Hi,
I have set the boot.ini /PAE and 3GB Parameters in my windows 2003 server
enterprise.
And SQL Server 2000 also open AWE's "Max Server Memory" as 6G (I have 8G
physical memory).
So, these 2 options -- boot.ini 3GB parameter and the "Max Server Memroy" of
SQL Server 2000 as 6G can use at the same time?
If can't, what's problem will happen?
Thanks!
AngiThis should be fine.
Problems can occur if you use /3GB when you have over 12GB of Memory,
although some people say you can go up to 16GB. You'd have to test it on
your system. But 6GB should be fine.
HTH
--
Kalen Delaney
SQL Server MVP
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
"angi" <enchiw@.msn.com> wrote in message
news:ezI0joVFFHA.3728@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I have set the boot.ini /PAE and 3GB Parameters in my windows 2003 server
> enterprise.
> And SQL Server 2000 also open AWE's "Max Server Memory" as 6G (I have 8G
> physical memory).
> So, these 2 options -- boot.ini 3GB parameter and the "Max Server Memroy"
> of
> SQL Server 2000 as 6G can use at the same time?
> If can't, what's problem will happen?
> Thanks!
> Angi
>
>|||Ken Henderson from Microsoft (is he still there?) says in _The Guru's
Guide to SQL Server Architecture and Internals_ (awesome book - right up
there with _Inside SQL Server 2000, Second Edition_ by someone named
Kalen Delaney :-P ) that when you shrink the kernel mode address space
from 2GB to 1GB (with /3GB) one of the main things that suffers is "the
table Windows uses to manage the physical memory...such that it can
manage a maximum of only 16GB of physical memory." Is that right or is
12GB the magic figure?
*mike hodgson* |/ database administrator/ | mallesons stephen jaques
*T* +61 (2) 9296 3668 |* F* +61 (2) 9296 3885 |* M* +61 (408) 675 907
*E* mailto:mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com |* W* http://www.mallesons.com
Kalen Delaney wrote:
>This should be fine.
>Problems can occur if you use /3GB when you have over 12GB of Memory,
>although some people say you can go up to 16GB. You'd have to test it on
>your system. But 6GB should be fine.
>
>|||Hi
Officially, from MS, 16GB is the number, but some hardware vendors (they
might produce ES 7000's) have recommended to customers to use a maximum of
12GB.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Mike Hodgson" <mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:unS1eUYFFHA.1264@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Ken Henderson from Microsoft (is he still there?) says in _The Guru's
> Guide to SQL Server Architecture and Internals_ (awesome book - right up
> there with _Inside SQL Server 2000, Second Edition_ by someone named
> Kalen Delaney :-P ) that when you shrink the kernel mode address space
> from 2GB to 1GB (with /3GB) one of the main things that suffers is "the
> table Windows uses to manage the physical memory...such that it can
> manage a maximum of only 16GB of physical memory." Is that right or is
> 12GB the magic figure?
> --
> *mike hodgson* |/ database administrator/ | mallesons stephen jaques
> *T* +61 (2) 9296 3668 |* F* +61 (2) 9296 3885 |* M* +61 (408) 675 907
> *E* mailto:mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com |* W*
http://www.mallesons.com
>
> Kalen Delaney wrote:
>
>|||Yes, this is exactly what I wasa referring to.
That fact that YMMV.
HTH
--
Kalen Delaney
SQL Server MVP
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:OxsVjraFFHA.3928@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> Officially, from MS, 16GB is the number, but some hardware vendors (they
> might produce ES 7000's) have recommended to customers to use a maximum of
> 12GB.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Mike Hodgson" <mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:unS1eUYFFHA.1264@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> http://www.mallesons.com
>
Showing posts with label memory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label memory. Show all posts
Friday, March 30, 2012
PAE VS SQL Server AWE
Hi,
I have set the boot.ini /PAE and 3GB Parameters in my windows 2003 server
enterprise.
And SQL Server 2000 also open AWE's "Max Server Memory" as 6G (I have 8G
physical memory).
So, these 2 options -- boot.ini 3GB parameter and the "Max Server Memroy" of
SQL Server 2000 as 6G can use at the same time?
If can't, what's problem will happen?
Thanks!
Angi
This should be fine.
Problems can occur if you use /3GB when you have over 12GB of Memory,
although some people say you can go up to 16GB. You'd have to test it on
your system. But 6GB should be fine.
HTH
Kalen Delaney
SQL Server MVP
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
"angi" <enchiw@.msn.com> wrote in message
news:ezI0joVFFHA.3728@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I have set the boot.ini /PAE and 3GB Parameters in my windows 2003 server
> enterprise.
> And SQL Server 2000 also open AWE's "Max Server Memory" as 6G (I have 8G
> physical memory).
> So, these 2 options -- boot.ini 3GB parameter and the "Max Server Memroy"
> of
> SQL Server 2000 as 6G can use at the same time?
> If can't, what's problem will happen?
> Thanks!
> Angi
>
>
|||Ken Henderson from Microsoft (is he still there?) says in _The Guru's
Guide to SQL Server Architecture and Internals_ (awesome book - right up
there with _Inside SQL Server 2000, Second Edition_ by someone named
Kalen Delaney :-P ) that when you shrink the kernel mode address space
from 2GB to 1GB (with /3GB) one of the main things that suffers is "the
table Windows uses to manage the physical memory...such that it can
manage a maximum of only 16GB of physical memory." Is that right or is
12GB the magic figure?
*mike hodgson* |/ database administrator/ | mallesons stephen jaques
*T* +61 (2) 9296 3668 |* F* +61 (2) 9296 3885 |* M* +61 (408) 675 907
*E* mailto:mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com |* W* http://www.mallesons.com
Kalen Delaney wrote:
>This should be fine.
>Problems can occur if you use /3GB when you have over 12GB of Memory,
>although some people say you can go up to 16GB. You'd have to test it on
>your system. But 6GB should be fine.
>
>
|||Hi
Officially, from MS, 16GB is the number, but some hardware vendors (they
might produce ES 7000's) have recommended to customers to use a maximum of
12GB.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Mike Hodgson" <mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:unS1eUYFFHA.1264@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Ken Henderson from Microsoft (is he still there?) says in _The Guru's
> Guide to SQL Server Architecture and Internals_ (awesome book - right up
> there with _Inside SQL Server 2000, Second Edition_ by someone named
> Kalen Delaney :-P ) that when you shrink the kernel mode address space
> from 2GB to 1GB (with /3GB) one of the main things that suffers is "the
> table Windows uses to manage the physical memory...such that it can
> manage a maximum of only 16GB of physical memory." Is that right or is
> 12GB the magic figure?
> --
> *mike hodgson* |/ database administrator/ | mallesons stephen jaques
> *T* +61 (2) 9296 3668 |* F* +61 (2) 9296 3885 |* M* +61 (408) 675 907
> *E* mailto:mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com |* W*
http://www.mallesons.com
>
> Kalen Delaney wrote:
>
|||Yes, this is exactly what I wasa referring to.
That fact that YMMV.
HTH
Kalen Delaney
SQL Server MVP
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:OxsVjraFFHA.3928@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> Officially, from MS, 16GB is the number, but some hardware vendors (they
> might produce ES 7000's) have recommended to customers to use a maximum of
> 12GB.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Mike Hodgson" <mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:unS1eUYFFHA.1264@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> http://www.mallesons.com
>
sql
I have set the boot.ini /PAE and 3GB Parameters in my windows 2003 server
enterprise.
And SQL Server 2000 also open AWE's "Max Server Memory" as 6G (I have 8G
physical memory).
So, these 2 options -- boot.ini 3GB parameter and the "Max Server Memroy" of
SQL Server 2000 as 6G can use at the same time?
If can't, what's problem will happen?
Thanks!
Angi
This should be fine.
Problems can occur if you use /3GB when you have over 12GB of Memory,
although some people say you can go up to 16GB. You'd have to test it on
your system. But 6GB should be fine.
HTH
Kalen Delaney
SQL Server MVP
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
"angi" <enchiw@.msn.com> wrote in message
news:ezI0joVFFHA.3728@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I have set the boot.ini /PAE and 3GB Parameters in my windows 2003 server
> enterprise.
> And SQL Server 2000 also open AWE's "Max Server Memory" as 6G (I have 8G
> physical memory).
> So, these 2 options -- boot.ini 3GB parameter and the "Max Server Memroy"
> of
> SQL Server 2000 as 6G can use at the same time?
> If can't, what's problem will happen?
> Thanks!
> Angi
>
>
|||Ken Henderson from Microsoft (is he still there?) says in _The Guru's
Guide to SQL Server Architecture and Internals_ (awesome book - right up
there with _Inside SQL Server 2000, Second Edition_ by someone named
Kalen Delaney :-P ) that when you shrink the kernel mode address space
from 2GB to 1GB (with /3GB) one of the main things that suffers is "the
table Windows uses to manage the physical memory...such that it can
manage a maximum of only 16GB of physical memory." Is that right or is
12GB the magic figure?
*mike hodgson* |/ database administrator/ | mallesons stephen jaques
*T* +61 (2) 9296 3668 |* F* +61 (2) 9296 3885 |* M* +61 (408) 675 907
*E* mailto:mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com |* W* http://www.mallesons.com
Kalen Delaney wrote:
>This should be fine.
>Problems can occur if you use /3GB when you have over 12GB of Memory,
>although some people say you can go up to 16GB. You'd have to test it on
>your system. But 6GB should be fine.
>
>
|||Hi
Officially, from MS, 16GB is the number, but some hardware vendors (they
might produce ES 7000's) have recommended to customers to use a maximum of
12GB.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Mike Hodgson" <mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:unS1eUYFFHA.1264@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Ken Henderson from Microsoft (is he still there?) says in _The Guru's
> Guide to SQL Server Architecture and Internals_ (awesome book - right up
> there with _Inside SQL Server 2000, Second Edition_ by someone named
> Kalen Delaney :-P ) that when you shrink the kernel mode address space
> from 2GB to 1GB (with /3GB) one of the main things that suffers is "the
> table Windows uses to manage the physical memory...such that it can
> manage a maximum of only 16GB of physical memory." Is that right or is
> 12GB the magic figure?
> --
> *mike hodgson* |/ database administrator/ | mallesons stephen jaques
> *T* +61 (2) 9296 3668 |* F* +61 (2) 9296 3885 |* M* +61 (408) 675 907
> *E* mailto:mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com |* W*
http://www.mallesons.com
>
> Kalen Delaney wrote:
>
|||Yes, this is exactly what I wasa referring to.
That fact that YMMV.
HTH
Kalen Delaney
SQL Server MVP
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:OxsVjraFFHA.3928@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> Officially, from MS, 16GB is the number, but some hardware vendors (they
> might produce ES 7000's) have recommended to customers to use a maximum of
> 12GB.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Mike Hodgson" <mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:unS1eUYFFHA.1264@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> http://www.mallesons.com
>
sql
PAE SQL server questions...
Hey all,
I'm wondering what command I could issue to see the amount of memory a named instance is using from within the instance itself. We've enabled address extensions (PAE), and task manager no longer shows the correct amount of mem being used by the process. Under perfmon, I've added the object MSSQL$INSTANCENAME:Memory and I'm looking at the Total Server Memory. I'm seeing 4 gigs, when max memory is capped at 2gigs. This must show the server memory and not the instance memory ? Is there some way to see the instance memory ?
Cheers,
-KilkaDBCC MEMORYSTATUS. It'll give you enough to start with. Coupled with MEMUSAGE, you can pi-point the exact object that hogs the memory.|||Thanks rdjabarov,
I'll have to check this out on our testing environments. I've read that MEMUSAGE can cause the instance to crash, I'll have to do some more testing when I get back to work to verify that it'll be safe to use on live.
Cheers,
-Kilka
I'm wondering what command I could issue to see the amount of memory a named instance is using from within the instance itself. We've enabled address extensions (PAE), and task manager no longer shows the correct amount of mem being used by the process. Under perfmon, I've added the object MSSQL$INSTANCENAME:Memory and I'm looking at the Total Server Memory. I'm seeing 4 gigs, when max memory is capped at 2gigs. This must show the server memory and not the instance memory ? Is there some way to see the instance memory ?
Cheers,
-KilkaDBCC MEMORYSTATUS. It'll give you enough to start with. Coupled with MEMUSAGE, you can pi-point the exact object that hogs the memory.|||Thanks rdjabarov,
I'll have to check this out on our testing environments. I've read that MEMUSAGE can cause the instance to crash, I'll have to do some more testing when I get back to work to verify that it'll be safe to use on live.
Cheers,
-Kilka
Friday, March 23, 2012
Package taking 100% of the CPU when it is opened for editing in visual studio
I have a package that I was able to edit a week before. But now it is consuming all CPU memory (100%) and not letting me to edit the package (When I try to edit that it says Visual Studio Is busy even after an hour waiting).
Even though I have not changed anything, the package is behaving like this.
I would appreciate any reply on this?
Thanks in advance
What has changed between two runs? Did you install anything on your machine? What is the packaged doing -- any dependancy on external resources?
Thanks,
Bob
|||Hello Bob,Thanks for your interest.
No change between two runs and I have not installed/Uninstalled any thing.
All other packages are working fine but only that package is taking lot of time.
Today I able to open the package and even able to select the components(Transformations) but It takes lot of time to respond.Around 5 minutes it takes if I switch from one dataflow to another.
|||
You have to figure out what is causing this delay. Copy your package into an temporary file and start cutting it piece by piece.
There is not much help we can offer you based on the amount of information you provided. Try to nail down your issue and come back with a more specific question.
Thanks,
Bob
|||I have the same issue, was there ever a resolution to this?|||Hello,
I found the problem after waiting thrice for around 30 minutes to get some control on to edit the package. In first two attempts I had to manually stop the visual studio as it was taking longer than 30 minutes. But in third attempt I could edit the package after 40 minutes of waiting and even then it was taking 2 minutes for a single click.
The problem was all my source connections were replaced By Destination connections. L
Description:
In the package I had two connections one pointing to a source database and another pointing to a destination database (this has different schema than source database).
So now all source DB connections are replaced by destination DB connections.ie Package was referring to a destination database connection but fetching the data from source database connection.
The following figure illustrates it best.
Sorry could insert a picture into the postL
Interesting thing here is the package is not giving any design time errors about referred view not present in the database it is referring to.
Due to some restrictions, I have not run the package to check whether it executes or not. But I did not get why this replacement has been done by itself.
Now I got everything corrected except a dataflow.
Another problem:
For the dataflow I left uncorrected, again the package is behaving in the same manner (consuming all CPU) when I try to fetch the data from a view present in the source database.
But this is not package specific. Whenever I tried to refer to this view from any other package then also same problem occurring. And this problem was not there in the week before run.
Friday, March 9, 2012
P/T question
I have a perfmon output as:
"(Eastern Standard Time)","Memory\Pages/sec","SQLServer:Memory Manager\Target Server Memory(KB)","SQLServer:Memory Manager\Total Server Memory (KB)"
"11/18/2004 10:30:04.750","692.29290389658956","6686608","6686608"
"11/18/2004 10:30:19.750","57.035332875362883","6686608","6686608"
"11/18/2004 10:30:34.750","50.946407096710089","6686752","6686752"
"11/18/2004 10:30:49.750","45.985057453103487","6686896","6686896"
"11/18/2004 10:31:04.750","80.718985188776941","6686608","6686608"
"11/18/2004 10:31:19.765","51.419713435012362","6686688","6686688"
"11/18/2004 10:31:34.765","83.316956075479524","6686784","6686784"
"11/18/2004 10:31:49.765","86.4656131714503","6686784","6686784"
"11/18/2004 10:32:04.765","184.19541457981779","6687008","6687008"
"11/18/2004 10:32:19.765","1594.8601288134912","6686784","6686784"
"11/18/2004 10:32:34.765","66.843390396403805","6686784","6686784"
"11/18/2004 10:32:49.765","66.840494677987792","6686928","6686928"
"11/18/2004 10:33:04.765","118.8274008488409","6686896","6686896"
"11/18/2004 10:33:19.765","317.40745114920139","6686896","6686896"
"11/18/2004 10:33:34.765","102.44640018841849","6686896","6686896"
"11/18/2004 10:33:49.765","144.69523847001818","6686896","6686896"
"11/18/2004 10:34:04.765","85.31078069975311","6686896","6686896"
"11/18/2004 10:34:19.765","201.69105891920668","6687040","6687040"
"11/18/2004 10:34:34.765","160.50180640532426","6687040","6687040"
"11/18/2004 10:34:49.765","82.745816941897289","6687040","6687040"
"11/18/2004 10:35:04.765","77.598868378704793","6687040","6687040"
"11/18/2004 10:35:19.765","144.36181802848549","6687040","6687040"
"11/18/2004 10:35:34.765","115.436326945804","6687200","6687200"
"11/18/2004 10:35:49.765","220.79121078389826","6687200","6687200"
Does this mean that if I add more memory to the box and allocate it to SQL Server, it will be beneficial?
ThanksThese are very alarming numbers. How much memory DO you have?|||We have 8GB on the box and 6GB (approx.) allocated to SQL Server. This is a very intensive i/o and oltp application.
"(Eastern Standard Time)","Memory\Pages/sec","SQLServer:Memory Manager\Target Server Memory(KB)","SQLServer:Memory Manager\Total Server Memory (KB)"
"11/18/2004 10:30:04.750","692.29290389658956","6686608","6686608"
"11/18/2004 10:30:19.750","57.035332875362883","6686608","6686608"
"11/18/2004 10:30:34.750","50.946407096710089","6686752","6686752"
"11/18/2004 10:30:49.750","45.985057453103487","6686896","6686896"
"11/18/2004 10:31:04.750","80.718985188776941","6686608","6686608"
"11/18/2004 10:31:19.765","51.419713435012362","6686688","6686688"
"11/18/2004 10:31:34.765","83.316956075479524","6686784","6686784"
"11/18/2004 10:31:49.765","86.4656131714503","6686784","6686784"
"11/18/2004 10:32:04.765","184.19541457981779","6687008","6687008"
"11/18/2004 10:32:19.765","1594.8601288134912","6686784","6686784"
"11/18/2004 10:32:34.765","66.843390396403805","6686784","6686784"
"11/18/2004 10:32:49.765","66.840494677987792","6686928","6686928"
"11/18/2004 10:33:04.765","118.8274008488409","6686896","6686896"
"11/18/2004 10:33:19.765","317.40745114920139","6686896","6686896"
"11/18/2004 10:33:34.765","102.44640018841849","6686896","6686896"
"11/18/2004 10:33:49.765","144.69523847001818","6686896","6686896"
"11/18/2004 10:34:04.765","85.31078069975311","6686896","6686896"
"11/18/2004 10:34:19.765","201.69105891920668","6687040","6687040"
"11/18/2004 10:34:34.765","160.50180640532426","6687040","6687040"
"11/18/2004 10:34:49.765","82.745816941897289","6687040","6687040"
"11/18/2004 10:35:04.765","77.598868378704793","6687040","6687040"
"11/18/2004 10:35:19.765","144.36181802848549","6687040","6687040"
"11/18/2004 10:35:34.765","115.436326945804","6687200","6687200"
"11/18/2004 10:35:49.765","220.79121078389826","6687200","6687200"
Does this mean that if I add more memory to the box and allocate it to SQL Server, it will be beneficial?
ThanksThese are very alarming numbers. How much memory DO you have?|||We have 8GB on the box and 6GB (approx.) allocated to SQL Server. This is a very intensive i/o and oltp application.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)