3G ram for SQL server: gig

Showing posts with label gig. Show all posts

Monday, March 19, 2012

95 gig Transaction log!

Hi all, I am a lowly help desk operator who has been thrown into the position of maintaining our SQL server until a new DBA is hired.

The problem is the transaction log has grown to 95GB. I truncated the log file and it shows 95 GB allocated, 588MB in use. I have researched and found that I need to use the DBCC SHRINKFILE command to free up the space, however, I have no clue how to use this command. I can't seem to find any documents on the syntax to use this with osql from the command line.

We are running out of space on the drive and everyone is looking at me to do something about it. Any help would be immensely appreciated.Hi all, I am a lowly help desk operator who has been thrown into the position of maintaining our SQL server until a new DBA is hired.

The problem is the transaction log has grown to 95GB. I truncated the log file and it shows 95 GB allocated, 588MB in use. I have researched and found that I need to use the DBCC SHRINKFILE command to free up the space, however, I have no clue how to use this command. I can't seem to find any documents on the syntax to use this with osql from the command line.

We are running out of space on the drive and everyone is looking at me to do something about it. Any help would be immensely appreciated.

See this ...http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=653804&SiteID=1 (http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=653804&SiteID=1)|||This still doesn't help me much. What I am looking for in instructions on HOW to run the commands to shrink the log file. Do I run it from command line? and if so do I just type in "DBCC SHRINKFILE filename" ?|||First make sure there are no open transactions:

select * from master.dbo.sysprocesses where open_tran > 0

then run:
dbcc sqlperf(logspace)

Use the name retreived above and run dbcc shrinkfile
dbcc shrinkfile([database_Log])

exec sp_spaceused

if the size does not go down, you can always dump the transaction log
dump tran [databasename] with no_log

Please do research before executing the last line of code to fully understand what you are about to do.

Good luck,
Hope this helped|||You should run it in query analyzer, assuming you are using sql server 2000|||I don't have much to add beyond what Reghardt has already said, but I will mention that properly scheduled backups of your transaction log should handle keeping your filesize down quite nicely.

My guess is that there is no transaction log backup scheduled, or they are scheduled, but have been failing for a while now & havn't been monitored.

Here is a great guide that should help you with this.
http://searchsqlserver.techtarget.com/generic/0,295582,sid87_gci1166473,00.html

Shrinking your log-file will solve your problem now, but it will just happen all over again down the road if you don't set up proper backups.

In addition, it is a very good idea to put a threshold on all of your transaction logs. That way, if a transaction log starts growing too big, it will only affect the database it is assigned to, instead of filling up your entire server.|||This worked perfectly, I was able to get it down to 4.6 gigs. Appreciate all the help.

90 Databases on cluster (Active/Passive)

hello, I am going to install SQL Server 2000 on Windows2003 server with
(Active/Passive) configuration
I have db space as 600 gig , ranges 1 gb to 90 gb. i have one concern about
how log failover to passive server will take in case of it need? whether it
depend on the db size or file group configuration of sql server? what about
the transactions in case of failover time? is there any way we have to
configure cluster for 100% transactions accuracy. i am using IIS6.0 as web
server for my online store.
Thanks for impromptu in advance.
John
Active-Passive is an obsolete term. You are building a single-instance,
two-node cluster. Under SQL Server 2000, all cluster nodes are treated
equally after initial installation. A single SQL instance can live on any
cluster node, but only on one node at a time.
Think of a cluster failover as a SQL Service stop-restart event. Everything
that happens during a server restart, happens during a failover. All
non-committed transactions are rolled back, committed transactions are
rolled forward. Transactional consistency is still guaranteed. Actual
recovery time is affected by the number of databases to recover and the
number/size of active transactions.
As for transactions log behavior during a failover, all SQL data and log
files must be stored on a cluster resource so they can be assigned to any
host node. The cluster service and the SQL cluster configuration guarantee
all resources go to a particular host node together so the SQL server can
run.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"John" <John@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:598594BE-EAA6-4727-A56E-CF9DA9D8FB09@.microsoft.com...
> hello, I am going to install SQL Server 2000 on Windows2003 server with
> (Active/Passive) configuration
> I have db space as 600 gig , ranges 1 gb to 90 gb. i have one concern
> about
> how log failover to passive server will take in case of it need? whether
> it
> depend on the db size or file group configuration of sql server? what
> about
> the transactions in case of failover time? is there any way we have to
> configure cluster for 100% transactions accuracy. i am using IIS6.0 as web
> server for my online store.
> Thanks for impromptu in advance.
> John
>

Saturday, February 25, 2012

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.
>
>
>

Thursday, February 16, 2012

5 GIG on Advanced 2000 with Std Ed 2000

After installing the 5 GIG on the Advanced Server, only two gig is available.
If an upgrade is made to SQL Server 2005 STD for this machine, are there
pitfalls to be aware of? Alternatively, Advanced Server is dual processor,
is there a strategy available to set each processor to use 2 gig?
--
Regards,
JamieHi Jamie,
Can you be specific as to which operation system and SQL version is
currently installed?
Have you added the /3GB switch to boot.ini?
On Jan 20, 9:27 pm, thejamie <theja...@.discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote:
> After installing the 5 GIG on the Advanced Server, only two gig is available.
> If an upgrade is made to SQL Server 2005 STD for this machine, are there
> pitfalls to be aware of? Alternatively, Advanced Server is dual processor,
> is there a strategy available to set each processor to use 2 gig?
> --
> Regards,
> Jamie|||There is no limitations in SQL Server 2005 Standard editions. Limitation is
all based on the type of operating system
Take a look into below URL.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/features/compare-features.mspx
http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/0/e/50ec0a69-d69e-4962-b2c9-80bbad125641/RequirementsSQL2005.htm
Thanks
Hari
"thejamie" <thejamie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:82B017BD-E9BE-4E06-89BA-B404ACD42F30@.microsoft.com...
> Advanced Server 2000 (with 5 GIG RAM) running Standard Edition 2000 SQL
> Server
> --
> Regards,
> Jamie
>
> "Shoval" wrote:
>> Hi Jamie,
>> Can you be specific as to which operation system and SQL version is
>> currently installed?
>> Have you added the /3GB switch to boot.ini?
>>
>> On Jan 20, 9:27 pm, thejamie <theja...@.discussions.microsoft.com>
>> wrote:
>> > After installing the 5 GIG on the Advanced Server, only two gig is
>> > available.
>> > If an upgrade is made to SQL Server 2005 STD for this machine, are
>> > there
>> > pitfalls to be aware of? Alternatively, Advanced Server is dual
>> > processor,
>> > is there a strategy available to set each processor to use 2 gig?
>> > --
>> > Regards,
>> > Jamie
>>|||thejamie wrote:
> After installing the 5 GIG on the Advanced Server, only two gig is
> available.
SQL server 2000 standard only supports 2 Gb
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa933149(SQL.80).aspx
- Peter
--
Hi! I'm a .signature *virus*!
Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!|||Hari,
The limitation on STANDARD Edition 2000 still exists or did that go away
with SP4?
--
Regards,
Jamie
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
> There is no limitations in SQL Server 2005 Standard editions. Limitation is
> all based on the type of operating system
> Take a look into below URL.
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/features/compare-features.mspx
> http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/0/e/50ec0a69-d69e-4962-b2c9-80bbad125641/RequirementsSQL2005.htm
> Thanks
> Hari
>
> "thejamie" <thejamie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:82B017BD-E9BE-4E06-89BA-B404ACD42F30@.microsoft.com...
> > Advanced Server 2000 (with 5 GIG RAM) running Standard Edition 2000 SQL
> > Server
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Jamie
> >
> >
> > "Shoval" wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Jamie,
> >> Can you be specific as to which operation system and SQL version is
> >> currently installed?
> >> Have you added the /3GB switch to boot.ini?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jan 20, 9:27 pm, thejamie <theja...@.discussions.microsoft.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > After installing the 5 GIG on the Advanced Server, only two gig is
> >> > available.
> >> > If an upgrade is made to SQL Server 2005 STD for this machine, are
> >> > there
> >> > pitfalls to be aware of? Alternatively, Advanced Server is dual
> >> > processor,
> >> > is there a strategy available to set each processor to use 2 gig?
> >> > --
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Jamie
> >>
> >>
>
>|||Peter Lykkegaard wrote:
> SQL server 2000 standard only supports 2 Gb
Ahh I think I might have misunderstood you question slightly :)
You want to upgrade to SQL Server Enterprise?
- Peter
--
Hi! I'm a .signature *virus*!
Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!|||You need either:
* a 64-bit OS and a 64-bit version of SQL Server
* AWE (Address Windowing Extensions) enabled on SQL Server and PAE
(Physical Address Extensions) enabled in your operating system.
When you go to "My Computer", under "Properties" how much RAM do you
see? In the "General" tab, do you see "Physical Address Extensions"
enabled anywhere?
-Dave
--
-Dave Markle
http://www.markleconsulting.com/blog
thejamie wrote:
> After installing the 5 GIG on the Advanced Server, only two gig is available.
> If an upgrade is made to SQL Server 2005 STD for this machine, are there
> pitfalls to be aware of? Alternatively, Advanced Server is dual processor,
> is there a strategy available to set each processor to use 2 gig?|||Things are often difficult to explain. To make this more interesting, when
SQL came back online, the SQL properties indicate SQL is now using 4 gig of
ram rather than 2 gig as before. This may not be a true reading. The
machine is a Dell from 2000 with a dual processor - dual processor shows up
as four processors - standard now for a duo core processor but the technology
is older. Definitely using a Standard Edition of SQL - not an Enterprise
version. Is it possible that with extra processors, the standard edition
will assign up to two gig per processor? I spent many nights worrying and it
doesn't appear to be a problem at the moment. More can be said when we bring
in production Monday morning.
--
Regards,
Jamie
"Peter Lykkegaard" wrote:
> Peter Lykkegaard wrote:
> >
> > SQL server 2000 standard only supports 2 Gb
> Ahh I think I might have misunderstood you question slightly :)
> You want to upgrade to SQL Server Enterprise?
> - Peter
> --
> Hi! I'm a .signature *virus*!
> Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!
>
>|||I see four gig now vs two gig before. Physical Address Extensions cannot be
seen. We do not have the /PAE listed in the boot.ini.
--
Regards,
Jamie
"Dave Markle" <"dma[remove_ZZ]ZZrkle" wrote:
> You need either:
> * a 64-bit OS and a 64-bit version of SQL Server
> * AWE (Address Windowing Extensions) enabled on SQL Server and PAE
> (Physical Address Extensions) enabled in your operating system.
> When you go to "My Computer", under "Properties" how much RAM do you
> see? In the "General" tab, do you see "Physical Address Extensions"
> enabled anywhere?
> -Dave
> --
> -Dave Markle
> http://www.markleconsulting.com/blog
>
> thejamie wrote:
> > After installing the 5 GIG on the Advanced Server, only two gig is available.
> > If an upgrade is made to SQL Server 2005 STD for this machine, are there
> > pitfalls to be aware of? Alternatively, Advanced Server is dual processor,
> > is there a strategy available to set each processor to use 2 gig?
>
>

5 GIG on Advanced 2000 with Std Ed 2000

> You want to upgrade to SQL Server Enterprise?
> - Peter
> --
> Hi! I'm a .signature *virus*!
> Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!
>
>
|||I see four gig now vs two gig before. Physical Address Extensions cannot be
seen. We do not have the /PAE listed in the boot.ini.
Regards,
Jamie
"Dave Markle" <"dma[remove_ZZ]ZZrkle" wrote:

> You need either:
> * a 64-bit OS and a 64-bit version of SQL Server
> * AWE (Address Windowing Extensions) enabled on SQL Server and PAE
> (Physical Address Extensions) enabled in your operating system.
> When you go to "My Computer", under "Properties" how much RAM do you
> see? In the "General" tab, do you see "Physical Address Extensions"
> enabled anywhere?
> -Dave
> --
> -Dave Markle
> http://www.markleconsulting.com/blog
>
> thejamie wrote:
>
>

5 GIG on Advanced 2000 with Std Ed 2000

You want to upgrade to SQL Server Enterprise?
- Peter
Hi! I'm a .signature *virus*!
Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!|||You need either:
* a 64-bit OS and a 64-bit version of SQL Server
* AWE (Address Windowing Extensions) enabled on SQL Server and PAE
(Physical Address Extensions) enabled in your operating system.
When you go to "My Computer", under "Properties" how much RAM do you
see? In the "General" tab, do you see "Physical Address Extensions"
enabled anywhere?
-Dave
-Dave Markle
http://www.markleconsulting.com/blog
thejamie wrote:
> After installing the 5 GIG on the Advanced Server, only two gig is availab
le.
> If an upgrade is made to SQL Server 2005 STD for this machine, are there
> pitfalls to be aware of? Alternatively, Advanced Server is dual processor
,
> is there a strategy available to set each processor to use 2 gig?|||Things are often difficult to explain. To make this more interesting, when
SQL came back online, the SQL properties indicate SQL is now using 4 gig of
ram rather than 2 gig as before. This may not be a true reading. The
machine is a Dell from 2000 with a dual processor - dual processor shows up
as four processors - standard now for a duo core processor but the technolog
y
is older. Definitely using a Standard Edition of SQL - not an Enterprise
version. Is it possible that with extra processors, the standard edition
will assign up to two gig per processor? I spent many nights worrying and i
t
doesn't appear to be a problem at the moment. More can be said when we brin
g
in production Monday morning.
--
Regards,
Jamie
"Peter Lykkegaard" wrote:

> Peter Lykkegaard wrote:
> Ahh I think I might have misunderstood you question slightly

> You want to upgrade to SQL Server Enterprise?
> - Peter
> --
> Hi! I'm a .signature *virus*!
> Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!
>
>|||I see four gig now vs two gig before. Physical Address Extensions cannot be
seen. We do not have the /PAE listed in the boot.ini.
--
Regards,
Jamie
"Dave Markle" <"dma[remove_ZZ]ZZrkle" wrote:

> You need either:
> * a 64-bit OS and a 64-bit version of SQL Server
> * AWE (Address Windowing Extensions) enabled on SQL Server and PAE
> (Physical Address Extensions) enabled in your operating system.
> When you go to "My Computer", under "Properties" how much RAM do you
> see? In the "General" tab, do you see "Physical Address Extensions"
> enabled anywhere?
> -Dave
> --
> -Dave Markle
> http://www.markleconsulting.com/blog
>
> thejamie wrote:
>
>

Monday, March 19, 2012

95 gig Transaction log!

90 Databases on cluster (Active/Passive)

Saturday, February 25, 2012

64 bit SQL 2005 memory problem

64 bit SQL 2005 memory problem

Thursday, February 16, 2012

5 GIG on Advanced 2000 with Std Ed 2000

5 GIG on Advanced 2000 with Std Ed 2000

5 GIG on Advanced 2000 with Std Ed 2000

3G ram for SQL server

Blog Archive

About Me