3G ram for SQL server: instances

Showing posts with label instances. Show all posts

Thursday, March 8, 2012

64-Bits Failover Cluster with two instances

We have xSeries 460(x3950-8878) IBM Machine , mounted at win2003 and sql 2005
64-bits.
At future processes, this machine will take over all distributed database
with many application.
The failover clauster is configured with Active/Active node and I read about
reconfigure processor and I/O Affinity and memory at sp_configure procedure
to measure up or , perhaps take a base line to avoid series problems about
performance.
so, any help, article or step-by-step to guide our future away.
Thanks.
Kris
Message posted via http://www.droptable.com
More Information:
Both machine have 128GB Ram and 32 processor (dual core).
Krisnamourt wrote:
>We have xSeries 460(x3950-8878) IBM Machine , mounted at win2003 and sql 2005
>64-bits.
>At future processes, this machine will take over all distributed database
>with many application.
>The failover clauster is configured with Active/Active node and I read about
>reconfigure processor and I/O Affinity and memory at sp_configure procedure
>to measure up or , perhaps take a base line to avoid series problems about
>performance.
>so, any help, article or step-by-step to guide our future away.
>Thanks.
>Kris
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server-clustering/200707/1

Saturday, February 11, 2012

4 SQL instances in Cluster on 2 windows server?

4 SQL instances in Cluster on 2 windows server

Is it possible to have 4 SQL instances in Cluster on 2 windows server.
Active/passive set-up.
In detail, what i mean is:
I have 2 windows OS - WinClustA with WinClustB
On WinClustA - SQLInstA (active) and SQLInstY (passive)
On WinClustB - SQLInstB (passive) and SQLInstX (active)
In case of failure,
SQLInstA will failover to SQLInstB and
SQLInstX will failover to SQLInstY
Is this possible to configure?
You have a misunderstanding of how clustering works. What you want is 2 SQL
instances: SQLInstA and SQLInstB. With SQL clustering, each instance can
run on any host node, but only on one node at a time. Normally you will
have SQLInstA running on WinClustA and SQLInstB on WinClustB. Should either
node fail, the other node runs both instances. That is how clustering works
and yes, it is possible.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Pari" <Pari@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E4D2C97A-8B60-4E64-A5E3-37215C1456FE@.microsoft.com...
> Is it possible to have 4 SQL instances in Cluster on 2 windows server.
> Active/passive set-up.
> In detail, what i mean is:
> I have 2 windows OS - WinClustA with WinClustB
> On WinClustA - SQLInstA (active) and SQLInstY (passive)
> On WinClustB - SQLInstB (passive) and SQLInstX (active)
> In case of failure,
> SQLInstA will failover to SQLInstB and
> SQLInstX will failover to SQLInstY
> Is this possible to configure?
>
|||While my SQLInstB instance is passive on windows machine WinclustB, I do not
want to waste the resource on winClustB, I want to install another instance
called SQLInstX (active), and host another set of databases from this
instance.
Hence each WinclustA and WinclustB I will have one active SQL Instance and
one passive SQL Instance.
I have not worked with clustering too much, so please inform if this is
possible. I did read all the content in SQL BOL fro clustering.
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

> You have a misunderstanding of how clustering works. What you want is 2 SQL
> instances: SQLInstA and SQLInstB. With SQL clustering, each instance can
> run on any host node, but only on one node at a time. Normally you will
> have SQLInstA running on WinClustA and SQLInstB on WinClustB. Should either
> node fail, the other node runs both instances. That is how clustering works
> and yes, it is possible.
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
> "Pari" <Pari@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E4D2C97A-8B60-4E64-A5E3-37215C1456FE@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Active and Passive are obsolete terms used to describe SQL 7.0 clustering.
They do not apply to SQL 2000 clustering. Even then, "Active" and "Passive"
referred to host nodes, not instances. An clustered instance of SQL Server
2000 does not have any "active" or "passive" context. It is an instance,
period.
You want two SQL instances which will each run on separate nodes (host
computers) except during failure. That is what I described to you under SQL
2000 clustering. Node A runs one instance and Node B runs another instance.
Should one node fail, the other node starts running both instances of SQL
server. There is no "passive" instance anywhere. The "Active" instance
simply changes host nodes. Again, this is possible. You can have up to 4
host nodes and 16 SQL instances in a SQL 2000 cluster. You can choose the
normal host node and the failure path of each SQL instance separately.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Pari" <Pari@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:EF0D86F1-EEBF-48F7-A92A-CAFE5531DB05@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> While my SQLInstB instance is passive on windows machine WinclustB, I do
> not
> want to waste the resource on winClustB, I want to install another
> instance
> called SQLInstX (active), and host another set of databases from this
> instance.
> Hence each WinclustA and WinclustB I will have one active SQL Instance and
> one passive SQL Instance.
> I have not worked with clustering too much, so please inform if this is
> possible. I did read all the content in SQL BOL fro clustering.
>
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
|||This may help also:
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;260758
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Pari" <Pari@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:EF0D86F1-EEBF-48F7-A92A-CAFE5531DB05@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> While my SQLInstB instance is passive on windows machine WinclustB, I do
> not
> want to waste the resource on winClustB, I want to install another
> instance
> called SQLInstX (active), and host another set of databases from this
> instance.
> Hence each WinclustA and WinclustB I will have one active SQL Instance and
> one passive SQL Instance.
> I have not worked with clustering too much, so please inform if this is
> possible. I did read all the content in SQL BOL fro clustering.
>
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
|||This clarifies it, thanks.
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

> Active and Passive are obsolete terms used to describe SQL 7.0 clustering.
> They do not apply to SQL 2000 clustering. Even then, "Active" and "Passive"
> referred to host nodes, not instances. An clustered instance of SQL Server
> 2000 does not have any "active" or "passive" context. It is an instance,
> period.
> You want two SQL instances which will each run on separate nodes (host
> computers) except during failure. That is what I described to you under SQL
> 2000 clustering. Node A runs one instance and Node B runs another instance.
> Should one node fail, the other node starts running both instances of SQL
> server. There is no "passive" instance anywhere. The "Active" instance
> simply changes host nodes. Again, this is possible. You can have up to 4
> host nodes and 16 SQL instances in a SQL 2000 cluster. You can choose the
> normal host node and the failure path of each SQL instance separately.
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
> "Pari" <Pari@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:EF0D86F1-EEBF-48F7-A92A-CAFE5531DB05@.microsoft.com...
>
>

Thursday, February 9, 2012

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.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>

Thursday, March 8, 2012

64-Bits Failover Cluster with two instances

Saturday, February 11, 2012

4 SQL instances in Cluster on 2 windows server?

4 SQL instances in Cluster on 2 windows server

Thursday, February 9, 2012

3GB Switch question

3GB Switch question

3GB Switch question

3G ram for SQL server

Blog Archive

About Me