a database restore technique question...

background sql2k on nt4.
one of the disk stripe went bad during the weekend and our network admin
rebuilt the box and reinstalled sql2k w/ sp2 but he didnt' check what was
installed origionally. his restore is like this:
1. origional sql excutables and database files are located at d:\mssql\, he
renamed it to d:\mssql_x\
2. he reinstalled sql2k and system databases to d:\mssql\, after that he was
able to start the sql service again.
3. he then renamed d:\mssql\ to d:\mssql_y\, and renamed d:\mssql_x\ back to
d:\mssql\
but the sql service wouldn't start. he said that tenique worked a couple of
times at other occasions.
my questions:
1. what might go wrong this time?
2. what's wrong with this technique, there is no backup or restore involved.
almost sounds too easy to be true.
thank you.
What he should have done was copy over the old database files to the new
folder. It appears that perhaps the old executables got corrupted.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"Steve Lin" <lins@.nospam.portptld.com> wrote in message
news:%234$J1ViJEHA.1392@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
background sql2k on nt4.
one of the disk stripe went bad during the weekend and our network admin
rebuilt the box and reinstalled sql2k w/ sp2 but he didnt' check what was
installed origionally. his restore is like this:
1. origional sql excutables and database files are located at d:\mssql\, he
renamed it to d:\mssql_x\
2. he reinstalled sql2k and system databases to d:\mssql\, after that he was
able to start the sql service again.
3. he then renamed d:\mssql\ to d:\mssql_y\, and renamed d:\mssql_x\ back to
d:\mssql\
but the sql service wouldn't start. he said that tenique worked a couple of
times at other occasions.
my questions:
1. what might go wrong this time?
2. what's wrong with this technique, there is no backup or restore involved.
almost sounds too easy to be true.
thank you.
|||"...copy over the old database files to the new..."
does that include system files such as master, msdb and so on?
if that's the case, wouldn't you need to 'attach' all the databases?
his tenique simple renamed the original directory to the new directory.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:#cXyfpiJEHA.2412@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> What he should have done was copy over the old database files to the new
> folder. It appears that perhaps the old executables got corrupted.
> --
> Tom
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Steve Lin" <lins@.nospam.portptld.com> wrote in message
> news:%234$J1ViJEHA.1392@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> background sql2k on nt4.
> one of the disk stripe went bad during the weekend and our network admin
> rebuilt the box and reinstalled sql2k w/ sp2 but he didnt' check what was
> installed origionally. his restore is like this:
> 1. origional sql excutables and database files are located at d:\mssql\,
he
> renamed it to d:\mssql_x\
> 2. he reinstalled sql2k and system databases to d:\mssql\, after that he
was
> able to start the sql service again.
> 3. he then renamed d:\mssql\ to d:\mssql_y\, and renamed d:\mssql_x\ back
to
> d:\mssql\
> but the sql service wouldn't start. he said that tenique worked a couple
of
> times at other occasions.
> my questions:
> 1. what might go wrong this time?
> 2. what's wrong with this technique, there is no backup or restore
involved.
> almost sounds too easy to be true.
> thank you.
>
|||For everything to be in synch, then yes, you would have to move all
databases - assuming none were corrupted. Simply renaming the directory
would make it point to all of the old stuff - including the executables. If
the original SQL Server had been shut down properly, you wouldn't need to
attach anything.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"Steve Lin" <lins@.nospam.portptld.com> wrote in message
news:OsUOquiJEHA.228@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
"...copy over the old database files to the new..."
does that include system files such as master, msdb and so on?
if that's the case, wouldn't you need to 'attach' all the databases?
his tenique simple renamed the original directory to the new directory.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:#cXyfpiJEHA.2412@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> What he should have done was copy over the old database files to the new
> folder. It appears that perhaps the old executables got corrupted.
> --
> Tom
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Steve Lin" <lins@.nospam.portptld.com> wrote in message
> news:%234$J1ViJEHA.1392@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> background sql2k on nt4.
> one of the disk stripe went bad during the weekend and our network admin
> rebuilt the box and reinstalled sql2k w/ sp2 but he didnt' check what was
> installed origionally. his restore is like this:
> 1. origional sql excutables and database files are located at d:\mssql\,
he
> renamed it to d:\mssql_x\
> 2. he reinstalled sql2k and system databases to d:\mssql\, after that he
was
> able to start the sql service again.
> 3. he then renamed d:\mssql\ to d:\mssql_y\, and renamed d:\mssql_x\ back
to
> d:\mssql\
> but the sql service wouldn't start. he said that tenique worked a couple
of
> times at other occasions.
> my questions:
> 1. what might go wrong this time?
> 2. what's wrong with this technique, there is no backup or restore
involved.
> almost sounds too easy to be true.
> thank you.
>

a database restore technique question...

background sql2k on nt4.
one of the disk stripe went bad during the weekend and our network admin
rebuilt the box and reinstalled sql2k w/ sp2 but he didnt' check what was
installed origionally. his restore is like this:
1. origional sql excutables and database files are located at d:\mssql\, he
renamed it to d:\mssql_x\
2. he reinstalled sql2k and system databases to d:\mssql\, after that he was
able to start the sql service again.
3. he then renamed d:\mssql\ to d:\mssql_y\, and renamed d:\mssql_x\ back to
d:\mssql\
but the sql service wouldn't start. he said that tenique worked a couple of
times at other occasions.
my questions:
1. what might go wrong this time?
2. what's wrong with this technique, there is no backup or restore involved.
almost sounds too easy to be true.
thank you.What he should have done was copy over the old database files to the new
folder. It appears that perhaps the old executables got corrupted.
--
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"Steve Lin" <lins@.nospam.portptld.com> wrote in message
news:%234$J1ViJEHA.1392@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
background sql2k on nt4.
one of the disk stripe went bad during the weekend and our network admin
rebuilt the box and reinstalled sql2k w/ sp2 but he didnt' check what was
installed origionally. his restore is like this:
1. origional sql excutables and database files are located at d:\mssql\, he
renamed it to d:\mssql_x\
2. he reinstalled sql2k and system databases to d:\mssql\, after that he was
able to start the sql service again.
3. he then renamed d:\mssql\ to d:\mssql_y\, and renamed d:\mssql_x\ back to
d:\mssql\
but the sql service wouldn't start. he said that tenique worked a couple of
times at other occasions.
my questions:
1. what might go wrong this time?
2. what's wrong with this technique, there is no backup or restore involved.
almost sounds too easy to be true.
thank you.|||"...copy over the old database files to the new..."
does that include system files such as master, msdb and so on?
if that's the case, wouldn't you need to 'attach' all the databases?
his tenique simple renamed the original directory to the new directory.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:#cXyfpiJEHA.2412@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> What he should have done was copy over the old database files to the new
> folder. It appears that perhaps the old executables got corrupted.
> --
> Tom
> ---
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Steve Lin" <lins@.nospam.portptld.com> wrote in message
> news:%234$J1ViJEHA.1392@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> background sql2k on nt4.
> one of the disk stripe went bad during the weekend and our network admin
> rebuilt the box and reinstalled sql2k w/ sp2 but he didnt' check what was
> installed origionally. his restore is like this:
> 1. origional sql excutables and database files are located at d:\mssql\,
he
> renamed it to d:\mssql_x\
> 2. he reinstalled sql2k and system databases to d:\mssql\, after that he
was
> able to start the sql service again.
> 3. he then renamed d:\mssql\ to d:\mssql_y\, and renamed d:\mssql_x\ back
to
> d:\mssql\
> but the sql service wouldn't start. he said that tenique worked a couple
of
> times at other occasions.
> my questions:
> 1. what might go wrong this time?
> 2. what's wrong with this technique, there is no backup or restore
involved.
> almost sounds too easy to be true.
> thank you.
>|||For everything to be in synch, then yes, you would have to move all
databases - assuming none were corrupted. Simply renaming the directory
would make it point to all of the old stuff - including the executables. If
the original SQL Server had been shut down properly, you wouldn't need to
attach anything.
--
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"Steve Lin" <lins@.nospam.portptld.com> wrote in message
news:OsUOquiJEHA.228@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
"...copy over the old database files to the new..."
does that include system files such as master, msdb and so on?
if that's the case, wouldn't you need to 'attach' all the databases?
his tenique simple renamed the original directory to the new directory.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:#cXyfpiJEHA.2412@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> What he should have done was copy over the old database files to the new
> folder. It appears that perhaps the old executables got corrupted.
> --
> Tom
> ---
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Steve Lin" <lins@.nospam.portptld.com> wrote in message
> news:%234$J1ViJEHA.1392@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> background sql2k on nt4.
> one of the disk stripe went bad during the weekend and our network admin
> rebuilt the box and reinstalled sql2k w/ sp2 but he didnt' check what was
> installed origionally. his restore is like this:
> 1. origional sql excutables and database files are located at d:\mssql\,
he
> renamed it to d:\mssql_x\
> 2. he reinstalled sql2k and system databases to d:\mssql\, after that he
was
> able to start the sql service again.
> 3. he then renamed d:\mssql\ to d:\mssql_y\, and renamed d:\mssql_x\ back
to
> d:\mssql\
> but the sql service wouldn't start. he said that tenique worked a couple
of
> times at other occasions.
> my questions:
> 1. what might go wrong this time?
> 2. what's wrong with this technique, there is no backup or restore
involved.
> almost sounds too easy to be true.
> thank you.
>

a database restore technique question...

background sql2k on nt4.
one of the disk stripe went bad during the weekend and our network admin
rebuilt the box and reinstalled sql2k w/ sp2 but he didnt' check what was
installed origionally. his restore is like this:
1. origional sql excutables and database files are located at d:\mssql\, he
renamed it to d:\mssql_x\
2. he reinstalled sql2k and system databases to d:\mssql\, after that he was
able to start the sql service again.
3. he then renamed d:\mssql\ to d:\mssql_y\, and renamed d:\mssql_x\ back to
d:\mssql\
but the sql service wouldn't start. he said that tenique worked a couple of
times at other occasions.
my questions:
1. what might go wrong this time?
2. what's wrong with this technique, there is no backup or restore involved.
almost sounds too easy to be true.
thank you.What he should have done was copy over the old database files to the new
folder. It appears that perhaps the old executables got corrupted.
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"Steve Lin" <lins@.nospam.portptld.com> wrote in message
news:%234$J1ViJEHA.1392@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
background sql2k on nt4.
one of the disk stripe went bad during the weekend and our network admin
rebuilt the box and reinstalled sql2k w/ sp2 but he didnt' check what was
installed origionally. his restore is like this:
1. origional sql excutables and database files are located at d:\mssql\, he
renamed it to d:\mssql_x\
2. he reinstalled sql2k and system databases to d:\mssql\, after that he was
able to start the sql service again.
3. he then renamed d:\mssql\ to d:\mssql_y\, and renamed d:\mssql_x\ back to
d:\mssql\
but the sql service wouldn't start. he said that tenique worked a couple of
times at other occasions.
my questions:
1. what might go wrong this time?
2. what's wrong with this technique, there is no backup or restore involved.
almost sounds too easy to be true.
thank you.|||"...copy over the old database files to the new..."
does that include system files such as master, msdb and so on?
if that's the case, wouldn't you need to 'attach' all the databases?
his tenique simple renamed the original directory to the new directory.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:#cXyfpiJEHA.2412@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> What he should have done was copy over the old database files to the new
> folder. It appears that perhaps the old executables got corrupted.
> --
> Tom
> ---
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Steve Lin" <lins@.nospam.portptld.com> wrote in message
> news:%234$J1ViJEHA.1392@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> background sql2k on nt4.
> one of the disk stripe went bad during the weekend and our network admin
> rebuilt the box and reinstalled sql2k w/ sp2 but he didnt' check what was
> installed origionally. his restore is like this:
> 1. origional sql excutables and database files are located at d:\mssql\,
he
> renamed it to d:\mssql_x\
> 2. he reinstalled sql2k and system databases to d:\mssql\, after that he
was
> able to start the sql service again.
> 3. he then renamed d:\mssql\ to d:\mssql_y\, and renamed d:\mssql_x\ back
to
> d:\mssql\
> but the sql service wouldn't start. he said that tenique worked a couple
of
> times at other occasions.
> my questions:
> 1. what might go wrong this time?
> 2. what's wrong with this technique, there is no backup or restore
involved.
> almost sounds too easy to be true.
> thank you.
>|||For everything to be in synch, then yes, you would have to move all
databases - assuming none were corrupted. Simply renaming the directory
would make it point to all of the old stuff - including the executables. If
the original SQL Server had been shut down properly, you wouldn't need to
attach anything.
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"Steve Lin" <lins@.nospam.portptld.com> wrote in message
news:OsUOquiJEHA.228@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
"...copy over the old database files to the new..."
does that include system files such as master, msdb and so on?
if that's the case, wouldn't you need to 'attach' all the databases?
his tenique simple renamed the original directory to the new directory.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:#cXyfpiJEHA.2412@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> What he should have done was copy over the old database files to the new
> folder. It appears that perhaps the old executables got corrupted.
> --
> Tom
> ---
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Steve Lin" <lins@.nospam.portptld.com> wrote in message
> news:%234$J1ViJEHA.1392@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> background sql2k on nt4.
> one of the disk stripe went bad during the weekend and our network admin
> rebuilt the box and reinstalled sql2k w/ sp2 but he didnt' check what was
> installed origionally. his restore is like this:
> 1. origional sql excutables and database files are located at d:\mssql\,
he
> renamed it to d:\mssql_x\
> 2. he reinstalled sql2k and system databases to d:\mssql\, after that he
was
> able to start the sql service again.
> 3. he then renamed d:\mssql\ to d:\mssql_y\, and renamed d:\mssql_x\ back
to
> d:\mssql\
> but the sql service wouldn't start. he said that tenique worked a couple
of
> times at other occasions.
> my questions:
> 1. what might go wrong this time?
> 2. what's wrong with this technique, there is no backup or restore
involved.
> almost sounds too easy to be true.
> thank you.
>

A baffeling problem between a text box and database table.

I have a web form with a text box that when submited gets put in a field in a table in an SQL database. Only 50 characters were being passed to the table. I gave the text box a max size of 200 characters and also found that the field in my table was set at 50 char. I had my SA set the field to 200 char. I rebuilt the solution and yet I am still only getting 50 charecters in the table. Any ideas?Show how you are setting the field in SQL Server.|||This is what I am doing to update my database.
'comments' is the field in question.
_______________________________________

Private Sub Update_Dataset()
Dim dr As DataRow = DataSet11.Tables("Results").NewRow()
dr("Area") = Area.SelectedItem
dr("Q1") = Q1.SelectedIndex + 1
dr("Q2") = Q2.SelectedIndex + 1
dr("Q3") = Q3.SelectedIndex + 1
dr("Q4") = Q4.SelectedIndex + 1
dr("Q5") = Q5.SelectedIndex + 1
dr("Q6") = Q6.SelectedIndex + 1
dr("Q7") = Q7.SelectedIndex + 1
dr("Q8") = Q8.SelectedIndex + 1
dr("Q9") = Q9.SelectedIndex + 1
dr("Comments") = Comments.Text
dr("ID") = 0
DataSet11.Tables("Results").Rows.Add(dr)
OleDbDataAdapter1.Update(DataSet11, "Results")

End Sub

__________________________________________________________

8GB RAM in SQL Server

Hi,
I'm just designing a server... What can I do with 8GB RAM in the Box?
Analysis Services is limited to 8GB. The Enterprise Edition of SQL Server
can use max.8GB RAM. Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition can use 8GB, too.
So I can use 3GB for Analysis Services and the remaining 5GB are used for
SQL Server and the OS? Is this right?
Thanks
ThomasActually, there is no direct answer for this. It depends
on how much memory the analysis server requires for cubes
and memory required for SQL Server.
It also depends on any other applications running on the
same box.
In General, You have to allocate for OS,SQLServer,analysis
Server and then for other applications.
Please read this to get some idea on how SQL Server memory
works. http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?
url=/library/en-us/adminsql/ad_config_9zfy.asp
Also , read "memory architecture" from BOL.
To allocate memory for Analysis Server, stop and start the
analysis services and open the task manager and look for
memory used by the processess "msmdsrv.exe"
and "msmdvldm.exe". The sum of these memory is minimum
required for analysis services to start.
SQLVarad (MCDBA-1999,MCSE-1999)
>--Original Message--
>Hi,
>I'm just designing a server... What can I do with 8GB RAM
in the Box?
>Analysis Services is limited to 8GB. The Enterprise
Edition of SQL Server
>can use max.8GB RAM. Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition can
use 8GB, too.
>So I can use 3GB for Analysis Services and the remaining
5GB are used for
>SQL Server and the OS? Is this right?
>
>Thanks
>
>Thomas
>
>.
>|||Hi,
thanks, that pointed me in the right direction...
Thomas
"SQLVarad" <SQLVarad@.hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:010c01c3a3d4$6cc8f790$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> Actually, there is no direct answer for this. It depends
> on how much memory the analysis server requires for cubes
> and memory required for SQL Server.
> It also depends on any other applications running on the
> same box.
> In General, You have to allocate for OS,SQLServer,analysis
> Server and then for other applications.
> Please read this to get some idea on how SQL Server memory
> works. http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?
> url=/library/en-us/adminsql/ad_config_9zfy.asp
> Also , read "memory architecture" from BOL.
> To allocate memory for Analysis Server, stop and start the
> analysis services and open the task manager and look for
> memory used by the processess "msmdsrv.exe"
> and "msmdvldm.exe". The sum of these memory is minimum
> required for analysis services to start.
> SQLVarad (MCDBA-1999,MCSE-1999)
>
> >--Original Message--
> >Hi,
> >
> >I'm just designing a server... What can I do with 8GB RAM
> in the Box?
> >Analysis Services is limited to 8GB. The Enterprise
> Edition of SQL Server
> >can use max.8GB RAM. Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition can
> use 8GB, too.
> >So I can use 3GB for Analysis Services and the remaining
> 5GB are used for
> >SQL Server and the OS? Is this right?
> >
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >
> >Thomas
> >
> >
> >.
> >

64-Bit Installation of SQL Server 2005 on AMD Server

I have an 8-Processor AMD CPU box with Windows Server 2003 Enterprise (x64) R2 with SP1 installed.

How do I verify that I am installing the 64-Bit version of SQL Server 2005? I don't see any installer 'options' and when I view the list of SQL Server 2005 components in the Add/Remove program list there is nothing mentioned.

The source of my SQL Server 2005 installation code is the 'Ready Set Launch' DVD that Microsoft handed out when SQL Server 2005 was launched in 11/2005.

I haven't found any documentation to specifically details 64-bit installations.

Thank you.

...cordell...

The media itself must be the 64-bit version of SQL 2005. Since your AMD box will support both 32-bit and 64-bit versions, it's tough to tell what you're installing. After installing, the 64-bit versions have a "(64-bit)" tag on the end of them in Add/Remove Programs. My guess is that you have a copy of the 32-bit version.

Thanks,
Sam Lester (MSFT)

|||

Sam...

From what I can see I am installing the 32-bit versions of the SQL Server 2005 software on the AMD box.

I apologize for being pedantic here.....but I wanted to confirm that I will need to follow back up with my software vendor and order a 64-bit version of SQL Server 2005. (This is what I am concluding from your statements.)

After searching around the SKU I have is 228-05237 for this version...but I couldn't find anything in the SQL Server section of the MS website to confirm it. While I realize you are not in sales...what would the URL be for confirming the SKU on the media.

Thank you.

...cordell...

|||

No problem at all. You will need to contact your software vendor and specifically request the 64-bit version. I don't fully understand the licensing options for every situation, but I think this page will help you find the SKU/item number you are looking for. I have linked the Enterprise SKU's, but you can search for the others as well.

http://www.microsoft.com/PRODUCTS/info/product.aspx?view=22&pcid=d635228e-6aed-404b-9af1-7c27819c24e4&crumb=srch&qu=sql+server&gpid=c419977d-7963-4c38-8caf-95d3f779bed1

Example (make sure you pick the one that applies to you):

Full Version
Microsoft? SQL Server Enterprise Edition 2005 x64 English CD/DVD 25 Client
Item: 810-05188

Let me know if this is what you're looking for.

Thanks,
Sam

|||

Thank you Sam for the confirmation and assistance. That is what I was looking for.

...cordell...

64-Bit Edition for RS Database

I am attempting to install Reporting Services on a 32-bit application server
with the database on another box running SQL Server 2000 "Enterprise Edition
(64-bit)" . I am receiving the following error:
"This edition of the Report Server Database is not supported on the edition
of SQL Server 2000 you have chosen. Please choose ..."
The version I am attempting to install is "Reporting Services Enterprise
Edition". I've verified in the install window that it is the Enterprise
Edition of Reporting Services that I am trying to install. I have verified
that I can connect to the 64-bit server from my application server and my SQL
Login Account has SysAdmin permissions. I ran the SELECT
SERVERPROPERTY('productversion'), SERVERPROPERTY ('productlevel'),
SERVERPROPERTY ('edition') command that I read in another thread and it
returned the following information:
8.00.760 SP3 Enterprise Edition (64-bit)
I'm suspect that the "Enterprise Edition (64-bit)" is the culprit. Has
anyone installed Reporting Services using 64-bit SQL Server 2000 for the
database repository?
Thanks in advance...Setup will not allow you to install using a 64 bit version of SQL. There
are manual steps you can perform to get this to work, but it would require a
32 bit version of SQL.
1) Install RS pointing to the 32 bit version of SQL.
2) move both the ReportServer DB and the ReportServerTemp DB to the 64 bit
version (I don't know what the exact steps are to move a database from a 32
bit to a 64 bit sql, you would have to investigate this)
3) use rsconfig.exe to point RS to the 64 bit version of the catalog
-Daniel
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Malinda Jepsen" <Malinda Jepsen@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E3DE691A-4A16-46CD-BE89-9964EE0FDCBA@.microsoft.com...
> I am attempting to install Reporting Services on a 32-bit application
server
> with the database on another box running SQL Server 2000 "Enterprise
Edition
> (64-bit)" . I am receiving the following error:
> "This edition of the Report Server Database is not supported on the
edition
> of SQL Server 2000 you have chosen. Please choose ..."
> The version I am attempting to install is "Reporting Services Enterprise
> Edition". I've verified in the install window that it is the Enterprise
> Edition of Reporting Services that I am trying to install. I have
verified
> that I can connect to the 64-bit server from my application server and my
SQL
> Login Account has SysAdmin permissions. I ran the SELECT
> SERVERPROPERTY('productversion'), SERVERPROPERTY ('productlevel'),
> SERVERPROPERTY ('edition') command that I read in another thread and it
> returned the following information:
> 8.00.760 SP3 Enterprise Edition (64-bit)
> I'm suspect that the "Enterprise Edition (64-bit)" is the culprit. Has
> anyone installed Reporting Services using 64-bit SQL Server 2000 for the
> database repository?
> Thanks in advance...|||Finally success!
What I found was that I couldn't pull a database from another install of
Reporting Services. Since I had already installed it in our lab environment
on a 32-bit server, I first tried to attach that database. But when I did
that, Reporting Services thought I wanted to join a web farm. Then when I
tried to install it with the .ini file with SQL authentication to create the
database (RSSETUPACCOUNT/RSSETUPPASSWORD), it was not creating the database
(even though the SQL user I was using had SysAdmin permissions). I finally
gave my NT account SysAdmin rights and then it would create the database
(using the default install without an .ini file). Once that was complete,
sure enough, I could just move it to the 64-bit server (using standard
detach/attach). One final step was to give the SQL (or NT) user permissions
in the database (I started with datareader and datawriter).
"Daniel Reib [MSFT]" wrote:
> Setup will not allow you to install using a 64 bit version of SQL. There
> are manual steps you can perform to get this to work, but it would require a
> 32 bit version of SQL.
> 1) Install RS pointing to the 32 bit version of SQL.
> 2) move both the ReportServer DB and the ReportServerTemp DB to the 64 bit
> version (I don't know what the exact steps are to move a database from a 32
> bit to a 64 bit sql, you would have to investigate this)
> 3) use rsconfig.exe to point RS to the 64 bit version of the catalog
>
> --
> -Daniel
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>
> "Malinda Jepsen" <Malinda Jepsen@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E3DE691A-4A16-46CD-BE89-9964EE0FDCBA@.microsoft.com...
> > I am attempting to install Reporting Services on a 32-bit application
> server
> > with the database on another box running SQL Server 2000 "Enterprise
> Edition
> > (64-bit)" . I am receiving the following error:
> > "This edition of the Report Server Database is not supported on the
> edition
> > of SQL Server 2000 you have chosen. Please choose ..."
> >
> > The version I am attempting to install is "Reporting Services Enterprise
> > Edition". I've verified in the install window that it is the Enterprise
> > Edition of Reporting Services that I am trying to install. I have
> verified
> > that I can connect to the 64-bit server from my application server and my
> SQL
> > Login Account has SysAdmin permissions. I ran the SELECT
> > SERVERPROPERTY('productversion'), SERVERPROPERTY ('productlevel'),
> > SERVERPROPERTY ('edition') command that I read in another thread and it
> > returned the following information:
> > 8.00.760 SP3 Enterprise Edition (64-bit)
> >
> > I'm suspect that the "Enterprise Edition (64-bit)" is the culprit. Has
> > anyone installed Reporting Services using 64-bit SQL Server 2000 for the
> > database repository?
> >
> > Thanks in advance...
>
>

64 bit max memory setting for SQL 2005

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

64 bit max memory setting for SQL 2005

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

64 bit max memory setting for SQL 2005

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

6.5 Restore

Hi all,

I'm trying to move a SQL Server 6.5 database from one almost extinct NT4 box, to a whizz-bang only-almost-dead NT4 box. These boxes live in different domains, and CANNOT be networked together.

The original box has a daily backup routine that runs daily, with no errors. A colleague copied the data, log files and a single backup file from the overnight job from the original box, to the "new" box over the weekend, but when I go to restore the database from the backup file, the new installation doesn't seem to recognise a backup within this file. We have a backup file from that database that is about 2 years old, which restores perfectly well, but obviously, doesn't quite meet our needs data wise.

Is there an sp_attachdb (or equivalent) in SQL Server 6.5 that I can use to create a new database with the orignal data and log file??You can do something like sp_attach_db, but in SQL 6.5 it is pure smoke-and-mirrors, and almost completely unsupported.

Before we even head down that path, the problem you describe was common when trying to install a backup made with a later service pack than the machine trying to do the restore. As an example, if you made a backup with sp6 then tried to restore it using RTM (or even sp4) the server wouldn't even recognize it as a backup file, much less actually restore it!

My advice is to find out what service pack was applied to the machine making the backup, then bring the machine doing the restore to the same (or later) service pack.

-PatP|||Thanks Pat.

I've just checked and both machines are showing...

Microsoft SQL Server 6.50 - 6.50.416 (Intel X86)
Jan 23 1999 14:10:24

Also, the backup I CAN restore to the "new" box comes from the same original box as the backup that is unrecognised (admittedly some time ago, and therefore possibly some SP's ago)

The backup I can't restore on the new box, doesn't show any Backup Information in the "Add file" window of the restore options. On the original server however, the Backup Information shows just fine.

Is the create using original data and log files option really not advisable??

Thanks in advance

zinedunc|||Is the create using original data and log files option really not advisable??I would only try to attach a 6.5 database on a server that was 100% expendable, one that I didn't care if I had to reinstall both NT and SQL if necessary.

Have you tried using the LOAD DATABASE command from ISQL/W to see what results it returns?

-PatP|||I haven't tried that yet Pat - I've had very little experience on 6.5, and any 6.5 restores I've done in the past have been via the standard restore from backup files, without any issues.

I only have a backup file (created by a scheduled Backup Device, which the "new" server doesn't seem to like) and the original data and log files (copied from the original server when SQL Server service was stopped) - which of these, if any, can be used in the LOAD DATABASE statement please??|||i don't know if this is possible, but could you bcp out all the tables and data individually and then bcp them into a fresh datbase on the "new" box? it would take an age, but i think it could be done.|||Is this a problem of the database will not restore, or a problem of SQL Server can not "read" the backup file? Try running this:

restore headeronly from disk = 'your backup file'

Been a while since I used 6.5, so it may be "load headeronly" as opposed to "restore headeronly".

This command will only read the header information from the backup file, so you can see what is in it.|||Thanks to Pat, cruickshanks and MCrowley for your suggestions.

"load headeronly" using the backup file proved that SQL Server could read the file, and I currently have a "load database" command running against that file, that after an hour or so (thankfully) has not returned any errors.

Here's hoping all is well in the morning.

Thanks again.|||Ah, the "load database" I left running overnight didn't work.

I didn't receive an error as such, but got the following message returned....

"This command did not return any data, and it did not return any rows"

The original box here is not on site, and cannot be accessed from my network, so it's not as simple as taking another backup and copying it across.

Any ideas what else I can try with this backup file, or the original data and log files to save me a 200 mile drive today??

Thanks in advance|||Ah, OK, panic over....

The data appears to be in place, am just waiting for confirmation following testing through the application.

Thanks for all your help|||Sorry, we should have warned you that "no rows returned" was the expected response. It's been a while since I've used 6.5 on any regular basis, so I don't always think to forewarn people about its quirks.

-PatP

3G ram for SQL server

Hi,
I need help with right solution.
Server box: 4GBs RAM, SQL 2000 Enterprise, Windows 2003
server Enterprise.
I want SQL server have 3GB Ram. Please tell me which one
is right. (and reason if possible)
1. /3GB switch
2. /3GB switch and enable AWE
3. /3GB switch and enable AWE and /PAE
4. /3GB switch and /PAE
5. Enable AWE
Thanks
Mike
32-bit address space is limited to 4 GB of addressable memory (real or
virtual). Every process is mapped into a 4 GB virtual space. This space is
split, by default, between 2 GB of Kernel mode (or protected) and 2 GB of
User mode (or private) address space. The /3GB switch changes the partition
to 1 GB for Kernel mode and 3 GB for User mode.
To address more than 4 GB of memory, you need a bigger register. The /PAE
switch changes the memory register from a 32-bit to a 36-bit register, thus,
allowing you to potentially address 64 GB of virtual memory. You can set
this when you have at least 3 GB of physical ram, but it really isn't useful
until you have at least 4 GB or more of physical ram. An interesting point
here, in order to address more than 16 GB of memory, the Kernel will need at
least 2 GB to manage it. So, when using more than 16 GB of memory, you need
to remove the /3GB switch.
/PAE is only useful for the OS or applications that make use of special
extended memory API calls. SQL Server does, but only in AWE mode. So, to
address more than 3 GB of memory, SQL Server needs to be in AWE mode.
Between the 3 GB and 4 GB physical memory space you can use the /3GB switch
and AWE to allocate SQL Server 4 GB of memory. To go any larger, however,
AWE will require that the /PAE switch to also be set.
Now, when not in AWE mode, SQL Server uses dynamic memory allocation and, if
required, could address up to 4 GB without it. However, maximum would be 3
GB of physical ram and 1 GB of pagefile space.
When you go AWE, SQL Server grabs the MAX SERVER MEMORY and partitions as
much of it to the active Buffer Pool, the rest is left for inactive data
pages. The point is that most of it is physical, not virtual.
So, in your case, the /3GB switch should be set. However, there is no need
to use AWE and, therefore, no need to set the /PAE switch.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Mike" wrote:

> Hi,
> I need help with right solution.
> Server box: 4GBs RAM, SQL 2000 Enterprise, Windows 2003
> server Enterprise.
> I want SQL server have 3GB Ram. Please tell me which one
> is right. (and reason if possible)
> 1. /3GB switch
> 2. /3GB switch and enable AWE
> 3. /3GB switch and enable AWE and /PAE
> 4. /3GB switch and /PAE
> 5. Enable AWE
> Thanks
> Mike
>
|||I'd opt for option #1 since this will allow you to use 3GB for SQL Server
plus 1GB for the OS. PAE is only needed if you have over 4GB RAM.
AWE memory access is more expensive than regular memory addressing so I
wouldn't go there unless you had more memory and your performance tests
demonstrate that the additional memory access costs are outweighed by the
decreased i/o costs.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1b1d01c4c789$e500d320$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I need help with right solution.
> Server box: 4GBs RAM, SQL 2000 Enterprise, Windows 2003
> server Enterprise.
> I want SQL server have 3GB Ram. Please tell me which one
> is right. (and reason if possible)
> 1. /3GB switch
> 2. /3GB switch and enable AWE
> 3. /3GB switch and enable AWE and /PAE
> 4. /3GB switch and /PAE
> 5. Enable AWE
> Thanks
> Mike
>

3G ram for SQL server

Hi,
I need help with right solution.
Server box: 4GBs RAM, SQL 2000 Enterprise, Windows 2003
server Enterprise.
I want SQL server have 3GB Ram. Please tell me which one
is right. (and reason if possible)
1. /3GB switch
2. /3GB switch and enable AWE
3. /3GB switch and enable AWE and /PAE
4. /3GB switch and /PAE
5. Enable AWE
Thanks
Mike32-bit address space is limited to 4 GB of addressable memory (real or
virtual). Every process is mapped into a 4 GB virtual space. This space is
split, by default, between 2 GB of Kernel mode (or protected) and 2 GB of
User mode (or private) address space. The /3GB switch changes the partition
to 1 GB for Kernel mode and 3 GB for User mode.
To address more than 4 GB of memory, you need a bigger register. The /PAE
switch changes the memory register from a 32-bit to a 36-bit register, thus,
allowing you to potentially address 64 GB of virtual memory. You can set
this when you have at least 3 GB of physical ram, but it really isn't useful
until you have at least 4 GB or more of physical ram. An interesting point
here, in order to address more than 16 GB of memory, the Kernel will need at
least 2 GB to manage it. So, when using more than 16 GB of memory, you need
to remove the /3GB switch.
/PAE is only useful for the OS or applications that make use of special
extended memory API calls. SQL Server does, but only in AWE mode. So, to
address more than 3 GB of memory, SQL Server needs to be in AWE mode.
Between the 3 GB and 4 GB physical memory space you can use the /3GB switch
and AWE to allocate SQL Server 4 GB of memory. To go any larger, however,
AWE will require that the /PAE switch to also be set.
Now, when not in AWE mode, SQL Server uses dynamic memory allocation and, if
required, could address up to 4 GB without it. However, maximum would be 3
GB of physical ram and 1 GB of pagefile space.
When you go AWE, SQL Server grabs the MAX SERVER MEMORY and partitions as
much of it to the active Buffer Pool, the rest is left for inactive data
pages. The point is that most of it is physical, not virtual.
So, in your case, the /3GB switch should be set. However, there is no need
to use AWE and, therefore, no need to set the /PAE switch.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Mike" wrote:

> Hi,
> I need help with right solution.
> Server box: 4GBs RAM, SQL 2000 Enterprise, Windows 2003
> server Enterprise.
> I want SQL server have 3GB Ram. Please tell me which one
> is right. (and reason if possible)
> 1. /3GB switch
> 2. /3GB switch and enable AWE
> 3. /3GB switch and enable AWE and /PAE
> 4. /3GB switch and /PAE
> 5. Enable AWE
> Thanks
> Mike
>|||I'd opt for option #1 since this will allow you to use 3GB for SQL Server
plus 1GB for the OS. PAE is only needed if you have over 4GB RAM.
AWE memory access is more expensive than regular memory addressing so I
wouldn't go there unless you had more memory and your performance tests
demonstrate that the additional memory access costs are outweighed by the
decreased i/o costs.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1b1d01c4c789$e500d320$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I need help with right solution.
> Server box: 4GBs RAM, SQL 2000 Enterprise, Windows 2003
> server Enterprise.
> I want SQL server have 3GB Ram. Please tell me which one
> is right. (and reason if possible)
> 1. /3GB switch
> 2. /3GB switch and enable AWE
> 3. /3GB switch and enable AWE and /PAE
> 4. /3GB switch and /PAE
> 5. Enable AWE
> Thanks
> Mike
>

3G ram for SQL server

Hi,
I need help with right solution.
Server box: 4GBs RAM, SQL 2000 Enterprise, Windows 2003
server Enterprise.
I want SQL server have 3GB Ram. Please tell me which one
is right. (and reason if possible)
1. /3GB switch
2. /3GB switch and enable AWE
3. /3GB switch and enable AWE and /PAE
4. /3GB switch and /PAE
5. Enable AWE
Thanks
Mike32-bit address space is limited to 4 GB of addressable memory (real or
virtual). Every process is mapped into a 4 GB virtual space. This space is
split, by default, between 2 GB of Kernel mode (or protected) and 2 GB of
User mode (or private) address space. The /3GB switch changes the partition
to 1 GB for Kernel mode and 3 GB for User mode.
To address more than 4 GB of memory, you need a bigger register. The /PAE
switch changes the memory register from a 32-bit to a 36-bit register, thus,
allowing you to potentially address 64 GB of virtual memory. You can set
this when you have at least 3 GB of physical ram, but it really isn't useful
until you have at least 4 GB or more of physical ram. An interesting point
here, in order to address more than 16 GB of memory, the Kernel will need at
least 2 GB to manage it. So, when using more than 16 GB of memory, you need
to remove the /3GB switch.
/PAE is only useful for the OS or applications that make use of special
extended memory API calls. SQL Server does, but only in AWE mode. So, to
address more than 3 GB of memory, SQL Server needs to be in AWE mode.
Between the 3 GB and 4 GB physical memory space you can use the /3GB switch
and AWE to allocate SQL Server 4 GB of memory. To go any larger, however,
AWE will require that the /PAE switch to also be set.
Now, when not in AWE mode, SQL Server uses dynamic memory allocation and, if
required, could address up to 4 GB without it. However, maximum would be 3
GB of physical ram and 1 GB of pagefile space.
When you go AWE, SQL Server grabs the MAX SERVER MEMORY and partitions as
much of it to the active Buffer Pool, the rest is left for inactive data
pages. The point is that most of it is physical, not virtual.
So, in your case, the /3GB switch should be set. However, there is no need
to use AWE and, therefore, no need to set the /PAE switch.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Mike" wrote:
> Hi,
> I need help with right solution.
> Server box: 4GBs RAM, SQL 2000 Enterprise, Windows 2003
> server Enterprise.
> I want SQL server have 3GB Ram. Please tell me which one
> is right. (and reason if possible)
> 1. /3GB switch
> 2. /3GB switch and enable AWE
> 3. /3GB switch and enable AWE and /PAE
> 4. /3GB switch and /PAE
> 5. Enable AWE
> Thanks
> Mike
>|||I'd opt for option #1 since this will allow you to use 3GB for SQL Server
plus 1GB for the OS. PAE is only needed if you have over 4GB RAM.
AWE memory access is more expensive than regular memory addressing so I
wouldn't go there unless you had more memory and your performance tests
demonstrate that the additional memory access costs are outweighed by the
decreased i/o costs.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1b1d01c4c789$e500d320$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I need help with right solution.
> Server box: 4GBs RAM, SQL 2000 Enterprise, Windows 2003
> server Enterprise.
> I want SQL server have 3GB Ram. Please tell me which one
> is right. (and reason if possible)
> 1. /3GB switch
> 2. /3GB switch and enable AWE
> 3. /3GB switch and enable AWE and /PAE
> 4. /3GB switch and /PAE
> 5. Enable AWE
> Thanks
> Mike
>