We have a clustered environment with each node having 8GB memory, Win2k3
Enterprise Edition SP2, and SQL2k Enterprise Edition SP4.
I have read a few articles on AWE and the following link provided me with a
lot of information, but I still have a few questions:
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
I understand that the switches that I should use are /3GB /PAE.
In the above article it stated that AWE technology is used only for the RAM
that exceeds the base 4GB of RAM. It further states that once the AWE
Enabled option is set to 1, SQL Server will take all of the RAM except 128MB
reserved for the OS. My question here is whether this statement refers to
128MB of the available AWE memory (e.g. the 128MB of the 4GB that is not from
the base 4GB in an 8GB configuration). So with the /3GB switch and AWE
enabled, does the operating system have approxiamtely 1.128GB dedicated to
the OS or only 128MB (this latter seems much too low).
When setting "Maximum Server Memory" does this refer to the entire 8GB (my
guess is yes)? And with no other applications running, should this be set to
8GB or (8GB - 1.128GB => 6.872GB).
The only other applications that we have running are the Vertias Client for
Backups and Symantec's Antivirus besides the standard Windows 2003 services.
I'm sure most production environments have something very similar. What
sould the recommended "Maximum Server Memory" be set to for a 8GB environment
with these services running.
Thanks,
Larry
Larry
> When setting "Maximum Server Memory" does this refer to the entire 8GB (my
> guess is yes)? And with no other applications running, should this be set
> to
> 8GB or (8GB - 1.128GB => 6.872GB).
Yes , you can set up even to 7GB :-))
> The only other applications that we have running are the Vertias Client
> for
> Backups and Symantec's Antivirus besides the standard Windows 2003
> services.
> I'm sure most production environments have something very similar. What
> sould the recommended "Maximum Server Memory" be set to for a 8GB
> environment
> with these services running.
You have to determine how much memory does each proccess take and
according to it set the MAX memory
"Larry Herbinaux" <LarryHerbinaux@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:7E65D50A-7BA1-4F5E-B62A-B8F9792C77CC@.microsoft.com...
> We have a clustered environment with each node having 8GB memory, Win2k3
> Enterprise Edition SP2, and SQL2k Enterprise Edition SP4.
> I have read a few articles on AWE and the following link provided me with
> a
> lot of information, but I still have a few questions:
> http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
> I understand that the switches that I should use are /3GB /PAE.
> In the above article it stated that AWE technology is used only for the
> RAM
> that exceeds the base 4GB of RAM. It further states that once the AWE
> Enabled option is set to 1, SQL Server will take all of the RAM except
> 128MB
> reserved for the OS. My question here is whether this statement refers to
> 128MB of the available AWE memory (e.g. the 128MB of the 4GB that is not
> from
> the base 4GB in an 8GB configuration). So with the /3GB switch and AWE
> enabled, does the operating system have approxiamtely 1.128GB dedicated to
> the OS or only 128MB (this latter seems much too low).
> When setting "Maximum Server Memory" does this refer to the entire 8GB (my
> guess is yes)? And with no other applications running, should this be set
> to
> 8GB or (8GB - 1.128GB => 6.872GB).
> The only other applications that we have running are the Vertias Client
> for
> Backups and Symantec's Antivirus besides the standard Windows 2003
> services.
> I'm sure most production environments have something very similar. What
> sould the recommended "Maximum Server Memory" be set to for a 8GB
> environment
> with these services running.
> Thanks,
> Larry
|||just to mention to be carefuly on mem counting having full 4gb of mem.
close to 4gb boundary, there may be memory mapped area used by motherboard
[pci cards etc], which may take almost 0,5gb of memory.
so, instead of 4gb, you may find available only 3,5gb appx or so
"Larry Herbinaux" <LarryHerbinaux@.discussions.microsoft.com> je napisao u
poruci interesnoj
grupi:7E65D50A-7BA1-4F5E-B62A-B8F9792C77CC@.microsoft.com...
> We have a clustered environment with each node having 8GB memory, Win2k3
> Enterprise Edition SP2, and SQL2k Enterprise Edition SP4.
> enabled, does the operating system have approxiamtely 1.128GB dedicated to
> the OS or only 128MB (this latter seems much too low).
>
> Larry
Showing posts with label sp2. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sp2. Show all posts
Saturday, February 25, 2012
AWE / Maximum Server Memory
We have a clustered environment with each node having 8GB memory, Win2k3
Enterprise Edition SP2, and SQL2k Enterprise Edition SP4.
I have read a few articles on AWE and the following link provided me with a
lot of information, but I still have a few questions:
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
I understand that the switches that I should use are /3GB /PAE.
In the above article it stated that AWE technology is used only for the RAM
that exceeds the base 4GB of RAM. It further states that once the AWE
Enabled option is set to 1, SQL Server will take all of the RAM except 128MB
reserved for the OS. My question here is whether this statement refers to
128MB of the available AWE memory (e.g. the 128MB of the 4GB that is not from
the base 4GB in an 8GB configuration). So with the /3GB switch and AWE
enabled, does the operating system have approxiamtely 1.128GB dedicated to
the OS or only 128MB (this latter seems much too low).
When setting "Maximum Server Memory" does this refer to the entire 8GB (my
guess is yes)? And with no other applications running, should this be set to
8GB or (8GB - 1.128GB => 6.872GB).
The only other applications that we have running are the Vertias Client for
Backups and Symantec's Antivirus besides the standard Windows 2003 services.
I'm sure most production environments have something very similar. What
sould the recommended "Maximum Server Memory" be set to for a 8GB environment
with these services running.
Thanks,
LarryLarry
> When setting "Maximum Server Memory" does this refer to the entire 8GB (my
> guess is yes)? And with no other applications running, should this be set
> to
> 8GB or (8GB - 1.128GB => 6.872GB).
Yes , you can set up even to 7GB :-))
> The only other applications that we have running are the Vertias Client
> for
> Backups and Symantec's Antivirus besides the standard Windows 2003
> services.
> I'm sure most production environments have something very similar. What
> sould the recommended "Maximum Server Memory" be set to for a 8GB
> environment
> with these services running.
You have to determine how much memory does each proccess take and
according to it set the MAX memory
"Larry Herbinaux" <LarryHerbinaux@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:7E65D50A-7BA1-4F5E-B62A-B8F9792C77CC@.microsoft.com...
> We have a clustered environment with each node having 8GB memory, Win2k3
> Enterprise Edition SP2, and SQL2k Enterprise Edition SP4.
> I have read a few articles on AWE and the following link provided me with
> a
> lot of information, but I still have a few questions:
> http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
> I understand that the switches that I should use are /3GB /PAE.
> In the above article it stated that AWE technology is used only for the
> RAM
> that exceeds the base 4GB of RAM. It further states that once the AWE
> Enabled option is set to 1, SQL Server will take all of the RAM except
> 128MB
> reserved for the OS. My question here is whether this statement refers to
> 128MB of the available AWE memory (e.g. the 128MB of the 4GB that is not
> from
> the base 4GB in an 8GB configuration). So with the /3GB switch and AWE
> enabled, does the operating system have approxiamtely 1.128GB dedicated to
> the OS or only 128MB (this latter seems much too low).
> When setting "Maximum Server Memory" does this refer to the entire 8GB (my
> guess is yes)? And with no other applications running, should this be set
> to
> 8GB or (8GB - 1.128GB => 6.872GB).
> The only other applications that we have running are the Vertias Client
> for
> Backups and Symantec's Antivirus besides the standard Windows 2003
> services.
> I'm sure most production environments have something very similar. What
> sould the recommended "Maximum Server Memory" be set to for a 8GB
> environment
> with these services running.
> Thanks,
> Larry|||just to mention to be carefuly on mem counting having full 4gb of mem.
close to 4gb boundary, there may be memory mapped area used by motherboard
[pci cards etc], which may take almost 0,5gb of memory.
so, instead of 4gb, you may find available only 3,5gb appx or so
"Larry Herbinaux" <LarryHerbinaux@.discussions.microsoft.com> je napisao u
poruci interesnoj
grupi:7E65D50A-7BA1-4F5E-B62A-B8F9792C77CC@.microsoft.com...
> We have a clustered environment with each node having 8GB memory, Win2k3
> Enterprise Edition SP2, and SQL2k Enterprise Edition SP4.
> enabled, does the operating system have approxiamtely 1.128GB dedicated to
> the OS or only 128MB (this latter seems much too low).
>
> Larry
Enterprise Edition SP2, and SQL2k Enterprise Edition SP4.
I have read a few articles on AWE and the following link provided me with a
lot of information, but I still have a few questions:
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
I understand that the switches that I should use are /3GB /PAE.
In the above article it stated that AWE technology is used only for the RAM
that exceeds the base 4GB of RAM. It further states that once the AWE
Enabled option is set to 1, SQL Server will take all of the RAM except 128MB
reserved for the OS. My question here is whether this statement refers to
128MB of the available AWE memory (e.g. the 128MB of the 4GB that is not from
the base 4GB in an 8GB configuration). So with the /3GB switch and AWE
enabled, does the operating system have approxiamtely 1.128GB dedicated to
the OS or only 128MB (this latter seems much too low).
When setting "Maximum Server Memory" does this refer to the entire 8GB (my
guess is yes)? And with no other applications running, should this be set to
8GB or (8GB - 1.128GB => 6.872GB).
The only other applications that we have running are the Vertias Client for
Backups and Symantec's Antivirus besides the standard Windows 2003 services.
I'm sure most production environments have something very similar. What
sould the recommended "Maximum Server Memory" be set to for a 8GB environment
with these services running.
Thanks,
LarryLarry
> When setting "Maximum Server Memory" does this refer to the entire 8GB (my
> guess is yes)? And with no other applications running, should this be set
> to
> 8GB or (8GB - 1.128GB => 6.872GB).
Yes , you can set up even to 7GB :-))
> The only other applications that we have running are the Vertias Client
> for
> Backups and Symantec's Antivirus besides the standard Windows 2003
> services.
> I'm sure most production environments have something very similar. What
> sould the recommended "Maximum Server Memory" be set to for a 8GB
> environment
> with these services running.
You have to determine how much memory does each proccess take and
according to it set the MAX memory
"Larry Herbinaux" <LarryHerbinaux@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:7E65D50A-7BA1-4F5E-B62A-B8F9792C77CC@.microsoft.com...
> We have a clustered environment with each node having 8GB memory, Win2k3
> Enterprise Edition SP2, and SQL2k Enterprise Edition SP4.
> I have read a few articles on AWE and the following link provided me with
> a
> lot of information, but I still have a few questions:
> http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
> I understand that the switches that I should use are /3GB /PAE.
> In the above article it stated that AWE technology is used only for the
> RAM
> that exceeds the base 4GB of RAM. It further states that once the AWE
> Enabled option is set to 1, SQL Server will take all of the RAM except
> 128MB
> reserved for the OS. My question here is whether this statement refers to
> 128MB of the available AWE memory (e.g. the 128MB of the 4GB that is not
> from
> the base 4GB in an 8GB configuration). So with the /3GB switch and AWE
> enabled, does the operating system have approxiamtely 1.128GB dedicated to
> the OS or only 128MB (this latter seems much too low).
> When setting "Maximum Server Memory" does this refer to the entire 8GB (my
> guess is yes)? And with no other applications running, should this be set
> to
> 8GB or (8GB - 1.128GB => 6.872GB).
> The only other applications that we have running are the Vertias Client
> for
> Backups and Symantec's Antivirus besides the standard Windows 2003
> services.
> I'm sure most production environments have something very similar. What
> sould the recommended "Maximum Server Memory" be set to for a 8GB
> environment
> with these services running.
> Thanks,
> Larry|||just to mention to be carefuly on mem counting having full 4gb of mem.
close to 4gb boundary, there may be memory mapped area used by motherboard
[pci cards etc], which may take almost 0,5gb of memory.
so, instead of 4gb, you may find available only 3,5gb appx or so
"Larry Herbinaux" <LarryHerbinaux@.discussions.microsoft.com> je napisao u
poruci interesnoj
grupi:7E65D50A-7BA1-4F5E-B62A-B8F9792C77CC@.microsoft.com...
> We have a clustered environment with each node having 8GB memory, Win2k3
> Enterprise Edition SP2, and SQL2k Enterprise Edition SP4.
> enabled, does the operating system have approxiamtely 1.128GB dedicated to
> the OS or only 128MB (this latter seems much too low).
>
> Larry
AWE / Maximum Server Memory
We have a clustered environment with each node having 8GB memory, Win2k3
Enterprise Edition SP2, and SQL2k Enterprise Edition SP4.
I have read a few articles on AWE and the following link provided me with a
lot of information, but I still have a few questions:
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
I understand that the switches that I should use are /3GB /PAE.
In the above article it stated that AWE technology is used only for the RAM
that exceeds the base 4GB of RAM. It further states that once the AWE
Enabled option is set to 1, SQL Server will take all of the RAM except 128MB
reserved for the OS. My question here is whether this statement refers to
128MB of the available AWE memory (e.g. the 128MB of the 4GB that is not fro
m
the base 4GB in an 8GB configuration). So with the /3GB switch and AWE
enabled, does the operating system have approxiamtely 1.128GB dedicated to
the OS or only 128MB (this latter seems much too low).
When setting "Maximum Server Memory" does this refer to the entire 8GB (my
guess is yes)? And with no other applications running, should this be set t
o
8GB or (8GB - 1.128GB => 6.872GB).
The only other applications that we have running are the Vertias Client for
Backups and Symantec's Antivirus besides the standard Windows 2003 services.
I'm sure most production environments have something very similar. What
sould the recommended "Maximum Server Memory" be set to for a 8GB environmen
t
with these services running.
Thanks,
LarryLarry
> When setting "Maximum Server Memory" does this refer to the entire 8GB (my
> guess is yes)? And with no other applications running, should this be set
> to
> 8GB or (8GB - 1.128GB => 6.872GB).
Yes , you can set up even to 7GB :-))
> The only other applications that we have running are the Vertias Client
> for
> Backups and Symantec's Antivirus besides the standard Windows 2003
> services.
> I'm sure most production environments have something very similar. What
> sould the recommended "Maximum Server Memory" be set to for a 8GB
> environment
> with these services running.
You have to determine how much memory does each proccess take and
according to it set the MAX memory
"Larry Herbinaux" <LarryHerbinaux@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:7E65D50A-7BA1-4F5E-B62A-B8F9792C77CC@.microsoft.com...
> We have a clustered environment with each node having 8GB memory, Win2k3
> Enterprise Edition SP2, and SQL2k Enterprise Edition SP4.
> I have read a few articles on AWE and the following link provided me with
> a
> lot of information, but I still have a few questions:
> http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
> I understand that the switches that I should use are /3GB /PAE.
> In the above article it stated that AWE technology is used only for the
> RAM
> that exceeds the base 4GB of RAM. It further states that once the AWE
> Enabled option is set to 1, SQL Server will take all of the RAM except
> 128MB
> reserved for the OS. My question here is whether this statement refers to
> 128MB of the available AWE memory (e.g. the 128MB of the 4GB that is not
> from
> the base 4GB in an 8GB configuration). So with the /3GB switch and AWE
> enabled, does the operating system have approxiamtely 1.128GB dedicated to
> the OS or only 128MB (this latter seems much too low).
> When setting "Maximum Server Memory" does this refer to the entire 8GB (my
> guess is yes)? And with no other applications running, should this be set
> to
> 8GB or (8GB - 1.128GB => 6.872GB).
> The only other applications that we have running are the Vertias Client
> for
> Backups and Symantec's Antivirus besides the standard Windows 2003
> services.
> I'm sure most production environments have something very similar. What
> sould the recommended "Maximum Server Memory" be set to for a 8GB
> environment
> with these services running.
> Thanks,
> Larry|||just to mention to be carefuly on mem counting having full 4gb of mem.
close to 4gb boundary, there may be memory mapped area used by motherboard
[pci cards etc], which may take almost 0,5gb of memory.
so, instead of 4gb, you may find available only 3,5gb appx or so
"Larry Herbinaux" <LarryHerbinaux@.discussions.microsoft.com> je napisao u
poruci interesnoj
grupi:7E65D50A-7BA1-4F5E-B62A-B8F9792C77CC@.microsoft.com...
> We have a clustered environment with each node having 8GB memory, Win2k3
> Enterprise Edition SP2, and SQL2k Enterprise Edition SP4.
> enabled, does the operating system have approxiamtely 1.128GB dedicated to
> the OS or only 128MB (this latter seems much too low).
>
> Larry
Enterprise Edition SP2, and SQL2k Enterprise Edition SP4.
I have read a few articles on AWE and the following link provided me with a
lot of information, but I still have a few questions:
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
I understand that the switches that I should use are /3GB /PAE.
In the above article it stated that AWE technology is used only for the RAM
that exceeds the base 4GB of RAM. It further states that once the AWE
Enabled option is set to 1, SQL Server will take all of the RAM except 128MB
reserved for the OS. My question here is whether this statement refers to
128MB of the available AWE memory (e.g. the 128MB of the 4GB that is not fro
m
the base 4GB in an 8GB configuration). So with the /3GB switch and AWE
enabled, does the operating system have approxiamtely 1.128GB dedicated to
the OS or only 128MB (this latter seems much too low).
When setting "Maximum Server Memory" does this refer to the entire 8GB (my
guess is yes)? And with no other applications running, should this be set t
o
8GB or (8GB - 1.128GB => 6.872GB).
The only other applications that we have running are the Vertias Client for
Backups and Symantec's Antivirus besides the standard Windows 2003 services.
I'm sure most production environments have something very similar. What
sould the recommended "Maximum Server Memory" be set to for a 8GB environmen
t
with these services running.
Thanks,
LarryLarry
> When setting "Maximum Server Memory" does this refer to the entire 8GB (my
> guess is yes)? And with no other applications running, should this be set
> to
> 8GB or (8GB - 1.128GB => 6.872GB).
Yes , you can set up even to 7GB :-))
> The only other applications that we have running are the Vertias Client
> for
> Backups and Symantec's Antivirus besides the standard Windows 2003
> services.
> I'm sure most production environments have something very similar. What
> sould the recommended "Maximum Server Memory" be set to for a 8GB
> environment
> with these services running.
You have to determine how much memory does each proccess take and
according to it set the MAX memory
"Larry Herbinaux" <LarryHerbinaux@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:7E65D50A-7BA1-4F5E-B62A-B8F9792C77CC@.microsoft.com...
> We have a clustered environment with each node having 8GB memory, Win2k3
> Enterprise Edition SP2, and SQL2k Enterprise Edition SP4.
> I have read a few articles on AWE and the following link provided me with
> a
> lot of information, but I still have a few questions:
> http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
> I understand that the switches that I should use are /3GB /PAE.
> In the above article it stated that AWE technology is used only for the
> RAM
> that exceeds the base 4GB of RAM. It further states that once the AWE
> Enabled option is set to 1, SQL Server will take all of the RAM except
> 128MB
> reserved for the OS. My question here is whether this statement refers to
> 128MB of the available AWE memory (e.g. the 128MB of the 4GB that is not
> from
> the base 4GB in an 8GB configuration). So with the /3GB switch and AWE
> enabled, does the operating system have approxiamtely 1.128GB dedicated to
> the OS or only 128MB (this latter seems much too low).
> When setting "Maximum Server Memory" does this refer to the entire 8GB (my
> guess is yes)? And with no other applications running, should this be set
> to
> 8GB or (8GB - 1.128GB => 6.872GB).
> The only other applications that we have running are the Vertias Client
> for
> Backups and Symantec's Antivirus besides the standard Windows 2003
> services.
> I'm sure most production environments have something very similar. What
> sould the recommended "Maximum Server Memory" be set to for a 8GB
> environment
> with these services running.
> Thanks,
> Larry|||just to mention to be carefuly on mem counting having full 4gb of mem.
close to 4gb boundary, there may be memory mapped area used by motherboard
[pci cards etc], which may take almost 0,5gb of memory.
so, instead of 4gb, you may find available only 3,5gb appx or so
"Larry Herbinaux" <LarryHerbinaux@.discussions.microsoft.com> je napisao u
poruci interesnoj
grupi:7E65D50A-7BA1-4F5E-B62A-B8F9792C77CC@.microsoft.com...
> We have a clustered environment with each node having 8GB memory, Win2k3
> Enterprise Edition SP2, and SQL2k Enterprise Edition SP4.
> enabled, does the operating system have approxiamtely 1.128GB dedicated to
> the OS or only 128MB (this latter seems much too low).
>
> Larry
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Average of average in SP2
Does anyone know if we are expecting this to be included in Service Pack 2
at all?
Cheers
GavinNot that I am aware of (and I doubt it will be due to this being an
enhancement). The only enhancements I am aware of are printing support and
web parts for sharepoint. Everything else is bug fixes.
--
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"Gavin Pollock" <gpollock@.challow.removethis.net> wrote in message
news:uZAVaGl8EHA.2156@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Does anyone know if we are expecting this to be included in Service Pack 2
> at all?
> Cheers
> Gavin
>|||Ah well, pity. Thanks, Bruce.
Is there a road map for enhancements planned out, or not really? I guess not
at this stage...
Cheers
Gavin
"Bruce L-C [MVP]" <bruce_lcNOSPAM@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23QbAsmm8EHA.2600@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Not that I am aware of (and I doubt it will be due to this being an
> enhancement). The only enhancements I am aware of are printing support and
> web parts for sharepoint. Everything else is bug fixes.
> --
> Bruce Loehle-Conger
> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
>
> "Gavin Pollock" <gpollock@.challow.removethis.net> wrote in message
> news:uZAVaGl8EHA.2156@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> Does anyone know if we are expecting this to be included in Service Pack
>> 2
>> at all?
>> Cheers
>> Gavin
>>
>
at all?
Cheers
GavinNot that I am aware of (and I doubt it will be due to this being an
enhancement). The only enhancements I am aware of are printing support and
web parts for sharepoint. Everything else is bug fixes.
--
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"Gavin Pollock" <gpollock@.challow.removethis.net> wrote in message
news:uZAVaGl8EHA.2156@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Does anyone know if we are expecting this to be included in Service Pack 2
> at all?
> Cheers
> Gavin
>|||Ah well, pity. Thanks, Bruce.
Is there a road map for enhancements planned out, or not really? I guess not
at this stage...
Cheers
Gavin
"Bruce L-C [MVP]" <bruce_lcNOSPAM@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23QbAsmm8EHA.2600@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Not that I am aware of (and I doubt it will be due to this being an
> enhancement). The only enhancements I am aware of are printing support and
> web parts for sharepoint. Everything else is bug fixes.
> --
> Bruce Loehle-Conger
> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
>
> "Gavin Pollock" <gpollock@.challow.removethis.net> wrote in message
> news:uZAVaGl8EHA.2156@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> Does anyone know if we are expecting this to be included in Service Pack
>> 2
>> at all?
>> Cheers
>> Gavin
>>
>
Monday, February 13, 2012
Avast Antivirus causing SQL Server 2005 not to start up
I have SQL Server 2005 and Visual Studio .NET 2005 installed on my
developer PC. I installed SQL Server 2005 SP2 last week and installed
Avast Antivirus this week. What I noticed was that after my reboot, I
could not get SQL Server to start. In the Surface Area Configuration,
I was getting error messages in regards to me not having permission to
start the service.
So I uninstalled Avast Antivirus (Home Edition btw), and rebooted.
Alas, SQL Server 2005 was starting up again!
I use AVG Antivirus (free of course), and was wondering if anybody
else out there has had similar problems? Is it just Avast?
Thanks.
"tofu.captain" <tofu.captain@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176693441.180857.3870@.w1g2000hsg.googlegroup s.com...
>I have SQL Server 2005 and Visual Studio .NET 2005 installed on my
> developer PC. I installed SQL Server 2005 SP2 last week and installed
> Avast Antivirus this week. What I noticed was that after my reboot, I
> could not get SQL Server to start. In the Surface Area Configuration,
> I was getting error messages in regards to me not having permission to
> start the service.
> So I uninstalled Avast Antivirus (Home Edition btw), and rebooted.
> Alas, SQL Server 2005 was starting up again!
> I use AVG Antivirus (free of course), and was wondering if anybody
> else out there has had similar problems? Is it just Avast?
Generally suggest not running an AV on a SQL Server. At the very least
suggest telling it to not scan the databases.
> Thanks.
>
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html
|||Hi
"tofu.captain" wrote:
> I have SQL Server 2005 and Visual Studio .NET 2005 installed on my
> developer PC. I installed SQL Server 2005 SP2 last week and installed
> Avast Antivirus this week. What I noticed was that after my reboot, I
> could not get SQL Server to start. In the Surface Area Configuration,
> I was getting error messages in regards to me not having permission to
> start the service.
> So I uninstalled Avast Antivirus (Home Edition btw), and rebooted.
> Alas, SQL Server 2005 was starting up again!
> I use AVG Antivirus (free of course), and was wondering if anybody
> else out there has had similar problems? Is it just Avast?
> Thanks.
>
As this is a developer PC you probably do want to install an antivirus
program, but as Greg says do not scan the database files as SQL Server will
require exclusive access to these files. I would expect user databases to be
marked as suspect if the scan was occurring during start up, but SQL Server
may still start therefore the error message seems slightly spurious. Have you
checked the SQL Server log and the event log for any additional information?
John
developer PC. I installed SQL Server 2005 SP2 last week and installed
Avast Antivirus this week. What I noticed was that after my reboot, I
could not get SQL Server to start. In the Surface Area Configuration,
I was getting error messages in regards to me not having permission to
start the service.
So I uninstalled Avast Antivirus (Home Edition btw), and rebooted.
Alas, SQL Server 2005 was starting up again!
I use AVG Antivirus (free of course), and was wondering if anybody
else out there has had similar problems? Is it just Avast?
Thanks.
"tofu.captain" <tofu.captain@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176693441.180857.3870@.w1g2000hsg.googlegroup s.com...
>I have SQL Server 2005 and Visual Studio .NET 2005 installed on my
> developer PC. I installed SQL Server 2005 SP2 last week and installed
> Avast Antivirus this week. What I noticed was that after my reboot, I
> could not get SQL Server to start. In the Surface Area Configuration,
> I was getting error messages in regards to me not having permission to
> start the service.
> So I uninstalled Avast Antivirus (Home Edition btw), and rebooted.
> Alas, SQL Server 2005 was starting up again!
> I use AVG Antivirus (free of course), and was wondering if anybody
> else out there has had similar problems? Is it just Avast?
Generally suggest not running an AV on a SQL Server. At the very least
suggest telling it to not scan the databases.
> Thanks.
>
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html
|||Hi
"tofu.captain" wrote:
> I have SQL Server 2005 and Visual Studio .NET 2005 installed on my
> developer PC. I installed SQL Server 2005 SP2 last week and installed
> Avast Antivirus this week. What I noticed was that after my reboot, I
> could not get SQL Server to start. In the Surface Area Configuration,
> I was getting error messages in regards to me not having permission to
> start the service.
> So I uninstalled Avast Antivirus (Home Edition btw), and rebooted.
> Alas, SQL Server 2005 was starting up again!
> I use AVG Antivirus (free of course), and was wondering if anybody
> else out there has had similar problems? Is it just Avast?
> Thanks.
>
As this is a developer PC you probably do want to install an antivirus
program, but as Greg says do not scan the database files as SQL Server will
require exclusive access to these files. I would expect user databases to be
marked as suspect if the scan was occurring during start up, but SQL Server
may still start therefore the error message seems slightly spurious. Have you
checked the SQL Server log and the event log for any additional information?
John
Avast Antivirus causing SQL Server 2005 not to start up
I have SQL Server 2005 and Visual Studio .NET 2005 installed on my
developer PC. I installed SQL Server 2005 SP2 last week and installed
Avast Antivirus this week. What I noticed was that after my reboot, I
could not get SQL Server to start. In the Surface Area Configuration,
I was getting error messages in regards to me not having permission to
start the service.
So I uninstalled Avast Antivirus (Home Edition btw), and rebooted.
Alas, SQL Server 2005 was starting up again!
I use AVG Antivirus (free of course), and was wondering if anybody
else out there has had similar problems? Is it just Avast?
Thanks."tofu.captain" <tofu.captain@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176693441.180857.3870@.w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>I have SQL Server 2005 and Visual Studio .NET 2005 installed on my
> developer PC. I installed SQL Server 2005 SP2 last week and installed
> Avast Antivirus this week. What I noticed was that after my reboot, I
> could not get SQL Server to start. In the Surface Area Configuration,
> I was getting error messages in regards to me not having permission to
> start the service.
> So I uninstalled Avast Antivirus (Home Edition btw), and rebooted.
> Alas, SQL Server 2005 was starting up again!
> I use AVG Antivirus (free of course), and was wondering if anybody
> else out there has had similar problems? Is it just Avast?
Generally suggest not running an AV on a SQL Server. At the very least
suggest telling it to not scan the databases.
> Thanks.
>
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html|||Hi
"tofu.captain" wrote:
> I have SQL Server 2005 and Visual Studio .NET 2005 installed on my
> developer PC. I installed SQL Server 2005 SP2 last week and installed
> Avast Antivirus this week. What I noticed was that after my reboot, I
> could not get SQL Server to start. In the Surface Area Configuration,
> I was getting error messages in regards to me not having permission to
> start the service.
> So I uninstalled Avast Antivirus (Home Edition btw), and rebooted.
> Alas, SQL Server 2005 was starting up again!
> I use AVG Antivirus (free of course), and was wondering if anybody
> else out there has had similar problems? Is it just Avast?
> Thanks.
>
As this is a developer PC you probably do want to install an antivirus
program, but as Greg says do not scan the database files as SQL Server will
require exclusive access to these files. I would expect user databases to be
marked as suspect if the scan was occurring during start up, but SQL Server
may still start therefore the error message seems slightly spurious. Have yo
u
checked the SQL Server log and the event log for any additional information?
John
developer PC. I installed SQL Server 2005 SP2 last week and installed
Avast Antivirus this week. What I noticed was that after my reboot, I
could not get SQL Server to start. In the Surface Area Configuration,
I was getting error messages in regards to me not having permission to
start the service.
So I uninstalled Avast Antivirus (Home Edition btw), and rebooted.
Alas, SQL Server 2005 was starting up again!
I use AVG Antivirus (free of course), and was wondering if anybody
else out there has had similar problems? Is it just Avast?
Thanks."tofu.captain" <tofu.captain@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176693441.180857.3870@.w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>I have SQL Server 2005 and Visual Studio .NET 2005 installed on my
> developer PC. I installed SQL Server 2005 SP2 last week and installed
> Avast Antivirus this week. What I noticed was that after my reboot, I
> could not get SQL Server to start. In the Surface Area Configuration,
> I was getting error messages in regards to me not having permission to
> start the service.
> So I uninstalled Avast Antivirus (Home Edition btw), and rebooted.
> Alas, SQL Server 2005 was starting up again!
> I use AVG Antivirus (free of course), and was wondering if anybody
> else out there has had similar problems? Is it just Avast?
Generally suggest not running an AV on a SQL Server. At the very least
suggest telling it to not scan the databases.
> Thanks.
>
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html|||Hi
"tofu.captain" wrote:
> I have SQL Server 2005 and Visual Studio .NET 2005 installed on my
> developer PC. I installed SQL Server 2005 SP2 last week and installed
> Avast Antivirus this week. What I noticed was that after my reboot, I
> could not get SQL Server to start. In the Surface Area Configuration,
> I was getting error messages in regards to me not having permission to
> start the service.
> So I uninstalled Avast Antivirus (Home Edition btw), and rebooted.
> Alas, SQL Server 2005 was starting up again!
> I use AVG Antivirus (free of course), and was wondering if anybody
> else out there has had similar problems? Is it just Avast?
> Thanks.
>
As this is a developer PC you probably do want to install an antivirus
program, but as Greg says do not scan the database files as SQL Server will
require exclusive access to these files. I would expect user databases to be
marked as suspect if the scan was occurring during start up, but SQL Server
may still start therefore the error message seems slightly spurious. Have yo
u
checked the SQL Server log and the event log for any additional information?
John
Avast Antivirus causing SQL Server 2005 not to start up
I have SQL Server 2005 and Visual Studio .NET 2005 installed on my
developer PC. I installed SQL Server 2005 SP2 last week and installed
Avast Antivirus this week. What I noticed was that after my reboot, I
could not get SQL Server to start. In the Surface Area Configuration,
I was getting error messages in regards to me not having permission to
start the service.
So I uninstalled Avast Antivirus (Home Edition btw), and rebooted.
Alas, SQL Server 2005 was starting up again!
I use AVG Antivirus (free of course), and was wondering if anybody
else out there has had similar problems? Is it just Avast?
Thanks."tofu.captain" <tofu.captain@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176693441.180857.3870@.w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>I have SQL Server 2005 and Visual Studio .NET 2005 installed on my
> developer PC. I installed SQL Server 2005 SP2 last week and installed
> Avast Antivirus this week. What I noticed was that after my reboot, I
> could not get SQL Server to start. In the Surface Area Configuration,
> I was getting error messages in regards to me not having permission to
> start the service.
> So I uninstalled Avast Antivirus (Home Edition btw), and rebooted.
> Alas, SQL Server 2005 was starting up again!
> I use AVG Antivirus (free of course), and was wondering if anybody
> else out there has had similar problems? Is it just Avast?
Generally suggest not running an AV on a SQL Server. At the very least
suggest telling it to not scan the databases.
> Thanks.
>
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html|||Hi
"tofu.captain" wrote:
> I have SQL Server 2005 and Visual Studio .NET 2005 installed on my
> developer PC. I installed SQL Server 2005 SP2 last week and installed
> Avast Antivirus this week. What I noticed was that after my reboot, I
> could not get SQL Server to start. In the Surface Area Configuration,
> I was getting error messages in regards to me not having permission to
> start the service.
> So I uninstalled Avast Antivirus (Home Edition btw), and rebooted.
> Alas, SQL Server 2005 was starting up again!
> I use AVG Antivirus (free of course), and was wondering if anybody
> else out there has had similar problems? Is it just Avast?
> Thanks.
>
As this is a developer PC you probably do want to install an antivirus
program, but as Greg says do not scan the database files as SQL Server will
require exclusive access to these files. I would expect user databases to be
marked as suspect if the scan was occurring during start up, but SQL Server
may still start therefore the error message seems slightly spurious. Have you
checked the SQL Server log and the event log for any additional information?
John
developer PC. I installed SQL Server 2005 SP2 last week and installed
Avast Antivirus this week. What I noticed was that after my reboot, I
could not get SQL Server to start. In the Surface Area Configuration,
I was getting error messages in regards to me not having permission to
start the service.
So I uninstalled Avast Antivirus (Home Edition btw), and rebooted.
Alas, SQL Server 2005 was starting up again!
I use AVG Antivirus (free of course), and was wondering if anybody
else out there has had similar problems? Is it just Avast?
Thanks."tofu.captain" <tofu.captain@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176693441.180857.3870@.w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>I have SQL Server 2005 and Visual Studio .NET 2005 installed on my
> developer PC. I installed SQL Server 2005 SP2 last week and installed
> Avast Antivirus this week. What I noticed was that after my reboot, I
> could not get SQL Server to start. In the Surface Area Configuration,
> I was getting error messages in regards to me not having permission to
> start the service.
> So I uninstalled Avast Antivirus (Home Edition btw), and rebooted.
> Alas, SQL Server 2005 was starting up again!
> I use AVG Antivirus (free of course), and was wondering if anybody
> else out there has had similar problems? Is it just Avast?
Generally suggest not running an AV on a SQL Server. At the very least
suggest telling it to not scan the databases.
> Thanks.
>
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html|||Hi
"tofu.captain" wrote:
> I have SQL Server 2005 and Visual Studio .NET 2005 installed on my
> developer PC. I installed SQL Server 2005 SP2 last week and installed
> Avast Antivirus this week. What I noticed was that after my reboot, I
> could not get SQL Server to start. In the Surface Area Configuration,
> I was getting error messages in regards to me not having permission to
> start the service.
> So I uninstalled Avast Antivirus (Home Edition btw), and rebooted.
> Alas, SQL Server 2005 was starting up again!
> I use AVG Antivirus (free of course), and was wondering if anybody
> else out there has had similar problems? Is it just Avast?
> Thanks.
>
As this is a developer PC you probably do want to install an antivirus
program, but as Greg says do not scan the database files as SQL Server will
require exclusive access to these files. I would expect user databases to be
marked as suspect if the scan was occurring during start up, but SQL Server
may still start therefore the error message seems slightly spurious. Have you
checked the SQL Server log and the event log for any additional information?
John
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)