I have a user database maintance plan with subplans for full and
transaction log backups deployed to both the Principal and Mirror
servers. Each subplan has its own schedule.
Obviously, the principal server executes a successfully backup, while
the mirror copy fails. This generates errors that are picked up by
MOM and also from the jobs themselves.
In order to eliminate these errors, I emplyed a method that prevents
the jobs from running if the server is hosting the mirror copy (note
that all the databases on the server are mirrored):
1) Remove the schedule from the job that runs the SSIS package - job
name 'User Databases.Full Database Backup'
2) Create a new job called 'User Databases.Full Database Backup Status
Check' that checks for the read/write and online status of the
databases and executes the job in step one if they are online
3) Add a schedule to the job 'User Databases.Full Database Backup
Status Check' with the same details as that removed in step 1
I have a big problem with this approach: if any of the databases are
the mirror, then the entire backup subplan is not run - even if some
of the databases are the principal on the same server - it's an all or
nothing approach since the databases checked in step 2 may not
necessarily match the list of databases defined in the subplan.
Clearly, I'd like the checking step to only be affected by the
databases defined in the subplan, but I cannot think of a way of
interrogating the subplan details using SQL code to determine this.
Ideally, I would like to edit the maintenance plan's list of databases
to only include databases that are the principal on that server and to
do it each time the job is executed - maybe using the two job approach
as described above.
I would like some advice on a way to do this or whether I am barking
up the wrong tree and should try a different angle - perhaps defining
my own backup process (I really want to avoid doing this). Clearly,
if the maintenance plan could detect the fact that the database is a
mirror copy and just skip it, the whole use goes away, but it does
not.
Thanks> I would like some advice on a way to do this or whether I am barking
> up the wrong tree and should try a different angle - perhaps defining
> my own backup process (I really want to avoid doing this).
This is what you would have to do. Maint plans are for simpler installations
, and conditionally
handling a mirrored database *inside* a backup task is not available. Consid
er wishing this at
connect.microsoft.com.
Another options is to have one backup task per database, and have a TSQL tas
k before each which
check the mirroring catalog views and if a mirror, moves to the next databas
e instead. A bit messy,
but should be doable.
Having your own scripts for performing a backup isn't difficult, though. You
can still use the maint
plan to remove old backup files. (Google for how to generate the backup comm
and with a time stamp in
the file name and you will find examples...)
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Viracochas" <warmtea@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179742488.051578.275990@.b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>I have a user database maintance plan with subplans for full and
> transaction log backups deployed to both the Principal and Mirror
> servers. Each subplan has its own schedule.
> Obviously, the principal server executes a successfully backup, while
> the mirror copy fails. This generates errors that are picked up by
> MOM and also from the jobs themselves.
> In order to eliminate these errors, I emplyed a method that prevents
> the jobs from running if the server is hosting the mirror copy (note
> that all the databases on the server are mirrored):
> 1) Remove the schedule from the job that runs the SSIS package - job
> name 'User Databases.Full Database Backup'
> 2) Create a new job called 'User Databases.Full Database Backup Status
> Check' that checks for the read/write and online status of the
> databases and executes the job in step one if they are online
> 3) Add a schedule to the job 'User Databases.Full Database Backup
> Status Check' with the same details as that removed in step 1
> I have a big problem with this approach: if any of the databases are
> the mirror, then the entire backup subplan is not run - even if some
> of the databases are the principal on the same server - it's an all or
> nothing approach since the databases checked in step 2 may not
> necessarily match the list of databases defined in the subplan.
> Clearly, I'd like the checking step to only be affected by the
> databases defined in the subplan, but I cannot think of a way of
> interrogating the subplan details using SQL code to determine this.
> Ideally, I would like to edit the maintenance plan's list of databases
> to only include databases that are the principal on that server and to
> do it each time the job is executed - maybe using the two job approach
> as described above.
> I would like some advice on a way to do this or whether I am barking
> up the wrong tree and should try a different angle - perhaps defining
> my own backup process (I really want to avoid doing this). Clearly,
> if the maintenance plan could detect the fact that the database is a
> mirror copy and just skip it, the whole use goes away, but it does
> not.
> Thanks
>|||On 21 May, 13:43, "Tibor Karaszi"
<tibor_please.no.email_kara...@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote:
> This is what you would have to do. Maint plans are for simpler installatio
ns, and conditionally
> handling a mirrored database *inside* a backup task is not available. Cons
ider wishing this at
> connect.microsoft.com.
> Another options is to have one backup task per database, and have a TSQL t
ask before each which
> check the mirroring catalog views and if a mirror, moves to the next datab
ase instead. A bit messy,
> but should be doable.
> Having your own scripts for performing a backup isn't difficult, though. Y
ou can still use the maint
> plan to remove old backup files. (Google for how to generate the backup co
mmand with a time stamp in
> the file name and you will find examples...)
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVPhttp://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asph
ttp://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
> "Viracochas" <warm...@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1179742488.051578.275990@.b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Thanks for the feedback. I feared there was no easy way, though it
won't be too difficult to set it up.
Showing posts with label configuration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label configuration. Show all posts
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Backing up databases in a mirror configuration
I have a user database maintance plan with subplans for full and
transaction log backups deployed to both the Principal and Mirror
servers. Each subplan has its own schedule.
Obviously, the principal server executes a successfully backup, while
the mirror copy fails. This generates errors that are picked up by
MOM and also from the jobs themselves.
In order to eliminate these errors, I emplyed a method that prevents
the jobs from running if the server is hosting the mirror copy (note
that all the databases on the server are mirrored):
1) Remove the schedule from the job that runs the SSIS package - job
name 'User Databases.Full Database Backup'
2) Create a new job called 'User Databases.Full Database Backup Status
Check' that checks for the read/write and online status of the
databases and executes the job in step one if they are online
3) Add a schedule to the job 'User Databases.Full Database Backup
Status Check' with the same details as that removed in step 1
I have a big problem with this approach: if any of the databases are
the mirror, then the entire backup subplan is not run - even if some
of the databases are the principal on the same server - it's an all or
nothing approach since the databases checked in step 2 may not
necessarily match the list of databases defined in the subplan.
Clearly, I'd like the checking step to only be affected by the
databases defined in the subplan, but I cannot think of a way of
interrogating the subplan details using SQL code to determine this.
Ideally, I would like to edit the maintenance plan's list of databases
to only include databases that are the principal on that server and to
do it each time the job is executed - maybe using the two job approach
as described above.
I would like some advice on a way to do this or whether I am barking
up the wrong tree and should try a different angle - perhaps defining
my own backup process (I really want to avoid doing this). Clearly,
if the maintenance plan could detect the fact that the database is a
mirror copy and just skip it, the whole use goes away, but it does
not.
Thanks> I would like some advice on a way to do this or whether I am barking
> up the wrong tree and should try a different angle - perhaps defining
> my own backup process (I really want to avoid doing this).
This is what you would have to do. Maint plans are for simpler installations, and conditionally
handling a mirrored database *inside* a backup task is not available. Consider wishing this at
connect.microsoft.com.
Another options is to have one backup task per database, and have a TSQL task before each which
check the mirroring catalog views and if a mirror, moves to the next database instead. A bit messy,
but should be doable.
Having your own scripts for performing a backup isn't difficult, though. You can still use the maint
plan to remove old backup files. (Google for how to generate the backup command with a time stamp in
the file name and you will find examples...)
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Viracochas" <warmtea@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179742488.051578.275990@.b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>I have a user database maintance plan with subplans for full and
> transaction log backups deployed to both the Principal and Mirror
> servers. Each subplan has its own schedule.
> Obviously, the principal server executes a successfully backup, while
> the mirror copy fails. This generates errors that are picked up by
> MOM and also from the jobs themselves.
> In order to eliminate these errors, I emplyed a method that prevents
> the jobs from running if the server is hosting the mirror copy (note
> that all the databases on the server are mirrored):
> 1) Remove the schedule from the job that runs the SSIS package - job
> name 'User Databases.Full Database Backup'
> 2) Create a new job called 'User Databases.Full Database Backup Status
> Check' that checks for the read/write and online status of the
> databases and executes the job in step one if they are online
> 3) Add a schedule to the job 'User Databases.Full Database Backup
> Status Check' with the same details as that removed in step 1
> I have a big problem with this approach: if any of the databases are
> the mirror, then the entire backup subplan is not run - even if some
> of the databases are the principal on the same server - it's an all or
> nothing approach since the databases checked in step 2 may not
> necessarily match the list of databases defined in the subplan.
> Clearly, I'd like the checking step to only be affected by the
> databases defined in the subplan, but I cannot think of a way of
> interrogating the subplan details using SQL code to determine this.
> Ideally, I would like to edit the maintenance plan's list of databases
> to only include databases that are the principal on that server and to
> do it each time the job is executed - maybe using the two job approach
> as described above.
> I would like some advice on a way to do this or whether I am barking
> up the wrong tree and should try a different angle - perhaps defining
> my own backup process (I really want to avoid doing this). Clearly,
> if the maintenance plan could detect the fact that the database is a
> mirror copy and just skip it, the whole use goes away, but it does
> not.
> Thanks
>|||On 21 May, 13:43, "Tibor Karaszi"
<tibor_please.no.email_kara...@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote:
> > I would like some advice on a way to do this or whether I am barking
> > up the wrong tree and should try a different angle - perhaps defining
> > my own backup process (I really want to avoid doing this).
> This is what you would have to do. Maint plans are for simpler installations, and conditionally
> handling a mirrored database *inside* a backup task is not available. Consider wishing this at
> connect.microsoft.com.
> Another options is to have one backup task per database, and have a TSQL task before each which
> check the mirroring catalog views and if a mirror, moves to the next database instead. A bit messy,
> but should be doable.
> Having your own scripts for performing a backup isn't difficult, though. You can still use the maint
> plan to remove old backup files. (Google for how to generate the backup command with a time stamp in
> the file name and you will find examples...)
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVPhttp://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asphttp://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
> "Viracochas" <warm...@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1179742488.051578.275990@.b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Thanks for the feedback. I feared there was no easy way, though it
won't be too difficult to set it up.
transaction log backups deployed to both the Principal and Mirror
servers. Each subplan has its own schedule.
Obviously, the principal server executes a successfully backup, while
the mirror copy fails. This generates errors that are picked up by
MOM and also from the jobs themselves.
In order to eliminate these errors, I emplyed a method that prevents
the jobs from running if the server is hosting the mirror copy (note
that all the databases on the server are mirrored):
1) Remove the schedule from the job that runs the SSIS package - job
name 'User Databases.Full Database Backup'
2) Create a new job called 'User Databases.Full Database Backup Status
Check' that checks for the read/write and online status of the
databases and executes the job in step one if they are online
3) Add a schedule to the job 'User Databases.Full Database Backup
Status Check' with the same details as that removed in step 1
I have a big problem with this approach: if any of the databases are
the mirror, then the entire backup subplan is not run - even if some
of the databases are the principal on the same server - it's an all or
nothing approach since the databases checked in step 2 may not
necessarily match the list of databases defined in the subplan.
Clearly, I'd like the checking step to only be affected by the
databases defined in the subplan, but I cannot think of a way of
interrogating the subplan details using SQL code to determine this.
Ideally, I would like to edit the maintenance plan's list of databases
to only include databases that are the principal on that server and to
do it each time the job is executed - maybe using the two job approach
as described above.
I would like some advice on a way to do this or whether I am barking
up the wrong tree and should try a different angle - perhaps defining
my own backup process (I really want to avoid doing this). Clearly,
if the maintenance plan could detect the fact that the database is a
mirror copy and just skip it, the whole use goes away, but it does
not.
Thanks> I would like some advice on a way to do this or whether I am barking
> up the wrong tree and should try a different angle - perhaps defining
> my own backup process (I really want to avoid doing this).
This is what you would have to do. Maint plans are for simpler installations, and conditionally
handling a mirrored database *inside* a backup task is not available. Consider wishing this at
connect.microsoft.com.
Another options is to have one backup task per database, and have a TSQL task before each which
check the mirroring catalog views and if a mirror, moves to the next database instead. A bit messy,
but should be doable.
Having your own scripts for performing a backup isn't difficult, though. You can still use the maint
plan to remove old backup files. (Google for how to generate the backup command with a time stamp in
the file name and you will find examples...)
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Viracochas" <warmtea@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179742488.051578.275990@.b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>I have a user database maintance plan with subplans for full and
> transaction log backups deployed to both the Principal and Mirror
> servers. Each subplan has its own schedule.
> Obviously, the principal server executes a successfully backup, while
> the mirror copy fails. This generates errors that are picked up by
> MOM and also from the jobs themselves.
> In order to eliminate these errors, I emplyed a method that prevents
> the jobs from running if the server is hosting the mirror copy (note
> that all the databases on the server are mirrored):
> 1) Remove the schedule from the job that runs the SSIS package - job
> name 'User Databases.Full Database Backup'
> 2) Create a new job called 'User Databases.Full Database Backup Status
> Check' that checks for the read/write and online status of the
> databases and executes the job in step one if they are online
> 3) Add a schedule to the job 'User Databases.Full Database Backup
> Status Check' with the same details as that removed in step 1
> I have a big problem with this approach: if any of the databases are
> the mirror, then the entire backup subplan is not run - even if some
> of the databases are the principal on the same server - it's an all or
> nothing approach since the databases checked in step 2 may not
> necessarily match the list of databases defined in the subplan.
> Clearly, I'd like the checking step to only be affected by the
> databases defined in the subplan, but I cannot think of a way of
> interrogating the subplan details using SQL code to determine this.
> Ideally, I would like to edit the maintenance plan's list of databases
> to only include databases that are the principal on that server and to
> do it each time the job is executed - maybe using the two job approach
> as described above.
> I would like some advice on a way to do this or whether I am barking
> up the wrong tree and should try a different angle - perhaps defining
> my own backup process (I really want to avoid doing this). Clearly,
> if the maintenance plan could detect the fact that the database is a
> mirror copy and just skip it, the whole use goes away, but it does
> not.
> Thanks
>|||On 21 May, 13:43, "Tibor Karaszi"
<tibor_please.no.email_kara...@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote:
> > I would like some advice on a way to do this or whether I am barking
> > up the wrong tree and should try a different angle - perhaps defining
> > my own backup process (I really want to avoid doing this).
> This is what you would have to do. Maint plans are for simpler installations, and conditionally
> handling a mirrored database *inside* a backup task is not available. Consider wishing this at
> connect.microsoft.com.
> Another options is to have one backup task per database, and have a TSQL task before each which
> check the mirroring catalog views and if a mirror, moves to the next database instead. A bit messy,
> but should be doable.
> Having your own scripts for performing a backup isn't difficult, though. You can still use the maint
> plan to remove old backup files. (Google for how to generate the backup command with a time stamp in
> the file name and you will find examples...)
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVPhttp://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asphttp://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
> "Viracochas" <warm...@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1179742488.051578.275990@.b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Thanks for the feedback. I feared there was no easy way, though it
won't be too difficult to set it up.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
AWE on 4GB multi-instance box?
Hi
We have a SQL server 2000 cluster, built on Windows 2000 Advanced server.
We are using an Active / Passive configuration which has 4 instances of SQL
Enterprise, and 1 Instance of IIS.
Both boxes are identical, and clustering works just fine.
However, in order to use the 4Gb in each box, should we enable the /3Gb
switch in Boot.Ini?
How then do we configure each instance of SQL Server? I believe that once
the /3Gb switch is enabled, that SQL will grab all the memory for itself,
leaving only 128Mb for the OS. We would probably need to specify a maximum
memory usage requirement, per instance, if that was to be the case.
There seems to be 2 options to me. Can anyone offer advice on whether we
should take:
1). Disable the AWE, via the removal of the /3Gb switch, and let SQL Server
manage its own memory
2). Enable AWE, via the use of the /3Gb switch, but then specify the maximum
memory each instance of SQL Server can use.
Does anyone have a view?
Thanks
Paul Aspinall
MCSD, MCDBA
Paul,
The /3GB switch does not enable or disable AWE. That is done via the AWE
option of sp_configure. If you have 4 actual instances of SQL Server plus
IIS on a single box with only 4GB of memory you certainly do not want to use
/3GB. You must share that 4GB with all 5 instances plus the OS and do not
want anything to swap to the swap file. Is there a particular reason to
have 4 separate instances vs. one with all the db's in it? It's hard to say
what the proper memory config should be given I know nothing about any of
your instances or how they are used. You might simply want to stay with
dynamic memory config on all 4 with no /3GB. AWE is only really useful with
more than 4GB anyway. It's IIS that I would be most worried about since it
doesn't play as well with others as SQL Server does.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Paul Aspinall" <paul@.aspy.co.uk> wrote in message
news:oG4Be.28164$O22.20831@.fe1.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
> Hi
> We have a SQL server 2000 cluster, built on Windows 2000 Advanced server.
> We are using an Active / Passive configuration which has 4 instances of
> SQL Enterprise, and 1 Instance of IIS.
> Both boxes are identical, and clustering works just fine.
> However, in order to use the 4Gb in each box, should we enable the /3Gb
> switch in Boot.Ini?
> How then do we configure each instance of SQL Server? I believe that once
> the /3Gb switch is enabled, that SQL will grab all the memory for itself,
> leaving only 128Mb for the OS. We would probably need to specify a maximum
> memory usage requirement, per instance, if that was to be the case.
> There seems to be 2 options to me. Can anyone offer advice on whether we
> should take:
> 1). Disable the AWE, via the removal of the /3Gb switch, and let SQL
> Server manage its own memory
> 2). Enable AWE, via the use of the /3Gb switch, but then specify the
> maximum memory each instance of SQL Server can use.
>
> Does anyone have a view?
> Thanks
>
> Paul Aspinall
> MCSD, MCDBA
>
We have a SQL server 2000 cluster, built on Windows 2000 Advanced server.
We are using an Active / Passive configuration which has 4 instances of SQL
Enterprise, and 1 Instance of IIS.
Both boxes are identical, and clustering works just fine.
However, in order to use the 4Gb in each box, should we enable the /3Gb
switch in Boot.Ini?
How then do we configure each instance of SQL Server? I believe that once
the /3Gb switch is enabled, that SQL will grab all the memory for itself,
leaving only 128Mb for the OS. We would probably need to specify a maximum
memory usage requirement, per instance, if that was to be the case.
There seems to be 2 options to me. Can anyone offer advice on whether we
should take:
1). Disable the AWE, via the removal of the /3Gb switch, and let SQL Server
manage its own memory
2). Enable AWE, via the use of the /3Gb switch, but then specify the maximum
memory each instance of SQL Server can use.
Does anyone have a view?
Thanks
Paul Aspinall
MCSD, MCDBA
Paul,
The /3GB switch does not enable or disable AWE. That is done via the AWE
option of sp_configure. If you have 4 actual instances of SQL Server plus
IIS on a single box with only 4GB of memory you certainly do not want to use
/3GB. You must share that 4GB with all 5 instances plus the OS and do not
want anything to swap to the swap file. Is there a particular reason to
have 4 separate instances vs. one with all the db's in it? It's hard to say
what the proper memory config should be given I know nothing about any of
your instances or how they are used. You might simply want to stay with
dynamic memory config on all 4 with no /3GB. AWE is only really useful with
more than 4GB anyway. It's IIS that I would be most worried about since it
doesn't play as well with others as SQL Server does.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Paul Aspinall" <paul@.aspy.co.uk> wrote in message
news:oG4Be.28164$O22.20831@.fe1.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
> Hi
> We have a SQL server 2000 cluster, built on Windows 2000 Advanced server.
> We are using an Active / Passive configuration which has 4 instances of
> SQL Enterprise, and 1 Instance of IIS.
> Both boxes are identical, and clustering works just fine.
> However, in order to use the 4Gb in each box, should we enable the /3Gb
> switch in Boot.Ini?
> How then do we configure each instance of SQL Server? I believe that once
> the /3Gb switch is enabled, that SQL will grab all the memory for itself,
> leaving only 128Mb for the OS. We would probably need to specify a maximum
> memory usage requirement, per instance, if that was to be the case.
> There seems to be 2 options to me. Can anyone offer advice on whether we
> should take:
> 1). Disable the AWE, via the removal of the /3Gb switch, and let SQL
> Server manage its own memory
> 2). Enable AWE, via the use of the /3Gb switch, but then specify the
> maximum memory each instance of SQL Server can use.
>
> Does anyone have a view?
> Thanks
>
> Paul Aspinall
> MCSD, MCDBA
>
AWE Memory
I am having a problem with SQL using the memory that should be available to it.
I have the following configuration:
Hardware:
CPU: 4 XEON 2.0 GHZ (with HT) - acts like 8
MEMORY: 8 GB RAM
OS: Windows 2003 Advanced Server (PAE is enabled in boot.ini)
SQL: SQL 2000 Enterprise
AWE is enabled
The user account for SQL has Lock Pages in Memory rights
My issue:
I have review the related threads on this site and compared the recommended
settings to my system. I have not found any differences. However the size of
the SQL working memory set will not increase beyond 1.7 GB.
I found a reference on MSDN that stated that when AWE is enabled an entry
"Address Windowing Extension Enabled" is added to the SQL Error Log. I find
no such entry in my log.
I seems as though AWE is not actually running even though all my setting
seem to be ok.
What have I missed?
--
AtvarAtvar,
You also have to set the /3GB switch in boot.ini for SQL Server EE to use
the extra 1GB below the 4GB boundary. Even then it will report something
like 2.7GB used.
See KB 274750, "How to configure memory for more than 2 GB in SQL Server"
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;274750
Hope this helps,
Ron
--
Ron Talmage
SQL Server MVP
"Atvar" <Atvar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:741D40E0-A2C4-4529-9F64-56041A96C704@.microsoft.com...
> I am having a problem with SQL using the memory that should be available
to it.
> I have the following configuration:
> Hardware:
> CPU: 4 XEON 2.0 GHZ (with HT) - acts like 8
> MEMORY: 8 GB RAM
> OS: Windows 2003 Advanced Server (PAE is enabled in boot.ini)
> SQL: SQL 2000 Enterprise
> AWE is enabled
> The user account for SQL has Lock Pages in Memory rights
> My issue:
> I have review the related threads on this site and compared the
recommended
> settings to my system. I have not found any differences. However the size
of
> the SQL working memory set will not increase beyond 1.7 GB.
> I found a reference on MSDN that stated that when AWE is enabled an entry
> "Address Windowing Extension Enabled" is added to the SQL Error Log. I
find
> no such entry in my log.
> I seems as though AWE is not actually running even though all my setting
> seem to be ok.
> What have I missed?
> --
> Atvar|||I thought the /3GB switch was not required and was just an option. Is this
not correct?
"Ron Talmage" wrote:
> Atvar,
> You also have to set the /3GB switch in boot.ini for SQL Server EE to use
> the extra 1GB below the 4GB boundary. Even then it will report something
> like 2.7GB used.
> See KB 274750, "How to configure memory for more than 2 GB in SQL Server"
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;274750
> Hope this helps,
> Ron
> --
> Ron Talmage
> SQL Server MVP
> "Atvar" <Atvar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:741D40E0-A2C4-4529-9F64-56041A96C704@.microsoft.com...
> > I am having a problem with SQL using the memory that should be available
> to it.
> >
> > I have the following configuration:
> >
> > Hardware:
> >
> > CPU: 4 XEON 2.0 GHZ (with HT) - acts like 8
> > MEMORY: 8 GB RAM
> >
> > OS: Windows 2003 Advanced Server (PAE is enabled in boot.ini)
> >
> > SQL: SQL 2000 Enterprise
> >
> > AWE is enabled
> > The user account for SQL has Lock Pages in Memory rights
> >
> > My issue:
> >
> > I have review the related threads on this site and compared the
> recommended
> > settings to my system. I have not found any differences. However the size
> of
> > the SQL working memory set will not increase beyond 1.7 GB.
> >
> > I found a reference on MSDN that stated that when AWE is enabled an entry
> > "Address Windowing Extension Enabled" is added to the SQL Error Log. I
> find
> > no such entry in my log.
> >
> > I seems as though AWE is not actually running even though all my setting
> > seem to be ok.
> >
> > What have I missed?
> >
> > --
> > Atvar
>
>|||It is not required but a good idea in this case. It is not the reason you
are seeing what you say though. I would go back and start from scratch and
ensure you really have Enterprise SQL, WIn2003 Advanced, PAE and AWE turned
on and lock pages in memory for the right account. Verify each, don't just
assume.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Atvar" <Atvar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:97FEA326-585E-460E-AE8D-6910CB4E9345@.microsoft.com...
>I thought the /3GB switch was not required and was just an option. Is this
> not correct?
>
> "Ron Talmage" wrote:
>> Atvar,
>> You also have to set the /3GB switch in boot.ini for SQL Server EE to use
>> the extra 1GB below the 4GB boundary. Even then it will report something
>> like 2.7GB used.
>> See KB 274750, "How to configure memory for more than 2 GB in SQL Server"
>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;274750
>> Hope this helps,
>> Ron
>> --
>> Ron Talmage
>> SQL Server MVP
>> "Atvar" <Atvar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:741D40E0-A2C4-4529-9F64-56041A96C704@.microsoft.com...
>> > I am having a problem with SQL using the memory that should be
>> > available
>> to it.
>> >
>> > I have the following configuration:
>> >
>> > Hardware:
>> >
>> > CPU: 4 XEON 2.0 GHZ (with HT) - acts like 8
>> > MEMORY: 8 GB RAM
>> >
>> > OS: Windows 2003 Advanced Server (PAE is enabled in boot.ini)
>> >
>> > SQL: SQL 2000 Enterprise
>> >
>> > AWE is enabled
>> > The user account for SQL has Lock Pages in Memory rights
>> >
>> > My issue:
>> >
>> > I have review the related threads on this site and compared the
>> recommended
>> > settings to my system. I have not found any differences. However the
>> > size
>> of
>> > the SQL working memory set will not increase beyond 1.7 GB.
>> >
>> > I found a reference on MSDN that stated that when AWE is enabled an
>> > entry
>> > "Address Windowing Extension Enabled" is added to the SQL Error Log. I
>> find
>> > no such entry in my log.
>> >
>> > I seems as though AWE is not actually running even though all my
>> > setting
>> > seem to be ok.
>> >
>> > What have I missed?
>> >
>> > --
>> > Atvar
>>|||Thanks for the response.
I did review things as you suggested. The server is running WIn2003
Enterprise (not called advanded in 2003) and the PAE and AWE are set.
However it turn out that the SQL is standard and not Enterprise. This site
uses several SQL servers and the install was done by their IT department.
This server was specified for SQL Enterprise and the license was purchased.
It appears that the wrong license was installed by the IT department. I
think this is my issue as I understand that SQL standard is limited to 2 GB
of memory.
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> It is not required but a good idea in this case. It is not the reason you
> are seeing what you say though. I would go back and start from scratch and
> ensure you really have Enterprise SQL, WIn2003 Advanced, PAE and AWE turned
> on and lock pages in memory for the right account. Verify each, don't just
> assume.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Atvar" <Atvar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:97FEA326-585E-460E-AE8D-6910CB4E9345@.microsoft.com...
> >I thought the /3GB switch was not required and was just an option. Is this
> > not correct?
> >
> >
> > "Ron Talmage" wrote:
> >
> >> Atvar,
> >>
> >> You also have to set the /3GB switch in boot.ini for SQL Server EE to use
> >> the extra 1GB below the 4GB boundary. Even then it will report something
> >> like 2.7GB used.
> >>
> >> See KB 274750, "How to configure memory for more than 2 GB in SQL Server"
> >> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;274750
> >>
> >> Hope this helps,
> >> Ron
> >> --
> >> Ron Talmage
> >> SQL Server MVP
> >>
> >> "Atvar" <Atvar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:741D40E0-A2C4-4529-9F64-56041A96C704@.microsoft.com...
> >> > I am having a problem with SQL using the memory that should be
> >> > available
> >> to it.
> >> >
> >> > I have the following configuration:
> >> >
> >> > Hardware:
> >> >
> >> > CPU: 4 XEON 2.0 GHZ (with HT) - acts like 8
> >> > MEMORY: 8 GB RAM
> >> >
> >> > OS: Windows 2003 Advanced Server (PAE is enabled in boot.ini)
> >> >
> >> > SQL: SQL 2000 Enterprise
> >> >
> >> > AWE is enabled
> >> > The user account for SQL has Lock Pages in Memory rights
> >> >
> >> > My issue:
> >> >
> >> > I have review the related threads on this site and compared the
> >> recommended
> >> > settings to my system. I have not found any differences. However the
> >> > size
> >> of
> >> > the SQL working memory set will not increase beyond 1.7 GB.
> >> >
> >> > I found a reference on MSDN that stated that when AWE is enabled an
> >> > entry
> >> > "Address Windowing Extension Enabled" is added to the SQL Error Log. I
> >> find
> >> > no such entry in my log.
> >> >
> >> > I seems as though AWE is not actually running even though all my
> >> > setting
> >> > seem to be ok.
> >> >
> >> > What have I missed?
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Atvar
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>|||Yes that is it. Standard SQL will only use 2GB regardless of how much the
server has.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Atvar" <Atvar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:433230CD-B250-4CB0-AEAE-9ED0A3F954C8@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks for the response.
> I did review things as you suggested. The server is running WIn2003
> Enterprise (not called advanded in 2003) and the PAE and AWE are set.
> However it turn out that the SQL is standard and not Enterprise. This
> site
> uses several SQL servers and the install was done by their IT department.
> This server was specified for SQL Enterprise and the license was
> purchased.
> It appears that the wrong license was installed by the IT department. I
> think this is my issue as I understand that SQL standard is limited to 2
> GB
> of memory.
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>> It is not required but a good idea in this case. It is not the reason
>> you
>> are seeing what you say though. I would go back and start from scratch
>> and
>> ensure you really have Enterprise SQL, WIn2003 Advanced, PAE and AWE
>> turned
>> on and lock pages in memory for the right account. Verify each, don't
>> just
>> assume.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Atvar" <Atvar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:97FEA326-585E-460E-AE8D-6910CB4E9345@.microsoft.com...
>> >I thought the /3GB switch was not required and was just an option. Is
>> >this
>> > not correct?
>> >
>> >
>> > "Ron Talmage" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Atvar,
>> >>
>> >> You also have to set the /3GB switch in boot.ini for SQL Server EE to
>> >> use
>> >> the extra 1GB below the 4GB boundary. Even then it will report
>> >> something
>> >> like 2.7GB used.
>> >>
>> >> See KB 274750, "How to configure memory for more than 2 GB in SQL
>> >> Server"
>> >> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;274750
>> >>
>> >> Hope this helps,
>> >> Ron
>> >> --
>> >> Ron Talmage
>> >> SQL Server MVP
>> >>
>> >> "Atvar" <Atvar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:741D40E0-A2C4-4529-9F64-56041A96C704@.microsoft.com...
>> >> > I am having a problem with SQL using the memory that should be
>> >> > available
>> >> to it.
>> >> >
>> >> > I have the following configuration:
>> >> >
>> >> > Hardware:
>> >> >
>> >> > CPU: 4 XEON 2.0 GHZ (with HT) - acts like 8
>> >> > MEMORY: 8 GB RAM
>> >> >
>> >> > OS: Windows 2003 Advanced Server (PAE is enabled in boot.ini)
>> >> >
>> >> > SQL: SQL 2000 Enterprise
>> >> >
>> >> > AWE is enabled
>> >> > The user account for SQL has Lock Pages in Memory rights
>> >> >
>> >> > My issue:
>> >> >
>> >> > I have review the related threads on this site and compared the
>> >> recommended
>> >> > settings to my system. I have not found any differences. However the
>> >> > size
>> >> of
>> >> > the SQL working memory set will not increase beyond 1.7 GB.
>> >> >
>> >> > I found a reference on MSDN that stated that when AWE is enabled an
>> >> > entry
>> >> > "Address Windowing Extension Enabled" is added to the SQL Error Log.
>> >> > I
>> >> find
>> >> > no such entry in my log.
>> >> >
>> >> > I seems as though AWE is not actually running even though all my
>> >> > setting
>> >> > seem to be ok.
>> >> >
>> >> > What have I missed?
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Atvar
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
I have the following configuration:
Hardware:
CPU: 4 XEON 2.0 GHZ (with HT) - acts like 8
MEMORY: 8 GB RAM
OS: Windows 2003 Advanced Server (PAE is enabled in boot.ini)
SQL: SQL 2000 Enterprise
AWE is enabled
The user account for SQL has Lock Pages in Memory rights
My issue:
I have review the related threads on this site and compared the recommended
settings to my system. I have not found any differences. However the size of
the SQL working memory set will not increase beyond 1.7 GB.
I found a reference on MSDN that stated that when AWE is enabled an entry
"Address Windowing Extension Enabled" is added to the SQL Error Log. I find
no such entry in my log.
I seems as though AWE is not actually running even though all my setting
seem to be ok.
What have I missed?
--
AtvarAtvar,
You also have to set the /3GB switch in boot.ini for SQL Server EE to use
the extra 1GB below the 4GB boundary. Even then it will report something
like 2.7GB used.
See KB 274750, "How to configure memory for more than 2 GB in SQL Server"
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;274750
Hope this helps,
Ron
--
Ron Talmage
SQL Server MVP
"Atvar" <Atvar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:741D40E0-A2C4-4529-9F64-56041A96C704@.microsoft.com...
> I am having a problem with SQL using the memory that should be available
to it.
> I have the following configuration:
> Hardware:
> CPU: 4 XEON 2.0 GHZ (with HT) - acts like 8
> MEMORY: 8 GB RAM
> OS: Windows 2003 Advanced Server (PAE is enabled in boot.ini)
> SQL: SQL 2000 Enterprise
> AWE is enabled
> The user account for SQL has Lock Pages in Memory rights
> My issue:
> I have review the related threads on this site and compared the
recommended
> settings to my system. I have not found any differences. However the size
of
> the SQL working memory set will not increase beyond 1.7 GB.
> I found a reference on MSDN that stated that when AWE is enabled an entry
> "Address Windowing Extension Enabled" is added to the SQL Error Log. I
find
> no such entry in my log.
> I seems as though AWE is not actually running even though all my setting
> seem to be ok.
> What have I missed?
> --
> Atvar|||I thought the /3GB switch was not required and was just an option. Is this
not correct?
"Ron Talmage" wrote:
> Atvar,
> You also have to set the /3GB switch in boot.ini for SQL Server EE to use
> the extra 1GB below the 4GB boundary. Even then it will report something
> like 2.7GB used.
> See KB 274750, "How to configure memory for more than 2 GB in SQL Server"
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;274750
> Hope this helps,
> Ron
> --
> Ron Talmage
> SQL Server MVP
> "Atvar" <Atvar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:741D40E0-A2C4-4529-9F64-56041A96C704@.microsoft.com...
> > I am having a problem with SQL using the memory that should be available
> to it.
> >
> > I have the following configuration:
> >
> > Hardware:
> >
> > CPU: 4 XEON 2.0 GHZ (with HT) - acts like 8
> > MEMORY: 8 GB RAM
> >
> > OS: Windows 2003 Advanced Server (PAE is enabled in boot.ini)
> >
> > SQL: SQL 2000 Enterprise
> >
> > AWE is enabled
> > The user account for SQL has Lock Pages in Memory rights
> >
> > My issue:
> >
> > I have review the related threads on this site and compared the
> recommended
> > settings to my system. I have not found any differences. However the size
> of
> > the SQL working memory set will not increase beyond 1.7 GB.
> >
> > I found a reference on MSDN that stated that when AWE is enabled an entry
> > "Address Windowing Extension Enabled" is added to the SQL Error Log. I
> find
> > no such entry in my log.
> >
> > I seems as though AWE is not actually running even though all my setting
> > seem to be ok.
> >
> > What have I missed?
> >
> > --
> > Atvar
>
>|||It is not required but a good idea in this case. It is not the reason you
are seeing what you say though. I would go back and start from scratch and
ensure you really have Enterprise SQL, WIn2003 Advanced, PAE and AWE turned
on and lock pages in memory for the right account. Verify each, don't just
assume.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Atvar" <Atvar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:97FEA326-585E-460E-AE8D-6910CB4E9345@.microsoft.com...
>I thought the /3GB switch was not required and was just an option. Is this
> not correct?
>
> "Ron Talmage" wrote:
>> Atvar,
>> You also have to set the /3GB switch in boot.ini for SQL Server EE to use
>> the extra 1GB below the 4GB boundary. Even then it will report something
>> like 2.7GB used.
>> See KB 274750, "How to configure memory for more than 2 GB in SQL Server"
>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;274750
>> Hope this helps,
>> Ron
>> --
>> Ron Talmage
>> SQL Server MVP
>> "Atvar" <Atvar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:741D40E0-A2C4-4529-9F64-56041A96C704@.microsoft.com...
>> > I am having a problem with SQL using the memory that should be
>> > available
>> to it.
>> >
>> > I have the following configuration:
>> >
>> > Hardware:
>> >
>> > CPU: 4 XEON 2.0 GHZ (with HT) - acts like 8
>> > MEMORY: 8 GB RAM
>> >
>> > OS: Windows 2003 Advanced Server (PAE is enabled in boot.ini)
>> >
>> > SQL: SQL 2000 Enterprise
>> >
>> > AWE is enabled
>> > The user account for SQL has Lock Pages in Memory rights
>> >
>> > My issue:
>> >
>> > I have review the related threads on this site and compared the
>> recommended
>> > settings to my system. I have not found any differences. However the
>> > size
>> of
>> > the SQL working memory set will not increase beyond 1.7 GB.
>> >
>> > I found a reference on MSDN that stated that when AWE is enabled an
>> > entry
>> > "Address Windowing Extension Enabled" is added to the SQL Error Log. I
>> find
>> > no such entry in my log.
>> >
>> > I seems as though AWE is not actually running even though all my
>> > setting
>> > seem to be ok.
>> >
>> > What have I missed?
>> >
>> > --
>> > Atvar
>>|||Thanks for the response.
I did review things as you suggested. The server is running WIn2003
Enterprise (not called advanded in 2003) and the PAE and AWE are set.
However it turn out that the SQL is standard and not Enterprise. This site
uses several SQL servers and the install was done by their IT department.
This server was specified for SQL Enterprise and the license was purchased.
It appears that the wrong license was installed by the IT department. I
think this is my issue as I understand that SQL standard is limited to 2 GB
of memory.
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> It is not required but a good idea in this case. It is not the reason you
> are seeing what you say though. I would go back and start from scratch and
> ensure you really have Enterprise SQL, WIn2003 Advanced, PAE and AWE turned
> on and lock pages in memory for the right account. Verify each, don't just
> assume.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Atvar" <Atvar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:97FEA326-585E-460E-AE8D-6910CB4E9345@.microsoft.com...
> >I thought the /3GB switch was not required and was just an option. Is this
> > not correct?
> >
> >
> > "Ron Talmage" wrote:
> >
> >> Atvar,
> >>
> >> You also have to set the /3GB switch in boot.ini for SQL Server EE to use
> >> the extra 1GB below the 4GB boundary. Even then it will report something
> >> like 2.7GB used.
> >>
> >> See KB 274750, "How to configure memory for more than 2 GB in SQL Server"
> >> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;274750
> >>
> >> Hope this helps,
> >> Ron
> >> --
> >> Ron Talmage
> >> SQL Server MVP
> >>
> >> "Atvar" <Atvar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:741D40E0-A2C4-4529-9F64-56041A96C704@.microsoft.com...
> >> > I am having a problem with SQL using the memory that should be
> >> > available
> >> to it.
> >> >
> >> > I have the following configuration:
> >> >
> >> > Hardware:
> >> >
> >> > CPU: 4 XEON 2.0 GHZ (with HT) - acts like 8
> >> > MEMORY: 8 GB RAM
> >> >
> >> > OS: Windows 2003 Advanced Server (PAE is enabled in boot.ini)
> >> >
> >> > SQL: SQL 2000 Enterprise
> >> >
> >> > AWE is enabled
> >> > The user account for SQL has Lock Pages in Memory rights
> >> >
> >> > My issue:
> >> >
> >> > I have review the related threads on this site and compared the
> >> recommended
> >> > settings to my system. I have not found any differences. However the
> >> > size
> >> of
> >> > the SQL working memory set will not increase beyond 1.7 GB.
> >> >
> >> > I found a reference on MSDN that stated that when AWE is enabled an
> >> > entry
> >> > "Address Windowing Extension Enabled" is added to the SQL Error Log. I
> >> find
> >> > no such entry in my log.
> >> >
> >> > I seems as though AWE is not actually running even though all my
> >> > setting
> >> > seem to be ok.
> >> >
> >> > What have I missed?
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Atvar
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>|||Yes that is it. Standard SQL will only use 2GB regardless of how much the
server has.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Atvar" <Atvar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:433230CD-B250-4CB0-AEAE-9ED0A3F954C8@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks for the response.
> I did review things as you suggested. The server is running WIn2003
> Enterprise (not called advanded in 2003) and the PAE and AWE are set.
> However it turn out that the SQL is standard and not Enterprise. This
> site
> uses several SQL servers and the install was done by their IT department.
> This server was specified for SQL Enterprise and the license was
> purchased.
> It appears that the wrong license was installed by the IT department. I
> think this is my issue as I understand that SQL standard is limited to 2
> GB
> of memory.
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>> It is not required but a good idea in this case. It is not the reason
>> you
>> are seeing what you say though. I would go back and start from scratch
>> and
>> ensure you really have Enterprise SQL, WIn2003 Advanced, PAE and AWE
>> turned
>> on and lock pages in memory for the right account. Verify each, don't
>> just
>> assume.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Atvar" <Atvar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:97FEA326-585E-460E-AE8D-6910CB4E9345@.microsoft.com...
>> >I thought the /3GB switch was not required and was just an option. Is
>> >this
>> > not correct?
>> >
>> >
>> > "Ron Talmage" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Atvar,
>> >>
>> >> You also have to set the /3GB switch in boot.ini for SQL Server EE to
>> >> use
>> >> the extra 1GB below the 4GB boundary. Even then it will report
>> >> something
>> >> like 2.7GB used.
>> >>
>> >> See KB 274750, "How to configure memory for more than 2 GB in SQL
>> >> Server"
>> >> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;274750
>> >>
>> >> Hope this helps,
>> >> Ron
>> >> --
>> >> Ron Talmage
>> >> SQL Server MVP
>> >>
>> >> "Atvar" <Atvar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:741D40E0-A2C4-4529-9F64-56041A96C704@.microsoft.com...
>> >> > I am having a problem with SQL using the memory that should be
>> >> > available
>> >> to it.
>> >> >
>> >> > I have the following configuration:
>> >> >
>> >> > Hardware:
>> >> >
>> >> > CPU: 4 XEON 2.0 GHZ (with HT) - acts like 8
>> >> > MEMORY: 8 GB RAM
>> >> >
>> >> > OS: Windows 2003 Advanced Server (PAE is enabled in boot.ini)
>> >> >
>> >> > SQL: SQL 2000 Enterprise
>> >> >
>> >> > AWE is enabled
>> >> > The user account for SQL has Lock Pages in Memory rights
>> >> >
>> >> > My issue:
>> >> >
>> >> > I have review the related threads on this site and compared the
>> >> recommended
>> >> > settings to my system. I have not found any differences. However the
>> >> > size
>> >> of
>> >> > the SQL working memory set will not increase beyond 1.7 GB.
>> >> >
>> >> > I found a reference on MSDN that stated that when AWE is enabled an
>> >> > entry
>> >> > "Address Windowing Extension Enabled" is added to the SQL Error Log.
>> >> > I
>> >> find
>> >> > no such entry in my log.
>> >> >
>> >> > I seems as though AWE is not actually running even though all my
>> >> > setting
>> >> > seem to be ok.
>> >> >
>> >> > What have I missed?
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Atvar
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
AWE and Memory Configuration
We have a database server running Windows 2000 Advanced Server and SQL 2000
Enterprise with 4 CPU and 8MB of memory. PAE has been configured in boot.ini.
AWE has been enabled and 5120 MB of memory allocated to SQL Server default
instance. Everything has been running fine for the last two years.
Now we are planning to add a named instance on the same server for housing
Accounting database. My question is:
1) Do I need to enable AWE on both instances of SQL Server.
2) Set upper memory for both instances. Say 4GB for default instance and
1GB for the new named instance based on their usage ratio. Leave 3GB for OS.
3) Do I need to do anything with CPU allocations?
Any suggestion. Thanks...Fraz
Hi
With 8GB, can configure 1 GB and 5.5GB without starving the OS (as long as
it is a dedicated SQL Server).
/3GB must be set in boot.ini
Set AWE for the instance with 5.5GB, and a fixed memory setting.
Do not set AWE for the 1GB instance, but have a fixed memory setting for it
too.
Leave OS and SQL server to manage CPU allocations and leave the defaults.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Fraz" <Fraz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CD4267EB-FF45-4272-B737-6997046F38EC@.microsoft.com...
> We have a database server running Windows 2000 Advanced Server and SQL
> 2000
> Enterprise with 4 CPU and 8MB of memory. PAE has been configured in
> boot.ini.
> AWE has been enabled and 5120 MB of memory allocated to SQL Server default
> instance. Everything has been running fine for the last two years.
> Now we are planning to add a named instance on the same server for housing
> Accounting database. My question is:
> 1) Do I need to enable AWE on both instances of SQL Server.
> 2) Set upper memory for both instances. Say 4GB for default instance and
> 1GB for the new named instance based on their usage ratio. Leave 3GB for
> OS.
> 3) Do I need to do anything with CPU allocations?
> Any suggestion. Thanks...Fraz
>
|||"Fraz" <Fraz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CD4267EB-FF45-4272-B737-6997046F38EC@.microsoft.com...
> We have a database server running Windows 2000 Advanced Server and SQL
> 2000
> Enterprise with 4 CPU and 8MB of memory. PAE has been configured in
> boot.ini.
> AWE has been enabled and 5120 MB of memory allocated to SQL Server default
> instance. Everything has been running fine for the last two years.
> Now we are planning to add a named instance on the same server for housing
> Accounting database. My question is:
Why a new instance instead of just adding the database to the default
instance?
How large are these databases? How busy?
> 1) Do I need to enable AWE on both instances of SQL Server.
I would not do that. Either configure the accounting instance to use 2 or
max memory, or mount the database in the main instance. Either one big
instance with AWE, or one big instance with AWE and one small one without.
> 2) Set upper memory for both instances. Say 4GB for default instance and
> 1GB for the new named instance based on their usage ratio. Leave 3GB for
> OS.
The OS doesn't need 3GB. 200-400MB is fine. An instance will "want" a
certian amount of memory depending on its workload and database size.
Giving it more is doesn't help at all; giving it less causes increased
physical IO and a decreased cache hit ratio. AWE is slower than normal
memory, so your smaller instance will run better without AWE. You should
evaluate how much memory your instances really need. Perhaps both instances
will run better with the /3GB switch and AWE off.
> 3) Do I need to do anything with CPU allocations?
If you don't then both instances will share all 4 CPU's, which is lets them
share resources (good), but makes is more difficult to guarantee QOS to
either workload (bad).
If you put the database in the default instance you will share memory and
CPU; in a seperate instance it will not share memory, but will share CPU
unless you set CPU affinity for the instances. So assuming you want to
segregate the instances, you should probably do something with the CPU
affinity.
David
|||I really appreciate your prompt feedback. This satisfies all the questions I
had in my mind. Thanks and cheers. Fraz
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> With 8GB, can configure 1 GB and 5.5GB without starving the OS (as long as
> it is a dedicated SQL Server).
> /3GB must be set in boot.ini
> Set AWE for the instance with 5.5GB, and a fixed memory setting.
> Do not set AWE for the 1GB instance, but have a fixed memory setting for it
> too.
> Leave OS and SQL server to manage CPU allocations and leave the defaults.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Fraz" <Fraz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:CD4267EB-FF45-4272-B737-6997046F38EC@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||The new Accounting database (new named instance) will use different collation
setting i.e. Latin1_General, Sort order Binary whereas the default instance
is using Latin1-General, case-insensitive,for use with 1252 Character Set.
The database size in the new named instance is 5GB, it will be more busy in
the month-end than other days. The test system performance statistics (Total
Server Memory) shows that currently this instance is using 300-350MB.
The default instance in production is a busy instance as we have about 25
databases of different sizes from 5GB to 200MB. The performance statistics
for this shows that it is currently using 1.7 - 2.0GB out of allocated 5GB.
For CPU affinity, would it be okay to leave it to the Default setting.
Thanks...Fraz
"David Browne" wrote:
> "Fraz" <Fraz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:CD4267EB-FF45-4272-B737-6997046F38EC@.microsoft.com...
> Why a new instance instead of just adding the database to the default
> instance?
> How large are these databases? How busy?
>
> I would not do that. Either configure the accounting instance to use 2 or
> max memory, or mount the database in the main instance. Either one big
> instance with AWE, or one big instance with AWE and one small one without.
> The OS doesn't need 3GB. 200-400MB is fine. An instance will "want" a
> certian amount of memory depending on its workload and database size.
> Giving it more is doesn't help at all; giving it less causes increased
> physical IO and a decreased cache hit ratio. AWE is slower than normal
> memory, so your smaller instance will run better without AWE. You should
> evaluate how much memory your instances really need. Perhaps both instances
> will run better with the /3GB switch and AWE off.
>
> If you don't then both instances will share all 4 CPU's, which is lets them
> share resources (good), but makes is more difficult to guarantee QOS to
> either workload (bad).
> If you put the database in the default instance you will share memory and
> CPU; in a seperate instance it will not share memory, but will share CPU
> unless you set CPU affinity for the instances. So assuming you want to
> segregate the instances, you should probably do something with the CPU
> affinity.
> David
>
>
Enterprise with 4 CPU and 8MB of memory. PAE has been configured in boot.ini.
AWE has been enabled and 5120 MB of memory allocated to SQL Server default
instance. Everything has been running fine for the last two years.
Now we are planning to add a named instance on the same server for housing
Accounting database. My question is:
1) Do I need to enable AWE on both instances of SQL Server.
2) Set upper memory for both instances. Say 4GB for default instance and
1GB for the new named instance based on their usage ratio. Leave 3GB for OS.
3) Do I need to do anything with CPU allocations?
Any suggestion. Thanks...Fraz
Hi
With 8GB, can configure 1 GB and 5.5GB without starving the OS (as long as
it is a dedicated SQL Server).
/3GB must be set in boot.ini
Set AWE for the instance with 5.5GB, and a fixed memory setting.
Do not set AWE for the 1GB instance, but have a fixed memory setting for it
too.
Leave OS and SQL server to manage CPU allocations and leave the defaults.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Fraz" <Fraz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CD4267EB-FF45-4272-B737-6997046F38EC@.microsoft.com...
> We have a database server running Windows 2000 Advanced Server and SQL
> 2000
> Enterprise with 4 CPU and 8MB of memory. PAE has been configured in
> boot.ini.
> AWE has been enabled and 5120 MB of memory allocated to SQL Server default
> instance. Everything has been running fine for the last two years.
> Now we are planning to add a named instance on the same server for housing
> Accounting database. My question is:
> 1) Do I need to enable AWE on both instances of SQL Server.
> 2) Set upper memory for both instances. Say 4GB for default instance and
> 1GB for the new named instance based on their usage ratio. Leave 3GB for
> OS.
> 3) Do I need to do anything with CPU allocations?
> Any suggestion. Thanks...Fraz
>
|||"Fraz" <Fraz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CD4267EB-FF45-4272-B737-6997046F38EC@.microsoft.com...
> We have a database server running Windows 2000 Advanced Server and SQL
> 2000
> Enterprise with 4 CPU and 8MB of memory. PAE has been configured in
> boot.ini.
> AWE has been enabled and 5120 MB of memory allocated to SQL Server default
> instance. Everything has been running fine for the last two years.
> Now we are planning to add a named instance on the same server for housing
> Accounting database. My question is:
Why a new instance instead of just adding the database to the default
instance?
How large are these databases? How busy?
> 1) Do I need to enable AWE on both instances of SQL Server.
I would not do that. Either configure the accounting instance to use 2 or
max memory, or mount the database in the main instance. Either one big
instance with AWE, or one big instance with AWE and one small one without.
> 2) Set upper memory for both instances. Say 4GB for default instance and
> 1GB for the new named instance based on their usage ratio. Leave 3GB for
> OS.
The OS doesn't need 3GB. 200-400MB is fine. An instance will "want" a
certian amount of memory depending on its workload and database size.
Giving it more is doesn't help at all; giving it less causes increased
physical IO and a decreased cache hit ratio. AWE is slower than normal
memory, so your smaller instance will run better without AWE. You should
evaluate how much memory your instances really need. Perhaps both instances
will run better with the /3GB switch and AWE off.
> 3) Do I need to do anything with CPU allocations?
If you don't then both instances will share all 4 CPU's, which is lets them
share resources (good), but makes is more difficult to guarantee QOS to
either workload (bad).
If you put the database in the default instance you will share memory and
CPU; in a seperate instance it will not share memory, but will share CPU
unless you set CPU affinity for the instances. So assuming you want to
segregate the instances, you should probably do something with the CPU
affinity.
David
|||I really appreciate your prompt feedback. This satisfies all the questions I
had in my mind. Thanks and cheers. Fraz
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> With 8GB, can configure 1 GB and 5.5GB without starving the OS (as long as
> it is a dedicated SQL Server).
> /3GB must be set in boot.ini
> Set AWE for the instance with 5.5GB, and a fixed memory setting.
> Do not set AWE for the 1GB instance, but have a fixed memory setting for it
> too.
> Leave OS and SQL server to manage CPU allocations and leave the defaults.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Fraz" <Fraz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:CD4267EB-FF45-4272-B737-6997046F38EC@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||The new Accounting database (new named instance) will use different collation
setting i.e. Latin1_General, Sort order Binary whereas the default instance
is using Latin1-General, case-insensitive,for use with 1252 Character Set.
The database size in the new named instance is 5GB, it will be more busy in
the month-end than other days. The test system performance statistics (Total
Server Memory) shows that currently this instance is using 300-350MB.
The default instance in production is a busy instance as we have about 25
databases of different sizes from 5GB to 200MB. The performance statistics
for this shows that it is currently using 1.7 - 2.0GB out of allocated 5GB.
For CPU affinity, would it be okay to leave it to the Default setting.
Thanks...Fraz
"David Browne" wrote:
> "Fraz" <Fraz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:CD4267EB-FF45-4272-B737-6997046F38EC@.microsoft.com...
> Why a new instance instead of just adding the database to the default
> instance?
> How large are these databases? How busy?
>
> I would not do that. Either configure the accounting instance to use 2 or
> max memory, or mount the database in the main instance. Either one big
> instance with AWE, or one big instance with AWE and one small one without.
> The OS doesn't need 3GB. 200-400MB is fine. An instance will "want" a
> certian amount of memory depending on its workload and database size.
> Giving it more is doesn't help at all; giving it less causes increased
> physical IO and a decreased cache hit ratio. AWE is slower than normal
> memory, so your smaller instance will run better without AWE. You should
> evaluate how much memory your instances really need. Perhaps both instances
> will run better with the /3GB switch and AWE off.
>
> If you don't then both instances will share all 4 CPU's, which is lets them
> share resources (good), but makes is more difficult to guarantee QOS to
> either workload (bad).
> If you put the database in the default instance you will share memory and
> CPU; in a seperate instance it will not share memory, but will share CPU
> unless you set CPU affinity for the instances. So assuming you want to
> segregate the instances, you should probably do something with the CPU
> affinity.
> David
>
>
Saturday, February 25, 2012
AWE and Memory Configuration
We have a database server running Windows 2000 Advanced Server and SQL 2000
Enterprise with 4 CPU and 8MB of memory. PAE has been configured in boot.ini.
AWE has been enabled and 5120 MB of memory allocated to SQL Server default
instance. Everything has been running fine for the last two years.
Now we are planning to add a named instance on the same server for housing
Accounting database. My question is:
1) Do I need to enable AWE on both instances of SQL Server.
2) Set upper memory for both instances. Say 4GB for default instance and
1GB for the new named instance based on their usage ratio. Leave 3GB for OS.
3) Do I need to do anything with CPU allocations?
Any suggestion. Thanks...FrazHi
With 8GB, can configure 1 GB and 5.5GB without starving the OS (as long as
it is a dedicated SQL Server).
/3GB must be set in boot.ini
Set AWE for the instance with 5.5GB, and a fixed memory setting.
Do not set AWE for the 1GB instance, but have a fixed memory setting for it
too.
Leave OS and SQL server to manage CPU allocations and leave the defaults.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Fraz" <Fraz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CD4267EB-FF45-4272-B737-6997046F38EC@.microsoft.com...
> We have a database server running Windows 2000 Advanced Server and SQL
> 2000
> Enterprise with 4 CPU and 8MB of memory. PAE has been configured in
> boot.ini.
> AWE has been enabled and 5120 MB of memory allocated to SQL Server default
> instance. Everything has been running fine for the last two years.
> Now we are planning to add a named instance on the same server for housing
> Accounting database. My question is:
> 1) Do I need to enable AWE on both instances of SQL Server.
> 2) Set upper memory for both instances. Say 4GB for default instance and
> 1GB for the new named instance based on their usage ratio. Leave 3GB for
> OS.
> 3) Do I need to do anything with CPU allocations?
> Any suggestion. Thanks...Fraz
>|||"Fraz" <Fraz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CD4267EB-FF45-4272-B737-6997046F38EC@.microsoft.com...
> We have a database server running Windows 2000 Advanced Server and SQL
> 2000
> Enterprise with 4 CPU and 8MB of memory. PAE has been configured in
> boot.ini.
> AWE has been enabled and 5120 MB of memory allocated to SQL Server default
> instance. Everything has been running fine for the last two years.
> Now we are planning to add a named instance on the same server for housing
> Accounting database. My question is:
Why a new instance instead of just adding the database to the default
instance?
How large are these databases? How busy?
> 1) Do I need to enable AWE on both instances of SQL Server.
I would not do that. Either configure the accounting instance to use 2 or
max memory, or mount the database in the main instance. Either one big
instance with AWE, or one big instance with AWE and one small one without.
> 2) Set upper memory for both instances. Say 4GB for default instance and
> 1GB for the new named instance based on their usage ratio. Leave 3GB for
> OS.
The OS doesn't need 3GB. 200-400MB is fine. An instance will "want" a
certian amount of memory depending on its workload and database size.
Giving it more is doesn't help at all; giving it less causes increased
physical IO and a decreased cache hit ratio. AWE is slower than normal
memory, so your smaller instance will run better without AWE. You should
evaluate how much memory your instances really need. Perhaps both instances
will run better with the /3GB switch and AWE off.
> 3) Do I need to do anything with CPU allocations?
If you don't then both instances will share all 4 CPU's, which is lets them
share resources (good), but makes is more difficult to guarantee QOS to
either workload (bad).
If you put the database in the default instance you will share memory and
CPU; in a seperate instance it will not share memory, but will share CPU
unless you set CPU affinity for the instances. So assuming you want to
segregate the instances, you should probably do something with the CPU
affinity.
David|||I really appreciate your prompt feedback. This satisfies all the questions I
had in my mind. Thanks and cheers. Fraz
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> With 8GB, can configure 1 GB and 5.5GB without starving the OS (as long as
> it is a dedicated SQL Server).
> /3GB must be set in boot.ini
> Set AWE for the instance with 5.5GB, and a fixed memory setting.
> Do not set AWE for the 1GB instance, but have a fixed memory setting for it
> too.
> Leave OS and SQL server to manage CPU allocations and leave the defaults.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Fraz" <Fraz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:CD4267EB-FF45-4272-B737-6997046F38EC@.microsoft.com...
> > We have a database server running Windows 2000 Advanced Server and SQL
> > 2000
> > Enterprise with 4 CPU and 8MB of memory. PAE has been configured in
> > boot.ini.
> > AWE has been enabled and 5120 MB of memory allocated to SQL Server default
> > instance. Everything has been running fine for the last two years.
> > Now we are planning to add a named instance on the same server for housing
> > Accounting database. My question is:
> > 1) Do I need to enable AWE on both instances of SQL Server.
> > 2) Set upper memory for both instances. Say 4GB for default instance and
> > 1GB for the new named instance based on their usage ratio. Leave 3GB for
> > OS.
> > 3) Do I need to do anything with CPU allocations?
> > Any suggestion. Thanks...Fraz
> >
> >
>
>|||The new Accounting database (new named instance) will use different collation
setting i.e. Latin1_General, Sort order Binary whereas the default instance
is using Latin1-General, case-insensitive,for use with 1252 Character Set.
The database size in the new named instance is 5GB, it will be more busy in
the month-end than other days. The test system performance statistics (Total
Server Memory) shows that currently this instance is using 300-350MB.
The default instance in production is a busy instance as we have about 25
databases of different sizes from 5GB to 200MB. The performance statistics
for this shows that it is currently using 1.7 - 2.0GB out of allocated 5GB.
For CPU affinity, would it be okay to leave it to the Default setting.
Thanks...Fraz
"David Browne" wrote:
> "Fraz" <Fraz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:CD4267EB-FF45-4272-B737-6997046F38EC@.microsoft.com...
> > We have a database server running Windows 2000 Advanced Server and SQL
> > 2000
> > Enterprise with 4 CPU and 8MB of memory. PAE has been configured in
> > boot.ini.
> > AWE has been enabled and 5120 MB of memory allocated to SQL Server default
> > instance. Everything has been running fine for the last two years.
> > Now we are planning to add a named instance on the same server for housing
> > Accounting database. My question is:
> Why a new instance instead of just adding the database to the default
> instance?
> How large are these databases? How busy?
> > 1) Do I need to enable AWE on both instances of SQL Server.
> I would not do that. Either configure the accounting instance to use 2 or
> max memory, or mount the database in the main instance. Either one big
> instance with AWE, or one big instance with AWE and one small one without.
> > 2) Set upper memory for both instances. Say 4GB for default instance and
> > 1GB for the new named instance based on their usage ratio. Leave 3GB for
> > OS.
> The OS doesn't need 3GB. 200-400MB is fine. An instance will "want" a
> certian amount of memory depending on its workload and database size.
> Giving it more is doesn't help at all; giving it less causes increased
> physical IO and a decreased cache hit ratio. AWE is slower than normal
> memory, so your smaller instance will run better without AWE. You should
> evaluate how much memory your instances really need. Perhaps both instances
> will run better with the /3GB switch and AWE off.
> > 3) Do I need to do anything with CPU allocations?
> If you don't then both instances will share all 4 CPU's, which is lets them
> share resources (good), but makes is more difficult to guarantee QOS to
> either workload (bad).
> If you put the database in the default instance you will share memory and
> CPU; in a seperate instance it will not share memory, but will share CPU
> unless you set CPU affinity for the instances. So assuming you want to
> segregate the instances, you should probably do something with the CPU
> affinity.
> David
>
>
Enterprise with 4 CPU and 8MB of memory. PAE has been configured in boot.ini.
AWE has been enabled and 5120 MB of memory allocated to SQL Server default
instance. Everything has been running fine for the last two years.
Now we are planning to add a named instance on the same server for housing
Accounting database. My question is:
1) Do I need to enable AWE on both instances of SQL Server.
2) Set upper memory for both instances. Say 4GB for default instance and
1GB for the new named instance based on their usage ratio. Leave 3GB for OS.
3) Do I need to do anything with CPU allocations?
Any suggestion. Thanks...FrazHi
With 8GB, can configure 1 GB and 5.5GB without starving the OS (as long as
it is a dedicated SQL Server).
/3GB must be set in boot.ini
Set AWE for the instance with 5.5GB, and a fixed memory setting.
Do not set AWE for the 1GB instance, but have a fixed memory setting for it
too.
Leave OS and SQL server to manage CPU allocations and leave the defaults.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Fraz" <Fraz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CD4267EB-FF45-4272-B737-6997046F38EC@.microsoft.com...
> We have a database server running Windows 2000 Advanced Server and SQL
> 2000
> Enterprise with 4 CPU and 8MB of memory. PAE has been configured in
> boot.ini.
> AWE has been enabled and 5120 MB of memory allocated to SQL Server default
> instance. Everything has been running fine for the last two years.
> Now we are planning to add a named instance on the same server for housing
> Accounting database. My question is:
> 1) Do I need to enable AWE on both instances of SQL Server.
> 2) Set upper memory for both instances. Say 4GB for default instance and
> 1GB for the new named instance based on their usage ratio. Leave 3GB for
> OS.
> 3) Do I need to do anything with CPU allocations?
> Any suggestion. Thanks...Fraz
>|||"Fraz" <Fraz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CD4267EB-FF45-4272-B737-6997046F38EC@.microsoft.com...
> We have a database server running Windows 2000 Advanced Server and SQL
> 2000
> Enterprise with 4 CPU and 8MB of memory. PAE has been configured in
> boot.ini.
> AWE has been enabled and 5120 MB of memory allocated to SQL Server default
> instance. Everything has been running fine for the last two years.
> Now we are planning to add a named instance on the same server for housing
> Accounting database. My question is:
Why a new instance instead of just adding the database to the default
instance?
How large are these databases? How busy?
> 1) Do I need to enable AWE on both instances of SQL Server.
I would not do that. Either configure the accounting instance to use 2 or
max memory, or mount the database in the main instance. Either one big
instance with AWE, or one big instance with AWE and one small one without.
> 2) Set upper memory for both instances. Say 4GB for default instance and
> 1GB for the new named instance based on their usage ratio. Leave 3GB for
> OS.
The OS doesn't need 3GB. 200-400MB is fine. An instance will "want" a
certian amount of memory depending on its workload and database size.
Giving it more is doesn't help at all; giving it less causes increased
physical IO and a decreased cache hit ratio. AWE is slower than normal
memory, so your smaller instance will run better without AWE. You should
evaluate how much memory your instances really need. Perhaps both instances
will run better with the /3GB switch and AWE off.
> 3) Do I need to do anything with CPU allocations?
If you don't then both instances will share all 4 CPU's, which is lets them
share resources (good), but makes is more difficult to guarantee QOS to
either workload (bad).
If you put the database in the default instance you will share memory and
CPU; in a seperate instance it will not share memory, but will share CPU
unless you set CPU affinity for the instances. So assuming you want to
segregate the instances, you should probably do something with the CPU
affinity.
David|||I really appreciate your prompt feedback. This satisfies all the questions I
had in my mind. Thanks and cheers. Fraz
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> With 8GB, can configure 1 GB and 5.5GB without starving the OS (as long as
> it is a dedicated SQL Server).
> /3GB must be set in boot.ini
> Set AWE for the instance with 5.5GB, and a fixed memory setting.
> Do not set AWE for the 1GB instance, but have a fixed memory setting for it
> too.
> Leave OS and SQL server to manage CPU allocations and leave the defaults.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Fraz" <Fraz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:CD4267EB-FF45-4272-B737-6997046F38EC@.microsoft.com...
> > We have a database server running Windows 2000 Advanced Server and SQL
> > 2000
> > Enterprise with 4 CPU and 8MB of memory. PAE has been configured in
> > boot.ini.
> > AWE has been enabled and 5120 MB of memory allocated to SQL Server default
> > instance. Everything has been running fine for the last two years.
> > Now we are planning to add a named instance on the same server for housing
> > Accounting database. My question is:
> > 1) Do I need to enable AWE on both instances of SQL Server.
> > 2) Set upper memory for both instances. Say 4GB for default instance and
> > 1GB for the new named instance based on their usage ratio. Leave 3GB for
> > OS.
> > 3) Do I need to do anything with CPU allocations?
> > Any suggestion. Thanks...Fraz
> >
> >
>
>|||The new Accounting database (new named instance) will use different collation
setting i.e. Latin1_General, Sort order Binary whereas the default instance
is using Latin1-General, case-insensitive,for use with 1252 Character Set.
The database size in the new named instance is 5GB, it will be more busy in
the month-end than other days. The test system performance statistics (Total
Server Memory) shows that currently this instance is using 300-350MB.
The default instance in production is a busy instance as we have about 25
databases of different sizes from 5GB to 200MB. The performance statistics
for this shows that it is currently using 1.7 - 2.0GB out of allocated 5GB.
For CPU affinity, would it be okay to leave it to the Default setting.
Thanks...Fraz
"David Browne" wrote:
> "Fraz" <Fraz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:CD4267EB-FF45-4272-B737-6997046F38EC@.microsoft.com...
> > We have a database server running Windows 2000 Advanced Server and SQL
> > 2000
> > Enterprise with 4 CPU and 8MB of memory. PAE has been configured in
> > boot.ini.
> > AWE has been enabled and 5120 MB of memory allocated to SQL Server default
> > instance. Everything has been running fine for the last two years.
> > Now we are planning to add a named instance on the same server for housing
> > Accounting database. My question is:
> Why a new instance instead of just adding the database to the default
> instance?
> How large are these databases? How busy?
> > 1) Do I need to enable AWE on both instances of SQL Server.
> I would not do that. Either configure the accounting instance to use 2 or
> max memory, or mount the database in the main instance. Either one big
> instance with AWE, or one big instance with AWE and one small one without.
> > 2) Set upper memory for both instances. Say 4GB for default instance and
> > 1GB for the new named instance based on their usage ratio. Leave 3GB for
> > OS.
> The OS doesn't need 3GB. 200-400MB is fine. An instance will "want" a
> certian amount of memory depending on its workload and database size.
> Giving it more is doesn't help at all; giving it less causes increased
> physical IO and a decreased cache hit ratio. AWE is slower than normal
> memory, so your smaller instance will run better without AWE. You should
> evaluate how much memory your instances really need. Perhaps both instances
> will run better with the /3GB switch and AWE off.
> > 3) Do I need to do anything with CPU allocations?
> If you don't then both instances will share all 4 CPU's, which is lets them
> share resources (good), but makes is more difficult to guarantee QOS to
> either workload (bad).
> If you put the database in the default instance you will share memory and
> CPU; in a seperate instance it will not share memory, but will share CPU
> unless you set CPU affinity for the instances. So assuming you want to
> segregate the instances, you should probably do something with the CPU
> affinity.
> David
>
>
AWE and Memory Configuration
We have a database server running Windows 2000 Advanced Server and SQL 2000
Enterprise with 4 CPU and 8MB of memory. PAE has been configured in boot.ini
.
AWE has been enabled and 5120 MB of memory allocated to SQL Server default
instance. Everything has been running fine for the last two years.
Now we are planning to add a named instance on the same server for housing
Accounting database. My question is:
1) Do I need to enable AWE on both instances of SQL Server.
2) Set upper memory for both instances. Say 4GB for default instance and
1GB for the new named instance based on their usage ratio. Leave 3GB for OS
.
3) Do I need to do anything with CPU allocations?
Any suggestion. Thanks...FrazHi
With 8GB, can configure 1 GB and 5.5GB without starving the OS (as long as
it is a dedicated SQL Server).
/3GB must be set in boot.ini
Set AWE for the instance with 5.5GB, and a fixed memory setting.
Do not set AWE for the 1GB instance, but have a fixed memory setting for it
too.
Leave OS and SQL server to manage CPU allocations and leave the defaults.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Fraz" <Fraz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CD4267EB-FF45-4272-B737-6997046F38EC@.microsoft.com...
> We have a database server running Windows 2000 Advanced Server and SQL
> 2000
> Enterprise with 4 CPU and 8MB of memory. PAE has been configured in
> boot.ini.
> AWE has been enabled and 5120 MB of memory allocated to SQL Server default
> instance. Everything has been running fine for the last two years.
> Now we are planning to add a named instance on the same server for housing
> Accounting database. My question is:
> 1) Do I need to enable AWE on both instances of SQL Server.
> 2) Set upper memory for both instances. Say 4GB for default instance and
> 1GB for the new named instance based on their usage ratio. Leave 3GB for
> OS.
> 3) Do I need to do anything with CPU allocations?
> Any suggestion. Thanks...Fraz
>|||"Fraz" <Fraz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CD4267EB-FF45-4272-B737-6997046F38EC@.microsoft.com...
> We have a database server running Windows 2000 Advanced Server and SQL
> 2000
> Enterprise with 4 CPU and 8MB of memory. PAE has been configured in
> boot.ini.
> AWE has been enabled and 5120 MB of memory allocated to SQL Server default
> instance. Everything has been running fine for the last two years.
> Now we are planning to add a named instance on the same server for housing
> Accounting database. My question is:
Why a new instance instead of just adding the database to the default
instance?
How large are these databases? How busy?
> 1) Do I need to enable AWE on both instances of SQL Server.
I would not do that. Either configure the accounting instance to use 2 or
max memory, or mount the database in the main instance. Either one big
instance with AWE, or one big instance with AWE and one small one without.
> 2) Set upper memory for both instances. Say 4GB for default instance and
> 1GB for the new named instance based on their usage ratio. Leave 3GB for
> OS.
The OS doesn't need 3GB. 200-400MB is fine. An instance will "want" a
certian amount of memory depending on its workload and database size.
Giving it more is doesn't help at all; giving it less causes increased
physical IO and a decreased cache hit ratio. AWE is slower than normal
memory, so your smaller instance will run better without AWE. You should
evaluate how much memory your instances really need. Perhaps both instances
will run better with the /3GB switch and AWE off.
> 3) Do I need to do anything with CPU allocations?
If you don't then both instances will share all 4 CPU's, which is lets them
share resources (good), but makes is more difficult to guarantee QOS to
either workload (bad).
If you put the database in the default instance you will share memory and
CPU; in a seperate instance it will not share memory, but will share CPU
unless you set CPU affinity for the instances. So assuming you want to
segregate the instances, you should probably do something with the CPU
affinity.
David|||I really appreciate your prompt feedback. This satisfies all the questions I
had in my mind. Thanks and cheers. Fraz
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> With 8GB, can configure 1 GB and 5.5GB without starving the OS (as long as
> it is a dedicated SQL Server).
> /3GB must be set in boot.ini
> Set AWE for the instance with 5.5GB, and a fixed memory setting.
> Do not set AWE for the 1GB instance, but have a fixed memory setting for i
t
> too.
> Leave OS and SQL server to manage CPU allocations and leave the defaults.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Fraz" <Fraz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:CD4267EB-FF45-4272-B737-6997046F38EC@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||The new Accounting database (new named instance) will use different collatio
n
setting i.e. Latin1_General, Sort order Binary whereas the default instance
is using Latin1-General, case-insensitive,for use with 1252 Character Set.
The database size in the new named instance is 5GB, it will be more busy in
the month-end than other days. The test system performance statistics (Total
Server Memory) shows that currently this instance is using 300-350MB.
The default instance in production is a busy instance as we have about 25
databases of different sizes from 5GB to 200MB. The performance statistics
for this shows that it is currently using 1.7 - 2.0GB out of allocated 5GB.
For CPU affinity, would it be okay to leave it to the Default setting.
Thanks...Fraz
"David Browne" wrote:
> "Fraz" <Fraz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:CD4267EB-FF45-4272-B737-6997046F38EC@.microsoft.com...
> Why a new instance instead of just adding the database to the default
> instance?
> How large are these databases? How busy?
>
> I would not do that. Either configure the accounting instance to use 2 or
> max memory, or mount the database in the main instance. Either one big
> instance with AWE, or one big instance with AWE and one small one without.
> The OS doesn't need 3GB. 200-400MB is fine. An instance will "want" a
> certian amount of memory depending on its workload and database size.
> Giving it more is doesn't help at all; giving it less causes increased
> physical IO and a decreased cache hit ratio. AWE is slower than normal
> memory, so your smaller instance will run better without AWE. You should
> evaluate how much memory your instances really need. Perhaps both instanc
es
> will run better with the /3GB switch and AWE off.
>
> If you don't then both instances will share all 4 CPU's, which is lets the
m
> share resources (good), but makes is more difficult to guarantee QOS to
> either workload (bad).
> If you put the database in the default instance you will share memory and
> CPU; in a seperate instance it will not share memory, but will share CPU
> unless you set CPU affinity for the instances. So assuming you want to
> segregate the instances, you should probably do something with the CPU
> affinity.
> David
>
>
Enterprise with 4 CPU and 8MB of memory. PAE has been configured in boot.ini
.
AWE has been enabled and 5120 MB of memory allocated to SQL Server default
instance. Everything has been running fine for the last two years.
Now we are planning to add a named instance on the same server for housing
Accounting database. My question is:
1) Do I need to enable AWE on both instances of SQL Server.
2) Set upper memory for both instances. Say 4GB for default instance and
1GB for the new named instance based on their usage ratio. Leave 3GB for OS
.
3) Do I need to do anything with CPU allocations?
Any suggestion. Thanks...FrazHi
With 8GB, can configure 1 GB and 5.5GB without starving the OS (as long as
it is a dedicated SQL Server).
/3GB must be set in boot.ini
Set AWE for the instance with 5.5GB, and a fixed memory setting.
Do not set AWE for the 1GB instance, but have a fixed memory setting for it
too.
Leave OS and SQL server to manage CPU allocations and leave the defaults.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Fraz" <Fraz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CD4267EB-FF45-4272-B737-6997046F38EC@.microsoft.com...
> We have a database server running Windows 2000 Advanced Server and SQL
> 2000
> Enterprise with 4 CPU and 8MB of memory. PAE has been configured in
> boot.ini.
> AWE has been enabled and 5120 MB of memory allocated to SQL Server default
> instance. Everything has been running fine for the last two years.
> Now we are planning to add a named instance on the same server for housing
> Accounting database. My question is:
> 1) Do I need to enable AWE on both instances of SQL Server.
> 2) Set upper memory for both instances. Say 4GB for default instance and
> 1GB for the new named instance based on their usage ratio. Leave 3GB for
> OS.
> 3) Do I need to do anything with CPU allocations?
> Any suggestion. Thanks...Fraz
>|||"Fraz" <Fraz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CD4267EB-FF45-4272-B737-6997046F38EC@.microsoft.com...
> We have a database server running Windows 2000 Advanced Server and SQL
> 2000
> Enterprise with 4 CPU and 8MB of memory. PAE has been configured in
> boot.ini.
> AWE has been enabled and 5120 MB of memory allocated to SQL Server default
> instance. Everything has been running fine for the last two years.
> Now we are planning to add a named instance on the same server for housing
> Accounting database. My question is:
Why a new instance instead of just adding the database to the default
instance?
How large are these databases? How busy?
> 1) Do I need to enable AWE on both instances of SQL Server.
I would not do that. Either configure the accounting instance to use 2 or
max memory, or mount the database in the main instance. Either one big
instance with AWE, or one big instance with AWE and one small one without.
> 2) Set upper memory for both instances. Say 4GB for default instance and
> 1GB for the new named instance based on their usage ratio. Leave 3GB for
> OS.
The OS doesn't need 3GB. 200-400MB is fine. An instance will "want" a
certian amount of memory depending on its workload and database size.
Giving it more is doesn't help at all; giving it less causes increased
physical IO and a decreased cache hit ratio. AWE is slower than normal
memory, so your smaller instance will run better without AWE. You should
evaluate how much memory your instances really need. Perhaps both instances
will run better with the /3GB switch and AWE off.
> 3) Do I need to do anything with CPU allocations?
If you don't then both instances will share all 4 CPU's, which is lets them
share resources (good), but makes is more difficult to guarantee QOS to
either workload (bad).
If you put the database in the default instance you will share memory and
CPU; in a seperate instance it will not share memory, but will share CPU
unless you set CPU affinity for the instances. So assuming you want to
segregate the instances, you should probably do something with the CPU
affinity.
David|||I really appreciate your prompt feedback. This satisfies all the questions I
had in my mind. Thanks and cheers. Fraz
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> With 8GB, can configure 1 GB and 5.5GB without starving the OS (as long as
> it is a dedicated SQL Server).
> /3GB must be set in boot.ini
> Set AWE for the instance with 5.5GB, and a fixed memory setting.
> Do not set AWE for the 1GB instance, but have a fixed memory setting for i
t
> too.
> Leave OS and SQL server to manage CPU allocations and leave the defaults.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Fraz" <Fraz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:CD4267EB-FF45-4272-B737-6997046F38EC@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||The new Accounting database (new named instance) will use different collatio
n
setting i.e. Latin1_General, Sort order Binary whereas the default instance
is using Latin1-General, case-insensitive,for use with 1252 Character Set.
The database size in the new named instance is 5GB, it will be more busy in
the month-end than other days. The test system performance statistics (Total
Server Memory) shows that currently this instance is using 300-350MB.
The default instance in production is a busy instance as we have about 25
databases of different sizes from 5GB to 200MB. The performance statistics
for this shows that it is currently using 1.7 - 2.0GB out of allocated 5GB.
For CPU affinity, would it be okay to leave it to the Default setting.
Thanks...Fraz
"David Browne" wrote:
> "Fraz" <Fraz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:CD4267EB-FF45-4272-B737-6997046F38EC@.microsoft.com...
> Why a new instance instead of just adding the database to the default
> instance?
> How large are these databases? How busy?
>
> I would not do that. Either configure the accounting instance to use 2 or
> max memory, or mount the database in the main instance. Either one big
> instance with AWE, or one big instance with AWE and one small one without.
> The OS doesn't need 3GB. 200-400MB is fine. An instance will "want" a
> certian amount of memory depending on its workload and database size.
> Giving it more is doesn't help at all; giving it less causes increased
> physical IO and a decreased cache hit ratio. AWE is slower than normal
> memory, so your smaller instance will run better without AWE. You should
> evaluate how much memory your instances really need. Perhaps both instanc
es
> will run better with the /3GB switch and AWE off.
>
> If you don't then both instances will share all 4 CPU's, which is lets the
m
> share resources (good), but makes is more difficult to guarantee QOS to
> either workload (bad).
> If you put the database in the default instance you will share memory and
> CPU; in a seperate instance it will not share memory, but will share CPU
> unless you set CPU affinity for the instances. So assuming you want to
> segregate the instances, you should probably do something with the CPU
> affinity.
> David
>
>
AWE
Hi,
Imagine that my server has 4GB physical memory. I have added /3GB switch to
boot.ini.
Should I enable AWE configuration for my SQL Server to use 3 GB address
space? Or AWE must only be used when I have more than 4GB memory?
Thanks in advance,
Leila
Hello,
AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory. But The
/3GB switch is used to tell SQL Server to take advantage of 3GB out of the
base 4GB
of RAM that Windows OS supports natively. If you don't specify this option,
then SQL Server will only take advantage of 2GB of the first 4GB of RAM in
the
server, essentially wasting 1GB of RAM
Please post the OS and SQL Server edition. This is because For SQL Server
2005 - 64 bit running in Windows 2003 you donot want any changes in BOOT.INI
to use the additional RAM.
Thanks
Hari
"Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:OEze$NnfHHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Imagine that my server has 4GB physical memory. I have added /3GB switch
> to boot.ini.
> Should I enable AWE configuration for my SQL Server to use 3 GB address
> space? Or AWE must only be used when I have more than 4GB memory?
> Thanks in advance,
> Leila
>
|||> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory.
That's not correct. Take a look at some empirical data at
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea/default.aspx?p=2
Linchi
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
> Hello,
> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory. But The
> /3GB switch is used to tell SQL Server to take advantage of 3GB out of the
> base 4GB
> of RAM that Windows OS supports natively. If you don't specify this option,
> then SQL Server will only take advantage of 2GB of the first 4GB of RAM in
> the
> server, essentially wasting 1GB of RAM
> Please post the OS and SQL Server edition. This is because For SQL Server
> 2005 - 64 bit running in Windows 2003 you donot want any changes in BOOT.INI
> to use the additional RAM.
> Thanks
> Hari
>
> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:OEze$NnfHHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
>
|||Hello Linchi,
If I remember correct for a server with 4 GB RAM running in SQL Server 2005
32 bit and Windows 2003 Advanced, all I did is just /3GB switch in Boot.ini
to
use 3 GB RAM. I will take a look into the server on Moday and keep you
posted
Thanks
Hari
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:45A920F2-86E6-4A86-A1B1-8306C3077E8B@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> That's not correct. Take a look at some empirical data at
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea/default.aspx?p=2
> Linchi
> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
|||Hari;
My comment had nothing to do with whether /3GB is used, how it should be
used, or what impact it may have. I was commenting on the statement that AWE
can be used only if you have more than 4GB physical memory. As the data at
the link indicate that setting AWE has an impact on SQL Server memory
consumption even with 4GB physical memory. And if you want your bpool to
consume a certain amount of memory under 4GB, you may need to use AWE to
accomplish that.
Now, whether or not you should use AWE with less than 4GB of physical memory
or whether there is any compelling rason for doing so are entirely different
issue.
Linchi
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
> Hello Linchi,
> If I remember correct for a server with 4 GB RAM running in SQL Server 2005
> 32 bit and Windows 2003 Advanced, all I did is just /3GB switch in Boot.ini
> to
> use 3 GB RAM. I will take a look into the server on Moday and keep you
> posted
> Thanks
> Hari
>
>
> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:45A920F2-86E6-4A86-A1B1-8306C3077E8B@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Thanks Hari and Linchi!
Based on documents that I have read, /3GB causes that kernel mode use only
1GB and Virtual Address Space for applications therefore can reserve up to
3GB. Whereas 32-bit based Windows can address up to 4GB of memory, therefore
I think by using /3GB switch we don't need to enable AWE for SQL Server to
use 3GB. Because we are not beyond the 4GB limit of addressing in this
situation.
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F6FB03D7-3B0F-4CD1-B2A2-BBFD660502EE@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hari;
> My comment had nothing to do with whether /3GB is used, how it should be
> used, or what impact it may have. I was commenting on the statement that
> AWE
> can be used only if you have more than 4GB physical memory. As the data at
> the link indicate that setting AWE has an impact on SQL Server memory
> consumption even with 4GB physical memory. And if you want your bpool to
> consume a certain amount of memory under 4GB, you may need to use AWE to
> accomplish that.
> Now, whether or not you should use AWE with less than 4GB of physical
> memory
> or whether there is any compelling rason for doing so are entirely
> different
> issue.
> Linchi
> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
|||That is correct and the most recommended approach with 4GB.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:ucNNgjyfHHA.2640@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Hari and Linchi!
> Based on documents that I have read, /3GB causes that kernel mode use only
> 1GB and Virtual Address Space for applications therefore can reserve up to
> 3GB. Whereas 32-bit based Windows can address up to 4GB of memory,
> therefore I think by using /3GB switch we don't need to enable AWE for SQL
> Server to use 3GB. Because we are not beyond the 4GB limit of addressing
> in this situation.
>
> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:F6FB03D7-3B0F-4CD1-B2A2-BBFD660502EE@.microsoft.com...
>
|||Thanks indeed Andrew :-)
Now these two conditions:
1) 5GB RAM + /PAE switch + /3GB switch
2) 6GB RAM + /PAE switch
Can I say that neither of these situations need AWE for SQL Server?
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:uW%23DbP3fHHA.4936@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> That is correct and the most recommended approach with 4GB.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:ucNNgjyfHHA.2640@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
|||Depends on how much you want for SQL Server. If you want more than 3GB you
must use AWE (in addition to PAE) on 32 bit systems. In either case you
should always leave at least a GB for the OS when using AWE since it is not
dynamic. 2GB if going over 12GB total. The /3GB is optional depending on
how much you need for non-buffer pool memory such as procedure cache,
connections etc.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:%2399LSA4fHHA.2396@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Thanks indeed Andrew :-)
> Now these two conditions:
> 1) 5GB RAM + /PAE switch + /3GB switch
> 2) 6GB RAM + /PAE switch
> Can I say that neither of these situations need AWE for SQL Server?
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:uW%23DbP3fHHA.4936@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
|||If I have 5GB memory and I use both /PAE and /3GB, then SQL Server can use
up to 4GB memory and this is not beyond 32-bit addressing. Why should I
enable AWE for SQL Server?
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:utisfW8fHHA.668@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Depends on how much you want for SQL Server. If you want more than 3GB you
> must use AWE (in addition to PAE) on 32 bit systems. In either case you
> should always leave at least a GB for the OS when using AWE since it is
> not dynamic. 2GB if going over 12GB total. The /3GB is optional depending
> on how much you need for non-buffer pool memory such as procedure cache,
> connections etc.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:%2399LSA4fHHA.2396@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
Imagine that my server has 4GB physical memory. I have added /3GB switch to
boot.ini.
Should I enable AWE configuration for my SQL Server to use 3 GB address
space? Or AWE must only be used when I have more than 4GB memory?
Thanks in advance,
Leila
Hello,
AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory. But The
/3GB switch is used to tell SQL Server to take advantage of 3GB out of the
base 4GB
of RAM that Windows OS supports natively. If you don't specify this option,
then SQL Server will only take advantage of 2GB of the first 4GB of RAM in
the
server, essentially wasting 1GB of RAM
Please post the OS and SQL Server edition. This is because For SQL Server
2005 - 64 bit running in Windows 2003 you donot want any changes in BOOT.INI
to use the additional RAM.
Thanks
Hari
"Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:OEze$NnfHHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Imagine that my server has 4GB physical memory. I have added /3GB switch
> to boot.ini.
> Should I enable AWE configuration for my SQL Server to use 3 GB address
> space? Or AWE must only be used when I have more than 4GB memory?
> Thanks in advance,
> Leila
>
|||> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory.
That's not correct. Take a look at some empirical data at
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea/default.aspx?p=2
Linchi
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
> Hello,
> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory. But The
> /3GB switch is used to tell SQL Server to take advantage of 3GB out of the
> base 4GB
> of RAM that Windows OS supports natively. If you don't specify this option,
> then SQL Server will only take advantage of 2GB of the first 4GB of RAM in
> the
> server, essentially wasting 1GB of RAM
> Please post the OS and SQL Server edition. This is because For SQL Server
> 2005 - 64 bit running in Windows 2003 you donot want any changes in BOOT.INI
> to use the additional RAM.
> Thanks
> Hari
>
> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:OEze$NnfHHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
>
|||Hello Linchi,
If I remember correct for a server with 4 GB RAM running in SQL Server 2005
32 bit and Windows 2003 Advanced, all I did is just /3GB switch in Boot.ini
to
use 3 GB RAM. I will take a look into the server on Moday and keep you
posted
Thanks
Hari
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:45A920F2-86E6-4A86-A1B1-8306C3077E8B@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> That's not correct. Take a look at some empirical data at
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea/default.aspx?p=2
> Linchi
> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
|||Hari;
My comment had nothing to do with whether /3GB is used, how it should be
used, or what impact it may have. I was commenting on the statement that AWE
can be used only if you have more than 4GB physical memory. As the data at
the link indicate that setting AWE has an impact on SQL Server memory
consumption even with 4GB physical memory. And if you want your bpool to
consume a certain amount of memory under 4GB, you may need to use AWE to
accomplish that.
Now, whether or not you should use AWE with less than 4GB of physical memory
or whether there is any compelling rason for doing so are entirely different
issue.
Linchi
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
> Hello Linchi,
> If I remember correct for a server with 4 GB RAM running in SQL Server 2005
> 32 bit and Windows 2003 Advanced, all I did is just /3GB switch in Boot.ini
> to
> use 3 GB RAM. I will take a look into the server on Moday and keep you
> posted
> Thanks
> Hari
>
>
> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:45A920F2-86E6-4A86-A1B1-8306C3077E8B@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Thanks Hari and Linchi!
Based on documents that I have read, /3GB causes that kernel mode use only
1GB and Virtual Address Space for applications therefore can reserve up to
3GB. Whereas 32-bit based Windows can address up to 4GB of memory, therefore
I think by using /3GB switch we don't need to enable AWE for SQL Server to
use 3GB. Because we are not beyond the 4GB limit of addressing in this
situation.
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F6FB03D7-3B0F-4CD1-B2A2-BBFD660502EE@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hari;
> My comment had nothing to do with whether /3GB is used, how it should be
> used, or what impact it may have. I was commenting on the statement that
> AWE
> can be used only if you have more than 4GB physical memory. As the data at
> the link indicate that setting AWE has an impact on SQL Server memory
> consumption even with 4GB physical memory. And if you want your bpool to
> consume a certain amount of memory under 4GB, you may need to use AWE to
> accomplish that.
> Now, whether or not you should use AWE with less than 4GB of physical
> memory
> or whether there is any compelling rason for doing so are entirely
> different
> issue.
> Linchi
> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
|||That is correct and the most recommended approach with 4GB.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:ucNNgjyfHHA.2640@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Hari and Linchi!
> Based on documents that I have read, /3GB causes that kernel mode use only
> 1GB and Virtual Address Space for applications therefore can reserve up to
> 3GB. Whereas 32-bit based Windows can address up to 4GB of memory,
> therefore I think by using /3GB switch we don't need to enable AWE for SQL
> Server to use 3GB. Because we are not beyond the 4GB limit of addressing
> in this situation.
>
> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:F6FB03D7-3B0F-4CD1-B2A2-BBFD660502EE@.microsoft.com...
>
|||Thanks indeed Andrew :-)
Now these two conditions:
1) 5GB RAM + /PAE switch + /3GB switch
2) 6GB RAM + /PAE switch
Can I say that neither of these situations need AWE for SQL Server?
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:uW%23DbP3fHHA.4936@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> That is correct and the most recommended approach with 4GB.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:ucNNgjyfHHA.2640@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
|||Depends on how much you want for SQL Server. If you want more than 3GB you
must use AWE (in addition to PAE) on 32 bit systems. In either case you
should always leave at least a GB for the OS when using AWE since it is not
dynamic. 2GB if going over 12GB total. The /3GB is optional depending on
how much you need for non-buffer pool memory such as procedure cache,
connections etc.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:%2399LSA4fHHA.2396@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Thanks indeed Andrew :-)
> Now these two conditions:
> 1) 5GB RAM + /PAE switch + /3GB switch
> 2) 6GB RAM + /PAE switch
> Can I say that neither of these situations need AWE for SQL Server?
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:uW%23DbP3fHHA.4936@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
|||If I have 5GB memory and I use both /PAE and /3GB, then SQL Server can use
up to 4GB memory and this is not beyond 32-bit addressing. Why should I
enable AWE for SQL Server?
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:utisfW8fHHA.668@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Depends on how much you want for SQL Server. If you want more than 3GB you
> must use AWE (in addition to PAE) on 32 bit systems. In either case you
> should always leave at least a GB for the OS when using AWE since it is
> not dynamic. 2GB if going over 12GB total. The /3GB is optional depending
> on how much you need for non-buffer pool memory such as procedure cache,
> connections etc.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:%2399LSA4fHHA.2396@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
AWE
Hi,
Imagine that my server has 4GB physical memory. I have added /3GB switch to boot.ini.
Should I enable AWE configuration for my SQL Server to use 3 GB address space? Or AWE must only be used when I have more than 4GB memory?
Thanks in advance
Hello,
AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory. But The
/3GB switch is used to tell SQL Server to take advantage of 3GB out of the
base 4GB
of RAM that Windows OS supports natively. If you don't specify this option,
then SQL Server will only take advantage of 2GB of the first 4GB of RAM in
the
server, essentially wasting 1GB of RAM
Please post the OS and SQL Server edition. This is because For SQL Server
2005 - 64 bit running in Windows 2003 you donot want any changes in BOOT.INI
to use the additional RAM.
Thanks
Hari
"Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:OEze$NnfHHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Imagine that my server has 4GB physical memory. I have added /3GB switch
> to boot.ini.
> Should I enable AWE configuration for my SQL Server to use 3 GB address
> space? Or AWE must only be used when I have more than 4GB memory?
> Thanks in advance,
> Leila
>
|||> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory.
That's not correct. Take a look at some empirical data at
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea/default.aspx?p=2
Linchi
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
> Hello,
> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory. But The
> /3GB switch is used to tell SQL Server to take advantage of 3GB out of the
> base 4GB
> of RAM that Windows OS supports natively. If you don't specify this option,
> then SQL Server will only take advantage of 2GB of the first 4GB of RAM in
> the
> server, essentially wasting 1GB of RAM
> Please post the OS and SQL Server edition. This is because For SQL Server
> 2005 - 64 bit running in Windows 2003 you donot want any changes in BOOT.INI
> to use the additional RAM.
> Thanks
> Hari
>
> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:OEze$NnfHHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
>
|||Hello Linchi,
If I remember correct for a server with 4 GB RAM running in SQL Server 2005
32 bit and Windows 2003 Advanced, all I did is just /3GB switch in Boot.ini
to
use 3 GB RAM. I will take a look into the server on Moday and keep you
posted
Thanks
Hari
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:45A920F2-86E6-4A86-A1B1-8306C3077E8B@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> That's not correct. Take a look at some empirical data at
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea/default.aspx?p=2
> Linchi
> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
|||Hari;
My comment had nothing to do with whether /3GB is used, how it should be
used, or what impact it may have. I was commenting on the statement that AWE
can be used only if you have more than 4GB physical memory. As the data at
the link indicate that setting AWE has an impact on SQL Server memory
consumption even with 4GB physical memory. And if you want your bpool to
consume a certain amount of memory under 4GB, you may need to use AWE to
accomplish that.
Now, whether or not you should use AWE with less than 4GB of physical memory
or whether there is any compelling rason for doing so are entirely different
issue.
Linchi
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
> Hello Linchi,
> If I remember correct for a server with 4 GB RAM running in SQL Server 2005
> 32 bit and Windows 2003 Advanced, all I did is just /3GB switch in Boot.ini
> to
> use 3 GB RAM. I will take a look into the server on Moday and keep you
> posted
> Thanks
> Hari
>
>
> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:45A920F2-86E6-4A86-A1B1-8306C3077E8B@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Thanks Hari and Linchi!
Based on documents that I have read, /3GB causes that kernel mode use only
1GB and Virtual Address Space for applications therefore can reserve up to
3GB. Whereas 32-bit based Windows can address up to 4GB of memory, therefore
I think by using /3GB switch we don't need to enable AWE for SQL Server to
use 3GB. Because we are not beyond the 4GB limit of addressing in this
situation.
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F6FB03D7-3B0F-4CD1-B2A2-BBFD660502EE@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hari;
> My comment had nothing to do with whether /3GB is used, how it should be
> used, or what impact it may have. I was commenting on the statement that
> AWE
> can be used only if you have more than 4GB physical memory. As the data at
> the link indicate that setting AWE has an impact on SQL Server memory
> consumption even with 4GB physical memory. And if you want your bpool to
> consume a certain amount of memory under 4GB, you may need to use AWE to
> accomplish that.
> Now, whether or not you should use AWE with less than 4GB of physical
> memory
> or whether there is any compelling rason for doing so are entirely
> different
> issue.
> Linchi
> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
|||That is correct and the most recommended approach with 4GB.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:ucNNgjyfHHA.2640@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Hari and Linchi!
> Based on documents that I have read, /3GB causes that kernel mode use only
> 1GB and Virtual Address Space for applications therefore can reserve up to
> 3GB. Whereas 32-bit based Windows can address up to 4GB of memory,
> therefore I think by using /3GB switch we don't need to enable AWE for SQL
> Server to use 3GB. Because we are not beyond the 4GB limit of addressing
> in this situation.
>
> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:F6FB03D7-3B0F-4CD1-B2A2-BBFD660502EE@.microsoft.com...
>
|||Thanks indeed Andrew :-)
Now these two conditions:
1) 5GB RAM + /PAE switch + /3GB switch
2) 6GB RAM + /PAE switch
Can I say that neither of these situations need AWE for SQL Server?
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:uW%23DbP3fHHA.4936@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> That is correct and the most recommended approach with 4GB.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:ucNNgjyfHHA.2640@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
|||Depends on how much you want for SQL Server. If you want more than 3GB you
must use AWE (in addition to PAE) on 32 bit systems. In either case you
should always leave at least a GB for the OS when using AWE since it is not
dynamic. 2GB if going over 12GB total. The /3GB is optional depending on
how much you need for non-buffer pool memory such as procedure cache,
connections etc.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:%2399LSA4fHHA.2396@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Thanks indeed Andrew :-)
> Now these two conditions:
> 1) 5GB RAM + /PAE switch + /3GB switch
> 2) 6GB RAM + /PAE switch
> Can I say that neither of these situations need AWE for SQL Server?
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:uW%23DbP3fHHA.4936@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
|||If I have 5GB memory and I use both /PAE and /3GB, then SQL Server can use
up to 4GB memory and this is not beyond 32-bit addressing. Why should I
enable AWE for SQL Server?
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:utisfW8fHHA.668@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Depends on how much you want for SQL Server. If you want more than 3GB you
> must use AWE (in addition to PAE) on 32 bit systems. In either case you
> should always leave at least a GB for the OS when using AWE since it is
> not dynamic. 2GB if going over 12GB total. The /3GB is optional depending
> on how much you need for non-buffer pool memory such as procedure cache,
> connections etc.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:%2399LSA4fHHA.2396@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
Imagine that my server has 4GB physical memory. I have added /3GB switch to boot.ini.
Should I enable AWE configuration for my SQL Server to use 3 GB address space? Or AWE must only be used when I have more than 4GB memory?
Thanks in advance
Hello,
AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory. But The
/3GB switch is used to tell SQL Server to take advantage of 3GB out of the
base 4GB
of RAM that Windows OS supports natively. If you don't specify this option,
then SQL Server will only take advantage of 2GB of the first 4GB of RAM in
the
server, essentially wasting 1GB of RAM
Please post the OS and SQL Server edition. This is because For SQL Server
2005 - 64 bit running in Windows 2003 you donot want any changes in BOOT.INI
to use the additional RAM.
Thanks
Hari
"Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:OEze$NnfHHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Imagine that my server has 4GB physical memory. I have added /3GB switch
> to boot.ini.
> Should I enable AWE configuration for my SQL Server to use 3 GB address
> space? Or AWE must only be used when I have more than 4GB memory?
> Thanks in advance,
> Leila
>
|||> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory.
That's not correct. Take a look at some empirical data at
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea/default.aspx?p=2
Linchi
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
> Hello,
> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory. But The
> /3GB switch is used to tell SQL Server to take advantage of 3GB out of the
> base 4GB
> of RAM that Windows OS supports natively. If you don't specify this option,
> then SQL Server will only take advantage of 2GB of the first 4GB of RAM in
> the
> server, essentially wasting 1GB of RAM
> Please post the OS and SQL Server edition. This is because For SQL Server
> 2005 - 64 bit running in Windows 2003 you donot want any changes in BOOT.INI
> to use the additional RAM.
> Thanks
> Hari
>
> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:OEze$NnfHHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
>
|||Hello Linchi,
If I remember correct for a server with 4 GB RAM running in SQL Server 2005
32 bit and Windows 2003 Advanced, all I did is just /3GB switch in Boot.ini
to
use 3 GB RAM. I will take a look into the server on Moday and keep you
posted
Thanks
Hari
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:45A920F2-86E6-4A86-A1B1-8306C3077E8B@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> That's not correct. Take a look at some empirical data at
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea/default.aspx?p=2
> Linchi
> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
|||Hari;
My comment had nothing to do with whether /3GB is used, how it should be
used, or what impact it may have. I was commenting on the statement that AWE
can be used only if you have more than 4GB physical memory. As the data at
the link indicate that setting AWE has an impact on SQL Server memory
consumption even with 4GB physical memory. And if you want your bpool to
consume a certain amount of memory under 4GB, you may need to use AWE to
accomplish that.
Now, whether or not you should use AWE with less than 4GB of physical memory
or whether there is any compelling rason for doing so are entirely different
issue.
Linchi
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
> Hello Linchi,
> If I remember correct for a server with 4 GB RAM running in SQL Server 2005
> 32 bit and Windows 2003 Advanced, all I did is just /3GB switch in Boot.ini
> to
> use 3 GB RAM. I will take a look into the server on Moday and keep you
> posted
> Thanks
> Hari
>
>
> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:45A920F2-86E6-4A86-A1B1-8306C3077E8B@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Thanks Hari and Linchi!
Based on documents that I have read, /3GB causes that kernel mode use only
1GB and Virtual Address Space for applications therefore can reserve up to
3GB. Whereas 32-bit based Windows can address up to 4GB of memory, therefore
I think by using /3GB switch we don't need to enable AWE for SQL Server to
use 3GB. Because we are not beyond the 4GB limit of addressing in this
situation.
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F6FB03D7-3B0F-4CD1-B2A2-BBFD660502EE@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hari;
> My comment had nothing to do with whether /3GB is used, how it should be
> used, or what impact it may have. I was commenting on the statement that
> AWE
> can be used only if you have more than 4GB physical memory. As the data at
> the link indicate that setting AWE has an impact on SQL Server memory
> consumption even with 4GB physical memory. And if you want your bpool to
> consume a certain amount of memory under 4GB, you may need to use AWE to
> accomplish that.
> Now, whether or not you should use AWE with less than 4GB of physical
> memory
> or whether there is any compelling rason for doing so are entirely
> different
> issue.
> Linchi
> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
|||That is correct and the most recommended approach with 4GB.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:ucNNgjyfHHA.2640@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Hari and Linchi!
> Based on documents that I have read, /3GB causes that kernel mode use only
> 1GB and Virtual Address Space for applications therefore can reserve up to
> 3GB. Whereas 32-bit based Windows can address up to 4GB of memory,
> therefore I think by using /3GB switch we don't need to enable AWE for SQL
> Server to use 3GB. Because we are not beyond the 4GB limit of addressing
> in this situation.
>
> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:F6FB03D7-3B0F-4CD1-B2A2-BBFD660502EE@.microsoft.com...
>
|||Thanks indeed Andrew :-)
Now these two conditions:
1) 5GB RAM + /PAE switch + /3GB switch
2) 6GB RAM + /PAE switch
Can I say that neither of these situations need AWE for SQL Server?
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:uW%23DbP3fHHA.4936@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> That is correct and the most recommended approach with 4GB.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:ucNNgjyfHHA.2640@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
|||Depends on how much you want for SQL Server. If you want more than 3GB you
must use AWE (in addition to PAE) on 32 bit systems. In either case you
should always leave at least a GB for the OS when using AWE since it is not
dynamic. 2GB if going over 12GB total. The /3GB is optional depending on
how much you need for non-buffer pool memory such as procedure cache,
connections etc.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:%2399LSA4fHHA.2396@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Thanks indeed Andrew :-)
> Now these two conditions:
> 1) 5GB RAM + /PAE switch + /3GB switch
> 2) 6GB RAM + /PAE switch
> Can I say that neither of these situations need AWE for SQL Server?
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:uW%23DbP3fHHA.4936@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
|||If I have 5GB memory and I use both /PAE and /3GB, then SQL Server can use
up to 4GB memory and this is not beyond 32-bit addressing. Why should I
enable AWE for SQL Server?
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:utisfW8fHHA.668@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Depends on how much you want for SQL Server. If you want more than 3GB you
> must use AWE (in addition to PAE) on 32 bit systems. In either case you
> should always leave at least a GB for the OS when using AWE since it is
> not dynamic. 2GB if going over 12GB total. The /3GB is optional depending
> on how much you need for non-buffer pool memory such as procedure cache,
> connections etc.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:%2399LSA4fHHA.2396@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
AWE
Hi,
Imagine that my server has 4GB physical memory. I have added /3GB switch to
boot.ini.
Should I enable AWE configuration for my SQL Server to use 3 GB address
space? Or AWE must only be used when I have more than 4GB memory?
Thanks in advance,
LeilaHello,
AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory. But The
/3GB switch is used to tell SQL Server to take advantage of 3GB out of the
base 4GB
of RAM that Windows OS supports natively. If you don't specify this option,
then SQL Server will only take advantage of 2GB of the first 4GB of RAM in
the
server, essentially wasting 1GB of RAM
Please post the OS and SQL Server edition. This is because For SQL Server
2005 - 64 bit running in Windows 2003 you donot want any changes in BOOT.INI
to use the additional RAM.
Thanks
Hari
"Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:OEze$NnfHHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Imagine that my server has 4GB physical memory. I have added /3GB switch
> to boot.ini.
> Should I enable AWE configuration for my SQL Server to use 3 GB address
> space? Or AWE must only be used when I have more than 4GB memory?
> Thanks in advance,
> Leila
>|||> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory.
That's not correct. Take a look at some empirical data at
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea/default.aspx?p=2
Linchi
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
> Hello,
> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory. But The
> /3GB switch is used to tell SQL Server to take advantage of 3GB out of the
> base 4GB
> of RAM that Windows OS supports natively. If you don't specify this option,
> then SQL Server will only take advantage of 2GB of the first 4GB of RAM in
> the
> server, essentially wasting 1GB of RAM
> Please post the OS and SQL Server edition. This is because For SQL Server
> 2005 - 64 bit running in Windows 2003 you donot want any changes in BOOT.INI
> to use the additional RAM.
> Thanks
> Hari
>
> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:OEze$NnfHHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> > Hi,
> > Imagine that my server has 4GB physical memory. I have added /3GB switch
> > to boot.ini.
> > Should I enable AWE configuration for my SQL Server to use 3 GB address
> > space? Or AWE must only be used when I have more than 4GB memory?
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Leila
> >
>
>|||Hello Linchi,
If I remember correct for a server with 4 GB RAM running in SQL Server 2005
32 bit and Windows 2003 Advanced, all I did is just /3GB switch in Boot.ini
to
use 3 GB RAM. I will take a look into the server on Moday and keep you
posted
Thanks
Hari
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:45A920F2-86E6-4A86-A1B1-8306C3077E8B@.microsoft.com...
>> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory.
> That's not correct. Take a look at some empirical data at
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea/default.aspx?p=2
> Linchi
> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>> Hello,
>> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory. But The
>> /3GB switch is used to tell SQL Server to take advantage of 3GB out of
>> the
>> base 4GB
>> of RAM that Windows OS supports natively. If you don't specify this
>> option,
>> then SQL Server will only take advantage of 2GB of the first 4GB of RAM
>> in
>> the
>> server, essentially wasting 1GB of RAM
>> Please post the OS and SQL Server edition. This is because For SQL Server
>> 2005 - 64 bit running in Windows 2003 you donot want any changes in
>> BOOT.INI
>> to use the additional RAM.
>> Thanks
>> Hari
>>
>> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> news:OEze$NnfHHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> > Hi,
>> > Imagine that my server has 4GB physical memory. I have added /3GB
>> > switch
>> > to boot.ini.
>> > Should I enable AWE configuration for my SQL Server to use 3 GB address
>> > space? Or AWE must only be used when I have more than 4GB memory?
>> > Thanks in advance,
>> > Leila
>> >
>>|||Hari;
My comment had nothing to do with whether /3GB is used, how it should be
used, or what impact it may have. I was commenting on the statement that AWE
can be used only if you have more than 4GB physical memory. As the data at
the link indicate that setting AWE has an impact on SQL Server memory
consumption even with 4GB physical memory. And if you want your bpool to
consume a certain amount of memory under 4GB, you may need to use AWE to
accomplish that.
Now, whether or not you should use AWE with less than 4GB of physical memory
or whether there is any compelling rason for doing so are entirely different
issue.
Linchi
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
> Hello Linchi,
> If I remember correct for a server with 4 GB RAM running in SQL Server 2005
> 32 bit and Windows 2003 Advanced, all I did is just /3GB switch in Boot.ini
> to
> use 3 GB RAM. I will take a look into the server on Moday and keep you
> posted
> Thanks
> Hari
>
>
> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:45A920F2-86E6-4A86-A1B1-8306C3077E8B@.microsoft.com...
> >> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory.
> >
> > That's not correct. Take a look at some empirical data at
> > http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea/default.aspx?p=2
> >
> > Linchi
> >
> > "Hari Prasad" wrote:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory. But The
> >> /3GB switch is used to tell SQL Server to take advantage of 3GB out of
> >> the
> >> base 4GB
> >> of RAM that Windows OS supports natively. If you don't specify this
> >> option,
> >> then SQL Server will only take advantage of 2GB of the first 4GB of RAM
> >> in
> >> the
> >> server, essentially wasting 1GB of RAM
> >>
> >> Please post the OS and SQL Server edition. This is because For SQL Server
> >> 2005 - 64 bit running in Windows 2003 you donot want any changes in
> >> BOOT.INI
> >> to use the additional RAM.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Hari
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
> >> news:OEze$NnfHHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> >> > Hi,
> >> > Imagine that my server has 4GB physical memory. I have added /3GB
> >> > switch
> >> > to boot.ini.
> >> > Should I enable AWE configuration for my SQL Server to use 3 GB address
> >> > space? Or AWE must only be used when I have more than 4GB memory?
> >> > Thanks in advance,
> >> > Leila
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>|||Thanks Hari and Linchi!
Based on documents that I have read, /3GB causes that kernel mode use only
1GB and Virtual Address Space for applications therefore can reserve up to
3GB. Whereas 32-bit based Windows can address up to 4GB of memory, therefore
I think by using /3GB switch we don't need to enable AWE for SQL Server to
use 3GB. Because we are not beyond the 4GB limit of addressing in this
situation.
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F6FB03D7-3B0F-4CD1-B2A2-BBFD660502EE@.microsoft.com...
> Hari;
> My comment had nothing to do with whether /3GB is used, how it should be
> used, or what impact it may have. I was commenting on the statement that
> AWE
> can be used only if you have more than 4GB physical memory. As the data at
> the link indicate that setting AWE has an impact on SQL Server memory
> consumption even with 4GB physical memory. And if you want your bpool to
> consume a certain amount of memory under 4GB, you may need to use AWE to
> accomplish that.
> Now, whether or not you should use AWE with less than 4GB of physical
> memory
> or whether there is any compelling rason for doing so are entirely
> different
> issue.
> Linchi
> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>> Hello Linchi,
>> If I remember correct for a server with 4 GB RAM running in SQL Server
>> 2005
>> 32 bit and Windows 2003 Advanced, all I did is just /3GB switch in
>> Boot.ini
>> to
>> use 3 GB RAM. I will take a look into the server on Moday and keep you
>> posted
>> Thanks
>> Hari
>>
>>
>> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:45A920F2-86E6-4A86-A1B1-8306C3077E8B@.microsoft.com...
>> >> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory.
>> >
>> > That's not correct. Take a look at some empirical data at
>> > http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea/default.aspx?p=2
>> >
>> > Linchi
>> >
>> > "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hello,
>> >>
>> >> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory. But
>> >> The
>> >> /3GB switch is used to tell SQL Server to take advantage of 3GB out of
>> >> the
>> >> base 4GB
>> >> of RAM that Windows OS supports natively. If you don't specify this
>> >> option,
>> >> then SQL Server will only take advantage of 2GB of the first 4GB of
>> >> RAM
>> >> in
>> >> the
>> >> server, essentially wasting 1GB of RAM
>> >>
>> >> Please post the OS and SQL Server edition. This is because For SQL
>> >> Server
>> >> 2005 - 64 bit running in Windows 2003 you donot want any changes in
>> >> BOOT.INI
>> >> to use the additional RAM.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >> Hari
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:OEze$NnfHHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> > Imagine that my server has 4GB physical memory. I have added /3GB
>> >> > switch
>> >> > to boot.ini.
>> >> > Should I enable AWE configuration for my SQL Server to use 3 GB
>> >> > address
>> >> > space? Or AWE must only be used when I have more than 4GB memory?
>> >> > Thanks in advance,
>> >> > Leila
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>|||That is correct and the most recommended approach with 4GB.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:ucNNgjyfHHA.2640@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Hari and Linchi!
> Based on documents that I have read, /3GB causes that kernel mode use only
> 1GB and Virtual Address Space for applications therefore can reserve up to
> 3GB. Whereas 32-bit based Windows can address up to 4GB of memory,
> therefore I think by using /3GB switch we don't need to enable AWE for SQL
> Server to use 3GB. Because we are not beyond the 4GB limit of addressing
> in this situation.
>
> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:F6FB03D7-3B0F-4CD1-B2A2-BBFD660502EE@.microsoft.com...
>> Hari;
>> My comment had nothing to do with whether /3GB is used, how it should be
>> used, or what impact it may have. I was commenting on the statement that
>> AWE
>> can be used only if you have more than 4GB physical memory. As the data
>> at
>> the link indicate that setting AWE has an impact on SQL Server memory
>> consumption even with 4GB physical memory. And if you want your bpool to
>> consume a certain amount of memory under 4GB, you may need to use AWE to
>> accomplish that.
>> Now, whether or not you should use AWE with less than 4GB of physical
>> memory
>> or whether there is any compelling rason for doing so are entirely
>> different
>> issue.
>> Linchi
>> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>> Hello Linchi,
>> If I remember correct for a server with 4 GB RAM running in SQL Server
>> 2005
>> 32 bit and Windows 2003 Advanced, all I did is just /3GB switch in
>> Boot.ini
>> to
>> use 3 GB RAM. I will take a look into the server on Moday and keep you
>> posted
>> Thanks
>> Hari
>>
>>
>> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:45A920F2-86E6-4A86-A1B1-8306C3077E8B@.microsoft.com...
>> >> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory.
>> >
>> > That's not correct. Take a look at some empirical data at
>> > http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea/default.aspx?p=2
>> >
>> > Linchi
>> >
>> > "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hello,
>> >>
>> >> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory. But
>> >> The
>> >> /3GB switch is used to tell SQL Server to take advantage of 3GB out
>> >> of
>> >> the
>> >> base 4GB
>> >> of RAM that Windows OS supports natively. If you don't specify this
>> >> option,
>> >> then SQL Server will only take advantage of 2GB of the first 4GB of
>> >> RAM
>> >> in
>> >> the
>> >> server, essentially wasting 1GB of RAM
>> >>
>> >> Please post the OS and SQL Server edition. This is because For SQL
>> >> Server
>> >> 2005 - 64 bit running in Windows 2003 you donot want any changes in
>> >> BOOT.INI
>> >> to use the additional RAM.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >> Hari
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:OEze$NnfHHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> > Imagine that my server has 4GB physical memory. I have added /3GB
>> >> > switch
>> >> > to boot.ini.
>> >> > Should I enable AWE configuration for my SQL Server to use 3 GB
>> >> > address
>> >> > space? Or AWE must only be used when I have more than 4GB memory?
>> >> > Thanks in advance,
>> >> > Leila
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>|||Thanks indeed Andrew :-)
Now these two conditions:
1) 5GB RAM + /PAE switch + /3GB switch
2) 6GB RAM + /PAE switch
Can I say that neither of these situations need AWE for SQL Server?
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:uW%23DbP3fHHA.4936@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> That is correct and the most recommended approach with 4GB.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:ucNNgjyfHHA.2640@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks Hari and Linchi!
>> Based on documents that I have read, /3GB causes that kernel mode use
>> only 1GB and Virtual Address Space for applications therefore can reserve
>> up to 3GB. Whereas 32-bit based Windows can address up to 4GB of memory,
>> therefore I think by using /3GB switch we don't need to enable AWE for
>> SQL Server to use 3GB. Because we are not beyond the 4GB limit of
>> addressing in this situation.
>>
>> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:F6FB03D7-3B0F-4CD1-B2A2-BBFD660502EE@.microsoft.com...
>> Hari;
>> My comment had nothing to do with whether /3GB is used, how it should be
>> used, or what impact it may have. I was commenting on the statement that
>> AWE
>> can be used only if you have more than 4GB physical memory. As the data
>> at
>> the link indicate that setting AWE has an impact on SQL Server memory
>> consumption even with 4GB physical memory. And if you want your bpool to
>> consume a certain amount of memory under 4GB, you may need to use AWE to
>> accomplish that.
>> Now, whether or not you should use AWE with less than 4GB of physical
>> memory
>> or whether there is any compelling rason for doing so are entirely
>> different
>> issue.
>> Linchi
>> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>> Hello Linchi,
>> If I remember correct for a server with 4 GB RAM running in SQL Server
>> 2005
>> 32 bit and Windows 2003 Advanced, all I did is just /3GB switch in
>> Boot.ini
>> to
>> use 3 GB RAM. I will take a look into the server on Moday and keep you
>> posted
>> Thanks
>> Hari
>>
>>
>> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:45A920F2-86E6-4A86-A1B1-8306C3077E8B@.microsoft.com...
>> >> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory.
>> >
>> > That's not correct. Take a look at some empirical data at
>> > http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea/default.aspx?p=2
>> >
>> > Linchi
>> >
>> > "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hello,
>> >>
>> >> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory. But
>> >> The
>> >> /3GB switch is used to tell SQL Server to take advantage of 3GB out
>> >> of
>> >> the
>> >> base 4GB
>> >> of RAM that Windows OS supports natively. If you don't specify this
>> >> option,
>> >> then SQL Server will only take advantage of 2GB of the first 4GB of
>> >> RAM
>> >> in
>> >> the
>> >> server, essentially wasting 1GB of RAM
>> >>
>> >> Please post the OS and SQL Server edition. This is because For SQL
>> >> Server
>> >> 2005 - 64 bit running in Windows 2003 you donot want any changes in
>> >> BOOT.INI
>> >> to use the additional RAM.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >> Hari
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:OEze$NnfHHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> > Imagine that my server has 4GB physical memory. I have added /3GB
>> >> > switch
>> >> > to boot.ini.
>> >> > Should I enable AWE configuration for my SQL Server to use 3 GB
>> >> > address
>> >> > space? Or AWE must only be used when I have more than 4GB memory?
>> >> > Thanks in advance,
>> >> > Leila
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>|||Depends on how much you want for SQL Server. If you want more than 3GB you
must use AWE (in addition to PAE) on 32 bit systems. In either case you
should always leave at least a GB for the OS when using AWE since it is not
dynamic. 2GB if going over 12GB total. The /3GB is optional depending on
how much you need for non-buffer pool memory such as procedure cache,
connections etc.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:%2399LSA4fHHA.2396@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Thanks indeed Andrew :-)
> Now these two conditions:
> 1) 5GB RAM + /PAE switch + /3GB switch
> 2) 6GB RAM + /PAE switch
> Can I say that neither of these situations need AWE for SQL Server?
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:uW%23DbP3fHHA.4936@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> That is correct and the most recommended approach with 4GB.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> news:ucNNgjyfHHA.2640@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks Hari and Linchi!
>> Based on documents that I have read, /3GB causes that kernel mode use
>> only 1GB and Virtual Address Space for applications therefore can
>> reserve up to 3GB. Whereas 32-bit based Windows can address up to 4GB of
>> memory, therefore I think by using /3GB switch we don't need to enable
>> AWE for SQL Server to use 3GB. Because we are not beyond the 4GB limit
>> of addressing in this situation.
>>
>> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:F6FB03D7-3B0F-4CD1-B2A2-BBFD660502EE@.microsoft.com...
>> Hari;
>> My comment had nothing to do with whether /3GB is used, how it should
>> be
>> used, or what impact it may have. I was commenting on the statement
>> that AWE
>> can be used only if you have more than 4GB physical memory. As the data
>> at
>> the link indicate that setting AWE has an impact on SQL Server memory
>> consumption even with 4GB physical memory. And if you want your bpool
>> to
>> consume a certain amount of memory under 4GB, you may need to use AWE
>> to
>> accomplish that.
>> Now, whether or not you should use AWE with less than 4GB of physical
>> memory
>> or whether there is any compelling rason for doing so are entirely
>> different
>> issue.
>> Linchi
>> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>> Hello Linchi,
>> If I remember correct for a server with 4 GB RAM running in SQL Server
>> 2005
>> 32 bit and Windows 2003 Advanced, all I did is just /3GB switch in
>> Boot.ini
>> to
>> use 3 GB RAM. I will take a look into the server on Moday and keep you
>> posted
>> Thanks
>> Hari
>>
>>
>> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:45A920F2-86E6-4A86-A1B1-8306C3077E8B@.microsoft.com...
>> >> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory.
>> >
>> > That's not correct. Take a look at some empirical data at
>> > http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea/default.aspx?p=2
>> >
>> > Linchi
>> >
>> > "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hello,
>> >>
>> >> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory.
>> >> But The
>> >> /3GB switch is used to tell SQL Server to take advantage of 3GB out
>> >> of
>> >> the
>> >> base 4GB
>> >> of RAM that Windows OS supports natively. If you don't specify
>> >> this
>> >> option,
>> >> then SQL Server will only take advantage of 2GB of the first 4GB of
>> >> RAM
>> >> in
>> >> the
>> >> server, essentially wasting 1GB of RAM
>> >>
>> >> Please post the OS and SQL Server edition. This is because For SQL
>> >> Server
>> >> 2005 - 64 bit running in Windows 2003 you donot want any changes in
>> >> BOOT.INI
>> >> to use the additional RAM.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >> Hari
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:OEze$NnfHHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> > Imagine that my server has 4GB physical memory. I have added /3GB
>> >> > switch
>> >> > to boot.ini.
>> >> > Should I enable AWE configuration for my SQL Server to use 3 GB
>> >> > address
>> >> > space? Or AWE must only be used when I have more than 4GB memory?
>> >> > Thanks in advance,
>> >> > Leila
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>|||If I have 5GB memory and I use both /PAE and /3GB, then SQL Server can use
up to 4GB memory and this is not beyond 32-bit addressing. Why should I
enable AWE for SQL Server?
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:utisfW8fHHA.668@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Depends on how much you want for SQL Server. If you want more than 3GB you
> must use AWE (in addition to PAE) on 32 bit systems. In either case you
> should always leave at least a GB for the OS when using AWE since it is
> not dynamic. 2GB if going over 12GB total. The /3GB is optional depending
> on how much you need for non-buffer pool memory such as procedure cache,
> connections etc.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:%2399LSA4fHHA.2396@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks indeed Andrew :-)
>> Now these two conditions:
>> 1) 5GB RAM + /PAE switch + /3GB switch
>> 2) 6GB RAM + /PAE switch
>> Can I say that neither of these situations need AWE for SQL Server?
>>
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> news:uW%23DbP3fHHA.4936@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> That is correct and the most recommended approach with 4GB.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> news:ucNNgjyfHHA.2640@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks Hari and Linchi!
>> Based on documents that I have read, /3GB causes that kernel mode use
>> only 1GB and Virtual Address Space for applications therefore can
>> reserve up to 3GB. Whereas 32-bit based Windows can address up to 4GB
>> of memory, therefore I think by using /3GB switch we don't need to
>> enable AWE for SQL Server to use 3GB. Because we are not beyond the 4GB
>> limit of addressing in this situation.
>>
>> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:F6FB03D7-3B0F-4CD1-B2A2-BBFD660502EE@.microsoft.com...
>> Hari;
>> My comment had nothing to do with whether /3GB is used, how it should
>> be
>> used, or what impact it may have. I was commenting on the statement
>> that AWE
>> can be used only if you have more than 4GB physical memory. As the
>> data at
>> the link indicate that setting AWE has an impact on SQL Server memory
>> consumption even with 4GB physical memory. And if you want your bpool
>> to
>> consume a certain amount of memory under 4GB, you may need to use AWE
>> to
>> accomplish that.
>> Now, whether or not you should use AWE with less than 4GB of physical
>> memory
>> or whether there is any compelling rason for doing so are entirely
>> different
>> issue.
>> Linchi
>> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>> Hello Linchi,
>> If I remember correct for a server with 4 GB RAM running in SQL
>> Server 2005
>> 32 bit and Windows 2003 Advanced, all I did is just /3GB switch in
>> Boot.ini
>> to
>> use 3 GB RAM. I will take a look into the server on Moday and keep
>> you
>> posted
>> Thanks
>> Hari
>>
>>
>> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:45A920F2-86E6-4A86-A1B1-8306C3077E8B@.microsoft.com...
>> >> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory.
>> >
>> > That's not correct. Take a look at some empirical data at
>> > http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea/default.aspx?p=2
>> >
>> > Linchi
>> >
>> > "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hello,
>> >>
>> >> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory.
>> >> But The
>> >> /3GB switch is used to tell SQL Server to take advantage of 3GB
>> >> out of
>> >> the
>> >> base 4GB
>> >> of RAM that Windows OS supports natively. If you don't specify
>> >> this
>> >> option,
>> >> then SQL Server will only take advantage of 2GB of the first 4GB
>> >> of RAM
>> >> in
>> >> the
>> >> server, essentially wasting 1GB of RAM
>> >>
>> >> Please post the OS and SQL Server edition. This is because For SQL
>> >> Server
>> >> 2005 - 64 bit running in Windows 2003 you donot want any changes
>> >> in
>> >> BOOT.INI
>> >> to use the additional RAM.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >> Hari
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:OEze$NnfHHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> > Imagine that my server has 4GB physical memory. I have added
>> >> > /3GB
>> >> > switch
>> >> > to boot.ini.
>> >> > Should I enable AWE configuration for my SQL Server to use 3 GB
>> >> > address
>> >> > space? Or AWE must only be used when I have more than 4GB
>> >> > memory?
>> >> > Thanks in advance,
>> >> > Leila
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>|||> If I have 5GB memory and I use both /PAE and /3GB, then SQL Server can use up to 4GB memory and
> this is not beyond 32-bit addressing.
No, the usable address space would be 3GB (thanks to the 3GB switch). Even though a 32 bit process
can theoretically see 4GB, 1 GB of those would be reserved for the system.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message news:OzE9z9FgHHA.3632@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> If I have 5GB memory and I use both /PAE and /3GB, then SQL Server can use up to 4GB memory and
> this is not beyond 32-bit addressing. Why should I enable AWE for SQL Server?
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:utisfW8fHHA.668@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Depends on how much you want for SQL Server. If you want more than 3GB you must use AWE (in
>> addition to PAE) on 32 bit systems. In either case you should always leave at least a GB for the
>> OS when using AWE since it is not dynamic. 2GB if going over 12GB total. The /3GB is optional
>> depending on how much you need for non-buffer pool memory such as procedure cache, connections
>> etc.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message news:%2399LSA4fHHA.2396@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks indeed Andrew :-)
>> Now these two conditions:
>> 1) 5GB RAM + /PAE switch + /3GB switch
>> 2) 6GB RAM + /PAE switch
>> Can I say that neither of these situations need AWE for SQL Server?
>>
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> news:uW%23DbP3fHHA.4936@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> That is correct and the most recommended approach with 4GB.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message news:ucNNgjyfHHA.2640@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks Hari and Linchi!
>> Based on documents that I have read, /3GB causes that kernel mode use only 1GB and Virtual
>> Address Space for applications therefore can reserve up to 3GB. Whereas 32-bit based Windows
>> can address up to 4GB of memory, therefore I think by using /3GB switch we don't need to
>> enable AWE for SQL Server to use 3GB. Because we are not beyond the 4GB limit of addressing in
>> this situation.
>>
>> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:F6FB03D7-3B0F-4CD1-B2A2-BBFD660502EE@.microsoft.com...
>> Hari;
>> My comment had nothing to do with whether /3GB is used, how it should be
>> used, or what impact it may have. I was commenting on the statement that AWE
>> can be used only if you have more than 4GB physical memory. As the data at
>> the link indicate that setting AWE has an impact on SQL Server memory
>> consumption even with 4GB physical memory. And if you want your bpool to
>> consume a certain amount of memory under 4GB, you may need to use AWE to
>> accomplish that.
>> Now, whether or not you should use AWE with less than 4GB of physical memory
>> or whether there is any compelling rason for doing so are entirely different
>> issue.
>> Linchi
>> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>>> Hello Linchi,
>>>
>>> If I remember correct for a server with 4 GB RAM running in SQL Server 2005
>>> 32 bit and Windows 2003 Advanced, all I did is just /3GB switch in Boot.ini
>>> to
>>> use 3 GB RAM. I will take a look into the server on Moday and keep you
>>> posted
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Hari
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>> news:45A920F2-86E6-4A86-A1B1-8306C3077E8B@.microsoft.com...
>>> >> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory.
>>> >
>>> > That's not correct. Take a look at some empirical data at
>>> > http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea/default.aspx?p=2
>>> >
>>> > Linchi
>>> >
>>> > "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Hello,
>>> >>
>>> >> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory. But The
>>> >> /3GB switch is used to tell SQL Server to take advantage of 3GB out of
>>> >> the
>>> >> base 4GB
>>> >> of RAM that Windows OS supports natively. If you don't specify this
>>> >> option,
>>> >> then SQL Server will only take advantage of 2GB of the first 4GB of RAM
>>> >> in
>>> >> the
>>> >> server, essentially wasting 1GB of RAM
>>> >>
>>> >> Please post the OS and SQL Server edition. This is because For SQL Server
>>> >> 2005 - 64 bit running in Windows 2003 you donot want any changes in
>>> >> BOOT.INI
>>> >> to use the additional RAM.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks
>>> >> Hari
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
>>> >> news:OEze$NnfHHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> >> > Hi,
>>> >> > Imagine that my server has 4GB physical memory. I have added /3GB
>>> >> > switch
>>> >> > to boot.ini.
>>> >> > Should I enable AWE configuration for my SQL Server to use 3 GB address
>>> >> > space? Or AWE must only be used when I have more than 4GB memory?
>>> >> > Thanks in advance,
>>> >> > Leila
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>|||Hello Leila,
I'll walk through how windows allocates the RAM and how SQL Server uses the
RAM and let me know if you have further questions.
In a 32-bit OS only 4GB is directly addressable. The standard configuration
is for the OS to use 2GB and SQL to use 2GB of RAM. To increase the
available RAM for SQL you can enable the /3GB, PAE (physical address
extensions), or AWE (address windowing extensions).
The /3GB switch tells the OS to use 1GB of RAM leaving the rest to SQL if
you so choose. With the addition of the /PAE switch with server gets still
gets 1GB of RAM but SQL only gets 2GB, the other 1GB is used to map RAM
above the 4GB limit. At this point you use AWE on the SQL server to enable
it to see the RAM above the 4GB limit.
Note you should start thinking about replacing the server with a 64-bit
server as I believe Windows will be shipping only 64-bit in 3 years.
John Vandervliet.
"Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:OzE9z9FgHHA.3632@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> If I have 5GB memory and I use both /PAE and /3GB, then SQL Server can use
> up to 4GB memory and this is not beyond 32-bit addressing. Why should I
> enable AWE for SQL Server?
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:utisfW8fHHA.668@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Depends on how much you want for SQL Server. If you want more than 3GB
>> you must use AWE (in addition to PAE) on 32 bit systems. In either case
>> you should always leave at least a GB for the OS when using AWE since it
>> is not dynamic. 2GB if going over 12GB total. The /3GB is optional
>> depending on how much you need for non-buffer pool memory such as
>> procedure cache, connections etc.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> news:%2399LSA4fHHA.2396@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks indeed Andrew :-)
>> Now these two conditions:
>> 1) 5GB RAM + /PAE switch + /3GB switch
>> 2) 6GB RAM + /PAE switch
>> Can I say that neither of these situations need AWE for SQL Server?
>>
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> news:uW%23DbP3fHHA.4936@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> That is correct and the most recommended approach with 4GB.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> news:ucNNgjyfHHA.2640@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks Hari and Linchi!
>> Based on documents that I have read, /3GB causes that kernel mode use
>> only 1GB and Virtual Address Space for applications therefore can
>> reserve up to 3GB. Whereas 32-bit based Windows can address up to 4GB
>> of memory, therefore I think by using /3GB switch we don't need to
>> enable AWE for SQL Server to use 3GB. Because we are not beyond the
>> 4GB limit of addressing in this situation.
>>
>> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:F6FB03D7-3B0F-4CD1-B2A2-BBFD660502EE@.microsoft.com...
>> Hari;
>> My comment had nothing to do with whether /3GB is used, how it should
>> be
>> used, or what impact it may have. I was commenting on the statement
>> that AWE
>> can be used only if you have more than 4GB physical memory. As the
>> data at
>> the link indicate that setting AWE has an impact on SQL Server memory
>> consumption even with 4GB physical memory. And if you want your bpool
>> to
>> consume a certain amount of memory under 4GB, you may need to use AWE
>> to
>> accomplish that.
>> Now, whether or not you should use AWE with less than 4GB of physical
>> memory
>> or whether there is any compelling rason for doing so are entirely
>> different
>> issue.
>> Linchi
>> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>>> Hello Linchi,
>>>
>>> If I remember correct for a server with 4 GB RAM running in SQL
>>> Server 2005
>>> 32 bit and Windows 2003 Advanced, all I did is just /3GB switch in
>>> Boot.ini
>>> to
>>> use 3 GB RAM. I will take a look into the server on Moday and keep
>>> you
>>> posted
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Hari
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>>> message
>>> news:45A920F2-86E6-4A86-A1B1-8306C3077E8B@.microsoft.com...
>>> >> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory.
>>> >
>>> > That's not correct. Take a look at some empirical data at
>>> > http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea/default.aspx?p=2
>>> >
>>> > Linchi
>>> >
>>> > "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Hello,
>>> >>
>>> >> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory.
>>> >> But The
>>> >> /3GB switch is used to tell SQL Server to take advantage of 3GB
>>> >> out of
>>> >> the
>>> >> base 4GB
>>> >> of RAM that Windows OS supports natively. If you don't specify
>>> >> this
>>> >> option,
>>> >> then SQL Server will only take advantage of 2GB of the first 4GB
>>> >> of RAM
>>> >> in
>>> >> the
>>> >> server, essentially wasting 1GB of RAM
>>> >>
>>> >> Please post the OS and SQL Server edition. This is because For
>>> >> SQL Server
>>> >> 2005 - 64 bit running in Windows 2003 you donot want any changes
>>> >> in
>>> >> BOOT.INI
>>> >> to use the additional RAM.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks
>>> >> Hari
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
>>> >> news:OEze$NnfHHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> >> > Hi,
>>> >> > Imagine that my server has 4GB physical memory. I have added
>>> >> > /3GB
>>> >> > switch
>>> >> > to boot.ini.
>>> >> > Should I enable AWE configuration for my SQL Server to use 3 GB
>>> >> > address
>>> >> > space? Or AWE must only be used when I have more than 4GB
>>> >> > memory?
>>> >> > Thanks in advance,
>>> >> > Leila
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>|||Really helpful! Thanks :)
"John Vandervliet" <jvandervliet@.SJRB.AD> wrote in message
news:AC095E1D-35EF-4CED-9644-B437DE3787E2@.microsoft.com...
> Hello Leila,
> I'll walk through how windows allocates the RAM and how SQL Server uses
> the RAM and let me know if you have further questions.
> In a 32-bit OS only 4GB is directly addressable. The standard
> configuration is for the OS to use 2GB and SQL to use 2GB of RAM. To
> increase the available RAM for SQL you can enable the /3GB, PAE (physical
> address extensions), or AWE (address windowing extensions).
> The /3GB switch tells the OS to use 1GB of RAM leaving the rest to SQL if
> you so choose. With the addition of the /PAE switch with server gets still
> gets 1GB of RAM but SQL only gets 2GB, the other 1GB is used to map RAM
> above the 4GB limit. At this point you use AWE on the SQL server to enable
> it to see the RAM above the 4GB limit.
> Note you should start thinking about replacing the server with a 64-bit
> server as I believe Windows will be shipping only 64-bit in 3 years.
> John Vandervliet.
>
> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:OzE9z9FgHHA.3632@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> If I have 5GB memory and I use both /PAE and /3GB, then SQL Server can
>> use up to 4GB memory and this is not beyond 32-bit addressing. Why should
>> I enable AWE for SQL Server?
>>
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> news:utisfW8fHHA.668@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Depends on how much you want for SQL Server. If you want more than 3GB
>> you must use AWE (in addition to PAE) on 32 bit systems. In either case
>> you should always leave at least a GB for the OS when using AWE since it
>> is not dynamic. 2GB if going over 12GB total. The /3GB is optional
>> depending on how much you need for non-buffer pool memory such as
>> procedure cache, connections etc.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> news:%2399LSA4fHHA.2396@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks indeed Andrew :-)
>> Now these two conditions:
>> 1) 5GB RAM + /PAE switch + /3GB switch
>> 2) 6GB RAM + /PAE switch
>> Can I say that neither of these situations need AWE for SQL Server?
>>
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> news:uW%23DbP3fHHA.4936@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> That is correct and the most recommended approach with 4GB.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> news:ucNNgjyfHHA.2640@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks Hari and Linchi!
>> Based on documents that I have read, /3GB causes that kernel mode use
>> only 1GB and Virtual Address Space for applications therefore can
>> reserve up to 3GB. Whereas 32-bit based Windows can address up to 4GB
>> of memory, therefore I think by using /3GB switch we don't need to
>> enable AWE for SQL Server to use 3GB. Because we are not beyond the
>> 4GB limit of addressing in this situation.
>>
>> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:F6FB03D7-3B0F-4CD1-B2A2-BBFD660502EE@.microsoft.com...
>>> Hari;
>>>
>>> My comment had nothing to do with whether /3GB is used, how it
>>> should be
>>> used, or what impact it may have. I was commenting on the statement
>>> that AWE
>>> can be used only if you have more than 4GB physical memory. As the
>>> data at
>>> the link indicate that setting AWE has an impact on SQL Server
>>> memory
>>> consumption even with 4GB physical memory. And if you want your
>>> bpool to
>>> consume a certain amount of memory under 4GB, you may need to use
>>> AWE to
>>> accomplish that.
>>>
>>> Now, whether or not you should use AWE with less than 4GB of
>>> physical memory
>>> or whether there is any compelling rason for doing so are entirely
>>> different
>>> issue.
>>>
>>> Linchi
>>>
>>> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Linchi,
>>>
>>> If I remember correct for a server with 4 GB RAM running in SQL
>>> Server 2005
>>> 32 bit and Windows 2003 Advanced, all I did is just /3GB switch in
>>> Boot.ini
>>> to
>>> use 3 GB RAM. I will take a look into the server on Moday and keep
>>> you
>>> posted
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Hari
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>>> message
>>> news:45A920F2-86E6-4A86-A1B1-8306C3077E8B@.microsoft.com...
>>> >> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory.
>>> >
>>> > That's not correct. Take a look at some empirical data at
>>> > http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea/default.aspx?p=2
>>> >
>>> > Linchi
>>> >
>>> > "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Hello,
>>> >>
>>> >> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory.
>>> >> But The
>>> >> /3GB switch is used to tell SQL Server to take advantage of 3GB
>>> >> out of
>>> >> the
>>> >> base 4GB
>>> >> of RAM that Windows OS supports natively. If you don't specify
>>> >> this
>>> >> option,
>>> >> then SQL Server will only take advantage of 2GB of the first 4GB
>>> >> of RAM
>>> >> in
>>> >> the
>>> >> server, essentially wasting 1GB of RAM
>>> >>
>>> >> Please post the OS and SQL Server edition. This is because For
>>> >> SQL Server
>>> >> 2005 - 64 bit running in Windows 2003 you donot want any changes
>>> >> in
>>> >> BOOT.INI
>>> >> to use the additional RAM.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks
>>> >> Hari
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
>>> >> news:OEze$NnfHHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> >> > Hi,
>>> >> > Imagine that my server has 4GB physical memory. I have added
>>> >> > /3GB
>>> >> > switch
>>> >> > to boot.ini.
>>> >> > Should I enable AWE configuration for my SQL Server to use 3
>>> >> > GB address
>>> >> > space? Or AWE must only be used when I have more than 4GB
>>> >> > memory?
>>> >> > Thanks in advance,
>>> >> > Leila
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Imagine that my server has 4GB physical memory. I have added /3GB switch to
boot.ini.
Should I enable AWE configuration for my SQL Server to use 3 GB address
space? Or AWE must only be used when I have more than 4GB memory?
Thanks in advance,
LeilaHello,
AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory. But The
/3GB switch is used to tell SQL Server to take advantage of 3GB out of the
base 4GB
of RAM that Windows OS supports natively. If you don't specify this option,
then SQL Server will only take advantage of 2GB of the first 4GB of RAM in
the
server, essentially wasting 1GB of RAM
Please post the OS and SQL Server edition. This is because For SQL Server
2005 - 64 bit running in Windows 2003 you donot want any changes in BOOT.INI
to use the additional RAM.
Thanks
Hari
"Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:OEze$NnfHHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Imagine that my server has 4GB physical memory. I have added /3GB switch
> to boot.ini.
> Should I enable AWE configuration for my SQL Server to use 3 GB address
> space? Or AWE must only be used when I have more than 4GB memory?
> Thanks in advance,
> Leila
>|||> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory.
That's not correct. Take a look at some empirical data at
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea/default.aspx?p=2
Linchi
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
> Hello,
> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory. But The
> /3GB switch is used to tell SQL Server to take advantage of 3GB out of the
> base 4GB
> of RAM that Windows OS supports natively. If you don't specify this option,
> then SQL Server will only take advantage of 2GB of the first 4GB of RAM in
> the
> server, essentially wasting 1GB of RAM
> Please post the OS and SQL Server edition. This is because For SQL Server
> 2005 - 64 bit running in Windows 2003 you donot want any changes in BOOT.INI
> to use the additional RAM.
> Thanks
> Hari
>
> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:OEze$NnfHHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> > Hi,
> > Imagine that my server has 4GB physical memory. I have added /3GB switch
> > to boot.ini.
> > Should I enable AWE configuration for my SQL Server to use 3 GB address
> > space? Or AWE must only be used when I have more than 4GB memory?
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Leila
> >
>
>|||Hello Linchi,
If I remember correct for a server with 4 GB RAM running in SQL Server 2005
32 bit and Windows 2003 Advanced, all I did is just /3GB switch in Boot.ini
to
use 3 GB RAM. I will take a look into the server on Moday and keep you
posted
Thanks
Hari
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:45A920F2-86E6-4A86-A1B1-8306C3077E8B@.microsoft.com...
>> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory.
> That's not correct. Take a look at some empirical data at
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea/default.aspx?p=2
> Linchi
> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>> Hello,
>> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory. But The
>> /3GB switch is used to tell SQL Server to take advantage of 3GB out of
>> the
>> base 4GB
>> of RAM that Windows OS supports natively. If you don't specify this
>> option,
>> then SQL Server will only take advantage of 2GB of the first 4GB of RAM
>> in
>> the
>> server, essentially wasting 1GB of RAM
>> Please post the OS and SQL Server edition. This is because For SQL Server
>> 2005 - 64 bit running in Windows 2003 you donot want any changes in
>> BOOT.INI
>> to use the additional RAM.
>> Thanks
>> Hari
>>
>> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> news:OEze$NnfHHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> > Hi,
>> > Imagine that my server has 4GB physical memory. I have added /3GB
>> > switch
>> > to boot.ini.
>> > Should I enable AWE configuration for my SQL Server to use 3 GB address
>> > space? Or AWE must only be used when I have more than 4GB memory?
>> > Thanks in advance,
>> > Leila
>> >
>>|||Hari;
My comment had nothing to do with whether /3GB is used, how it should be
used, or what impact it may have. I was commenting on the statement that AWE
can be used only if you have more than 4GB physical memory. As the data at
the link indicate that setting AWE has an impact on SQL Server memory
consumption even with 4GB physical memory. And if you want your bpool to
consume a certain amount of memory under 4GB, you may need to use AWE to
accomplish that.
Now, whether or not you should use AWE with less than 4GB of physical memory
or whether there is any compelling rason for doing so are entirely different
issue.
Linchi
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
> Hello Linchi,
> If I remember correct for a server with 4 GB RAM running in SQL Server 2005
> 32 bit and Windows 2003 Advanced, all I did is just /3GB switch in Boot.ini
> to
> use 3 GB RAM. I will take a look into the server on Moday and keep you
> posted
> Thanks
> Hari
>
>
> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:45A920F2-86E6-4A86-A1B1-8306C3077E8B@.microsoft.com...
> >> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory.
> >
> > That's not correct. Take a look at some empirical data at
> > http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea/default.aspx?p=2
> >
> > Linchi
> >
> > "Hari Prasad" wrote:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory. But The
> >> /3GB switch is used to tell SQL Server to take advantage of 3GB out of
> >> the
> >> base 4GB
> >> of RAM that Windows OS supports natively. If you don't specify this
> >> option,
> >> then SQL Server will only take advantage of 2GB of the first 4GB of RAM
> >> in
> >> the
> >> server, essentially wasting 1GB of RAM
> >>
> >> Please post the OS and SQL Server edition. This is because For SQL Server
> >> 2005 - 64 bit running in Windows 2003 you donot want any changes in
> >> BOOT.INI
> >> to use the additional RAM.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Hari
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
> >> news:OEze$NnfHHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> >> > Hi,
> >> > Imagine that my server has 4GB physical memory. I have added /3GB
> >> > switch
> >> > to boot.ini.
> >> > Should I enable AWE configuration for my SQL Server to use 3 GB address
> >> > space? Or AWE must only be used when I have more than 4GB memory?
> >> > Thanks in advance,
> >> > Leila
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>|||Thanks Hari and Linchi!
Based on documents that I have read, /3GB causes that kernel mode use only
1GB and Virtual Address Space for applications therefore can reserve up to
3GB. Whereas 32-bit based Windows can address up to 4GB of memory, therefore
I think by using /3GB switch we don't need to enable AWE for SQL Server to
use 3GB. Because we are not beyond the 4GB limit of addressing in this
situation.
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F6FB03D7-3B0F-4CD1-B2A2-BBFD660502EE@.microsoft.com...
> Hari;
> My comment had nothing to do with whether /3GB is used, how it should be
> used, or what impact it may have. I was commenting on the statement that
> AWE
> can be used only if you have more than 4GB physical memory. As the data at
> the link indicate that setting AWE has an impact on SQL Server memory
> consumption even with 4GB physical memory. And if you want your bpool to
> consume a certain amount of memory under 4GB, you may need to use AWE to
> accomplish that.
> Now, whether or not you should use AWE with less than 4GB of physical
> memory
> or whether there is any compelling rason for doing so are entirely
> different
> issue.
> Linchi
> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>> Hello Linchi,
>> If I remember correct for a server with 4 GB RAM running in SQL Server
>> 2005
>> 32 bit and Windows 2003 Advanced, all I did is just /3GB switch in
>> Boot.ini
>> to
>> use 3 GB RAM. I will take a look into the server on Moday and keep you
>> posted
>> Thanks
>> Hari
>>
>>
>> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:45A920F2-86E6-4A86-A1B1-8306C3077E8B@.microsoft.com...
>> >> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory.
>> >
>> > That's not correct. Take a look at some empirical data at
>> > http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea/default.aspx?p=2
>> >
>> > Linchi
>> >
>> > "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hello,
>> >>
>> >> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory. But
>> >> The
>> >> /3GB switch is used to tell SQL Server to take advantage of 3GB out of
>> >> the
>> >> base 4GB
>> >> of RAM that Windows OS supports natively. If you don't specify this
>> >> option,
>> >> then SQL Server will only take advantage of 2GB of the first 4GB of
>> >> RAM
>> >> in
>> >> the
>> >> server, essentially wasting 1GB of RAM
>> >>
>> >> Please post the OS and SQL Server edition. This is because For SQL
>> >> Server
>> >> 2005 - 64 bit running in Windows 2003 you donot want any changes in
>> >> BOOT.INI
>> >> to use the additional RAM.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >> Hari
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:OEze$NnfHHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> > Imagine that my server has 4GB physical memory. I have added /3GB
>> >> > switch
>> >> > to boot.ini.
>> >> > Should I enable AWE configuration for my SQL Server to use 3 GB
>> >> > address
>> >> > space? Or AWE must only be used when I have more than 4GB memory?
>> >> > Thanks in advance,
>> >> > Leila
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>|||That is correct and the most recommended approach with 4GB.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:ucNNgjyfHHA.2640@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Hari and Linchi!
> Based on documents that I have read, /3GB causes that kernel mode use only
> 1GB and Virtual Address Space for applications therefore can reserve up to
> 3GB. Whereas 32-bit based Windows can address up to 4GB of memory,
> therefore I think by using /3GB switch we don't need to enable AWE for SQL
> Server to use 3GB. Because we are not beyond the 4GB limit of addressing
> in this situation.
>
> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:F6FB03D7-3B0F-4CD1-B2A2-BBFD660502EE@.microsoft.com...
>> Hari;
>> My comment had nothing to do with whether /3GB is used, how it should be
>> used, or what impact it may have. I was commenting on the statement that
>> AWE
>> can be used only if you have more than 4GB physical memory. As the data
>> at
>> the link indicate that setting AWE has an impact on SQL Server memory
>> consumption even with 4GB physical memory. And if you want your bpool to
>> consume a certain amount of memory under 4GB, you may need to use AWE to
>> accomplish that.
>> Now, whether or not you should use AWE with less than 4GB of physical
>> memory
>> or whether there is any compelling rason for doing so are entirely
>> different
>> issue.
>> Linchi
>> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>> Hello Linchi,
>> If I remember correct for a server with 4 GB RAM running in SQL Server
>> 2005
>> 32 bit and Windows 2003 Advanced, all I did is just /3GB switch in
>> Boot.ini
>> to
>> use 3 GB RAM. I will take a look into the server on Moday and keep you
>> posted
>> Thanks
>> Hari
>>
>>
>> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:45A920F2-86E6-4A86-A1B1-8306C3077E8B@.microsoft.com...
>> >> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory.
>> >
>> > That's not correct. Take a look at some empirical data at
>> > http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea/default.aspx?p=2
>> >
>> > Linchi
>> >
>> > "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hello,
>> >>
>> >> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory. But
>> >> The
>> >> /3GB switch is used to tell SQL Server to take advantage of 3GB out
>> >> of
>> >> the
>> >> base 4GB
>> >> of RAM that Windows OS supports natively. If you don't specify this
>> >> option,
>> >> then SQL Server will only take advantage of 2GB of the first 4GB of
>> >> RAM
>> >> in
>> >> the
>> >> server, essentially wasting 1GB of RAM
>> >>
>> >> Please post the OS and SQL Server edition. This is because For SQL
>> >> Server
>> >> 2005 - 64 bit running in Windows 2003 you donot want any changes in
>> >> BOOT.INI
>> >> to use the additional RAM.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >> Hari
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:OEze$NnfHHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> > Imagine that my server has 4GB physical memory. I have added /3GB
>> >> > switch
>> >> > to boot.ini.
>> >> > Should I enable AWE configuration for my SQL Server to use 3 GB
>> >> > address
>> >> > space? Or AWE must only be used when I have more than 4GB memory?
>> >> > Thanks in advance,
>> >> > Leila
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>|||Thanks indeed Andrew :-)
Now these two conditions:
1) 5GB RAM + /PAE switch + /3GB switch
2) 6GB RAM + /PAE switch
Can I say that neither of these situations need AWE for SQL Server?
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:uW%23DbP3fHHA.4936@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> That is correct and the most recommended approach with 4GB.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:ucNNgjyfHHA.2640@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks Hari and Linchi!
>> Based on documents that I have read, /3GB causes that kernel mode use
>> only 1GB and Virtual Address Space for applications therefore can reserve
>> up to 3GB. Whereas 32-bit based Windows can address up to 4GB of memory,
>> therefore I think by using /3GB switch we don't need to enable AWE for
>> SQL Server to use 3GB. Because we are not beyond the 4GB limit of
>> addressing in this situation.
>>
>> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:F6FB03D7-3B0F-4CD1-B2A2-BBFD660502EE@.microsoft.com...
>> Hari;
>> My comment had nothing to do with whether /3GB is used, how it should be
>> used, or what impact it may have. I was commenting on the statement that
>> AWE
>> can be used only if you have more than 4GB physical memory. As the data
>> at
>> the link indicate that setting AWE has an impact on SQL Server memory
>> consumption even with 4GB physical memory. And if you want your bpool to
>> consume a certain amount of memory under 4GB, you may need to use AWE to
>> accomplish that.
>> Now, whether or not you should use AWE with less than 4GB of physical
>> memory
>> or whether there is any compelling rason for doing so are entirely
>> different
>> issue.
>> Linchi
>> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>> Hello Linchi,
>> If I remember correct for a server with 4 GB RAM running in SQL Server
>> 2005
>> 32 bit and Windows 2003 Advanced, all I did is just /3GB switch in
>> Boot.ini
>> to
>> use 3 GB RAM. I will take a look into the server on Moday and keep you
>> posted
>> Thanks
>> Hari
>>
>>
>> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:45A920F2-86E6-4A86-A1B1-8306C3077E8B@.microsoft.com...
>> >> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory.
>> >
>> > That's not correct. Take a look at some empirical data at
>> > http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea/default.aspx?p=2
>> >
>> > Linchi
>> >
>> > "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hello,
>> >>
>> >> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory. But
>> >> The
>> >> /3GB switch is used to tell SQL Server to take advantage of 3GB out
>> >> of
>> >> the
>> >> base 4GB
>> >> of RAM that Windows OS supports natively. If you don't specify this
>> >> option,
>> >> then SQL Server will only take advantage of 2GB of the first 4GB of
>> >> RAM
>> >> in
>> >> the
>> >> server, essentially wasting 1GB of RAM
>> >>
>> >> Please post the OS and SQL Server edition. This is because For SQL
>> >> Server
>> >> 2005 - 64 bit running in Windows 2003 you donot want any changes in
>> >> BOOT.INI
>> >> to use the additional RAM.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >> Hari
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:OEze$NnfHHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> > Imagine that my server has 4GB physical memory. I have added /3GB
>> >> > switch
>> >> > to boot.ini.
>> >> > Should I enable AWE configuration for my SQL Server to use 3 GB
>> >> > address
>> >> > space? Or AWE must only be used when I have more than 4GB memory?
>> >> > Thanks in advance,
>> >> > Leila
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>|||Depends on how much you want for SQL Server. If you want more than 3GB you
must use AWE (in addition to PAE) on 32 bit systems. In either case you
should always leave at least a GB for the OS when using AWE since it is not
dynamic. 2GB if going over 12GB total. The /3GB is optional depending on
how much you need for non-buffer pool memory such as procedure cache,
connections etc.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:%2399LSA4fHHA.2396@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Thanks indeed Andrew :-)
> Now these two conditions:
> 1) 5GB RAM + /PAE switch + /3GB switch
> 2) 6GB RAM + /PAE switch
> Can I say that neither of these situations need AWE for SQL Server?
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:uW%23DbP3fHHA.4936@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> That is correct and the most recommended approach with 4GB.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> news:ucNNgjyfHHA.2640@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks Hari and Linchi!
>> Based on documents that I have read, /3GB causes that kernel mode use
>> only 1GB and Virtual Address Space for applications therefore can
>> reserve up to 3GB. Whereas 32-bit based Windows can address up to 4GB of
>> memory, therefore I think by using /3GB switch we don't need to enable
>> AWE for SQL Server to use 3GB. Because we are not beyond the 4GB limit
>> of addressing in this situation.
>>
>> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:F6FB03D7-3B0F-4CD1-B2A2-BBFD660502EE@.microsoft.com...
>> Hari;
>> My comment had nothing to do with whether /3GB is used, how it should
>> be
>> used, or what impact it may have. I was commenting on the statement
>> that AWE
>> can be used only if you have more than 4GB physical memory. As the data
>> at
>> the link indicate that setting AWE has an impact on SQL Server memory
>> consumption even with 4GB physical memory. And if you want your bpool
>> to
>> consume a certain amount of memory under 4GB, you may need to use AWE
>> to
>> accomplish that.
>> Now, whether or not you should use AWE with less than 4GB of physical
>> memory
>> or whether there is any compelling rason for doing so are entirely
>> different
>> issue.
>> Linchi
>> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>> Hello Linchi,
>> If I remember correct for a server with 4 GB RAM running in SQL Server
>> 2005
>> 32 bit and Windows 2003 Advanced, all I did is just /3GB switch in
>> Boot.ini
>> to
>> use 3 GB RAM. I will take a look into the server on Moday and keep you
>> posted
>> Thanks
>> Hari
>>
>>
>> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:45A920F2-86E6-4A86-A1B1-8306C3077E8B@.microsoft.com...
>> >> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory.
>> >
>> > That's not correct. Take a look at some empirical data at
>> > http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea/default.aspx?p=2
>> >
>> > Linchi
>> >
>> > "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hello,
>> >>
>> >> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory.
>> >> But The
>> >> /3GB switch is used to tell SQL Server to take advantage of 3GB out
>> >> of
>> >> the
>> >> base 4GB
>> >> of RAM that Windows OS supports natively. If you don't specify
>> >> this
>> >> option,
>> >> then SQL Server will only take advantage of 2GB of the first 4GB of
>> >> RAM
>> >> in
>> >> the
>> >> server, essentially wasting 1GB of RAM
>> >>
>> >> Please post the OS and SQL Server edition. This is because For SQL
>> >> Server
>> >> 2005 - 64 bit running in Windows 2003 you donot want any changes in
>> >> BOOT.INI
>> >> to use the additional RAM.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >> Hari
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:OEze$NnfHHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> > Imagine that my server has 4GB physical memory. I have added /3GB
>> >> > switch
>> >> > to boot.ini.
>> >> > Should I enable AWE configuration for my SQL Server to use 3 GB
>> >> > address
>> >> > space? Or AWE must only be used when I have more than 4GB memory?
>> >> > Thanks in advance,
>> >> > Leila
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>|||If I have 5GB memory and I use both /PAE and /3GB, then SQL Server can use
up to 4GB memory and this is not beyond 32-bit addressing. Why should I
enable AWE for SQL Server?
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:utisfW8fHHA.668@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Depends on how much you want for SQL Server. If you want more than 3GB you
> must use AWE (in addition to PAE) on 32 bit systems. In either case you
> should always leave at least a GB for the OS when using AWE since it is
> not dynamic. 2GB if going over 12GB total. The /3GB is optional depending
> on how much you need for non-buffer pool memory such as procedure cache,
> connections etc.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:%2399LSA4fHHA.2396@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks indeed Andrew :-)
>> Now these two conditions:
>> 1) 5GB RAM + /PAE switch + /3GB switch
>> 2) 6GB RAM + /PAE switch
>> Can I say that neither of these situations need AWE for SQL Server?
>>
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> news:uW%23DbP3fHHA.4936@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> That is correct and the most recommended approach with 4GB.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> news:ucNNgjyfHHA.2640@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks Hari and Linchi!
>> Based on documents that I have read, /3GB causes that kernel mode use
>> only 1GB and Virtual Address Space for applications therefore can
>> reserve up to 3GB. Whereas 32-bit based Windows can address up to 4GB
>> of memory, therefore I think by using /3GB switch we don't need to
>> enable AWE for SQL Server to use 3GB. Because we are not beyond the 4GB
>> limit of addressing in this situation.
>>
>> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:F6FB03D7-3B0F-4CD1-B2A2-BBFD660502EE@.microsoft.com...
>> Hari;
>> My comment had nothing to do with whether /3GB is used, how it should
>> be
>> used, or what impact it may have. I was commenting on the statement
>> that AWE
>> can be used only if you have more than 4GB physical memory. As the
>> data at
>> the link indicate that setting AWE has an impact on SQL Server memory
>> consumption even with 4GB physical memory. And if you want your bpool
>> to
>> consume a certain amount of memory under 4GB, you may need to use AWE
>> to
>> accomplish that.
>> Now, whether or not you should use AWE with less than 4GB of physical
>> memory
>> or whether there is any compelling rason for doing so are entirely
>> different
>> issue.
>> Linchi
>> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>> Hello Linchi,
>> If I remember correct for a server with 4 GB RAM running in SQL
>> Server 2005
>> 32 bit and Windows 2003 Advanced, all I did is just /3GB switch in
>> Boot.ini
>> to
>> use 3 GB RAM. I will take a look into the server on Moday and keep
>> you
>> posted
>> Thanks
>> Hari
>>
>>
>> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:45A920F2-86E6-4A86-A1B1-8306C3077E8B@.microsoft.com...
>> >> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory.
>> >
>> > That's not correct. Take a look at some empirical data at
>> > http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea/default.aspx?p=2
>> >
>> > Linchi
>> >
>> > "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hello,
>> >>
>> >> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory.
>> >> But The
>> >> /3GB switch is used to tell SQL Server to take advantage of 3GB
>> >> out of
>> >> the
>> >> base 4GB
>> >> of RAM that Windows OS supports natively. If you don't specify
>> >> this
>> >> option,
>> >> then SQL Server will only take advantage of 2GB of the first 4GB
>> >> of RAM
>> >> in
>> >> the
>> >> server, essentially wasting 1GB of RAM
>> >>
>> >> Please post the OS and SQL Server edition. This is because For SQL
>> >> Server
>> >> 2005 - 64 bit running in Windows 2003 you donot want any changes
>> >> in
>> >> BOOT.INI
>> >> to use the additional RAM.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >> Hari
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:OEze$NnfHHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> > Imagine that my server has 4GB physical memory. I have added
>> >> > /3GB
>> >> > switch
>> >> > to boot.ini.
>> >> > Should I enable AWE configuration for my SQL Server to use 3 GB
>> >> > address
>> >> > space? Or AWE must only be used when I have more than 4GB
>> >> > memory?
>> >> > Thanks in advance,
>> >> > Leila
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>|||> If I have 5GB memory and I use both /PAE and /3GB, then SQL Server can use up to 4GB memory and
> this is not beyond 32-bit addressing.
No, the usable address space would be 3GB (thanks to the 3GB switch). Even though a 32 bit process
can theoretically see 4GB, 1 GB of those would be reserved for the system.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message news:OzE9z9FgHHA.3632@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> If I have 5GB memory and I use both /PAE and /3GB, then SQL Server can use up to 4GB memory and
> this is not beyond 32-bit addressing. Why should I enable AWE for SQL Server?
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:utisfW8fHHA.668@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Depends on how much you want for SQL Server. If you want more than 3GB you must use AWE (in
>> addition to PAE) on 32 bit systems. In either case you should always leave at least a GB for the
>> OS when using AWE since it is not dynamic. 2GB if going over 12GB total. The /3GB is optional
>> depending on how much you need for non-buffer pool memory such as procedure cache, connections
>> etc.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message news:%2399LSA4fHHA.2396@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks indeed Andrew :-)
>> Now these two conditions:
>> 1) 5GB RAM + /PAE switch + /3GB switch
>> 2) 6GB RAM + /PAE switch
>> Can I say that neither of these situations need AWE for SQL Server?
>>
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> news:uW%23DbP3fHHA.4936@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> That is correct and the most recommended approach with 4GB.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message news:ucNNgjyfHHA.2640@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks Hari and Linchi!
>> Based on documents that I have read, /3GB causes that kernel mode use only 1GB and Virtual
>> Address Space for applications therefore can reserve up to 3GB. Whereas 32-bit based Windows
>> can address up to 4GB of memory, therefore I think by using /3GB switch we don't need to
>> enable AWE for SQL Server to use 3GB. Because we are not beyond the 4GB limit of addressing in
>> this situation.
>>
>> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:F6FB03D7-3B0F-4CD1-B2A2-BBFD660502EE@.microsoft.com...
>> Hari;
>> My comment had nothing to do with whether /3GB is used, how it should be
>> used, or what impact it may have. I was commenting on the statement that AWE
>> can be used only if you have more than 4GB physical memory. As the data at
>> the link indicate that setting AWE has an impact on SQL Server memory
>> consumption even with 4GB physical memory. And if you want your bpool to
>> consume a certain amount of memory under 4GB, you may need to use AWE to
>> accomplish that.
>> Now, whether or not you should use AWE with less than 4GB of physical memory
>> or whether there is any compelling rason for doing so are entirely different
>> issue.
>> Linchi
>> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>>> Hello Linchi,
>>>
>>> If I remember correct for a server with 4 GB RAM running in SQL Server 2005
>>> 32 bit and Windows 2003 Advanced, all I did is just /3GB switch in Boot.ini
>>> to
>>> use 3 GB RAM. I will take a look into the server on Moday and keep you
>>> posted
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Hari
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>> news:45A920F2-86E6-4A86-A1B1-8306C3077E8B@.microsoft.com...
>>> >> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory.
>>> >
>>> > That's not correct. Take a look at some empirical data at
>>> > http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea/default.aspx?p=2
>>> >
>>> > Linchi
>>> >
>>> > "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Hello,
>>> >>
>>> >> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory. But The
>>> >> /3GB switch is used to tell SQL Server to take advantage of 3GB out of
>>> >> the
>>> >> base 4GB
>>> >> of RAM that Windows OS supports natively. If you don't specify this
>>> >> option,
>>> >> then SQL Server will only take advantage of 2GB of the first 4GB of RAM
>>> >> in
>>> >> the
>>> >> server, essentially wasting 1GB of RAM
>>> >>
>>> >> Please post the OS and SQL Server edition. This is because For SQL Server
>>> >> 2005 - 64 bit running in Windows 2003 you donot want any changes in
>>> >> BOOT.INI
>>> >> to use the additional RAM.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks
>>> >> Hari
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
>>> >> news:OEze$NnfHHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> >> > Hi,
>>> >> > Imagine that my server has 4GB physical memory. I have added /3GB
>>> >> > switch
>>> >> > to boot.ini.
>>> >> > Should I enable AWE configuration for my SQL Server to use 3 GB address
>>> >> > space? Or AWE must only be used when I have more than 4GB memory?
>>> >> > Thanks in advance,
>>> >> > Leila
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>|||Hello Leila,
I'll walk through how windows allocates the RAM and how SQL Server uses the
RAM and let me know if you have further questions.
In a 32-bit OS only 4GB is directly addressable. The standard configuration
is for the OS to use 2GB and SQL to use 2GB of RAM. To increase the
available RAM for SQL you can enable the /3GB, PAE (physical address
extensions), or AWE (address windowing extensions).
The /3GB switch tells the OS to use 1GB of RAM leaving the rest to SQL if
you so choose. With the addition of the /PAE switch with server gets still
gets 1GB of RAM but SQL only gets 2GB, the other 1GB is used to map RAM
above the 4GB limit. At this point you use AWE on the SQL server to enable
it to see the RAM above the 4GB limit.
Note you should start thinking about replacing the server with a 64-bit
server as I believe Windows will be shipping only 64-bit in 3 years.
John Vandervliet.
"Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:OzE9z9FgHHA.3632@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> If I have 5GB memory and I use both /PAE and /3GB, then SQL Server can use
> up to 4GB memory and this is not beyond 32-bit addressing. Why should I
> enable AWE for SQL Server?
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:utisfW8fHHA.668@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Depends on how much you want for SQL Server. If you want more than 3GB
>> you must use AWE (in addition to PAE) on 32 bit systems. In either case
>> you should always leave at least a GB for the OS when using AWE since it
>> is not dynamic. 2GB if going over 12GB total. The /3GB is optional
>> depending on how much you need for non-buffer pool memory such as
>> procedure cache, connections etc.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> news:%2399LSA4fHHA.2396@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks indeed Andrew :-)
>> Now these two conditions:
>> 1) 5GB RAM + /PAE switch + /3GB switch
>> 2) 6GB RAM + /PAE switch
>> Can I say that neither of these situations need AWE for SQL Server?
>>
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> news:uW%23DbP3fHHA.4936@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> That is correct and the most recommended approach with 4GB.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> news:ucNNgjyfHHA.2640@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks Hari and Linchi!
>> Based on documents that I have read, /3GB causes that kernel mode use
>> only 1GB and Virtual Address Space for applications therefore can
>> reserve up to 3GB. Whereas 32-bit based Windows can address up to 4GB
>> of memory, therefore I think by using /3GB switch we don't need to
>> enable AWE for SQL Server to use 3GB. Because we are not beyond the
>> 4GB limit of addressing in this situation.
>>
>> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:F6FB03D7-3B0F-4CD1-B2A2-BBFD660502EE@.microsoft.com...
>> Hari;
>> My comment had nothing to do with whether /3GB is used, how it should
>> be
>> used, or what impact it may have. I was commenting on the statement
>> that AWE
>> can be used only if you have more than 4GB physical memory. As the
>> data at
>> the link indicate that setting AWE has an impact on SQL Server memory
>> consumption even with 4GB physical memory. And if you want your bpool
>> to
>> consume a certain amount of memory under 4GB, you may need to use AWE
>> to
>> accomplish that.
>> Now, whether or not you should use AWE with less than 4GB of physical
>> memory
>> or whether there is any compelling rason for doing so are entirely
>> different
>> issue.
>> Linchi
>> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>>> Hello Linchi,
>>>
>>> If I remember correct for a server with 4 GB RAM running in SQL
>>> Server 2005
>>> 32 bit and Windows 2003 Advanced, all I did is just /3GB switch in
>>> Boot.ini
>>> to
>>> use 3 GB RAM. I will take a look into the server on Moday and keep
>>> you
>>> posted
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Hari
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>>> message
>>> news:45A920F2-86E6-4A86-A1B1-8306C3077E8B@.microsoft.com...
>>> >> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory.
>>> >
>>> > That's not correct. Take a look at some empirical data at
>>> > http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea/default.aspx?p=2
>>> >
>>> > Linchi
>>> >
>>> > "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Hello,
>>> >>
>>> >> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory.
>>> >> But The
>>> >> /3GB switch is used to tell SQL Server to take advantage of 3GB
>>> >> out of
>>> >> the
>>> >> base 4GB
>>> >> of RAM that Windows OS supports natively. If you don't specify
>>> >> this
>>> >> option,
>>> >> then SQL Server will only take advantage of 2GB of the first 4GB
>>> >> of RAM
>>> >> in
>>> >> the
>>> >> server, essentially wasting 1GB of RAM
>>> >>
>>> >> Please post the OS and SQL Server edition. This is because For
>>> >> SQL Server
>>> >> 2005 - 64 bit running in Windows 2003 you donot want any changes
>>> >> in
>>> >> BOOT.INI
>>> >> to use the additional RAM.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks
>>> >> Hari
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
>>> >> news:OEze$NnfHHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> >> > Hi,
>>> >> > Imagine that my server has 4GB physical memory. I have added
>>> >> > /3GB
>>> >> > switch
>>> >> > to boot.ini.
>>> >> > Should I enable AWE configuration for my SQL Server to use 3 GB
>>> >> > address
>>> >> > space? Or AWE must only be used when I have more than 4GB
>>> >> > memory?
>>> >> > Thanks in advance,
>>> >> > Leila
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>|||Really helpful! Thanks :)
"John Vandervliet" <jvandervliet@.SJRB.AD> wrote in message
news:AC095E1D-35EF-4CED-9644-B437DE3787E2@.microsoft.com...
> Hello Leila,
> I'll walk through how windows allocates the RAM and how SQL Server uses
> the RAM and let me know if you have further questions.
> In a 32-bit OS only 4GB is directly addressable. The standard
> configuration is for the OS to use 2GB and SQL to use 2GB of RAM. To
> increase the available RAM for SQL you can enable the /3GB, PAE (physical
> address extensions), or AWE (address windowing extensions).
> The /3GB switch tells the OS to use 1GB of RAM leaving the rest to SQL if
> you so choose. With the addition of the /PAE switch with server gets still
> gets 1GB of RAM but SQL only gets 2GB, the other 1GB is used to map RAM
> above the 4GB limit. At this point you use AWE on the SQL server to enable
> it to see the RAM above the 4GB limit.
> Note you should start thinking about replacing the server with a 64-bit
> server as I believe Windows will be shipping only 64-bit in 3 years.
> John Vandervliet.
>
> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:OzE9z9FgHHA.3632@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> If I have 5GB memory and I use both /PAE and /3GB, then SQL Server can
>> use up to 4GB memory and this is not beyond 32-bit addressing. Why should
>> I enable AWE for SQL Server?
>>
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> news:utisfW8fHHA.668@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Depends on how much you want for SQL Server. If you want more than 3GB
>> you must use AWE (in addition to PAE) on 32 bit systems. In either case
>> you should always leave at least a GB for the OS when using AWE since it
>> is not dynamic. 2GB if going over 12GB total. The /3GB is optional
>> depending on how much you need for non-buffer pool memory such as
>> procedure cache, connections etc.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> news:%2399LSA4fHHA.2396@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks indeed Andrew :-)
>> Now these two conditions:
>> 1) 5GB RAM + /PAE switch + /3GB switch
>> 2) 6GB RAM + /PAE switch
>> Can I say that neither of these situations need AWE for SQL Server?
>>
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> news:uW%23DbP3fHHA.4936@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> That is correct and the most recommended approach with 4GB.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> news:ucNNgjyfHHA.2640@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks Hari and Linchi!
>> Based on documents that I have read, /3GB causes that kernel mode use
>> only 1GB and Virtual Address Space for applications therefore can
>> reserve up to 3GB. Whereas 32-bit based Windows can address up to 4GB
>> of memory, therefore I think by using /3GB switch we don't need to
>> enable AWE for SQL Server to use 3GB. Because we are not beyond the
>> 4GB limit of addressing in this situation.
>>
>> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:F6FB03D7-3B0F-4CD1-B2A2-BBFD660502EE@.microsoft.com...
>>> Hari;
>>>
>>> My comment had nothing to do with whether /3GB is used, how it
>>> should be
>>> used, or what impact it may have. I was commenting on the statement
>>> that AWE
>>> can be used only if you have more than 4GB physical memory. As the
>>> data at
>>> the link indicate that setting AWE has an impact on SQL Server
>>> memory
>>> consumption even with 4GB physical memory. And if you want your
>>> bpool to
>>> consume a certain amount of memory under 4GB, you may need to use
>>> AWE to
>>> accomplish that.
>>>
>>> Now, whether or not you should use AWE with less than 4GB of
>>> physical memory
>>> or whether there is any compelling rason for doing so are entirely
>>> different
>>> issue.
>>>
>>> Linchi
>>>
>>> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Linchi,
>>>
>>> If I remember correct for a server with 4 GB RAM running in SQL
>>> Server 2005
>>> 32 bit and Windows 2003 Advanced, all I did is just /3GB switch in
>>> Boot.ini
>>> to
>>> use 3 GB RAM. I will take a look into the server on Moday and keep
>>> you
>>> posted
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Hari
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>>> message
>>> news:45A920F2-86E6-4A86-A1B1-8306C3077E8B@.microsoft.com...
>>> >> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory.
>>> >
>>> > That's not correct. Take a look at some empirical data at
>>> > http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea/default.aspx?p=2
>>> >
>>> > Linchi
>>> >
>>> > "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Hello,
>>> >>
>>> >> AWE can be used only if you have more than 4 GB physical memory.
>>> >> But The
>>> >> /3GB switch is used to tell SQL Server to take advantage of 3GB
>>> >> out of
>>> >> the
>>> >> base 4GB
>>> >> of RAM that Windows OS supports natively. If you don't specify
>>> >> this
>>> >> option,
>>> >> then SQL Server will only take advantage of 2GB of the first 4GB
>>> >> of RAM
>>> >> in
>>> >> the
>>> >> server, essentially wasting 1GB of RAM
>>> >>
>>> >> Please post the OS and SQL Server edition. This is because For
>>> >> SQL Server
>>> >> 2005 - 64 bit running in Windows 2003 you donot want any changes
>>> >> in
>>> >> BOOT.INI
>>> >> to use the additional RAM.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks
>>> >> Hari
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
>>> >> news:OEze$NnfHHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> >> > Hi,
>>> >> > Imagine that my server has 4GB physical memory. I have added
>>> >> > /3GB
>>> >> > switch
>>> >> > to boot.ini.
>>> >> > Should I enable AWE configuration for my SQL Server to use 3
>>> >> > GB address
>>> >> > space? Or AWE must only be used when I have more than 4GB
>>> >> > memory?
>>> >> > Thanks in advance,
>>> >> > Leila
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)