windows 2003 standard and
enterprise
>> servers and SQL 2000 standard and enterprise servers.
>> Could anyone tell me which versions of Win2003 and
>> SQL2000 is better for SQL perforemance.
>> Thanks
>> MIke
>
>.
>|||You have to use SQL Server Enterprise to access more than 2 GB of memory.
Not sure if you can run that on Win2003 Standard or if you need Enterprise.
However since you have a separate payroll application running on the same
SQL Server box you wouldn't want to have SQL eat up all the memory.
"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:175b01c4b569$e7919d90$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> I have a new server with 4GB Ram and I want SQL server
> use most of ram.
> I have licences for Windows 2003 standard and enterprise
> servers and SQL 2000 standard and enterprise servers.
> Could anyone tell me which versions of Win2003 and
> SQL2000 is better for SQL perforemance.
> Thanks
> MIke|||I'd run Windows 2003 Enterprise and SQL Server Standard if I were you. You
will only want SQL Server using 2GB of RAM anyway if the app is on there
also. I would actually recommend setting the max memory for SQL to 1GB and
monitoring performance. You can then set up higher if need be.
The reason for this is licensing cost. You'll save yourself about $26,000
going this route. If you need Enterprise Edition, you will also need more
RAM. 4GB won't cut it because you don't want to starve the app out. You
also don't want to use the /3GB switch if it's a shared app/sql server.
That IBM has 8 memory slots if my recollection is right, so upgrading
shouldn't be a problem later. It's easy to upgrade to EM. You don't want
to have to reinstall the OS later though if 2003 standard doesn't work for
you.
"Peter Yao" <peteryao@.NoSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OLXQPMYtEHA.3572@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> You have to use SQL Server Enterprise to access more than 2 GB of memory.
> Not sure if you can run that on Win2003 Standard or if you need
Enterprise.
> However since you have a separate payroll application running on the same
> SQL Server box you wouldn't want to have SQL eat up all the memory.
> "Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:175b01c4b569$e7919d90$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> > Hi all,
> > I have a new server with 4GB Ram and I want SQL server
> > use most of ram.
> > I have licences for Windows 2003 standard and enterprise
> > servers and SQL 2000 standard and enterprise servers.
> > Could anyone tell me which versions of Win2003 and
> > SQL2000 is better for SQL perforemance.
> > Thanks
> > MIke
>|||Thanks a lot
MIke
>--Original Message--
>I'd run Windows 2003 Enterprise and SQL Server Standard
if I were you. You
>will only want SQL Server using 2GB of RAM anyway if the
app is on there
>also. I would actually recommend setting the max memory
for SQL to 1GB and
>monitoring performance. You can then set up higher if
need be.
>The reason for this is licensing cost. You'll save
yourself about $26,000
>going this route. If you need Enterprise Edition, you
will also need more
>RAM. 4GB won't cut it because you don't want to starve
the app out. You
>also don't want to use the /3GB switch if it's a shared
app/sql server.
>That IBM has 8 memory slots if my recollection is right,
so upgrading
>shouldn't be a problem later. It's easy to upgrade to
EM. You don't want
>to have to reinstall the OS later though if 2003
standard doesn't work for
>you.
>
>"Peter Yao" <peteryao@.NoSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:OLXQPMYtEHA.3572@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> You have to use SQL Server Enterprise to access more
than 2 GB of memory.
>> Not sure if you can run that on Win2003 Standard or if
you need
>Enterprise.
>> However since you have a separate payroll application
running on the same
>> SQL Server box you wouldn't want to have SQL eat up
all the memory.
>> "Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
>> news:175b01c4b569$e7919d90$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
>> > Hi all,
>> > I have a new server with 4GB Ram and I want SQL
server
>> > use most of ram.
>> > I have licences for Windows 2003 standard and
enterprise
>> > servers and SQL 2000 standard and enterprise servers.
>> > Could anyone tell me which versions of Win2003 and
>> > SQL2000 is better for SQL perforemance.
>> > Thanks
>> > MIke
>>
>
>.
>

4GB Ram for SQL

Hi all,
I have a new server with 4GB Ram and I want SQL server
use most of ram.
I have licences for Windows 2003 standard and enterprise
servers and SQL 2000 standard and enterprise servers.
Could anyone tell me which versions of Win2003 and
SQL2000 is better for SQL perforemance.
Thanks
MIkeHow many processors? Is anything else running on the box, or is it
dedicated to SQL Server? How busy will the server be? You can also list
the brand/model of server which might help.
"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:175b01c4b569$e7919d90$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> I have a new server with 4GB Ram and I want SQL server
> use most of ram.
> I have licences for Windows 2003 standard and enterprise
> servers and SQL 2000 standard and enterprise servers.
> Could anyone tell me which versions of Win2003 and
> SQL2000 is better for SQL perforemance.
> Thanks
> MIke|||Hi Derrick,
Thanks your reply
It is IBM xSeries 345 with Dual 3.06GHz CPUs and 4GB ram,
which is Payroll server and will have SQL server and
application software on.
Thanks
Mike
>--Original Message--
>How many processors? Is anything else running on the
box, or is it
>dedicated to SQL Server? How busy will the server be?
You can also list
>the brand/model of server which might help.
>
>"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
>news:175b01c4b569$e7919d90$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
enterprise[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>.
>|||You have to use SQL Server Enterprise to access more than 2 GB of memory.
Not sure if you can run that on Win2003 Standard or if you need Enterprise.
However since you have a separate payroll application running on the same
SQL Server box you wouldn't want to have SQL eat up all the memory.
"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:175b01c4b569$e7919d90$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> I have a new server with 4GB Ram and I want SQL server
> use most of ram.
> I have licences for Windows 2003 standard and enterprise
> servers and SQL 2000 standard and enterprise servers.
> Could anyone tell me which versions of Win2003 and
> SQL2000 is better for SQL perforemance.
> Thanks
> MIke|||I'd run Windows 2003 Enterprise and SQL Server Standard if I were you. You
will only want SQL Server using 2GB of RAM anyway if the app is on there
also. I would actually recommend setting the max memory for SQL to 1GB and
monitoring performance. You can then set up higher if need be.
The reason for this is licensing cost. You'll save yourself about $26,000
going this route. If you need Enterprise Edition, you will also need more
RAM. 4GB won't cut it because you don't want to starve the app out. You
also don't want to use the /3GB switch if it's a shared app/sql server.
That IBM has 8 memory slots if my recollection is right, so upgrading
shouldn't be a problem later. It's easy to upgrade to EM. You don't want
to have to reinstall the OS later though if 2003 standard doesn't work for
you.
"Peter Yao" <peteryao@.NoSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OLXQPMYtEHA.3572@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> You have to use SQL Server Enterprise to access more than 2 GB of memory.
> Not sure if you can run that on Win2003 Standard or if you need
Enterprise.
> However since you have a separate payroll application running on the same
> SQL Server box you wouldn't want to have SQL eat up all the memory.
> "Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:175b01c4b569$e7919d90$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
>|||Thanks a lot
MIke
>--Original Message--
>I'd run Windows 2003 Enterprise and SQL Server Standard
if I were you. You
>will only want SQL Server using 2GB of RAM anyway if the
app is on there
>also. I would actually recommend setting the max memory
for SQL to 1GB and
>monitoring performance. You can then set up higher if
need be.
>The reason for this is licensing cost. You'll save
yourself about $26,000
>going this route. If you need Enterprise Edition, you
will also need more
>RAM. 4GB won't cut it because you don't want to starve
the app out. You
>also don't want to use the /3GB switch if it's a shared
app/sql server.
>That IBM has 8 memory slots if my recollection is right,
so upgrading
>shouldn't be a problem later. It's easy to upgrade to
EM. You don't want
>to have to reinstall the OS later though if 2003
standard doesn't work for
>you.
>
>"Peter Yao" <peteryao@.NoSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:OLXQPMYtEHA.3572@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
than 2 GB of memory.[vbcol=seagreen]
you need[vbcol=seagreen]
>Enterprise.
running on the same[vbcol=seagreen]
all the memory.[vbcol=seagreen]
message[vbcol=seagreen]
server[vbcol=seagreen]
enterprise[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>.
>

4GB Ram for SQL

Hi all,
I have a new server with 4GB Ram and I want SQL server
use most of ram.
I have licences for Windows 2003 standard and enterprise
servers and SQL 2000 standard and enterprise servers.
Could anyone tell me which versions of Win2003 and
SQL2000 is better for SQL perforemance.
Thanks
MIke
How many processors? Is anything else running on the box, or is it
dedicated to SQL Server? How busy will the server be? You can also list
the brand/model of server which might help.
"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:175b01c4b569$e7919d90$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> I have a new server with 4GB Ram and I want SQL server
> use most of ram.
> I have licences for Windows 2003 standard and enterprise
> servers and SQL 2000 standard and enterprise servers.
> Could anyone tell me which versions of Win2003 and
> SQL2000 is better for SQL perforemance.
> Thanks
> MIke
|||Hi Derrick,
Thanks your reply
It is IBM xSeries 345 with Dual 3.06GHz CPUs and 4GB ram,
which is Payroll server and will have SQL server and
application software on.
Thanks
Mike
>--Original Message--
>How many processors? Is anything else running on the
box, or is it
>dedicated to SQL Server? How busy will the server be?
You can also list
>the brand/model of server which might help.
>
>"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message[vbcol=seagreen]
>news:175b01c4b569$e7919d90$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
enterprise
>
>.
>
|||You have to use SQL Server Enterprise to access more than 2 GB of memory.
Not sure if you can run that on Win2003 Standard or if you need Enterprise.
However since you have a separate payroll application running on the same
SQL Server box you wouldn't want to have SQL eat up all the memory.
"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:175b01c4b569$e7919d90$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> I have a new server with 4GB Ram and I want SQL server
> use most of ram.
> I have licences for Windows 2003 standard and enterprise
> servers and SQL 2000 standard and enterprise servers.
> Could anyone tell me which versions of Win2003 and
> SQL2000 is better for SQL perforemance.
> Thanks
> MIke
|||I'd run Windows 2003 Enterprise and SQL Server Standard if I were you. You
will only want SQL Server using 2GB of RAM anyway if the app is on there
also. I would actually recommend setting the max memory for SQL to 1GB and
monitoring performance. You can then set up higher if need be.
The reason for this is licensing cost. You'll save yourself about $26,000
going this route. If you need Enterprise Edition, you will also need more
RAM. 4GB won't cut it because you don't want to starve the app out. You
also don't want to use the /3GB switch if it's a shared app/sql server.
That IBM has 8 memory slots if my recollection is right, so upgrading
shouldn't be a problem later. It's easy to upgrade to EM. You don't want
to have to reinstall the OS later though if 2003 standard doesn't work for
you.
"Peter Yao" <peteryao@.NoSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OLXQPMYtEHA.3572@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> You have to use SQL Server Enterprise to access more than 2 GB of memory.
> Not sure if you can run that on Win2003 Standard or if you need
Enterprise.
> However since you have a separate payroll application running on the same
> SQL Server box you wouldn't want to have SQL eat up all the memory.
> "Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:175b01c4b569$e7919d90$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
>
|||Thanks a lot
MIke
>--Original Message--
>I'd run Windows 2003 Enterprise and SQL Server Standard
if I were you. You
>will only want SQL Server using 2GB of RAM anyway if the
app is on there
>also. I would actually recommend setting the max memory
for SQL to 1GB and
>monitoring performance. You can then set up higher if
need be.
>The reason for this is licensing cost. You'll save
yourself about $26,000
>going this route. If you need Enterprise Edition, you
will also need more
>RAM. 4GB won't cut it because you don't want to starve
the app out. You
>also don't want to use the /3GB switch if it's a shared
app/sql server.
>That IBM has 8 memory slots if my recollection is right,
so upgrading
>shouldn't be a problem later. It's easy to upgrade to
EM. You don't want
>to have to reinstall the OS later though if 2003
standard doesn't work for[vbcol=seagreen]
>you.
>
>"Peter Yao" <peteryao@.NoSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:OLXQPMYtEHA.3572@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
than 2 GB of memory.[vbcol=seagreen]
you need[vbcol=seagreen]
>Enterprise.
running on the same[vbcol=seagreen]
all the memory.[vbcol=seagreen]
message[vbcol=seagreen]
server[vbcol=seagreen]
enterprise
>
>.
>

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
Paul
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.
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...[vbcol=seagreen]
> 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:
|||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...
>
>
|||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...[vbcol=seagreen]
> 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:

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...[vbcol=seagreen]
> 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:
>|||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 show
s
> 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...
>
>|||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...[vbcol=seagreen]
> 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:
>

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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>

4gb limit

Hi There

I recently read up and found an msdn forum post that said the 4gb limit only applied to data files not log files.

However recently i had an error on a sql express database saying that the log file was full, the database log file was set to auto grow and there was plenty of space left.

So i am guessing the 4gb limit applies to any database file mdf or ldf, is this correct ?

Thanx

Hi,

you have to backup your log file.

BACKUP LOG <DB_NAME> WITH TRUNCATE_ONLY -- modell "simple"

BACKUP LOG <DB_NAME> -- modell "full"

or shrink it without backup:

BACKUP LOG <DB_NAME> WITH NO_LOG

|||

I cannot do this, DB is in simple recovery. It is one big transaction that causes this, i cannot do this in the middle of a transaction.

Thanx

|||

There is not a size limit for log files.

From: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms345154.aspx

"The 4 GB database size limit applies only to data files and not to log files."

Did you check the computer application log file for errors?
The SQL Server log file?

|||

Thanx Arnie

It just is so strange that it happended exactly when the log file hit 4Gb?

But thanx for the feedback

4gb limit

Hi There

I recently read up and found an msdn forum post that said the 4gb limit only applied to data files not log files.

However recently i had an error on a sql express database saying that the log file was full, the database log file was set to auto grow and there was plenty of space left.

So i am guessing the 4gb limit applies to any database file mdf or ldf, is this correct ?

Thanx

Hi,

you have to backup your log file.

BACKUP LOG <DB_NAME> WITH TRUNCATE_ONLY -- modell "simple"

BACKUP LOG <DB_NAME> -- modell "full"

or shrink it without backup:

BACKUP LOG <DB_NAME> WITH NO_LOG

|||

I cannot do this, DB is in simple recovery. It is one big transaction that causes this, i cannot do this in the middle of a transaction.

Thanx

|||

There is not a size limit for log files.

From: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms345154.aspx

"The 4 GB database size limit applies only to data files and not to log files."

Did you check the computer application log file for errors?
The SQL Server log file?

|||

Thanx Arnie

It just is so strange that it happended exactly when the log file hit 4Gb?

But thanx for the feedback

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...

3GB and 4GB RAM on SQL 2000 Ent, Win 2003 Ent

We have two SQL servers that we need to optimize the RAM for SQL server.
Both servers are running SQL 2000 Enterprise with Windows 2003 Enterprise.
What is the optimum boot.ini settings and SQL settings for these servers.
From what I have read so far, it seems I need to do the following:
On the 3 GB server, simply add the /3GB option in the boot.ini.
On the 4 GB server, simply add the /3GB option in the boot.ini as well. It
seems I only need to turn awe on the SQL server if it has more than 4 GB of
RAM.
Can anyone clarify this for me? Are there any known issues using these
settings?
Thank You,
KevinYou are correct. AWE is only needed if you have more than 4GB of physical
memory in the box. Do not use /3GB with more than (12,16) GB of RAM. I
have heard different recommendations so pick either 12 or 16 GB as your
choice.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Kevin Hammond" <kghammond@.nrscorp.com> wrote in message
news:ck0pvg$77j$1@.grandcanyon.binc.net...
> We have two SQL servers that we need to optimize the RAM for SQL server.
> Both servers are running SQL 2000 Enterprise with Windows 2003 Enterprise.
> What is the optimum boot.ini settings and SQL settings for these servers.
> From what I have read so far, it seems I need to do the following:
> On the 3 GB server, simply add the /3GB option in the boot.ini.
> On the 4 GB server, simply add the /3GB option in the boot.ini as well.
It
> seems I only need to turn awe on the SQL server if it has more than 4 GB
of
> RAM.
> Can anyone clarify this for me? Are there any known issues using these
> settings?
> Thank You,
> Kevin
>|||i don't think this is right. you need the AWE option of
sql server in any case. the question is only if you need
also the /PAE switch.
for clarifying this check out the MS KB-article 274750
"How to configure memory for more than 2 GB in SQL Server"
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-
us;274750
>--Original Message--
>You are correct. AWE is only needed if you have more
than 4GB of physical
>memory in the box. Do not use /3GB with more than
(12,16) GB of RAM. I
>have heard different recommendations so pick either 12 or
16 GB as your
>choice.
>--
>Geoff N. Hiten
>Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>Senior Database Administrator
>Careerbuilder.com
>I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
>www.sqlpass.org
>"Kevin Hammond" <kghammond@.nrscorp.com> wrote in message
>news:ck0pvg$77j$1@.grandcanyon.binc.net...
>> We have two SQL servers that we need to optimize the
RAM for SQL server.
>> Both servers are running SQL 2000 Enterprise with
Windows 2003 Enterprise.
>> What is the optimum boot.ini settings and SQL settings
for these servers.
>> From what I have read so far, it seems I need to do the
following:
>> On the 3 GB server, simply add the /3GB option in the
boot.ini.
>> On the 4 GB server, simply add the /3GB option in the
boot.ini as well.
>It
>> seems I only need to turn awe on the SQL server if it
has more than 4 GB
>of
>> RAM.
>> Can anyone clarify this for me? Are there any known
issues using these
>> settings?
>> Thank You,
>> Kevin
>>
>
>.
>|||If you only have 4GB it is probably better to let SQL Server have 3GB and let the OS have the rest
of the memory. Using PAE is not for free and it is also a bit if extra admin burden.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Juliane" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0d2001c4abc3$08586640$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
>i don't think this is right. you need the AWE option of
> sql server in any case. the question is only if you need
> also the /PAE switch.
> for clarifying this check out the MS KB-article 274750
> "How to configure memory for more than 2 GB in SQL Server"
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-
> us;274750
>
>
>>--Original Message--
>>You are correct. AWE is only needed if you have more
> than 4GB of physical
>>memory in the box. Do not use /3GB with more than
> (12,16) GB of RAM. I
>>have heard different recommendations so pick either 12 or
> 16 GB as your
>>choice.
>>--
>>Geoff N. Hiten
>>Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>>Senior Database Administrator
>>Careerbuilder.com
>>I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
>>www.sqlpass.org
>>"Kevin Hammond" <kghammond@.nrscorp.com> wrote in message
>>news:ck0pvg$77j$1@.grandcanyon.binc.net...
>> We have two SQL servers that we need to optimize the
> RAM for SQL server.
>> Both servers are running SQL 2000 Enterprise with
> Windows 2003 Enterprise.
>> What is the optimum boot.ini settings and SQL settings
> for these servers.
>> From what I have read so far, it seems I need to do the
> following:
>> On the 3 GB server, simply add the /3GB option in the
> boot.ini.
>> On the 4 GB server, simply add the /3GB option in the
> boot.ini as well.
>>It
>> seems I only need to turn awe on the SQL server if it
> has more than 4 GB
>>of
>> RAM.
>> Can anyone clarify this for me? Are there any known
> issues using these
>> settings?
>> Thank You,
>> Kevin
>>
>>
>>.

3GB and 4GB RAM on SQL 2000 Ent, Win 2003 Ent

We have two SQL servers that we need to optimize the RAM for SQL server.
Both servers are running SQL 2000 Enterprise with Windows 2003 Enterprise.
What is the optimum boot.ini settings and SQL settings for these servers.
From what I have read so far, it seems I need to do the following:
On the 3 GB server, simply add the /3GB option in the boot.ini.
On the 4 GB server, simply add the /3GB option in the boot.ini as well. It
seems I only need to turn awe on the SQL server if it has more than 4 GB of
RAM.
Can anyone clarify this for me? Are there any known issues using these
settings?
Thank You,
Kevin
You are correct. AWE is only needed if you have more than 4GB of physical
memory in the box. Do not use /3GB with more than (12,16) GB of RAM. I
have heard different recommendations so pick either 12 or 16 GB as your
choice.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Kevin Hammond" <kghammond@.nrscorp.com> wrote in message
news:ck0pvg$77j$1@.grandcanyon.binc.net...
> We have two SQL servers that we need to optimize the RAM for SQL server.
> Both servers are running SQL 2000 Enterprise with Windows 2003 Enterprise.
> What is the optimum boot.ini settings and SQL settings for these servers.
> From what I have read so far, it seems I need to do the following:
> On the 3 GB server, simply add the /3GB option in the boot.ini.
> On the 4 GB server, simply add the /3GB option in the boot.ini as well.
It
> seems I only need to turn awe on the SQL server if it has more than 4 GB
of
> RAM.
> Can anyone clarify this for me? Are there any known issues using these
> settings?
> Thank You,
> Kevin
>
|||i don't think this is right. you need the AWE option of
sql server in any case. the question is only if you need
also the /PAE switch.
for clarifying this check out the MS KB-article 274750
"How to configure memory for more than 2 GB in SQL Server"
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-
us;274750

>--Original Message--
>You are correct. AWE is only needed if you have more
than 4GB of physical
>memory in the box. Do not use /3GB with more than
(12,16) GB of RAM. I
>have heard different recommendations so pick either 12 or
16 GB as your[vbcol=seagreen]
>choice.
>--
>Geoff N. Hiten
>Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>Senior Database Administrator
>Careerbuilder.com
>I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
>www.sqlpass.org
>"Kevin Hammond" <kghammond@.nrscorp.com> wrote in message
>news:ck0pvg$77j$1@.grandcanyon.binc.net...
RAM for SQL server.[vbcol=seagreen]
Windows 2003 Enterprise.[vbcol=seagreen]
for these servers.[vbcol=seagreen]
following:[vbcol=seagreen]
boot.ini.[vbcol=seagreen]
boot.ini as well.[vbcol=seagreen]
>It
has more than 4 GB[vbcol=seagreen]
>of
issues using these
>
>.
>
|||If you only have 4GB it is probably better to let SQL Server have 3GB and let the OS have the rest
of the memory. Using PAE is not for free and it is also a bit if extra admin burden.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Juliane" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0d2001c4abc3$08586640$a401280a@.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
>i don't think this is right. you need the AWE option of
> sql server in any case. the question is only if you need
> also the /PAE switch.
> for clarifying this check out the MS KB-article 274750
> "How to configure memory for more than 2 GB in SQL Server"
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-
> us;274750
>
>
> than 4GB of physical
> (12,16) GB of RAM. I
> 16 GB as your
> RAM for SQL server.
> Windows 2003 Enterprise.
> for these servers.
> following:
> boot.ini.
> boot.ini as well.
> has more than 4 GB
> issues using these