background color and background image after SP1

Hi,
after installing sp1 for sql server 2005 the properties "background
color" and "background image" do not show in HTML. They do show in TIF
or PDF export. Also the header and footer are rendered correctly in
HTML. Only the body of the report is always white!
Any suggestions?
Thank you
BennoI too am having this problem. I have found the following on the MS site. I
believe this applies to the problem, however, I have not tried this solution.
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=921395
"Benno" wrote:
> Hi,
> after installing sp1 for sql server 2005 the properties "background
> color" and "background image" do not show in HTML. They do show in TIF
> or PDF export. Also the header and footer are rendered correctly in
> HTML. Only the body of the report is always white!
> Any suggestions?
> Thank you
> Benno
>

AWE and set working set size

Hello everybody!
System description:
OS: Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition SP1
RAM: 16 Gb
SQL: SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition SP3
SQL Server has "awe enabled"=1 and "set working set size"=1 at the same time.
"Max server memory" is limited by 12 Gb. SQLServer:MemoryManager:Total
Server Memory counter shows that SQL Server consumes all of the 12 Gb memory.
Allmost every day the client receives ODBC error 1222 (lock timeout) even if
only one user is connected to the database.
BOL says that if "awe enabled"=1 memory is not swapped out by default.
www.microsoft.com says that if you change "set working set size" from its
default value it may involve 844 and 845 errors (page latch timeout).
So the questions are:
1. Can two simulaneously enabled options ("awe enabled" and "set working set
size") result in such conflict?
2. Can enabling set working set size result in ODBC error 1222?
Thank youI don't know if that configuration will cause that error but I doubt it.
There is no reason to have SET Working Set Size set to 1 when you have AWE
since AWE in 2000 is not dynamic to begin with. AWE also allocates all the
memory up to the Max memory setting on startup. I would turn it off and see
if the errors go away and I see no need to have in on anyway.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"RDBSAdmin" <RDBSAdmin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CFCDD61D-ACE4-4C25-ABF1-50395C763B8E@.microsoft.com...
> Hello everybody!
> System description:
> OS: Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition SP1
> RAM: 16 Gb
> SQL: SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition SP3
> SQL Server has "awe enabled"=1 and "set working set size"=1 at the same
> time.
> "Max server memory" is limited by 12 Gb. SQLServer:MemoryManager:Total
> Server Memory counter shows that SQL Server consumes all of the 12 Gb
> memory.
> Allmost every day the client receives ODBC error 1222 (lock timeout) even
> if
> only one user is connected to the database.
> BOL says that if "awe enabled"=1 memory is not swapped out by default.
> www.microsoft.com says that if you change "set working set size" from its
> default value it may involve 844 and 845 errors (page latch timeout).
> So the questions are:
> 1. Can two simulaneously enabled options ("awe enabled" and "set working
> set
> size") result in such conflict?
> 2. Can enabling set working set size result in ODBC error 1222?
> Thank you
>|||Thank you, Mr.Kelly. Before I read you answer I had decided to act by trial
and error and I advice to turn "working set size" off. My client informed me
that the error did not disappear but it got less frequent.|||The Lock Timeout setting is infinite by default in SQL Server. IF they are
getting this message that means someone somewhere changed the setting. I
would look for any code that has SET LOCK_TIMEOUT in it and find out why and
what value they set it to.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"RDBSAdmin" <RDBSAdmin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:69717477-0287-4FB8-9F65-96168F25F2BB@.microsoft.com...
> Thank you, Mr.Kelly. Before I read you answer I had decided to act by
> trial
> and error and I advice to turn "working set size" off. My client informed
> me
> that the error did not disappear but it got less frequent.|||Yes, I see, but can only one user working with the server lock himself? I
mean there are situations when only one user works with the database but the
error occurs all the same.
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> The Lock Timeout setting is infinite by default in SQL Server. IF they are
> getting this message that means someone somewhere changed the setting. I
> would look for any code that has SET LOCK_TIMEOUT in it and find out why and
> what value they set it to.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "RDBSAdmin" <RDBSAdmin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:69717477-0287-4FB8-9F65-96168F25F2BB@.microsoft.com...
> > Thank you, Mr.Kelly. Before I read you answer I had decided to act by
> > trial
> > and error and I advice to turn "working set size" off. My client informed
> > me
> > that the error did not disappear but it got less frequent.
>
>|||Sure. If the user is trying to get an exclusive table lock there are lots of
things that can prevent him from getting one. I think you need to see the
code and why they are setting this and under what conditions it is
happening.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"RDBSAdmin" <RDBSAdmin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:057E64D8-ED9F-4442-9623-FECE3BDB865E@.microsoft.com...
> Yes, I see, but can only one user working with the server lock himself? I
> mean there are situations when only one user works with the database but
> the
> error occurs all the same.
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>> The Lock Timeout setting is infinite by default in SQL Server. IF they
>> are
>> getting this message that means someone somewhere changed the setting. I
>> would look for any code that has SET LOCK_TIMEOUT in it and find out why
>> and
>> what value they set it to.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "RDBSAdmin" <RDBSAdmin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:69717477-0287-4FB8-9F65-96168F25F2BB@.microsoft.com...
>> > Thank you, Mr.Kelly. Before I read you answer I had decided to act by
>> > trial
>> > and error and I advice to turn "working set size" off. My client
>> > informed
>> > me
>> > that the error did not disappear but it got less frequent.
>>|||There is a general interface setting which allow users to set time-out (via
the setting the code receives time interval for SET LOCK_TIMEOUT statement).
The only thing I'm going to recommend is to increase the value. Thank you,
Mr.Kelly, you have been very helpful.
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> Sure. If the user is trying to get an exclusive table lock there are lots of
> things that can prevent him from getting one. I think you need to see the
> code and why they are setting this and under what conditions it is
> happening.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "RDBSAdmin" <RDBSAdmin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:057E64D8-ED9F-4442-9623-FECE3BDB865E@.microsoft.com...
> > Yes, I see, but can only one user working with the server lock himself? I
> > mean there are situations when only one user works with the database but
> > the
> > error occurs all the same.
> >
> > "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> >
> >> The Lock Timeout setting is infinite by default in SQL Server. IF they
> >> are
> >> getting this message that means someone somewhere changed the setting. I
> >> would look for any code that has SET LOCK_TIMEOUT in it and find out why
> >> and
> >> what value they set it to.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >>
> >>
> >> "RDBSAdmin" <RDBSAdmin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:69717477-0287-4FB8-9F65-96168F25F2BB@.microsoft.com...
> >> > Thank you, Mr.Kelly. Before I read you answer I had decided to act by
> >> > trial
> >> > and error and I advice to turn "working set size" off. My client
> >> > informed
> >> > me
> >> > that the error did not disappear but it got less frequent.
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>

AWE and 3GB switches

I'm configuring a new server with Windows 2003 Enterprise SP1 and SQL Server
2000 Enterprise/SP3a. The server has 8GB of RAM
I have set the /PAE switch in boot.ini and then ran the following:
sp_configure 'show advanced options', 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure 'max server memory', 6144
RECONFIGURE
GO
I can confirm using the SQL Server:Memory Manager-Total Server Memory
counter that SQL Server is using 6303928 kbs of memory.
Should I be using the 3GB switch? If so why?
If you want to use as much of the 8GB SQL server then no.
Using the /3G switch will allow only up to 3GB of RAM to SQL Server.
Likewise, you should leave approx. 1GB of RAM for the OS for every 8GB of
RAM available.
MG
"Terri" wrote:

> I'm configuring a new server with Windows 2003 Enterprise SP1 and SQL Server
> 2000 Enterprise/SP3a. The server has 8GB of RAM
> I have set the /PAE switch in boot.ini and then ran the following:
> sp_configure 'show advanced options', 1
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> sp_configure 'max server memory', 6144
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> I can confirm using the SQL Server:Memory Manager-Total Server Memory
> counter that SQL Server is using 6303928 kbs of memory.
> Should I be using the 3GB switch? If so why?
>
>
>
|||Hurme, thanks for your response. My confusion on this issue unfortunately
persists. Subsequent to my post I found the following article which says I
should use both, /3GB and /PAE.
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/sql_server_performance_audit5.asp
"Hurme" <michael.geles@.thomson.com> wrote in message
news:93A66D75-882B-4501-9607-309CC354FA40@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> If you want to use as much of the 8GB SQL server then no.
> Using the /3G switch will allow only up to 3GB of RAM to SQL Server.
> Likewise, you should leave approx. 1GB of RAM for the OS for every 8GB of
> RAM available.
> --
> MG
>
> "Terri" wrote:
Server[vbcol=seagreen]
|||Hmmm...the wording is a little ambiguous. It does say in the article, "you
must enter one of the following switches in the boot line of the boot.ini
file..." and Perfmon is showing that more than 6GB on RAM is getting used.
Here is a line that found in another article
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/274750 :
"Use of the /PAE switch in the Boot.ini and the AWE enable option in SQL
Server allows SQL Server 2000 to utilize more than 4 GB memory. Without the
/PAE switch SQL Server can only utilize up to 3 GB of memory."
It's doesn't say that you need both flags to use more that 4GB.
HTH
MG
"Terri" wrote:

> Hurme, thanks for your response. My confusion on this issue unfortunately
> persists. Subsequent to my post I found the following article which says I
> should use both, /3GB and /PAE.
> http://www.sql-server-performance.com/sql_server_performance_audit5.asp
> "Hurme" <michael.geles@.thomson.com> wrote in message
> news:93A66D75-882B-4501-9607-309CC354FA40@.microsoft.com...
> Server
>
>
|||Yes, there is some ambiguity. Perhaps others will chime in with additional
thoughts.
"Hurme" <michael.geles@.thomson.com> wrote in message
news:1A5C69C9-0D56-4F33-845C-457C11FAEE62@.microsoft.com...
> Hmmm...the wording is a little ambiguous. It does say in the article,
"you
> must enter one of the following switches in the boot line of the boot.ini
> file..." and Perfmon is showing that more than 6GB on RAM is getting used.
> Here is a line that found in another article
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/274750 :
> "Use of the /PAE switch in the Boot.ini and the AWE enable option in SQL
> Server allows SQL Server 2000 to utilize more than 4 GB memory. Without
the
> /PAE switch SQL Server can only utilize up to 3 GB of memory."
> It's doesn't say that you need both flags to use more that 4GB.
>
|||Terry
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/283037/en-us
With more than 4GB, then you should use PAE, whether or not Win2K3 enables
this for you or not, use the registry settings to determine if it was
detected, but AWE will require PAE to make use of any address space above
4GB. In fact, the OS and SS will not even recognize memory greater than 4GB
even exists without PAE enabled.
"Terri" <terri@.cybernets.com> wrote in message
news:f0lsmn$g2k$1@.reader2.nmix.net...
> Yes, there is some ambiguity. Perhaps others will chime in with additional
> thoughts.
> "Hurme" <michael.geles@.thomson.com> wrote in message
> news:1A5C69C9-0D56-4F33-845C-457C11FAEE62@.microsoft.com...
> "you
> the
>

AWE and 3GB switches

I'm configuring a new server with Windows 2003 Enterprise SP1 and SQL Server
2000 Enterprise/SP3a. The server has 8GB of RAM
I have set the /PAE switch in boot.ini and then ran the following:
sp_configure 'show advanced options', 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure 'max server memory', 6144
RECONFIGURE
GO
I can confirm using the SQL Server:Memory Manager-Total Server Memory
counter that SQL Server is using 6303928 kbs of memory.
Should I be using the 3GB switch? If so why?If you want to use as much of the 8GB SQL server then no.
Using the /3G switch will allow only up to 3GB of RAM to SQL Server.
Likewise, you should leave approx. 1GB of RAM for the OS for every 8GB of
RAM available.
--
MG
"Terri" wrote:
> I'm configuring a new server with Windows 2003 Enterprise SP1 and SQL Server
> 2000 Enterprise/SP3a. The server has 8GB of RAM
> I have set the /PAE switch in boot.ini and then ran the following:
> sp_configure 'show advanced options', 1
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> sp_configure 'max server memory', 6144
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> I can confirm using the SQL Server:Memory Manager-Total Server Memory
> counter that SQL Server is using 6303928 kbs of memory.
> Should I be using the 3GB switch? If so why?
>
>
>|||Hurme, thanks for your response. My confusion on this issue unfortunately
persists. Subsequent to my post I found the following article which says I
should use both, /3GB and /PAE.
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/sql_server_performance_audit5.asp
"Hurme" <michael.geles@.thomson.com> wrote in message
news:93A66D75-882B-4501-9607-309CC354FA40@.microsoft.com...
> If you want to use as much of the 8GB SQL server then no.
> Using the /3G switch will allow only up to 3GB of RAM to SQL Server.
> Likewise, you should leave approx. 1GB of RAM for the OS for every 8GB of
> RAM available.
> --
> MG
>
> "Terri" wrote:
> > I'm configuring a new server with Windows 2003 Enterprise SP1 and SQL
Server
> > 2000 Enterprise/SP3a. The server has 8GB of RAM
> >
> > I have set the /PAE switch in boot.ini and then ran the following:
> >
> > sp_configure 'show advanced options', 1
> > RECONFIGURE
> > GO
> > sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
> > RECONFIGURE
> > GO
> > sp_configure 'max server memory', 6144
> > RECONFIGURE
> > GO
> >
> > I can confirm using the SQL Server:Memory Manager-Total Server Memory
> > counter that SQL Server is using 6303928 kbs of memory.
> >
> > Should I be using the 3GB switch? If so why?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >|||Hmmm...the wording is a little ambiguous. It does say in the article, "you
must enter one of the following switches in the boot line of the boot.ini
file..." and Perfmon is showing that more than 6GB on RAM is getting used.
Here is a line that found in another article
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/274750 :
"Use of the /PAE switch in the Boot.ini and the AWE enable option in SQL
Server allows SQL Server 2000 to utilize more than 4 GB memory. Without the
/PAE switch SQL Server can only utilize up to 3 GB of memory."
It's doesn't say that you need both flags to use more that 4GB.
HTH
--
MG
"Terri" wrote:
> Hurme, thanks for your response. My confusion on this issue unfortunately
> persists. Subsequent to my post I found the following article which says I
> should use both, /3GB and /PAE.
> http://www.sql-server-performance.com/sql_server_performance_audit5.asp
> "Hurme" <michael.geles@.thomson.com> wrote in message
> news:93A66D75-882B-4501-9607-309CC354FA40@.microsoft.com...
> > If you want to use as much of the 8GB SQL server then no.
> > Using the /3G switch will allow only up to 3GB of RAM to SQL Server.
> >
> > Likewise, you should leave approx. 1GB of RAM for the OS for every 8GB of
> > RAM available.
> > --
> > MG
> >
> >
> > "Terri" wrote:
> >
> > > I'm configuring a new server with Windows 2003 Enterprise SP1 and SQL
> Server
> > > 2000 Enterprise/SP3a. The server has 8GB of RAM
> > >
> > > I have set the /PAE switch in boot.ini and then ran the following:
> > >
> > > sp_configure 'show advanced options', 1
> > > RECONFIGURE
> > > GO
> > > sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
> > > RECONFIGURE
> > > GO
> > > sp_configure 'max server memory', 6144
> > > RECONFIGURE
> > > GO
> > >
> > > I can confirm using the SQL Server:Memory Manager-Total Server Memory
> > > counter that SQL Server is using 6303928 kbs of memory.
> > >
> > > Should I be using the 3GB switch? If so why?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>|||Yes, there is some ambiguity. Perhaps others will chime in with additional
thoughts.
"Hurme" <michael.geles@.thomson.com> wrote in message
news:1A5C69C9-0D56-4F33-845C-457C11FAEE62@.microsoft.com...
> Hmmm...the wording is a little ambiguous. It does say in the article,
"you
> must enter one of the following switches in the boot line of the boot.ini
> file..." and Perfmon is showing that more than 6GB on RAM is getting used.
> Here is a line that found in another article
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/274750 :
> "Use of the /PAE switch in the Boot.ini and the AWE enable option in SQL
> Server allows SQL Server 2000 to utilize more than 4 GB memory. Without
the
> /PAE switch SQL Server can only utilize up to 3 GB of memory."
> It's doesn't say that you need both flags to use more that 4GB.
>|||Terry
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/283037/en-us
With more than 4GB, then you should use PAE, whether or not Win2K3 enables
this for you or not, use the registry settings to determine if it was
detected, but AWE will require PAE to make use of any address space above
4GB. In fact, the OS and SS will not even recognize memory greater than 4GB
even exists without PAE enabled.
"Terri" <terri@.cybernets.com> wrote in message
news:f0lsmn$g2k$1@.reader2.nmix.net...
> Yes, there is some ambiguity. Perhaps others will chime in with additional
> thoughts.
> "Hurme" <michael.geles@.thomson.com> wrote in message
> news:1A5C69C9-0D56-4F33-845C-457C11FAEE62@.microsoft.com...
>> Hmmm...the wording is a little ambiguous. It does say in the article,
> "you
>> must enter one of the following switches in the boot line of the boot.ini
>> file..." and Perfmon is showing that more than 6GB on RAM is getting
>> used.
>> Here is a line that found in another article
>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/274750 :
>> "Use of the /PAE switch in the Boot.ini and the AWE enable option in SQL
>> Server allows SQL Server 2000 to utilize more than 4 GB memory. Without
> the
>> /PAE switch SQL Server can only utilize up to 3 GB of memory."
>> It's doesn't say that you need both flags to use more that 4GB.
>

AWE and 3GB switches

I'm configuring a new server with Windows 2003 Enterprise SP1 and SQL Server
2000 Enterprise/SP3a. The server has 8GB of RAM
I have set the /PAE switch in boot.ini and then ran the following:
sp_configure 'show advanced options', 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure 'max server memory', 6144
RECONFIGURE
GO
I can confirm using the SQL Server:Memory Manager-Total Server Memory
counter that SQL Server is using 6303928 kbs of memory.
Should I be using the 3GB switch? If so why?If you want to use as much of the 8GB SQL server then no.
Using the /3G switch will allow only up to 3GB of RAM to SQL Server.
Likewise, you should leave approx. 1GB of RAM for the OS for every 8GB of
RAM available.
--
MG
"Terri" wrote:

> I'm configuring a new server with Windows 2003 Enterprise SP1 and SQL Serv
er
> 2000 Enterprise/SP3a. The server has 8GB of RAM
> I have set the /PAE switch in boot.ini and then ran the following:
> sp_configure 'show advanced options', 1
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> sp_configure 'max server memory', 6144
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> I can confirm using the SQL Server:Memory Manager-Total Server Memory
> counter that SQL Server is using 6303928 kbs of memory.
> Should I be using the 3GB switch? If so why?
>
>
>|||Hurme, thanks for your response. My confusion on this issue unfortunately
persists. Subsequent to my post I found the following article which says I
should use both, /3GB and /PAE.
http://www.sql-server-performance.c...ance_audit5.asp
"Hurme" <michael.geles@.thomson.com> wrote in message
news:93A66D75-882B-4501-9607-309CC354FA40@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> If you want to use as much of the 8GB SQL server then no.
> Using the /3G switch will allow only up to 3GB of RAM to SQL Server.
> Likewise, you should leave approx. 1GB of RAM for the OS for every 8GB of
> RAM available.
> --
> MG
>
> "Terri" wrote:
>
Server[vbcol=seagreen]|||Hmmm...the wording is a little ambiguous. It does say in the article, "you
must enter one of the following switches in the boot line of the boot.ini
file..." and Perfmon is showing that more than 6GB on RAM is getting used.
Here is a line that found in another article
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/274750 :
"Use of the /PAE switch in the Boot.ini and the AWE enable option in SQL
Server allows SQL Server 2000 to utilize more than 4 GB memory. Without the
/PAE switch SQL Server can only utilize up to 3 GB of memory."
It's doesn't say that you need both flags to use more that 4GB.
HTH
--
MG
"Terri" wrote:

> Hurme, thanks for your response. My confusion on this issue unfortunately
> persists. Subsequent to my post I found the following article which says I
> should use both, /3GB and /PAE.
> http://www.sql-server-performance.c...ance_audit5.asp
> "Hurme" <michael.geles@.thomson.com> wrote in message
> news:93A66D75-882B-4501-9607-309CC354FA40@.microsoft.com...
> Server
>
>|||Yes, there is some ambiguity. Perhaps others will chime in with additional
thoughts.
"Hurme" <michael.geles@.thomson.com> wrote in message
news:1A5C69C9-0D56-4F33-845C-457C11FAEE62@.microsoft.com...
> Hmmm...the wording is a little ambiguous. It does say in the article,
"you
> must enter one of the following switches in the boot line of the boot.ini
> file..." and Perfmon is showing that more than 6GB on RAM is getting used.
> Here is a line that found in another article
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/274750 :
> "Use of the /PAE switch in the Boot.ini and the AWE enable option in SQL
> Server allows SQL Server 2000 to utilize more than 4 GB memory. Without
the
> /PAE switch SQL Server can only utilize up to 3 GB of memory."
> It's doesn't say that you need both flags to use more that 4GB.
>|||Terry
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/283037/en-us
With more than 4GB, then you should use PAE, whether or not Win2K3 enables
this for you or not, use the registry settings to determine if it was
detected, but AWE will require PAE to make use of any address space above
4GB. In fact, the OS and SS will not even recognize memory greater than 4GB
even exists without PAE enabled.
"Terri" <terri@.cybernets.com> wrote in message
news:f0lsmn$g2k$1@.reader2.nmix.net...
> Yes, there is some ambiguity. Perhaps others will chime in with additional
> thoughts.
> "Hurme" <michael.geles@.thomson.com> wrote in message
> news:1A5C69C9-0D56-4F33-845C-457C11FAEE62@.microsoft.com...
> "you
> the
>