Showing posts with label parameters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label parameters. 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!
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
>
>|||This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--080509010402010100010709
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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.
>
>
--080509010402010100010709
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<tt>Ken Henderson from Microsoft (is he still there?) says in <u>The
Guru's Guide to SQL Server Architecture and Internals</u> (awesome book
- right up there with <u>Inside SQL Server 2000, Second Edition</u> by
someone named Kalen Delaney <span class="moz-smiley-s4"><span> :-P </span></span>
) 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?</tt><br>
<div class="moz-signature">
<title></title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<p><span lang="en-au"><font face="Tahoma" size="2">--<br>
</font> </span><b><span lang="en-au"><font face="Tahoma" size="2">mike
hodgson</font></span></b><span lang="en-au"> <font face="Tahoma"
size="2">|</font><i><font face="Tahoma"> </font><font face="Tahoma"
size="2"> database administrator</font></i><font face="Tahoma" size="2">
| mallesons</font><font face="Tahoma"> </font><font face="Tahoma"
size="2">stephen</font><font face="Tahoma"> </font><font face="Tahoma"
size="2"> jaques</font><font face="Tahoma"><br>
</font><b><font face="Tahoma" size="2">T</font></b><font face="Tahoma"
size="2"> +61 (2) 9296 3668 |</font><b><font face="Tahoma"> </font><font
face="Tahoma" size="2"> F</font></b><font face="Tahoma" size="2"> +61
(2) 9296 3885 |</font><b><font face="Tahoma"> </font><font
face="Tahoma" size="2">M</font></b><font face="Tahoma" size="2"> +61
(408) 675 907</font><br>
<b><font face="Tahoma" size="2">E</font></b><font face="Tahoma" size="2">
<a href="http://links.10026.com/?link=mailto:mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com">
mailto:mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com</a> |</font><b><font
face="Tahoma"> </font><font face="Tahoma" size="2">W</font></b><font
face="Tahoma" size="2"> <a href="http://links.10026.com/?link=/">http://www.mallesons.com">
http://www.mallesons.com</a></font></span> </p>
</div>
<br>
<br>
Kalen Delaney wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid%2336sKXXFFHA.3728@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
--080509010402010100010709--|||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:
> >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.
> >
> >
> >
>|||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...
>> 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.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>

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!
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
>

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

Friday, March 23, 2012

Package still referencing old parameters from an old connection

I deleted and created a new OLE DB connection string then set all my connections to that string in my components in my SSIS package however below where it talks about EBN_TEMP1, that's an old database table that no longer exists after I unistalled and reinstalled SQL Server on this box. Why is it still refrencing old stuff? Is there some sort of refresh I have to do on my entire package due to the fact that I

1) Reinstalled SQL Server 2005

2) Deleted an old OLE DB Conenction my package was using (based on an old database that was in the previous SQL Server install) and createad a new OLE DB Connection in my package to point to a new database name after my reinstall of SQL Server 2005

TITLE: Package Validation Error

Package Validation Error

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

Error at Data Flow Task [EBN_TEMP1 [528]]: Columns "Column 0" and "AccountNumber" cannot convert between unicode and non-unicode string data types.

Error at Data Flow Task [EBN_TEMP1 [528]]: Columns "Column 1" and "Screen" cannot convert between unicode and non-unicode string data types.

Error at Data Flow Task [EBN_TEMP1 [528]]: Columns "Column 2" and "CaseNumber" cannot convert between unicode and non-unicode string data types.

Error at Data Flow Task [EBN_TEMP1 [528]]: Columns "Column 3" and "BKYChapter" cannot convert between unicode and non-unicode string data types.

Error at Data Flow Task [EBN_TEMP1 [528]]: Columns "Column 4" and "FileDate" cannot convert between unicode and non-unicode string data types.

Error at Data Flow Task [EBN_TEMP1 [528]]: Columns "Column 6" and "DispositionCode" cannot convert between unicode and non-unicode string data types.

Error at Data Flow Task [EBN_TEMP1 [528]]: Columns "Column 23" and "BKUDA1" cannot convert between unicode and non-unicode string data types.

Error at Data Flow Task [EBN_TEMP1 [528]]: Columns "Column 24" and "RMSADDR2" cannot convert between unicode and non-unicode string data types.

Error at Data Flow Task [EBN_TEMP1 [528]]: Columns "Column 25" and "RMSCMPNAME_1" cannot convert between unicode and non-unicode string data types.

Error at Data Flow Task [EBN_TEMP1 [528]]: Columns "Column 26" and "RMSADDR_1" cannot convert between unicode and non-unicode string data types.

Error at Data Flow Task [EBN_TEMP1 [528]]: Columns "Column 27" and "RMSCITY_1" cannot convert between unicode and non-unicode string data types.

Error at Data Flow Task [EBN_TEMP1 [528]]: Columns "Column 28" and "RMSSTATECD_1" cannot convert between unicode and non-unicode string data types.

Error at Data Flow Task [EBN_TEMP1 [528]]: Columns "Column 29" and "RMSZIPCODE_1" cannot convert between unicode and non-unicode string data types.

Error at Data Flow Task [EBN_TEMP1 [528]]: Columns "Column 30" and "RMSWORKPHN" cannot convert between unicode and non-unicode string data types.

Error at Data Flow Task [EBN_TEMP1 [528]]: Columns "Column 31" and "BKYMEETDTE" cannot convert between unicode and non-unicode string data types.

Error at Data Flow Task [EBN_TEMP1 [528]]: Columns "Column 34" and "RMSCMPNAME_2" cannot convert between unicode and non-unicode string data types.

Error at Data Flow Task [DTS.Pipeline]: "component "EBN_TEMP1" (528)" failed validation and returned validation status "VS_ISBROKEN".

Error at Data Flow Task [DTS.Pipeline]: One or more component failed validation.

Error at Data Flow Task: There were errors during task validation.

(Microsoft.DataTransformationServices.VsIntegration)

BUTTONS:

OK

I don't remember the format of error message, but this string (EBN_TEMP1) is probably the name of data flow component (source, destination, etc), not the connection name. Just look around the package to find an object with such name. Or double click the error message to get editor for this component.sql

Monday, March 12, 2012

Package Configuration

Hello,

I'm developing some packages in SSIS and I need to implement a configuration file to load the server's connections and other parameters, so I can use this same connection for all packages.

Have anyone a step by step to perform this configuration ?

I exported a Connection Manager to a .dtsConfig file, but I don't know how to use this config file.

Any help is welcome !

Thanks,

Guber

As long as your package knows about the configuration (which it will do because that is where you created it) then it should just work!

Try editing the config file to contain some nonsensical value and run your package again. If it doesn't do what it is supposed to then you know the file is being used.

-Jamie

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Overriding Defaults

I have a stored procedure that has @.BeginDate and @.EndDate as parameters. I created a report with a default for both. They run just fine. After I deployed, I created Linked Reports and wanted to override the defaults. In the defaults, I tried to put in GetDate() for @.BeginDate and GetDate()+10 for the @.EndDate so this can be passed in the where statement of the stored procedure. I get 'Syntax error converting datetime from character string.'

What I assume is that if I override the default, the stored procedure will process what I put in the @.BeginDate and @.EndDate parameters.

The where statement looks like:

and (m.BeginDate >= @.BeginDate) and (m.EndDate <= @.EndDate)

I'm using Reporting Services 2005 and SQL Server 2005.

Thanks, Iris

I have figured out my own problem. In my where statement, in the stored procedure, I put in a case statement that calculates for today, yesterday, etc. for the BeginDate and EndDate parameters. I then created available values for today, yesterday, etc. I made the default for both parameters 'Today'. Then when I created my linked report from my master report, there was a drop down to select my date range options.

Thanks, Iris