Autonumber field: standard

Showing posts with label standard. Show all posts

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Backing Up Sys Databases

I currently back up the Master and MSDB sys databases, why do some people say
to back up Model as well? I though this was a standard non enhanceable
database. What are the reprocussions of not backing this database up?
Also what is the best way to back up transaction logs? I am doing an hourly
back up of a production database that has a lot changes through out the day.
I do a full back up once each night. The tran log seems to grow bigger than
the data file when I choose the append option for the log. Can I create
seperate tran log back ups or should I choose overwrite instead of append?
Thanks for your help
-ChrisHi Chris
Model is not non-enhanceable. Model is used as the template whenever a new
database is created, so you can put users, stored procedures, permissions,
datatypes, etc, into model, as well as setting the database properties of
model with ALTER DATABASE, and every new database will inherit those objects
and settings.
The tempdb database is built from model every time your SQL Server starts,
so if you want objects, users, user defined datatypes or special permissions
in tempdb, put them in model.
And then, if you do put any of these objects in model, you can backup model
to make it faster to recreate it in case of system failure.
In the future, I would suggest two different messages for different
questions like you have here. It will make it much easier for everybody, you
and anyone trying to help, to keep track of the discussion.
Do you really mean that your tran log is bigger than the data file, or that
the tran log backup file is bigger than the database backup file? Or
something else?
For a heavily updated database and a day's worth of log backups, it could
happen. But without knowing the size of the db, the rate of changes, the
types of changes and the size of the rows changing, the recovery model of
the database, and probably a few other things, there is no way to tell if it
is TOO big.
To restore from backups to the point of a failure, you need ALL the log
backups since the last full backup. If you use the overwrite option when
backing up the log, you will only have the most recent log back, not the
whole set, and you will be unable to recover anything after the last full
backup. Please read about transaction log backups in the Books Online.
--
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.solidqualitylearning.com
"Chris" <Chris@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:01280324-7A0E-4EAD-B9A7-567FD9480FFE@.microsoft.com...
>I currently back up the Master and MSDB sys databases, why do some people
>say
> to back up Model as well? I though this was a standard non enhanceable
> database. What are the reprocussions of not backing this database up?
> Also what is the best way to back up transaction logs? I am doing an
> hourly
> back up of a production database that has a lot changes through out the
> day.
> I do a full back up once each night. The tran log seems to grow bigger
> than
> the data file when I choose the append option for the log. Can I create
> seperate tran log back ups or should I choose overwrite instead of append?
> Thanks for your help
> -Chris

Backing Up Sys Databases

I currently back up the Master and MSDB sys databases, why do some people sa
y
to back up Model as well? I though this was a standard non enhanceable
database. What are the reprocussions of not backing this database up?
Also what is the best way to back up transaction logs? I am doing an hourly
back up of a production database that has a lot changes through out the day.
I do a full back up once each night. The tran log seems to grow bigger than
the data file when I choose the append option for the log. Can I create
seperate tran log back ups or should I choose overwrite instead of append?
Thanks for your help
-ChrisHi Chris
Model is not non-enhanceable. Model is used as the template whenever a new
database is created, so you can put users, stored procedures, permissions,
datatypes, etc, into model, as well as setting the database properties of
model with ALTER DATABASE, and every new database will inherit those objects
and settings.
The tempdb database is built from model every time your SQL Server starts,
so if you want objects, users, user defined datatypes or special permissions
in tempdb, put them in model.
And then, if you do put any of these objects in model, you can backup model
to make it faster to recreate it in case of system failure.
In the future, I would suggest two different messages for different
questions like you have here. It will make it much easier for everybody, you
and anyone trying to help, to keep track of the discussion.
Do you really mean that your tran log is bigger than the data file, or that
the tran log backup file is bigger than the database backup file? Or
something else?
For a heavily updated database and a day's worth of log backups, it could
happen. But without knowing the size of the db, the rate of changes, the
types of changes and the size of the rows changing, the recovery model of
the database, and probably a few other things, there is no way to tell if it
is TOO big.
To restore from backups to the point of a failure, you need ALL the log
backups since the last full backup. If you use the overwrite option when
backing up the log, you will only have the most recent log back, not the
whole set, and you will be unable to recover anything after the last full
backup. Please read about transaction log backups in the Books Online.
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.solidqualitylearning.com
"Chris" <Chris@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:01280324-7A0E-4EAD-B9A7-567FD9480FFE@.microsoft.com...
>I currently back up the Master and MSDB sys databases, why do some people
>say
> to back up Model as well? I though this was a standard non enhanceable
> database. What are the reprocussions of not backing this database up?
> Also what is the best way to back up transaction logs? I am doing an
> hourly
> back up of a production database that has a lot changes through out the
> day.
> I do a full back up once each night. The tran log seems to grow bigger
> than
> the data file when I choose the append option for the log. Can I create
> seperate tran log back ups or should I choose overwrite instead of append?
> Thanks for your help
> -Chris

Sunday, March 11, 2012

AWE, SQL Server Enterprise, W2k STANDARD + 4GB RAM

Hi
Enabling AWE on SQL Enterprise Ed on a W2K STANDARD ed does appear to work (there seemed to be some doubt). I have reserved 3.5GB max server memory, and it has been allocated. The AWE counters in perfmon also seem to indicate it is functioning.
Does anyone have any experience with this configuration (good or bad)?
Also, any tips as to monitor memory usage - SQLServer/SQL Cache Memory doesn't appear to be of any use.
RegardsHi Stuart,
Not sure what you have done yet, but refers to the following article for
configuring AWE on SQL Server
HOW TO: Configure memory for more than 2 GB in SQL Server
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;274750
On 24 Mar 2004 08:04:17 -0800, Stuart wrote:

> Hi
> Enabling AWE on SQL Enterprise Ed on a W2K STANDARD ed does appear to
> work (there seemed to be some doubt). I have reserved 3.5GB max server
> memory, and it has been allocated. The AWE counters in perfmon also
> seem to indicate it is functioning.
> Does anyone have any experience with this configuration (good or bad)?
> Also, any tips as to monitor memory usage - SQLServer/SQL Cache Memory
> doesn't appear to be of any use.
> Regards
> Stuart|||Thanks - have read the MS articles (they often seem contradictory as
to whether AWE would work on W2k Server Standard)
However, even though AWE it does work on W2K server, there seems to be
some doubt as to whether there is any point in doing this, e.g.
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp says should leave
AWE off for my config.
To date, the config is looking quite good - enabling AWE has doubled
the available RAM to SQL and the Page Life Expectancy has gone up to
about 3 hours (up from a few seconds)

.
Regards
Stuart
Yih-Yoon Lee <yihyoon@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<1lywgm6zbxldi.sdsrs0dj91ss$.dlg@.4
0tude.net>...
> Hi Stuart,
> Not sure what you have done yet, but refers to the following article for
> configuring AWE on SQL Server
> HOW TO: Configure memory for more than 2 GB in SQL Server
> http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;274750
> On 24 Mar 2004 08:04:17 -0800, Stuart wrote:
>

AWE, 3GB and SQL Boost

Please help. Just installed the SQL 2005 enterprise on 2003 standard server with /3GB switch.
Now, in SQL there is an AWE option. Do I need to check that off and where do I set the memory manualy and not dinamicly?
Also, do I boost SQL priority in processors?
Can you please help and give some other tunning pointers? I set couple of boxes with 2000 SQL and always used 3GB switch but forgot the priority on processors and other fine tunning steps. Thanks in advance.George,
How much memory do you have on the server? How much do you want to give to
SQL?
Chris
"George" <George@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4DA093A5-D72C-4276-A19A-385B81975C1F@.microsoft.com...
> Please help. Just installed the SQL 2005 enterprise on 2003 standard
> server
> with /3GB switch.
> Now, in SQL there is an AWE option. Do I need to check that off and where
> do
> I set the memory manualy and not dinamicly?
> Also, do I boost SQL priority in processors?
> Can you please help and give some other tunning pointers? I set couple of
> boxes with 2000 SQL and always used 3GB switch but forgot the priority on
> processors and other fine tunning steps. Thanks in advance.
>|||4GB on the server and 3GB to SQL
"Chris Wood" wrote:
> George,
> How much memory do you have on the server? How much do you want to give to
> SQL?
> Chris
> "George" <George@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:4DA093A5-D72C-4276-A19A-385B81975C1F@.microsoft.com...
> > Please help. Just installed the SQL 2005 enterprise on 2003 standard
> > server
> > with /3GB switch.
> > Now, in SQL there is an AWE option. Do I need to check that off and where
> > do
> > I set the memory manualy and not dinamicly?
> > Also, do I boost SQL priority in processors?
> > Can you please help and give some other tunning pointers? I set couple of
> > boxes with 2000 SQL and always used 3GB switch but forgot the priority on
> > processors and other fine tunning steps. Thanks in advance.
> >
>
>|||George,
On server 2003 the switches should be set by the O/S. You will need to
configure AWE using sp_configure and then set max and min memory. I would
try with 2.5Gb first before you see if you can move up to 3Gb.
Chris
"George" <George@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:26F43606-A322-484B-84B7-7B339139B3A0@.microsoft.com...
> 4GB on the server and 3GB to SQL
> "Chris Wood" wrote:
>> George,
>> How much memory do you have on the server? How much do you want to give
>> to
>> SQL?
>> Chris
>> "George" <George@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:4DA093A5-D72C-4276-A19A-385B81975C1F@.microsoft.com...
>> > Please help. Just installed the SQL 2005 enterprise on 2003 standard
>> > server
>> > with /3GB switch.
>> > Now, in SQL there is an AWE option. Do I need to check that off and
>> > where
>> > do
>> > I set the memory manualy and not dinamicly?
>> > Also, do I boost SQL priority in processors?
>> > Can you please help and give some other tunning pointers? I set couple
>> > of
>> > boxes with 2000 SQL and always used 3GB switch but forgot the priority
>> > on
>> > processors and other fine tunning steps. Thanks in advance.
>> >
>>|||Ok. So
1. Set the 3GB switch in Boot.ini (did this before SQL installation)
2. Run the sp_configure and set it to 2.5
Please confirm. Also, is that check for AWE in GUI same as the sp command
via QA?
"Chris Wood" wrote:
> George,
> On server 2003 the switches should be set by the O/S. You will need to
> configure AWE using sp_configure and then set max and min memory. I would
> try with 2.5Gb first before you see if you can move up to 3Gb.
> Chris
> "George" <George@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:26F43606-A322-484B-84B7-7B339139B3A0@.microsoft.com...
> > 4GB on the server and 3GB to SQL
> >
> > "Chris Wood" wrote:
> >
> >> George,
> >>
> >> How much memory do you have on the server? How much do you want to give
> >> to
> >> SQL?
> >>
> >> Chris
> >>
> >> "George" <George@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:4DA093A5-D72C-4276-A19A-385B81975C1F@.microsoft.com...
> >> > Please help. Just installed the SQL 2005 enterprise on 2003 standard
> >> > server
> >> > with /3GB switch.
> >> > Now, in SQL there is an AWE option. Do I need to check that off and
> >> > where
> >> > do
> >> > I set the memory manualy and not dinamicly?
> >> > Also, do I boost SQL priority in processors?
> >> > Can you please help and give some other tunning pointers? I set couple
> >> > of
> >> > boxes with 2000 SQL and always used 3GB switch but forgot the priority
> >> > on
> >> > processors and other fine tunning steps. Thanks in advance.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>|||Yes, checking and applying the 'Use AWE to allocate memory' checkbox is the
same as executing the following T-SQL code:
EXEC sys.sp_configure N'awe enabled', N'1'
RECONFIGURE WITH OVERRIDE
BTW, you almost never should boost the SQL process priority. In fact, Books
Online comes with the following warning:
"Raising the priority too high may drain resources from essential operating
system and network functions, resulting in problems shutting down SQL Server
or using other operating system tasks on the server."
Linchi
"George" wrote:
> Ok. So
> 1. Set the 3GB switch in Boot.ini (did this before SQL installation)
> 2. Run the sp_configure and set it to 2.5
> Please confirm. Also, is that check for AWE in GUI same as the sp command
> via QA?
> "Chris Wood" wrote:
> > George,
> >
> > On server 2003 the switches should be set by the O/S. You will need to
> > configure AWE using sp_configure and then set max and min memory. I would
> > try with 2.5Gb first before you see if you can move up to 3Gb.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > "George" <George@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:26F43606-A322-484B-84B7-7B339139B3A0@.microsoft.com...
> > > 4GB on the server and 3GB to SQL
> > >
> > > "Chris Wood" wrote:
> > >
> > >> George,
> > >>
> > >> How much memory do you have on the server? How much do you want to give
> > >> to
> > >> SQL?
> > >>
> > >> Chris
> > >>
> > >> "George" <George@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:4DA093A5-D72C-4276-A19A-385B81975C1F@.microsoft.com...
> > >> > Please help. Just installed the SQL 2005 enterprise on 2003 standard
> > >> > server
> > >> > with /3GB switch.
> > >> > Now, in SQL there is an AWE option. Do I need to check that off and
> > >> > where
> > >> > do
> > >> > I set the memory manualy and not dinamicly?
> > >> > Also, do I boost SQL priority in processors?
> > >> > Can you please help and give some other tunning pointers? I set couple
> > >> > of
> > >> > boxes with 2000 SQL and always used 3GB switch but forgot the priority
> > >> > on
> > >> > processors and other fine tunning steps. Thanks in advance.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
> >|||Thank you. I checked my prvious installations and you are right. I don't have
it on.
Now, as far as 3GB goes, do I keep it in the boot.ini and do I need some
other switch in addition?
If I put same valuses in both min and max memory, would that mean it is now
FIXED MEMORY SIZE assigned vs dynamically when there is a range?
SQL 2000 had a slider and a check box to choose from fixed and dynamyc (I am
sure you know of that just making a point)
"Linchi Shea" wrote:
> Yes, checking and applying the 'Use AWE to allocate memory' checkbox is the
> same as executing the following T-SQL code:
> EXEC sys.sp_configure N'awe enabled', N'1'
> RECONFIGURE WITH OVERRIDE
> BTW, you almost never should boost the SQL process priority. In fact, Books
> Online comes with the following warning:
> "Raising the priority too high may drain resources from essential operating
> system and network functions, resulting in problems shutting down SQL Server
> or using other operating system tasks on the server."
> Linchi
> "George" wrote:
> > Ok. So
> > 1. Set the 3GB switch in Boot.ini (did this before SQL installation)
> > 2. Run the sp_configure and set it to 2.5
> >
> > Please confirm. Also, is that check for AWE in GUI same as the sp command
> > via QA?
> >
> > "Chris Wood" wrote:
> >
> > > George,
> > >
> > > On server 2003 the switches should be set by the O/S. You will need to
> > > configure AWE using sp_configure and then set max and min memory. I would
> > > try with 2.5Gb first before you see if you can move up to 3Gb.
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > > "George" <George@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > news:26F43606-A322-484B-84B7-7B339139B3A0@.microsoft.com...
> > > > 4GB on the server and 3GB to SQL
> > > >
> > > > "Chris Wood" wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> George,
> > > >>
> > > >> How much memory do you have on the server? How much do you want to give
> > > >> to
> > > >> SQL?
> > > >>
> > > >> Chris
> > > >>
> > > >> "George" <George@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > >> news:4DA093A5-D72C-4276-A19A-385B81975C1F@.microsoft.com...
> > > >> > Please help. Just installed the SQL 2005 enterprise on 2003 standard
> > > >> > server
> > > >> > with /3GB switch.
> > > >> > Now, in SQL there is an AWE option. Do I need to check that off and
> > > >> > where
> > > >> > do
> > > >> > I set the memory manualy and not dinamicly?
> > > >> > Also, do I boost SQL priority in processors?
> > > >> > Can you please help and give some other tunning pointers? I set couple
> > > >> > of
> > > >> > boxes with 2000 SQL and always used 3GB switch but forgot the priority
> > > >> > on
> > > >> > processors and other fine tunning steps. Thanks in advance.
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >|||Can anyone please confirm I should keep the 3GB in boot.ini and enable AWE in
SQL?
"Linchi Shea" wrote:
> Yes, checking and applying the 'Use AWE to allocate memory' checkbox is the
> same as executing the following T-SQL code:
> EXEC sys.sp_configure N'awe enabled', N'1'
> RECONFIGURE WITH OVERRIDE
> BTW, you almost never should boost the SQL process priority. In fact, Books
> Online comes with the following warning:
> "Raising the priority too high may drain resources from essential operating
> system and network functions, resulting in problems shutting down SQL Server
> or using other operating system tasks on the server."
> Linchi
> "George" wrote:
> > Ok. So
> > 1. Set the 3GB switch in Boot.ini (did this before SQL installation)
> > 2. Run the sp_configure and set it to 2.5
> >
> > Please confirm. Also, is that check for AWE in GUI same as the sp command
> > via QA?
> >
> > "Chris Wood" wrote:
> >
> > > George,
> > >
> > > On server 2003 the switches should be set by the O/S. You will need to
> > > configure AWE using sp_configure and then set max and min memory. I would
> > > try with 2.5Gb first before you see if you can move up to 3Gb.
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > > "George" <George@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > news:26F43606-A322-484B-84B7-7B339139B3A0@.microsoft.com...
> > > > 4GB on the server and 3GB to SQL
> > > >
> > > > "Chris Wood" wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> George,
> > > >>
> > > >> How much memory do you have on the server? How much do you want to give
> > > >> to
> > > >> SQL?
> > > >>
> > > >> Chris
> > > >>
> > > >> "George" <George@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > >> news:4DA093A5-D72C-4276-A19A-385B81975C1F@.microsoft.com...
> > > >> > Please help. Just installed the SQL 2005 enterprise on 2003 standard
> > > >> > server
> > > >> > with /3GB switch.
> > > >> > Now, in SQL there is an AWE option. Do I need to check that off and
> > > >> > where
> > > >> > do
> > > >> > I set the memory manualy and not dinamicly?
> > > >> > Also, do I boost SQL priority in processors?
> > > >> > Can you please help and give some other tunning pointers? I set couple
> > > >> > of
> > > >> > boxes with 2000 SQL and always used 3GB switch but forgot the priority
> > > >> > on
> > > >> > processors and other fine tunning steps. Thanks in advance.
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >|||Chris, thanks. I can not go higher than 2.1 GB. Please help.
"Chris Wood" wrote:
> George,
> On server 2003 the switches should be set by the O/S. You will need to
> configure AWE using sp_configure and then set max and min memory. I would
> try with 2.5Gb first before you see if you can move up to 3Gb.
> Chris
> "George" <George@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:26F43606-A322-484B-84B7-7B339139B3A0@.microsoft.com...
> > 4GB on the server and 3GB to SQL
> >
> > "Chris Wood" wrote:
> >
> >> George,
> >>
> >> How much memory do you have on the server? How much do you want to give
> >> to
> >> SQL?
> >>
> >> Chris
> >>
> >> "George" <George@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:4DA093A5-D72C-4276-A19A-385B81975C1F@.microsoft.com...
> >> > Please help. Just installed the SQL 2005 enterprise on 2003 standard
> >> > server
> >> > with /3GB switch.
> >> > Now, in SQL there is an AWE option. Do I need to check that off and
> >> > where
> >> > do
> >> > I set the memory manualy and not dinamicly?
> >> > Also, do I boost SQL priority in processors?
> >> > Can you please help and give some other tunning pointers? I set couple
> >> > of
> >> > boxes with 2000 SQL and always used 3GB switch but forgot the priority
> >> > on
> >> > processors and other fine tunning steps. Thanks in advance.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>|||George,
Have you seen this:- http://support.microsoft.com/kb/283037/en-us
Chris
"George" <George@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F90DAA9C-1226-4E6F-9445-D4C3696A4556@.microsoft.com...
> Chris, thanks. I can not go higher than 2.1 GB. Please help.
> "Chris Wood" wrote:
>> George,
>> On server 2003 the switches should be set by the O/S. You will need to
>> configure AWE using sp_configure and then set max and min memory. I would
>> try with 2.5Gb first before you see if you can move up to 3Gb.
>> Chris
>> "George" <George@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:26F43606-A322-484B-84B7-7B339139B3A0@.microsoft.com...
>> > 4GB on the server and 3GB to SQL
>> >
>> > "Chris Wood" wrote:
>> >
>> >> George,
>> >>
>> >> How much memory do you have on the server? How much do you want to
>> >> give
>> >> to
>> >> SQL?
>> >>
>> >> Chris
>> >>
>> >> "George" <George@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:4DA093A5-D72C-4276-A19A-385B81975C1F@.microsoft.com...
>> >> > Please help. Just installed the SQL 2005 enterprise on 2003 standard
>> >> > server
>> >> > with /3GB switch.
>> >> > Now, in SQL there is an AWE option. Do I need to check that off and
>> >> > where
>> >> > do
>> >> > I set the memory manualy and not dinamicly?
>> >> > Also, do I boost SQL priority in processors?
>> >> > Can you please help and give some other tunning pointers? I set
>> >> > couple
>> >> > of
>> >> > boxes with 2000 SQL and always used 3GB switch but forgot the
>> >> > priority
>> >> > on
>> >> > processors and other fine tunning steps. Thanks in advance.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>|||Yes. To be honest, it is vague as some other Microsoft documents. Not sure
how to interpret the doc 100%.
So far, I understand that as long as I have no more than 4GB, I can dedicate
3 GB to SQL and 1GB to Windows and other apps by using only /3GB switch in
Boot.ini. My understanding was not to use PAE or AWE.
"Chris Wood" wrote:
> George,
> Have you seen this:- http://support.microsoft.com/kb/283037/en-us
> Chris
> "George" <George@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:F90DAA9C-1226-4E6F-9445-D4C3696A4556@.microsoft.com...
> > Chris, thanks. I can not go higher than 2.1 GB. Please help.
> >
> > "Chris Wood" wrote:
> >
> >> George,
> >>
> >> On server 2003 the switches should be set by the O/S. You will need to
> >> configure AWE using sp_configure and then set max and min memory. I would
> >> try with 2.5Gb first before you see if you can move up to 3Gb.
> >>
> >> Chris
> >>
> >> "George" <George@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:26F43606-A322-484B-84B7-7B339139B3A0@.microsoft.com...
> >> > 4GB on the server and 3GB to SQL
> >> >
> >> > "Chris Wood" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> George,
> >> >>
> >> >> How much memory do you have on the server? How much do you want to
> >> >> give
> >> >> to
> >> >> SQL?
> >> >>
> >> >> Chris
> >> >>
> >> >> "George" <George@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:4DA093A5-D72C-4276-A19A-385B81975C1F@.microsoft.com...
> >> >> > Please help. Just installed the SQL 2005 enterprise on 2003 standard
> >> >> > server
> >> >> > with /3GB switch.
> >> >> > Now, in SQL there is an AWE option. Do I need to check that off and
> >> >> > where
> >> >> > do
> >> >> > I set the memory manualy and not dinamicly?
> >> >> > Also, do I boost SQL priority in processors?
> >> >> > Can you please help and give some other tunning pointers? I set
> >> >> > couple
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > boxes with 2000 SQL and always used 3GB switch but forgot the
> >> >> > priority
> >> >> > on
> >> >> > processors and other fine tunning steps. Thanks in advance.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>|||George,
You are indicating that 2 Gig is the ceiling on your machine. This will
always be the case if you have the Standard Edition as opposed to the
Enterprise Edition of SQL Server 2000. You didn't indicate you were running
2005 which does not have this limitation.
I made this mistake myself, adding 6 GIG to a Windows 2000 Advanced Server.
We still run at 2 GIG with the Standard Edition. We are using the boot.ini
switch to enable Windows 2000 Advanced to access above the 4 Gig mark which
is the limit on Windows 2000 without the switch. 2003 server has similar
requirements, but I think it starts at 16 gig so there should not be a
problem on the boot.ini for a 4 GIG machine. It is only the fact that you
may be using the Standard Edition.
--
Regards,
Jamie
"George" wrote:
> Chris, thanks. I can not go higher than 2.1 GB. Please help.
> "Chris Wood" wrote:
> > George,
> >
> > On server 2003 the switches should be set by the O/S. You will need to
> > configure AWE using sp_configure and then set max and min memory. I would
> > try with 2.5Gb first before you see if you can move up to 3Gb.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > "George" <George@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:26F43606-A322-484B-84B7-7B339139B3A0@.microsoft.com...
> > > 4GB on the server and 3GB to SQL
> > >
> > > "Chris Wood" wrote:
> > >
> > >> George,
> > >>
> > >> How much memory do you have on the server? How much do you want to give
> > >> to
> > >> SQL?
> > >>
> > >> Chris
> > >>
> > >> "George" <George@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:4DA093A5-D72C-4276-A19A-385B81975C1F@.microsoft.com...
> > >> > Please help. Just installed the SQL 2005 enterprise on 2003 standard
> > >> > server
> > >> > with /3GB switch.
> > >> > Now, in SQL there is an AWE option. Do I need to check that off and
> > >> > where
> > >> > do
> > >> > I set the memory manualy and not dinamicly?
> > >> > Also, do I boost SQL priority in processors?
> > >> > Can you please help and give some other tunning pointers? I set couple
> > >> > of
> > >> > boxes with 2000 SQL and always used 3GB switch but forgot the priority
> > >> > on
> > >> > processors and other fine tunning steps. Thanks in advance.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
> >|||/3GB is a boot.ini setting. Not need to configure anything inside SQL Server
for this.
Linchi
"George" wrote:
> Thank you. I checked my prvious installations and you are right. I don't have
> it on.
> Now, as far as 3GB goes, do I keep it in the boot.ini and do I need some
> other switch in addition?
> If I put same valuses in both min and max memory, would that mean it is now
> FIXED MEMORY SIZE assigned vs dynamically when there is a range?
> SQL 2000 had a slider and a check box to choose from fixed and dynamyc (I am
> sure you know of that just making a point)
> "Linchi Shea" wrote:
> > Yes, checking and applying the 'Use AWE to allocate memory' checkbox is the
> > same as executing the following T-SQL code:
> >
> > EXEC sys.sp_configure N'awe enabled', N'1'
> > RECONFIGURE WITH OVERRIDE
> >
> > BTW, you almost never should boost the SQL process priority. In fact, Books
> > Online comes with the following warning:
> >
> > "Raising the priority too high may drain resources from essential operating
> > system and network functions, resulting in problems shutting down SQL Server
> > or using other operating system tasks on the server."
> >
> > Linchi
> >
> > "George" wrote:
> >
> > > Ok. So
> > > 1. Set the 3GB switch in Boot.ini (did this before SQL installation)
> > > 2. Run the sp_configure and set it to 2.5
> > >
> > > Please confirm. Also, is that check for AWE in GUI same as the sp command
> > > via QA?
> > >
> > > "Chris Wood" wrote:
> > >
> > > > George,
> > > >
> > > > On server 2003 the switches should be set by the O/S. You will need to
> > > > configure AWE using sp_configure and then set max and min memory. I would
> > > > try with 2.5Gb first before you see if you can move up to 3Gb.
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > > "George" <George@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:26F43606-A322-484B-84B7-7B339139B3A0@.microsoft.com...
> > > > > 4GB on the server and 3GB to SQL
> > > > >
> > > > > "Chris Wood" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> George,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> How much memory do you have on the server? How much do you want to give
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> SQL?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Chris
> > > > >>
> > > > >> "George" <George@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > > >> news:4DA093A5-D72C-4276-A19A-385B81975C1F@.microsoft.com...
> > > > >> > Please help. Just installed the SQL 2005 enterprise on 2003 standard
> > > > >> > server
> > > > >> > with /3GB switch.
> > > > >> > Now, in SQL there is an AWE option. Do I need to check that off and
> > > > >> > where
> > > > >> > do
> > > > >> > I set the memory manualy and not dinamicly?
> > > > >> > Also, do I boost SQL priority in processors?
> > > > >> > Can you please help and give some other tunning pointers? I set couple
> > > > >> > of
> > > > >> > boxes with 2000 SQL and always used 3GB switch but forgot the priority
> > > > >> > on
> > > > >> > processors and other fine tunning steps. Thanks in advance.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >|||I have some empirical data on how much buffer pool mmeory a SQL instance
could consume with various settings of 3GB and AWE
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea/archive/2007/01/11/awe-and-3gb-an-empirical-picture.aspx
Linchi
"George" wrote:
> Yes. To be honest, it is vague as some other Microsoft documents. Not sure
> how to interpret the doc 100%.
> So far, I understand that as long as I have no more than 4GB, I can dedicate
> 3 GB to SQL and 1GB to Windows and other apps by using only /3GB switch in
> Boot.ini. My understanding was not to use PAE or AWE.
> "Chris Wood" wrote:
> > George,
> >
> > Have you seen this:- http://support.microsoft.com/kb/283037/en-us
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > "George" <George@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:F90DAA9C-1226-4E6F-9445-D4C3696A4556@.microsoft.com...
> > > Chris, thanks. I can not go higher than 2.1 GB. Please help.
> > >
> > > "Chris Wood" wrote:
> > >
> > >> George,
> > >>
> > >> On server 2003 the switches should be set by the O/S. You will need to
> > >> configure AWE using sp_configure and then set max and min memory. I would
> > >> try with 2.5Gb first before you see if you can move up to 3Gb.
> > >>
> > >> Chris
> > >>
> > >> "George" <George@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:26F43606-A322-484B-84B7-7B339139B3A0@.microsoft.com...
> > >> > 4GB on the server and 3GB to SQL
> > >> >
> > >> > "Chris Wood" wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> George,
> > >> >>
> > >> >> How much memory do you have on the server? How much do you want to
> > >> >> give
> > >> >> to
> > >> >> SQL?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Chris
> > >> >>
> > >> >> "George" <George@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > >> >> news:4DA093A5-D72C-4276-A19A-385B81975C1F@.microsoft.com...
> > >> >> > Please help. Just installed the SQL 2005 enterprise on 2003 standard
> > >> >> > server
> > >> >> > with /3GB switch.
> > >> >> > Now, in SQL there is an AWE option. Do I need to check that off and
> > >> >> > where
> > >> >> > do
> > >> >> > I set the memory manualy and not dinamicly?
> > >> >> > Also, do I boost SQL priority in processors?
> > >> >> > Can you please help and give some other tunning pointers? I set
> > >> >> > couple
> > >> >> > of
> > >> >> > boxes with 2000 SQL and always used 3GB switch but forgot the
> > >> >> > priority
> > >> >> > on
> > >> >> > processors and other fine tunning steps. Thanks in advance.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
> >

AWE, 3GB and SQL Boost

AWE upper memory limit

Hi,

I have a question that I hope someone can help me with.

I am running SQL Server 2005 on a Windows 2003 Standard edition (x32). I have 6GB of memory in it but have realised that Windows can't use more than 4GB (I have enabled /PAE and /3GB in the boot.ini).

My question is:

Can SQL Server make use of the extra memory I have in the server? Otherwise I guess it is pointless having more than 4GB in there.

Thank you for your help!

Kind Regards

Stefan Ghose

Hello Stefan -

The way memory is used between 32-bit processors, the various Windows operating systems and SQL Server can be confusing. Because of 32-bit architectures and software design decisions, the first 2GB of RAM in a Windows 2000 or 2003 server is directly addressable by applications like SQL Server. That means that query plans, memory buffers and the like all go in this space. No changes are needed in any configurations, either at the OS or SQL Server level.

With the /3GB switch turned on in the BOOT.INI file, SQL Server increases this base limit to 3GB. This is great for SQL Server, but if you have other apps on your server, it can starve the OS, leaving only 1GB for all operations. Experts are divided on whether this is a good thing. I turn it on when the box is dedicated to SQL Server, and watch for errors in the event logs. If I see memory or I/O errors, or if the box becomes unstable in testing, I turn it off.

If you have 4GB in your server as you've indicated, that's all you need to do. Inside of SQL Server, I also recommend setting a floor and ceiling limit of 3GB, so it doesn't have to dynamically manage the RAM. That just saves a few ops, which is always a good thing. Again, I only do this if SQL Server is the only app on the box.

If you have over 4GB of RAM on the server, SQL Server needs a few things to use it. First, you have to enable the /PAE switch in the BOOT.INI file. Next, you need to set the SQL Server to use AWE memory. With these two things configured, the server will use the space above 4GB as a read-ahead buffer. It doesn't help much with query plans and those sorts of base memory operations, but it will speed up large queries.

Buck Woody

|||

Thanks Buck!!

That was just what I was looking for... another thing... since I already have enabled AWE on my SQL server do I need to do anything with Max memory usage? Or can I just leave it at its default value?

Kind Regards

Stefan Ghose

|||The default is fine - you have it dynamic, I assume?

Thursday, March 8, 2012

AWE Memory: Seeing approx. 1 Gig less than expected

I am runnning a dedicated SQL Server 2005 Standard edition server on Win 200
3,
with 16 GB RAM.
I have AWE enabled, with a Max Server Memory of 14336 (14 GB).
I have /3GB /PAE set in the boot.ini.
When I run SQLServer:Memory Manager, Target Memory (KB) in Perfmon, I only
see 13722592 KB (or 13400.96875 MB, 13.086 GB) being used out of the 14 GB
specified.
Is this normal, or am I being robbed of a Gig of memory somewhere?
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forum...server/200610/1If I recall correctly, AWE consumes about 1GB of memory as overhead.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"cbrichards via droptable.com" <u3288@.uwe> wrote in message
news:67a8999d3983c@.uwe...
>I am runnning a dedicated SQL Server 2005 Standard edition server on Win
>2003,
> with 16 GB RAM.
> I have AWE enabled, with a Max Server Memory of 14336 (14 GB).
> I have /3GB /PAE set in the boot.ini.
> When I run SQLServer:Memory Manager, Target Memory (KB) in Perfmon, I only
> see 13722592 KB (or 13400.96875 MB, 13.086 GB) being used out of the 14 GB
> specified.
> Is this normal, or am I being robbed of a Gig of memory somewhere?
> --
> Message posted via droptable.com
> http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forum...server/200610/1
>|||Thanks Arnie. I do not dispute that, but it does make me scratch my head.
On another dedicated SQL Server, identical to the current one I am building,
except this other one has only 8 GB of RAM, when I set the Max Server Memory
to 6144 (6 GB), I see all 6144 in Target Memory. If SQL Server keeps 1 GB to
itself, then I would expect to only see 5 GB being used in Target Memory, bu
t
no, I am seeing all 6 GB on my 8 GB machine. Just makes me wonder...makes me
feel like I am being cheated out of approximately 1 GB on my 16 GB server,
since I have 14 GB specified in Max Server Memory and am only seeing 13 GB i
n
Target Memory.
Arnie Rowland wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
>If I recall correctly, AWE consumes about 1GB of memory as overhead.
>
>[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forum...server/200610/1|||I really don't recall if that 1GB overhead is in addition to the AWE
allocation, or if it is part of the AWE allocation. (I always thought that
it was outside of the AWE allocation.)
So, back to your situation.
Is it possible that there is some other usage on the box that is grabbing
memory from the OS before AWE can get it's share (thereby leaving only 13GB
for AWE)?
Another instance of SQL Server with /3GB switch?
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"cbrichards via droptable.com" <u3288@.uwe> wrote in message
news:67a9b4e454ccc@.uwe...
> Thanks Arnie. I do not dispute that, but it does make me scratch my head.
> On another dedicated SQL Server, identical to the current one I am
> building,
> except this other one has only 8 GB of RAM, when I set the Max Server
> Memory
> to 6144 (6 GB), I see all 6144 in Target Memory. If SQL Server keeps 1 GB
> to
> itself, then I would expect to only see 5 GB being used in Target Memory,
> but
> no, I am seeing all 6 GB on my 8 GB machine. Just makes me wonder...makes
> me
> feel like I am being cheated out of approximately 1 GB on my 16 GB server,
> since I have 14 GB specified in Max Server Memory and am only seeing 13 GB
> in
> Target Memory.
> Arnie Rowland wrote:
> --
> Message posted via droptable.com
> http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forum...server/200610/1
>|||I suspect that is the case (some other usage on the box is grabbing memory),
but it is not another instance. I am still investigating.
Arnie Rowland wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
>I really don't recall if that 1GB overhead is in addition to the AWE
>allocation, or if it is part of the AWE allocation. (I always thought that
>it was outside of the AWE allocation.)
>So, back to your situation.
>Is it possible that there is some other usage on the box that is grabbing
>memory from the OS before AWE can get it's share (thereby leaving only 13GB
>for AWE)?
>Another instance of SQL Server with /3GB switch?
>
>[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forum...server/200610/1

AWE Memory: Seeing approx. 1 Gig less than expected

I am runnning a dedicated SQL Server 2005 Standard edition server on Win 2003,
with 16 GB RAM.
I have AWE enabled, with a Max Server Memory of 14336 (14 GB).
I have /3GB /PAE set in the boot.ini.
When I run SQLServer:Memory Manager, Target Memory (KB) in Perfmon, I only
see 13722592 KB (or 13400.96875 MB, 13.086 GB) being used out of the 14 GB
specified.
Is this normal, or am I being robbed of a Gig of memory somewhere?
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forums...erver/200610/1
If I recall correctly, AWE consumes about 1GB of memory as overhead.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"cbrichards via droptable.com" <u3288@.uwe> wrote in message
news:67a8999d3983c@.uwe...
>I am runnning a dedicated SQL Server 2005 Standard edition server on Win
>2003,
> with 16 GB RAM.
> I have AWE enabled, with a Max Server Memory of 14336 (14 GB).
> I have /3GB /PAE set in the boot.ini.
> When I run SQLServer:Memory Manager, Target Memory (KB) in Perfmon, I only
> see 13722592 KB (or 13400.96875 MB, 13.086 GB) being used out of the 14 GB
> specified.
> Is this normal, or am I being robbed of a Gig of memory somewhere?
> --
> Message posted via droptable.com
> http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forums...erver/200610/1
>
|||Thanks Arnie. I do not dispute that, but it does make me scratch my head.
On another dedicated SQL Server, identical to the current one I am building,
except this other one has only 8 GB of RAM, when I set the Max Server Memory
to 6144 (6 GB), I see all 6144 in Target Memory. If SQL Server keeps 1 GB to
itself, then I would expect to only see 5 GB being used in Target Memory, but
no, I am seeing all 6 GB on my 8 GB machine. Just makes me wonder...makes me
feel like I am being cheated out of approximately 1 GB on my 16 GB server,
since I have 14 GB specified in Max Server Memory and am only seeing 13 GB in
Target Memory.
Arnie Rowland wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
>If I recall correctly, AWE consumes about 1GB of memory as overhead.
>[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forums...erver/200610/1
|||I really don't recall if that 1GB overhead is in addition to the AWE
allocation, or if it is part of the AWE allocation. (I always thought that
it was outside of the AWE allocation.)
So, back to your situation.
Is it possible that there is some other usage on the box that is grabbing
memory from the OS before AWE can get it's share (thereby leaving only 13GB
for AWE)?
Another instance of SQL Server with /3GB switch?
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"cbrichards via droptable.com" <u3288@.uwe> wrote in message
news:67a9b4e454ccc@.uwe...
> Thanks Arnie. I do not dispute that, but it does make me scratch my head.
> On another dedicated SQL Server, identical to the current one I am
> building,
> except this other one has only 8 GB of RAM, when I set the Max Server
> Memory
> to 6144 (6 GB), I see all 6144 in Target Memory. If SQL Server keeps 1 GB
> to
> itself, then I would expect to only see 5 GB being used in Target Memory,
> but
> no, I am seeing all 6 GB on my 8 GB machine. Just makes me wonder...makes
> me
> feel like I am being cheated out of approximately 1 GB on my 16 GB server,
> since I have 14 GB specified in Max Server Memory and am only seeing 13 GB
> in
> Target Memory.
> Arnie Rowland wrote:
> --
> Message posted via droptable.com
> http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forums...erver/200610/1
>
|||I suspect that is the case (some other usage on the box is grabbing memory),
but it is not another instance. I am still investigating.
Arnie Rowland wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
>I really don't recall if that 1GB overhead is in addition to the AWE
>allocation, or if it is part of the AWE allocation. (I always thought that
>it was outside of the AWE allocation.)
>So, back to your situation.
>Is it possible that there is some other usage on the box that is grabbing
>memory from the OS before AWE can get it's share (thereby leaving only 13GB
>for AWE)?
>Another instance of SQL Server with /3GB switch?
>[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forums...erver/200610/1

AWE Memory: Seeing approx. 1 Gig less than expected

I am runnning a dedicated SQL Server 2005 Standard edition server on Win 2003,
with 16 GB RAM.
I have AWE enabled, with a Max Server Memory of 14336 (14 GB).
I have /3GB /PAE set in the boot.ini.
When I run SQLServer:Memory Manager, Target Memory (KB) in Perfmon, I only
see 13722592 KB (or 13400.96875 MB, 13.086 GB) being used out of the 14 GB
specified.
Is this normal, or am I being robbed of a Gig of memory somewhere?
--
Message posted via SQLMonster.com
http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200610/1If I recall correctly, AWE consumes about 1GB of memory as overhead.
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"cbrichards via SQLMonster.com" <u3288@.uwe> wrote in message
news:67a8999d3983c@.uwe...
>I am runnning a dedicated SQL Server 2005 Standard edition server on Win
>2003,
> with 16 GB RAM.
> I have AWE enabled, with a Max Server Memory of 14336 (14 GB).
> I have /3GB /PAE set in the boot.ini.
> When I run SQLServer:Memory Manager, Target Memory (KB) in Perfmon, I only
> see 13722592 KB (or 13400.96875 MB, 13.086 GB) being used out of the 14 GB
> specified.
> Is this normal, or am I being robbed of a Gig of memory somewhere?
> --
> Message posted via SQLMonster.com
> http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200610/1
>|||Thanks Arnie. I do not dispute that, but it does make me scratch my head.
On another dedicated SQL Server, identical to the current one I am building,
except this other one has only 8 GB of RAM, when I set the Max Server Memory
to 6144 (6 GB), I see all 6144 in Target Memory. If SQL Server keeps 1 GB to
itself, then I would expect to only see 5 GB being used in Target Memory, but
no, I am seeing all 6 GB on my 8 GB machine. Just makes me wonder...makes me
feel like I am being cheated out of approximately 1 GB on my 16 GB server,
since I have 14 GB specified in Max Server Memory and am only seeing 13 GB in
Target Memory.
Arnie Rowland wrote:
>If I recall correctly, AWE consumes about 1GB of memory as overhead.
>>I am runnning a dedicated SQL Server 2005 Standard edition server on Win
>>2003,
>[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>> Is this normal, or am I being robbed of a Gig of memory somewhere?
--
Message posted via SQLMonster.com
http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200610/1|||I really don't recall if that 1GB overhead is in addition to the AWE
allocation, or if it is part of the AWE allocation. (I always thought that
it was outside of the AWE allocation.)
So, back to your situation.
Is it possible that there is some other usage on the box that is grabbing
memory from the OS before AWE can get it's share (thereby leaving only 13GB
for AWE)?
Another instance of SQL Server with /3GB switch?
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"cbrichards via SQLMonster.com" <u3288@.uwe> wrote in message
news:67a9b4e454ccc@.uwe...
> Thanks Arnie. I do not dispute that, but it does make me scratch my head.
> On another dedicated SQL Server, identical to the current one I am
> building,
> except this other one has only 8 GB of RAM, when I set the Max Server
> Memory
> to 6144 (6 GB), I see all 6144 in Target Memory. If SQL Server keeps 1 GB
> to
> itself, then I would expect to only see 5 GB being used in Target Memory,
> but
> no, I am seeing all 6 GB on my 8 GB machine. Just makes me wonder...makes
> me
> feel like I am being cheated out of approximately 1 GB on my 16 GB server,
> since I have 14 GB specified in Max Server Memory and am only seeing 13 GB
> in
> Target Memory.
> Arnie Rowland wrote:
>>If I recall correctly, AWE consumes about 1GB of memory as overhead.
>>I am runnning a dedicated SQL Server 2005 Standard edition server on Win
>>2003,
>>[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>> Is this normal, or am I being robbed of a Gig of memory somewhere?
> --
> Message posted via SQLMonster.com
> http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200610/1
>|||I suspect that is the case (some other usage on the box is grabbing memory),
but it is not another instance. I am still investigating.
Arnie Rowland wrote:
>I really don't recall if that 1GB overhead is in addition to the AWE
>allocation, or if it is part of the AWE allocation. (I always thought that
>it was outside of the AWE allocation.)
>So, back to your situation.
>Is it possible that there is some other usage on the box that is grabbing
>memory from the OS before AWE can get it's share (thereby leaving only 13GB
>for AWE)?
>Another instance of SQL Server with /3GB switch?
>> Thanks Arnie. I do not dispute that, but it does make me scratch my head.
>[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>> Is this normal, or am I being robbed of a Gig of memory somewhere?
--
Message posted via SQLMonster.com
http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200610/1

AWE memory on SQL 2005 Standard

Is AWE enabled on SQL 2005 Standard? We currently have it setup using "locked pages in memory" for a domain account and haven't noticed any performance problems.

This article however states that only the SQL2005 Enterprise Edn supports "locked pages in memory". Can anyone confirm this?

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/918483

If I'm mistaken, how should the memory options be set for a server with 8gb ram running on SQL 2005 Standard which runs on Win2003 Enterprise? Should the min and max memory be set or left alone as default?

SQL 2005 does support AWE. However it does not support "locked pages in memory".

SQL 2005 should be set with AWE and the OS should have /3GB and /PAE in the boot.ini. This will allow Standard Edition to use all 8 Gigs of memory. Set the max memory to between 7 and 7.5 Gigs of memory.

|||

Thanks. Our current configuration has the switches /3GB and /PAE, but it wasn't clear on the "locked pages in memory". Do you know the benefit of having this feature? Also, what would you recommend our minimum memory to be set to?

Thursday, February 16, 2012

AverageOfChildren Standard Vs Enterprise

Hello,

My question may be a simple one, is there a way to do an aggregate average function without buying enterprise edition. When I try to average a dimension instead of summing (for example a field with Percents) I get a error that the AverageOfChildren feature is not avaible in the Standard version of SQL 2005. Is this really true or did I set something up wrong.

I would have a hard time convincing my company to buy Enterprise edition because basic functionality like averaging is not available in the standard edition... I have found the features by edition page: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143761.aspx however there is nothing on here that tells you simple dimension aggregations are unavailable in the Standard Edition.

Can some one tell me if there is a way to get around this without spending 10G on an upgraded version?

Thanks,
josh1234

It is correct that some aggregation functions are not available in the Standard Edition - specifically the semi-additive ones. For an average, however, you should be able to get around the issue quite easily. Create a measure with aggregation function "Sum" for the measure you want to average. Create another measure (for the same field in the database) with the aggregation function "Count". Now, create a calculated member in the cube, which divides the sum by the count. Remember to check for division by zero:

Example:

CREATE MEMBER CURRENTCUBE.MyAverage AS

IIF([Measures].[MyCount] = 0,

NULL,

[Measures].[MySum]/[Measures].[MyCount],

NON_EMPTY_BEHAVIOR = [Measures].[MyCount];

Average of children

i know this question has been around for some time, and have read most of the answers, but well still looking at how to do this in standard edition of sql 2005.

to what i understand Average of children calculates the average not on the lowest level but on the next one (i.e. it sums the values on daily basis but it calculates an average on weekly or monthly basis).

my problem was that i needed to calculate an adjusted price base on the next formula:

i.e.

price hotel 1 - H1
price hotel 2 - H2
price hotel 3 - H3

capacity hotel 1 - C1
capacity hotel 2 - C2
capacity hotel 3 - C3

((H1*C1)+(H2*C2)+(H3*C3))/(C1+C2+C3)

now i used averageofchildren to define measure (price of hotel*capacity of hotel) and measure (capacity of hotel) and created calculated member based on the above formula.
with the use of averageofchildren i get the wanted result. but if i use avg()/count() i get also average of those 3 hotels on the level of day.

now could someone please help me to write a calculated measure or mdx expression that would not use averageofchildren.

i have defined sum measure (price of hotel*capacity of hotel) and sum measure (capacity of hotel).

i have defined dimTime.

is there a way to do this?

i hope you all understand my question...

thanx in advance

Give me the SQL script that generate your tables to understand more exactly what you pretend!

regards!

|||hi,

ok i'll try to explain it this way:

i have two measures a_price (a_price is equal price*capacity) and capacity.

lets say my hiearchy looks like this:

1. level Country (highest level)
2. level county
3. level city
4. level hotel

i'm looking at total of 3 months.

now i used calculated member A_PRICE/CAPACITY and defined a_price and capacity as averageofchildren when asked to define aggregation function. everything works fine.

i have 3 hotels in one month, wwhen i look at the level of the city i get avg total of those 3 hotels but not that it summed them and devided them by 3.

so this works in enterprise edition, but what to do in standard edition?

ok i defined measures now as sums (standard edition) and i need to calculate

a_price/capacity. i have no special mdx script, i need to define next:

sum on the lowest level, and on the next higher level average function? if i use

is it clearer now?

|||

In the datasource view of Analysis Services try to use named calculations to do a_price/capacity!

in your table in datasourceview, right-clik the mouse and add a named calculation!

regards!!

|||thanx will look at named calculations. and try it on data to see what i can get. if i get into any trouble will post here.......
|||

Strippy,

Feel free to post!! If I can I will help you as other persons help me when I need... this is a comunity! :-)

But when your answer is responded, please check as answered!!

regards!!!

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Backing Up Sys Databases

Backing Up Sys Databases

Sunday, March 11, 2012

AWE, SQL Server Enterprise, W2k STANDARD + 4GB RAM

AWE, 3GB and SQL Boost

AWE, 3GB and SQL Boost

AWE, 3GB and SQL Boost

AWE upper memory limit

Thursday, March 8, 2012

AWE Memory: Seeing approx. 1 Gig less than expected

AWE Memory: Seeing approx. 1 Gig less than expected

AWE Memory: Seeing approx. 1 Gig less than expected

AWE memory on SQL 2005 Standard

Thursday, February 16, 2012

AverageOfChildren Standard Vs Enterprise

Average of children

Autonumber field

Blog Archive

About Me