A couple of easy questions

Hi everyone,

Running Windows 2003 x64 and Sql25k 64-bit edition

We just have a couple of questions related with our system:

-What is Sql Server VSS Writer service for?

-What sort of implications must we assume when Integration Services service is running as NT AUTHORITY\NetworkService

Any link or advice would be welcomed.

Thanks for your time,

SQL Writer Service
(http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms175536.aspx)

Setting Up Windows Service Accounts
(http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/309b9dac-0b3a-4617-85ef-c4519ce9d014.aspx)

For SSIS the implications are much the same as any service, just bear in mind what the SSIS service does, not a lot really.

|||Thank you|||Be sure to mark the answers to your questions as an answer to the thread.

64-bit Windows/64-bit SQL - External Drives

Hi,
I read in the SQL 2005 Exam guides for clustering that (p.283 - 70-443),
that if building a cluster on 64-bit Windows then must use Fibre drives?
I'm trying to verying this with help of Google/MSDN, and not found
confirmation anywhere.
Is this the case that running a cluster on 64-bit editions places these
restrictions on hardware?
If we want use 64-bit clustered system, are we basically forced to accept a
fibre-based SAN as I/O system?
Thank you.
CraigYour hardware for Cluster must be in the Hardware Compatibility List. Check
out the following site:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/309395
--
Ekrem Ã?nsoy
"craig_amtdatatechnologies@.discussions.mi"
<craigamtdatatechnologiesdiscussionsmi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:25BEEEE9-2C79-4377-83D5-CAA0574273B2@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I read in the SQL 2005 Exam guides for clustering that (p.283 - 70-443),
> that if building a cluster on 64-bit Windows then must use Fibre drives?
> I'm trying to verying this with help of Google/MSDN, and not found
> confirmation anywhere.
> Is this the case that running a cluster on 64-bit editions places these
> restrictions on hardware?
> If we want use 64-bit clustered system, are we basically forced to accept
> a
> fibre-based SAN as I/O system?
>
> Thank you.
> Craig
>

64-bit Windows / 64-bit SQL - External Disk Array (cluster)

oops, post should have gone to this forum ....
Hi,
I read in the SQL 2005 Exam guides for clustering that (p.283 - 70-443),
that if building a cluster on 64-bit Windows then must use Fibre drives?
I'm trying to verying this with help of Google/MSDN, and not found
confirmation anywhere.
Is this the case that running a cluster on 64-bit editions places these
restrictions on hardware?
If we want to go 64-bit, are we basically forced to accept a fibre-based SAN
as I/O system?
Thank you.
Craig
Windows 2003 64-bit does not require fibre drives. You can use anything
internal for the nodes. The shared disk can be Parallel Attached SCSI
(though I would not), iSCSI or SAN based.
Now Windows 2008 will not support PAS, but it will support SAS, SAN, or
iSCSI.
Cheers,
Rodney R. Fournier
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training
ClusterHelp.com is a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
"craig_amtdatatechnologies@.discussions.mi"
<craigamtdatatechnologiesdiscussionsmi@.discussions .microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:B1B0C4B4-B45D-4217-AC25-3A2D7A4B362B@.microsoft.com...
> oops, post should have gone to this forum ....
> Hi,
> I read in the SQL 2005 Exam guides for clustering that (p.283 - 70-443),
> that if building a cluster on 64-bit Windows then must use Fibre drives?
> I'm trying to verying this with help of Google/MSDN, and not found
> confirmation anywhere.
> Is this the case that running a cluster on 64-bit editions places these
> restrictions on hardware?
> If we want to go 64-bit, are we basically forced to accept a fibre-based
> SAN
> as I/O system?
>
> Thank you.
> Craig
|||Thanks for reply re: this
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" wrote:

> Windows 2003 64-bit does not require fibre drives. You can use anything
> internal for the nodes. The shared disk can be Parallel Attached SCSI
> (though I would not), iSCSI or SAN based.
>
> Now Windows 2008 will not support PAS, but it will support SAS, SAN, or
> iSCSI.
> Cheers,
> Rodney R. Fournier
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
> http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
> http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training
> ClusterHelp.com is a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
>
> "craig_amtdatatechnologies@.discussions.mi"
> <craigamtdatatechnologiesdiscussionsmi@.discussions .microsoft.com> wrote in
> message news:B1B0C4B4-B45D-4217-AC25-3A2D7A4B362B@.microsoft.com...
>
>

64-bit versus 32-bit

Is there a difference in SQL Server 2005 64-bit versus 32-bit from a
development or management point? I realize that there are differences in
the hardware requirements and that there is 32-bit, X64, and IA64 versions.
I wanted to know if sp's, back-ups, data types, queries and functions all
work and act the same.Hi,
There is no difference interms of development..The major differnece is in
handling the memory.
see this link to get the capacity specs for 32 and 64 bits:-
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Chris Ruggiero" <chris.ruggiero@.gaboing.com> wrote in message
news:edDAV1qxGHA.3500@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Is there a difference in SQL Server 2005 64-bit versus 32-bit from a
> development or management point? I realize that there are differences in
> the hardware requirements and that there is 32-bit, X64, and IA64
> versions. I wanted to know if sp's, back-ups, data types, queries and
> functions all work and act the same.
>|||Hi,
I'm new to SQL so any guidance is appreciated.
We have 3 MS SQL based applications currently running on SBS 2003 Premium.
As the data has grown so much, we will be purchasing a new server dedicated
to SQL alone. The new server will be 64 bit capable (Xeons not Itaniums).
Not understanding the mechanics of it all, my question is this :-
Will the current SQL databases run without modification if we purchased the
new server with 64bit Windows Server 2003 and 64bit SQL Server 2005 or are
32bit SQL databases not compatible with the 64bit SQL Server ?
and
If forced to, will the database (or SQL itself) run properly if we put in 64
bit Windows Server 2003 and 32 bit SQL Server 2005 ?
Thanks.
Kelvin
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
> Hi,
> There is no difference interms of development..The major differnece is in
> handling the memory.
> see this link to get the capacity specs for 32 and 64 bits:-
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx
> Thanks
> Hari
> SQL Server MVP
> "Chris Ruggiero" <chris.ruggiero@.gaboing.com> wrote in message
> news:edDAV1qxGHA.3500@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> > Is there a difference in SQL Server 2005 64-bit versus 32-bit from a
> > development or management point? I realize that there are differences in
> > the hardware requirements and that there is 32-bit, X64, and IA64
> > versions. I wanted to know if sp's, back-ups, data types, queries and
> > functions all work and act the same.
> >
>
>|||The database format is the same for 32 and 64 bit SQL Server. So you can both restore and attach a
database from 32 bit to 64 bit.
You can also run 32 bit SQL Server engine on 64 bit OS if x64. But I recommend pure 64 bit, of
course.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Kelvin" <Kelvin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8A8F125A-CA70-4312-93B3-E2ECAE0F7F44@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I'm new to SQL so any guidance is appreciated.
> We have 3 MS SQL based applications currently running on SBS 2003 Premium.
> As the data has grown so much, we will be purchasing a new server dedicated
> to SQL alone. The new server will be 64 bit capable (Xeons not Itaniums).
> Not understanding the mechanics of it all, my question is this :-
> Will the current SQL databases run without modification if we purchased the
> new server with 64bit Windows Server 2003 and 64bit SQL Server 2005 or are
> 32bit SQL databases not compatible with the 64bit SQL Server ?
> and
> If forced to, will the database (or SQL itself) run properly if we put in 64
> bit Windows Server 2003 and 32 bit SQL Server 2005 ?
> Thanks.
> Kelvin
> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>> Hi,
>> There is no difference interms of development..The major differnece is in
>> handling the memory.
>> see this link to get the capacity specs for 32 and 64 bits:-
>> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx
>> Thanks
>> Hari
>> SQL Server MVP
>> "Chris Ruggiero" <chris.ruggiero@.gaboing.com> wrote in message
>> news:edDAV1qxGHA.3500@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> > Is there a difference in SQL Server 2005 64-bit versus 32-bit from a
>> > development or management point? I realize that there are differences in
>> > the hardware requirements and that there is 32-bit, X64, and IA64
>> > versions. I wanted to know if sp's, back-ups, data types, queries and
>> > functions all work and act the same.
>> >
>>|||"Kelvin" <Kelvin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8A8F125A-CA70-4312-93B3-E2ECAE0F7F44@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I'm new to SQL so any guidance is appreciated.
> We have 3 MS SQL based applications currently running on SBS 2003 Premium.
> As the data has grown so much, we will be purchasing a new server
> dedicated
> to SQL alone. The new server will be 64 bit capable (Xeons not Itaniums).
> Not understanding the mechanics of it all, my question is this :-
> Will the current SQL databases run without modification if we purchased
> the
> new server with 64bit Windows Server 2003 and 64bit SQL Server 2005 or are
> 32bit SQL databases not compatible with the 64bit SQL Server ?
The database itself is compatible between 32-bit and 64-bit.
So you should have no problems.
> and
> If forced to, will the database (or SQL itself) run properly if we put in
> 64
> bit Windows Server 2003 and 32 bit SQL Server 2005 ?
> Thanks.
> Kelvin
> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>> Hi,
>> There is no difference interms of development..The major differnece is in
>> handling the memory.
>> see this link to get the capacity specs for 32 and 64 bits:-
>> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx
>> Thanks
>> Hari
>> SQL Server MVP
>> "Chris Ruggiero" <chris.ruggiero@.gaboing.com> wrote in message
>> news:edDAV1qxGHA.3500@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> > Is there a difference in SQL Server 2005 64-bit versus 32-bit from a
>> > development or management point? I realize that there are differences
>> > in
>> > the hardware requirements and that there is 32-bit, X64, and IA64
>> > versions. I wanted to know if sp's, back-ups, data types, queries and
>> > functions all work and act the same.
>> >
>>

64-bit versus 32-bit

Is there a difference in SQL Server 2005 64-bit versus 32-bit from a
development or management point? I realize that there are differences in
the hardware requirements and that there is 32-bit, X64, and IA64 versions.
I wanted to know if sp's, back-ups, data types, queries and functions all
work and act the same.Hi,
There is no difference interms of development..The major differnece is in
handling the memory.
see this link to get the capacity specs for 32 and 64 bits:-
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Chris Ruggiero" <chris.ruggiero@.gaboing.com> wrote in message
news:edDAV1qxGHA.3500@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Is there a difference in SQL Server 2005 64-bit versus 32-bit from a
> development or management point? I realize that there are differences in
> the hardware requirements and that there is 32-bit, X64, and IA64
> versions. I wanted to know if sp's, back-ups, data types, queries and
> functions all work and act the same.
>|||Hi,
I'm new to SQL so any guidance is appreciated.
We have 3 MS SQL based applications currently running on SBS 2003 Premium.
As the data has grown so much, we will be purchasing a new server dedicated
to SQL alone. The new server will be 64 bit capable (Xeons not Itaniums).
Not understanding the mechanics of it all, my question is this :-
Will the current SQL databases run without modification if we purchased the
new server with 64bit Windows Server 2003 and 64bit SQL Server 2005 or are
32bit SQL databases not compatible with the 64bit SQL Server ?
and
If forced to, will the database (or SQL itself) run properly if we put in 64
bit Windows Server 2003 and 32 bit SQL Server 2005 ?
Thanks.
Kelvin
"Hari Prasad" wrote:

> Hi,
> There is no difference interms of development..The major differnece is in
> handling the memory.
> see this link to get the capacity specs for 32 and 64 bits:-
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx
> Thanks
> Hari
> SQL Server MVP
> "Chris Ruggiero" <chris.ruggiero@.gaboing.com> wrote in message
> news:edDAV1qxGHA.3500@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
>|||The database format is the same for 32 and 64 bit SQL Server. So you can bot
h restore and attach a
database from 32 bit to 64 bit.
You can also run 32 bit SQL Server engine on 64 bit OS if x64. But I recomme
nd pure 64 bit, of
course.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Kelvin" <Kelvin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8A8F125A-CA70-4312-93B3-E2ECAE0F7F44@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi,
> I'm new to SQL so any guidance is appreciated.
> We have 3 MS SQL based applications currently running on SBS 2003 Premium.
> As the data has grown so much, we will be purchasing a new server dedicate
d
> to SQL alone. The new server will be 64 bit capable (Xeons not Itaniums).
> Not understanding the mechanics of it all, my question is this :-
> Will the current SQL databases run without modification if we purchased th
e
> new server with 64bit Windows Server 2003 and 64bit SQL Server 2005 or are
> 32bit SQL databases not compatible with the 64bit SQL Server ?
> and
> If forced to, will the database (or SQL itself) run properly if we put in
64
> bit Windows Server 2003 and 32 bit SQL Server 2005 ?
> Thanks.
> Kelvin
> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>|||"Kelvin" <Kelvin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8A8F125A-CA70-4312-93B3-E2ECAE0F7F44@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I'm new to SQL so any guidance is appreciated.
> We have 3 MS SQL based applications currently running on SBS 2003 Premium.
> As the data has grown so much, we will be purchasing a new server
> dedicated
> to SQL alone. The new server will be 64 bit capable (Xeons not Itaniums).
> Not understanding the mechanics of it all, my question is this :-
> Will the current SQL databases run without modification if we purchased
> the
> new server with 64bit Windows Server 2003 and 64bit SQL Server 2005 or are
> 32bit SQL databases not compatible with the 64bit SQL Server ?
The database itself is compatible between 32-bit and 64-bit.
So you should have no problems.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> and
> If forced to, will the database (or SQL itself) run properly if we put in
> 64
> bit Windows Server 2003 and 32 bit SQL Server 2005 ?
> Thanks.
> Kelvin
> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>

64-bit SSIS

Newbie question on SSIS and 64-bit....Looking for pointers ...Thx in advance...
Can we develop SSIS pkgs on 32-bit machines and deploy to 64-bit?
Any software needed on 64-bit machine , like .NET 2.0 64-bit, etc...?
Any knobs/switches to do during deployment, to ensure pkg runs on 64-bit...?
Any gotchas...things to be aware of...?

If accessing SAP, SQL, Oracle, do OLE DB .NET drivers need to be 64-bit as well, if PKG is running on 64-bit machine...?

if developing SSIS pkgs on a 64-bit machine, any issues to be aware of?

Thx again

RC

RCHINTH wrote:

Can we develop SSIS pkgs on 32-bit machines and deploy to 64-bit?

Yes, in fact that is the way you're supposed to do it for Itanium servers since VS isn't supported on IA64.

RCHINTH wrote:

Any software needed on 64-bit machine , like .NET 2.0 64-bit, etc...?

No, 64-bit .NET 2.0 will be installed by your SQL 2005 setup process.

RCHINTH wrote:

Any knobs/switches to do during deployment, to ensure pkg runs on 64-bit...?

Not really. Script tasks have to have PreCompile=true to run on 64-bit. This is the default setting.

RCHINTH wrote:

Any gotchas...things to be aware of...?

Maybe. In my experience the Excel OLE DB Provider doesn't work on X64 (haven't tried it on IA64). Also, debugging Control Flow script tasks doesn't work when PreCompile=true (which is req'd for 64-bit). You can't debug Data Flow script components on either platform.

RCHINTH wrote:

If accessing SAP, SQL, Oracle, do OLE DB .NET drivers need to be 64-bit as well, if PKG is running on 64-bit machine...?

I don't know for sure, but the Excel problem above is probably a decent indication. Might depend on the provider.

RCHINTH wrote:

if developing SSIS pkgs on a 64-bit machine, any issues to be aware of?

I've not had any platform-related problems developing packages on an X64 server. Again, Visual Studio isn't supported on IA64.

Jay|||The absence of the Jet OLE DB Provider (which means Excel too) and the requirement of precompiled scripts seem to be the 2 most obvious limitations that you're going to run into on 64-bit.

Please see the BOL topic, "Integration Services Considerations on 64-bit Computers," for a summary of other considerations, most of which were touched on above.

-Doug

64-bit SQL2000 on 32-bit OS

Will my SQL server work like 32-bit or 64-bit if I installed 64bit SQL2000 E
E on 32-bit Windows 2003 Enterprise server?Please do not multi-post. You cannot install a 64-bit app on a 32-bit
server.
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"Dipesh" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B3C23FBD-BE47-4F5E-B464-905A1B94000A@.microsoft.com...
Will my SQL server work like 32-bit or 64-bit if I installed 64bit SQL2000
EE on 32-bit Windows 2003 Enterprise server?|||It will work like a rock. It will sit there and do nothing.
To run 64-bit, you need 64-bit hardware, 64-bit OS, and 64-bit applications.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Dipesh" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B3C23FBD-BE47-4F5E-B464-905A1B94000A@.microsoft.com...
> Will my SQL server work like 32-bit or 64-bit if I installed 64bit SQL2000
EE on 32-bit Windows 2003 Enterprise server?
>

64-bit SQL Server, DTS and Mail

Greetings al
Any feedback on 64-bit SQL Server? Is anyone using it? Any positive results or problems experienced
I read in the BOL that DTS componenets are not included in the current release. I see this as a major hurdle to overcome - yes packages can be run from a 32-bit server, but this would have an assoicated downside.
Also, SQL Mail is not supported. Can anyone at MS explain why SQL Agent Mail is supported but not SQL Mail? And why is Outlook Express the mail client and not Outlook
Finally, will DTS and SQL Mail be fully supported in future releases on the 64-bit platformThe primary reason for no SQLMail support is that SQLMail requires Extended
MAPI which was not ported to 64bit.
Agent Mail is supported because we did some work on it to support Simple
MAPI which is included with Outlook Express. It is not possible to run
Simple MAPI inside SQL Server as an XP hence this solution does not work
for SQLMail.
The reasons for Outlook Express and not Outlook are:
1/ There is no 64bit version of Outlook, hence no 64bit Simple/Extended MAPI
included with it.
2/ Even under 32bit once Extended MAPI is installed Simple MAPI no longer
works in a manner which allows it to be used by Agent Mail.
We aim to resolve these in a future release.
-Euan
Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit. When posting,
please state the version of SQL Server being used and the error number/exact
error message text received, if any.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Elliot Wien" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B0C44188-50B4-4461-9E54-D53AE943B019@.microsoft.com...
> Greetings all
> Any feedback on 64-bit SQL Server? Is anyone using it? Any positive
results or problems experienced?
> I read in the BOL that DTS componenets are not included in the current
release. I see this as a major hurdle to overcome - yes packages can be run
from a 32-bit server, but this would have an assoicated downside.
> Also, SQL Mail is not supported. Can anyone at MS explain why SQL Agent
Mail is supported but not SQL Mail? And why is Outlook Express the mail
client and not Outlook?
> Finally, will DTS and SQL Mail be fully supported in future releases on
the 64-bit platform?
>

64-bit SQL Server, Any patches needed?

Is there a specific service pack for the 64-bit version of
SQL 2000? Should I apply the SP3a or is that only for the
32-bit version? I can't find any info about SP3a with
respect to applying it to the 64-bit version.
Karl Renaut, CIO
FDN Communications.I'd like to know this as well. I just downloaded the
MSDN Version and need to know if there are any
precautions to protect SQL Server from Slammer, etc.
Thanks,
Mike
>--Original Message--
>Is there a specific service pack for the 64-bit version
of
>SQL 2000? Should I apply the SP3a or is that only for
the
>32-bit version? I can't find any info about SP3a with
>respect to applying it to the 64-bit version.
>Karl Renaut, CIO
>FDN Communications.
>.
>

64-bit SQL Server for Xeon

Hello,
Is there a SQL Server 2000 64-bit Edition for XEON processors?
I saw that there are two different versions of SQL 2005 (64 Bit Extended and
64 Bit Itanium), but for SQL 2000 I found only one, and it seems that it's
for Itanium processors.
Thank youHi
SQL Server 2000 has only a full 64 bit edition of Itaniums.
SQL Server 2000 with SP4 supports EM64T and x64.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Vi" <Vi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8B3CC9AB-8025-4CDB-9B1D-4F0AC5DFFB8E@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> Is there a SQL Server 2000 64-bit Edition for XEON processors?
> I saw that there are two different versions of SQL 2005 (64 Bit Extended
> and
> 64 Bit Itanium), but for SQL 2000 I found only one, and it seems that it's
> for Itanium processors.
> Thank you|||So how do I install SQL 64-bit on a Xeon processor based server? Is there a
release "SQL 2000 with SP4"? And if so, is 64-bit an option during
installation?
Thanks
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> SQL Server 2000 has only a full 64 bit edition of Itaniums.
> SQL Server 2000 with SP4 supports EM64T and x64.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Vi" <Vi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8B3CC9AB-8025-4CDB-9B1D-4F0AC5DFFB8E@.microsoft.com...
> > Hello,
> > Is there a SQL Server 2000 64-bit Edition for XEON processors?
> > I saw that there are two different versions of SQL 2005 (64 Bit Extended
> > and
> > 64 Bit Itanium), but for SQL 2000 I found only one, and it seems that it's
> > for Itanium processors.
> >
> > Thank you
>
>|||"Vi" <Vi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A329E111-A514-4860-9697-64F947441955@.microsoft.com...
> So how do I install SQL 64-bit on a Xeon processor based server? Is there
> a
> release "SQL 2000 with SP4"? And if so, is 64-bit an option during
> installation?
>
It's 32-bit SQL Server 2000 running in WOW32 mode on 64-bit windows. You
get a 4gig user-mode address space because of WOW64, but it's still a 32-bit
application.
David

64-bit SQL Server for Xeon

Hello,
Is there a SQL Server 2000 64-bit Edition for XEON processors?
I saw that there are two different versions of SQL 2005 (64 Bit Extended and
64 Bit Itanium), but for SQL 2000 I found only one, and it seems that it's
for Itanium processors.
Thank you
Hi
SQL Server 2000 has only a full 64 bit edition of Itaniums.
SQL Server 2000 with SP4 supports EM64T and x64.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Vi" <Vi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8B3CC9AB-8025-4CDB-9B1D-4F0AC5DFFB8E@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> Is there a SQL Server 2000 64-bit Edition for XEON processors?
> I saw that there are two different versions of SQL 2005 (64 Bit Extended
> and
> 64 Bit Itanium), but for SQL 2000 I found only one, and it seems that it's
> for Itanium processors.
> Thank you
|||So how do I install SQL 64-bit on a Xeon processor based server? Is there a
release "SQL 2000 with SP4"? And if so, is 64-bit an option during
installation?
Thanks
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:

> Hi
> SQL Server 2000 has only a full 64 bit edition of Itaniums.
> SQL Server 2000 with SP4 supports EM64T and x64.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Vi" <Vi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8B3CC9AB-8025-4CDB-9B1D-4F0AC5DFFB8E@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||"Vi" <Vi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A329E111-A514-4860-9697-64F947441955@.microsoft.com...
> So how do I install SQL 64-bit on a Xeon processor based server? Is there
> a
> release "SQL 2000 with SP4"? And if so, is 64-bit an option during
> installation?
>
It's 32-bit SQL Server 2000 running in WOW32 mode on 64-bit windows. You
get a 4gig user-mode address space because of WOW64, but it's still a 32-bit
application.
David

64-bit SQL Server for Xeon

Hello,
Is there a SQL Server 2000 64-bit Edition for XEON processors?
I saw that there are two different versions of SQL 2005 (64 Bit Extended and
64 Bit Itanium), but for SQL 2000 I found only one, and it seems that it's
for Itanium processors.
Thank youHi
SQL Server 2000 has only a full 64 bit edition of Itaniums.
SQL Server 2000 with SP4 supports EM64T and x64.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Vi" <Vi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8B3CC9AB-8025-4CDB-9B1D-4F0AC5DFFB8E@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> Is there a SQL Server 2000 64-bit Edition for XEON processors?
> I saw that there are two different versions of SQL 2005 (64 Bit Extended
> and
> 64 Bit Itanium), but for SQL 2000 I found only one, and it seems that it's
> for Itanium processors.
> Thank you|||So how do I install SQL 64-bit on a Xeon processor based server? Is there a
release "SQL 2000 with SP4"? And if so, is 64-bit an option during
installation?
Thanks
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:

> Hi
> SQL Server 2000 has only a full 64 bit edition of Itaniums.
> SQL Server 2000 with SP4 supports EM64T and x64.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Vi" <Vi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8B3CC9AB-8025-4CDB-9B1D-4F0AC5DFFB8E@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||"Vi" <Vi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A329E111-A514-4860-9697-64F947441955@.microsoft.com...
> So how do I install SQL 64-bit on a Xeon processor based server? Is there
> a
> release "SQL 2000 with SP4"? And if so, is 64-bit an option during
> installation?
>
It's 32-bit SQL Server 2000 running in WOW32 mode on 64-bit windows. You
get a 4gig user-mode address space because of WOW64, but it's still a 32-bit
application.
David

64-bit SQL Server 2005 Installation (Reporting Services)

Hi,

Trying to install 64-bit SQL Server 2005 RTM on Windows 2003 x64 Server. The Reporting services is not getting installed or the option is disabled. The server does have IIS installed, the .NET framework 2.0 is installed by SQL Server 2005 RTM itself. The server also has SQL Server 2000 (32bit).

Is the 32-bit SQL Server 2000 (32 bit) a problem ? But, it was working fine with the SQL Server 2005 CTP.

Can anyone help/suggest ?

Thanks in advance.remove other reporting services from your machine. and try again

64-bit SQL Server 2005 Cluster: slow remote desktop

Hi,
We are moving from SQL Server 2000 to SQL Server 2005. Wondering if you
have the same problem or can share some of your experience to solve some
issue.
We have brand new clustered database servers which have Quad Duo CPUs
and 8GB memory each running SQL Server 2005 64bit Enterprise edition
with SP1 applied and on Win2K3 server x64 Enterprise edition. Only
database engine component are installed for now.
We have some strange behaviors from time to time that :
When we have some query running from some local PC Management Studio,
the remote desktop control is either takes a long time to connect or
very slow to react the requests. When it happened, sometime we can not
connect to the database server from Management Studio with the
connection timeout which was OK couple minutes ago. Interestingly at
those moments, the query is still running , no process blocking found,
very light CPU usage and low disk I/O detected from the monitoring tool
and it looks like the SQL server is not busy at all. No 3rd
party/identifiable process can be found running on the database server
also, the 'system idle process' is the main one with CPU count. And
overall the query just take very long than expected to finish. We could
have very normal days for a while and randomly we will encountered the
symptom above. Each time query we ran is different. Some are light and
some are heavy. The query we recently ran is to create index on many big
partitioned tables.
Thanks in advance.Hi,
Thanks for your post!
From your description, I understand that:
You installed SQL Server 2005 64bit as clustered servers. The Windows
Server 2003 was also 64bit.
When you executed the query in SQL Server Management Studio locally, the
remote desktop need a long time to connect the server and had very slow
responses for requests.
At that time, extra connections to the SQL Server were also slow and even
failed. The CPU use ratio and disk I/O level were low then.
This happened once a while. The latest query was to create index on many
large partitioned tables.
If I have misunderstood, please let me know.
To narrow down this issue, I appreciate you send me the performance report
files of SQL Server Profiler and Performance Monitor when the issue is
happening again.
Also, I appreciate you could tell me more about the query when this issue
happened:
What's kind of the query?
Does a simple query will cause that problem?
When this issue happened, what were recorded in the SQL error logs and
system event logs?
If you have any other concerns, please feel free to let me know. It's my
pleasure to be of assistance.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Charles Wang
Microsoft Online Partner Support
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
=====================================================Business-Critical Phone Support (BCPS) provides you with technical phone
support at no charge during critical LAN outages or "business down"
situations. This benefit is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to all
Microsoft technology partners in the United States and Canada.
This and other support options are available here:
BCPS:
https://partner.microsoft.com/US/technicalsupport/supportoverview/40010469
Others:
https://partner.microsoft.com/US/technicalsupport/supportoverview/
If you are outside the United States, please visit our International
Support page:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=%2finternational.aspx.
=====================================================
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||American are in vacation "Independency Day".
Charles|||Hi ,
I am interested in this issue. Would you mind letting me know the result of
the suggestions? If you need further assistance, feel free to let me know.
I will be more than happy to be of assistance.
Have a great day!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Charles Wang
Microsoft Online Partner Support
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
=============================================================This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

64-bit SQL Server 2005 Cluster: slow remote desktop

Hi,
We are moving from SQL Server 2000 to SQL Server 2005. Wondering if you
have the same problem or can share some of your experience to solve some
issue.
We have brand new clustered database servers which have Quad Duo CPUs
and 8GB memory each running SQL Server 2005 64bit Enterprise edition
with SP1 applied and on Win2K3 server x64 Enterprise edition. Only
database engine component are installed for now.
We have some strange behaviors from time to time that :
When we have some query running from some local PC Management Studio,
the remote desktop control is either takes a long time to connect or
very slow to react the requests. When it happened, sometime we can not
connect to the database server from Management Studio with the
connection timeout which was OK couple minutes ago. Interestingly at
those moments, the query is still running , no process blocking found,
very light CPU usage and low disk I/O detected from the monitoring tool
and it looks like the SQL server is not busy at all. No 3rd
party/identifiable process can be found running on the database server
also, the 'system idle process' is the main one with CPU count. And
overall the query just take very long than expected to finish. We could
have very normal days for a while and randomly we will encountered the
symptom above. Each time query we ran is different. Some are light and
some are heavy. The query we recently ran is to create index on many big
partitioned tables.
Thanks in advance.Hi,
Thanks for your post!
From your description, I understand that:
You installed SQL Server 2005 64bit as clustered servers. The Windows
Server 2003 was also 64bit.
When you executed the query in SQL Server Management Studio locally, the
remote desktop need a long time to connect the server and had very slow
responses for requests.
At that time, extra connections to the SQL Server were also slow and even
failed. The CPU use ratio and disk I/O level were low then.
This happened once a while. The latest query was to create index on many
large partitioned tables.
If I have misunderstood, please let me know.
To narrow down this issue, I appreciate you send me the performance report
files of SQL Server Profiler and Performance Monitor when the issue is
happening again.
Also, I appreciate you could tell me more about the query when this issue
happened:
What's kind of the query?
Does a simple query will cause that problem?
When this issue happened, what were recorded in the SQL error logs and
system event logs?
If you have any other concerns, please feel free to let me know. It's my
pleasure to be of assistance.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Charles Wang
Microsoft Online Partner Support
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
========================================
=============
Business-Critical Phone Support (BCPS) provides you with technical phone
support at no charge during critical LAN outages or "business down"
situations. This benefit is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to all
Microsoft technology partners in the United States and Canada.
This and other support options are available here:
BCPS:
https://partner.microsoft.com/US/te...erview/40010469
Others:
https://partner.microsoft.com/US/te...upportoverview/
If you are outside the United States, please visit our International
Support page:
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...rnational.aspx.
========================================
=============
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||Hi,
Thanks for your post!
From your description, I understand that:
You installed SQL Server 2005 64bit as clustered servers. The Windows
Server 2003 was also 64bit.
When you executed the query in SQL Server Management Studio locally, the
remote desktop need a long time to connect the server and had very slow
responses for requests.
At that time, extra connections to the SQL Server were also slow and even
failed. The CPU use ratio and disk I/O level were low then.
This happened once a while. The latest query was to create index on many
large partitioned tables.
If I have misunderstood, please let me know.
To narrow down this issue, I appreciate you send me the performance report
files of SQL Server Profiler and Performance Monitor when the issue is
happening again.
Also, I appreciate you could tell me more about the query when this issue
happened:
What's kind of the query?
Does a simple query will cause that problem?
When this issue happened, what were recorded in the SQL error logs and
system event logs?
If you have any other concerns, please feel free to let me know. It's my
pleasure to be of assistance.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Charles Wang
Microsoft Online Partner Support
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
========================================
=============
Business-Critical Phone Support (BCPS) provides you with technical phone
support at no charge during critical LAN outages or "business down"
situations. This benefit is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to all
Microsoft technology partners in the United States and Canada.
This and other support options are available here:
BCPS:
https://partner.microsoft.com/US/te...erview/40010469
Others:
https://partner.microsoft.com/US/te...upportoverview/
If you are outside the United States, please visit our International
Support page:
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...rnational.aspx.
========================================
=============
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||American are in vacation "Independency Day".
Charles|||Hi ,
I am interested in this issue. Would you mind letting me know the result of
the suggestions? If you need further assistance, feel free to let me know.
I will be more than happy to be of assistance.
Have a great day!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Charles Wang
Microsoft Online Partner Support
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
========================================
=====================
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

64-Bit SQL Server 2005 (Enterprise), SQL Agent Notifications and Database Mail

We have database mail configured on our 64-Bit SQL Server Enterprise 2005 (SP1) and are able to send test messages from the context menu that appears when selecting database mail component.

However for some reason when a SQL Agent Job fails, no emails are sent to the 'operator' that has been defined for the job. I have confirmed that we have the operators correctly configured. We also have a small SQL Agent Job that just sends a test email via the sp_send_dbmail command and that works properly. However if I deliberately create a malformed parameter in the sp_send_dbmail command to 'break' it...no notification of a job failure message is sent.

I have verified that the service_broker component is enabled...and the status of database mail in the MSDB database is 'started.'

We have setup several other 32-bit SQL Server 2005 systems using database mail...and they all work flawlessly.

After reviewing existing message posts...I am unsure if there is a problem with database mail on a 64-bit SQL Server box. Some say 'yes' other say 'no'.

There are several MSDN notes about the problem...however these appeared prior to the release of SP1 of SQL Server 2005.

Thank you for your assistance.

...cordell...

SQL Database mail which relies on using your SMTP server instead of a mail client to send out email, so check whether that service is started as a first point of check.|||

yes..our Exchange server works properly and is running. I have several other 32-bit SQL Server 2005 system that are able to send email (using SQL Database Mail) without issue.

Maybe I have misunderstood your reply and missing something obvious...since this is a pretty basic question.

Thank you.

...cordell...

|||

As I read KB article 908360 it says that SQL Server 2005 (x64) is not integrated with Database Mail or with SQL Mail in Microsoft SQL Server 2005 64-bit editions.

But then there is a note that says, "Note In SQL Server 2005 Service Pack 1 (SP1), you can use SQL Server Agent to interact with Database Mail as the mailing system on 64-bit operating systems."

We have SP1 installed on our x64 SQL Servers but Database Mail still doesn't work with SQL Agent. The history for any job that fails says, " NOTE: Failed to notify 'DB_Engineering' via email."

QUESTIONS:

Is it correct to assume that there is one and only one SP1 package for SQL Server 2005? Our assumption is that the currently available SP1 is for both 32 bit and 64 bit SQL Server 2005 installations.

Does a separate 64 bit SP1 exist somewhere?

Are there special instructions required for setting up database Mail on SQL Server 2005 (x64) SP1 without using Outlook Express? If so, we haven't found them yet.

Does this article really mean that Outlook Express is currently the only workaround for using Email Notifications on a 64 bit SQL Server? (We do not activate Outlook Express -- or even SMTP -- on Production SQL Servers. SMTP exists on its own machine.)

Please advise,

Thanks,

Ernie

64-bit SQL

I have run into an interesting problem. I have some code that adds a column
to an existing table. The column is set as primary key, identity and
clustered. On the 32-bit version of SQL Server 2005 it works fine. It
fails on the 64-bit version of SQL Server 2005 intermittently with a "could
not create unique index because duplicate values were found". Kind of odd,
considering as an identity field it's creating the values. I was able to
recreate the problem with the following schema:
Create table test1
(col1 varchar(20),
col2 varchar(20),
col3 uniqueidentifier default newid())
-- insert data
Declare @.counter int
set @.counter=1
While @.counter < 1000000
BEGIN
insert into test1
values ('Joe','Smith',default)
Set @.counter=@.counter+1
END
-- add column
Alter table test1 add col4 int constraint PK_test1 primary key clustered
identity
After Running this, I get this error:
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX terminated because a duplicate key was found for object
name 'dbo.Test1' and index name 'PK_test1'. The duplicate key value is (28).
Anybody else run into this? Why would this be happening, and is there any
way to fix it? I'm running the 64-bit version of Windows 2003 and the the
64-bit version of SQL Server 2005.
Thanks in advance,
MarkI don't have 64-bit system handy to test this on but you might see if you
can recreate the problem with parallelism off.
ALTER TABLE test1 ADD col4 int
CONSTRAINT PK_test1 PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED
WITH (MAXDOP = 1)
IDENTITY
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"MAS" <mark_stricker@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:efXagtwBGHA.2356@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>I have run into an interesting problem. I have some code that adds a
>column to an existing table. The column is set as primary key, identity
>and clustered. On the 32-bit version of SQL Server 2005 it works fine. It
>fails on the 64-bit version of SQL Server 2005 intermittently with a "could
>not create unique index because duplicate values were found". Kind of odd,
>considering as an identity field it's creating the values. I was able to
>recreate the problem with the following schema:
> Create table test1
> (col1 varchar(20),
> col2 varchar(20),
> col3 uniqueidentifier default newid())
> -- insert data
> Declare @.counter int
> set @.counter=1
> While @.counter < 1000000
> BEGIN
> insert into test1
> values ('Joe','Smith',default)
> Set @.counter=@.counter+1
> END
> -- add column
> Alter table test1 add col4 int constraint PK_test1 primary key clustered
> identity
> After Running this, I get this error:
> CREATE UNIQUE INDEX terminated because a duplicate key was found for
> object name 'dbo.Test1' and index name 'PK_test1'. The duplicate key value
> is (28).
> Anybody else run into this? Why would this be happening, and is there any
> way to fix it? I'm running the 64-bit version of Windows 2003 and the the
> 64-bit version of SQL Server 2005.
> Thanks in advance,
> Mark
>
>|||I appreciate the help Dan. I had the same thought, (that it may be a
parellelism problem), but I hadn't tried your syntax. Unfortunately, I got
the same error after using your suggestion.
"Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:%23ys8E5wBGHA.3528@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>I don't have 64-bit system handy to test this on but you might see if you
>can recreate the problem with parallelism off.
> ALTER TABLE test1 ADD col4 int
> CONSTRAINT PK_test1 PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED
> WITH (MAXDOP = 1)
> IDENTITY
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
>|||The problem is intermittent. The first run of your syntax failed, the
second succeeded, the third failed.
"Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:%23ys8E5wBGHA.3528@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>I don't have 64-bit system handy to test this on but you might see if you
>can recreate the problem with parallelism off.
> ALTER TABLE test1 ADD col4 int
> CONSTRAINT PK_test1 PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED
> WITH (MAXDOP = 1)
> IDENTITY
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "MAS" <mark_stricker@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:efXagtwBGHA.2356@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>|||Even though the MAXDOP 1 didn't work around the problem, this information is
useful. I suggest you report this apparent bug using the feedback center at
http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/productfeedback/. Include your repro script
and be sure to specify that the problem is intermittent, occurs only on
64-bit and that the MAXDOP 1 hint didn't help.
If you need a workaround before the problem is resolved, you might try
adding the identity column and primary key as separate statements.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"MAS" <mark_stricker@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eAlN3MxBGHA.984@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> The problem is intermittent. The first run of your syntax failed, the
> second succeeded, the third failed.
> "Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:%23ys8E5wBGHA.3528@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>|||Dan,
I'll report the bug. By the way, I replaced the alter table component with
the following code:
Alter table test1 add col4 int identity
go
Alter table test1 add constraint pk_test1 primary key(col4)
And I still get the same error message.
"Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Oz98RYxBGHA.1092@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

> Even though the MAXDOP 1 didn't work around the problem, this information
> is useful. I suggest you report this apparent bug using the feedback
> center at http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/productfeedback/. Include your
> repro script and be sure to specify that the problem is intermittent,
> occurs only on 64-bit and that the MAXDOP 1 hint didn't help.
> If you need a workaround before the problem is resolved, you might try
> adding the identity column and primary key as separate statements.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "MAS" <mark_stricker@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eAlN3MxBGHA.984@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>

64-bit server deployment from 32-bit workstations

Our workstations (XP SP2) and development servers (2003 R2) are all 32-bit.Our Staging and Production SQL Servers are 64-bit (2003 R2 x64).We have some VB SQLCLR assemblies we've developed.

My question is: Do we have to do anything special when deploying a CLR Assembly to a 64-bit box when it has been compiled on a 32-bit box?Are there any advantages to setting the Target CPU from "AnyCPU" to "x64"?Documentation and testing seems to indicate that the assembly will run in 64-bit mode if compiled to "AnyCPU".

Will it run "better" in 64-bit mode with the "x64" Target CPU type?

Thanks!
There is nothing special you have to for assemblies to run on both 32-bit and 64-bit without any changes. You just need to be sure you have not made the assemblies architecture specific accidentally. By default, assemblies are MSIL unless the user specifies an architecture, runs ngen on them, or uses PInvoke.

To verify what architecture your assemblies are, do select * from sys.assemblies in your database, and look at the clr_name for the assembly. If you see processorarchitecture=msil or it is missing, then the assembly is architecture independent.

In your case, there is no advantage to specifing Target CPU as x64 because it will make deployment more complicated as you will have compile different assemblies for development and production. The "x64" Target CPU type is only useful if you were using PInvoke or some other CLR feature that made your binary architecture specific. The JIT will optimize the code just fine for each archiecture from the MSIL version.|||Thanks!

64-bit Server (clustered) 128 GB ram - 155 GB used

It seems the Server itself shows 155GB used, even though one Instance has 91 GB limit and the other 31 GB limit?

The server only has 128 GB of RAM with a 30+ GB Virtual Swap File.

What do I check to see if there is a problem? What perfmon do I use?

We are testing on this server and the CPUs are only at 5-10% max. Some testing brought the CPUs to 80-90%.

There are no errors.

Thanks,

Thomas

If you have two instances on one server, they will use all the memory up to the Max memory limit that you set for SQL Server in each instance.

You also need to make sure that you have given the "Lock Pages in Memory" right to the SQL Server service account. My blog post has more details:

http://glennberrysqlperformance.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!45041418ECCAA960!115.entry

If you are concerned about memory pressure, buffer cache hit ratio and page life expectancy, and memory grants pending are three places to start looking.

|||

Where are you getting the 155GB value from? Can you try DBCC memorystatus on both instances and paste the results?

Thanks, Ron D.

64-bit Server (clustered) 128 GB ram - 155 GB used

It seems the Server itself shows 155GB used, even though one Instance has 91 GB limit and the other 31 GB limit?

The server only has 128 GB of RAM with a 30+ GB Virtual Swap File.

What do I check to see if there is a problem? What perfmon do I use?

We are testing on this server and the CPUs are only at 5-10% max. Some testing brought the CPUs to 80-90%.

There are no errors.

Thanks,

Thomas

If you have two instances on one server, they will use all the memory up to the Max memory limit that you set for SQL Server in each instance.

You also need to make sure that you have given the "Lock Pages in Memory" right to the SQL Server service account. My blog post has more details:

http://glennberrysqlperformance.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!45041418ECCAA960!115.entry

If you are concerned about memory pressure, buffer cache hit ratio and page life expectancy, and memory grants pending are three places to start looking.

|||

Where are you getting the 155GB value from? Can you try DBCC memorystatus on both instances and paste the results?

Thanks, Ron D.