I am running Windows 2003 Enterprise with 8 GB of RAM and SQL Server
Standard.
I have the switches /PAE /3GB in boot.ini
SQL max server memory is = 6656 MB
but with those settings I cannot get SQLServer to get more than 2.7 GB
of RAM
If I use the AWE switch, then SQLServer can only use 128 MB max
What's wrong?
PaulOn Dec 4, 3:42 am, pd...@.clic.net wrote:
> I am running Windows 2003 Enterprise with 8 GB of RAM and SQL Server
> Standard.
> I have the switches /PAE /3GB in boot.ini
> SQL max server memory is = 6656 MB
> but with those settings I cannot get SQLServer to get more than 2.7 GB
> of RAM
> If I use the AWE switch, then SQLServer can only use 128 MB max
> What's wrong?
> Paul
Is it SQL Server 2000 or SQL Server 2005?
If its SQL Server 2000, then AWE is not supported
If its SQL Server 2005, then check the AWE 'Run Value' in
sp_configure... if its 0, then you might want to recycle the SQL
Server service to enable the AWE
In any case i dont believe you need to have /3GB switch in boot.ini.|||Hey, of course you can use AWE on SQL Server 2000 (and also on SQL Server
2005).
You will need to run
sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
and grant the Lock Page in Memory permission to your service account. For
more details see
How to configure SQL Server to use more than 2 GB of physical memory
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750
Hope this helps,
Ben Nevarez
Senior Database Administrator
AIG SunAmerica
"dineshbabu.munugala@.gmail.com" wrote:
> On Dec 4, 3:42 am, pd...@.clic.net wrote:
> > I am running Windows 2003 Enterprise with 8 GB of RAM and SQL Server
> > Standard.
> > I have the switches /PAE /3GB in boot.ini
> >
> > SQL max server memory is = 6656 MB
> >
> > but with those settings I cannot get SQLServer to get more than 2.7 GB
> > of RAM
> >
> > If I use the AWE switch, then SQLServer can only use 128 MB max
> >
> > What's wrong?
> >
> > Paul
> Is it SQL Server 2000 or SQL Server 2005?
> If its SQL Server 2000, then AWE is not supported
> If its SQL Server 2005, then check the AWE 'Run Value' in
> sp_configure... if its 0, then you might want to recycle the SQL
> Server service to enable the AWE
> In any case i dont believe you need to have /3GB switch in boot.ini.
>|||Ben
If you are on 64-bit , you do not need AWE anymore. If the OP has SQL Server
2000 along with SP4 , make sure that he has a last hotfix especially if he
are going to enable AWE
"Ben Nevarez" <BenNevarez@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2ADA35D9-C4FA-4852-B20A-3E08F240C626@.microsoft.com...
> Hey, of course you can use AWE on SQL Server 2000 (and also on SQL Server
> 2005).
> You will need to run
> sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
> and grant the Lock Page in Memory permission to your service account. For
> more details see
> How to configure SQL Server to use more than 2 GB of physical memory
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750
> Hope this helps,
> Ben Nevarez
> Senior Database Administrator
> AIG SunAmerica
>
> "dineshbabu.munugala@.gmail.com" wrote:
>> On Dec 4, 3:42 am, pd...@.clic.net wrote:
>> > I am running Windows 2003 Enterprise with 8 GB of RAM and SQL Server
>> > Standard.
>> > I have the switches /PAE /3GB in boot.ini
>> >
>> > SQL max server memory is = 6656 MB
>> >
>> > but with those settings I cannot get SQLServer to get more than 2.7 GB
>> > of RAM
>> >
>> > If I use the AWE switch, then SQLServer can only use 128 MB max
>> >
>> > What's wrong?
>> >
>> > Paul
>> Is it SQL Server 2000 or SQL Server 2005?
>> If its SQL Server 2000, then AWE is not supported
>> If its SQL Server 2005, then check the AWE 'Run Value' in
>> sp_configure... if its 0, then you might want to recycle the SQL
>> Server service to enable the AWE
>> In any case i dont believe you need to have /3GB switch in boot.ini.|||On 3 d=E9c, 18:04, dineshbabu.munug...@.gmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 4, 3:42 am, pd...@.clic.net wrote:
> > I am running Windows 2003 Enterprise with 8 GB of RAM and SQL Server
> > Standard.
> > I have the switches /PAE /3GB in boot.ini
> > SQL max server memory is =3D 6656 MB
> > but with those settings I cannot get SQLServer to get more than 2.7 GB
> > of RAM
> > If I use the AWE switch, then SQLServer can only use 128 MB max
> > What's wrong?
> > Paul
> Is it SQL Server 2000 or SQL Server 2005?
> If its SQL Server 2000, then AWE is not supported
> If its SQL Server 2005, then check the AWE 'Run Value' in
> sp_configure... if its 0, then you might want to recycle the SQL
> Server service to enable the AWE
> In any case i dont believe you need to have /3GB switch in boot.ini.
SQL2005 Standard.
Running in 32 bits system
As soon as I use AWE, I'm stuck with 128 MB of RAM for SQL server...
(i.e. I run dbcc checkDB so that it starts using rapidly memory and I
see SQLServer.exe using not more than 128 MB of RAM in Task Manager).
Paul|||Hi
Do you have SP4 with hotfix?
Install hotfix from(http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761)
Do you see in PerfMon that SQL Server allocate 6.6GB RAM?
<pdube@.clic.net> wrote in message
news:e4a9b19a-1b95-4df7-b6d9-e8c374bfb9c0@.a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On 3 déc, 18:04, dineshbabu.munug...@.gmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 4, 3:42 am, pd...@.clic.net wrote:
> > I am running Windows 2003 Enterprise with 8 GB of RAM and SQL Server
> > Standard.
> > I have the switches /PAE /3GB in boot.ini
> > SQL max server memory is = 6656 MB
> > but with those settings I cannot get SQLServer to get more than 2.7 GB
> > of RAM
> > If I use the AWE switch, then SQLServer can only use 128 MB max
> > What's wrong?
> > Paul
> Is it SQL Server 2000 or SQL Server 2005?
> If its SQL Server 2000, then AWE is not supported
> If its SQL Server 2005, then check the AWE 'Run Value' in
> sp_configure... if its 0, then you might want to recycle the SQL
> Server service to enable the AWE
> In any case i dont believe you need to have /3GB switch in boot.ini.
SQL2005 Standard.
Running in 32 bits system
As soon as I use AWE, I'm stuck with 128 MB of RAM for SQL server...
(i.e. I run dbcc checkDB so that it starts using rapidly memory and I
see SQLServer.exe using not more than 128 MB of RAM in Task Manager).
Paul|||On 4 d=E9c, 10:45, "Uri Dimant" <u...@.iscar.co.il> wrote:
> Hi
> Do you have SP4 with hotfix?
> Install hotfix from(http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761)
> Do you see in PerfMon that SQL Server allocate 6.6GB RAM?
> <pd...@.clic.net> wrote in message
> news:e4a9b19a-1b95-4df7-b6d9-e8c374bfb9c0@.a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On 3 d=E9c, 18:04, dineshbabu.munug...@.gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> > On Dec 4, 3:42 am, pd...@.clic.net wrote:
> > > I am running Windows 2003 Enterprise with 8 GB of RAM and SQL Server
> > > Standard.
> > > I have the switches /PAE /3GB in boot.ini
> > > SQL max server memory is =3D 6656 MB
> > > but with those settings I cannot get SQLServer to get more than 2.7 GB=
> > > of RAM
> > > If I use the AWE switch, then SQLServer can only use 128 MB max
> > > What's wrong?
> > > Paul
> > Is it SQL Server 2000 or SQL Server 2005?
> > If its SQL Server 2000, then AWE is not supported
> > If its SQL Server 2005, then check the AWE 'Run Value' in
> > sp_configure... if its 0, then you might want to recycle the SQL
> > Server service to enable the AWE
> > In any case i dont believe you need to have /3GB switch in boot.ini.
> SQL2005 Standard.
> Running in 32 bits system
> As soon as I use AWE, I'm stuck with 128 MB of RAM for SQL server...
> (i.e. I run dbcc checkDB so that it starts using rapidly memory and I
> see SQLServer.exe using not more than 128 MB of RAM in Task Manager).
> Paul- Masquer le texte des messages pr=E9c=E9dents -
> - Afficher le texte des messages pr=E9c=E9dents -
SQL 2005 (9.00.3161.00)
The hotfix is for SQL 2000...
In PerfMon, I see Commited Bytes around 3.2 GB.
In Task Manager I still see SQLServer.exe using 2.7 GB. I guess then
that's just a problem related with Task Manager not showing the
correct amount of RAM used...?
Paul|||On 4 d=E9c, 14:08, pd...@.clic.net wrote:
> On 4 d=E9c, 10:45, "Uri Dimant" <u...@.iscar.co.il> wrote:
>
>
> > Hi
> > Do you have SP4 with hotfix?
> > Install hotfix from(http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761)
> > Do you see in PerfMon that SQL Server allocate 6.6GB RAM?
> > <pd...@.clic.net> wrote in message
> >news:e4a9b19a-1b95-4df7-b6d9-e8c374bfb9c0@.a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...=
> > On 3 d=E9c, 18:04, dineshbabu.munug...@.gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Dec 4, 3:42 am, pd...@.clic.net wrote:
> > > > I am running Windows 2003 Enterprise with 8 GB of RAM and SQL Server=
> > > > Standard.
> > > > I have the switches /PAE /3GB in boot.ini
> > > > SQL max server memory is =3D 6656 MB
> > > > but with those settings I cannot get SQLServer to get more than 2.7 =GB
> > > > of RAM
> > > > If I use the AWE switch, then SQLServer can only use 128 MB max
> > > > What's wrong?
> > > > Paul
> > > Is it SQL Server 2000 or SQL Server 2005?
> > > If its SQL Server 2000, then AWE is not supported
> > > If its SQL Server 2005, then check the AWE 'Run Value' in
> > > sp_configure... if its 0, then you might want to recycle the SQL
> > > Server service to enable the AWE
> > > In any case i dont believe you need to have /3GB switch in boot.ini.
> > SQL2005 Standard.
> > Running in 32 bits system
> > As soon as I use AWE, I'm stuck with 128 MB of RAM for SQL server...
> > (i.e. I run dbcc checkDB so that it starts using rapidly memory and I
> > see SQLServer.exe using not more than 128 MB of RAM in Task Manager).
> > Paul- Masquer le texte des messages pr=E9c=E9dents -
> > - Afficher le texte des messages pr=E9c=E9dents -
> SQL 2005 (9.00.3161.00)
> The hotfix is for SQL 2000...
> In PerfMon, I see Commited Bytes around 3.2 GB.
> In Task Manager I still see SQLServer.exe using 2.7 GB. I guess then
> that's just a problem related with Task Manager not showing the
> correct amount of RAM used...?
> Paul- Masquer le texte des messages pr=E9c=E9dents -
> - Afficher le texte des messages pr=E9c=E9dents -
When I say that I see 128 MB of RAM in SQLServer.exe when using AWE I
mean that's what I see in Task Manager. Am I correct looking at this
value?
Should I check PerfMon instead? Is the memory shown in TaskManager
only kernel memory and would not show all memory used by SQL?
Paul|||SP4 hotfix is not needed here as this is SQL Server 2005.
Try this to see how much memory SQL Server is using. Performance Monitor,
add SQLServer:Memory Manager - Total Server Memory (KB).
Have you granted the Lock Page in Memory permission to your service account?
See your Error log. Must show 'Address Windowing Extensions enabled' or some
AWE error message.
Hope this helps,
Ben Nevarez
Senior Database Administrator
AIG SunAmerica
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> Hi
> Do you have SP4 with hotfix?
> Install hotfix from(http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761)
> Do you see in PerfMon that SQL Server allocate 6.6GB RAM?
>
>
> <pdube@.clic.net> wrote in message
> news:e4a9b19a-1b95-4df7-b6d9-e8c374bfb9c0@.a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On 3 déc, 18:04, dineshbabu.munug...@.gmail.com wrote:
> > On Dec 4, 3:42 am, pd...@.clic.net wrote:
> >
> > > I am running Windows 2003 Enterprise with 8 GB of RAM and SQL Server
> > > Standard.
> > > I have the switches /PAE /3GB in boot.ini
> >
> > > SQL max server memory is = 6656 MB
> >
> > > but with those settings I cannot get SQLServer to get more than 2.7 GB
> > > of RAM
> >
> > > If I use the AWE switch, then SQLServer can only use 128 MB max
> >
> > > What's wrong?
> >
> > > Paul
> >
> > Is it SQL Server 2000 or SQL Server 2005?
> > If its SQL Server 2000, then AWE is not supported
> > If its SQL Server 2005, then check the AWE 'Run Value' in
> > sp_configure... if its 0, then you might want to recycle the SQL
> > Server service to enable the AWE
> >
> > In any case i dont believe you need to have /3GB switch in boot.ini.
> SQL2005 Standard.
> Running in 32 bits system
> As soon as I use AWE, I'm stuck with 128 MB of RAM for SQL server...
> (i.e. I run dbcc checkDB so that it starts using rapidly memory and I
> see SQLServer.exe using not more than 128 MB of RAM in Task Manager).
> Paul
>
>|||Sorry. I missed that you are on SQL Server 2005.
In 32 -bit you do need AWE and as Ben pointed out gran permission Lock
Page in Memory permission to your service account.
To see if SQL server uses 6GB open PerfMonitor , do not use Task Manager
Visit also http://blogs.msdn.com/slavao/
<pdube@.clic.net> wrote in message
news:f9c9559b-d836-4b7f-92d4-bfc8834aab35@.s36g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On 4 déc, 14:08, pd...@.clic.net wrote:
> On 4 déc, 10:45, "Uri Dimant" <u...@.iscar.co.il> wrote:
>
>
> > Hi
> > Do you have SP4 with hotfix?
> > Install hotfix from(http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761)
> > Do you see in PerfMon that SQL Server allocate 6.6GB RAM?
> > <pd...@.clic.net> wrote in message
> >news:e4a9b19a-1b95-4df7-b6d9-e8c374bfb9c0@.a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> > On 3 déc, 18:04, dineshbabu.munug...@.gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Dec 4, 3:42 am, pd...@.clic.net wrote:
> > > > I am running Windows 2003 Enterprise with 8 GB of RAM and SQL Server
> > > > Standard.
> > > > I have the switches /PAE /3GB in boot.ini
> > > > SQL max server memory is = 6656 MB
> > > > but with those settings I cannot get SQLServer to get more than 2.7
> > > > GB
> > > > of RAM
> > > > If I use the AWE switch, then SQLServer can only use 128 MB max
> > > > What's wrong?
> > > > Paul
> > > Is it SQL Server 2000 or SQL Server 2005?
> > > If its SQL Server 2000, then AWE is not supported
> > > If its SQL Server 2005, then check the AWE 'Run Value' in
> > > sp_configure... if its 0, then you might want to recycle the SQL
> > > Server service to enable the AWE
> > > In any case i dont believe you need to have /3GB switch in boot.ini.
> > SQL2005 Standard.
> > Running in 32 bits system
> > As soon as I use AWE, I'm stuck with 128 MB of RAM for SQL server...
> > (i.e. I run dbcc checkDB so that it starts using rapidly memory and I
> > see SQLServer.exe using not more than 128 MB of RAM in Task Manager).
> > Paul- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -
> > - Afficher le texte des messages précédents -
> SQL 2005 (9.00.3161.00)
> The hotfix is for SQL 2000...
> In PerfMon, I see Commited Bytes around 3.2 GB.
> In Task Manager I still see SQLServer.exe using 2.7 GB. I guess then
> that's just a problem related with Task Manager not showing the
> correct amount of RAM used...?
> Paul- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -
> - Afficher le texte des messages précédents -
When I say that I see 128 MB of RAM in SQLServer.exe when using AWE I
mean that's what I see in Task Manager. Am I correct looking at this
value?
Should I check PerfMon instead? Is the memory shown in TaskManager
only kernel memory and would not show all memory used by SQL?
Paul
Showing posts with label ini. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ini. Show all posts
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Thursday, February 9, 2012
3gig or 4?
Hey all,
Ok I have a client that currently have 3gig of memory in their SQL
Server (SQL2005).
They are using the /3gb switch in their boot.ini so in theory SQL
server should use greater than 2 gig.
Ok from my understanding, if they put in an extra 1 gig of ram to make
the server now have 4 gig, would this mean that SQL Server would use 3
gig, and the OS 1gig?
So are their any advantages from going from 3gig to 4gig? (would it
help paging for example)
Look forward to your comments
Thanks!Hi,
Read this article..
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
<davconts@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155079279.501553.287040@.i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hey all,
> Ok I have a client that currently have 3gig of memory in their SQL
> Server (SQL2005).
> They are using the /3gb switch in their boot.ini so in theory SQL
> server should use greater than 2 gig.
> Ok from my understanding, if they put in an extra 1 gig of ram to make
> the server now have 4 gig, would this mean that SQL Server would use 3
> gig, and the OS 1gig?
> So are their any advantages from going from 3gig to 4gig? (would it
> help paging for example)
> Look forward to your comments
> Thanks!
>|||That article is not exactly accurate or clear in places. For instance, it
states, "AWE memory technology is used only for the RAM that exceeds the bas
e
4GB of RAM". That is not correct. You can enable AWE with less than 4GB of
RAM.
Linchi
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
> Hi,
> Read this article..
> http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
> Thanks
> Hari
> SQL Server MVP
> <davconts@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1155079279.501553.287040@.i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>|||Thanks for the replies.
I read the article but it doesn't really answer my question on whether
it is worth going from 3Gig to 4gig... will SQL server be able to use
that extra gig placed in the machine or will the OS take hold of the
1gig?
Sounds like using AWE will take all the memory (besides 128 meg) unless
a max memory setting is specified in SQL.. so in theory this could
force it to use say 3.5gig of memory.
But the article also suggests not using AWE for a 4gig machine.. so bit
confused now
I assume there would be advantages going from 3 to 4gig... anyone have
any experiences in this?|||Using AWE on a 4GB box just doesn't make much sense.
PAE (/3GB) will use 3 GB for SQL Server, so in a 4 GB box, AWE uses a fair
amount of resources (including memory) to manage the extended memory,
thereby negating most of the expected performance gain.
My experience is that you have to approach 5 GB + before AWE really shows
any gains.
Of course, it could be hardware related and YMMV.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
<davconts@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155086938.963563.37190@.m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks for the replies.
> I read the article but it doesn't really answer my question on whether
> it is worth going from 3Gig to 4gig... will SQL server be able to use
> that extra gig placed in the machine or will the OS take hold of the
> 1gig?
> Sounds like using AWE will take all the memory (besides 128 meg) unless
> a max memory setting is specified in SQL.. so in theory this could
> force it to use say 3.5gig of memory.
> But the article also suggests not using AWE for a 4gig machine.. so bit
> confused now
> I assume there would be advantages going from 3 to 4gig... anyone have
> any experiences in this?
>|||You have no need to use AWE, there are many disadvantages to using AWE as
well.
To determine if the 3GB switch will allow SQL Server to use more memory can
you tell us what the LEAST amount of free memory you see on the system?
What is that MAX amount of memory you see the SQL Server process consume?
On a side note you might not need to add the additional RAM is your buffer
cache hit ratio is already at 99%+
Paul
<davconts@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155086938.963563.37190@.m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks for the replies.
> I read the article but it doesn't really answer my question on whether
> it is worth going from 3Gig to 4gig... will SQL server be able to use
> that extra gig placed in the machine or will the OS take hold of the
> 1gig?
> Sounds like using AWE will take all the memory (besides 128 meg) unless
> a max memory setting is specified in SQL.. so in theory this could
> force it to use say 3.5gig of memory.
> But the article also suggests not using AWE for a 4gig machine.. so bit
> confused now
> I assume there would be advantages going from 3 to 4gig... anyone have
> any experiences in this?
>|||Well we are actually doing a benchmark session tomorrow.
First we are going to run with 3gig of ram, and benchmark our app/db
performance.
Then, we will restart the SQL server with an additional gig of ram (now
4 gig) and compare.
FYI It's a 20gig database. CPU for the server looks adequate from what
I can see (dual xeon). The SQL server only runs SQL 2005, and it is
exclusive to our app.
>From a benchmark we did a month or so ago, I thought the memory usage
seemed ok.
The disks seemed to be a possible bottle neck - and there seemed to be
a fair bit of paging although how much is normal paging I'm not 100%
sure.
I'm hoping that the extra ram might help reduce disk usage/paging.
Oh I should also mention that we are runing raid 10, have the mdf on
d:, ldf file on e: and tempdb on c:\
David
Paul Widner wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> You have no need to use AWE, there are many disadvantages to using AWE as
> well.
> To determine if the 3GB switch will allow SQL Server to use more memory ca
n
> you tell us what the LEAST amount of free memory you see on the system?
> What is that MAX amount of memory you see the SQL Server process consume?
> On a side note you might not need to add the additional RAM is your buffer
> cache hit ratio is already at 99%+
> Paul
> <davconts@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1155086938.963563.37190@.m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...|||I think that you will find no change or perhaps even a decreased performance
for AWE.
/AWE sets aside 1 GB for the OS AND AWE memory management extensions, and
adds a lot of processing overhead.
With /3GB, the OS still gets 1 GB, but you don't have the AWE overhead.
AWE Net change: Memory about the same, available CPU cycles reduced.
Depending upon the database, number of users, etc., I usually try to have
enough memory so that the majority of active tables are at all times in
cache. Main thing to watch for is memory page I/O. A lot of activity
indicates a need for more memory.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
<davconts@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155170138.095989.131980@.m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Well we are actually doing a benchmark session tomorrow.
> First we are going to run with 3gig of ram, and benchmark our app/db
> performance.
> Then, we will restart the SQL server with an additional gig of ram (now
> 4 gig) and compare.
> FYI It's a 20gig database. CPU for the server looks adequate from what
> I can see (dual xeon). The SQL server only runs SQL 2005, and it is
> exclusive to our app.
>
> seemed ok.
> The disks seemed to be a possible bottle neck - and there seemed to be
> a fair bit of paging although how much is normal paging I'm not 100%
> sure.
> I'm hoping that the extra ram might help reduce disk usage/paging.
> Oh I should also mention that we are runing raid 10, have the mdf on
> d:, ldf file on e: and tempdb on c:\
> David
>
> Paul Widner wrote:
>
Ok I have a client that currently have 3gig of memory in their SQL
Server (SQL2005).
They are using the /3gb switch in their boot.ini so in theory SQL
server should use greater than 2 gig.
Ok from my understanding, if they put in an extra 1 gig of ram to make
the server now have 4 gig, would this mean that SQL Server would use 3
gig, and the OS 1gig?
So are their any advantages from going from 3gig to 4gig? (would it
help paging for example)
Look forward to your comments
Thanks!Hi,
Read this article..
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
<davconts@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155079279.501553.287040@.i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hey all,
> Ok I have a client that currently have 3gig of memory in their SQL
> Server (SQL2005).
> They are using the /3gb switch in their boot.ini so in theory SQL
> server should use greater than 2 gig.
> Ok from my understanding, if they put in an extra 1 gig of ram to make
> the server now have 4 gig, would this mean that SQL Server would use 3
> gig, and the OS 1gig?
> So are their any advantages from going from 3gig to 4gig? (would it
> help paging for example)
> Look forward to your comments
> Thanks!
>|||That article is not exactly accurate or clear in places. For instance, it
states, "AWE memory technology is used only for the RAM that exceeds the bas
e
4GB of RAM". That is not correct. You can enable AWE with less than 4GB of
RAM.
Linchi
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
> Hi,
> Read this article..
> http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
> Thanks
> Hari
> SQL Server MVP
> <davconts@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1155079279.501553.287040@.i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>|||Thanks for the replies.
I read the article but it doesn't really answer my question on whether
it is worth going from 3Gig to 4gig... will SQL server be able to use
that extra gig placed in the machine or will the OS take hold of the
1gig?
Sounds like using AWE will take all the memory (besides 128 meg) unless
a max memory setting is specified in SQL.. so in theory this could
force it to use say 3.5gig of memory.
But the article also suggests not using AWE for a 4gig machine.. so bit
confused now
I assume there would be advantages going from 3 to 4gig... anyone have
any experiences in this?|||Using AWE on a 4GB box just doesn't make much sense.
PAE (/3GB) will use 3 GB for SQL Server, so in a 4 GB box, AWE uses a fair
amount of resources (including memory) to manage the extended memory,
thereby negating most of the expected performance gain.
My experience is that you have to approach 5 GB + before AWE really shows
any gains.
Of course, it could be hardware related and YMMV.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
<davconts@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155086938.963563.37190@.m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks for the replies.
> I read the article but it doesn't really answer my question on whether
> it is worth going from 3Gig to 4gig... will SQL server be able to use
> that extra gig placed in the machine or will the OS take hold of the
> 1gig?
> Sounds like using AWE will take all the memory (besides 128 meg) unless
> a max memory setting is specified in SQL.. so in theory this could
> force it to use say 3.5gig of memory.
> But the article also suggests not using AWE for a 4gig machine.. so bit
> confused now
> I assume there would be advantages going from 3 to 4gig... anyone have
> any experiences in this?
>|||You have no need to use AWE, there are many disadvantages to using AWE as
well.
To determine if the 3GB switch will allow SQL Server to use more memory can
you tell us what the LEAST amount of free memory you see on the system?
What is that MAX amount of memory you see the SQL Server process consume?
On a side note you might not need to add the additional RAM is your buffer
cache hit ratio is already at 99%+
Paul
<davconts@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155086938.963563.37190@.m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks for the replies.
> I read the article but it doesn't really answer my question on whether
> it is worth going from 3Gig to 4gig... will SQL server be able to use
> that extra gig placed in the machine or will the OS take hold of the
> 1gig?
> Sounds like using AWE will take all the memory (besides 128 meg) unless
> a max memory setting is specified in SQL.. so in theory this could
> force it to use say 3.5gig of memory.
> But the article also suggests not using AWE for a 4gig machine.. so bit
> confused now
> I assume there would be advantages going from 3 to 4gig... anyone have
> any experiences in this?
>|||Well we are actually doing a benchmark session tomorrow.
First we are going to run with 3gig of ram, and benchmark our app/db
performance.
Then, we will restart the SQL server with an additional gig of ram (now
4 gig) and compare.
FYI It's a 20gig database. CPU for the server looks adequate from what
I can see (dual xeon). The SQL server only runs SQL 2005, and it is
exclusive to our app.
>From a benchmark we did a month or so ago, I thought the memory usage
seemed ok.
The disks seemed to be a possible bottle neck - and there seemed to be
a fair bit of paging although how much is normal paging I'm not 100%
sure.
I'm hoping that the extra ram might help reduce disk usage/paging.
Oh I should also mention that we are runing raid 10, have the mdf on
d:, ldf file on e: and tempdb on c:\
David
Paul Widner wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> You have no need to use AWE, there are many disadvantages to using AWE as
> well.
> To determine if the 3GB switch will allow SQL Server to use more memory ca
n
> you tell us what the LEAST amount of free memory you see on the system?
> What is that MAX amount of memory you see the SQL Server process consume?
> On a side note you might not need to add the additional RAM is your buffer
> cache hit ratio is already at 99%+
> Paul
> <davconts@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1155086938.963563.37190@.m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...|||I think that you will find no change or perhaps even a decreased performance
for AWE.
/AWE sets aside 1 GB for the OS AND AWE memory management extensions, and
adds a lot of processing overhead.
With /3GB, the OS still gets 1 GB, but you don't have the AWE overhead.
AWE Net change: Memory about the same, available CPU cycles reduced.
Depending upon the database, number of users, etc., I usually try to have
enough memory so that the majority of active tables are at all times in
cache. Main thing to watch for is memory page I/O. A lot of activity
indicates a need for more memory.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
<davconts@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155170138.095989.131980@.m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Well we are actually doing a benchmark session tomorrow.
> First we are going to run with 3gig of ram, and benchmark our app/db
> performance.
> Then, we will restart the SQL server with an additional gig of ram (now
> 4 gig) and compare.
> FYI It's a 20gig database. CPU for the server looks adequate from what
> I can see (dual xeon). The SQL server only runs SQL 2005, and it is
> exclusive to our app.
>
> seemed ok.
> The disks seemed to be a possible bottle neck - and there seemed to be
> a fair bit of paging although how much is normal paging I'm not 100%
> sure.
> I'm hoping that the extra ram might help reduce disk usage/paging.
> Oh I should also mention that we are runing raid 10, have the mdf on
> d:, ldf file on e: and tempdb on c:\
> David
>
> Paul Widner wrote:
>
3gig or 4?
Hey all,
Ok I have a client that currently have 3gig of memory in their SQL
Server (SQL2005).
They are using the /3gb switch in their boot.ini so in theory SQL
server should use greater than 2 gig.
Ok from my understanding, if they put in an extra 1 gig of ram to make
the server now have 4 gig, would this mean that SQL Server would use 3
gig, and the OS 1gig?
So are their any advantages from going from 3gig to 4gig? (would it
help paging for example)
Look forward to your comments
Thanks!Hi,
Read this article..
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
<davconts@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155079279.501553.287040@.i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hey all,
> Ok I have a client that currently have 3gig of memory in their SQL
> Server (SQL2005).
> They are using the /3gb switch in their boot.ini so in theory SQL
> server should use greater than 2 gig.
> Ok from my understanding, if they put in an extra 1 gig of ram to make
> the server now have 4 gig, would this mean that SQL Server would use 3
> gig, and the OS 1gig?
> So are their any advantages from going from 3gig to 4gig? (would it
> help paging for example)
> Look forward to your comments
> Thanks!
>|||That article is not exactly accurate or clear in places. For instance, it
states, "AWE memory technology is used only for the RAM that exceeds the base
4GB of RAM". That is not correct. You can enable AWE with less than 4GB of
RAM.
Linchi
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
> Hi,
> Read this article..
> http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
> Thanks
> Hari
> SQL Server MVP
> <davconts@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1155079279.501553.287040@.i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Hey all,
> >
> > Ok I have a client that currently have 3gig of memory in their SQL
> > Server (SQL2005).
> >
> > They are using the /3gb switch in their boot.ini so in theory SQL
> > server should use greater than 2 gig.
> >
> > Ok from my understanding, if they put in an extra 1 gig of ram to make
> > the server now have 4 gig, would this mean that SQL Server would use 3
> > gig, and the OS 1gig?
> >
> > So are their any advantages from going from 3gig to 4gig? (would it
> > help paging for example)
> >
> > Look forward to your comments
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
>
>|||Thanks for the replies.
I read the article but it doesn't really answer my question on whether
it is worth going from 3Gig to 4gig... will SQL server be able to use
that extra gig placed in the machine or will the OS take hold of the
1gig?
Sounds like using AWE will take all the memory (besides 128 meg) unless
a max memory setting is specified in SQL.. so in theory this could
force it to use say 3.5gig of memory.
But the article also suggests not using AWE for a 4gig machine.. so bit
confused now :)
I assume there would be advantages going from 3 to 4gig... anyone have
any experiences in this?|||Using AWE on a 4GB box just doesn't make much sense.
PAE (/3GB) will use 3 GB for SQL Server, so in a 4 GB box, AWE uses a fair
amount of resources (including memory) to manage the extended memory,
thereby negating most of the expected performance gain.
My experience is that you have to approach 5 GB + before AWE really shows
any gains.
Of course, it could be hardware related and YMMV.
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
<davconts@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155086938.963563.37190@.m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks for the replies.
> I read the article but it doesn't really answer my question on whether
> it is worth going from 3Gig to 4gig... will SQL server be able to use
> that extra gig placed in the machine or will the OS take hold of the
> 1gig?
> Sounds like using AWE will take all the memory (besides 128 meg) unless
> a max memory setting is specified in SQL.. so in theory this could
> force it to use say 3.5gig of memory.
> But the article also suggests not using AWE for a 4gig machine.. so bit
> confused now :)
> I assume there would be advantages going from 3 to 4gig... anyone have
> any experiences in this?
>|||You have no need to use AWE, there are many disadvantages to using AWE as
well.
To determine if the 3GB switch will allow SQL Server to use more memory can
you tell us what the LEAST amount of free memory you see on the system?
What is that MAX amount of memory you see the SQL Server process consume?
On a side note you might not need to add the additional RAM is your buffer
cache hit ratio is already at 99%+
Paul
<davconts@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155086938.963563.37190@.m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks for the replies.
> I read the article but it doesn't really answer my question on whether
> it is worth going from 3Gig to 4gig... will SQL server be able to use
> that extra gig placed in the machine or will the OS take hold of the
> 1gig?
> Sounds like using AWE will take all the memory (besides 128 meg) unless
> a max memory setting is specified in SQL.. so in theory this could
> force it to use say 3.5gig of memory.
> But the article also suggests not using AWE for a 4gig machine.. so bit
> confused now :)
> I assume there would be advantages going from 3 to 4gig... anyone have
> any experiences in this?
>|||Well we are actually doing a benchmark session tomorrow.
First we are going to run with 3gig of ram, and benchmark our app/db
performance.
Then, we will restart the SQL server with an additional gig of ram (now
4 gig) and compare.
FYI It's a 20gig database. CPU for the server looks adequate from what
I can see (dual xeon). The SQL server only runs SQL 2005, and it is
exclusive to our app.
>From a benchmark we did a month or so ago, I thought the memory usage
seemed ok.
The disks seemed to be a possible bottle neck - and there seemed to be
a fair bit of paging although how much is normal paging I'm not 100%
sure.
I'm hoping that the extra ram might help reduce disk usage/paging.
Oh I should also mention that we are runing raid 10, have the mdf on
d:, ldf file on e: and tempdb on c:\
David
Paul Widner wrote:
> You have no need to use AWE, there are many disadvantages to using AWE as
> well.
> To determine if the 3GB switch will allow SQL Server to use more memory can
> you tell us what the LEAST amount of free memory you see on the system?
> What is that MAX amount of memory you see the SQL Server process consume?
> On a side note you might not need to add the additional RAM is your buffer
> cache hit ratio is already at 99%+
> Paul
> <davconts@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1155086938.963563.37190@.m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> > Thanks for the replies.
> >
> > I read the article but it doesn't really answer my question on whether
> > it is worth going from 3Gig to 4gig... will SQL server be able to use
> > that extra gig placed in the machine or will the OS take hold of the
> > 1gig?
> >
> > Sounds like using AWE will take all the memory (besides 128 meg) unless
> > a max memory setting is specified in SQL.. so in theory this could
> > force it to use say 3.5gig of memory.
> > But the article also suggests not using AWE for a 4gig machine.. so bit
> > confused now :)
> >
> > I assume there would be advantages going from 3 to 4gig... anyone have
> > any experiences in this?
> >|||I think that you will find no change or perhaps even a decreased performance
for AWE.
/AWE sets aside 1 GB for the OS AND AWE memory management extensions, and
adds a lot of processing overhead.
With /3GB, the OS still gets 1 GB, but you don't have the AWE overhead.
AWE Net change: Memory about the same, available CPU cycles reduced.
Depending upon the database, number of users, etc., I usually try to have
enough memory so that the majority of active tables are at all times in
cache. Main thing to watch for is memory page I/O. A lot of activity
indicates a need for more memory.
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
<davconts@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155170138.095989.131980@.m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Well we are actually doing a benchmark session tomorrow.
> First we are going to run with 3gig of ram, and benchmark our app/db
> performance.
> Then, we will restart the SQL server with an additional gig of ram (now
> 4 gig) and compare.
> FYI It's a 20gig database. CPU for the server looks adequate from what
> I can see (dual xeon). The SQL server only runs SQL 2005, and it is
> exclusive to our app.
>>From a benchmark we did a month or so ago, I thought the memory usage
> seemed ok.
> The disks seemed to be a possible bottle neck - and there seemed to be
> a fair bit of paging although how much is normal paging I'm not 100%
> sure.
> I'm hoping that the extra ram might help reduce disk usage/paging.
> Oh I should also mention that we are runing raid 10, have the mdf on
> d:, ldf file on e: and tempdb on c:\
> David
>
> Paul Widner wrote:
>> You have no need to use AWE, there are many disadvantages to using AWE as
>> well.
>> To determine if the 3GB switch will allow SQL Server to use more memory
>> can
>> you tell us what the LEAST amount of free memory you see on the system?
>> What is that MAX amount of memory you see the SQL Server process consume?
>> On a side note you might not need to add the additional RAM is your
>> buffer
>> cache hit ratio is already at 99%+
>> Paul
>> <davconts@.gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1155086938.963563.37190@.m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> > Thanks for the replies.
>> >
>> > I read the article but it doesn't really answer my question on whether
>> > it is worth going from 3Gig to 4gig... will SQL server be able to use
>> > that extra gig placed in the machine or will the OS take hold of the
>> > 1gig?
>> >
>> > Sounds like using AWE will take all the memory (besides 128 meg) unless
>> > a max memory setting is specified in SQL.. so in theory this could
>> > force it to use say 3.5gig of memory.
>> > But the article also suggests not using AWE for a 4gig machine.. so bit
>> > confused now :)
>> >
>> > I assume there would be advantages going from 3 to 4gig... anyone have
>> > any experiences in this?
>> >
>
Ok I have a client that currently have 3gig of memory in their SQL
Server (SQL2005).
They are using the /3gb switch in their boot.ini so in theory SQL
server should use greater than 2 gig.
Ok from my understanding, if they put in an extra 1 gig of ram to make
the server now have 4 gig, would this mean that SQL Server would use 3
gig, and the OS 1gig?
So are their any advantages from going from 3gig to 4gig? (would it
help paging for example)
Look forward to your comments
Thanks!Hi,
Read this article..
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
<davconts@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155079279.501553.287040@.i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hey all,
> Ok I have a client that currently have 3gig of memory in their SQL
> Server (SQL2005).
> They are using the /3gb switch in their boot.ini so in theory SQL
> server should use greater than 2 gig.
> Ok from my understanding, if they put in an extra 1 gig of ram to make
> the server now have 4 gig, would this mean that SQL Server would use 3
> gig, and the OS 1gig?
> So are their any advantages from going from 3gig to 4gig? (would it
> help paging for example)
> Look forward to your comments
> Thanks!
>|||That article is not exactly accurate or clear in places. For instance, it
states, "AWE memory technology is used only for the RAM that exceeds the base
4GB of RAM". That is not correct. You can enable AWE with less than 4GB of
RAM.
Linchi
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
> Hi,
> Read this article..
> http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
> Thanks
> Hari
> SQL Server MVP
> <davconts@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1155079279.501553.287040@.i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Hey all,
> >
> > Ok I have a client that currently have 3gig of memory in their SQL
> > Server (SQL2005).
> >
> > They are using the /3gb switch in their boot.ini so in theory SQL
> > server should use greater than 2 gig.
> >
> > Ok from my understanding, if they put in an extra 1 gig of ram to make
> > the server now have 4 gig, would this mean that SQL Server would use 3
> > gig, and the OS 1gig?
> >
> > So are their any advantages from going from 3gig to 4gig? (would it
> > help paging for example)
> >
> > Look forward to your comments
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
>
>|||Thanks for the replies.
I read the article but it doesn't really answer my question on whether
it is worth going from 3Gig to 4gig... will SQL server be able to use
that extra gig placed in the machine or will the OS take hold of the
1gig?
Sounds like using AWE will take all the memory (besides 128 meg) unless
a max memory setting is specified in SQL.. so in theory this could
force it to use say 3.5gig of memory.
But the article also suggests not using AWE for a 4gig machine.. so bit
confused now :)
I assume there would be advantages going from 3 to 4gig... anyone have
any experiences in this?|||Using AWE on a 4GB box just doesn't make much sense.
PAE (/3GB) will use 3 GB for SQL Server, so in a 4 GB box, AWE uses a fair
amount of resources (including memory) to manage the extended memory,
thereby negating most of the expected performance gain.
My experience is that you have to approach 5 GB + before AWE really shows
any gains.
Of course, it could be hardware related and YMMV.
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
<davconts@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155086938.963563.37190@.m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks for the replies.
> I read the article but it doesn't really answer my question on whether
> it is worth going from 3Gig to 4gig... will SQL server be able to use
> that extra gig placed in the machine or will the OS take hold of the
> 1gig?
> Sounds like using AWE will take all the memory (besides 128 meg) unless
> a max memory setting is specified in SQL.. so in theory this could
> force it to use say 3.5gig of memory.
> But the article also suggests not using AWE for a 4gig machine.. so bit
> confused now :)
> I assume there would be advantages going from 3 to 4gig... anyone have
> any experiences in this?
>|||You have no need to use AWE, there are many disadvantages to using AWE as
well.
To determine if the 3GB switch will allow SQL Server to use more memory can
you tell us what the LEAST amount of free memory you see on the system?
What is that MAX amount of memory you see the SQL Server process consume?
On a side note you might not need to add the additional RAM is your buffer
cache hit ratio is already at 99%+
Paul
<davconts@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155086938.963563.37190@.m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks for the replies.
> I read the article but it doesn't really answer my question on whether
> it is worth going from 3Gig to 4gig... will SQL server be able to use
> that extra gig placed in the machine or will the OS take hold of the
> 1gig?
> Sounds like using AWE will take all the memory (besides 128 meg) unless
> a max memory setting is specified in SQL.. so in theory this could
> force it to use say 3.5gig of memory.
> But the article also suggests not using AWE for a 4gig machine.. so bit
> confused now :)
> I assume there would be advantages going from 3 to 4gig... anyone have
> any experiences in this?
>|||Well we are actually doing a benchmark session tomorrow.
First we are going to run with 3gig of ram, and benchmark our app/db
performance.
Then, we will restart the SQL server with an additional gig of ram (now
4 gig) and compare.
FYI It's a 20gig database. CPU for the server looks adequate from what
I can see (dual xeon). The SQL server only runs SQL 2005, and it is
exclusive to our app.
>From a benchmark we did a month or so ago, I thought the memory usage
seemed ok.
The disks seemed to be a possible bottle neck - and there seemed to be
a fair bit of paging although how much is normal paging I'm not 100%
sure.
I'm hoping that the extra ram might help reduce disk usage/paging.
Oh I should also mention that we are runing raid 10, have the mdf on
d:, ldf file on e: and tempdb on c:\
David
Paul Widner wrote:
> You have no need to use AWE, there are many disadvantages to using AWE as
> well.
> To determine if the 3GB switch will allow SQL Server to use more memory can
> you tell us what the LEAST amount of free memory you see on the system?
> What is that MAX amount of memory you see the SQL Server process consume?
> On a side note you might not need to add the additional RAM is your buffer
> cache hit ratio is already at 99%+
> Paul
> <davconts@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1155086938.963563.37190@.m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> > Thanks for the replies.
> >
> > I read the article but it doesn't really answer my question on whether
> > it is worth going from 3Gig to 4gig... will SQL server be able to use
> > that extra gig placed in the machine or will the OS take hold of the
> > 1gig?
> >
> > Sounds like using AWE will take all the memory (besides 128 meg) unless
> > a max memory setting is specified in SQL.. so in theory this could
> > force it to use say 3.5gig of memory.
> > But the article also suggests not using AWE for a 4gig machine.. so bit
> > confused now :)
> >
> > I assume there would be advantages going from 3 to 4gig... anyone have
> > any experiences in this?
> >|||I think that you will find no change or perhaps even a decreased performance
for AWE.
/AWE sets aside 1 GB for the OS AND AWE memory management extensions, and
adds a lot of processing overhead.
With /3GB, the OS still gets 1 GB, but you don't have the AWE overhead.
AWE Net change: Memory about the same, available CPU cycles reduced.
Depending upon the database, number of users, etc., I usually try to have
enough memory so that the majority of active tables are at all times in
cache. Main thing to watch for is memory page I/O. A lot of activity
indicates a need for more memory.
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
<davconts@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155170138.095989.131980@.m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Well we are actually doing a benchmark session tomorrow.
> First we are going to run with 3gig of ram, and benchmark our app/db
> performance.
> Then, we will restart the SQL server with an additional gig of ram (now
> 4 gig) and compare.
> FYI It's a 20gig database. CPU for the server looks adequate from what
> I can see (dual xeon). The SQL server only runs SQL 2005, and it is
> exclusive to our app.
>>From a benchmark we did a month or so ago, I thought the memory usage
> seemed ok.
> The disks seemed to be a possible bottle neck - and there seemed to be
> a fair bit of paging although how much is normal paging I'm not 100%
> sure.
> I'm hoping that the extra ram might help reduce disk usage/paging.
> Oh I should also mention that we are runing raid 10, have the mdf on
> d:, ldf file on e: and tempdb on c:\
> David
>
> Paul Widner wrote:
>> You have no need to use AWE, there are many disadvantages to using AWE as
>> well.
>> To determine if the 3GB switch will allow SQL Server to use more memory
>> can
>> you tell us what the LEAST amount of free memory you see on the system?
>> What is that MAX amount of memory you see the SQL Server process consume?
>> On a side note you might not need to add the additional RAM is your
>> buffer
>> cache hit ratio is already at 99%+
>> Paul
>> <davconts@.gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1155086938.963563.37190@.m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> > Thanks for the replies.
>> >
>> > I read the article but it doesn't really answer my question on whether
>> > it is worth going from 3Gig to 4gig... will SQL server be able to use
>> > that extra gig placed in the machine or will the OS take hold of the
>> > 1gig?
>> >
>> > Sounds like using AWE will take all the memory (besides 128 meg) unless
>> > a max memory setting is specified in SQL.. so in theory this could
>> > force it to use say 3.5gig of memory.
>> > But the article also suggests not using AWE for a 4gig machine.. so bit
>> > confused now :)
>> >
>> > I assume there would be advantages going from 3 to 4gig... anyone have
>> > any experiences in this?
>> >
>
3GB switch in boot ini
I have a server which has 4gig of memory. I have
modified the boot.ini file to include the /3GB switch. I
have looked at the process work set for SQLServer and it
still appears to be using only 2gig's of memory. This
server does have WIN2K Advance server and is also SQL
Server 200 Enterprise.
How can I find out if SQL Server is using the 3 gig I
have available?
thanksPerformance Monitor Counter:
SQL Server: Memory Manager:Total Server Memory
Kevin Connell, MCDBA
----
The views expressed here are my own
and not of my employer.
----
"Kevin" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:00b501c39fc8$debf2410$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have a server which has 4gig of memory. I have
> modified the boot.ini file to include the /3GB switch. I
> have looked at the process work set for SQLServer and it
> still appears to be using only 2gig's of memory. This
> server does have WIN2K Advance server and is also SQL
> Server 200 Enterprise.
> How can I find out if SQL Server is using the 3 gig I
> have available?
> thanks|||"Kevin" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:00b501c39fc8$debf2410$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have a server which has 4gig of memory. I have
> modified the boot.ini file to include the /3GB switch. I
> have looked at the process work set for SQLServer and it
> still appears to be using only 2gig's of memory. This
> server does have WIN2K Advance server and is also SQL
> Server 200 Enterprise.
> How can I find out if SQL Server is using the 3 gig I
> have available?
Performance monitor (Perfmon.exe) would be one way...
Steve|||That is what I used and it still only shows 1700544. The
Process:Work Set counter for SQLServr shows 1.7gig also.
I have SQL set to dynamic allocation. Seems the the
switch made no difference.
thanks
>--Original Message--
>Performance Monitor Counter:
>SQL Server: Memory Manager:Total Server Memory
>
>--
>Kevin Connell, MCDBA
>----
>The views expressed here are my own
>and not of my employer.
>----
>"Kevin" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
>news:00b501c39fc8$debf2410$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
>> I have a server which has 4gig of memory. I have
>> modified the boot.ini file to include the /3GB
switch. I
>> have looked at the process work set for SQLServer and
it
>> still appears to be using only 2gig's of memory. This
>> server does have WIN2K Advance server and is also SQL
>> Server 200 Enterprise.
>> How can I find out if SQL Server is using the 3 gig I
>> have available?
>> thanks
>
>.
>|||Something in the back of mind is reminding me that you actually need more
than 4GB of RAM to take advantage of >2GB memory, and that that docs are
either wrong or misleading, but I may be thinking about PAE/AWE. Try to
enable /PAE and AWE and see where that leads you.
--
Kevin Connell, MCDBA
----
The views expressed here are my own
and not of my employer.
----
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:00c601c39fe7$b63eb310$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> That is what I used and it still only shows 1700544. The
> Process:Work Set counter for SQLServr shows 1.7gig also.
> I have SQL set to dynamic allocation. Seems the the
> switch made no difference.
> thanks
> >--Original Message--
> >Performance Monitor Counter:
> >
> >SQL Server: Memory Manager:Total Server Memory
> >
> >
> >--
> >Kevin Connell, MCDBA
> >----
> >The views expressed here are my own
> >and not of my employer.
> >----
> >"Kevin" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message
> >news:00b501c39fc8$debf2410$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> >> I have a server which has 4gig of memory. I have
> >> modified the boot.ini file to include the /3GB
> switch. I
> >> have looked at the process work set for SQLServer and
> it
> >> still appears to be using only 2gig's of memory. This
> >> server does have WIN2K Advance server and is also SQL
> >> Server 200 Enterprise.
> >>
> >> How can I find out if SQL Server is using the 3 gig I
> >> have available?
> >>
> >> thanks
> >
> >
> >.
> >
modified the boot.ini file to include the /3GB switch. I
have looked at the process work set for SQLServer and it
still appears to be using only 2gig's of memory. This
server does have WIN2K Advance server and is also SQL
Server 200 Enterprise.
How can I find out if SQL Server is using the 3 gig I
have available?
thanksPerformance Monitor Counter:
SQL Server: Memory Manager:Total Server Memory
Kevin Connell, MCDBA
----
The views expressed here are my own
and not of my employer.
----
"Kevin" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:00b501c39fc8$debf2410$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have a server which has 4gig of memory. I have
> modified the boot.ini file to include the /3GB switch. I
> have looked at the process work set for SQLServer and it
> still appears to be using only 2gig's of memory. This
> server does have WIN2K Advance server and is also SQL
> Server 200 Enterprise.
> How can I find out if SQL Server is using the 3 gig I
> have available?
> thanks|||"Kevin" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:00b501c39fc8$debf2410$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have a server which has 4gig of memory. I have
> modified the boot.ini file to include the /3GB switch. I
> have looked at the process work set for SQLServer and it
> still appears to be using only 2gig's of memory. This
> server does have WIN2K Advance server and is also SQL
> Server 200 Enterprise.
> How can I find out if SQL Server is using the 3 gig I
> have available?
Performance monitor (Perfmon.exe) would be one way...
Steve|||That is what I used and it still only shows 1700544. The
Process:Work Set counter for SQLServr shows 1.7gig also.
I have SQL set to dynamic allocation. Seems the the
switch made no difference.
thanks
>--Original Message--
>Performance Monitor Counter:
>SQL Server: Memory Manager:Total Server Memory
>
>--
>Kevin Connell, MCDBA
>----
>The views expressed here are my own
>and not of my employer.
>----
>"Kevin" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
>news:00b501c39fc8$debf2410$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
>> I have a server which has 4gig of memory. I have
>> modified the boot.ini file to include the /3GB
switch. I
>> have looked at the process work set for SQLServer and
it
>> still appears to be using only 2gig's of memory. This
>> server does have WIN2K Advance server and is also SQL
>> Server 200 Enterprise.
>> How can I find out if SQL Server is using the 3 gig I
>> have available?
>> thanks
>
>.
>|||Something in the back of mind is reminding me that you actually need more
than 4GB of RAM to take advantage of >2GB memory, and that that docs are
either wrong or misleading, but I may be thinking about PAE/AWE. Try to
enable /PAE and AWE and see where that leads you.
--
Kevin Connell, MCDBA
----
The views expressed here are my own
and not of my employer.
----
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:00c601c39fe7$b63eb310$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> That is what I used and it still only shows 1700544. The
> Process:Work Set counter for SQLServr shows 1.7gig also.
> I have SQL set to dynamic allocation. Seems the the
> switch made no difference.
> thanks
> >--Original Message--
> >Performance Monitor Counter:
> >
> >SQL Server: Memory Manager:Total Server Memory
> >
> >
> >--
> >Kevin Connell, MCDBA
> >----
> >The views expressed here are my own
> >and not of my employer.
> >----
> >"Kevin" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message
> >news:00b501c39fc8$debf2410$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> >> I have a server which has 4gig of memory. I have
> >> modified the boot.ini file to include the /3GB
> switch. I
> >> have looked at the process work set for SQLServer and
> it
> >> still appears to be using only 2gig's of memory. This
> >> server does have WIN2K Advance server and is also SQL
> >> Server 200 Enterprise.
> >>
> >> How can I find out if SQL Server is using the 3 gig I
> >> have available?
> >>
> >> thanks
> >
> >
> >.
> >
3gb switch and AWE
in configuring AWE whether i need use both 3GB in boot.ini and AWE Enabling option in SQL ServerFor 32 bit OS and 32 bit SQL Server, the answer is: Yes. You want to use both. The /3GB switch allows SQL Server to use a portion of the OS 2GB allotment and does not have the same overhead as AWE memory. Also the AWE memory can only be used for data, whereas the /3GB memory can be used for server object caching.|||thanks
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)