Backing up MS SQL Server databases

Hello all,
using SQL Server 2000 sp4
What can Backup Exec. 9.1 do that I cannot do in scripts\jobs or sql
maintenance plans?
Is it normal out there to just have backups through MS SQL Server with
maintenance plans and jobs with dba own scripts? Or to also have 3rd party
backup solution
thanks
gv"gv" <viator.gerry@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23A4vsoHcHHA.4176@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Hello all,
> using SQL Server 2000 sp4
> What can Backup Exec. 9.1 do that I cannot do in scripts\jobs or sql
> maintenance plans?
>
I'm not familiar with Backup Exec.
> Is it normal out there to just have backups through MS SQL Server with
> maintenance plans and jobs with dba own scripts? Or to also have 3rd party
> backup solution
Yes, very normal. And honestly, for the most part, I trust them more.
One of the few reasons I can think of to use a 3rd party solution is that
you can do a single backup operation to backup the entire server, including
the databases.
> thanks
> gv
>
--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html|||thanks
gv
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@.greenms.com> wrote in message
news:ON34WvHcHHA.596@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> "gv" <viator.gerry@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23A4vsoHcHHA.4176@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Hello all,
>> using SQL Server 2000 sp4
>> What can Backup Exec. 9.1 do that I cannot do in scripts\jobs or sql
>> maintenance plans?
> I'm not familiar with Backup Exec.
>
>> Is it normal out there to just have backups through MS SQL Server with
>> maintenance plans and jobs with dba own scripts? Or to also have 3rd
>> party backup solution
> Yes, very normal. And honestly, for the most part, I trust them more.
> One of the few reasons I can think of to use a 3rd party solution is that
> you can do a single backup operation to backup the entire server,
> including the databases.
>
>> thanks
>> gv
> --
> Greg Moore
> SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
> Email: sql (at) greenms.com
> http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html
>

Backing up Database

When I try to backup a SQL 2000 database I recieve the following error in
the output log. Any ideas? Thank you.
SQL 2000 w/ SP4
[39] Database SolRounder: Database Backup...
Destination: [G:\Backups\SolRounder\SolRounder_db_200704131221.BAK]
[Microsoft SQL-DMO (ODBC SQLState: 42000)] Error 3202: [Microsoft][ODBC SQL
Server Driver][SQL Server]Write on
'G:\Backups\SolRounder\SolRounder_db_200704131221.BAK' failed, status = 112.
See the SQL Server error log for more details.
[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]BACKUP DATABASE is
terminating abnormally.
[40] Database SolRounderKids: Database Backup...
Destination:
[G:\Backups\SolRounderKids\SolRounderKids_db_200704131223.BAK]Gabe,
Error 112 is probably the Windows ERROR_DISK_FULL, which means that your G:
drive does not have enough space to hold your backup file.
See if you can clean up some things from the drive to give it more space.
RLF
"Gabe Matteson\" <gmatteson.rounder.com.nospam> wrote in message
news:Oz8yowefHHA.4552@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> When I try to backup a SQL 2000 database I recieve the following error in
> the output log. Any ideas? Thank you.
> SQL 2000 w/ SP4
> [39] Database SolRounder: Database Backup...
> Destination: [G:\Backups\SolRounder\SolRounder_db_200704131221.BAK]
> [Microsoft SQL-DMO (ODBC SQLState: 42000)] Error 3202: [Microsoft][ODBC
> SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Write on
> 'G:\Backups\SolRounder\SolRounder_db_200704131221.BAK' failed, status => 112. See the SQL Server error log for more details.
> [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]BACKUP DATABASE is
> terminating abnormally.
> [40] Database SolRounderKids: Database Backup...
> Destination:
> [G:\Backups\SolRounderKids\SolRounderKids_db_200704131223.BAK]
>|||Working now. Thank you Russell!
"Russell Fields" <russellfields@.nomail.com> wrote in message
news:ueOlD4efHHA.4552@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Gabe,
> Error 112 is probably the Windows ERROR_DISK_FULL, which means that your
> G: drive does not have enough space to hold your backup file.
> See if you can clean up some things from the drive to give it more space.
> RLF
> "Gabe Matteson\" <gmatteson.rounder.com.nospam> wrote in message
> news:Oz8yowefHHA.4552@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> When I try to backup a SQL 2000 database I recieve the following error in
>> the output log. Any ideas? Thank you.
>> SQL 2000 w/ SP4
>> [39] Database SolRounder: Database Backup...
>> Destination: [G:\Backups\SolRounder\SolRounder_db_200704131221.BAK]
>> [Microsoft SQL-DMO (ODBC SQLState: 42000)] Error 3202: [Microsoft][ODBC
>> SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Write on
>> 'G:\Backups\SolRounder\SolRounder_db_200704131221.BAK' failed, status =>> 112. See the SQL Server error log for more details.
>> [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]BACKUP DATABASE is
>> terminating abnormally.
>> [40] Database SolRounderKids: Database Backup...
>> Destination:
>> [G:\Backups\SolRounderKids\SolRounderKids_db_200704131223.BAK]
>

Backing up a database to a remote shared folder

We are using SQL 2K with sp4 on W2K servers but they are in windows workgroup
not domain. The SQL service is started by the local system account. I am
having a hard time trying to back up a database to a remote shared folder
located in another W2K server in the same windows workgroup. I believe it is
an authentication/permission issue. I am aware that SQL server looks at
network shared folder differently than the way Windows see but don't know
how to get around it under the workgroup setup. If it is under domain setup,
I have no problem.
Any help on this is very much appreciated.
Wingman
The account that SQL Server runs under must have permissions to that share.
Make sure you use UNC for the path and not a mapped drive.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Wingman" <Wingman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:45312278-0845-433D-8F7D-2139BD2B0523@.microsoft.com...
> We are using SQL 2K with sp4 on W2K servers but they are in windows
> workgroup
> not domain. The SQL service is started by the local system account. I am
> having a hard time trying to back up a database to a remote shared folder
> located in another W2K server in the same windows workgroup. I believe it
> is
> an authentication/permission issue. I am aware that SQL server looks at
> network shared folder differently than the way Windows see but don't know
> how to get around it under the workgroup setup. If it is under domain
> setup,
> I have no problem.
> Any help on this is very much appreciated.
> Wingman
|||Yep, I know about the UNC part but how do I assign the local account that run
SQL server to that share under the WorkGroup envirnoment. I am not very
familar with the Windows Workgroup setup. From the computer that I have the
shared folder, I can't see any user account from other computers. I believe
it is because of the Workgroup setup but then again it may be just my
inexperience in this area. Please advise.
Wingman
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

> The account that SQL Server runs under must have permissions to that share.
> Make sure you use UNC for the path and not a mapped drive.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Wingman" <Wingman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:45312278-0845-433D-8F7D-2139BD2B0523@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||You'd have to create an account with same name and password as the service account on that other
machine.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Wingman" <Wingman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6075EA91-4D10-4E03-A3D1-3BB693F750D6@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yep, I know about the UNC part but how do I assign the local account that run
> SQL server to that share under the WorkGroup envirnoment. I am not very
> familar with the Windows Workgroup setup. From the computer that I have the
> shared folder, I can't see any user account from other computers. I believe
> it is because of the Workgroup setup but then again it may be just my
> inexperience in this area. Please advise.
> Wingman
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
|||I am not sure if you can use the local service account or not in a workgroup
for this. You could set the permissions on the share to allow everyone to
read and write to it but that would obviously allow anyone with access to
that workgroup to access that share. Maybe someone with more experience in
WorkGroups can pipe in.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Wingman" <Wingman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6075EA91-4D10-4E03-A3D1-3BB693F750D6@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yep, I know about the UNC part but how do I assign the local account that
> run
> SQL server to that share under the WorkGroup envirnoment. I am not very
> familar with the Windows Workgroup setup. From the computer that I have
> the
> shared folder, I can't see any user account from other computers. I
> believe
> it is because of the Workgroup setup but then again it may be just my
> inexperience in this area. Please advise.
> Wingman
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
|||Yep, this does it. Thanks!!!
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:

> You'd have to create an account with same name and password as the service account on that other
> machine.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "Wingman" <Wingman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6075EA91-4D10-4E03-A3D1-3BB693F750D6@.microsoft.com...
>
sql

Backing up a database to a remote shared folder

We are using SQL 2K with sp4 on W2K servers but they are in windows workgrou
p
not domain. The SQL service is started by the local system account. I am
having a hard time trying to back up a database to a remote shared folder
located in another W2K server in the same windows workgroup. I believe it i
s
an authentication/permission issue. I am aware that SQL server looks at
network shared folder differently than the way Windows see but don't know
how to get around it under the workgroup setup. If it is under domain setup
,
I have no problem.
Any help on this is very much appreciated.
WingmanThe account that SQL Server runs under must have permissions to that share.
Make sure you use UNC for the path and not a mapped drive.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Wingman" <Wingman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:45312278-0845-433D-8F7D-2139BD2B0523@.microsoft.com...
> We are using SQL 2K with sp4 on W2K servers but they are in windows
> workgroup
> not domain. The SQL service is started by the local system account. I am
> having a hard time trying to back up a database to a remote shared folder
> located in another W2K server in the same windows workgroup. I believe it
> is
> an authentication/permission issue. I am aware that SQL server looks at
> network shared folder differently than the way Windows see but don't know
> how to get around it under the workgroup setup. If it is under domain
> setup,
> I have no problem.
> Any help on this is very much appreciated.
> Wingman|||Yep, I know about the UNC part but how do I assign the local account that ru
n
SQL server to that share under the WorkGroup envirnoment. I am not very
familar with the Windows Workgroup setup. From the computer that I have the
shared folder, I can't see any user account from other computers. I believe
it is because of the Workgroup setup but then again it may be just my
inexperience in this area. Please advise.
Wingman
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

> The account that SQL Server runs under must have permissions to that share
.
> Make sure you use UNC for the path and not a mapped drive.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Wingman" <Wingman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:45312278-0845-433D-8F7D-2139BD2B0523@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||You'd have to create an account with same name and password as the service a
ccount on that other
machine.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Wingman" <Wingman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6075EA91-4D10-4E03-A3D1-3BB693F750D6@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yep, I know about the UNC part but how do I assign the local account that
run
> SQL server to that share under the WorkGroup envirnoment. I am not very
> familar with the Windows Workgroup setup. From the computer that I have t
he
> shared folder, I can't see any user account from other computers. I belie
ve
> it is because of the Workgroup setup but then again it may be just my
> inexperience in this area. Please advise.
> Wingman
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>|||I am not sure if you can use the local service account or not in a workgroup
for this. You could set the permissions on the share to allow everyone to
read and write to it but that would obviously allow anyone with access to
that workgroup to access that share. Maybe someone with more experience in
WorkGroups can pipe in.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Wingman" <Wingman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6075EA91-4D10-4E03-A3D1-3BB693F750D6@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yep, I know about the UNC part but how do I assign the local account that
> run
> SQL server to that share under the WorkGroup envirnoment. I am not very
> familar with the Windows Workgroup setup. From the computer that I have
> the
> shared folder, I can't see any user account from other computers. I
> believe
> it is because of the Workgroup setup but then again it may be just my
> inexperience in this area. Please advise.
> Wingman
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>|||Yep, this does it. Thanks!!!
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:

> You'd have to create an account with same name and password as the service
account on that other
> machine.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "Wingman" <Wingman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6075EA91-4D10-4E03-A3D1-3BB693F750D6@.microsoft.com...
>

Backing up a database to a remote shared folder

We are using SQL 2K with sp4 on W2K servers but they are in windows workgroup
not domain. The SQL service is started by the local system account. I am
having a hard time trying to back up a database to a remote shared folder
located in another W2K server in the same windows workgroup. I believe it is
an authentication/permission issue. I am aware that SQL server looks at
network shared folder differently than the way Windows see but don't know
how to get around it under the workgroup setup. If it is under domain setup,
I have no problem.
Any help on this is very much appreciated.
WingmanThe account that SQL Server runs under must have permissions to that share.
Make sure you use UNC for the path and not a mapped drive.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Wingman" <Wingman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:45312278-0845-433D-8F7D-2139BD2B0523@.microsoft.com...
> We are using SQL 2K with sp4 on W2K servers but they are in windows
> workgroup
> not domain. The SQL service is started by the local system account. I am
> having a hard time trying to back up a database to a remote shared folder
> located in another W2K server in the same windows workgroup. I believe it
> is
> an authentication/permission issue. I am aware that SQL server looks at
> network shared folder differently than the way Windows see but don't know
> how to get around it under the workgroup setup. If it is under domain
> setup,
> I have no problem.
> Any help on this is very much appreciated.
> Wingman|||Yep, I know about the UNC part but how do I assign the local account that run
SQL server to that share under the WorkGroup envirnoment. I am not very
familar with the Windows Workgroup setup. From the computer that I have the
shared folder, I can't see any user account from other computers. I believe
it is because of the Workgroup setup but then again it may be just my
inexperience in this area. Please advise.
Wingman
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> The account that SQL Server runs under must have permissions to that share.
> Make sure you use UNC for the path and not a mapped drive.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Wingman" <Wingman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:45312278-0845-433D-8F7D-2139BD2B0523@.microsoft.com...
> > We are using SQL 2K with sp4 on W2K servers but they are in windows
> > workgroup
> > not domain. The SQL service is started by the local system account. I am
> > having a hard time trying to back up a database to a remote shared folder
> > located in another W2K server in the same windows workgroup. I believe it
> > is
> > an authentication/permission issue. I am aware that SQL server looks at
> > network shared folder differently than the way Windows see but don't know
> > how to get around it under the workgroup setup. If it is under domain
> > setup,
> > I have no problem.
> >
> > Any help on this is very much appreciated.
> >
> > Wingman
>
>|||You'd have to create an account with same name and password as the service account on that other
machine.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Wingman" <Wingman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6075EA91-4D10-4E03-A3D1-3BB693F750D6@.microsoft.com...
> Yep, I know about the UNC part but how do I assign the local account that run
> SQL server to that share under the WorkGroup envirnoment. I am not very
> familar with the Windows Workgroup setup. From the computer that I have the
> shared folder, I can't see any user account from other computers. I believe
> it is because of the Workgroup setup but then again it may be just my
> inexperience in this area. Please advise.
> Wingman
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>> The account that SQL Server runs under must have permissions to that share.
>> Make sure you use UNC for the path and not a mapped drive.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Wingman" <Wingman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:45312278-0845-433D-8F7D-2139BD2B0523@.microsoft.com...
>> > We are using SQL 2K with sp4 on W2K servers but they are in windows
>> > workgroup
>> > not domain. The SQL service is started by the local system account. I am
>> > having a hard time trying to back up a database to a remote shared folder
>> > located in another W2K server in the same windows workgroup. I believe it
>> > is
>> > an authentication/permission issue. I am aware that SQL server looks at
>> > network shared folder differently than the way Windows see but don't know
>> > how to get around it under the workgroup setup. If it is under domain
>> > setup,
>> > I have no problem.
>> >
>> > Any help on this is very much appreciated.
>> >
>> > Wingman
>>|||I am not sure if you can use the local service account or not in a workgroup
for this. You could set the permissions on the share to allow everyone to
read and write to it but that would obviously allow anyone with access to
that workgroup to access that share. Maybe someone with more experience in
WorkGroups can pipe in.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Wingman" <Wingman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6075EA91-4D10-4E03-A3D1-3BB693F750D6@.microsoft.com...
> Yep, I know about the UNC part but how do I assign the local account that
> run
> SQL server to that share under the WorkGroup envirnoment. I am not very
> familar with the Windows Workgroup setup. From the computer that I have
> the
> shared folder, I can't see any user account from other computers. I
> believe
> it is because of the Workgroup setup but then again it may be just my
> inexperience in this area. Please advise.
> Wingman
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>> The account that SQL Server runs under must have permissions to that
>> share.
>> Make sure you use UNC for the path and not a mapped drive.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Wingman" <Wingman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:45312278-0845-433D-8F7D-2139BD2B0523@.microsoft.com...
>> > We are using SQL 2K with sp4 on W2K servers but they are in windows
>> > workgroup
>> > not domain. The SQL service is started by the local system account. I
>> > am
>> > having a hard time trying to back up a database to a remote shared
>> > folder
>> > located in another W2K server in the same windows workgroup. I believe
>> > it
>> > is
>> > an authentication/permission issue. I am aware that SQL server looks
>> > at
>> > network shared folder differently than the way Windows see but don't
>> > know
>> > how to get around it under the workgroup setup. If it is under domain
>> > setup,
>> > I have no problem.
>> >
>> > Any help on this is very much appreciated.
>> >
>> > Wingman
>>|||Yep, this does it. Thanks!!!
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> You'd have to create an account with same name and password as the service account on that other
> machine.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "Wingman" <Wingman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6075EA91-4D10-4E03-A3D1-3BB693F750D6@.microsoft.com...
> > Yep, I know about the UNC part but how do I assign the local account that run
> > SQL server to that share under the WorkGroup envirnoment. I am not very
> > familar with the Windows Workgroup setup. From the computer that I have the
> > shared folder, I can't see any user account from other computers. I believe
> > it is because of the Workgroup setup but then again it may be just my
> > inexperience in this area. Please advise.
> >
> > Wingman
> >
> > "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> >
> >> The account that SQL Server runs under must have permissions to that share.
> >> Make sure you use UNC for the path and not a mapped drive.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >>
> >>
> >> "Wingman" <Wingman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:45312278-0845-433D-8F7D-2139BD2B0523@.microsoft.com...
> >> > We are using SQL 2K with sp4 on W2K servers but they are in windows
> >> > workgroup
> >> > not domain. The SQL service is started by the local system account. I am
> >> > having a hard time trying to back up a database to a remote shared folder
> >> > located in another W2K server in the same windows workgroup. I believe it
> >> > is
> >> > an authentication/permission issue. I am aware that SQL server looks at
> >> > network shared folder differently than the way Windows see but don't know
> >> > how to get around it under the workgroup setup. If it is under domain
> >> > setup,
> >> > I have no problem.
> >> >
> >> > Any help on this is very much appreciated.
> >> >
> >> > Wingman
> >>
> >>
> >>
>

AWE, /3gb and /pae stuff

Hi all,

I'm running under Windows Server 2000 datacenter sp4 with sql server 2000 Sp4

on 16GB Ram.

I enabled the /PAE in the boot.ini file and also enabled the AWE and set the SLQ Server maximum memory to 6144.

Do I need to include the /3GB switch in the boot.ini file?

I'm a little bit confused with the article found on the site. http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/274750

Here are the lines.

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. or-Use of the /3GB switch in the Boot.ini file allows SQL Server 2000 to use up to 3 GB of available memory.

Regards,

Larry

Hi Larry,

As you're running 16GB of RAM, you need to include the /PAE and /3GB switch in boot.ini.

Have a look at http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/pae_os.mspx and http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp

Cheers,

Rob

|||

The /3GB switch allows SQL Server to use an additional 1GB for the database engine purposes -procedure caches, various internal caching needs, etc.

The PAE memory (above 2GB that is not accessed by the /3GB) is used ONLY for data caching.

You most likely want both.

|||

But carefully watch your memory usage when you use 3GB, if misused it might cause system instability because of kernel memory starvation.

Check out the link here with more information about these subjects.

WesleyB

Visit my SQL Server weblog @. http://dis4ea.blogspot.com

AWE question (Geoff N. Hiten)

Hello
We have windows 2003 server (8GB) with SQL Server 2004(sp4) +one small
application installed on it.
We also have \3gb parameter in the boot.ini
It is a cluster Active/Passive
What would you recommenf to insttall a hotfix to Passive first and then
Active or it does not matter?
Is it any problems installing a hotfix? What is about lock pages in memory?
And running AWE enabling on Passive first also?
Geoff , how much memory to give to SQL SERVER if small application is using
about 50MB AND SQL SERVER 2.7gb?
Thanks
Alex,
There is no SQL 2004. I am guessing since you mention SP4, that is SQL
2000, since SQL 2005 is only at SP2 for now.
Hotfixes install to all nodes on a cluster for a particular instance. You
need to start the install from the node that is currently hosting the
instance. You must grant lock pages in memory to the SQL service account in
order to get AWE to work. AWE is a setting for the SQL instance, so it will
take effect whichever node hosts that instance.
For an 8GB system, I would start by setting SQL at 6GB and see how free
memory looks. You may be able to inch it up a bit, but it is better to
leave a little extra free memory than to run out. The only down side is
with SQL 2000 you have to stop and restart the service to enact an AWE
memory change.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Alex" <test@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ehk91SwkHHA.4248@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Hello
> We have windows 2003 server (8GB) with SQL Server 2004(sp4) +one small
> application installed on it.
> We also have \3gb parameter in the boot.ini
>
> It is a cluster Active/Passive
> What would you recommenf to insttall a hotfix to Passive first and then
> Active or it does not matter?
> Is it any problems installing a hotfix? What is about lock pages in
> memory?
> And running AWE enabling on Passive first also?
>
> Geoff , how much memory to give to SQL SERVER if small application is
> using about 50MB AND SQL SERVER 2.7gb?
> Thanks
>
>
|||Thank you Geoff N. Hiten
Yes , we are using SQL Server 2000(SP4).
Please take alook at the follwing list and tell me whether it looks good to
you.
a) SQL node1 --(Active) has 8GB
b) SQL node1 --(Passive) has 8GB
1) Install hotfix from(http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761) on SQL1 node
(Active)
2) Install hotfix from(http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761) on SQL2 node
(Passive)
3) Grant 'lock pages in memory' on on SQL1 node (Active)
4) Grant 'lock pages in memory' on on SQL1 node (Passive)
5) Enabling AWE on SQL1 node (Active)--set to 6GB
6) Enabling AWE on SQL1 node (Passive)--set to 6GB
Thanks you again
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OZ4pcewkHHA.4904@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Alex,
> There is no SQL 2004. I am guessing since you mention SP4, that is SQL
> 2000, since SQL 2005 is only at SP2 for now.
> Hotfixes install to all nodes on a cluster for a particular instance. You
> need to start the install from the node that is currently hosting the
> instance. You must grant lock pages in memory to the SQL service account
> in order to get AWE to work. AWE is a setting for the SQL instance, so it
> will take effect whichever node hosts that instance.
> For an 8GB system, I would start by setting SQL at 6GB and see how free
> memory looks. You may be able to inch it up a bit, but it is better to
> leave a little extra free memory than to run out. The only down side is
> with SQL 2000 you have to stop and restart the service to enact an AWE
> memory change.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "Alex" <test@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ehk91SwkHHA.4248@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>

AWE question (Geoff N. Hiten)

Hello
We have windows 2003 server (8GB) with SQL Server 2004(sp4) +one small
application installed on it.
We also have \3gb parameter in the boot.ini
It is a cluster Active/Passive
What would you recommenf to insttall a hotfix to Passive first and then
Active or it does not matter?
Is it any problems installing a hotfix? What is about lock pages in memory?
And running AWE enabling on Passive first also?
Geoff , how much memory to give to SQL SERVER if small application is using
about 50MB AND SQL SERVER 2.7gb?
ThanksAlex,
There is no SQL 2004. I am guessing since you mention SP4, that is SQL
2000, since SQL 2005 is only at SP2 for now.
Hotfixes install to all nodes on a cluster for a particular instance. You
need to start the install from the node that is currently hosting the
instance. You must grant lock pages in memory to the SQL service account in
order to get AWE to work. AWE is a setting for the SQL instance, so it will
take effect whichever node hosts that instance.
For an 8GB system, I would start by setting SQL at 6GB and see how free
memory looks. You may be able to inch it up a bit, but it is better to
leave a little extra free memory than to run out. The only down side is
with SQL 2000 you have to stop and restart the service to enact an AWE
memory change.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Alex" <test@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ehk91SwkHHA.4248@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Hello
> We have windows 2003 server (8GB) with SQL Server 2004(sp4) +one small
> application installed on it.
> We also have \3gb parameter in the boot.ini
>
> It is a cluster Active/Passive
> What would you recommenf to insttall a hotfix to Passive first and then
> Active or it does not matter?
> Is it any problems installing a hotfix? What is about lock pages in
> memory?
> And running AWE enabling on Passive first also?
>
> Geoff , how much memory to give to SQL SERVER if small application is
> using about 50MB AND SQL SERVER 2.7gb?
> Thanks
>
>|||Thank you Geoff N. Hiten
Yes , we are using SQL Server 2000(SP4).
Please take alook at the follwing list and tell me whether it looks good to
you.
a) SQL node1 --(Active) has 8GB
b) SQL node1 --(Passive) has 8GB
1) Install hotfix from(http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761) on SQL1 node
(Active)
2) Install hotfix from(http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761) on SQL2 node
(Passive)
3) Grant 'lock pages in memory' on on SQL1 node (Active)
4) Grant 'lock pages in memory' on on SQL1 node (Passive)
5) Enabling AWE on SQL1 node (Active)--set to 6GB
6) Enabling AWE on SQL1 node (Passive)--set to 6GB
Thanks you again
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OZ4pcewkHHA.4904@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Alex,
> There is no SQL 2004. I am guessing since you mention SP4, that is SQL
> 2000, since SQL 2005 is only at SP2 for now.
> Hotfixes install to all nodes on a cluster for a particular instance. You
> need to start the install from the node that is currently hosting the
> instance. You must grant lock pages in memory to the SQL service account
> in order to get AWE to work. AWE is a setting for the SQL instance, so it
> will take effect whichever node hosts that instance.
> For an 8GB system, I would start by setting SQL at 6GB and see how free
> memory looks. You may be able to inch it up a bit, but it is better to
> leave a little extra free memory than to run out. The only down side is
> with SQL 2000 you have to stop and restart the service to enact an AWE
> memory change.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "Alex" <test@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ehk91SwkHHA.4248@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Hello
>> We have windows 2003 server (8GB) with SQL Server 2004(sp4) +one small
>> application installed on it.
>> We also have \3gb parameter in the boot.ini
>>
>> It is a cluster Active/Passive
>> What would you recommenf to insttall a hotfix to Passive first and then
>> Active or it does not matter?
>> Is it any problems installing a hotfix? What is about lock pages in
>> memory?
>> And running AWE enabling on Passive first also?
>>
>> Geoff , how much memory to give to SQL SERVER if small application is
>> using about 50MB AND SQL SERVER 2.7gb?
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>

AWE question (Geoff N. Hiten)

Hello
We have windows 2003 server (8GB) with SQL Server 2004(sp4) +one small
application installed on it.
We also have \3gb parameter in the boot.ini
It is a cluster Active/Passive
What would you recommenf to insttall a hotfix to Passive first and then
Active or it does not matter?
Is it any problems installing a hotfix? What is about lock pages in memory?
And running AWE enabling on Passive first also?
Geoff , how much memory to give to SQL SERVER if small application is using
about 50MB AND SQL SERVER 2.7gb?
ThanksAlex,
There is no SQL 2004. I am guessing since you mention SP4, that is SQL
2000, since SQL 2005 is only at SP2 for now.
Hotfixes install to all nodes on a cluster for a particular instance. You
need to start the install from the node that is currently hosting the
instance. You must grant lock pages in memory to the SQL service account in
order to get AWE to work. AWE is a setting for the SQL instance, so it will
take effect whichever node hosts that instance.
For an 8GB system, I would start by setting SQL at 6GB and see how free
memory looks. You may be able to inch it up a bit, but it is better to
leave a little extra free memory than to run out. The only down side is
with SQL 2000 you have to stop and restart the service to enact an AWE
memory change.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Alex" <test@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ehk91SwkHHA.4248@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Hello
> We have windows 2003 server (8GB) with SQL Server 2004(sp4) +one small
> application installed on it.
> We also have \3gb parameter in the boot.ini
>
> It is a cluster Active/Passive
> What would you recommenf to insttall a hotfix to Passive first and then
> Active or it does not matter?
> Is it any problems installing a hotfix? What is about lock pages in
> memory?
> And running AWE enabling on Passive first also?
>
> Geoff , how much memory to give to SQL SERVER if small application is
> using about 50MB AND SQL SERVER 2.7gb?
> Thanks
>
>|||Thank you Geoff N. Hiten
Yes , we are using SQL Server 2000(SP4).
Please take alook at the follwing list and tell me whether it looks good to
you.
a) SQL node1 --(Active) has 8GB
b) SQL node1 --(Passive) has 8GB
1) Install hotfix from(http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761) on SQL1 node
(Active)
2) Install hotfix from(http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761) on SQL2 node
(Passive)
3) Grant 'lock pages in memory' on on SQL1 node (Active)
4) Grant 'lock pages in memory' on on SQL1 node (Passive)
5) Enabling AWE on SQL1 node (Active)--set to 6GB
6) Enabling AWE on SQL1 node (Passive)--set to 6GB
Thanks you again
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OZ4pcewkHHA.4904@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Alex,
> There is no SQL 2004. I am guessing since you mention SP4, that is SQL
> 2000, since SQL 2005 is only at SP2 for now.
> Hotfixes install to all nodes on a cluster for a particular instance. You
> need to start the install from the node that is currently hosting the
> instance. You must grant lock pages in memory to the SQL service account
> in order to get AWE to work. AWE is a setting for the SQL instance, so it
> will take effect whichever node hosts that instance.
> For an 8GB system, I would start by setting SQL at 6GB and see how free
> memory looks. You may be able to inch it up a bit, but it is better to
> leave a little extra free memory than to run out. The only down side is
> with SQL 2000 you have to stop and restart the service to enact an AWE
> memory change.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "Alex" <test@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ehk91SwkHHA.4248@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>

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
>
>

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
>
>

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
>
>

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

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:
> > 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
>
>|||This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--=_NextPart_000_0518_01C6EEA8.1744A950
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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=EF=83=A2 API that allows applications to address memory beyond 4 =GB."
From: =http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/c/c/9cc42e30-538b-4451-8fdb-7134=
a004f94c/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...
> 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:
> >> > 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 >> >> --=_NextPart_000_0518_01C6EEA8.1744A950
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=EF=BB=BF<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
&

---

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=EF=83=A2 API that allows applications to address memory beyond 4 GB."
From: http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/c/c/9cc42e30-538b-4=451-8fdb-7134a004f94c/Adv64BitEnv.doc
-- Arnie Rowland, =Ph.D.Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from =experience. Most experience comes from bad judgment. - Anonymous
"Linchi Shea" wrote in message news:1C1B6C5F-B795-4209-B6C9-06495AE71796@.microsoft.com...> =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:> > > 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.> >>> > > > ="Fredrik" 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 > > >

---

--=_NextPart_000_0518_01C6EEA8.1744A950--|||This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--=_NextPart_000_0518_01C6EEA8.1744A950
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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=EF=83=A2 API that allows applications to address memory beyond 4 =GB."
From: =http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/c/c/9cc42e30-538b-4451-8fdb-7134=
a004f94c/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...
> 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:
> >> > 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 >> >> --=_NextPart_000_0518_01C6EEA8.1744A950
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=EF=BB=BF<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
&

---

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=EF=83=A2 API that allows applications to address memory beyond 4 GB."
From: http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/c/c/9cc42e30-538b-4=451-8fdb-7134a004f94c/Adv64BitEnv.doc
-- Arnie Rowland, =Ph.D.Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from =experience. Most experience comes from bad judgment. - Anonymous
"Linchi Shea" wrote in message news:1C1B6C5F-B795-4209-B6C9-06495AE71796@.microsoft.com...> =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:> > > 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.> >>> > > > ="Fredrik" 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 > > >

---

--=_NextPart_000_0518_01C6EEA8.1744A950--|||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:
> 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 Win32ï?¢ API that allows applications to address memory beyond 4 GB."
> From: http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/c/c/9cc42e30-538b-4451-8fdb-7134a004f94c/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...
> > 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:
> >
> >> > 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
> >>
> >>
> >>|||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