SQL SQLExpress: windows

Showing posts with label windows. Show all posts

Sunday, March 25, 2012

@@Connection

When I use TSQL Debugger it will open three windows... I wanna ask about the
second windows. it gave me output like that
Name (Globals) Value (Globals) Type
(Globals)
@.@.connections 38
int
@.@.transcount 0
int
I only trying to debug on stored procedure and it's giving me @.@.connection =
38.. can any one explain me...
Thanks
@.@.connections is the total number of connection attempts
since SQL Server last started. It's not the number of users
but rather the connections. You can find more information in
books online under: @.@.connections
-Sue
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:50:06 -0500, "John"
<naissani@.hotmail.com> wrote:

>When I use TSQL Debugger it will open three windows... I wanna ask about the
>second windows. it gave me output like that
>
>Name (Globals) Value (Globals) Type
>(Globals)
>@.@.connections 38
>int
>@.@.transcount 0
>int
>
>I only trying to debug on stored procedure and it's giving me @.@.connection =
>38.. can any one explain me...
>Thanks
>
|||Thanks sue...
"Sue Hoegemeier" <Sue_H@.nomail.please> wrote in message
news:74t641phrlih05ei5eqrkp1bnlg1u25g8h@.4ax.com... [vbcol=seagreen]
> @.@.connections is the total number of connection attempts
> since SQL Server last started. It's not the number of users
> but rather the connections. You can find more information in
> books online under: @.@.connections
> -Sue
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:50:06 -0500, "John"
> <naissani@.hotmail.com> wrote:
the[vbcol=seagreen]
@.@.connection =
>

VERSION MDAC FOR SQL server 6.5 on WIN NT 4.0

WHICH VERSION OF MDAC SHOULD I INSTLL ON WINDOWS NT 4.0
SERVER WTIH SQL 6.5 SERVER SP 5
to connect or transact or run procdure with SQL server
2000 from SQL 6.5
server
ThanksIf you need to connect to a named instance on the SQL Server 2000 machine
with creating an alias, the lowest level of MDAC should be MDAC 2.6.
However, if you want to use all the functionality of the SQL Server itself
you should install the level of MDAC that is installed on the SQL Server
2000 machine.
Rand
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.sql

Data transfer Pocket PC <> Desktop PC?

Hi,everyone!

I'm new to this forum and also new to Visual Studio 2005 .NET.

I'm going to develop a pocket pc(windows mobile 2005) application which needs to save some data introduced by the user.Later that data should be syncronized with MS SQL Server database.

The application is going to be developed using Visual Studio 2005 with c#.

So I'm doubting wich is the best way of syncronising the data between Pocket Pc and a Desktop PC.Should i use MS SQL Server Mobile(RDA,Merge Replication) or XML(Xml Web Services) would help me better?Or is there any other better way of data syncronization/storage?

Could anyone help me,or post some links + code samples,please?

Thanks!

You'll need to provide more information ... how much data? What sort of data? Will it need to be wrapped in a transaction and/or have other potential for rollback? How critical is it/how reliable does the synchronization need to be? Have you looked into the Service Broker? (I'm exploring this for a project myself.)

Thursday, March 22, 2012

: Preferred disk raid config when using SQL Server 2005

Hello all,
If you are planning on installing SQL Server 2005 on a WIndows 2003 SP1
server, is there a "preferred" disk configuration that gives redundancy
and fast performance? I was going to go hardware raid 5, but I fear
slow performance under heavy load. Any suggestions or ideas? Is there
a SQL Server best practice for this?
Thank you in advance for your help, ideas, and/or suggestions!
- Mike
Listoff wrote:
> Hello all,
> If you are planning on installing SQL Server 2005 on a WIndows 2003 SP1
> server, is there a "preferred" disk configuration that gives redundancy
> and fast performance? I was going to go hardware raid 5, but I fear
> slow performance under heavy load. Any suggestions or ideas? Is there
> a SQL Server best practice for this?
> Thank you in advance for your help, ideas, and/or suggestions!
> - Mike
>
Mike,
There are a lot of different opinions on this subject, but generally
it's best practice to seperate database files, logfiles and OS
files/tempdb on different disk arrays.
Depending on your load and application, it can be worth putting tempdb
on it's own array as well, but I'd say that in many cases it will be ok
to have tempdb together with the OS. Furthermore you could also consider
putting your swap file somewhere different from the OS drive, but in
most cases I don't think it will be worth the effort.
When it comes to RAID, there're also many different opinions, but again
I think that most people will agree that an ok setup will be to put you
OS on RAID 1, Databasefiles on RAID 5 and logfiles on RAID 1 (or 1+0).
This will be a decent setup in most cases. If you have enough
disks/money, you could put you databasefiles on a RAID 10 which in some
situations will perform better than RAID 5.
Bottomline is that you gain the most by ensuring that you split OS,
database file and logfile on physical different units (disks) and then
avoiding RAID 5 for your logfiles. What ever you do after that in terms
of RAID configuration, arrays on different controllers etc. will give
you "slightly" better performance, but might be to little to be noticed
by your users.
Last, but not least, you should also consider where you put you backup
files. Best of all you put them on their own array - both from a
performance and safety point of view. IF you only plan to do backup once
a day or so, it might not matter much in terms of performance, but if
you do logfile backup every 15 minutes on a heavy loaded server, it
might make a difference.
HTH
Regards
Steen
|||Wow! That makes a lot of sense and helps out a lot! Thank you guys
for your help! -Mike

: Preferred disk raid config when using SQL Server 2005

Hello all,
If you are planning on installing SQL Server 2005 on a WIndows 2003 SP1
server, is there a "preferred" disk configuration that gives redundancy
and fast performance? I was going to go hardware raid 5, but I fear
slow performance under heavy load. Any suggestions or ideas? Is there
a SQL Server best practice for this?
Thank you in advance for your help, ideas, and/or suggestions!
- MikeListoff wrote:
> Hello all,
> If you are planning on installing SQL Server 2005 on a WIndows 2003 SP1
> server, is there a "preferred" disk configuration that gives redundancy
> and fast performance? I was going to go hardware raid 5, but I fear
> slow performance under heavy load. Any suggestions or ideas? Is there
> a SQL Server best practice for this?
> Thank you in advance for your help, ideas, and/or suggestions!
> - Mike
>
Mike,
There are a lot of different opinions on this subject, but generally
it's best practice to seperate database files, logfiles and OS
files/tempdb on different disk arrays.
Depending on your load and application, it can be worth putting tempdb
on it's own array as well, but I'd say that in many cases it will be ok
to have tempdb together with the OS. Furthermore you could also consider
putting your swap file somewhere different from the OS drive, but in
most cases I don't think it will be worth the effort.
When it comes to RAID, there're also many different opinions, but again
I think that most people will agree that an ok setup will be to put you
OS on RAID 1, Databasefiles on RAID 5 and logfiles on RAID 1 (or 1+0).
This will be a decent setup in most cases. If you have enough
disks/money, you could put you databasefiles on a RAID 10 which in some
situations will perform better than RAID 5.
Bottomline is that you gain the most by ensuring that you split OS,
database file and logfile on physical different units (disks) and then
avoiding RAID 5 for your logfiles. What ever you do after that in terms
of RAID configuration, arrays on different controllers etc. will give
you "slightly" better performance, but might be to little to be noticed
by your users.
Last, but not least, you should also consider where you put you backup
files. Best of all you put them on their own array - both from a
performance and safety point of view. IF you only plan to do backup once
a day or so, it might not matter much in terms of performance, but if
you do logfile backup every 15 minutes on a heavy loaded server, it
might make a difference.
HTH
Regards
Steen|||Wow! That makes a lot of sense and helps out a lot! Thank you guys
for your help! -Mike

: Preferred disk raid config when using SQL Server 2005

Hello all,
If you are planning on installing SQL Server 2005 on a WIndows 2003 SP1
server, is there a "preferred" disk configuration that gives redundancy
and fast performance? I was going to go hardware raid 5, but I fear
slow performance under heavy load. Any suggestions or ideas? Is there
a SQL Server best practice for this?
Thank you in advance for your help, ideas, and/or suggestions!
- MikeRAID 0+1
"Listoff" <fastxlr8r@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131642400.414148.236860@.g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hello all,
> If you are planning on installing SQL Server 2005 on a WIndows 2003 SP1
> server, is there a "preferred" disk configuration that gives redundancy
> and fast performance? I was going to go hardware raid 5, but I fear
> slow performance under heavy load. Any suggestions or ideas? Is there
> a SQL Server best practice for this?|||Listoff wrote:
> Hello all,
> If you are planning on installing SQL Server 2005 on a WIndows 2003 SP1
> server, is there a "preferred" disk configuration that gives redundancy
> and fast performance? I was going to go hardware raid 5, but I fear
> slow performance under heavy load. Any suggestions or ideas? Is there
> a SQL Server best practice for this?
> Thank you in advance for your help, ideas, and/or suggestions!
> - Mike
>
Mike,
There are a lot of different opinions on this subject, but generally
it's best practice to seperate database files, logfiles and OS
files/tempdb on different disk arrays.
Depending on your load and application, it can be worth putting tempdb
on it's own array as well, but I'd say that in many cases it will be ok
to have tempdb together with the OS. Furthermore you could also consider
putting your swap file somewhere different from the OS drive, but in
most cases I don't think it will be worth the effort.
When it comes to RAID, there're also many different opinions, but again
I think that most people will agree that an ok setup will be to put you
OS on RAID 1, Databasefiles on RAID 5 and logfiles on RAID 1 (or 1+0).
This will be a decent setup in most cases. If you have enough
disks/money, you could put you databasefiles on a RAID 10 which in some
situations will perform better than RAID 5.
Bottomline is that you gain the most by ensuring that you split OS,
database file and logfile on physical different units (disks) and then
avoiding RAID 5 for your logfiles. What ever you do after that in terms
of RAID configuration, arrays on different controllers etc. will give
you "slightly" better performance, but might be to little to be noticed
by your users.
Last, but not least, you should also consider where you put you backup
files. Best of all you put them on their own array - both from a
performance and safety point of view. IF you only plan to do backup once
a day or so, it might not matter much in terms of performance, but if
you do logfile backup every 15 minutes on a heavy loaded server, it
might make a difference.
HTH
Regards
Steen|||Wow! That makes a lot of sense and helps out a lot! Thank you guys
for your help! -Mike

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

::Conection

Hi All,
I Have a SQL Server run in a computer that run Windows 2003 and have one
static ip.
This computer also have a NAT with basic firewall to distribute internet.
In my home I have one computer withWindows XP that I want acess SQL.
When I disable basic firewall, I can conect, but if firewall is on I can't.
My question: what port I need open to connect in my sql?
I know that I need use SQL account.
Thanks
Default installations of SQL Server monitor TCP port 1433, but the port
doesn't need to be 1433. A named instance of SQL Server 2000 will listen a
dynamic port by default. This port should be changed to a fixed port prior
to configuring the firewall. You can refer to this article for more
information:
287932 INF: TCP Ports Needed for Communication to SQL Server Through a
Firewall
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=287932
HTH!
Sincerely,
William Wang
Microsoft Online Partner Support
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
sql

::Conection

Hi All,
I Have a SQL Server run in a computer that run Windows 2003 and have one
static ip.
This computer also have a NAT with basic firewall to distribute internet.
In my home I have one computer withWindows XP that I want acess SQL.
When I disable basic firewall, I can conect, but if firewall is on I can't.
My question: what port I need open to connect in my sql?
I know that I need use SQL account.
ThanksDefault installations of SQL Server monitor TCP port 1433, but the port
doesn't need to be 1433. A named instance of SQL Server 2000 will listen a
dynamic port by default. This port should be changed to a fixed port prior
to configuring the firewall. You can refer to this article for more
information:
287932 INF: TCP Ports Needed for Communication to SQL Server Through a
Firewall
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=287932
HTH!
Sincerely,
William Wang
Microsoft Online Partner Support
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

::Conection

Hi All,
I Have a SQL Server run in a computer that run Windows 2003 and have one
static ip.
This computer also have a NAT with basic firewall to distribute internet.
In my home I have one computer withWindows XP that I want acess SQL.
When I disable basic firewall, I can conect, but if firewall is on I can't.
My question: what port I need open to connect in my sql?
I know that I need use SQL account.
ThanksDefault installations of SQL Server monitor TCP port 1433, but the port
doesn't need to be 1433. A named instance of SQL Server 2000 will listen a
dynamic port by default. This port should be changed to a fixed port prior
to configuring the firewall. You can refer to this article for more
information:
287932 INF: TCP Ports Needed for Communication to SQL Server Through a
Firewall
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=287932
HTH!
Sincerely,
William Wang
Microsoft Online Partner Support
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

: xp_smtp_sendmail error on windows server 2005 (x64) n sql server 2005 (64 bit)

hi, i have an application that was running successfully on sql server 2000 x86 machine but now its been migrated to sql server 2005(64 bit) with windows 2003 server x64 machine. And now the xp_smtp_sendmail is not working when called through sql server even declare @.rc int exec @.rc = master.dbo.xp_smtp_sendmail @.server = 'my.server.com', @.port = 25, @.ping = 1 select RC = @.rc wont work it would give error that could not load the dll or one of its module not a valid win32 application. but its working fine in x86 win server 2003 n sql server 2005 machine when i run dependency walkthrough it, it shows some dlls missing i have also read that in syswow64 can run only those application that are not running in kernel mode. what might be the problem...or should i look for another alternative.. thanks for help in advance

Hi,

I have also had some problems with xp_smtp_sendmail in SQL 2005.

But now SQL 2005 supports the use of SMTP email with out the need for a MAPI client. There is minor set up and then you can use the procedure msdb.dbo.sp_send_dbmail. It works basically like xp_smtp_sendmail.

To set up database mail you need to first make sure that Database Mail is enabled in the MS SQL server 2005 Surface Area configuration. Then go into SQL server management studio under Management and right click on Database Mail and select Configure Database Mail.

Here are a couple of links http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/cBunch/introtodatabasemailinsql2005.asp

http://www.databasejournal.com/features/mssql/article.php/3626056

|||Very helpful information, it helped me a lot.. Thank you|||

can you really to send e-mails on 64-bit version?

could you help me in this case?

answer me plz!

|||

I use msdb.dbo.sp_send_dbmail.

It is easier and works better...

|||"msdb.dbo.sp_send_dbmail" works on 64-bit without any errors?
how do you tune environment of SQL Server 2005 (64-bit) for working with "msdb.dbo.sp_send_dbmail"?

could you get me helping article?
|||

This is easy, I will look for an article tomorrow, but for now just do this

Get a SMTP server that you can connect to and you know you have privledges on use outlook express to test it, or some other pop client.

Once you know you have a 'working' smtp server that you can connect to. Set up DBMAIL

to do this just open up the 'Management' folder and right click on dbmail, stomp thru the menu's to set up an account and a profile.

Test this profile by again right clicking on the dbmail icon under the managment folder of your server, and do a "test email" and select your profile check your reciepent's mailbox for the mail. If it doesn't work check the history on the same icon.

Once you KNOW that works....

Then go to the msdb database and drill down to the msdb.dbo.sp_send_dbmail script it to a query window so that you can find all the variables you can give to the stored procedure when you call it.. Like @.profile, @.recepients, @.body, @.subject etc...

Then try to send a message thru your query window and you are done....

That is the short version... I will look for 8X10 glossies tomorrow, and post...

Best Regards,

Dow

|||i've done like you wrote.
outlook has sent the e-mails from this computer (64-bit).

but i've got this error:

Date 2007-04-19 10:00:41
Log Database Mail (Database Mail Log)

Log ID 49
Process ID 4556
Mail Item ID 20
Last Modified 2007-04-19 10:00:41
Last Modified By sa

Message
The mail could not be sent to the recipients because of the mail server failure. (Sending Mail using Account 2 (2007-04-19T10:00:40). Exception Message: Could not connect to mail server. (An established connection was aborted by the software in your host machine).
)

i cannot find in internet some clarifying answer about this problem
|||

Okay, so you KNOW you can send mail thru your SMTP server from the very same box that you have sql loaded on.

Therefore, what dbmail is complaining about, if you are doing the send test message step, then the account you are using cannot

authenticate with the SMTP server. Since you KNOW you have sent SMTP mail from the same nic card to the smtp server you know that there is no network issues or server issues. The problem MUST be with the way that you have answered the questions on the ACCOUNT.

Now is your SMTP server a unix type or a windows type? If it is a unix type then make sure you set the username and password are set exactly like you did for the test with the outlook client. and you don't use the secure socket layer setting. If you smtp server will allow anonymous use that.

notice your error is telling you that it cannot connect. Also make sure you have put the correct NAME for the server and you are using the correct port, the default port is 25...

You are almost there, don't give up...

|||GUYS!!!!!!

It WORK!!!

See:

Database Mail in SQL Server 2005
www.databasejournal.com/features/mssql/article.php/3626056
|||

Hi, guys!

I have another problem with SQL Server 2005 & Mail & 64-bit.

I can sent e-mail from SQL Server 2005, but how can i receive e-mail from internet to SQL Server 2005?

I've got the answer:

Msg 17938, Level 16, State 0, Line 0
SQL Mail does not work with the 64-bit version of SQL Server

Help me plz.

|||DatabaseMail is an SMTP client only, which means that is can send but not receive emails. Receiving emails requires POP3 or IMAP support. SQLMail has that built-in, but is being depreciated in coming versions of SQL Server so you'll want to stay away from that implementation.

SQLMail is available in the 32-bit version of SQL Server 2005, but not in the 64-bit version.

HTH...

Joe|||I was wondering if you have a fix to the error on sending mail using the windows vista edition using the windows mail. I love the mail program but can only receive. Get an error report about the port 25. Thanks for any help I can get.

/3GB with 3.7GB RAM?

Hi All,
SQL Server 2000 Ent.Ed. is running on Windows 2000 Adv. Server.
It's a dedicated sql server; no clustering and no replication.
I would like to increase max memory of sql server process by leaving 1GB for
kernal/OS.
If I use /3GB and set "max server memory" to 2.7GB, will OS be able to have
1GB or 3.7GB - 3GB = 7MB ?
Thanks,
Ada
SQL Server DBAAda
How much memory does the server have?
Why would you think that changing a memory from a default will be
beneficial?
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;274750&sd=tech
"Ada" <Ada@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:390E7800-A4CD-4F18-AC52-C9FF26C5DF7C@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> SQL Server 2000 Ent.Ed. is running on Windows 2000 Adv. Server.
> It's a dedicated sql server; no clustering and no replication.
> I would like to increase max memory of sql server process by leaving 1GB
> for
> kernal/OS.
> If I use /3GB and set "max server memory" to 2.7GB, will OS be able to
> have
> 1GB or 3.7GB - 3GB = 7MB ?
> Thanks,
> Ada
> SQL Server DBA|||Uri,
It's 3.7GB.
To be able to utilize existing physical memory.
Ada
SQL Server DBA
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> Ada
> How much memory does the server have?
> Why would you think that changing a memory from a default will be
> beneficial?
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;274750&sd=tech
> "Ada" <Ada@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:390E7800-A4CD-4F18-AC52-C9FF26C5DF7C@.microsoft.com...
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > SQL Server 2000 Ent.Ed. is running on Windows 2000 Adv. Server.
> > It's a dedicated sql server; no clustering and no replication.
> > I would like to increase max memory of sql server process by leaving 1GB
> > for
> > kernal/OS.
> >
> > If I use /3GB and set "max server memory" to 2.7GB, will OS be able to
> > have
> > 1GB or 3.7GB - 3GB = 7MB ?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ada
> > SQL Server DBA
>
>|||Ada
Please read a topic in BOL about set up max memory in SQL Server.
"Ada" <Ada@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:923E5CDC-1E94-40EA-AC1E-A918FD68A670@.microsoft.com...
> Uri,
> It's 3.7GB.
> To be able to utilize existing physical memory.
> Ada
> SQL Server DBA
>
> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
>> Ada
>> How much memory does the server have?
>> Why would you think that changing a memory from a default will be
>> beneficial?
>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;274750&sd=tech
>> "Ada" <Ada@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:390E7800-A4CD-4F18-AC52-C9FF26C5DF7C@.microsoft.com...
>> >
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > SQL Server 2000 Ent.Ed. is running on Windows 2000 Adv. Server.
>> > It's a dedicated sql server; no clustering and no replication.
>> > I would like to increase max memory of sql server process by leaving
>> > 1GB
>> > for
>> > kernal/OS.
>> >
>> > If I use /3GB and set "max server memory" to 2.7GB, will OS be able to
>> > have
>> > 1GB or 3.7GB - 3GB = 7MB ?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Ada
>> > SQL Server DBA
>>|||Uri,
I read the article and the topic on BOL. They don't have the answer.
Ada
SQL Server DBA
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> Ada
> Please read a topic in BOL about set up max memory in SQL Server.
>
> "Ada" <Ada@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:923E5CDC-1E94-40EA-AC1E-A918FD68A670@.microsoft.com...
> >
> > Uri,
> >
> > It's 3.7GB.
> > To be able to utilize existing physical memory.
> >
> > Ada
> >
> > SQL Server DBA
> >
> >
> > "Uri Dimant" wrote:
> >
> >> Ada
> >> How much memory does the server have?
> >>
> >> Why would you think that changing a memory from a default will be
> >> beneficial?
> >>
> >> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;274750&sd=tech
> >>
> >> "Ada" <Ada@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:390E7800-A4CD-4F18-AC52-C9FF26C5DF7C@.microsoft.com...
> >> >
> >> > Hi All,
> >> >
> >> > SQL Server 2000 Ent.Ed. is running on Windows 2000 Adv. Server.
> >> > It's a dedicated sql server; no clustering and no replication.
> >> > I would like to increase max memory of sql server process by leaving
> >> > 1GB
> >> > for
> >> > kernal/OS.
> >> >
> >> > If I use /3GB and set "max server memory" to 2.7GB, will OS be able to
> >> > have
> >> > 1GB or 3.7GB - 3GB = 7MB ?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> >
> >> > Ada
> >> > SQL Server DBA
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>|||Ada
Have you read the article that I posted ?
Here is another one
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/291988/
"Ada" <Ada@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6960BEF0-1F2F-4009-9CB6-80CF6EF60DED@.microsoft.com...
> Uri,
> I read the article and the topic on BOL. They don't have the answer.
> Ada
> SQL Server DBA
>
> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
>> Ada
>> Please read a topic in BOL about set up max memory in SQL Server.
>>
>> "Ada" <Ada@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:923E5CDC-1E94-40EA-AC1E-A918FD68A670@.microsoft.com...
>> >
>> > Uri,
>> >
>> > It's 3.7GB.
>> > To be able to utilize existing physical memory.
>> >
>> > Ada
>> >
>> > SQL Server DBA
>> >
>> >
>> > "Uri Dimant" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Ada
>> >> How much memory does the server have?
>> >>
>> >> Why would you think that changing a memory from a default will be
>> >> beneficial?
>> >>
>> >> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;274750&sd=tech
>> >>
>> >> "Ada" <Ada@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:390E7800-A4CD-4F18-AC52-C9FF26C5DF7C@.microsoft.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > Hi All,
>> >> >
>> >> > SQL Server 2000 Ent.Ed. is running on Windows 2000 Adv. Server.
>> >> > It's a dedicated sql server; no clustering and no replication.
>> >> > I would like to increase max memory of sql server process by leaving
>> >> > 1GB
>> >> > for
>> >> > kernal/OS.
>> >> >
>> >> > If I use /3GB and set "max server memory" to 2.7GB, will OS be able
>> >> > to
>> >> > have
>> >> > 1GB or 3.7GB - 3GB = 7MB ?
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> >
>> >> > Ada
>> >> > SQL Server DBA
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>|||Uri,
I read those articles after they published. I just wanted what my
understanding to be confirmed. Otherwise I need to make the change and run
sy.mon. t make sure. It's not easy to do it on a prod box.
If I use /3GB and set "max server memory" to 2.7GB, will OS be able to have
1GB or 3.7GB - 3GB = 700MB ?
My understanding is that it will be limited to 700MB, and 0.3GB on user-mode
will be wasted. All I need is a Yes or No.
Thanks,
Ada
SQL Server DBA
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> Ada
> Have you read the article that I posted ?
> Here is another one
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/291988/
>
> "Ada" <Ada@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6960BEF0-1F2F-4009-9CB6-80CF6EF60DED@.microsoft.com...
> >
> > Uri,
> >
> > I read the article and the topic on BOL. They don't have the answer.
> >
> > Ada
> > SQL Server DBA
> >
> >
> > "Uri Dimant" wrote:
> >
> >> Ada
> >>
> >> Please read a topic in BOL about set up max memory in SQL Server.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Ada" <Ada@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:923E5CDC-1E94-40EA-AC1E-A918FD68A670@.microsoft.com...
> >> >
> >> > Uri,
> >> >
> >> > It's 3.7GB.
> >> > To be able to utilize existing physical memory.
> >> >
> >> > Ada
> >> >
> >> > SQL Server DBA
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Uri Dimant" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Ada
> >> >> How much memory does the server have?
> >> >>
> >> >> Why would you think that changing a memory from a default will be
> >> >> beneficial?
> >> >>
> >> >> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;274750&sd=tech
> >> >>
> >> >> "Ada" <Ada@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:390E7800-A4CD-4F18-AC52-C9FF26C5DF7C@.microsoft.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hi All,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > SQL Server 2000 Ent.Ed. is running on Windows 2000 Adv. Server.
> >> >> > It's a dedicated sql server; no clustering and no replication.
> >> >> > I would like to increase max memory of sql server process by leaving
> >> >> > 1GB
> >> >> > for
> >> >> > kernal/OS.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If I use /3GB and set "max server memory" to 2.7GB, will OS be able
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > have
> >> >> > 1GB or 3.7GB - 3GB = 7MB ?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Ada
> >> >> > SQL Server DBA
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>|||It's obvious how NT partitions memory when you have <=2GB or >=4GB but what
about 3.75GB
If the /3GB switch is used with 3.75GB does this mean:
NT gets 0.75GB and applications get 3.0GB
or
NT gets 1.00GB and applications get 2.75GB
Paul
I guess
"Ada" <Ada@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BD42BFD4-1ABF-4375-9A91-00EEFE544C6A@.microsoft.com...
> Uri,
> I read those articles after they published. I just wanted what my
> understanding to be confirmed. Otherwise I need to make the change and run
> sy.mon. t make sure. It's not easy to do it on a prod box.
> If I use /3GB and set "max server memory" to 2.7GB, will OS be able to
> have
> 1GB or 3.7GB - 3GB = 700MB ?
> My understanding is that it will be limited to 700MB, and 0.3GB on
> user-mode
> will be wasted. All I need is a Yes or No.
> Thanks,
> Ada
> SQL Server DBA
>
> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
>> Ada
>> Have you read the article that I posted ?
>> Here is another one
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/291988/
>>
>> "Ada" <Ada@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:6960BEF0-1F2F-4009-9CB6-80CF6EF60DED@.microsoft.com...
>> >
>> > Uri,
>> >
>> > I read the article and the topic on BOL. They don't have the answer.
>> >
>> > Ada
>> > SQL Server DBA
>> >
>> >
>> > "Uri Dimant" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Ada
>> >>
>> >> Please read a topic in BOL about set up max memory in SQL Server.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Ada" <Ada@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:923E5CDC-1E94-40EA-AC1E-A918FD68A670@.microsoft.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > Uri,
>> >> >
>> >> > It's 3.7GB.
>> >> > To be able to utilize existing physical memory.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ada
>> >> >
>> >> > SQL Server DBA
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > "Uri Dimant" wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Ada
>> >> >> How much memory does the server have?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why would you think that changing a memory from a default will be
>> >> >> beneficial?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;274750&sd=tech
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Ada" <Ada@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:390E7800-A4CD-4F18-AC52-C9FF26C5DF7C@.microsoft.com...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Hi All,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > SQL Server 2000 Ent.Ed. is running on Windows 2000 Adv. Server.
>> >> >> > It's a dedicated sql server; no clustering and no replication.
>> >> >> > I would like to increase max memory of sql server process by
>> >> >> > leaving
>> >> >> > 1GB
>> >> >> > for
>> >> >> > kernal/OS.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > If I use /3GB and set "max server memory" to 2.7GB, will OS be
>> >> >> > able
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > have
>> >> >> > 1GB or 3.7GB - 3GB = 7MB ?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Thanks,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Ada
>> >> >> > SQL Server DBA
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>sql

/3GB with 3.7GB RAM?

/3GB SQL Server 2000

Hi,
I run SQL Server 2000 on Windows 2000 Server (4 GB memory) with 2
instances.
As I understand it, one instance can use a maximum of 2 GB of memory. If I
would use the /3GB switch in this environment, would that help me or is it
that this switch can only be used with the Advanced or Enterprise Edition
of SQL Server 2000 /w2K?
TIA
WombelYou need to run Windows 2000 Advanced Server or Data Center editions in
order to use the /3GB switch. See
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...750&Product=sql
for more information.
Assuming you want both instances to use an equal amount of memory, you
wouldn't want to use /3GB anyway with only 4GB physical RAM. It's important
to have enough physical RAM to support the SQL Server memory requirements of
all instances running on the server.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Thomas Wrobel" <twrobel@.waslos.de> wrote in message
news:Xns94C3739FDCBEBtwrobelwaslosde@.207
.46.248.16...
> Hi,
> I run SQL Server 2000 on Windows 2000 Server (4 GB memory) with 2
> instances.
> As I understand it, one instance can use a maximum of 2 GB of memory. If I
> would use the /3GB switch in this environment, would that help me or is it
> that this switch can only be used with the Advanced or Enterprise Edition
> of SQL Server 2000 /w2K?
> TIA
> Wombel|||"Dan Guzman" <danguzman@.nospam-earthlink.net> wrote in
news:OrPWjb9GEHA.684@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl:

> You need to run Windows 2000 Advanced Server or Data Center editions
> in order to use the /3GB switch. See
> http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...274750&Product=
> sql for more information.
> Assuming you want both instances to use an equal amount of memory, you
> wouldn't want to use /3GB anyway with only 4GB physical RAM. It's
> important to have enough physical RAM to support the SQL Server memory
> requirements of all instances running on the server.
>
Dan,
thanks for your reply. Do you know if there is any difference when I user
Windows 2003 Server Standard?
TIA
Thomas|||> thanks for your reply. Do you know if there is any difference when I user
> Windows 2003 Server Standard?
As stated in MSKB 274750, you can use the /3GB boot.ini switch with Windows
2000 Server (Standard Edition).
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Thomas Wrobel" <twrobel@.waslos.de> wrote in message
news:Xns94C39FB4C54Etwrobelwaslosde@.207.46.248.16...
> "Dan Guzman" <danguzman@.nospam-earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:OrPWjb9GEHA.684@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl:
>
> Dan,
> thanks for your reply. Do you know if there is any difference when I user
> Windows 2003 Server Standard?
> TIA
> Thomassql

Monday, March 19, 2012

/3GB benifits

What are the benifits of settings the 3gb switch and the userva=3030 in the
boot.ini of sql server 2000? thanks.
windows 2003 enterprise
4gb ram
sql server enterpriseHi,
Read the below article for more details.
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
Thnks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Gabe Matteson" <gmatteson@.inquery.biz.nospam> wrote in message
news:%2366kqs4TFHA.1796@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> What are the benifits of settings the 3gb switch and the userva=3030 in
the
> boot.ini of sql server 2000? thanks.
> windows 2003 enterprise
> 4gb ram
> sql server enterprise
>

/3GB benifits

What are the benifits of settings the 3gb switch and the userva=3030 in the
boot.ini of sql server 2000? thanks.
windows 2003 enterprise
4gb ram
sql server enterprise
Hi,
Read the below article for more details.
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp
Thnks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Gabe Matteson" <gmatteson@.inquery.biz.nospam> wrote in message
news:%2366kqs4TFHA.1796@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> What are the benifits of settings the 3gb switch and the userva=3030 in
the
> boot.ini of sql server 2000? thanks.
> windows 2003 enterprise
> 4gb ram
> sql server enterprise
>

/3G question

We have some boxes with Sql 2000 sp4 on windows 2003 enterprise edition. 8G
total physical memory, boot.ini options with /PAE but without /3G. SQL AWE
enabled, and max server memeory configured to be 7G. From Task manager,
memory utilization is 7.2G. From perf mon, sql target mem is 7G and total
server memory both show 7G.
My question is, without /3G, how could SQL use more than 6G of memory? Am I
missing something here? and most importantly, is there any performance
implications configuring SQL to use 7G without /3G boot option?
Thanks very much.
Brian
AWE enables SQL Server (or any properly enabled app) to see up to 64GB of
memory with the proper OS and SQL Editions. The /3GB has nothing to do with
AWE (other than you should turn it off at 12GB or higher to ensure enough
PTEs). It only allows the app to see 3GB instead of 2GB of directly
addressable memory.
http://sqljunkies.com/Tutorial/0D4FF40A-695C-4327-A41B-F9F2FE2D58F6.scuk
Memory
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp Using AWE Memory
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=321363 SQL Server 7 & 2000 memory
usage
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=274750 Memory config
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=283037 Large Memory Support Is
Available in Windows 2000 (AWE)
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=811891 Can not use more than 2GB of
memory
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Brian Brian" <BrianBrian@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2DB937E4-6853-4EFB-B1F3-C23012F70734@.microsoft.com...
> We have some boxes with Sql 2000 sp4 on windows 2003 enterprise edition.
> 8G
> total physical memory, boot.ini options with /PAE but without /3G. SQL AWE
> enabled, and max server memeory configured to be 7G. From Task manager,
> memory utilization is 7.2G. From perf mon, sql target mem is 7G and total
> server memory both show 7G.
> My question is, without /3G, how could SQL use more than 6G of memory? Am
> I
> missing something here? and most importantly, is there any performance
> implications configuring SQL to use 7G without /3G boot option?
> Thanks very much.
> --
> Brian
|||Hi Brian
I'm not sure where you get the 6GB figure from. Without AWE, SQL Server is
limited to either 2GB or 3GB. With AWE, SQL Server can use up to 64GB,
depending on the version and edition. The /3GB switch only controls how
much memory is directly addressable. All memory above 2GB or 3GB must be
accessed through AWE memory mapping.
Direct addressing is slightly faster than going through AWE, so with the 3GB
flag you will get to more memory slightly faster. In addition, only pages
from your data files can use the memory addressed through AWE. All other
memory uses (query plan, user connections, lock memory, etc) has to use
directly addressed memory, so having 3GB enabled will give you up to 50%
more space for those other memory uses. This can be a good thing.
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.InsideSQLServer.com
http://sqlblog.com
"Brian Brian" <BrianBrian@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2DB937E4-6853-4EFB-B1F3-C23012F70734@.microsoft.com...
> We have some boxes with Sql 2000 sp4 on windows 2003 enterprise edition.
> 8G
> total physical memory, boot.ini options with /PAE but without /3G. SQL AWE
> enabled, and max server memeory configured to be 7G. From Task manager,
> memory utilization is 7.2G. From perf mon, sql target mem is 7G and total
> server memory both show 7G.
> My question is, without /3G, how could SQL use more than 6G of memory? Am
> I
> missing something here? and most importantly, is there any performance
> implications configuring SQL to use 7G without /3G boot option?
> Thanks very much.
> --
> Brian

/3G question

We have some boxes with Sql 2000 sp4 on windows 2003 enterprise edition. 8G
total physical memory, boot.ini options with /PAE but without /3G. SQL AWE
enabled, and max server memeory configured to be 7G. From Task manager,
memory utilization is 7.2G. From perf mon, sql target mem is 7G and total
server memory both show 7G.
My question is, without /3G, how could SQL use more than 6G of memory? Am I
missing something here? and most importantly, is there any performance
implications configuring SQL to use 7G without /3G boot option?
Thanks very much.
--
BrianAWE enables SQL Server (or any properly enabled app) to see up to 64GB of
memory with the proper OS and SQL Editions. The /3GB has nothing to do with
AWE (other than you should turn it off at 12GB or higher to ensure enough
PTEs). It only allows the app to see 3GB instead of 2GB of directly
addressable memory.
http://sqljunkies.com/Tutorial/0D4FF40A-695C-4327-A41B-F9F2FE2D58F6.scuk
Memory
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp Using AWE Memory
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=321363 SQL Server 7 & 2000 memory
usage
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=274750 Memory config
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=283037 Large Memory Support Is
Available in Windows 2000 (AWE)
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=811891 Can not use more than 2GB of
memory
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Brian Brian" <BrianBrian@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2DB937E4-6853-4EFB-B1F3-C23012F70734@.microsoft.com...
> We have some boxes with Sql 2000 sp4 on windows 2003 enterprise edition.
> 8G
> total physical memory, boot.ini options with /PAE but without /3G. SQL AWE
> enabled, and max server memeory configured to be 7G. From Task manager,
> memory utilization is 7.2G. From perf mon, sql target mem is 7G and total
> server memory both show 7G.
> My question is, without /3G, how could SQL use more than 6G of memory? Am
> I
> missing something here? and most importantly, is there any performance
> implications configuring SQL to use 7G without /3G boot option?
> Thanks very much.
> --
> Brian|||Hi Brian
I'm not sure where you get the 6GB figure from. Without AWE, SQL Server is
limited to either 2GB or 3GB. With AWE, SQL Server can use up to 64GB,
depending on the version and edition. The /3GB switch only controls how
much memory is directly addressable. All memory above 2GB or 3GB must be
accessed through AWE memory mapping.
Direct addressing is slightly faster than going through AWE, so with the 3GB
flag you will get to more memory slightly faster. In addition, only pages
from your data files can use the memory addressed through AWE. All other
memory uses (query plan, user connections, lock memory, etc) has to use
directly addressed memory, so having 3GB enabled will give you up to 50%
more space for those other memory uses. This can be a good thing.
--
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.InsideSQLServer.com
http://sqlblog.com
"Brian Brian" <BrianBrian@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2DB937E4-6853-4EFB-B1F3-C23012F70734@.microsoft.com...
> We have some boxes with Sql 2000 sp4 on windows 2003 enterprise edition.
> 8G
> total physical memory, boot.ini options with /PAE but without /3G. SQL AWE
> enabled, and max server memeory configured to be 7G. From Task manager,
> memory utilization is 7.2G. From perf mon, sql target mem is 7G and total
> server memory both show 7G.
> My question is, without /3G, how could SQL use more than 6G of memory? Am
> I
> missing something here? and most importantly, is there any performance
> implications configuring SQL to use 7G without /3G boot option?
> Thanks very much.
> --
> Brian

/3G question

We have some boxes with Sql 2000 sp4 on windows 2003 enterprise edition. 8G
total physical memory, boot.ini options with /PAE but without /3G. SQL AWE
enabled, and max server memeory configured to be 7G. From Task manager,
memory utilization is 7.2G. From perf mon, sql target mem is 7G and total
server memory both show 7G.
My question is, without /3G, how could SQL use more than 6G of memory? Am I
missing something here? and most importantly, is there any performance
implications configuring SQL to use 7G without /3G boot option?
Thanks very much.
--
BrianAWE enables SQL Server (or any properly enabled app) to see up to 64GB of
memory with the proper OS and SQL Editions. The /3GB has nothing to do with
AWE (other than you should turn it off at 12GB or higher to ensure enough
PTEs). It only allows the app to see 3GB instead of 2GB of directly
addressable memory.
http://sqljunkies.com/Tutorial/0D4F...F2FE2D58F6.scuk
Memory
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp Using AWE Memory
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=321363 SQL Server 7 & 2000 memory
usage
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=274750 Memory config
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=283037 Large Memory Support Is
Available in Windows 2000 (AWE)
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=811891 Can not use more than 2GB of
memory
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Brian Brian" <BrianBrian@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2DB937E4-6853-4EFB-B1F3-C23012F70734@.microsoft.com...
> We have some boxes with Sql 2000 sp4 on windows 2003 enterprise edition.
> 8G
> total physical memory, boot.ini options with /PAE but without /3G. SQL AWE
> enabled, and max server memeory configured to be 7G. From Task manager,
> memory utilization is 7.2G. From perf mon, sql target mem is 7G and total
> server memory both show 7G.
> My question is, without /3G, how could SQL use more than 6G of memory? Am
> I
> missing something here? and most importantly, is there any performance
> implications configuring SQL to use 7G without /3G boot option?
> Thanks very much.
> --
> Brian|||Hi Brian
I'm not sure where you get the 6GB figure from. Without AWE, SQL Server is
limited to either 2GB or 3GB. With AWE, SQL Server can use up to 64GB,
depending on the version and edition. The /3GB switch only controls how
much memory is directly addressable. All memory above 2GB or 3GB must be
accessed through AWE memory mapping.
Direct addressing is slightly faster than going through AWE, so with the 3GB
flag you will get to more memory slightly faster. In addition, only pages
from your data files can use the memory addressed through AWE. All other
memory uses (query plan, user connections, lock memory, etc) has to use
directly addressed memory, so having 3GB enabled will give you up to 50%
more space for those other memory uses. This can be a good thing.
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.InsideSQLServer.com
http://sqlblog.com
"Brian Brian" <BrianBrian@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2DB937E4-6853-4EFB-B1F3-C23012F70734@.microsoft.com...
> We have some boxes with Sql 2000 sp4 on windows 2003 enterprise edition.
> 8G
> total physical memory, boot.ini options with /PAE but without /3G. SQL AWE
> enabled, and max server memeory configured to be 7G. From Task manager,
> memory utilization is 7.2G. From perf mon, sql target mem is 7G and total
> server memory both show 7G.
> My question is, without /3G, how could SQL use more than 6G of memory? Am
> I
> missing something here? and most importantly, is there any performance
> implications configuring SQL to use 7G without /3G boot option?
> Thanks very much.
> --
> Brian

Sunday, March 25, 2012

@@Connection

VERSION MDAC FOR SQL server 6.5 on WIN NT 4.0

Data transfer Pocket PC <> Desktop PC?

Thursday, March 22, 2012

: Preferred disk raid config when using SQL Server 2005

: Preferred disk raid config when using SQL Server 2005

: Preferred disk raid config when using SQL Server 2005

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

::Conection

::Conection

::Conection

: xp_smtp_sendmail error on windows server 2005 (x64) n sql server 2005 (64 bit)

/3GB with 3.7GB RAM?

/3GB with 3.7GB RAM?

/3GB with 3.7GB RAM?

/3GB SQL Server 2000

Monday, March 19, 2012

/3GB benifits

/3GB benifits

/3GB benifits

/3G question

/3G question

/3G question

SQL SQLExpress

Blog Archive

About Me