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 SQL 2005 memory problem

Large Query immediately eats up all available memory in Server 2003 Server
XP1 SQL 2005 64 bit (8 gig ram). CPU pegs at 99% and nothing else appears to
be able to access SQL Server. Query is attempting to delete possibly as many
as 200 million duplicate entries in a table. Do settings exist in SQL to
limit the amount of processing power any one query can tap into from the
server?
Regards,
Jamie
Hi
Why do you try to delete 200 million rows at one transaction?
Can you divide it to small tranasctions and then perfom deletion?
SET ROWCOUNT 1000
WHILE 1 = 1
BEGIN
DELETE statement Here
IF @.@.ROWCOUNT = 0
BEGIN
BREAK
END
ELSE
BEGIN
CHECKPOINT --or even BACKUP LOG file
END
END
SET ROWCOUNT 0
"thejamie" <thejamie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B566306D-F6DC-4CB5-B85A-E0978B158495@.microsoft.com...
> Large Query immediately eats up all available memory in Server 2003 Server
> XP1 SQL 2005 64 bit (8 gig ram). CPU pegs at 99% and nothing else appears
> to
> be able to access SQL Server. Query is attempting to delete possibly as
> many
> as 200 million duplicate entries in a table. Do settings exist in SQL to
> limit the amount of processing power any one query can tap into from the
> server?
> --
> Regards,
> Jamie
|||First i would run this query when nobody is connected to avoid locks etc..
Second if possible split the query in steps instead of doing all deletes in
1 time.
Example...do 1000 deletes atime and so on.
You can set the minimal query memory at the server level, i have no
experience with changing this option .
Good luck.
DBA4ever
"thejamie" wrote:

> Large Query immediately eats up all available memory in Server 2003 Server
> XP1 SQL 2005 64 bit (8 gig ram). CPU pegs at 99% and nothing else appears to
> be able to access SQL Server. Query is attempting to delete possibly as many
> as 200 million duplicate entries in a table. Do settings exist in SQL to
> limit the amount of processing power any one query can tap into from the
> server?
> --
> Regards,
> Jamie
|||Can I point this in another directions? There is something called AWE that
is used to allocate memory and it appears that min and max memory can be
set... in the memory section of the server properties. How will this effect
such a query.
I should have added that this is the only query running on the server and it
is simply a test of what happens under severe conditions. The test indicates
to me that the server memory should be tempered. After the query ran 8
hours, I canceled it. It locked up the server last night and we had to do a
cold boot. In my opinion, despite the recklessness of the delete statement,
a cold boot should rarely if ever be required as the solution to a SQL
problem arising from a mis-directed query.
Regards,
Jamie
"Hate_orphaned_users" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> First i would run this query when nobody is connected to avoid locks etc..
> Second if possible split the query in steps instead of doing all deletes in
> 1 time.
> Example...do 1000 deletes atime and so on.
> You can set the minimal query memory at the server level, i have no
> experience with changing this option .
> Good luck.
> DBA4ever
> "thejamie" wrote:
|||On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 05:20:01 -0800, thejamie
<thejamie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>There is something called AWE that
>is used to allocate memory
AWE is for 32-bit, it does not apply to 64-bit SQL Server.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT
|||On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 05:20:01 -0800, thejamie
<thejamie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> After the query ran 8
>hours, I canceled it. It locked up the server last night and we had to do a
>cold boot. In my opinion, despite the recklessness of the delete statement,
>a cold boot should rarely if ever be required as the solution to a SQL
>problem arising from a mis-directed query.
The normal run time for a query that deletes 200 million rows may very
well exceed 8 hours. When such a query is cancelled while running, it
can take longer to toll back the work already done that it took to do
it in the first place, so 12 hours rolling back 8 hours of processing
would not be unexpected.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT
|||You should select the "Dynamically configure SQL server memory" option.
Then set the Maximum option to full.
|||> Thanks for that information, Dan. That's what I get for going by the
> documentation! 8-)
I understand, Roy. I was under the same impression until I ran across
Slova's blog.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Roy Harvey" <roy_harvey@.snet.net> wrote in message
news:g97gn2hckaq1h4um92i784tc7kpku4vitk@.4ax.com...
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 07:45:20 -0600, "Dan Guzman"
> <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Thanks for that information, Dan. That's what I get for going by the
> documentation! 8-)
> "3 Note that the sp_configure awe enabled option is present on 64-bit
> SQL Server, but it is ignored. It is subject to removal in future
> releases or service packs of 64-bit SQL Server."
> Roy
|||How about the lightweight pooling with Windows fibers? Should Boost SQL
Server priority be checked or unchecked? Should worker threads be set for 0?
Regards,
Jamie
"Roy Harvey" wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 05:20:01 -0800, thejamie
> <thejamie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> AWE is for 32-bit, it does not apply to 64-bit SQL Server.
> Roy Harvey
> Beacon Falls, CT
>
|||The service was restarted and this had no effect on the memory and cpu
usage... the cold boot came next, now the cpu usage and memory are maxed out
again.
Regards,
Jamie
"Dan Guzman" wrote:

> I understand, Roy. I was under the same impression until I ran across
> Slova's blog.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "Roy Harvey" <roy_harvey@.snet.net> wrote in message
> news:g97gn2hckaq1h4um92i784tc7kpku4vitk@.4ax.com...
>

64 bit SQL 2005 memory problem

Large Query immediately eats up all available memory in Server 2003 Server
XP1 SQL 2005 64 bit (8 gig ram). CPU pegs at 99% and nothing else appears t
o
be able to access SQL Server. Query is attempting to delete possibly as man
y
as 200 million duplicate entries in a table. Do settings exist in SQL to
limit the amount of processing power any one query can tap into from the
server?
--
Regards,
JamieHi
Why do you try to delete 200 million rows at one transaction?
Can you divide it to small tranasctions and then perfom deletion?
SET ROWCOUNT 1000
WHILE 1 = 1
BEGIN
DELETE statement Here
IF @.@.ROWCOUNT = 0
BEGIN
BREAK
END
ELSE
BEGIN
CHECKPOINT --or even BACKUP LOG file
END
END
SET ROWCOUNT 0
"thejamie" <thejamie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B566306D-F6DC-4CB5-B85A-E0978B158495@.microsoft.com...
> Large Query immediately eats up all available memory in Server 2003 Server
> XP1 SQL 2005 64 bit (8 gig ram). CPU pegs at 99% and nothing else appears
> to
> be able to access SQL Server. Query is attempting to delete possibly as
> many
> as 200 million duplicate entries in a table. Do settings exist in SQL to
> limit the amount of processing power any one query can tap into from the
> server?
> --
> Regards,
> Jamie|||First i would run this query when nobody is connected to avoid locks etc..
Second if possible split the query in steps instead of doing all deletes in
1 time.
Example...do 1000 deletes atime and so on.
You can set the minimal query memory at the server level, i have no
experience with changing this option .
Good luck.
DBA4ever
"thejamie" wrote:

> Large Query immediately eats up all available memory in Server 2003 Server
> XP1 SQL 2005 64 bit (8 gig ram). CPU pegs at 99% and nothing else appears
to
> be able to access SQL Server. Query is attempting to delete possibly as m
any
> as 200 million duplicate entries in a table. Do settings exist in SQL to
> limit the amount of processing power any one query can tap into from the
> server?
> --
> Regards,
> Jamie|||Can I point this in another directions? There is something called AWE that
is used to allocate memory and it appears that min and max memory can be
set... in the memory section of the server properties. How will this effect
such a query.
I should have added that this is the only query running on the server and it
is simply a test of what happens under severe conditions. The test indicate
s
to me that the server memory should be tempered. After the query ran 8
hours, I canceled it. It locked up the server last night and we had to do a
cold boot. In my opinion, despite the recklessness of the delete statement
,
a cold boot should rarely if ever be required as the solution to a SQL
problem arising from a mis-directed query.
--
Regards,
Jamie
"Hate_orphaned_users" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> First i would run this query when nobody is connected to avoid locks etc..
> Second if possible split the query in steps instead of doing all deletes i
n
> 1 time.
> Example...do 1000 deletes atime and so on.
> You can set the minimal query memory at the server level, i have no
> experience with changing this option .
> Good luck.
> DBA4ever
> "thejamie" wrote:
>|||On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 05:20:01 -0800, thejamie
<thejamie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>There is something called AWE that
>is used to allocate memory
AWE is for 32-bit, it does not apply to 64-bit SQL Server.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT|||On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 05:20:01 -0800, thejamie
<thejamie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> After the query ran 8
>hours, I canceled it. It locked up the server last night and we had to do
a
>cold boot. In my opinion, despite the recklessness of the delete statemen
t,
>a cold boot should rarely if ever be required as the solution to a SQL
>problem arising from a mis-directed query.
The normal run time for a query that deletes 200 million rows may very
well exceed 8 hours. When such a query is cancelled while running, it
can take longer to toll back the work already done that it took to do
it in the first place, so 12 hours rolling back 8 hours of processing
would not be unexpected.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT|||> Thanks for that information, Dan. That's what I get for going by the
> documentation! 8-)
I understand, Roy. I was under the same impression until I ran across
Slova's blog.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Roy Harvey" <roy_harvey@.snet.net> wrote in message
news:g97gn2hckaq1h4um92i784tc7kpku4vitk@.
4ax.com...
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 07:45:20 -0600, "Dan Guzman"
> <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Thanks for that information, Dan. That's what I get for going by the
> documentation! 8-)
> "3 Note that the sp_configure awe enabled option is present on 64-bit
> SQL Server, but it is ignored. It is subject to removal in future
> releases or service packs of 64-bit SQL Server."
> Roy|||How about the lightweight pooling with Windows fibers? Should Boost SQL
Server priority be checked or unchecked? Should worker threads be set for
0?
--
Regards,
Jamie
"Roy Harvey" wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 05:20:01 -0800, thejamie
> <thejamie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> AWE is for 32-bit, it does not apply to 64-bit SQL Server.
> Roy Harvey
> Beacon Falls, CT
>|||The service was restarted and this had no effect on the memory and cpu
usage... the cold boot came next, now the cpu usage and memory are maxed out
again.
--
Regards,
Jamie
"Dan Guzman" wrote:

> I understand, Roy. I was under the same impression until I ran across
> Slova's blog.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "Roy Harvey" <roy_harvey@.snet.net> wrote in message
> news:g97gn2hckaq1h4um92i784tc7kpku4vitk@.
4ax.com...
>|||Thanks Hate_Orphaned_Users,
This may be the answer I am looking for. In the meantime, before I can
check this the server may need another cold boot. Will let you know.
--
Regards,
Jamie
"Hate_orphaned_users" wrote:

> You should select the "Dynamically configure SQL server memory" option.
> Then set the Maximum option to full.
>
>
>

40 Go database with 2 Go Ram?

Hi,
I got some performance problems. I have a 40 Go database on a dual core CPU
with 2 Go of RAM.
Sometime it's fast, sometime it's slow. Some request take more than 20
seconds to complete. And if I re-run them right after, it executes in a flash
even if I changed some paramaters.
For instance, I have a 10 Go table with indexes for a total of 15 Go. Other
tables where I run the most queries are 150 Mo with a 64 Mo index.
Since the performance is not always the same, should I conclude this is a
memory problem? How to know what is the right size of RAM? I can't put 40 Go
RAM or I'll go out of business...!
Any idea would be appreciated.
Thanks
StephaneThis may be a sign that you need better indexing. The slow/fast is what
happens when the server needs to read in and cache your new data, which got
flushed because it needed the space for old data. But it's hard to give any
general rule for a reasonable ratio of data to RAM. A ten gb table with 5gb
of indexes, still doesn't say whether 2gb is enough RAM. But remember, since
the OS typically takes half a gb to 1gb, going from 2gb RAM on a machine to
4gb, can almost triple your effective cache space, which is usually a good
thing!
Josh
"Stephane" wrote:
> Hi,
> I got some performance problems. I have a 40 Go database on a dual core CPU
> with 2 Go of RAM.
> Sometime it's fast, sometime it's slow. Some request take more than 20
> seconds to complete. And if I re-run them right after, it executes in a flash
> even if I changed some paramaters.
> For instance, I have a 10 Go table with indexes for a total of 15 Go. Other
> tables where I run the most queries are 150 Mo with a 64 Mo index.
> Since the performance is not always the same, should I conclude this is a
> memory problem? How to know what is the right size of RAM? I can't put 40 Go
> RAM or I'll go out of business...!
> Any idea would be appreciated.
> Thanks
> Stephane|||> Since the performance is not always the same, should I conclude this is a
> memory problem? How to know what is the right size of RAM? I can't put 40
> Go
> RAM or I'll go out of business...!
I agree with Josh's analysis. It's best to perform index and query tuning
to ensure data access is optimal before throwing hardware at the problem.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Stephane" <Stephane@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:55BD6AB5-E9FB-4F80-B58C-92CB26754A41@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I got some performance problems. I have a 40 Go database on a dual core
> CPU
> with 2 Go of RAM.
> Sometime it's fast, sometime it's slow. Some request take more than 20
> seconds to complete. And if I re-run them right after, it executes in a
> flash
> even if I changed some paramaters.
> For instance, I have a 10 Go table with indexes for a total of 15 Go.
> Other
> tables where I run the most queries are 150 Mo with a 64 Mo index.
> Since the performance is not always the same, should I conclude this is a
> memory problem? How to know what is the right size of RAM? I can't put 40
> Go
> RAM or I'll go out of business...!
> Any idea would be appreciated.
> Thanks
> Stephane

4 CPU's on app server, can I buy only 1 license?

On a the db server, you can configure the db engine to only use 1 CPU
and therefore only have to purchase 1 SQL Server license. But on my app
server that has 4 CPU's, can I configure RS 2000 to only take advantage
of 1 of those CPU's and therefore only have to purchase 1 license for
the app server? How do I configure this on the app server side?On Jan 17, 1:21 pm, "Dave" <macleary2...@.yahoo.com> wrote:
> On a the db server, you can configure the db engine to only use 1 CPU
> and therefore only have to purchase 1 SQL Server license. But on my app
> server that has 4 CPU's, can I configure RS 2000 to only take advantage
> of 1 of those CPU's and therefore only have to purchase 1 license for
> the app server? How do I configure this on the app server side?
bumped. Anyone have an answer to this? Also, can this be done in RS
2005 and/or RS 2000? Or neither? Thanks.|||Hello,
If you have licensing per processor on application server you have to
purchase licenses
for all processors that are used by operating system on this server.
Microsoft says:
"Per-processor licensing. Required for extranet or Internet deployments.
Requires a single license for each CPU in the operating system instance
running Reporting Services. "
You can't set Reporting Services to use only one processor and purchase only
one per-processor license whereas operating systems uses all 4 processors.
In this situation Reporting Services might use only one CPU directly but
indirectly might use all 4 processors.
So that licenses for all processors are required.
Best Regards,
Radoslaw Lebkowski
Uzytkownik "Dave" <macleary2000@.yahoo.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:1170951737.216688.228680@.m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 17, 1:21 pm, "Dave" <macleary2...@.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On a the db server, you can configure the db engine to only use 1 CPU
>> and therefore only have to purchase 1 SQL Server license. But on my app
>> server that has 4 CPU's, can I configure RS 2000 to only take advantage
>> of 1 of those CPU's and therefore only have to purchase 1 license for
>> the app server? How do I configure this on the app server side?
> bumped. Anyone have an answer to this? Also, can this be done in RS
> 2005 and/or RS 2000? Or neither? Thanks.
>

4 CPU Utilization Imbalance

Got a strange thing happening, any comments are appreciated:

1) 4 CPU server
2) CPU's 0 & 2 are usually below 15% or so utilization (Perfmon, Task Manager)
3) CPU's 1 & 3 are usually nearly maxed out above 90%
4) Two SQL threads of over 80 threads in Perfmon show almost constant 90% Processor Time
5) Processor affinity in Server Properties is checked to use all four processors
6) Hyper-threading is not enabled
7) SQL Server priority is checked on HIGH
8) Dedicated SQL Server

Anybody know how to track down what those specific threads are executing? Any ideas, anybody? Thanks for the help!

SteveRefer to this link (http://www.sql-server-performance.com/dbcc_commands.asp) for useful DBCC commands and capture the events.|||Satya, thanks for the reply, and the link to the highly useful web site. I was able to trace the thread activity using Perfmon and sysprocesses; successfully killed a couple non-responsive threads and things returned to normal. I appreciate the help!

Steve|||True, keep in touch with the link provided for the tips and tricks on the performance.

3GB Switch question

I am using the following:
Windows 2003 Enterprise
SQL 2000 Std SP3
6GB Ram
4 CPU's with HT turned on (3.2)
I will be running multiple instances of DB.
What should the entry in boot.ini be to best utilise the resources.
Thanks.Leon
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750
"Leon" <Lion@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23$czIrCTHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I am using the following:
> Windows 2003 Enterprise
> SQL 2000 Std SP3
> 6GB Ram
> 4 CPU's with HT turned on (3.2)
> I will be running multiple instances of DB.
> What should the entry in boot.ini be to best utilise the resources.
>
> Thanks.
>|||Thanks
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:OL1Fg0CTHHA.2212@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Leon
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750
>
> "Leon" <Lion@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23$czIrCTHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>|||To add on URI; if it is 64 bit system and SQL Server standard edition 64 bit
; then there is no need to change the memory addreesss space. This is
because 64 bit
can address more memory with out changing the BOOT.INI.
Thanks
Hari
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:OL1Fg0CTHHA.2212@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Leon
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750
>
> "Leon" <Lion@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23$czIrCTHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>|||Guys,
Is this the same for SQL 2005 Enterprise on 2003 Standard R2 server? Do I
need to make any changes to boot.ini? The document in KB is for 2000 SQL and
I can not find anything for 2005 SQL. Please help.
"Hari Prasad" wrote:

> To add on URI; if it is 64 bit system and SQL Server standard edition 64 b
it
> ; then there is no need to change the memory addreesss space. This is
> because 64 bit
> can address more memory with out changing the BOOT.INI.
> Thanks
> Hari
>
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
> news:OL1Fg0CTHHA.2212@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
>|||If it is 32 bit and you want the app (in this case SQL Server) to use 3GB
instead of 2GB of directly addressable memory you need to set the /3GB
switch. But I don't believe Windows2003 Std edition uses more than 2 GB to
begin with. I could be wrong on that part though. But the bottom line is the
OS needs to support the memory before SQL Server can. And starting with
SQL2005 Std Edition and up can use all the memory that the OS can access
given the correct configuration.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"George" <George@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F8306B35-4D7A-498E-AE05-7C58442A233B@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Guys,
> Is this the same for SQL 2005 Enterprise on 2003 Standard R2 server? Do I
> need to make any changes to boot.ini? The document in KB is for 2000 SQL
> and
> I can not find anything for 2005 SQL. Please help.
> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>|||Thank you. Anyone knows how to set this correctly on 2003 Standard Server?
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

> If it is 32 bit and you want the app (in this case SQL Server) to use 3GB
> instead of 2GB of directly addressable memory you need to set the /3GB
> switch. But I don't believe Windows2003 Std edition uses more than 2 GB to
> begin with. I could be wrong on that part though. But the bottom line is t
he
> OS needs to support the memory before SQL Server can. And starting with
> SQL2005 Std Edition and up can use all the memory that the OS can access
> given the correct configuration.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "George" <George@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:F8306B35-4D7A-498E-AE05-7C58442A233B@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||You might want to have a look at these. The concepts are the same.
http://sqljunkies.com/Tutorial/0D4F...F2FE2D58F6.scuk
Memory
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp Using AWE Memory
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=321363 SQL Server 7 & 2000 memory
usage
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=274750 Memory config
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=283037 Large Memory Support Is
Available in Windows 2000 (AWE)
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=811891 Can not use more than 2GB of
memory
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"George" <George@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:602610CF-D97C-4E87-81F0-1B9E6BC615C3@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thank you. Anyone knows how to set this correctly on 2003 Standard Server?
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>

3GB Switch question

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