I'm using sqlserver 2005 developer edition.
Unlike databases, there appears to be no way, in Management Studio, to back
up ReportSever.
How is it done?
--
Regards,
Gary BlakelyHi Gary,
Thank you for your posting!
You could backup the ReportServer database as you backup other databases.
In the databases, right-click ReportServer and then click Back up. Then you
could backup the Reporty Server Database.
Here is an article for your reference:
Back Up Database (General Page)
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms183383(d=ide).aspx
Hope this will be helpful!
Sincerely,
Wei Lu
Microsoft Online Community Support
==================================================
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
==================================================This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Showing posts with label edition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label edition. Show all posts
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Backing up a database?
I've got two developers that are working on a asp.net app that use SQL
Server 2000. They've both got the developer edition on each of their PCs.
I'd like to know what is the best way to "backup" the database so that 1) we
can put this backup on the server so our tape backup picks it up each night
and 2) so a developer can "synch" his version of the database with the other
developer (i.e. developer A does a backup and stores it on a network share
then developer B uses that backup to recreate developer a's database on his
PC).
I've used the backup command, and it seems that it does backup the data and
the schema to a location on the local disk. Then I copied that to the other
developer's PC and did a restore into a new database. That worked well, but
when I tried to restore the same backup file into a second new database on
the other developer's PC, SQL Server complained that the first database
(that I restored to) was using this file. So, something just seemed odd
about that. I also see there is an export wizard, but it seemed like that
was geared towards exporting the raw data to some other format.
Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks!
Yikes. What happens when you have 5 developers? 20? 50? Maintaining that
many development databases will be a nightmare!
Here are my suggestions:
Buy a development database server that everyone can use.
Obtain a source control product such as Visual Source Safe.
When a developer creates a stored procedure or view have them create the
text for the object using Query Analyzer. Save the script to a file (with
the same name as the object) and have him check the file into VSS. When you
need to modify an object grab the script from source control, make the
change, create/recreate the object within the database, save the script
file, and check it back in to source control (with comments of course).
That will give you the ability to know what changed, who changed it, and
why.
Start backing up your database and your source control repository. Make
sure that they get to tape.
Keith
"epigram" <nospam@.spammy.com> wrote in message
news:1111753952.477f69973b1b43c598d9c65d29aec71a@.b ubbanews...
> I've got two developers that are working on a asp.net app that use SQL
> Server 2000. They've both got the developer edition on each of their PCs.
> I'd like to know what is the best way to "backup" the database so that 1)
we
> can put this backup on the server so our tape backup picks it up each
night
> and 2) so a developer can "synch" his version of the database with the
other
> developer (i.e. developer A does a backup and stores it on a network share
> then developer B uses that backup to recreate developer a's database on
his
> PC).
> I've used the backup command, and it seems that it does backup the data
and
> the schema to a location on the local disk. Then I copied that to the
other
> developer's PC and did a restore into a new database. That worked well,
but
> when I tried to restore the same backup file into a second new database on
> the other developer's PC, SQL Server complained that the first database
> (that I restored to) was using this file. So, something just seemed odd
> about that. I also see there is an export wizard, but it seemed like that
> was geared towards exporting the raw data to some other format.
> Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks!
>
Server 2000. They've both got the developer edition on each of their PCs.
I'd like to know what is the best way to "backup" the database so that 1) we
can put this backup on the server so our tape backup picks it up each night
and 2) so a developer can "synch" his version of the database with the other
developer (i.e. developer A does a backup and stores it on a network share
then developer B uses that backup to recreate developer a's database on his
PC).
I've used the backup command, and it seems that it does backup the data and
the schema to a location on the local disk. Then I copied that to the other
developer's PC and did a restore into a new database. That worked well, but
when I tried to restore the same backup file into a second new database on
the other developer's PC, SQL Server complained that the first database
(that I restored to) was using this file. So, something just seemed odd
about that. I also see there is an export wizard, but it seemed like that
was geared towards exporting the raw data to some other format.
Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks!
Yikes. What happens when you have 5 developers? 20? 50? Maintaining that
many development databases will be a nightmare!
Here are my suggestions:
Buy a development database server that everyone can use.
Obtain a source control product such as Visual Source Safe.
When a developer creates a stored procedure or view have them create the
text for the object using Query Analyzer. Save the script to a file (with
the same name as the object) and have him check the file into VSS. When you
need to modify an object grab the script from source control, make the
change, create/recreate the object within the database, save the script
file, and check it back in to source control (with comments of course).
That will give you the ability to know what changed, who changed it, and
why.
Start backing up your database and your source control repository. Make
sure that they get to tape.
Keith
"epigram" <nospam@.spammy.com> wrote in message
news:1111753952.477f69973b1b43c598d9c65d29aec71a@.b ubbanews...
> I've got two developers that are working on a asp.net app that use SQL
> Server 2000. They've both got the developer edition on each of their PCs.
> I'd like to know what is the best way to "backup" the database so that 1)
we
> can put this backup on the server so our tape backup picks it up each
night
> and 2) so a developer can "synch" his version of the database with the
other
> developer (i.e. developer A does a backup and stores it on a network share
> then developer B uses that backup to recreate developer a's database on
his
> PC).
> I've used the backup command, and it seems that it does backup the data
and
> the schema to a location on the local disk. Then I copied that to the
other
> developer's PC and did a restore into a new database. That worked well,
but
> when I tried to restore the same backup file into a second new database on
> the other developer's PC, SQL Server complained that the first database
> (that I restored to) was using this file. So, something just seemed odd
> about that. I also see there is an export wizard, but it seemed like that
> was geared towards exporting the raw data to some other format.
> Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks!
>
Backing up a database?
I've got two developers that are working on a asp.net app that use SQL
Server 2000. They've both got the developer edition on each of their PCs.
I'd like to know what is the best way to "backup" the database so that 1) we
can put this backup on the server so our tape backup picks it up each night
and 2) so a developer can "synch" his version of the database with the other
developer (i.e. developer A does a backup and stores it on a network share
then developer B uses that backup to recreate developer a's database on his
PC).
I've used the backup command, and it seems that it does backup the data and
the schema to a location on the local disk. Then I copied that to the other
developer's PC and did a restore into a new database. That worked well, but
when I tried to restore the same backup file into a second new database on
the other developer's PC, SQL Server complained that the first database
(that I restored to) was using this file. So, something just seemed odd
about that. I also see there is an export wizard, but it seemed like that
was geared towards exporting the raw data to some other format.
Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks!Yikes. What happens when you have 5 developers? 20? 50? Maintaining that
many development databases will be a nightmare!
Here are my suggestions:
Buy a development database server that everyone can use.
Obtain a source control product such as Visual Source Safe.
When a developer creates a stored procedure or view have them create the
text for the object using Query Analyzer. Save the script to a file (with
the same name as the object) and have him check the file into VSS. When you
need to modify an object grab the script from source control, make the
change, create/recreate the object within the database, save the script
file, and check it back in to source control (with comments of course).
That will give you the ability to know what changed, who changed it, and
why.
Start backing up your database and your source control repository. Make
sure that they get to tape.
Keith
"epigram" <nospam@.spammy.com> wrote in message
news:1111753952.477f69973b1b43c598d9c65d29aec71a@.bubbanews...
> I've got two developers that are working on a asp.net app that use SQL
> Server 2000. They've both got the developer edition on each of their PCs.
> I'd like to know what is the best way to "backup" the database so that 1)
we
> can put this backup on the server so our tape backup picks it up each
night
> and 2) so a developer can "synch" his version of the database with the
other
> developer (i.e. developer A does a backup and stores it on a network share
> then developer B uses that backup to recreate developer a's database on
his
> PC).
> I've used the backup command, and it seems that it does backup the data
and
> the schema to a location on the local disk. Then I copied that to the
other
> developer's PC and did a restore into a new database. That worked well,
but
> when I tried to restore the same backup file into a second new database on
> the other developer's PC, SQL Server complained that the first database
> (that I restored to) was using this file. So, something just seemed odd
> about that. I also see there is an export wizard, but it seemed like that
> was geared towards exporting the raw data to some other format.
> Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks!
>
Server 2000. They've both got the developer edition on each of their PCs.
I'd like to know what is the best way to "backup" the database so that 1) we
can put this backup on the server so our tape backup picks it up each night
and 2) so a developer can "synch" his version of the database with the other
developer (i.e. developer A does a backup and stores it on a network share
then developer B uses that backup to recreate developer a's database on his
PC).
I've used the backup command, and it seems that it does backup the data and
the schema to a location on the local disk. Then I copied that to the other
developer's PC and did a restore into a new database. That worked well, but
when I tried to restore the same backup file into a second new database on
the other developer's PC, SQL Server complained that the first database
(that I restored to) was using this file. So, something just seemed odd
about that. I also see there is an export wizard, but it seemed like that
was geared towards exporting the raw data to some other format.
Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks!Yikes. What happens when you have 5 developers? 20? 50? Maintaining that
many development databases will be a nightmare!
Here are my suggestions:
Buy a development database server that everyone can use.
Obtain a source control product such as Visual Source Safe.
When a developer creates a stored procedure or view have them create the
text for the object using Query Analyzer. Save the script to a file (with
the same name as the object) and have him check the file into VSS. When you
need to modify an object grab the script from source control, make the
change, create/recreate the object within the database, save the script
file, and check it back in to source control (with comments of course).
That will give you the ability to know what changed, who changed it, and
why.
Start backing up your database and your source control repository. Make
sure that they get to tape.
Keith
"epigram" <nospam@.spammy.com> wrote in message
news:1111753952.477f69973b1b43c598d9c65d29aec71a@.bubbanews...
> I've got two developers that are working on a asp.net app that use SQL
> Server 2000. They've both got the developer edition on each of their PCs.
> I'd like to know what is the best way to "backup" the database so that 1)
we
> can put this backup on the server so our tape backup picks it up each
night
> and 2) so a developer can "synch" his version of the database with the
other
> developer (i.e. developer A does a backup and stores it on a network share
> then developer B uses that backup to recreate developer a's database on
his
> PC).
> I've used the backup command, and it seems that it does backup the data
and
> the schema to a location on the local disk. Then I copied that to the
other
> developer's PC and did a restore into a new database. That worked well,
but
> when I tried to restore the same backup file into a second new database on
> the other developer's PC, SQL Server complained that the first database
> (that I restored to) was using this file. So, something just seemed odd
> about that. I also see there is an export wizard, but it seemed like that
> was geared towards exporting the raw data to some other format.
> Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks!
>
Backing up a database?
I've got two developers that are working on a asp.net app that use SQL
Server 2000. They've both got the developer edition on each of their PCs.
I'd like to know what is the best way to "backup" the database so that 1) we
can put this backup on the server so our tape backup picks it up each night
and 2) so a developer can "synch" his version of the database with the other
developer (i.e. developer A does a backup and stores it on a network share
then developer B uses that backup to recreate developer a's database on his
PC).
I've used the backup command, and it seems that it does backup the data and
the schema to a location on the local disk. Then I copied that to the other
developer's PC and did a restore into a new database. That worked well, but
when I tried to restore the same backup file into a second new database on
the other developer's PC, SQL Server complained that the first database
(that I restored to) was using this file. So, something just seemed odd
about that. I also see there is an export wizard, but it seemed like that
was geared towards exporting the raw data to some other format.
Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks!Yikes. What happens when you have 5 developers? 20? 50? Maintaining that
many development databases will be a nightmare!
Here are my suggestions:
Buy a development database server that everyone can use.
Obtain a source control product such as Visual Source Safe.
When a developer creates a stored procedure or view have them create the
text for the object using Query Analyzer. Save the script to a file (with
the same name as the object) and have him check the file into VSS. When you
need to modify an object grab the script from source control, make the
change, create/recreate the object within the database, save the script
file, and check it back in to source control (with comments of course).
That will give you the ability to know what changed, who changed it, and
why.
Start backing up your database and your source control repository. Make
sure that they get to tape.
Keith
"epigram" <nospam@.spammy.com> wrote in message
news:1111753952. 477f69973b1b43c598d9c65d29aec71a@.bubbane
ws...
> I've got two developers that are working on a asp.net app that use SQL
> Server 2000. They've both got the developer edition on each of their PCs.
> I'd like to know what is the best way to "backup" the database so that 1)
we
> can put this backup on the server so our tape backup picks it up each
night
> and 2) so a developer can "synch" his version of the database with the
other
> developer (i.e. developer A does a backup and stores it on a network share
> then developer B uses that backup to recreate developer a's database on
his
> PC).
> I've used the backup command, and it seems that it does backup the data
and
> the schema to a location on the local disk. Then I copied that to the
other
> developer's PC and did a restore into a new database. That worked well,
but
> when I tried to restore the same backup file into a second new database on
> the other developer's PC, SQL Server complained that the first database
> (that I restored to) was using this file. So, something just seemed odd
> about that. I also see there is an export wizard, but it seemed like that
> was geared towards exporting the raw data to some other format.
> Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks!
>
Server 2000. They've both got the developer edition on each of their PCs.
I'd like to know what is the best way to "backup" the database so that 1) we
can put this backup on the server so our tape backup picks it up each night
and 2) so a developer can "synch" his version of the database with the other
developer (i.e. developer A does a backup and stores it on a network share
then developer B uses that backup to recreate developer a's database on his
PC).
I've used the backup command, and it seems that it does backup the data and
the schema to a location on the local disk. Then I copied that to the other
developer's PC and did a restore into a new database. That worked well, but
when I tried to restore the same backup file into a second new database on
the other developer's PC, SQL Server complained that the first database
(that I restored to) was using this file. So, something just seemed odd
about that. I also see there is an export wizard, but it seemed like that
was geared towards exporting the raw data to some other format.
Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks!Yikes. What happens when you have 5 developers? 20? 50? Maintaining that
many development databases will be a nightmare!
Here are my suggestions:
Buy a development database server that everyone can use.
Obtain a source control product such as Visual Source Safe.
When a developer creates a stored procedure or view have them create the
text for the object using Query Analyzer. Save the script to a file (with
the same name as the object) and have him check the file into VSS. When you
need to modify an object grab the script from source control, make the
change, create/recreate the object within the database, save the script
file, and check it back in to source control (with comments of course).
That will give you the ability to know what changed, who changed it, and
why.
Start backing up your database and your source control repository. Make
sure that they get to tape.
Keith
"epigram" <nospam@.spammy.com> wrote in message
news:1111753952. 477f69973b1b43c598d9c65d29aec71a@.bubbane
ws...
> I've got two developers that are working on a asp.net app that use SQL
> Server 2000. They've both got the developer edition on each of their PCs.
> I'd like to know what is the best way to "backup" the database so that 1)
we
> can put this backup on the server so our tape backup picks it up each
night
> and 2) so a developer can "synch" his version of the database with the
other
> developer (i.e. developer A does a backup and stores it on a network share
> then developer B uses that backup to recreate developer a's database on
his
> PC).
> I've used the backup command, and it seems that it does backup the data
and
> the schema to a location on the local disk. Then I copied that to the
other
> developer's PC and did a restore into a new database. That worked well,
but
> when I tried to restore the same backup file into a second new database on
> the other developer's PC, SQL Server complained that the first database
> (that I restored to) was using this file. So, something just seemed odd
> about that. I also see there is an export wizard, but it seemed like that
> was geared towards exporting the raw data to some other format.
> Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks!
>
Monday, March 19, 2012
Back or restore operation terminating abnormally
Hi all,
Microsoft SQL Server 7.00 - 7.00.1094 (Intel X86) May 29 2003 15:21:25
Copyright (c) 1988-2002 Microsoft Corporation Enterprise Edition on
Windows NT 5.0 (Build 2195: Service Pack 4)
using windows system login, Loged in as Administrator, have full rights.
Getting the following Error message when trying to restore a database?
Back or restore operation terminating abnormally. SQLDumpExceptionhandler:
process 9 generated Fatal excetion c0000005 Exception_Access_Violation.
SQL Server is terminating this process.
No luck searching on this error. what I did find didn't help.
thanks
gvgv
I see that you do that from .NET application.
When you run the same statement from QA do you get the same error?
Can you show us you RESTORE command?
"gv" <viatorg@.musc.edu> wrote in message
news:uXJNhiWOFHA.2680@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> Microsoft SQL Server 7.00 - 7.00.1094 (Intel X86) May 29 2003 15:21:25
> Copyright (c) 1988-2002 Microsoft Corporation Enterprise Edition on
> Windows NT 5.0 (Build 2195: Service Pack 4)
> using windows system login, Loged in as Administrator, have full rights.
> Getting the following Error message when trying to restore a database?
> Back or restore operation terminating abnormally. SQLDumpExceptionhandler:
> process 9 generated Fatal excetion c0000005 Exception_Access_Violation.
> SQL Server is terminating this process.
> No luck searching on this error. what I did find didn't help.
> thanks
> gv
>
Microsoft SQL Server 7.00 - 7.00.1094 (Intel X86) May 29 2003 15:21:25
Copyright (c) 1988-2002 Microsoft Corporation Enterprise Edition on
Windows NT 5.0 (Build 2195: Service Pack 4)
using windows system login, Loged in as Administrator, have full rights.
Getting the following Error message when trying to restore a database?
Back or restore operation terminating abnormally. SQLDumpExceptionhandler:
process 9 generated Fatal excetion c0000005 Exception_Access_Violation.
SQL Server is terminating this process.
No luck searching on this error. what I did find didn't help.
thanks
gvgv
I see that you do that from .NET application.
When you run the same statement from QA do you get the same error?
Can you show us you RESTORE command?
"gv" <viatorg@.musc.edu> wrote in message
news:uXJNhiWOFHA.2680@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> Microsoft SQL Server 7.00 - 7.00.1094 (Intel X86) May 29 2003 15:21:25
> Copyright (c) 1988-2002 Microsoft Corporation Enterprise Edition on
> Windows NT 5.0 (Build 2195: Service Pack 4)
> using windows system login, Loged in as Administrator, have full rights.
> Getting the following Error message when trying to restore a database?
> Back or restore operation terminating abnormally. SQLDumpExceptionhandler:
> process 9 generated Fatal excetion c0000005 Exception_Access_Violation.
> SQL Server is terminating this process.
> No luck searching on this error. what I did find didn't help.
> thanks
> gv
>
Sunday, March 11, 2012
AWE upper memory limit
Hi,
I have a question that I hope someone can help me with.
I am running SQL Server 2005 on a Windows 2003 Standard edition (x32). I have 6GB of memory in it but have realised that Windows can't use more than 4GB (I have enabled /PAE and /3GB in the boot.ini).
My question is:
Can SQL Server make use of the extra memory I have in the server? Otherwise I guess it is pointless having more than 4GB in there.
Thank you for your help!
Kind Regards
Stefan Ghose
Hello Stefan -
The way memory is used between 32-bit processors, the various Windows operating systems and SQL Server can be confusing. Because of 32-bit architectures and software design decisions, the first 2GB of RAM in a Windows 2000 or 2003 server is directly addressable by applications like SQL Server. That means that query plans, memory buffers and the like all go in this space. No changes are needed in any configurations, either at the OS or SQL Server level.
With the /3GB switch turned on in the BOOT.INI file, SQL Server increases this base limit to 3GB. This is great for SQL Server, but if you have other apps on your server, it can starve the OS, leaving only 1GB for all operations. Experts are divided on whether this is a good thing. I turn it on when the box is dedicated to SQL Server, and watch for errors in the event logs. If I see memory or I/O errors, or if the box becomes unstable in testing, I turn it off.
If you have 4GB in your server as you've indicated, that's all you need to do. Inside of SQL Server, I also recommend setting a floor and ceiling limit of 3GB, so it doesn't have to dynamically manage the RAM. That just saves a few ops, which is always a good thing. Again, I only do this if SQL Server is the only app on the box.
If you have over 4GB of RAM on the server, SQL Server needs a few things to use it. First, you have to enable the /PAE switch in the BOOT.INI file. Next, you need to set the SQL Server to use AWE memory. With these two things configured, the server will use the space above 4GB as a read-ahead buffer. It doesn't help much with query plans and those sorts of base memory operations, but it will speed up large queries.
Buck Woody
|||Thanks Buck!!
That was just what I was looking for... another thing... since I already have enabled AWE on my SQL server do I need to do anything with Max memory usage? Or can I just leave it at its default value?
Kind Regards
Stefan Ghose
|||The default is fine - you have it dynamic, I assume?Thursday, March 8, 2012
AWE RAM (SQL 2K not recognizing available AWE RAM)
I have a server with SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition with SP3.
The boot.ini is set with /3gb /PAE. The server system properties list 8GB of RAM. Within SQL Server sp_configure AWE running is set to 1. SQL Server Memory properties the Maximum is set to 5.12 GB. But SQL Server does not recognize AWE setting.
I look in the SQL Server errorlog after the server was rebooted and did not list AWE memory settings.
The Server Performance Monitor Counter under SQL Server Memory Manager with Target Server Memory list 2.7GB.
This should be 5.12 GB of memory for SQL Server.
Please help me resolve this problem.
Mike
__________________________________________________________
[boot loader]
timeout=10
default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT
[operating systems]
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT="Microsoft
Windows 2000 Advanced Server" /fastdetect /3gb /PAE
___________________________________________________________
sp_configure "show advanced options", 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure "awe enabled", 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure "max server memory", 5120
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure "min server memory", 0
RECONFIGURE
GO
___________________________________________________________
Output from SP_CONFIGURE
name minimum
maximum config_value run_value
-- -- --
-- --
affinity mask -2147483648
2147483647 0 0
allow updates 0
1 0 0
awe enabled 0
1 1 1
c2 audit mode 0
1 0 0
cost threshold for parallelism 0
32767 5 5
Cross DB Ownership Chaining 0
1 0 0
cursor threshold -1
2147483647 -1 -1
default full-text language 0
2147483647 1033 1033
default language 0
9999 0 0
fill factor (%) 0
100 0 0
index create memory (KB) 704
2147483647 0 0
lightweight pooling 0
1 0 0
locks 5000
2147483647 0 0
max degree of parallelism 0
32 0 0
max server memory (MB) 4
2147483647 5120 5120
max text repl size (B) 0
2147483647 65536 65536
max worker threads 32
32767 255 255
media retention 0
365 0 0
min memory per query (KB) 512
2147483647 1024 1024
min server memory (MB) 0
2147483647 0 0
nested triggers 0
1 1 1
network packet size (B) 512
65536 4096 4096
open objects 0
2147483647 0 0
priority boost 0
1 0 0
query governor cost limit 0
2147483647 0 0
query wait (s) -1
2147483647 -1 -1
recovery interval (min) 0
32767 0 0
remote access 0
1 1 1
remote login timeout (s) 0
2147483647 20 20
remote proc trans 0
1 0 0
remote query timeout (s) 0
2147483647 600 600
scan for startup procs 0
1 1 0
set working set size 0
1 0 0
show advanced options 0
1 1 1
two digit year cutoff 1753
9999 2049 2049
user connections 0
32767 0 0
user options 0
32767 56 56> I have a server with SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition
> with SP3. The boot.ini is set with /3gb /PAE. The server
> system properties list 8GB of RAM. Within SQL Server
> sp_configure AWE running is set to 1. SQL Server Memory
> properties the Maximum is set to 5.12 GB. But SQL Server
> does not recognize AWE setting. I look in the SQL Server
> errorlog after the server was rebooted and did not list
> AWE memory settings. The Server Performance Monitor
> Counter under SQL Server Memory Manager with Target Server
> Memory list 2.7GB. This should be 5.12 GB of memory for
> SQL Server.
> Please help me resolve this problem.
> Mike
> __________________________________________________________
> [boot loader]
> timeout=10
> default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT
> [operating systems]
> multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT="Microsoft
> Windows 2000 Advanced Server" /fastdetect /3gb /PAE
> ___________________________________________________________
> sp_configure "show advanced options", 1
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> sp_configure "awe enabled", 1
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> sp_configure "max server memory", 5120
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> sp_configure "min server memory", 0
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> ___________________________________________________________
> Output from SP_CONFIGURE
> name minimum
> maximum config_value run_value
> -- -- --
> -- --
> affinity mask -2147483648
> 2147483647 0 0
> allow updates 0
> 1 0 0
> awe enabled 0
> 1 1 1
> c2 audit mode 0
> 1 0 0
> cost threshold for parallelism 0
> 32767 5 5
> Cross DB Ownership Chaining 0
> 1 0 0
> cursor threshold -1
> 2147483647 -1 -1
> default full-text language 0
> 2147483647 1033 1033
> default language 0
> 9999 0 0
> fill factor (%) 0
> 100 0 0
> index create memory (KB) 704
> 2147483647 0 0
> lightweight pooling 0
> 1 0 0
> locks 5000
> 2147483647 0 0
> max degree of parallelism 0
> 32 0 0
> max server memory (MB) 4
> 2147483647 5120 5120
> max text repl size (B) 0
> 2147483647 65536 65536
> max worker threads 32
> 32767 255 255
> media retention 0
> 365 0 0
> min memory per query (KB) 512
> 2147483647 1024 1024
> min server memory (MB) 0
> 2147483647 0 0
> nested triggers 0
> 1 1 1
> network packet size (B) 512
> 65536 4096 4096
> open objects 0
> 2147483647 0 0
> priority boost 0
> 1 0 0
> query governor cost limit 0
> 2147483647 0 0
> query wait (s) -1
> 2147483647 -1 -1
> recovery interval (min) 0
> 32767 0 0
> remote access 0
> 1 1 1
> remote login timeout (s) 0
> 2147483647 20 20
> remote proc trans 0
> 1 0 0
> remote query timeout (s) 0
> 2147483647 600 600
> scan for startup procs 0
> 1 1 0
> set working set size 0
> 1 0 0
> show advanced options 0
> 1 1 1
> two digit year cutoff 1753
> 9999 2049 2049
> user connections 0
> 32767 0 0
> user options 0
> 32767 56 56
--
Hi Mike,
Check that the SQL Server startup account has the ?Lock Pages in Memory?
privilege:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/adminsql/ad
_1_server_1fnd.asp
--
Eric Cárdenas
Senior support professional
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||I already suggested that...
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Eric Cárdenas [MSFT]" <ecardena@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:dAsRybjNEHA.308@.cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl...
> > I have a server with SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition
> > with SP3. The boot.ini is set with /3gb /PAE. The server
> > system properties list 8GB of RAM. Within SQL Server
> > sp_configure AWE running is set to 1. SQL Server Memory
> > properties the Maximum is set to 5.12 GB. But SQL Server
> > does not recognize AWE setting. I look in the SQL Server
> > errorlog after the server was rebooted and did not list
> > AWE memory settings. The Server Performance Monitor
> > Counter under SQL Server Memory Manager with Target Server
> > Memory list 2.7GB. This should be 5.12 GB of memory for
> > SQL Server.
> >
> > Please help me resolve this problem.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > __________________________________________________________
> > [boot loader]
> > timeout=10
> > default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT
> > [operating systems]
> > multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT="Microsoft
> > Windows 2000 Advanced Server" /fastdetect /3gb /PAE
> > ___________________________________________________________
> > sp_configure "show advanced options", 1
> > RECONFIGURE
> > GO
> > sp_configure "awe enabled", 1
> > RECONFIGURE
> > GO
> > sp_configure "max server memory", 5120
> > RECONFIGURE
> > GO
> > sp_configure "min server memory", 0
> > RECONFIGURE
> > GO
> > ___________________________________________________________
> > Output from SP_CONFIGURE
> > name minimum
> > maximum config_value run_value
> > -- -- --
> > -- --
> > affinity mask -2147483648
> > 2147483647 0 0
> > allow updates 0
> > 1 0 0
> > awe enabled 0
> > 1 1 1
> > c2 audit mode 0
> > 1 0 0
> > cost threshold for parallelism 0
> > 32767 5 5
> > Cross DB Ownership Chaining 0
> > 1 0 0
> > cursor threshold -1
> > 2147483647 -1 -1
> > default full-text language 0
> > 2147483647 1033 1033
> > default language 0
> > 9999 0 0
> > fill factor (%) 0
> > 100 0 0
> > index create memory (KB) 704
> > 2147483647 0 0
> > lightweight pooling 0
> > 1 0 0
> > locks 5000
> > 2147483647 0 0
> > max degree of parallelism 0
> > 32 0 0
> > max server memory (MB) 4
> > 2147483647 5120 5120
> > max text repl size (B) 0
> > 2147483647 65536 65536
> > max worker threads 32
> > 32767 255 255
> > media retention 0
> > 365 0 0
> > min memory per query (KB) 512
> > 2147483647 1024 1024
> > min server memory (MB) 0
> > 2147483647 0 0
> > nested triggers 0
> > 1 1 1
> > network packet size (B) 512
> > 65536 4096 4096
> > open objects 0
> > 2147483647 0 0
> > priority boost 0
> > 1 0 0
> > query governor cost limit 0
> > 2147483647 0 0
> > query wait (s) -1
> > 2147483647 -1 -1
> > recovery interval (min) 0
> > 32767 0 0
> > remote access 0
> > 1 1 1
> > remote login timeout (s) 0
> > 2147483647 20 20
> > remote proc trans 0
> > 1 0 0
> > remote query timeout (s) 0
> > 2147483647 600 600
> > scan for startup procs 0
> > 1 1 0
> > set working set size 0
> > 1 0 0
> > show advanced options 0
> > 1 1 1
> > two digit year cutoff 1753
> > 9999 2049 2049
> > user connections 0
> > 32767 0 0
> > user options 0
> > 32767 56 56
> --
> Hi Mike,
> Check that the SQL Server startup account has the 'Lock Pages in Memory'
> privilege:
>
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/adminsql/ad
> _1_server_1fnd.asp
> --
> Eric Cárdenas
> Senior support professional
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
>
The boot.ini is set with /3gb /PAE. The server system properties list 8GB of RAM. Within SQL Server sp_configure AWE running is set to 1. SQL Server Memory properties the Maximum is set to 5.12 GB. But SQL Server does not recognize AWE setting.
I look in the SQL Server errorlog after the server was rebooted and did not list AWE memory settings.
The Server Performance Monitor Counter under SQL Server Memory Manager with Target Server Memory list 2.7GB.
This should be 5.12 GB of memory for SQL Server.
Please help me resolve this problem.
Mike
__________________________________________________________
[boot loader]
timeout=10
default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT
[operating systems]
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT="Microsoft
Windows 2000 Advanced Server" /fastdetect /3gb /PAE
___________________________________________________________
sp_configure "show advanced options", 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure "awe enabled", 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure "max server memory", 5120
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure "min server memory", 0
RECONFIGURE
GO
___________________________________________________________
Output from SP_CONFIGURE
name minimum
maximum config_value run_value
-- -- --
-- --
affinity mask -2147483648
2147483647 0 0
allow updates 0
1 0 0
awe enabled 0
1 1 1
c2 audit mode 0
1 0 0
cost threshold for parallelism 0
32767 5 5
Cross DB Ownership Chaining 0
1 0 0
cursor threshold -1
2147483647 -1 -1
default full-text language 0
2147483647 1033 1033
default language 0
9999 0 0
fill factor (%) 0
100 0 0
index create memory (KB) 704
2147483647 0 0
lightweight pooling 0
1 0 0
locks 5000
2147483647 0 0
max degree of parallelism 0
32 0 0
max server memory (MB) 4
2147483647 5120 5120
max text repl size (B) 0
2147483647 65536 65536
max worker threads 32
32767 255 255
media retention 0
365 0 0
min memory per query (KB) 512
2147483647 1024 1024
min server memory (MB) 0
2147483647 0 0
nested triggers 0
1 1 1
network packet size (B) 512
65536 4096 4096
open objects 0
2147483647 0 0
priority boost 0
1 0 0
query governor cost limit 0
2147483647 0 0
query wait (s) -1
2147483647 -1 -1
recovery interval (min) 0
32767 0 0
remote access 0
1 1 1
remote login timeout (s) 0
2147483647 20 20
remote proc trans 0
1 0 0
remote query timeout (s) 0
2147483647 600 600
scan for startup procs 0
1 1 0
set working set size 0
1 0 0
show advanced options 0
1 1 1
two digit year cutoff 1753
9999 2049 2049
user connections 0
32767 0 0
user options 0
32767 56 56> I have a server with SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition
> with SP3. The boot.ini is set with /3gb /PAE. The server
> system properties list 8GB of RAM. Within SQL Server
> sp_configure AWE running is set to 1. SQL Server Memory
> properties the Maximum is set to 5.12 GB. But SQL Server
> does not recognize AWE setting. I look in the SQL Server
> errorlog after the server was rebooted and did not list
> AWE memory settings. The Server Performance Monitor
> Counter under SQL Server Memory Manager with Target Server
> Memory list 2.7GB. This should be 5.12 GB of memory for
> SQL Server.
> Please help me resolve this problem.
> Mike
> __________________________________________________________
> [boot loader]
> timeout=10
> default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT
> [operating systems]
> multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT="Microsoft
> Windows 2000 Advanced Server" /fastdetect /3gb /PAE
> ___________________________________________________________
> sp_configure "show advanced options", 1
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> sp_configure "awe enabled", 1
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> sp_configure "max server memory", 5120
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> sp_configure "min server memory", 0
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> ___________________________________________________________
> Output from SP_CONFIGURE
> name minimum
> maximum config_value run_value
> -- -- --
> -- --
> affinity mask -2147483648
> 2147483647 0 0
> allow updates 0
> 1 0 0
> awe enabled 0
> 1 1 1
> c2 audit mode 0
> 1 0 0
> cost threshold for parallelism 0
> 32767 5 5
> Cross DB Ownership Chaining 0
> 1 0 0
> cursor threshold -1
> 2147483647 -1 -1
> default full-text language 0
> 2147483647 1033 1033
> default language 0
> 9999 0 0
> fill factor (%) 0
> 100 0 0
> index create memory (KB) 704
> 2147483647 0 0
> lightweight pooling 0
> 1 0 0
> locks 5000
> 2147483647 0 0
> max degree of parallelism 0
> 32 0 0
> max server memory (MB) 4
> 2147483647 5120 5120
> max text repl size (B) 0
> 2147483647 65536 65536
> max worker threads 32
> 32767 255 255
> media retention 0
> 365 0 0
> min memory per query (KB) 512
> 2147483647 1024 1024
> min server memory (MB) 0
> 2147483647 0 0
> nested triggers 0
> 1 1 1
> network packet size (B) 512
> 65536 4096 4096
> open objects 0
> 2147483647 0 0
> priority boost 0
> 1 0 0
> query governor cost limit 0
> 2147483647 0 0
> query wait (s) -1
> 2147483647 -1 -1
> recovery interval (min) 0
> 32767 0 0
> remote access 0
> 1 1 1
> remote login timeout (s) 0
> 2147483647 20 20
> remote proc trans 0
> 1 0 0
> remote query timeout (s) 0
> 2147483647 600 600
> scan for startup procs 0
> 1 1 0
> set working set size 0
> 1 0 0
> show advanced options 0
> 1 1 1
> two digit year cutoff 1753
> 9999 2049 2049
> user connections 0
> 32767 0 0
> user options 0
> 32767 56 56
--
Hi Mike,
Check that the SQL Server startup account has the ?Lock Pages in Memory?
privilege:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/adminsql/ad
_1_server_1fnd.asp
--
Eric Cárdenas
Senior support professional
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||I already suggested that...
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Eric Cárdenas [MSFT]" <ecardena@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:dAsRybjNEHA.308@.cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl...
> > I have a server with SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition
> > with SP3. The boot.ini is set with /3gb /PAE. The server
> > system properties list 8GB of RAM. Within SQL Server
> > sp_configure AWE running is set to 1. SQL Server Memory
> > properties the Maximum is set to 5.12 GB. But SQL Server
> > does not recognize AWE setting. I look in the SQL Server
> > errorlog after the server was rebooted and did not list
> > AWE memory settings. The Server Performance Monitor
> > Counter under SQL Server Memory Manager with Target Server
> > Memory list 2.7GB. This should be 5.12 GB of memory for
> > SQL Server.
> >
> > Please help me resolve this problem.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > __________________________________________________________
> > [boot loader]
> > timeout=10
> > default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT
> > [operating systems]
> > multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT="Microsoft
> > Windows 2000 Advanced Server" /fastdetect /3gb /PAE
> > ___________________________________________________________
> > sp_configure "show advanced options", 1
> > RECONFIGURE
> > GO
> > sp_configure "awe enabled", 1
> > RECONFIGURE
> > GO
> > sp_configure "max server memory", 5120
> > RECONFIGURE
> > GO
> > sp_configure "min server memory", 0
> > RECONFIGURE
> > GO
> > ___________________________________________________________
> > Output from SP_CONFIGURE
> > name minimum
> > maximum config_value run_value
> > -- -- --
> > -- --
> > affinity mask -2147483648
> > 2147483647 0 0
> > allow updates 0
> > 1 0 0
> > awe enabled 0
> > 1 1 1
> > c2 audit mode 0
> > 1 0 0
> > cost threshold for parallelism 0
> > 32767 5 5
> > Cross DB Ownership Chaining 0
> > 1 0 0
> > cursor threshold -1
> > 2147483647 -1 -1
> > default full-text language 0
> > 2147483647 1033 1033
> > default language 0
> > 9999 0 0
> > fill factor (%) 0
> > 100 0 0
> > index create memory (KB) 704
> > 2147483647 0 0
> > lightweight pooling 0
> > 1 0 0
> > locks 5000
> > 2147483647 0 0
> > max degree of parallelism 0
> > 32 0 0
> > max server memory (MB) 4
> > 2147483647 5120 5120
> > max text repl size (B) 0
> > 2147483647 65536 65536
> > max worker threads 32
> > 32767 255 255
> > media retention 0
> > 365 0 0
> > min memory per query (KB) 512
> > 2147483647 1024 1024
> > min server memory (MB) 0
> > 2147483647 0 0
> > nested triggers 0
> > 1 1 1
> > network packet size (B) 512
> > 65536 4096 4096
> > open objects 0
> > 2147483647 0 0
> > priority boost 0
> > 1 0 0
> > query governor cost limit 0
> > 2147483647 0 0
> > query wait (s) -1
> > 2147483647 -1 -1
> > recovery interval (min) 0
> > 32767 0 0
> > remote access 0
> > 1 1 1
> > remote login timeout (s) 0
> > 2147483647 20 20
> > remote proc trans 0
> > 1 0 0
> > remote query timeout (s) 0
> > 2147483647 600 600
> > scan for startup procs 0
> > 1 1 0
> > set working set size 0
> > 1 0 0
> > show advanced options 0
> > 1 1 1
> > two digit year cutoff 1753
> > 9999 2049 2049
> > user connections 0
> > 32767 0 0
> > user options 0
> > 32767 56 56
> --
> Hi Mike,
> Check that the SQL Server startup account has the 'Lock Pages in Memory'
> privilege:
>
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/adminsql/ad
> _1_server_1fnd.asp
> --
> Eric Cárdenas
> Senior support professional
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
>
AWE RAM (SQL 2K not recognizing available AWE RAM)
I have a server with SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition
with SP3. The boot.ini is set with /3gb /PAE. The
server system properties list 8GB of RAM. Within SQL
Server sp_configure AWE running is set to 1. When I look
in the SQL Server error log it tells me that 8 processors
and 2048 MB RAM where detected. SQL Server Memory
properties are set with the Maximum to 5.12 GB. But SQL
Server does not recognize AWE setting. The Server
Performance Monitor Counter under SQL Server Memory
Manager with Target Server Memory list 2.7GB. This
should be 5.12 GB of memory for SQL Server.
Please help me resolve this problem.
Mike
__________________________________________________________
[boot loader]
timeout=10
default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT
[operating systems]
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT="Microsoft
Windows 2000 Advanced Server" /fastdetect /3gb /PAE
__________________________________________________________
_
sp_configure "show advanced options", 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure "awe enabled", 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure "max server memory", 5120
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure "min server memory", 0
RECONFIGURE
GO
__________________________________________________________
_
Output from SP_CONFIGURE
name minimum
maximum config_value run_value
-- -- --
-
-- --
affinity mask -2147483648
2147483647 0 0
allow updates 0
1 0 0
awe enabled 0
1 1 1
c2 audit mode 0
1 0 0
cost threshold for parallelism 0
32767 5 5
Cross DB Ownership Chaining 0
1 0 0
cursor threshold -1
2147483647 -1 -1
default full-text language 0
2147483647 1033 1033
default language 0
9999 0 0
fill factor (%) 0
100 0 0
index create memory (KB) 704
2147483647 0 0
lightweight pooling 0
1 0 0
locks 5000
2147483647 0 0
max degree of parallelism 0
32 0 0
max server memory (MB) 4
2147483647 5120 5120
max text repl size (B) 0
2147483647 65536 65536
max worker threads 32
32767 255 255
media retention 0
365 0 0
min memory per query (KB) 512
2147483647 1024 1024
min server memory (MB) 0
2147483647 0 0
nested triggers 0
1 1 1
network packet size (B) 512
65536 4096 4096
open objects 0
2147483647 0 0
priority boost 0
1 0 0
query governor cost limit 0
2147483647 0 0
query wait (s) -1
2147483647 -1 -1
recovery interval (min) 0
32767 0 0
remote access 0
1 1 1
remote login timeout (s) 0
2147483647 20 20
remote proc trans 0
1 0 0
remote query timeout (s) 0
2147483647 600 600
scan for startup procs 0
1 1 0
set working set size 0
1 0 0
show advanced options 0
1 1 1
two digit year cutoff 1753
9999 2049 2049
user connections 0
32767 0 0
user options 0
32767 56 56Do you have Lock Pages In Memory set properly? See this:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;811891&Product=sql2k
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9ede01c4349c$357f8a70$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have a server with SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition
> with SP3. The boot.ini is set with /3gb /PAE. The
> server system properties list 8GB of RAM. Within SQL
> Server sp_configure AWE running is set to 1. When I look
> in the SQL Server error log it tells me that 8 processors
> and 2048 MB RAM where detected. SQL Server Memory
> properties are set with the Maximum to 5.12 GB. But SQL
> Server does not recognize AWE setting. The Server
> Performance Monitor Counter under SQL Server Memory
> Manager with Target Server Memory list 2.7GB. This
> should be 5.12 GB of memory for SQL Server.
> Please help me resolve this problem.
> Mike
> __________________________________________________________
> [boot loader]
> timeout=10
> default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT
> [operating systems]
> multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT="Microsoft
> Windows 2000 Advanced Server" /fastdetect /3gb /PAE
> __________________________________________________________
> _
> sp_configure "show advanced options", 1
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> sp_configure "awe enabled", 1
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> sp_configure "max server memory", 5120
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> sp_configure "min server memory", 0
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> __________________________________________________________
> _
> Output from SP_CONFIGURE
> name minimum
> maximum config_value run_value
> -- -- --
> -
> -- --
> affinity mask -2147483648
> 2147483647 0 0
> allow updates 0
> 1 0 0
> awe enabled 0
> 1 1 1
> c2 audit mode 0
> 1 0 0
> cost threshold for parallelism 0
> 32767 5 5
> Cross DB Ownership Chaining 0
> 1 0 0
> cursor threshold -1
> 2147483647 -1 -1
> default full-text language 0
> 2147483647 1033 1033
> default language 0
> 9999 0 0
> fill factor (%) 0
> 100 0 0
> index create memory (KB) 704
> 2147483647 0 0
> lightweight pooling 0
> 1 0 0
> locks 5000
> 2147483647 0 0
> max degree of parallelism 0
> 32 0 0
> max server memory (MB) 4
> 2147483647 5120 5120
> max text repl size (B) 0
> 2147483647 65536 65536
> max worker threads 32
> 32767 255 255
> media retention 0
> 365 0 0
> min memory per query (KB) 512
> 2147483647 1024 1024
> min server memory (MB) 0
> 2147483647 0 0
> nested triggers 0
> 1 1 1
> network packet size (B) 512
> 65536 4096 4096
> open objects 0
> 2147483647 0 0
> priority boost 0
> 1 0 0
> query governor cost limit 0
> 2147483647 0 0
> query wait (s) -1
> 2147483647 -1 -1
> recovery interval (min) 0
> 32767 0 0
> remote access 0
> 1 1 1
> remote login timeout (s) 0
> 2147483647 20 20
> remote proc trans 0
> 1 0 0
> remote query timeout (s) 0
> 2147483647 600 600
> scan for startup procs 0
> 1 1 0
> set working set size 0
> 1 0 0
> show advanced options 0
> 1 1 1
> two digit year cutoff 1753
> 9999 2049 2049
> user connections 0
> 32767 0 0
> user options 0
> 32767 56 56
>
>|||The SQL Server service account is listed in the Lock
pages in memory is set the same way three other servers
that work correctly.
Is this server not recognizing this setting?
Please help me with this problem.
Thanks,
Mike
>--Original Message--
>Do you have Lock Pages In Memory set properly? See this:
>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-
us;811891&Product=sql2k
>--
>Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
>"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
>news:9ede01c4349c$357f8a70$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
>> I have a server with SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition
>> with SP3. The boot.ini is set with /3gb /PAE. The
>> server system properties list 8GB of RAM. Within SQL
>> Server sp_configure AWE running is set to 1. When I
look
>> in the SQL Server error log it tells me that 8
processors
>> and 2048 MB RAM where detected. SQL Server Memory
>> properties are set with the Maximum to 5.12 GB. But
SQL
>> Server does not recognize AWE setting. The Server
>> Performance Monitor Counter under SQL Server Memory
>> Manager with Target Server Memory list 2.7GB. This
>> should be 5.12 GB of memory for SQL Server.
>> Please help me resolve this problem.
>> Mike
>>
__________________________________________________________
>> [boot loader]
>> timeout=10
>> default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT
>> [operating systems]
>> multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT="Microsoft
>> Windows 2000 Advanced Server" /fastdetect /3gb /PAE
__________________________________________________________
>> _
>> sp_configure "show advanced options", 1
>> RECONFIGURE
>> GO
>> sp_configure "awe enabled", 1
>> RECONFIGURE
>> GO
>> sp_configure "max server memory", 5120
>> RECONFIGURE
>> GO
>> sp_configure "min server memory", 0
>> RECONFIGURE
>> GO
__________________________________________________________
>> _
>> Output from SP_CONFIGURE
>> name minimum
>> maximum config_value run_value
>> -- -- --
--
>> -
>> -- --
>> affinity mask -2147483648
>> 2147483647 0 0
>> allow updates 0
>> 1 0 0
>> awe enabled 0
>> 1 1 1
>> c2 audit mode 0
>> 1 0 0
>> cost threshold for parallelism 0
>> 32767 5 5
>> Cross DB Ownership Chaining 0
>> 1 0 0
>> cursor threshold -1
>> 2147483647 -1 -1
>> default full-text language 0
>> 2147483647 1033 1033
>> default language 0
>> 9999 0 0
>> fill factor (%) 0
>> 100 0 0
>> index create memory (KB) 704
>> 2147483647 0 0
>> lightweight pooling 0
>> 1 0 0
>> locks 5000
>> 2147483647 0 0
>> max degree of parallelism 0
>> 32 0 0
>> max server memory (MB) 4
>> 2147483647 5120 5120
>> max text repl size (B) 0
>> 2147483647 65536 65536
>> max worker threads 32
>> 32767 255 255
>> media retention 0
>> 365 0 0
>> min memory per query (KB) 512
>> 2147483647 1024 1024
>> min server memory (MB) 0
>> 2147483647 0 0
>> nested triggers 0
>> 1 1 1
>> network packet size (B) 512
>> 65536 4096 4096
>> open objects 0
>> 2147483647 0 0
>> priority boost 0
>> 1 0 0
>> query governor cost limit 0
>> 2147483647 0 0
>> query wait (s) -1
>> 2147483647 -1 -1
>> recovery interval (min) 0
>> 32767 0 0
>> remote access 0
>> 1 1 1
>> remote login timeout (s) 0
>> 2147483647 20 20
>> remote proc trans 0
>> 1 0 0
>> remote query timeout (s) 0
>> 2147483647 600 600
>> scan for startup procs 0
>> 1 1 0
>> set working set size 0
>> 1 0 0
>> show advanced options 0
>> 1 1 1
>> two digit year cutoff 1753
>> 9999 2049 2049
>> user connections 0
>> 32767 0 0
>> user options 0
>> 32767 56 56
>>
>>
>
>.
>|||According to the results of sp_configure your run value is still set to 0
for AWE. Did you restart the server? And are you absolutely sure you have
SQL EE? What does xp_msver show?
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:a04c01c434f9$3dde5ae0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> The SQL Server service account is listed in the Lock
> pages in memory is set the same way three other servers
> that work correctly.
> Is this server not recognizing this setting?
> Please help me with this problem.
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> >--Original Message--
> >Do you have Lock Pages In Memory set properly? See this:
> >http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-
> us;811891&Product=sql2k
> >
> >--
> >Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >
> >
> >"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message
> >news:9ede01c4349c$357f8a70$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> >>
> >> I have a server with SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition
> >> with SP3. The boot.ini is set with /3gb /PAE. The
> >> server system properties list 8GB of RAM. Within SQL
> >> Server sp_configure AWE running is set to 1. When I
> look
> >> in the SQL Server error log it tells me that 8
> processors
> >> and 2048 MB RAM where detected. SQL Server Memory
> >> properties are set with the Maximum to 5.12 GB. But
> SQL
> >> Server does not recognize AWE setting. The Server
> >> Performance Monitor Counter under SQL Server Memory
> >> Manager with Target Server Memory list 2.7GB. This
> >> should be 5.12 GB of memory for SQL Server.
> >>
> >> Please help me resolve this problem.
> >>
> >> Mike
> >>
> >>
> __________________________________________________________
> >> [boot loader]
> >> timeout=10
> >> default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT
> >> [operating systems]
> >> multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT="Microsoft
> >> Windows 2000 Advanced Server" /fastdetect /3gb /PAE
> >>
> __________________________________________________________
> >> _
> >> sp_configure "show advanced options", 1
> >> RECONFIGURE
> >> GO
> >> sp_configure "awe enabled", 1
> >> RECONFIGURE
> >> GO
> >> sp_configure "max server memory", 5120
> >> RECONFIGURE
> >> GO
> >> sp_configure "min server memory", 0
> >> RECONFIGURE
> >> GO
> >>
> __________________________________________________________
> >> _
> >> Output from SP_CONFIGURE
> >> name minimum
> >> maximum config_value run_value
> >> -- -- --
> --
> >> -
> >> -- --
> >> affinity mask -2147483648
> >> 2147483647 0 0
> >> allow updates 0
> >> 1 0 0
> >> awe enabled 0
> >> 1 1 1
> >> c2 audit mode 0
> >> 1 0 0
> >> cost threshold for parallelism 0
> >> 32767 5 5
> >> Cross DB Ownership Chaining 0
> >> 1 0 0
> >> cursor threshold -1
> >> 2147483647 -1 -1
> >> default full-text language 0
> >> 2147483647 1033 1033
> >> default language 0
> >> 9999 0 0
> >> fill factor (%) 0
> >> 100 0 0
> >> index create memory (KB) 704
> >> 2147483647 0 0
> >> lightweight pooling 0
> >> 1 0 0
> >> locks 5000
> >> 2147483647 0 0
> >> max degree of parallelism 0
> >> 32 0 0
> >> max server memory (MB) 4
> >> 2147483647 5120 5120
> >> max text repl size (B) 0
> >> 2147483647 65536 65536
> >> max worker threads 32
> >> 32767 255 255
> >> media retention 0
> >> 365 0 0
> >> min memory per query (KB) 512
> >> 2147483647 1024 1024
> >> min server memory (MB) 0
> >> 2147483647 0 0
> >> nested triggers 0
> >> 1 1 1
> >> network packet size (B) 512
> >> 65536 4096 4096
> >> open objects 0
> >> 2147483647 0 0
> >> priority boost 0
> >> 1 0 0
> >> query governor cost limit 0
> >> 2147483647 0 0
> >> query wait (s) -1
> >> 2147483647 -1 -1
> >> recovery interval (min) 0
> >> 32767 0 0
> >> remote access 0
> >> 1 1 1
> >> remote login timeout (s) 0
> >> 2147483647 20 20
> >> remote proc trans 0
> >> 1 0 0
> >> remote query timeout (s) 0
> >> 2147483647 600 600
> >> scan for startup procs 0
> >> 1 1 0
> >> set working set size 0
> >> 1 0 0
> >> show advanced options 0
> >> 1 1 1
> >> two digit year cutoff 1753
> >> 9999 2049 2049
> >> user connections 0
> >> 32767 0 0
> >> user options 0
> >> 32767 56 56
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >.
> >
with SP3. The boot.ini is set with /3gb /PAE. The
server system properties list 8GB of RAM. Within SQL
Server sp_configure AWE running is set to 1. When I look
in the SQL Server error log it tells me that 8 processors
and 2048 MB RAM where detected. SQL Server Memory
properties are set with the Maximum to 5.12 GB. But SQL
Server does not recognize AWE setting. The Server
Performance Monitor Counter under SQL Server Memory
Manager with Target Server Memory list 2.7GB. This
should be 5.12 GB of memory for SQL Server.
Please help me resolve this problem.
Mike
__________________________________________________________
[boot loader]
timeout=10
default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT
[operating systems]
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT="Microsoft
Windows 2000 Advanced Server" /fastdetect /3gb /PAE
__________________________________________________________
_
sp_configure "show advanced options", 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure "awe enabled", 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure "max server memory", 5120
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure "min server memory", 0
RECONFIGURE
GO
__________________________________________________________
_
Output from SP_CONFIGURE
name minimum
maximum config_value run_value
-- -- --
-
-- --
affinity mask -2147483648
2147483647 0 0
allow updates 0
1 0 0
awe enabled 0
1 1 1
c2 audit mode 0
1 0 0
cost threshold for parallelism 0
32767 5 5
Cross DB Ownership Chaining 0
1 0 0
cursor threshold -1
2147483647 -1 -1
default full-text language 0
2147483647 1033 1033
default language 0
9999 0 0
fill factor (%) 0
100 0 0
index create memory (KB) 704
2147483647 0 0
lightweight pooling 0
1 0 0
locks 5000
2147483647 0 0
max degree of parallelism 0
32 0 0
max server memory (MB) 4
2147483647 5120 5120
max text repl size (B) 0
2147483647 65536 65536
max worker threads 32
32767 255 255
media retention 0
365 0 0
min memory per query (KB) 512
2147483647 1024 1024
min server memory (MB) 0
2147483647 0 0
nested triggers 0
1 1 1
network packet size (B) 512
65536 4096 4096
open objects 0
2147483647 0 0
priority boost 0
1 0 0
query governor cost limit 0
2147483647 0 0
query wait (s) -1
2147483647 -1 -1
recovery interval (min) 0
32767 0 0
remote access 0
1 1 1
remote login timeout (s) 0
2147483647 20 20
remote proc trans 0
1 0 0
remote query timeout (s) 0
2147483647 600 600
scan for startup procs 0
1 1 0
set working set size 0
1 0 0
show advanced options 0
1 1 1
two digit year cutoff 1753
9999 2049 2049
user connections 0
32767 0 0
user options 0
32767 56 56Do you have Lock Pages In Memory set properly? See this:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;811891&Product=sql2k
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9ede01c4349c$357f8a70$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have a server with SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition
> with SP3. The boot.ini is set with /3gb /PAE. The
> server system properties list 8GB of RAM. Within SQL
> Server sp_configure AWE running is set to 1. When I look
> in the SQL Server error log it tells me that 8 processors
> and 2048 MB RAM where detected. SQL Server Memory
> properties are set with the Maximum to 5.12 GB. But SQL
> Server does not recognize AWE setting. The Server
> Performance Monitor Counter under SQL Server Memory
> Manager with Target Server Memory list 2.7GB. This
> should be 5.12 GB of memory for SQL Server.
> Please help me resolve this problem.
> Mike
> __________________________________________________________
> [boot loader]
> timeout=10
> default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT
> [operating systems]
> multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT="Microsoft
> Windows 2000 Advanced Server" /fastdetect /3gb /PAE
> __________________________________________________________
> _
> sp_configure "show advanced options", 1
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> sp_configure "awe enabled", 1
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> sp_configure "max server memory", 5120
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> sp_configure "min server memory", 0
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> __________________________________________________________
> _
> Output from SP_CONFIGURE
> name minimum
> maximum config_value run_value
> -- -- --
> -
> -- --
> affinity mask -2147483648
> 2147483647 0 0
> allow updates 0
> 1 0 0
> awe enabled 0
> 1 1 1
> c2 audit mode 0
> 1 0 0
> cost threshold for parallelism 0
> 32767 5 5
> Cross DB Ownership Chaining 0
> 1 0 0
> cursor threshold -1
> 2147483647 -1 -1
> default full-text language 0
> 2147483647 1033 1033
> default language 0
> 9999 0 0
> fill factor (%) 0
> 100 0 0
> index create memory (KB) 704
> 2147483647 0 0
> lightweight pooling 0
> 1 0 0
> locks 5000
> 2147483647 0 0
> max degree of parallelism 0
> 32 0 0
> max server memory (MB) 4
> 2147483647 5120 5120
> max text repl size (B) 0
> 2147483647 65536 65536
> max worker threads 32
> 32767 255 255
> media retention 0
> 365 0 0
> min memory per query (KB) 512
> 2147483647 1024 1024
> min server memory (MB) 0
> 2147483647 0 0
> nested triggers 0
> 1 1 1
> network packet size (B) 512
> 65536 4096 4096
> open objects 0
> 2147483647 0 0
> priority boost 0
> 1 0 0
> query governor cost limit 0
> 2147483647 0 0
> query wait (s) -1
> 2147483647 -1 -1
> recovery interval (min) 0
> 32767 0 0
> remote access 0
> 1 1 1
> remote login timeout (s) 0
> 2147483647 20 20
> remote proc trans 0
> 1 0 0
> remote query timeout (s) 0
> 2147483647 600 600
> scan for startup procs 0
> 1 1 0
> set working set size 0
> 1 0 0
> show advanced options 0
> 1 1 1
> two digit year cutoff 1753
> 9999 2049 2049
> user connections 0
> 32767 0 0
> user options 0
> 32767 56 56
>
>|||The SQL Server service account is listed in the Lock
pages in memory is set the same way three other servers
that work correctly.
Is this server not recognizing this setting?
Please help me with this problem.
Thanks,
Mike
>--Original Message--
>Do you have Lock Pages In Memory set properly? See this:
>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-
us;811891&Product=sql2k
>--
>Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
>"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
>news:9ede01c4349c$357f8a70$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
>> I have a server with SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition
>> with SP3. The boot.ini is set with /3gb /PAE. The
>> server system properties list 8GB of RAM. Within SQL
>> Server sp_configure AWE running is set to 1. When I
look
>> in the SQL Server error log it tells me that 8
processors
>> and 2048 MB RAM where detected. SQL Server Memory
>> properties are set with the Maximum to 5.12 GB. But
SQL
>> Server does not recognize AWE setting. The Server
>> Performance Monitor Counter under SQL Server Memory
>> Manager with Target Server Memory list 2.7GB. This
>> should be 5.12 GB of memory for SQL Server.
>> Please help me resolve this problem.
>> Mike
>>
__________________________________________________________
>> [boot loader]
>> timeout=10
>> default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT
>> [operating systems]
>> multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT="Microsoft
>> Windows 2000 Advanced Server" /fastdetect /3gb /PAE
__________________________________________________________
>> _
>> sp_configure "show advanced options", 1
>> RECONFIGURE
>> GO
>> sp_configure "awe enabled", 1
>> RECONFIGURE
>> GO
>> sp_configure "max server memory", 5120
>> RECONFIGURE
>> GO
>> sp_configure "min server memory", 0
>> RECONFIGURE
>> GO
__________________________________________________________
>> _
>> Output from SP_CONFIGURE
>> name minimum
>> maximum config_value run_value
>> -- -- --
--
>> -
>> -- --
>> affinity mask -2147483648
>> 2147483647 0 0
>> allow updates 0
>> 1 0 0
>> awe enabled 0
>> 1 1 1
>> c2 audit mode 0
>> 1 0 0
>> cost threshold for parallelism 0
>> 32767 5 5
>> Cross DB Ownership Chaining 0
>> 1 0 0
>> cursor threshold -1
>> 2147483647 -1 -1
>> default full-text language 0
>> 2147483647 1033 1033
>> default language 0
>> 9999 0 0
>> fill factor (%) 0
>> 100 0 0
>> index create memory (KB) 704
>> 2147483647 0 0
>> lightweight pooling 0
>> 1 0 0
>> locks 5000
>> 2147483647 0 0
>> max degree of parallelism 0
>> 32 0 0
>> max server memory (MB) 4
>> 2147483647 5120 5120
>> max text repl size (B) 0
>> 2147483647 65536 65536
>> max worker threads 32
>> 32767 255 255
>> media retention 0
>> 365 0 0
>> min memory per query (KB) 512
>> 2147483647 1024 1024
>> min server memory (MB) 0
>> 2147483647 0 0
>> nested triggers 0
>> 1 1 1
>> network packet size (B) 512
>> 65536 4096 4096
>> open objects 0
>> 2147483647 0 0
>> priority boost 0
>> 1 0 0
>> query governor cost limit 0
>> 2147483647 0 0
>> query wait (s) -1
>> 2147483647 -1 -1
>> recovery interval (min) 0
>> 32767 0 0
>> remote access 0
>> 1 1 1
>> remote login timeout (s) 0
>> 2147483647 20 20
>> remote proc trans 0
>> 1 0 0
>> remote query timeout (s) 0
>> 2147483647 600 600
>> scan for startup procs 0
>> 1 1 0
>> set working set size 0
>> 1 0 0
>> show advanced options 0
>> 1 1 1
>> two digit year cutoff 1753
>> 9999 2049 2049
>> user connections 0
>> 32767 0 0
>> user options 0
>> 32767 56 56
>>
>>
>
>.
>|||According to the results of sp_configure your run value is still set to 0
for AWE. Did you restart the server? And are you absolutely sure you have
SQL EE? What does xp_msver show?
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:a04c01c434f9$3dde5ae0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> The SQL Server service account is listed in the Lock
> pages in memory is set the same way three other servers
> that work correctly.
> Is this server not recognizing this setting?
> Please help me with this problem.
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> >--Original Message--
> >Do you have Lock Pages In Memory set properly? See this:
> >http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-
> us;811891&Product=sql2k
> >
> >--
> >Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >
> >
> >"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message
> >news:9ede01c4349c$357f8a70$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> >>
> >> I have a server with SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition
> >> with SP3. The boot.ini is set with /3gb /PAE. The
> >> server system properties list 8GB of RAM. Within SQL
> >> Server sp_configure AWE running is set to 1. When I
> look
> >> in the SQL Server error log it tells me that 8
> processors
> >> and 2048 MB RAM where detected. SQL Server Memory
> >> properties are set with the Maximum to 5.12 GB. But
> SQL
> >> Server does not recognize AWE setting. The Server
> >> Performance Monitor Counter under SQL Server Memory
> >> Manager with Target Server Memory list 2.7GB. This
> >> should be 5.12 GB of memory for SQL Server.
> >>
> >> Please help me resolve this problem.
> >>
> >> Mike
> >>
> >>
> __________________________________________________________
> >> [boot loader]
> >> timeout=10
> >> default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT
> >> [operating systems]
> >> multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT="Microsoft
> >> Windows 2000 Advanced Server" /fastdetect /3gb /PAE
> >>
> __________________________________________________________
> >> _
> >> sp_configure "show advanced options", 1
> >> RECONFIGURE
> >> GO
> >> sp_configure "awe enabled", 1
> >> RECONFIGURE
> >> GO
> >> sp_configure "max server memory", 5120
> >> RECONFIGURE
> >> GO
> >> sp_configure "min server memory", 0
> >> RECONFIGURE
> >> GO
> >>
> __________________________________________________________
> >> _
> >> Output from SP_CONFIGURE
> >> name minimum
> >> maximum config_value run_value
> >> -- -- --
> --
> >> -
> >> -- --
> >> affinity mask -2147483648
> >> 2147483647 0 0
> >> allow updates 0
> >> 1 0 0
> >> awe enabled 0
> >> 1 1 1
> >> c2 audit mode 0
> >> 1 0 0
> >> cost threshold for parallelism 0
> >> 32767 5 5
> >> Cross DB Ownership Chaining 0
> >> 1 0 0
> >> cursor threshold -1
> >> 2147483647 -1 -1
> >> default full-text language 0
> >> 2147483647 1033 1033
> >> default language 0
> >> 9999 0 0
> >> fill factor (%) 0
> >> 100 0 0
> >> index create memory (KB) 704
> >> 2147483647 0 0
> >> lightweight pooling 0
> >> 1 0 0
> >> locks 5000
> >> 2147483647 0 0
> >> max degree of parallelism 0
> >> 32 0 0
> >> max server memory (MB) 4
> >> 2147483647 5120 5120
> >> max text repl size (B) 0
> >> 2147483647 65536 65536
> >> max worker threads 32
> >> 32767 255 255
> >> media retention 0
> >> 365 0 0
> >> min memory per query (KB) 512
> >> 2147483647 1024 1024
> >> min server memory (MB) 0
> >> 2147483647 0 0
> >> nested triggers 0
> >> 1 1 1
> >> network packet size (B) 512
> >> 65536 4096 4096
> >> open objects 0
> >> 2147483647 0 0
> >> priority boost 0
> >> 1 0 0
> >> query governor cost limit 0
> >> 2147483647 0 0
> >> query wait (s) -1
> >> 2147483647 -1 -1
> >> recovery interval (min) 0
> >> 32767 0 0
> >> remote access 0
> >> 1 1 1
> >> remote login timeout (s) 0
> >> 2147483647 20 20
> >> remote proc trans 0
> >> 1 0 0
> >> remote query timeout (s) 0
> >> 2147483647 600 600
> >> scan for startup procs 0
> >> 1 1 0
> >> set working set size 0
> >> 1 0 0
> >> show advanced options 0
> >> 1 1 1
> >> two digit year cutoff 1753
> >> 9999 2049 2049
> >> user connections 0
> >> 32767 0 0
> >> user options 0
> >> 32767 56 56
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >.
> >
AWE on 2003 x64 with SP4 and 8 gigs of memory.
I just bought a nice new server with EMT64 ( we have to buy Dell 
). It ha
s
8 gigs of memory. It is running Windows 2003 Std x64 edition and the OS
detects all of the 8 gigs.
I installed SQL 2000 SP4 Enterprise edition and applied SP4. I restored a
decent sized database of 60+ gigs to it. I wanted to see just how much memor
y
SQL could use for its buffers versus going off toe the SCSI drives.
I stared selecting all the data out of my database to move the data in
their. I top 3 gigs, but shortly after SQL seemed to stop using more memory.
I was guessing this was the limit.
At this point I thought, maybe I should turn on AWE. I then went and applied
the patch for SP4 that fixes the half memory utilization issue.
Turned it on and restarted the machine and SQL just to be safe. I have SQL
setup to use roughly 7+ gigs of memory and to reserve physical memory. I'm
not using dynamic allocation.
If I pull up taskmgr I see the process for SQL is only using around 190 megs
of memory, however, if I switch to the performance tab I see that I have
almost all the memory allocated.
After selecting a ton of data and doing some tests it is clear that way more
then 190 megs of 8k pages are in memory. Mostly from selecting all the rows
from a large table, and then watching the disk io on future requests which i
s
virtually zero.
I select * from master.dbo.sysperfinfo, but I can't seem to be able to find
the number that would indicate that I have gigs of pages in the buffer.
Is there a know issue with SQL server or TaskMgr on the x64 edition where it
would report the memory usage wrong like this?
Lastly we have Software Assurance for this product, does that give me free
access to support to ask this question?
thanks,
et"et" <et@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:44C118C0-DF0A-4F0E-9752-BC198B40B425@.microsoft.com...
>I just bought a nice new server with EMT64 ( we have to buy Dell ). It
>has
> 8 gigs of memory. It is running Windows 2003 Std x64 edition and the OS
> detects all of the 8 gigs.
> I installed SQL 2000 SP4 Enterprise edition and applied SP4. I restored a
> decent sized database of 60+ gigs to it. I wanted to see just how much
> memory
> SQL could use for its buffers versus going off toe the SCSI drives.
> I stared selecting all the data out of my database to move the data in
> their. I top 3 gigs, but shortly after SQL seemed to stop using more
> memory.
> I was guessing this was the limit.
>
Yes. 4 gigs is the limit in this configuration (SQL 2000 EE 32bit on
Windows 2003 x64 edition).
> At this point I thought, maybe I should turn on AWE. I then went and
> applied
> the patch for SP4 that fixes the half memory utilization issue.
> Turned it on and restarted the machine and SQL just to be safe. I have SQL
> setup to use roughly 7+ gigs of memory and to reserve physical memory. I'm
> not using dynamic allocation.
> If I pull up taskmgr I see the process for SQL is only using around 190
> megs
> of memory, however, if I switch to the performance tab I see that I have
> almost all the memory allocated.
> After selecting a ton of data and doing some tests it is clear that way
> more
> then 190 megs of 8k pages are in memory. Mostly from selecting all the
> rows
> from a large table, and then watching the disk io on future requests which
> is
> virtually zero.
> I select * from master.dbo.sysperfinfo, but I can't seem to be able to
> find
> the number that would indicate that I have gigs of pages in the buffer.
> Is there a know issue with SQL server or TaskMgr on the x64 edition where
> it
> would report the memory usage wrong like this?
>
Not an x64 issue. AWE usage is not visible in Task Manager:
From BOL topic "Managing AWE Memory"
Use System Monitor (Performance Monitor in Microsoft Windows NT 4.0) to
retrieve information on SQL Server memory usage and available memory. Task
Manager does not provide accurate memory usage information for AWE.
Therefore, the memory quoted for sqlservr.exe is not correct. To obtain the
correct amount of SQL Server memory usage, you can use the Total Server
Memory (KB) performance counter, activated through System Monitor, or select
the memory usage from sysperfinfo. For more information, see Monitoring
Memory Usage.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...>
ver_1fnd.asp
> Lastly we have Software Assurance for this product, does that give me free
> access to support to ask this question?
>
The short answer is Yes, Software Assurance for server products includes
some free phone support, as well as free upgrades to new versions. The
number of incidents and hours of support vary by product and SKU, and total
amount of money spent. Also new stuff is included Software Assurance as of
March 2006. See generally:
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/...sa/default.mspx .
David|||When you call in for support, the tech router will tell you if your call is
free or not :-)
Kevin Hill
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
"David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted meat@.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:ONfOaFWGGHA.2680@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> "et" <et@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:44C118C0-DF0A-4F0E-9752-BC198B40B425@.microsoft.com...
> Yes. 4 gigs is the limit in this configuration (SQL 2000 EE 32bit on
> Windows 2003 x64 edition).
>
> Not an x64 issue. AWE usage is not visible in Task Manager:
> From BOL topic "Managing AWE Memory"
> Use System Monitor (Performance Monitor in Microsoft Windows NT 4.0) to
> retrieve information on SQL Server memory usage and available memory. Task
> Manager does not provide accurate memory usage information for AWE.
> Therefore, the memory quoted for sqlservr.exe is not correct. To obtain
> the correct amount of SQL Server memory usage, you can use the Total
> Server Memory (KB) performance counter, activated through System Monitor,
> or select the memory usage from sysperfinfo. For more information, see
> Monitoring Memory Usage.
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...
erver_1fnd.asp
>
> The short answer is Yes, Software Assurance for server products includes
> some free phone support, as well as free upgrades to new versions. The
> number of incidents and hours of support vary by product and SKU, and
> total amount of money spent. Also new stuff is included Software
> Assurance as of March 2006. See generally:
> http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/...sa/default.mspx .
>
> David
>
>|||maybe i am beating dead horses but
if this is a brand new machine i do not understand why you did not install
sql 2005 64 bit ,,,,
regards
Michel Posseth [MCP]
"David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted meat@.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:ONfOaFWGGHA.2680@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> "et" <et@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:44C118C0-DF0A-4F0E-9752-BC198B40B425@.microsoft.com...
> Yes. 4 gigs is the limit in this configuration (SQL 2000 EE 32bit on
> Windows 2003 x64 edition).
>
> Not an x64 issue. AWE usage is not visible in Task Manager:
> From BOL topic "Managing AWE Memory"
> Use System Monitor (Performance Monitor in Microsoft Windows NT 4.0) to
> retrieve information on SQL Server memory usage and available memory. Task
> Manager does not provide accurate memory usage information for AWE.
> Therefore, the memory quoted for sqlservr.exe is not correct. To obtain
> the correct amount of SQL Server memory usage, you can use the Total
> Server Memory (KB) performance counter, activated through System Monitor,
> or select the memory usage from sysperfinfo. For more information, see
> Monitoring Memory Usage.
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...
erver_1fnd.asp
>
> The short answer is Yes, Software Assurance for server products includes
> some free phone support, as well as free upgrades to new versions. The
> number of incidents and hours of support vary by product and SKU, and
> total amount of money spent. Also new stuff is included Software
> Assurance as of March 2006. See generally:
> http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/...sa/default.mspx .
>
> David
>
>
). It has
8 gigs of memory. It is running Windows 2003 Std x64 edition and the OS
detects all of the 8 gigs.
I installed SQL 2000 SP4 Enterprise edition and applied SP4. I restored a
decent sized database of 60+ gigs to it. I wanted to see just how much memor
y
SQL could use for its buffers versus going off toe the SCSI drives.
I stared selecting all the data out of my database to move the data in
their. I top 3 gigs, but shortly after SQL seemed to stop using more memory.
I was guessing this was the limit.
At this point I thought, maybe I should turn on AWE. I then went and applied
the patch for SP4 that fixes the half memory utilization issue.
Turned it on and restarted the machine and SQL just to be safe. I have SQL
setup to use roughly 7+ gigs of memory and to reserve physical memory. I'm
not using dynamic allocation.
If I pull up taskmgr I see the process for SQL is only using around 190 megs
of memory, however, if I switch to the performance tab I see that I have
almost all the memory allocated.
After selecting a ton of data and doing some tests it is clear that way more
then 190 megs of 8k pages are in memory. Mostly from selecting all the rows
from a large table, and then watching the disk io on future requests which i
s
virtually zero.
I select * from master.dbo.sysperfinfo, but I can't seem to be able to find
the number that would indicate that I have gigs of pages in the buffer.
Is there a know issue with SQL server or TaskMgr on the x64 edition where it
would report the memory usage wrong like this?
Lastly we have Software Assurance for this product, does that give me free
access to support to ask this question?
thanks,
et"et" <et@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:44C118C0-DF0A-4F0E-9752-BC198B40B425@.microsoft.com...
>I just bought a nice new server with EMT64 ( we have to buy Dell
). It>has
> 8 gigs of memory. It is running Windows 2003 Std x64 edition and the OS
> detects all of the 8 gigs.
> I installed SQL 2000 SP4 Enterprise edition and applied SP4. I restored a
> decent sized database of 60+ gigs to it. I wanted to see just how much
> memory
> SQL could use for its buffers versus going off toe the SCSI drives.
> I stared selecting all the data out of my database to move the data in
> their. I top 3 gigs, but shortly after SQL seemed to stop using more
> memory.
> I was guessing this was the limit.
>
Yes. 4 gigs is the limit in this configuration (SQL 2000 EE 32bit on
Windows 2003 x64 edition).
> At this point I thought, maybe I should turn on AWE. I then went and
> applied
> the patch for SP4 that fixes the half memory utilization issue.
> Turned it on and restarted the machine and SQL just to be safe. I have SQL
> setup to use roughly 7+ gigs of memory and to reserve physical memory. I'm
> not using dynamic allocation.
> If I pull up taskmgr I see the process for SQL is only using around 190
> megs
> of memory, however, if I switch to the performance tab I see that I have
> almost all the memory allocated.
> After selecting a ton of data and doing some tests it is clear that way
> more
> then 190 megs of 8k pages are in memory. Mostly from selecting all the
> rows
> from a large table, and then watching the disk io on future requests which
> is
> virtually zero.
> I select * from master.dbo.sysperfinfo, but I can't seem to be able to
> find
> the number that would indicate that I have gigs of pages in the buffer.
> Is there a know issue with SQL server or TaskMgr on the x64 edition where
> it
> would report the memory usage wrong like this?
>
Not an x64 issue. AWE usage is not visible in Task Manager:
From BOL topic "Managing AWE Memory"
Use System Monitor (Performance Monitor in Microsoft Windows NT 4.0) to
retrieve information on SQL Server memory usage and available memory. Task
Manager does not provide accurate memory usage information for AWE.
Therefore, the memory quoted for sqlservr.exe is not correct. To obtain the
correct amount of SQL Server memory usage, you can use the Total Server
Memory (KB) performance counter, activated through System Monitor, or select
the memory usage from sysperfinfo. For more information, see Monitoring
Memory Usage.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...>
ver_1fnd.asp
> Lastly we have Software Assurance for this product, does that give me free
> access to support to ask this question?
>
The short answer is Yes, Software Assurance for server products includes
some free phone support, as well as free upgrades to new versions. The
number of incidents and hours of support vary by product and SKU, and total
amount of money spent. Also new stuff is included Software Assurance as of
March 2006. See generally:
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/...sa/default.mspx .
David|||When you call in for support, the tech router will tell you if your call is
free or not :-)
Kevin Hill
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
"David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted meat@.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:ONfOaFWGGHA.2680@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> "et" <et@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:44C118C0-DF0A-4F0E-9752-BC198B40B425@.microsoft.com...
> Yes. 4 gigs is the limit in this configuration (SQL 2000 EE 32bit on
> Windows 2003 x64 edition).
>
> Not an x64 issue. AWE usage is not visible in Task Manager:
> From BOL topic "Managing AWE Memory"
> Use System Monitor (Performance Monitor in Microsoft Windows NT 4.0) to
> retrieve information on SQL Server memory usage and available memory. Task
> Manager does not provide accurate memory usage information for AWE.
> Therefore, the memory quoted for sqlservr.exe is not correct. To obtain
> the correct amount of SQL Server memory usage, you can use the Total
> Server Memory (KB) performance counter, activated through System Monitor,
> or select the memory usage from sysperfinfo. For more information, see
> Monitoring Memory Usage.
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...
erver_1fnd.asp
>
> The short answer is Yes, Software Assurance for server products includes
> some free phone support, as well as free upgrades to new versions. The
> number of incidents and hours of support vary by product and SKU, and
> total amount of money spent. Also new stuff is included Software
> Assurance as of March 2006. See generally:
> http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/...sa/default.mspx .
>
> David
>
>|||maybe i am beating dead horses but
if this is a brand new machine i do not understand why you did not install
sql 2005 64 bit ,,,,
regards
Michel Posseth [MCP]
"David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted meat@.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:ONfOaFWGGHA.2680@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> "et" <et@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:44C118C0-DF0A-4F0E-9752-BC198B40B425@.microsoft.com...
> Yes. 4 gigs is the limit in this configuration (SQL 2000 EE 32bit on
> Windows 2003 x64 edition).
>
> Not an x64 issue. AWE usage is not visible in Task Manager:
> From BOL topic "Managing AWE Memory"
> Use System Monitor (Performance Monitor in Microsoft Windows NT 4.0) to
> retrieve information on SQL Server memory usage and available memory. Task
> Manager does not provide accurate memory usage information for AWE.
> Therefore, the memory quoted for sqlservr.exe is not correct. To obtain
> the correct amount of SQL Server memory usage, you can use the Total
> Server Memory (KB) performance counter, activated through System Monitor,
> or select the memory usage from sysperfinfo. For more information, see
> Monitoring Memory Usage.
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...
erver_1fnd.asp
>
> The short answer is Yes, Software Assurance for server products includes
> some free phone support, as well as free upgrades to new versions. The
> number of incidents and hours of support vary by product and SKU, and
> total amount of money spent. Also new stuff is included Software
> Assurance as of March 2006. See generally:
> http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/...sa/default.mspx .
>
> David
>
>
AWE on 2003 x64 with SP4 and 8 gigs of memory.
I just bought a nice new server with EMT64 ( we have to buy Dell ). It has
8 gigs of memory. It is running Windows 2003 Std x64 edition and the OS
detects all of the 8 gigs.
I installed SQL 2000 SP4 Enterprise edition and applied SP4. I restored a
decent sized database of 60+ gigs to it. I wanted to see just how much memory
SQL could use for its buffers versus going off toe the SCSI drives.
I stared selecting all the data out of my database to move the data in
their. I top 3 gigs, but shortly after SQL seemed to stop using more memory.
I was guessing this was the limit.
At this point I thought, maybe I should turn on AWE. I then went and applied
the patch for SP4 that fixes the half memory utilization issue.
Turned it on and restarted the machine and SQL just to be safe. I have SQL
setup to use roughly 7+ gigs of memory and to reserve physical memory. I'm
not using dynamic allocation.
If I pull up taskmgr I see the process for SQL is only using around 190 megs
of memory, however, if I switch to the performance tab I see that I have
almost all the memory allocated.
After selecting a ton of data and doing some tests it is clear that way more
then 190 megs of 8k pages are in memory. Mostly from selecting all the rows
from a large table, and then watching the disk io on future requests which is
virtually zero.
I select * from master.dbo.sysperfinfo, but I can't seem to be able to find
the number that would indicate that I have gigs of pages in the buffer.
Is there a know issue with SQL server or TaskMgr on the x64 edition where it
would report the memory usage wrong like this?
Lastly we have Software Assurance for this product, does that give me free
access to support to ask this question?
thanks,
et
"et" <et@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:44C118C0-DF0A-4F0E-9752-BC198B40B425@.microsoft.com...
>I just bought a nice new server with EMT64 ( we have to buy Dell ). It
>has
> 8 gigs of memory. It is running Windows 2003 Std x64 edition and the OS
> detects all of the 8 gigs.
> I installed SQL 2000 SP4 Enterprise edition and applied SP4. I restored a
> decent sized database of 60+ gigs to it. I wanted to see just how much
> memory
> SQL could use for its buffers versus going off toe the SCSI drives.
> I stared selecting all the data out of my database to move the data in
> their. I top 3 gigs, but shortly after SQL seemed to stop using more
> memory.
> I was guessing this was the limit.
>
Yes. 4 gigs is the limit in this configuration (SQL 2000 EE 32bit on
Windows 2003 x64 edition).
> At this point I thought, maybe I should turn on AWE. I then went and
> applied
> the patch for SP4 that fixes the half memory utilization issue.
> Turned it on and restarted the machine and SQL just to be safe. I have SQL
> setup to use roughly 7+ gigs of memory and to reserve physical memory. I'm
> not using dynamic allocation.
> If I pull up taskmgr I see the process for SQL is only using around 190
> megs
> of memory, however, if I switch to the performance tab I see that I have
> almost all the memory allocated.
> After selecting a ton of data and doing some tests it is clear that way
> more
> then 190 megs of 8k pages are in memory. Mostly from selecting all the
> rows
> from a large table, and then watching the disk io on future requests which
> is
> virtually zero.
> I select * from master.dbo.sysperfinfo, but I can't seem to be able to
> find
> the number that would indicate that I have gigs of pages in the buffer.
> Is there a know issue with SQL server or TaskMgr on the x64 edition where
> it
> would report the memory usage wrong like this?
>
Not an x64 issue. AWE usage is not visible in Task Manager:
From BOL topic "Managing AWE Memory"
Use System Monitor (Performance Monitor in Microsoft Windows NT 4.0) to
retrieve information on SQL Server memory usage and available memory. Task
Manager does not provide accurate memory usage information for AWE.
Therefore, the memory quoted for sqlservr.exe is not correct. To obtain the
correct amount of SQL Server memory usage, you can use the Total Server
Memory (KB) performance counter, activated through System Monitor, or select
the memory usage from sysperfinfo. For more information, see Monitoring
Memory Usage.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...erver_1fnd.asp
> Lastly we have Software Assurance for this product, does that give me free
> access to support to ask this question?
>
The short answer is Yes, Software Assurance for server products includes
some free phone support, as well as free upgrades to new versions. The
number of incidents and hours of support vary by product and SKU, and total
amount of money spent. Also new stuff is included Software Assurance as of
March 2006. See generally:
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/p...a/default.mspx .
David
|||When you call in for support, the tech router will tell you if your call is
free or not :-)
Kevin Hill
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
"David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted meat@.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:ONfOaFWGGHA.2680@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> "et" <et@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:44C118C0-DF0A-4F0E-9752-BC198B40B425@.microsoft.com...
> Yes. 4 gigs is the limit in this configuration (SQL 2000 EE 32bit on
> Windows 2003 x64 edition).
>
> Not an x64 issue. AWE usage is not visible in Task Manager:
> From BOL topic "Managing AWE Memory"
> Use System Monitor (Performance Monitor in Microsoft Windows NT 4.0) to
> retrieve information on SQL Server memory usage and available memory. Task
> Manager does not provide accurate memory usage information for AWE.
> Therefore, the memory quoted for sqlservr.exe is not correct. To obtain
> the correct amount of SQL Server memory usage, you can use the Total
> Server Memory (KB) performance counter, activated through System Monitor,
> or select the memory usage from sysperfinfo. For more information, see
> Monitoring Memory Usage.
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...erver_1fnd.asp
>
> The short answer is Yes, Software Assurance for server products includes
> some free phone support, as well as free upgrades to new versions. The
> number of incidents and hours of support vary by product and SKU, and
> total amount of money spent. Also new stuff is included Software
> Assurance as of March 2006. See generally:
> http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/p...a/default.mspx .
>
> David
>
>
|||maybe i am beating dead horses but
if this is a brand new machine i do not understand why you did not install
sql 2005 64 bit ,,,,
regards
Michel Posseth [MCP]
"David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted meat@.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:ONfOaFWGGHA.2680@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> "et" <et@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:44C118C0-DF0A-4F0E-9752-BC198B40B425@.microsoft.com...
> Yes. 4 gigs is the limit in this configuration (SQL 2000 EE 32bit on
> Windows 2003 x64 edition).
>
> Not an x64 issue. AWE usage is not visible in Task Manager:
> From BOL topic "Managing AWE Memory"
> Use System Monitor (Performance Monitor in Microsoft Windows NT 4.0) to
> retrieve information on SQL Server memory usage and available memory. Task
> Manager does not provide accurate memory usage information for AWE.
> Therefore, the memory quoted for sqlservr.exe is not correct. To obtain
> the correct amount of SQL Server memory usage, you can use the Total
> Server Memory (KB) performance counter, activated through System Monitor,
> or select the memory usage from sysperfinfo. For more information, see
> Monitoring Memory Usage.
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...erver_1fnd.asp
>
> The short answer is Yes, Software Assurance for server products includes
> some free phone support, as well as free upgrades to new versions. The
> number of incidents and hours of support vary by product and SKU, and
> total amount of money spent. Also new stuff is included Software
> Assurance as of March 2006. See generally:
> http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/p...a/default.mspx .
>
> David
>
>
). It has8 gigs of memory. It is running Windows 2003 Std x64 edition and the OS
detects all of the 8 gigs.
I installed SQL 2000 SP4 Enterprise edition and applied SP4. I restored a
decent sized database of 60+ gigs to it. I wanted to see just how much memory
SQL could use for its buffers versus going off toe the SCSI drives.
I stared selecting all the data out of my database to move the data in
their. I top 3 gigs, but shortly after SQL seemed to stop using more memory.
I was guessing this was the limit.
At this point I thought, maybe I should turn on AWE. I then went and applied
the patch for SP4 that fixes the half memory utilization issue.
Turned it on and restarted the machine and SQL just to be safe. I have SQL
setup to use roughly 7+ gigs of memory and to reserve physical memory. I'm
not using dynamic allocation.
If I pull up taskmgr I see the process for SQL is only using around 190 megs
of memory, however, if I switch to the performance tab I see that I have
almost all the memory allocated.
After selecting a ton of data and doing some tests it is clear that way more
then 190 megs of 8k pages are in memory. Mostly from selecting all the rows
from a large table, and then watching the disk io on future requests which is
virtually zero.
I select * from master.dbo.sysperfinfo, but I can't seem to be able to find
the number that would indicate that I have gigs of pages in the buffer.
Is there a know issue with SQL server or TaskMgr on the x64 edition where it
would report the memory usage wrong like this?
Lastly we have Software Assurance for this product, does that give me free
access to support to ask this question?
thanks,
et
"et" <et@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:44C118C0-DF0A-4F0E-9752-BC198B40B425@.microsoft.com...
>I just bought a nice new server with EMT64 ( we have to buy Dell
). It>has
> 8 gigs of memory. It is running Windows 2003 Std x64 edition and the OS
> detects all of the 8 gigs.
> I installed SQL 2000 SP4 Enterprise edition and applied SP4. I restored a
> decent sized database of 60+ gigs to it. I wanted to see just how much
> memory
> SQL could use for its buffers versus going off toe the SCSI drives.
> I stared selecting all the data out of my database to move the data in
> their. I top 3 gigs, but shortly after SQL seemed to stop using more
> memory.
> I was guessing this was the limit.
>
Yes. 4 gigs is the limit in this configuration (SQL 2000 EE 32bit on
Windows 2003 x64 edition).
> At this point I thought, maybe I should turn on AWE. I then went and
> applied
> the patch for SP4 that fixes the half memory utilization issue.
> Turned it on and restarted the machine and SQL just to be safe. I have SQL
> setup to use roughly 7+ gigs of memory and to reserve physical memory. I'm
> not using dynamic allocation.
> If I pull up taskmgr I see the process for SQL is only using around 190
> megs
> of memory, however, if I switch to the performance tab I see that I have
> almost all the memory allocated.
> After selecting a ton of data and doing some tests it is clear that way
> more
> then 190 megs of 8k pages are in memory. Mostly from selecting all the
> rows
> from a large table, and then watching the disk io on future requests which
> is
> virtually zero.
> I select * from master.dbo.sysperfinfo, but I can't seem to be able to
> find
> the number that would indicate that I have gigs of pages in the buffer.
> Is there a know issue with SQL server or TaskMgr on the x64 edition where
> it
> would report the memory usage wrong like this?
>
Not an x64 issue. AWE usage is not visible in Task Manager:
From BOL topic "Managing AWE Memory"
Use System Monitor (Performance Monitor in Microsoft Windows NT 4.0) to
retrieve information on SQL Server memory usage and available memory. Task
Manager does not provide accurate memory usage information for AWE.
Therefore, the memory quoted for sqlservr.exe is not correct. To obtain the
correct amount of SQL Server memory usage, you can use the Total Server
Memory (KB) performance counter, activated through System Monitor, or select
the memory usage from sysperfinfo. For more information, see Monitoring
Memory Usage.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...erver_1fnd.asp
> Lastly we have Software Assurance for this product, does that give me free
> access to support to ask this question?
>
The short answer is Yes, Software Assurance for server products includes
some free phone support, as well as free upgrades to new versions. The
number of incidents and hours of support vary by product and SKU, and total
amount of money spent. Also new stuff is included Software Assurance as of
March 2006. See generally:
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/p...a/default.mspx .
David
|||When you call in for support, the tech router will tell you if your call is
free or not :-)
Kevin Hill
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
"David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted meat@.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:ONfOaFWGGHA.2680@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> "et" <et@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:44C118C0-DF0A-4F0E-9752-BC198B40B425@.microsoft.com...
> Yes. 4 gigs is the limit in this configuration (SQL 2000 EE 32bit on
> Windows 2003 x64 edition).
>
> Not an x64 issue. AWE usage is not visible in Task Manager:
> From BOL topic "Managing AWE Memory"
> Use System Monitor (Performance Monitor in Microsoft Windows NT 4.0) to
> retrieve information on SQL Server memory usage and available memory. Task
> Manager does not provide accurate memory usage information for AWE.
> Therefore, the memory quoted for sqlservr.exe is not correct. To obtain
> the correct amount of SQL Server memory usage, you can use the Total
> Server Memory (KB) performance counter, activated through System Monitor,
> or select the memory usage from sysperfinfo. For more information, see
> Monitoring Memory Usage.
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...erver_1fnd.asp
>
> The short answer is Yes, Software Assurance for server products includes
> some free phone support, as well as free upgrades to new versions. The
> number of incidents and hours of support vary by product and SKU, and
> total amount of money spent. Also new stuff is included Software
> Assurance as of March 2006. See generally:
> http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/p...a/default.mspx .
>
> David
>
>
|||maybe i am beating dead horses but
if this is a brand new machine i do not understand why you did not install
sql 2005 64 bit ,,,,
regards
Michel Posseth [MCP]
"David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted meat@.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:ONfOaFWGGHA.2680@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> "et" <et@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:44C118C0-DF0A-4F0E-9752-BC198B40B425@.microsoft.com...
> Yes. 4 gigs is the limit in this configuration (SQL 2000 EE 32bit on
> Windows 2003 x64 edition).
>
> Not an x64 issue. AWE usage is not visible in Task Manager:
> From BOL topic "Managing AWE Memory"
> Use System Monitor (Performance Monitor in Microsoft Windows NT 4.0) to
> retrieve information on SQL Server memory usage and available memory. Task
> Manager does not provide accurate memory usage information for AWE.
> Therefore, the memory quoted for sqlservr.exe is not correct. To obtain
> the correct amount of SQL Server memory usage, you can use the Total
> Server Memory (KB) performance counter, activated through System Monitor,
> or select the memory usage from sysperfinfo. For more information, see
> Monitoring Memory Usage.
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...erver_1fnd.asp
>
> The short answer is Yes, Software Assurance for server products includes
> some free phone support, as well as free upgrades to new versions. The
> number of incidents and hours of support vary by product and SKU, and
> total amount of money spent. Also new stuff is included Software
> Assurance as of March 2006. See generally:
> http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/p...a/default.mspx .
>
> David
>
>
AWE on 2003 x64 with SP4 and 8 gigs of memory.
I just bought a nice new server with EMT64 ( we have to buy Dell :( ). It has
8 gigs of memory. It is running Windows 2003 Std x64 edition and the OS
detects all of the 8 gigs.
I installed SQL 2000 SP4 Enterprise edition and applied SP4. I restored a
decent sized database of 60+ gigs to it. I wanted to see just how much memory
SQL could use for its buffers versus going off toe the SCSI drives.
I stared selecting all the data out of my database to move the data in
their. I top 3 gigs, but shortly after SQL seemed to stop using more memory.
I was guessing this was the limit.
At this point I thought, maybe I should turn on AWE. I then went and applied
the patch for SP4 that fixes the half memory utilization issue.
Turned it on and restarted the machine and SQL just to be safe. I have SQL
setup to use roughly 7+ gigs of memory and to reserve physical memory. I'm
not using dynamic allocation.
If I pull up taskmgr I see the process for SQL is only using around 190 megs
of memory, however, if I switch to the performance tab I see that I have
almost all the memory allocated.
After selecting a ton of data and doing some tests it is clear that way more
then 190 megs of 8k pages are in memory. Mostly from selecting all the rows
from a large table, and then watching the disk io on future requests which is
virtually zero.
I select * from master.dbo.sysperfinfo, but I can't seem to be able to find
the number that would indicate that I have gigs of pages in the buffer.
Is there a know issue with SQL server or TaskMgr on the x64 edition where it
would report the memory usage wrong like this?
Lastly we have Software Assurance for this product, does that give me free
access to support to ask this question?
thanks,
et"et" <et@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:44C118C0-DF0A-4F0E-9752-BC198B40B425@.microsoft.com...
>I just bought a nice new server with EMT64 ( we have to buy Dell :( ). It
>has
> 8 gigs of memory. It is running Windows 2003 Std x64 edition and the OS
> detects all of the 8 gigs.
> I installed SQL 2000 SP4 Enterprise edition and applied SP4. I restored a
> decent sized database of 60+ gigs to it. I wanted to see just how much
> memory
> SQL could use for its buffers versus going off toe the SCSI drives.
> I stared selecting all the data out of my database to move the data in
> their. I top 3 gigs, but shortly after SQL seemed to stop using more
> memory.
> I was guessing this was the limit.
>
Yes. 4 gigs is the limit in this configuration (SQL 2000 EE 32bit on
Windows 2003 x64 edition).
> At this point I thought, maybe I should turn on AWE. I then went and
> applied
> the patch for SP4 that fixes the half memory utilization issue.
> Turned it on and restarted the machine and SQL just to be safe. I have SQL
> setup to use roughly 7+ gigs of memory and to reserve physical memory. I'm
> not using dynamic allocation.
> If I pull up taskmgr I see the process for SQL is only using around 190
> megs
> of memory, however, if I switch to the performance tab I see that I have
> almost all the memory allocated.
> After selecting a ton of data and doing some tests it is clear that way
> more
> then 190 megs of 8k pages are in memory. Mostly from selecting all the
> rows
> from a large table, and then watching the disk io on future requests which
> is
> virtually zero.
> I select * from master.dbo.sysperfinfo, but I can't seem to be able to
> find
> the number that would indicate that I have gigs of pages in the buffer.
> Is there a know issue with SQL server or TaskMgr on the x64 edition where
> it
> would report the memory usage wrong like this?
>
Not an x64 issue. AWE usage is not visible in Task Manager:
From BOL topic "Managing AWE Memory"
Use System Monitor (Performance Monitor in Microsoft Windows NT® 4.0) to
retrieve information on SQL Server memory usage and available memory. Task
Manager does not provide accurate memory usage information for AWE.
Therefore, the memory quoted for sqlservr.exe is not correct. To obtain the
correct amount of SQL Server memory usage, you can use the Total Server
Memory (KB) performance counter, activated through System Monitor, or select
the memory usage from sysperfinfo. For more information, see Monitoring
Memory Usage.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/adminsql/ad_1_server_1fnd.asp
> Lastly we have Software Assurance for this product, does that give me free
> access to support to ask this question?
>
The short answer is Yes, Software Assurance for server products includes
some free phone support, as well as free upgrades to new versions. The
number of incidents and hours of support vary by product and SKU, and total
amount of money spent. Also new stuff is included Software Assurance as of
March 2006. See generally:
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/programs/sa/default.mspx .
David|||When you call in for support, the tech router will tell you if your call is
free or not :-)
--
Kevin Hill
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
"David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted meat@.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:ONfOaFWGGHA.2680@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> "et" <et@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:44C118C0-DF0A-4F0E-9752-BC198B40B425@.microsoft.com...
>>I just bought a nice new server with EMT64 ( we have to buy Dell :( ). It
>>has
>> 8 gigs of memory. It is running Windows 2003 Std x64 edition and the OS
>> detects all of the 8 gigs.
>> I installed SQL 2000 SP4 Enterprise edition and applied SP4. I restored a
>> decent sized database of 60+ gigs to it. I wanted to see just how much
>> memory
>> SQL could use for its buffers versus going off toe the SCSI drives.
>> I stared selecting all the data out of my database to move the data in
>> their. I top 3 gigs, but shortly after SQL seemed to stop using more
>> memory.
>> I was guessing this was the limit.
> Yes. 4 gigs is the limit in this configuration (SQL 2000 EE 32bit on
> Windows 2003 x64 edition).
>> At this point I thought, maybe I should turn on AWE. I then went and
>> applied
>> the patch for SP4 that fixes the half memory utilization issue.
>> Turned it on and restarted the machine and SQL just to be safe. I have
>> SQL
>> setup to use roughly 7+ gigs of memory and to reserve physical memory.
>> I'm
>> not using dynamic allocation.
>> If I pull up taskmgr I see the process for SQL is only using around 190
>> megs
>> of memory, however, if I switch to the performance tab I see that I have
>> almost all the memory allocated.
>> After selecting a ton of data and doing some tests it is clear that way
>> more
>> then 190 megs of 8k pages are in memory. Mostly from selecting all the
>> rows
>> from a large table, and then watching the disk io on future requests
>> which is
>> virtually zero.
>> I select * from master.dbo.sysperfinfo, but I can't seem to be able to
>> find
>> the number that would indicate that I have gigs of pages in the buffer.
>> Is there a know issue with SQL server or TaskMgr on the x64 edition where
>> it
>> would report the memory usage wrong like this?
> Not an x64 issue. AWE usage is not visible in Task Manager:
> From BOL topic "Managing AWE Memory"
> Use System Monitor (Performance Monitor in Microsoft Windows NT® 4.0) to
> retrieve information on SQL Server memory usage and available memory. Task
> Manager does not provide accurate memory usage information for AWE.
> Therefore, the memory quoted for sqlservr.exe is not correct. To obtain
> the correct amount of SQL Server memory usage, you can use the Total
> Server Memory (KB) performance counter, activated through System Monitor,
> or select the memory usage from sysperfinfo. For more information, see
> Monitoring Memory Usage.
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/adminsql/ad_1_server_1fnd.asp
>
>> Lastly we have Software Assurance for this product, does that give me
>> free
>> access to support to ask this question?
> The short answer is Yes, Software Assurance for server products includes
> some free phone support, as well as free upgrades to new versions. The
> number of incidents and hours of support vary by product and SKU, and
> total amount of money spent. Also new stuff is included Software
> Assurance as of March 2006. See generally:
> http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/programs/sa/default.mspx .
>
> David
>
>|||maybe i am beating dead horses but
if this is a brand new machine i do not understand why you did not install
sql 2005 64 bit ,,,,
regards
Michel Posseth [MCP]
"David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted meat@.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:ONfOaFWGGHA.2680@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> "et" <et@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:44C118C0-DF0A-4F0E-9752-BC198B40B425@.microsoft.com...
>>I just bought a nice new server with EMT64 ( we have to buy Dell :( ). It
>>has
>> 8 gigs of memory. It is running Windows 2003 Std x64 edition and the OS
>> detects all of the 8 gigs.
>> I installed SQL 2000 SP4 Enterprise edition and applied SP4. I restored a
>> decent sized database of 60+ gigs to it. I wanted to see just how much
>> memory
>> SQL could use for its buffers versus going off toe the SCSI drives.
>> I stared selecting all the data out of my database to move the data in
>> their. I top 3 gigs, but shortly after SQL seemed to stop using more
>> memory.
>> I was guessing this was the limit.
> Yes. 4 gigs is the limit in this configuration (SQL 2000 EE 32bit on
> Windows 2003 x64 edition).
>> At this point I thought, maybe I should turn on AWE. I then went and
>> applied
>> the patch for SP4 that fixes the half memory utilization issue.
>> Turned it on and restarted the machine and SQL just to be safe. I have
>> SQL
>> setup to use roughly 7+ gigs of memory and to reserve physical memory.
>> I'm
>> not using dynamic allocation.
>> If I pull up taskmgr I see the process for SQL is only using around 190
>> megs
>> of memory, however, if I switch to the performance tab I see that I have
>> almost all the memory allocated.
>> After selecting a ton of data and doing some tests it is clear that way
>> more
>> then 190 megs of 8k pages are in memory. Mostly from selecting all the
>> rows
>> from a large table, and then watching the disk io on future requests
>> which is
>> virtually zero.
>> I select * from master.dbo.sysperfinfo, but I can't seem to be able to
>> find
>> the number that would indicate that I have gigs of pages in the buffer.
>> Is there a know issue with SQL server or TaskMgr on the x64 edition where
>> it
>> would report the memory usage wrong like this?
> Not an x64 issue. AWE usage is not visible in Task Manager:
> From BOL topic "Managing AWE Memory"
> Use System Monitor (Performance Monitor in Microsoft Windows NT® 4.0) to
> retrieve information on SQL Server memory usage and available memory. Task
> Manager does not provide accurate memory usage information for AWE.
> Therefore, the memory quoted for sqlservr.exe is not correct. To obtain
> the correct amount of SQL Server memory usage, you can use the Total
> Server Memory (KB) performance counter, activated through System Monitor,
> or select the memory usage from sysperfinfo. For more information, see
> Monitoring Memory Usage.
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/adminsql/ad_1_server_1fnd.asp
>
>> Lastly we have Software Assurance for this product, does that give me
>> free
>> access to support to ask this question?
> The short answer is Yes, Software Assurance for server products includes
> some free phone support, as well as free upgrades to new versions. The
> number of incidents and hours of support vary by product and SKU, and
> total amount of money spent. Also new stuff is included Software
> Assurance as of March 2006. See generally:
> http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/programs/sa/default.mspx .
>
> David
>
>
8 gigs of memory. It is running Windows 2003 Std x64 edition and the OS
detects all of the 8 gigs.
I installed SQL 2000 SP4 Enterprise edition and applied SP4. I restored a
decent sized database of 60+ gigs to it. I wanted to see just how much memory
SQL could use for its buffers versus going off toe the SCSI drives.
I stared selecting all the data out of my database to move the data in
their. I top 3 gigs, but shortly after SQL seemed to stop using more memory.
I was guessing this was the limit.
At this point I thought, maybe I should turn on AWE. I then went and applied
the patch for SP4 that fixes the half memory utilization issue.
Turned it on and restarted the machine and SQL just to be safe. I have SQL
setup to use roughly 7+ gigs of memory and to reserve physical memory. I'm
not using dynamic allocation.
If I pull up taskmgr I see the process for SQL is only using around 190 megs
of memory, however, if I switch to the performance tab I see that I have
almost all the memory allocated.
After selecting a ton of data and doing some tests it is clear that way more
then 190 megs of 8k pages are in memory. Mostly from selecting all the rows
from a large table, and then watching the disk io on future requests which is
virtually zero.
I select * from master.dbo.sysperfinfo, but I can't seem to be able to find
the number that would indicate that I have gigs of pages in the buffer.
Is there a know issue with SQL server or TaskMgr on the x64 edition where it
would report the memory usage wrong like this?
Lastly we have Software Assurance for this product, does that give me free
access to support to ask this question?
thanks,
et"et" <et@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:44C118C0-DF0A-4F0E-9752-BC198B40B425@.microsoft.com...
>I just bought a nice new server with EMT64 ( we have to buy Dell :( ). It
>has
> 8 gigs of memory. It is running Windows 2003 Std x64 edition and the OS
> detects all of the 8 gigs.
> I installed SQL 2000 SP4 Enterprise edition and applied SP4. I restored a
> decent sized database of 60+ gigs to it. I wanted to see just how much
> memory
> SQL could use for its buffers versus going off toe the SCSI drives.
> I stared selecting all the data out of my database to move the data in
> their. I top 3 gigs, but shortly after SQL seemed to stop using more
> memory.
> I was guessing this was the limit.
>
Yes. 4 gigs is the limit in this configuration (SQL 2000 EE 32bit on
Windows 2003 x64 edition).
> At this point I thought, maybe I should turn on AWE. I then went and
> applied
> the patch for SP4 that fixes the half memory utilization issue.
> Turned it on and restarted the machine and SQL just to be safe. I have SQL
> setup to use roughly 7+ gigs of memory and to reserve physical memory. I'm
> not using dynamic allocation.
> If I pull up taskmgr I see the process for SQL is only using around 190
> megs
> of memory, however, if I switch to the performance tab I see that I have
> almost all the memory allocated.
> After selecting a ton of data and doing some tests it is clear that way
> more
> then 190 megs of 8k pages are in memory. Mostly from selecting all the
> rows
> from a large table, and then watching the disk io on future requests which
> is
> virtually zero.
> I select * from master.dbo.sysperfinfo, but I can't seem to be able to
> find
> the number that would indicate that I have gigs of pages in the buffer.
> Is there a know issue with SQL server or TaskMgr on the x64 edition where
> it
> would report the memory usage wrong like this?
>
Not an x64 issue. AWE usage is not visible in Task Manager:
From BOL topic "Managing AWE Memory"
Use System Monitor (Performance Monitor in Microsoft Windows NT® 4.0) to
retrieve information on SQL Server memory usage and available memory. Task
Manager does not provide accurate memory usage information for AWE.
Therefore, the memory quoted for sqlservr.exe is not correct. To obtain the
correct amount of SQL Server memory usage, you can use the Total Server
Memory (KB) performance counter, activated through System Monitor, or select
the memory usage from sysperfinfo. For more information, see Monitoring
Memory Usage.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/adminsql/ad_1_server_1fnd.asp
> Lastly we have Software Assurance for this product, does that give me free
> access to support to ask this question?
>
The short answer is Yes, Software Assurance for server products includes
some free phone support, as well as free upgrades to new versions. The
number of incidents and hours of support vary by product and SKU, and total
amount of money spent. Also new stuff is included Software Assurance as of
March 2006. See generally:
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/programs/sa/default.mspx .
David|||When you call in for support, the tech router will tell you if your call is
free or not :-)
--
Kevin Hill
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
"David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted meat@.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:ONfOaFWGGHA.2680@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> "et" <et@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:44C118C0-DF0A-4F0E-9752-BC198B40B425@.microsoft.com...
>>I just bought a nice new server with EMT64 ( we have to buy Dell :( ). It
>>has
>> 8 gigs of memory. It is running Windows 2003 Std x64 edition and the OS
>> detects all of the 8 gigs.
>> I installed SQL 2000 SP4 Enterprise edition and applied SP4. I restored a
>> decent sized database of 60+ gigs to it. I wanted to see just how much
>> memory
>> SQL could use for its buffers versus going off toe the SCSI drives.
>> I stared selecting all the data out of my database to move the data in
>> their. I top 3 gigs, but shortly after SQL seemed to stop using more
>> memory.
>> I was guessing this was the limit.
> Yes. 4 gigs is the limit in this configuration (SQL 2000 EE 32bit on
> Windows 2003 x64 edition).
>> At this point I thought, maybe I should turn on AWE. I then went and
>> applied
>> the patch for SP4 that fixes the half memory utilization issue.
>> Turned it on and restarted the machine and SQL just to be safe. I have
>> SQL
>> setup to use roughly 7+ gigs of memory and to reserve physical memory.
>> I'm
>> not using dynamic allocation.
>> If I pull up taskmgr I see the process for SQL is only using around 190
>> megs
>> of memory, however, if I switch to the performance tab I see that I have
>> almost all the memory allocated.
>> After selecting a ton of data and doing some tests it is clear that way
>> more
>> then 190 megs of 8k pages are in memory. Mostly from selecting all the
>> rows
>> from a large table, and then watching the disk io on future requests
>> which is
>> virtually zero.
>> I select * from master.dbo.sysperfinfo, but I can't seem to be able to
>> find
>> the number that would indicate that I have gigs of pages in the buffer.
>> Is there a know issue with SQL server or TaskMgr on the x64 edition where
>> it
>> would report the memory usage wrong like this?
> Not an x64 issue. AWE usage is not visible in Task Manager:
> From BOL topic "Managing AWE Memory"
> Use System Monitor (Performance Monitor in Microsoft Windows NT® 4.0) to
> retrieve information on SQL Server memory usage and available memory. Task
> Manager does not provide accurate memory usage information for AWE.
> Therefore, the memory quoted for sqlservr.exe is not correct. To obtain
> the correct amount of SQL Server memory usage, you can use the Total
> Server Memory (KB) performance counter, activated through System Monitor,
> or select the memory usage from sysperfinfo. For more information, see
> Monitoring Memory Usage.
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/adminsql/ad_1_server_1fnd.asp
>
>> Lastly we have Software Assurance for this product, does that give me
>> free
>> access to support to ask this question?
> The short answer is Yes, Software Assurance for server products includes
> some free phone support, as well as free upgrades to new versions. The
> number of incidents and hours of support vary by product and SKU, and
> total amount of money spent. Also new stuff is included Software
> Assurance as of March 2006. See generally:
> http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/programs/sa/default.mspx .
>
> David
>
>|||maybe i am beating dead horses but
if this is a brand new machine i do not understand why you did not install
sql 2005 64 bit ,,,,
regards
Michel Posseth [MCP]
"David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted meat@.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:ONfOaFWGGHA.2680@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> "et" <et@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:44C118C0-DF0A-4F0E-9752-BC198B40B425@.microsoft.com...
>>I just bought a nice new server with EMT64 ( we have to buy Dell :( ). It
>>has
>> 8 gigs of memory. It is running Windows 2003 Std x64 edition and the OS
>> detects all of the 8 gigs.
>> I installed SQL 2000 SP4 Enterprise edition and applied SP4. I restored a
>> decent sized database of 60+ gigs to it. I wanted to see just how much
>> memory
>> SQL could use for its buffers versus going off toe the SCSI drives.
>> I stared selecting all the data out of my database to move the data in
>> their. I top 3 gigs, but shortly after SQL seemed to stop using more
>> memory.
>> I was guessing this was the limit.
> Yes. 4 gigs is the limit in this configuration (SQL 2000 EE 32bit on
> Windows 2003 x64 edition).
>> At this point I thought, maybe I should turn on AWE. I then went and
>> applied
>> the patch for SP4 that fixes the half memory utilization issue.
>> Turned it on and restarted the machine and SQL just to be safe. I have
>> SQL
>> setup to use roughly 7+ gigs of memory and to reserve physical memory.
>> I'm
>> not using dynamic allocation.
>> If I pull up taskmgr I see the process for SQL is only using around 190
>> megs
>> of memory, however, if I switch to the performance tab I see that I have
>> almost all the memory allocated.
>> After selecting a ton of data and doing some tests it is clear that way
>> more
>> then 190 megs of 8k pages are in memory. Mostly from selecting all the
>> rows
>> from a large table, and then watching the disk io on future requests
>> which is
>> virtually zero.
>> I select * from master.dbo.sysperfinfo, but I can't seem to be able to
>> find
>> the number that would indicate that I have gigs of pages in the buffer.
>> Is there a know issue with SQL server or TaskMgr on the x64 edition where
>> it
>> would report the memory usage wrong like this?
> Not an x64 issue. AWE usage is not visible in Task Manager:
> From BOL topic "Managing AWE Memory"
> Use System Monitor (Performance Monitor in Microsoft Windows NT® 4.0) to
> retrieve information on SQL Server memory usage and available memory. Task
> Manager does not provide accurate memory usage information for AWE.
> Therefore, the memory quoted for sqlservr.exe is not correct. To obtain
> the correct amount of SQL Server memory usage, you can use the Total
> Server Memory (KB) performance counter, activated through System Monitor,
> or select the memory usage from sysperfinfo. For more information, see
> Monitoring Memory Usage.
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/adminsql/ad_1_server_1fnd.asp
>
>> Lastly we have Software Assurance for this product, does that give me
>> free
>> access to support to ask this question?
> The short answer is Yes, Software Assurance for server products includes
> some free phone support, as well as free upgrades to new versions. The
> number of incidents and hours of support vary by product and SKU, and
> total amount of money spent. Also new stuff is included Software
> Assurance as of March 2006. See generally:
> http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/programs/sa/default.mspx .
>
> David
>
>
AWE Memory?
Hi all?
I've tried reading about how AWE memory works but I really can't figure it
out...
I have a dedicated SQL Server 2000 SP4, Ent Edition that runs on a Windows
2003 Advanced server. The box has 4 Gbytes RAM and I want to be able to use
as much as possible of the RAM for SQL Server.
I have entered the Boot.ini with the /3GB parameter to allow SQL Server to
use 3 Gbytes of RAM instead of the default of 2 Gbyte. But there is still 1
Gbyte "left" in the box to be used by OS. At least 512Mbytes of that free
space is in my interest to use for SQL Server.
If I enable AWE memory and set the max server memory to 3,5 Gbyte will I be
able to use that extra 512 Mbytes as well? Or is AWE only for boxes with more
than 4 Gbytes RAM?
regards
fredrik
> If I enable AWE memory and set the max server memory to 3,5 Gbyte will I
> be
> able to use that extra 512 Mbytes as well? Or is AWE only for boxes with
> more
> than 4 Gbytes RAM?
I don't think you need to enable AWE memory in that case
AWE memory is used only for the RAM that exceeds the base 4GB of RAM.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
"Fredrik" <Fredrik@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:14470AFA-E4E7-4D2E-A605-B3651A618913@.microsoft.com...
> Hi all?
> I've tried reading about how AWE memory works but I really can't figure it
> out...
> I have a dedicated SQL Server 2000 SP4, Ent Edition that runs on a Windows
> 2003 Advanced server. The box has 4 Gbytes RAM and I want to be able to
> use
> as much as possible of the RAM for SQL Server.
> I have entered the Boot.ini with the /3GB parameter to allow SQL Server to
> use 3 Gbytes of RAM instead of the default of 2 Gbyte. But there is still
> 1
> Gbyte "left" in the box to be used by OS. At least 512Mbytes of that free
> space is in my interest to use for SQL Server.
> If I enable AWE memory and set the max server memory to 3,5 Gbyte will I
> be
> able to use that extra 512 Mbytes as well? Or is AWE only for boxes with
> more
> than 4 Gbytes RAM?
> regards
> fredrik
|||If we are talking about the memory usage as measured by the SQL counter Total
Server Memory, you need to enable AWE to use more than 3GB. It is not correct
that AWE is used only for RAM that exceeds 4GB.
Linchi
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> I don't think you need to enable AWE memory in that case
> AWE memory is used only for the RAM that exceeds the base 4GB of RAM.
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750
> http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
>
> "Fredrik" <Fredrik@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:14470AFA-E4E7-4D2E-A605-B3651A618913@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Could you give us some support on that assertion? (It is not correct that AWE is used only for RAM that exceeds 4GB." If my information is incorrect, I would like to update it to reflect that which is indeed correct...
I've been going by the following:
"AWE is a set of memory management extensions to the Microsoft Win32? API that allows applications to address memory beyond 4 GB."
From: http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...dv64BitEnv.doc
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:1C1B6C5F-B795-4209-B6C9-06495AE71796@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> If we are talking about the memory usage as measured by the SQL counter Total
> Server Memory, you need to enable AWE to use more than 3GB. It is not correct
> that AWE is used only for RAM that exceeds 4GB.
> Linchi
> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
|||Could you give us some support on that assertion? (It is not correct that AWE is used only for RAM that exceeds 4GB." If my information is incorrect, I would like to update it to reflect that which is indeed correct...
I've been going by the following:
"AWE is a set of memory management extensions to the Microsoft Win32? API that allows applications to address memory beyond 4 GB."
From: http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...dv64BitEnv.doc
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:1C1B6C5F-B795-4209-B6C9-06495AE71796@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> If we are talking about the memory usage as measured by the SQL counter Total
> Server Memory, you need to enable AWE to use more than 3GB. It is not correct
> that AWE is used only for RAM that exceeds 4GB.
> Linchi
> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
|||What you need instead of all these buggy flags is to move to x64 where the
memory issue doesn't exist at all. Of course you also need to make sure you
run SQL Server 64 bit as well, not the 32 bit version on a 64 bit system.
Unfortunately very few dedicated hosts offer Windows 2003 x64.
KL
"Fredrik" <Fredrik@.discussions.microsoft.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:14470AFA-E4E7-4D2E-A605-B3651A618913@.microsoft.com...
> Hi all?
> I've tried reading about how AWE memory works but I really can't figure it
> out...
> I have a dedicated SQL Server 2000 SP4, Ent Edition that runs on a Windows
> 2003 Advanced server. The box has 4 Gbytes RAM and I want to be able to
> use
> as much as possible of the RAM for SQL Server.
> I have entered the Boot.ini with the /3GB parameter to allow SQL Server to
> use 3 Gbytes of RAM instead of the default of 2 Gbyte. But there is still
> 1
> Gbyte "left" in the box to be used by OS. At least 512Mbytes of that free
> space is in my interest to use for SQL Server.
> If I enable AWE memory and set the max server memory to 3,5 Gbyte will I
> be
> able to use that extra 512 Mbytes as well? Or is AWE only for boxes with
> more
> than 4 Gbytes RAM?
> regards
> fredrik
|||Here's some empirical evidence from the test scenarios in which severe memory
pressure was put on the instance with 4GB of RAM. If the following comes out
unreadable format-wise, drop me an email and I send you the charts.
Linchi
linchi_shea@.take-this-out-FIRSTml.com
Observed Target Sqlservr.exe
Max server AWE 3GB /Total server memory observed
memory (MB) enabled enabled memory (MB) on TaskMan (MB)
500 N N 500 560
1000 N N 1000 1060
1500 N N 1206 1266
2000 N N 1206 1266
2500 N N 1206 1266
3000 N N 1206 1266
3500 N N 1206 1266
Observed Target Sqlservr.exe
Max server AWE 3GB /Total server memory observed
memory (MB) enabled enabled memory (MB) on TaskMan (MB)
500 Y N 500 61
1000 Y N 1000 67
1500 Y N 1500 71
2000 Y N 2000 76
2500 Y N 2500 81
3000 Y N 3000 86
3500 Y N 3500 90
Observed Target Sqlservr.exe
Max server AWE 3GB /Total server memory observed
memory (MB) enabled enabled memory (MB) on TaskMan (MB)
500 Y Y 500 65
1000 Y Y 1000 70
1500 Y Y 1500 75
2000 Y Y 2000 80
2500 Y Y 2500 84
3000 Y Y 3000 89
3500 Y Y 3500 94
Observed Target Sqlservr.exe
Max server AWE 3GB /Total server memory observed
memory (MB) enabled enabled memory (MB) on TaskMan (MB)
500 N Y 500 550
1000 N Y 1000 1055
1500 N Y 1500 1561
2000 N Y 2000 2067
2500 N Y 2219 2290
3000 N Y 2219 2290
3500 N Y 2219 2290
"Arnie Rowland" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Could you give us some support on that assertion? (It is not correct that AWE is used only for RAM that exceeds 4GB." If my information is incorrect, I would like to update it to reflect that which is indeed correct...
> I've been going by the following:
> "AWE is a set of memory management extensions to the Microsoft Win32? API that allows applications to address memory beyond 4 GB."
> From: http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...dv64BitEnv.doc
> --
> Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
> Westwood Consulting, Inc
> Most good judgment comes from experience.
> Most experience comes from bad judgment.
> - Anonymous
>
> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:1C1B6C5F-B795-4209-B6C9-06495AE71796@.microsoft.com...
|||Hi Fredrick,
If your server is running 4 GB of memory, then you don't want to have
SQL Server running more than 3 GB. Part of the reason for that is that
you have to leave sufficient space for the OS to operate and 1 GB of
RAN for the OS is a good amount (yeah, I know it'll run on less). The
other reason is that AWE requires 1 GB of RAM just to manage the
memory swaps that are going on. So running AWE on a 4 GB server is
likely to make things worse, not better.
So if you really think you need to be running AWE:
(1) Have at least 6 GB of memory on the server and that this is the
only instance of SQL Server running on the server.
(2) After enabling AWE and setting the /3GB and /PAE switches in the
boot.ini file, configure your max memory setting to equal your total
memory minus 1 GB (for the OS). If you don't configure the max memory
setting you leave open the possibility that SQL Server will grab all
but 128 MB of RAM to operate, leaving you a memory-starved OS that
will perform poorly (if at all) due to heavy paging of the OS to the
swap file.
Before enabling AWE you need to do your homework on whether the extra
memory will actually do you any good. Our team manages 500+ instances
of SQL 2000 & 2005 and in all the 15+ years I've worked as a SQL DBA
the vast majority of performance issues I've seen are due to
application and/or database design. You'll be amazed at how well SQL
will run on 3 GB of RAM, especially with a well-designed system. Good
luck to you!
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:03:01 -0700, Fredrik
<Fredrik@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Hi all?
>I've tried reading about how AWE memory works but I really can't figure it
>out...
>I have a dedicated SQL Server 2000 SP4, Ent Edition that runs on a Windows
>2003 Advanced server. The box has 4 Gbytes RAM and I want to be able to use
>as much as possible of the RAM for SQL Server.
>I have entered the Boot.ini with the /3GB parameter to allow SQL Server to
>use 3 Gbytes of RAM instead of the default of 2 Gbyte. But there is still 1
>Gbyte "left" in the box to be used by OS. At least 512Mbytes of that free
>space is in my interest to use for SQL Server.
>If I enable AWE memory and set the max server memory to 3,5 Gbyte will I be
>able to use that extra 512 Mbytes as well? Or is AWE only for boxes with more
>than 4 Gbytes RAM?
>regards
>fredrik
I've tried reading about how AWE memory works but I really can't figure it
out...
I have a dedicated SQL Server 2000 SP4, Ent Edition that runs on a Windows
2003 Advanced server. The box has 4 Gbytes RAM and I want to be able to use
as much as possible of the RAM for SQL Server.
I have entered the Boot.ini with the /3GB parameter to allow SQL Server to
use 3 Gbytes of RAM instead of the default of 2 Gbyte. But there is still 1
Gbyte "left" in the box to be used by OS. At least 512Mbytes of that free
space is in my interest to use for SQL Server.
If I enable AWE memory and set the max server memory to 3,5 Gbyte will I be
able to use that extra 512 Mbytes as well? Or is AWE only for boxes with more
than 4 Gbytes RAM?
regards
fredrik
> If I enable AWE memory and set the max server memory to 3,5 Gbyte will I
> be
> able to use that extra 512 Mbytes as well? Or is AWE only for boxes with
> more
> than 4 Gbytes RAM?
I don't think you need to enable AWE memory in that case
AWE memory is used only for the RAM that exceeds the base 4GB of RAM.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
"Fredrik" <Fredrik@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:14470AFA-E4E7-4D2E-A605-B3651A618913@.microsoft.com...
> Hi all?
> I've tried reading about how AWE memory works but I really can't figure it
> out...
> I have a dedicated SQL Server 2000 SP4, Ent Edition that runs on a Windows
> 2003 Advanced server. The box has 4 Gbytes RAM and I want to be able to
> use
> as much as possible of the RAM for SQL Server.
> I have entered the Boot.ini with the /3GB parameter to allow SQL Server to
> use 3 Gbytes of RAM instead of the default of 2 Gbyte. But there is still
> 1
> Gbyte "left" in the box to be used by OS. At least 512Mbytes of that free
> space is in my interest to use for SQL Server.
> If I enable AWE memory and set the max server memory to 3,5 Gbyte will I
> be
> able to use that extra 512 Mbytes as well? Or is AWE only for boxes with
> more
> than 4 Gbytes RAM?
> regards
> fredrik
|||If we are talking about the memory usage as measured by the SQL counter Total
Server Memory, you need to enable AWE to use more than 3GB. It is not correct
that AWE is used only for RAM that exceeds 4GB.
Linchi
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> I don't think you need to enable AWE memory in that case
> AWE memory is used only for the RAM that exceeds the base 4GB of RAM.
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750
> http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
>
> "Fredrik" <Fredrik@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:14470AFA-E4E7-4D2E-A605-B3651A618913@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Could you give us some support on that assertion? (It is not correct that AWE is used only for RAM that exceeds 4GB." If my information is incorrect, I would like to update it to reflect that which is indeed correct...
I've been going by the following:
"AWE is a set of memory management extensions to the Microsoft Win32? API that allows applications to address memory beyond 4 GB."
From: http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...dv64BitEnv.doc
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:1C1B6C5F-B795-4209-B6C9-06495AE71796@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> If we are talking about the memory usage as measured by the SQL counter Total
> Server Memory, you need to enable AWE to use more than 3GB. It is not correct
> that AWE is used only for RAM that exceeds 4GB.
> Linchi
> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
|||Could you give us some support on that assertion? (It is not correct that AWE is used only for RAM that exceeds 4GB." If my information is incorrect, I would like to update it to reflect that which is indeed correct...
I've been going by the following:
"AWE is a set of memory management extensions to the Microsoft Win32? API that allows applications to address memory beyond 4 GB."
From: http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...dv64BitEnv.doc
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:1C1B6C5F-B795-4209-B6C9-06495AE71796@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> If we are talking about the memory usage as measured by the SQL counter Total
> Server Memory, you need to enable AWE to use more than 3GB. It is not correct
> that AWE is used only for RAM that exceeds 4GB.
> Linchi
> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
|||What you need instead of all these buggy flags is to move to x64 where the
memory issue doesn't exist at all. Of course you also need to make sure you
run SQL Server 64 bit as well, not the 32 bit version on a 64 bit system.
Unfortunately very few dedicated hosts offer Windows 2003 x64.
KL
"Fredrik" <Fredrik@.discussions.microsoft.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:14470AFA-E4E7-4D2E-A605-B3651A618913@.microsoft.com...
> Hi all?
> I've tried reading about how AWE memory works but I really can't figure it
> out...
> I have a dedicated SQL Server 2000 SP4, Ent Edition that runs on a Windows
> 2003 Advanced server. The box has 4 Gbytes RAM and I want to be able to
> use
> as much as possible of the RAM for SQL Server.
> I have entered the Boot.ini with the /3GB parameter to allow SQL Server to
> use 3 Gbytes of RAM instead of the default of 2 Gbyte. But there is still
> 1
> Gbyte "left" in the box to be used by OS. At least 512Mbytes of that free
> space is in my interest to use for SQL Server.
> If I enable AWE memory and set the max server memory to 3,5 Gbyte will I
> be
> able to use that extra 512 Mbytes as well? Or is AWE only for boxes with
> more
> than 4 Gbytes RAM?
> regards
> fredrik
|||Here's some empirical evidence from the test scenarios in which severe memory
pressure was put on the instance with 4GB of RAM. If the following comes out
unreadable format-wise, drop me an email and I send you the charts.
Linchi
linchi_shea@.take-this-out-FIRSTml.com
Observed Target Sqlservr.exe
Max server AWE 3GB /Total server memory observed
memory (MB) enabled enabled memory (MB) on TaskMan (MB)
500 N N 500 560
1000 N N 1000 1060
1500 N N 1206 1266
2000 N N 1206 1266
2500 N N 1206 1266
3000 N N 1206 1266
3500 N N 1206 1266
Observed Target Sqlservr.exe
Max server AWE 3GB /Total server memory observed
memory (MB) enabled enabled memory (MB) on TaskMan (MB)
500 Y N 500 61
1000 Y N 1000 67
1500 Y N 1500 71
2000 Y N 2000 76
2500 Y N 2500 81
3000 Y N 3000 86
3500 Y N 3500 90
Observed Target Sqlservr.exe
Max server AWE 3GB /Total server memory observed
memory (MB) enabled enabled memory (MB) on TaskMan (MB)
500 Y Y 500 65
1000 Y Y 1000 70
1500 Y Y 1500 75
2000 Y Y 2000 80
2500 Y Y 2500 84
3000 Y Y 3000 89
3500 Y Y 3500 94
Observed Target Sqlservr.exe
Max server AWE 3GB /Total server memory observed
memory (MB) enabled enabled memory (MB) on TaskMan (MB)
500 N Y 500 550
1000 N Y 1000 1055
1500 N Y 1500 1561
2000 N Y 2000 2067
2500 N Y 2219 2290
3000 N Y 2219 2290
3500 N Y 2219 2290
"Arnie Rowland" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Could you give us some support on that assertion? (It is not correct that AWE is used only for RAM that exceeds 4GB." If my information is incorrect, I would like to update it to reflect that which is indeed correct...
> I've been going by the following:
> "AWE is a set of memory management extensions to the Microsoft Win32? API that allows applications to address memory beyond 4 GB."
> From: http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...dv64BitEnv.doc
> --
> Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
> Westwood Consulting, Inc
> Most good judgment comes from experience.
> Most experience comes from bad judgment.
> - Anonymous
>
> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:1C1B6C5F-B795-4209-B6C9-06495AE71796@.microsoft.com...
|||Hi Fredrick,
If your server is running 4 GB of memory, then you don't want to have
SQL Server running more than 3 GB. Part of the reason for that is that
you have to leave sufficient space for the OS to operate and 1 GB of
RAN for the OS is a good amount (yeah, I know it'll run on less). The
other reason is that AWE requires 1 GB of RAM just to manage the
memory swaps that are going on. So running AWE on a 4 GB server is
likely to make things worse, not better.
So if you really think you need to be running AWE:
(1) Have at least 6 GB of memory on the server and that this is the
only instance of SQL Server running on the server.
(2) After enabling AWE and setting the /3GB and /PAE switches in the
boot.ini file, configure your max memory setting to equal your total
memory minus 1 GB (for the OS). If you don't configure the max memory
setting you leave open the possibility that SQL Server will grab all
but 128 MB of RAM to operate, leaving you a memory-starved OS that
will perform poorly (if at all) due to heavy paging of the OS to the
swap file.
Before enabling AWE you need to do your homework on whether the extra
memory will actually do you any good. Our team manages 500+ instances
of SQL 2000 & 2005 and in all the 15+ years I've worked as a SQL DBA
the vast majority of performance issues I've seen are due to
application and/or database design. You'll be amazed at how well SQL
will run on 3 GB of RAM, especially with a well-designed system. Good
luck to you!
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:03:01 -0700, Fredrik
<Fredrik@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Hi all?
>I've tried reading about how AWE memory works but I really can't figure it
>out...
>I have a dedicated SQL Server 2000 SP4, Ent Edition that runs on a Windows
>2003 Advanced server. The box has 4 Gbytes RAM and I want to be able to use
>as much as possible of the RAM for SQL Server.
>I have entered the Boot.ini with the /3GB parameter to allow SQL Server to
>use 3 Gbytes of RAM instead of the default of 2 Gbyte. But there is still 1
>Gbyte "left" in the box to be used by OS. At least 512Mbytes of that free
>space is in my interest to use for SQL Server.
>If I enable AWE memory and set the max server memory to 3,5 Gbyte will I be
>able to use that extra 512 Mbytes as well? Or is AWE only for boxes with more
>than 4 Gbytes RAM?
>regards
>fredrik
AWE Memory?
Hi all?
I've tried reading about how AWE memory works but I really can't figure it
out...
I have a dedicated SQL Server 2000 SP4, Ent Edition that runs on a Windows
2003 Advanced server. The box has 4 Gbytes RAM and I want to be able to use
as much as possible of the RAM for SQL Server.
I have entered the Boot.ini with the /3GB parameter to allow SQL Server to
use 3 Gbytes of RAM instead of the default of 2 Gbyte. But there is still 1
Gbyte "left" in the box to be used by OS. At least 512Mbytes of that free
space is in my interest to use for SQL Server.
If I enable AWE memory and set the max server memory to 3,5 Gbyte will I be
able to use that extra 512 Mbytes as well? Or is AWE only for boxes with mor
e
than 4 Gbytes RAM?
regards
fredrik> If I enable AWE memory and set the max server memory to 3,5 Gbyte will I
> be
> able to use that extra 512 Mbytes as well? Or is AWE only for boxes with
> more
> than 4 Gbytes RAM?
I don't think you need to enable AWE memory in that case
AWE memory is used only for the RAM that exceeds the base 4GB of RAM.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
"Fredrik" <Fredrik@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:14470AFA-E4E7-4D2E-A605-B3651A618913@.microsoft.com...
> Hi all?
> I've tried reading about how AWE memory works but I really can't figure it
> out...
> I have a dedicated SQL Server 2000 SP4, Ent Edition that runs on a Windows
> 2003 Advanced server. The box has 4 Gbytes RAM and I want to be able to
> use
> as much as possible of the RAM for SQL Server.
> I have entered the Boot.ini with the /3GB parameter to allow SQL Server to
> use 3 Gbytes of RAM instead of the default of 2 Gbyte. But there is still
> 1
> Gbyte "left" in the box to be used by OS. At least 512Mbytes of that free
> space is in my interest to use for SQL Server.
> If I enable AWE memory and set the max server memory to 3,5 Gbyte will I
> be
> able to use that extra 512 Mbytes as well? Or is AWE only for boxes with
> more
> than 4 Gbytes RAM?
> regards
> fredrik|||If we are talking about the memory usage as measured by the SQL counter Tota
l
Server Memory, you need to enable AWE to use more than 3GB. It is not correc
t
that AWE is used only for RAM that exceeds 4GB.
Linchi
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> I don't think you need to enable AWE memory in that case
> AWE memory is used only for the RAM that exceeds the base 4GB of RAM.
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750
> http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
>
> "Fredrik" <Fredrik@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:14470AFA-E4E7-4D2E-A605-B3651A618913@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Could you give us some support on that assertion? (It is not correct that AW
E is used only for RAM that exceeds 4GB." If my information is incorrect, I
would like to update it to reflect that which is indeed correct...
I've been going by the following:
"AWE is a set of memory management extensions to the Microsoft Win32? API
that allows applications to address memory beyond 4 GB."
From: http://download.microsoft.com/downl...Adv64BitEnv.doc
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:1C1B6C5F-B795-420
9-B6C9-06495AE71796@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> If we are talking about the memory usage as measured by the SQL counter To
tal
> Server Memory, you need to enable AWE to use more than 3GB. It is not corr
ect
> that AWE is used only for RAM that exceeds 4GB.
>
> Linchi
>
> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
>|||Could you give us some support on that assertion? (It is not correct that AW
E is used only for RAM that exceeds 4GB." If my information is incorrect, I
would like to update it to reflect that which is indeed correct...
I've been going by the following:
"AWE is a set of memory management extensions to the Microsoft Win32? API
that allows applications to address memory beyond 4 GB."
From: http://download.microsoft.com/downl...Adv64BitEnv.doc
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:1C1B6C5F-B795-420
9-B6C9-06495AE71796@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> If we are talking about the memory usage as measured by the SQL counter To
tal
> Server Memory, you need to enable AWE to use more than 3GB. It is not corr
ect
> that AWE is used only for RAM that exceeds 4GB.
>
> Linchi
>
> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
>|||What you need instead of all these buggy flags is to move to x64 where the
memory issue doesn't exist at all. Of course you also need to make sure you
run SQL Server 64 bit as well, not the 32 bit version on a 64 bit system.
Unfortunately very few dedicated hosts offer Windows 2003 x64.
KL
"Fredrik" <Fredrik@.discussions.microsoft.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:14470AFA-E4E7-4D2E-A605-B3651A618913@.microsoft.com...
> Hi all?
> I've tried reading about how AWE memory works but I really can't figure it
> out...
> I have a dedicated SQL Server 2000 SP4, Ent Edition that runs on a Windows
> 2003 Advanced server. The box has 4 Gbytes RAM and I want to be able to
> use
> as much as possible of the RAM for SQL Server.
> I have entered the Boot.ini with the /3GB parameter to allow SQL Server to
> use 3 Gbytes of RAM instead of the default of 2 Gbyte. But there is still
> 1
> Gbyte "left" in the box to be used by OS. At least 512Mbytes of that free
> space is in my interest to use for SQL Server.
> If I enable AWE memory and set the max server memory to 3,5 Gbyte will I
> be
> able to use that extra 512 Mbytes as well? Or is AWE only for boxes with
> more
> than 4 Gbytes RAM?
> regards
> fredrik|||Here's some empirical evidence from the test scenarios in which severe memor
y
pressure was put on the instance with 4GB of RAM. If the following comes out
unreadable format-wise, drop me an email and I send you the charts.
Linchi
linchi_shea@.take-this-out-FIRSTml.com
Observed Target Sqlservr.exe
Max server AWE 3GB /Total server memory observed
memory (MB) enabled enabled memory (MB) on TaskMan (MB)
500 N N 500 560
1000 N N 1000 1060
1500 N N 1206 1266
2000 N N 1206 1266
2500 N N 1206 1266
3000 N N 1206 1266
3500 N N 1206 1266
Observed Target Sqlservr.exe
Max server AWE 3GB /Total server memory observed
memory (MB) enabled enabled memory (MB) on TaskMan (MB)
500 Y N 500 61
1000 Y N 1000 67
1500 Y N 1500 71
2000 Y N 2000 76
2500 Y N 2500 81
3000 Y N 3000 86
3500 Y N 3500 90
Observed Target Sqlservr.exe
Max server AWE 3GB /Total server memory observed
memory (MB) enabled enabled memory (MB) on TaskMan (MB)
500 Y Y 500 65
1000 Y Y 1000 70
1500 Y Y 1500 75
2000 Y Y 2000 80
2500 Y Y 2500 84
3000 Y Y 3000 89
3500 Y Y 3500 94
Observed Target Sqlservr.exe
Max server AWE 3GB /Total server memory observed
memory (MB) enabled enabled memory (MB) on TaskMan (MB)
500 N Y 500 550
1000 N Y 1000 1055
1500 N Y 1500 1561
2000 N Y 2000 2067
2500 N Y 2219 2290
3000 N Y 2219 2290
3500 N Y 2219 2290
"Arnie Rowland" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Could you give us some support on that assertion? (It is not correct that
AWE is used only for RAM that exceeds 4GB." If my information is incorrect,
I would like to update it to reflect that which is indeed correct...
> I've been going by the following:
> "AWE is a set of memory management extensions to the Microsoft Win32? AP
I that allows applications to address memory beyond 4 GB."
> From: http://download.microsoft.com/downl...Adv64BitEnv.doc
> --
> Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
> Westwood Consulting, Inc
> Most good judgment comes from experience.
> Most experience comes from bad judgment.
> - Anonymous
>
> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news
:1C1B6C5F-B795-4209-B6C9-06495AE71796@.microsoft.com...|||Hi Fredrick,
If your server is running 4 GB of memory, then you don't want to have
SQL Server running more than 3 GB. Part of the reason for that is that
you have to leave sufficient space for the OS to operate and 1 GB of
RAN for the OS is a good amount (yeah, I know it'll run on less). The
other reason is that AWE requires 1 GB of RAM just to manage the
memory swaps that are going on. So running AWE on a 4 GB server is
likely to make things worse, not better.
So if you really think you need to be running AWE:
(1) Have at least 6 GB of memory on the server and that this is the
only instance of SQL Server running on the server.
(2) After enabling AWE and setting the /3GB and /PAE switches in the
boot.ini file, configure your max memory setting to equal your total
memory minus 1 GB (for the OS). If you don't configure the max memory
setting you leave open the possibility that SQL Server will grab all
but 128 MB of RAM to operate, leaving you a memory-starved OS that
will perform poorly (if at all) due to heavy paging of the OS to the
swap file.
Before enabling AWE you need to do your homework on whether the extra
memory will actually do you any good. Our team manages 500+ instances
of SQL 2000 & 2005 and in all the 15+ years I've worked as a SQL DBA
the vast majority of performance issues I've seen are due to
application and/or database design. You'll be amazed at how well SQL
will run on 3 GB of RAM, especially with a well-designed system. Good
luck to you!
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:03:01 -0700, Fredrik
<Fredrik@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Hi all?
>I've tried reading about how AWE memory works but I really can't figure it
>out...
>I have a dedicated SQL Server 2000 SP4, Ent Edition that runs on a Windows
>2003 Advanced server. The box has 4 Gbytes RAM and I want to be able to use
>as much as possible of the RAM for SQL Server.
>I have entered the Boot.ini with the /3GB parameter to allow SQL Server to
>use 3 Gbytes of RAM instead of the default of 2 Gbyte. But there is still 1
>Gbyte "left" in the box to be used by OS. At least 512Mbytes of that free
>space is in my interest to use for SQL Server.
>If I enable AWE memory and set the max server memory to 3,5 Gbyte will I be
>able to use that extra 512 Mbytes as well? Or is AWE only for boxes with mo
re
>than 4 Gbytes RAM?
>regards
>fredrik
I've tried reading about how AWE memory works but I really can't figure it
out...
I have a dedicated SQL Server 2000 SP4, Ent Edition that runs on a Windows
2003 Advanced server. The box has 4 Gbytes RAM and I want to be able to use
as much as possible of the RAM for SQL Server.
I have entered the Boot.ini with the /3GB parameter to allow SQL Server to
use 3 Gbytes of RAM instead of the default of 2 Gbyte. But there is still 1
Gbyte "left" in the box to be used by OS. At least 512Mbytes of that free
space is in my interest to use for SQL Server.
If I enable AWE memory and set the max server memory to 3,5 Gbyte will I be
able to use that extra 512 Mbytes as well? Or is AWE only for boxes with mor
e
than 4 Gbytes RAM?
regards
fredrik> If I enable AWE memory and set the max server memory to 3,5 Gbyte will I
> be
> able to use that extra 512 Mbytes as well? Or is AWE only for boxes with
> more
> than 4 Gbytes RAM?
I don't think you need to enable AWE memory in that case
AWE memory is used only for the RAM that exceeds the base 4GB of RAM.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
"Fredrik" <Fredrik@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:14470AFA-E4E7-4D2E-A605-B3651A618913@.microsoft.com...
> Hi all?
> I've tried reading about how AWE memory works but I really can't figure it
> out...
> I have a dedicated SQL Server 2000 SP4, Ent Edition that runs on a Windows
> 2003 Advanced server. The box has 4 Gbytes RAM and I want to be able to
> use
> as much as possible of the RAM for SQL Server.
> I have entered the Boot.ini with the /3GB parameter to allow SQL Server to
> use 3 Gbytes of RAM instead of the default of 2 Gbyte. But there is still
> 1
> Gbyte "left" in the box to be used by OS. At least 512Mbytes of that free
> space is in my interest to use for SQL Server.
> If I enable AWE memory and set the max server memory to 3,5 Gbyte will I
> be
> able to use that extra 512 Mbytes as well? Or is AWE only for boxes with
> more
> than 4 Gbytes RAM?
> regards
> fredrik|||If we are talking about the memory usage as measured by the SQL counter Tota
l
Server Memory, you need to enable AWE to use more than 3GB. It is not correc
t
that AWE is used only for RAM that exceeds 4GB.
Linchi
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> I don't think you need to enable AWE memory in that case
> AWE memory is used only for the RAM that exceeds the base 4GB of RAM.
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750
> http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
>
> "Fredrik" <Fredrik@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:14470AFA-E4E7-4D2E-A605-B3651A618913@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Could you give us some support on that assertion? (It is not correct that AW
E is used only for RAM that exceeds 4GB." If my information is incorrect, I
would like to update it to reflect that which is indeed correct...
I've been going by the following:
"AWE is a set of memory management extensions to the Microsoft Win32? API
that allows applications to address memory beyond 4 GB."
From: http://download.microsoft.com/downl...Adv64BitEnv.doc
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:1C1B6C5F-B795-420
9-B6C9-06495AE71796@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> If we are talking about the memory usage as measured by the SQL counter To
tal
> Server Memory, you need to enable AWE to use more than 3GB. It is not corr
ect
> that AWE is used only for RAM that exceeds 4GB.
>
> Linchi
>
> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
>|||Could you give us some support on that assertion? (It is not correct that AW
E is used only for RAM that exceeds 4GB." If my information is incorrect, I
would like to update it to reflect that which is indeed correct...
I've been going by the following:
"AWE is a set of memory management extensions to the Microsoft Win32? API
that allows applications to address memory beyond 4 GB."
From: http://download.microsoft.com/downl...Adv64BitEnv.doc
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:1C1B6C5F-B795-420
9-B6C9-06495AE71796@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> If we are talking about the memory usage as measured by the SQL counter To
tal
> Server Memory, you need to enable AWE to use more than 3GB. It is not corr
ect
> that AWE is used only for RAM that exceeds 4GB.
>
> Linchi
>
> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
>|||What you need instead of all these buggy flags is to move to x64 where the
memory issue doesn't exist at all. Of course you also need to make sure you
run SQL Server 64 bit as well, not the 32 bit version on a 64 bit system.
Unfortunately very few dedicated hosts offer Windows 2003 x64.
KL
"Fredrik" <Fredrik@.discussions.microsoft.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:14470AFA-E4E7-4D2E-A605-B3651A618913@.microsoft.com...
> Hi all?
> I've tried reading about how AWE memory works but I really can't figure it
> out...
> I have a dedicated SQL Server 2000 SP4, Ent Edition that runs on a Windows
> 2003 Advanced server. The box has 4 Gbytes RAM and I want to be able to
> use
> as much as possible of the RAM for SQL Server.
> I have entered the Boot.ini with the /3GB parameter to allow SQL Server to
> use 3 Gbytes of RAM instead of the default of 2 Gbyte. But there is still
> 1
> Gbyte "left" in the box to be used by OS. At least 512Mbytes of that free
> space is in my interest to use for SQL Server.
> If I enable AWE memory and set the max server memory to 3,5 Gbyte will I
> be
> able to use that extra 512 Mbytes as well? Or is AWE only for boxes with
> more
> than 4 Gbytes RAM?
> regards
> fredrik|||Here's some empirical evidence from the test scenarios in which severe memor
y
pressure was put on the instance with 4GB of RAM. If the following comes out
unreadable format-wise, drop me an email and I send you the charts.
Linchi
linchi_shea@.take-this-out-FIRSTml.com
Observed Target Sqlservr.exe
Max server AWE 3GB /Total server memory observed
memory (MB) enabled enabled memory (MB) on TaskMan (MB)
500 N N 500 560
1000 N N 1000 1060
1500 N N 1206 1266
2000 N N 1206 1266
2500 N N 1206 1266
3000 N N 1206 1266
3500 N N 1206 1266
Observed Target Sqlservr.exe
Max server AWE 3GB /Total server memory observed
memory (MB) enabled enabled memory (MB) on TaskMan (MB)
500 Y N 500 61
1000 Y N 1000 67
1500 Y N 1500 71
2000 Y N 2000 76
2500 Y N 2500 81
3000 Y N 3000 86
3500 Y N 3500 90
Observed Target Sqlservr.exe
Max server AWE 3GB /Total server memory observed
memory (MB) enabled enabled memory (MB) on TaskMan (MB)
500 Y Y 500 65
1000 Y Y 1000 70
1500 Y Y 1500 75
2000 Y Y 2000 80
2500 Y Y 2500 84
3000 Y Y 3000 89
3500 Y Y 3500 94
Observed Target Sqlservr.exe
Max server AWE 3GB /Total server memory observed
memory (MB) enabled enabled memory (MB) on TaskMan (MB)
500 N Y 500 550
1000 N Y 1000 1055
1500 N Y 1500 1561
2000 N Y 2000 2067
2500 N Y 2219 2290
3000 N Y 2219 2290
3500 N Y 2219 2290
"Arnie Rowland" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Could you give us some support on that assertion? (It is not correct that
AWE is used only for RAM that exceeds 4GB." If my information is incorrect,
I would like to update it to reflect that which is indeed correct...
> I've been going by the following:
> "AWE is a set of memory management extensions to the Microsoft Win32? AP
I that allows applications to address memory beyond 4 GB."
> From: http://download.microsoft.com/downl...Adv64BitEnv.doc
> --
> Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
> Westwood Consulting, Inc
> Most good judgment comes from experience.
> Most experience comes from bad judgment.
> - Anonymous
>
> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news
:1C1B6C5F-B795-4209-B6C9-06495AE71796@.microsoft.com...|||Hi Fredrick,
If your server is running 4 GB of memory, then you don't want to have
SQL Server running more than 3 GB. Part of the reason for that is that
you have to leave sufficient space for the OS to operate and 1 GB of
RAN for the OS is a good amount (yeah, I know it'll run on less). The
other reason is that AWE requires 1 GB of RAM just to manage the
memory swaps that are going on. So running AWE on a 4 GB server is
likely to make things worse, not better.
So if you really think you need to be running AWE:
(1) Have at least 6 GB of memory on the server and that this is the
only instance of SQL Server running on the server.
(2) After enabling AWE and setting the /3GB and /PAE switches in the
boot.ini file, configure your max memory setting to equal your total
memory minus 1 GB (for the OS). If you don't configure the max memory
setting you leave open the possibility that SQL Server will grab all
but 128 MB of RAM to operate, leaving you a memory-starved OS that
will perform poorly (if at all) due to heavy paging of the OS to the
swap file.
Before enabling AWE you need to do your homework on whether the extra
memory will actually do you any good. Our team manages 500+ instances
of SQL 2000 & 2005 and in all the 15+ years I've worked as a SQL DBA
the vast majority of performance issues I've seen are due to
application and/or database design. You'll be amazed at how well SQL
will run on 3 GB of RAM, especially with a well-designed system. Good
luck to you!
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:03:01 -0700, Fredrik
<Fredrik@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Hi all?
>I've tried reading about how AWE memory works but I really can't figure it
>out...
>I have a dedicated SQL Server 2000 SP4, Ent Edition that runs on a Windows
>2003 Advanced server. The box has 4 Gbytes RAM and I want to be able to use
>as much as possible of the RAM for SQL Server.
>I have entered the Boot.ini with the /3GB parameter to allow SQL Server to
>use 3 Gbytes of RAM instead of the default of 2 Gbyte. But there is still 1
>Gbyte "left" in the box to be used by OS. At least 512Mbytes of that free
>space is in my interest to use for SQL Server.
>If I enable AWE memory and set the max server memory to 3,5 Gbyte will I be
>able to use that extra 512 Mbytes as well? Or is AWE only for boxes with mo
re
>than 4 Gbytes RAM?
>regards
>fredrik
AWE Memory: Seeing approx. 1 Gig less than expected
I am runnning a dedicated SQL Server 2005 Standard edition server on Win 200
3,
with 16 GB RAM.
I have AWE enabled, with a Max Server Memory of 14336 (14 GB).
I have /3GB /PAE set in the boot.ini.
When I run SQLServer:Memory Manager, Target Memory (KB) in Perfmon, I only
see 13722592 KB (or 13400.96875 MB, 13.086 GB) being used out of the 14 GB
specified.
Is this normal, or am I being robbed of a Gig of memory somewhere?
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forum...server/200610/1If I recall correctly, AWE consumes about 1GB of memory as overhead.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"cbrichards via droptable.com" <u3288@.uwe> wrote in message
news:67a8999d3983c@.uwe...
>I am runnning a dedicated SQL Server 2005 Standard edition server on Win
>2003,
> with 16 GB RAM.
> I have AWE enabled, with a Max Server Memory of 14336 (14 GB).
> I have /3GB /PAE set in the boot.ini.
> When I run SQLServer:Memory Manager, Target Memory (KB) in Perfmon, I only
> see 13722592 KB (or 13400.96875 MB, 13.086 GB) being used out of the 14 GB
> specified.
> Is this normal, or am I being robbed of a Gig of memory somewhere?
> --
> Message posted via droptable.com
> http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forum...server/200610/1
>|||Thanks Arnie. I do not dispute that, but it does make me scratch my head.
On another dedicated SQL Server, identical to the current one I am building,
except this other one has only 8 GB of RAM, when I set the Max Server Memory
to 6144 (6 GB), I see all 6144 in Target Memory. If SQL Server keeps 1 GB to
itself, then I would expect to only see 5 GB being used in Target Memory, bu
t
no, I am seeing all 6 GB on my 8 GB machine. Just makes me wonder...makes me
feel like I am being cheated out of approximately 1 GB on my 16 GB server,
since I have 14 GB specified in Max Server Memory and am only seeing 13 GB i
n
Target Memory.
Arnie Rowland wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
>If I recall correctly, AWE consumes about 1GB of memory as overhead.
>
>[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forum...server/200610/1|||I really don't recall if that 1GB overhead is in addition to the AWE
allocation, or if it is part of the AWE allocation. (I always thought that
it was outside of the AWE allocation.)
So, back to your situation.
Is it possible that there is some other usage on the box that is grabbing
memory from the OS before AWE can get it's share (thereby leaving only 13GB
for AWE)?
Another instance of SQL Server with /3GB switch?
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"cbrichards via droptable.com" <u3288@.uwe> wrote in message
news:67a9b4e454ccc@.uwe...
> Thanks Arnie. I do not dispute that, but it does make me scratch my head.
> On another dedicated SQL Server, identical to the current one I am
> building,
> except this other one has only 8 GB of RAM, when I set the Max Server
> Memory
> to 6144 (6 GB), I see all 6144 in Target Memory. If SQL Server keeps 1 GB
> to
> itself, then I would expect to only see 5 GB being used in Target Memory,
> but
> no, I am seeing all 6 GB on my 8 GB machine. Just makes me wonder...makes
> me
> feel like I am being cheated out of approximately 1 GB on my 16 GB server,
> since I have 14 GB specified in Max Server Memory and am only seeing 13 GB
> in
> Target Memory.
> Arnie Rowland wrote:
> --
> Message posted via droptable.com
> http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forum...server/200610/1
>|||I suspect that is the case (some other usage on the box is grabbing memory),
but it is not another instance. I am still investigating.
Arnie Rowland wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
>I really don't recall if that 1GB overhead is in addition to the AWE
>allocation, or if it is part of the AWE allocation. (I always thought that
>it was outside of the AWE allocation.)
>So, back to your situation.
>Is it possible that there is some other usage on the box that is grabbing
>memory from the OS before AWE can get it's share (thereby leaving only 13GB
>for AWE)?
>Another instance of SQL Server with /3GB switch?
>
>[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forum...server/200610/1
3,
with 16 GB RAM.
I have AWE enabled, with a Max Server Memory of 14336 (14 GB).
I have /3GB /PAE set in the boot.ini.
When I run SQLServer:Memory Manager, Target Memory (KB) in Perfmon, I only
see 13722592 KB (or 13400.96875 MB, 13.086 GB) being used out of the 14 GB
specified.
Is this normal, or am I being robbed of a Gig of memory somewhere?
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forum...server/200610/1If I recall correctly, AWE consumes about 1GB of memory as overhead.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"cbrichards via droptable.com" <u3288@.uwe> wrote in message
news:67a8999d3983c@.uwe...
>I am runnning a dedicated SQL Server 2005 Standard edition server on Win
>2003,
> with 16 GB RAM.
> I have AWE enabled, with a Max Server Memory of 14336 (14 GB).
> I have /3GB /PAE set in the boot.ini.
> When I run SQLServer:Memory Manager, Target Memory (KB) in Perfmon, I only
> see 13722592 KB (or 13400.96875 MB, 13.086 GB) being used out of the 14 GB
> specified.
> Is this normal, or am I being robbed of a Gig of memory somewhere?
> --
> Message posted via droptable.com
> http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forum...server/200610/1
>|||Thanks Arnie. I do not dispute that, but it does make me scratch my head.
On another dedicated SQL Server, identical to the current one I am building,
except this other one has only 8 GB of RAM, when I set the Max Server Memory
to 6144 (6 GB), I see all 6144 in Target Memory. If SQL Server keeps 1 GB to
itself, then I would expect to only see 5 GB being used in Target Memory, bu
t
no, I am seeing all 6 GB on my 8 GB machine. Just makes me wonder...makes me
feel like I am being cheated out of approximately 1 GB on my 16 GB server,
since I have 14 GB specified in Max Server Memory and am only seeing 13 GB i
n
Target Memory.
Arnie Rowland wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
>If I recall correctly, AWE consumes about 1GB of memory as overhead.
>
>[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forum...server/200610/1|||I really don't recall if that 1GB overhead is in addition to the AWE
allocation, or if it is part of the AWE allocation. (I always thought that
it was outside of the AWE allocation.)
So, back to your situation.
Is it possible that there is some other usage on the box that is grabbing
memory from the OS before AWE can get it's share (thereby leaving only 13GB
for AWE)?
Another instance of SQL Server with /3GB switch?
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"cbrichards via droptable.com" <u3288@.uwe> wrote in message
news:67a9b4e454ccc@.uwe...
> Thanks Arnie. I do not dispute that, but it does make me scratch my head.
> On another dedicated SQL Server, identical to the current one I am
> building,
> except this other one has only 8 GB of RAM, when I set the Max Server
> Memory
> to 6144 (6 GB), I see all 6144 in Target Memory. If SQL Server keeps 1 GB
> to
> itself, then I would expect to only see 5 GB being used in Target Memory,
> but
> no, I am seeing all 6 GB on my 8 GB machine. Just makes me wonder...makes
> me
> feel like I am being cheated out of approximately 1 GB on my 16 GB server,
> since I have 14 GB specified in Max Server Memory and am only seeing 13 GB
> in
> Target Memory.
> Arnie Rowland wrote:
> --
> Message posted via droptable.com
> http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forum...server/200610/1
>|||I suspect that is the case (some other usage on the box is grabbing memory),
but it is not another instance. I am still investigating.
Arnie Rowland wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
>I really don't recall if that 1GB overhead is in addition to the AWE
>allocation, or if it is part of the AWE allocation. (I always thought that
>it was outside of the AWE allocation.)
>So, back to your situation.
>Is it possible that there is some other usage on the box that is grabbing
>memory from the OS before AWE can get it's share (thereby leaving only 13GB
>for AWE)?
>Another instance of SQL Server with /3GB switch?
>
>[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forum...server/200610/1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)