sql overflow error: windows

Showing posts with label windows. 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 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?</tt> 
<div class="moz-signature">
<title></title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
-- 
 mike
hodgson | database administrator
| mallesons stephen jaques 
T +61 (2) 9296 3668 | F +61
(2) 9296 3885 | M +61
(408) 675 907 
E
<a href="http://links.10026.com/?link=mailto:mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com">
mailto:mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com</a> | W <a href="http://links.10026.com/?link=/">http://www.mallesons.com">
http://www.mallesons.com</a> 
</div>
 
 
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

PAE & AWE Question

Hello:
I am evaluating performance issues on a SQL server and trying to understand
when to use the PAE switch.
I have a Windows 2000 Advanced server SP4 running MS SQL Server Enterprise
Edition SP4. The server has 4GB total physical RAM. Do I need to configure
PAE/AWE for SQL to take advantage of more than 2GB of RAM?
SQL services fail at times due to high memory utilization. Any assistance
would be appreciated!
Thanks,
WHello,
If your server has only 4GB of memory you can not use AWE. By default
Windows uses 2 GB and SQL Server can use the remaining 2 GB. By adding the
/3GB switch to the Windows boot.ini file you can have Windows to use only 1
GB so SQL Server can use the remaining 3 GB.
Hope this helps,
Ben Nevarez
Senior Database Administrator
AIG SunAmerica
"Walid" wrote:
> Hello:
> I am evaluating performance issues on a SQL server and trying to understand
> when to use the PAE switch.
> I have a Windows 2000 Advanced server SP4 running MS SQL Server Enterprise
> Edition SP4. The server has 4GB total physical RAM. Do I need to configure
> PAE/AWE for SQL to take advantage of more than 2GB of RAM?
> SQL services fail at times due to high memory utilization. Any assistance
> would be appreciated!
> Thanks,
> W|||If you visit the following link, you'll understand PAE better.
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEmem.mspx
And for AWE, PAE, 3GB:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750/en-us
--
Ekrem Ã?nsoy
"Walid" <Walid@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:350CF984-8737-43F6-8570-189A7C81AFFD@.microsoft.com...
> Hello:
> I am evaluating performance issues on a SQL server and trying to
> understand
> when to use the PAE switch.
> I have a Windows 2000 Advanced server SP4 running MS SQL Server Enterprise
> Edition SP4. The server has 4GB total physical RAM. Do I need to
> configure
> PAE/AWE for SQL to take advantage of more than 2GB of RAM?
> SQL services fail at times due to high memory utilization. Any assistance
> would be appreciated!
> Thanks,
> W|||Thank you all very much for the info!!
"Ekrem Ã?nsoy" wrote:
> If you visit the following link, you'll understand PAE better.
> http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEmem.mspx
> And for AWE, PAE, 3GB:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750/en-us
> --
> Ekrem Ã?nsoy
>
> "Walid" <Walid@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:350CF984-8737-43F6-8570-189A7C81AFFD@.microsoft.com...
> > Hello:
> > I am evaluating performance issues on a SQL server and trying to
> > understand
> > when to use the PAE switch.
> >
> > I have a Windows 2000 Advanced server SP4 running MS SQL Server Enterprise
> > Edition SP4. The server has 4GB total physical RAM. Do I need to
> > configure
> > PAE/AWE for SQL to take advantage of more than 2GB of RAM?
> >
> > SQL services fail at times due to high memory utilization. Any assistance
> > would be appreciated!
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > W
>|||> If your server has only 4GB of memory you can not use AWE.
Not true. See
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea/archive/2007/01/11/awe-and-3gb-an-empirical-picture.aspx
Linchi
"Ben Nevarez" wrote:
> Hello,
> If your server has only 4GB of memory you can not use AWE. By default
> Windows uses 2 GB and SQL Server can use the remaining 2 GB. By adding the
> /3GB switch to the Windows boot.ini file you can have Windows to use only 1
> GB so SQL Server can use the remaining 3 GB.
> Hope this helps,
> Ben Nevarez
> Senior Database Administrator
> AIG SunAmerica
>
> "Walid" wrote:
> > Hello:
> > I am evaluating performance issues on a SQL server and trying to understand
> > when to use the PAE switch.
> >
> > I have a Windows 2000 Advanced server SP4 running MS SQL Server Enterprise
> > Edition SP4. The server has 4GB total physical RAM. Do I need to configure
> > PAE/AWE for SQL to take advantage of more than 2GB of RAM?
> >
> > SQL services fail at times due to high memory utilization. Any assistance
> > would be appreciated!
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > W|||Again, a nice work by Linchi... Thanks.
--
Ekrem Ã?nsoy
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:10FB2A3A-4BA1-4118-B376-D65B96BEB5D7@.microsoft.com...
>> If your server has only 4GB of memory you can not use AWE.
> Not true. See
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea/archive/2007/01/11/awe-and-3gb-an-empirical-picture.aspx
> Linchi
> "Ben Nevarez" wrote:
>> Hello,
>> If your server has only 4GB of memory you can not use AWE. By default
>> Windows uses 2 GB and SQL Server can use the remaining 2 GB. By adding
>> the
>> /3GB switch to the Windows boot.ini file you can have Windows to use only
>> 1
>> GB so SQL Server can use the remaining 3 GB.
>> Hope this helps,
>> Ben Nevarez
>> Senior Database Administrator
>> AIG SunAmerica
>>
>> "Walid" wrote:
>> > Hello:
>> > I am evaluating performance issues on a SQL server and trying to
>> > understand
>> > when to use the PAE switch.
>> >
>> > I have a Windows 2000 Advanced server SP4 running MS SQL Server
>> > Enterprise
>> > Edition SP4. The server has 4GB total physical RAM. Do I need to
>> > configure
>> > PAE/AWE for SQL to take advantage of more than 2GB of RAM?
>> >
>> > SQL services fail at times due to high memory utilization. Any
>> > assistance
>> > would be appreciated!
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > W

PAE & AWE on x64 Windows & SQL

We've just setup some new Microsoft SQL 2005 servers running windows 2003 R2
x64 with 16GB of RAM. Since we are running a 64 bit version of windows and a
64 bit version of SQL, is it any longer neccesary to add the /3GB /PAE
option in the boot.ini and enable AWE in SQL?
Thanks!
Brad"Brad Baker" <brad@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:OF%23WZo3xGHA.2384@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> We've just setup some new Microsoft SQL 2005 servers running windows 2003
> R2 x64 with 16GB of RAM. Since we are running a 64 bit version of windows
> and a 64 bit version of SQL, is it any longer neccesary to add the /3GB
> /PAE option in the boot.ini and enable AWE in SQL?
>
Slava says no /3GB, no /PAE, no AWE option. Just grant the SQL account the
"Lock Pages in Memory" privilege.
Q and A: Using Lock Pages In memory on 64 bit platform
Q: Hello Slava, I would like to confirm my understanding that on SQL 2005
64 bit edition it is recommended to grant Lock Pages in Memory right to the
SQL account and then turn on the AWE setting. Thanks
A: Yes, we do recommend to turn on Lock pages in memory so that OS doesn't
page SQL Server out. However on 64 bit you only need to grant the right
"Lock Pages in Memory" to the SQL account for SQL Server to utilize this
feature. You do need to to change any of AWE settings through sp_configure.
http://blogs.msdn.com/slavao/archive/2005/08/31/458545.aspx
Slava explains:
http://blogs.msdn.com/slavao/archive/2005/04/29/413425.aspx
David

PAE & AWE on x64 Windows & SQL

We've just setup some new Microsoft SQL 2005 servers running windows 2003 R2
x64 with 16GB of RAM. Since we are running a 64 bit version of windows and a
64 bit version of SQL, is it any longer neccesary to add the /3GB /PAE
option in the boot.ini and enable AWE in SQL?
Thanks!
Brad"Brad Baker" <brad@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:OF%23WZo3xGHA.2384@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> We've just setup some new Microsoft SQL 2005 servers running windows 2003
> R2 x64 with 16GB of RAM. Since we are running a 64 bit version of windows
> and a 64 bit version of SQL, is it any longer neccesary to add the /3GB
> /PAE option in the boot.ini and enable AWE in SQL?
>
Slava says no /3GB, no /PAE, no AWE option. Just grant the SQL account the
"Lock Pages in Memory" privilege.
Q and A: Using Lock Pages In memory on 64 bit platform
Q: Hello Slava, I would like to confirm my understanding that on SQL 2005
64 bit edition it is recommended to grant Lock Pages in Memory right to the
SQL account and then turn on the AWE setting. Thanks
A: Yes, we do recommend to turn on Lock pages in memory so that OS doesn't
page SQL Server out. However on 64 bit you only need to grant the right
"Lock Pages in Memory" to the SQL account for SQL Server to utilize this
feature. You do need to to change any of AWE settings through sp_configure.
http://blogs.msdn.com/slavao/archiv.../31/458545.aspx
Slava explains:
http://blogs.msdn.com/slavao/archiv.../29/413425.aspx
David

Monday, March 26, 2012

PackageForTheWEB error

I'm having a package for the WEB error when installing
MSSQL 2000 in a clustered windows 2000 advance server.
I have observe the task manager what process was invoke
when the error appeared and it is MSSEARCH.EXE.
What can I do to complete my installation?
Thanks
Janz,
More info is necessary in order to troubleshoot this issue... Could you post
the full output of -- SELECT @.@.version -- Also, attach the file
SearchSetup.log that is usually located at C:\WINNT\ and as well as
sqlstp.log usually located at C:\WINNT\Temp\ and post any errors or issues
related to MSSearch in either of these logs. You can also attach these
files to your post and I'll review them as well. Is your clustered
environment an active/active or passive/active? Which node is this error
occurring on? If you fallover, does the error re-occur?
Note, you should also review your server's Application event log for any
"Microsoft Search" or MssCi source events, errors or warnings as this too
would be helpful info.
Regards,
John
"Janz" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0ff101c48bd8$577838f0$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> I'm having a package for the WEB error when installing
> MSSQL 2000 in a clustered windows 2000 advance server.
> I have observe the task manager what process was invoke
> when the error appeared and it is MSSEARCH.EXE.
> What can I do to complete my installation?
>
> Thanks

Friday, March 23, 2012

Package scheduling and error trace-

I am scheduling the package to run on the nightly basis everyday using windows scheduled task.
How do i check whether the package ran successfully or it has given any error.

Can anyone please suggest me if I can log the error in some table of SQL server.

PLease suggest the steps.

When building a package in BIDS, have a look at the logging options. See the SSIS menu item, Logging.

You can log to several locations including a table.

I would expect DTEXEC to send the appropriate return code when it failed, so the scheduled job should fail. Unfortunately the windows scheduler is not very advanced, so you cannot capture output or configure the return code. The lack of output and monitoring means I would not use it.

Monday, March 12, 2012

P4 xeon Hyperthreading

We are running SQL Server 2000 SP3 on Windows 2000 SP4 on a quad P4 xeon 2.8
ghz with 12 gig of ram. Hyperthreading is turned on and SQL sees 8
processors.
I've heard that it performs better with HT turned off. Anyone here that?In general, no. However, SQL Server might parallize a query too much so setting maxdop to number pf
physical processors (using sp_configure) can be a good idea.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
"Kevin Jackson" <softwiz@.covad.net> wrote in message news:eBpRK29gDHA.1192@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> We are running SQL Server 2000 SP3 on Windows 2000 SP4 on a quad P4 xeon 2.8
> ghz with 12 gig of ram. Hyperthreading is turned on and SQL sees 8
> processors.
> I've heard that it performs better with HT turned off. Anyone here that?
>|||If setting MaxDop to the actual no. of physical processor, wouldnt it not be
best to disable hyperthreading ?
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@.Careerbuilder.com> wrote in message
news:uHaWj9EhDHA.1952@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> The only issue I have seen with Hyperthreading is oversaturation of CPU
> resources by too much parallelism. Set your MAX Degree of Parallelism
> (MADXOP) down to the actual physical processor count and HT works just
fine.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> SQL Server MVP
> Senior Database Administrator
> Careerbuilder.com
>
> "Kevin Jackson" <softwiz@.covad.net> wrote in message
> news:eBpRK29gDHA.1192@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> >
> > We are running SQL Server 2000 SP3 on Windows 2000 SP4 on a quad P4 xeon
> 2.8
> > ghz with 12 gig of ram. Hyperthreading is turned on and SQL sees 8
> > processors.
> >
> > I've heard that it performs better with HT turned off. Anyone here
that?
> >
> >
>|||> If setting MaxDop to the actual no. of physical processor, wouldnt it
not be
> best to disable hyperthreading ?
MAXDOP applies to parallel queries only. The virtual processors can
benefit non-parallel queries as long as you don't disable
hyperthreading.
For example, on a dual Xeon with HT disabled, a CPU-bound parallel query
will degrade response time for other users. With HT enabled and MAXDOP
2, response time for the other users will be a bit better..
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
--
SQL FAQ links (courtesy Neil Pike):
http://www.ntfaq.com/Articles/Index.cfm?DepartmentID=800
http://www.sqlserverfaq.com
http://www.mssqlserver.com/faq
--
"FR" <floydrev@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u5y9r9LhDHA.3616@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> If setting MaxDop to the actual no. of physical processor, wouldnt it
not be
> best to disable hyperthreading ?
> "Geoff N. Hiten" <SRDBA@.Careerbuilder.com> wrote in message
> news:uHaWj9EhDHA.1952@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > The only issue I have seen with Hyperthreading is oversaturation of
CPU
> > resources by too much parallelism. Set your MAX Degree of
Parallelism
> > (MADXOP) down to the actual physical processor count and HT works
just
> fine.
> >
> > --
> > Geoff N. Hiten
> > SQL Server MVP
> > Senior Database Administrator
> > Careerbuilder.com
> >
> >
> > "Kevin Jackson" <softwiz@.covad.net> wrote in message
> > news:eBpRK29gDHA.1192@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > >
> > > We are running SQL Server 2000 SP3 on Windows 2000 SP4 on a quad
P4 xeon
> > 2.8
> > > ghz with 12 gig of ram. Hyperthreading is turned on and SQL sees
8
> > > processors.
> > >
> > > I've heard that it performs better with HT turned off. Anyone
here
> that?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||> If you're not running advanced server and enterprise edition, you won't
> really be able to use more than 4 logical or physical processors.
Apparently SQL2K with sp3 should be HT aware and be able to use more logical processors then 4 on
SE.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
"Kevin" <ReplyTo@.Newsgroups.only> wrote in message news:uLat%23WFhDHA.656@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> If you're not running advanced server and enterprise edition, you won't
> really be able to use more than 4 logical or physical processors.
> But to answer your question, it depends - we saw little difference, except
> that HT is off now everywhere because of OS/Hardware stability problems.
> Just test it for yourself.
> --
> Kevin Connell, MCDBA
> ----
> The views expressed here are my own
> and not of my employer.
> ----
> "Kevin Jackson" <softwiz@.covad.net> wrote in message
> news:eBpRK29gDHA.1192@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> >
> > We are running SQL Server 2000 SP3 on Windows 2000 SP4 on a quad P4 xeon
> 2.8
> > ghz with 12 gig of ram. Hyperthreading is turned on and SQL sees 8
> > processors.
> >
> > I've heard that it performs better with HT turned off. Anyone here that?
> >
> >
>|||I don't think the OS will "mount" them ergo they're not available to SQL.
Not really sure tho.
Kevin Connell, MCDBA
----
The views expressed here are my own
and not of my employer.
----
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor.please_reply_to_public_forum.karaszi@.cornerstone.se>
wrote in message news:ubaoQYYhDHA.3700@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > If you're not running advanced server and enterprise edition, you won't
> > really be able to use more than 4 logical or physical processors.
> Apparently SQL2K with sp3 should be HT aware and be able to use more
logical processors then 4 on
> SE.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as
ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
>
> "Kevin" <ReplyTo@.Newsgroups.only> wrote in message
news:uLat%23WFhDHA.656@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > If you're not running advanced server and enterprise edition, you won't
> > really be able to use more than 4 logical or physical processors.
> >
> > But to answer your question, it depends - we saw little difference,
except
> > that HT is off now everywhere because of OS/Hardware stability problems.
> >
> > Just test it for yourself.
> >
> > --
> > Kevin Connell, MCDBA
> > ----
> > The views expressed here are my own
> > and not of my employer.
> > ----
> > "Kevin Jackson" <softwiz@.covad.net> wrote in message
> > news:eBpRK29gDHA.1192@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > >
> > > We are running SQL Server 2000 SP3 on Windows 2000 SP4 on a quad P4
xeon
> > 2.8
> > > ghz with 12 gig of ram. Hyperthreading is turned on and SQL sees 8
> > > processors.
> > >
> > > I've heard that it performs better with HT turned off. Anyone here
that?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||From what I've heard the same goes fro the OS as for SQL Server. With some service pack, the OS
becomes HT aware and can use more logical processors then the edition allow.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
"Kevin" <ReplyTo@.Newsgroups.only> wrote in message news:eHd$5O2hDHA.1048@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> I don't think the OS will "mount" them ergo they're not available to SQL.
> Not really sure tho.
>
> --
> Kevin Connell, MCDBA
> ----
> The views expressed here are my own
> and not of my employer.
> ----
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor.please_reply_to_public_forum.karaszi@.cornerstone.se>
> wrote in message news:ubaoQYYhDHA.3700@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > > If you're not running advanced server and enterprise edition, you won't
> > > really be able to use more than 4 logical or physical processors.
> >
> > Apparently SQL2K with sp3 should be HT aware and be able to use more
> logical processors then 4 on
> > SE.
> >
> > --
> > Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> > Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as
> ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
> >
> >
> > "Kevin" <ReplyTo@.Newsgroups.only> wrote in message
> news:uLat%23WFhDHA.656@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > If you're not running advanced server and enterprise edition, you won't
> > > really be able to use more than 4 logical or physical processors.
> > >
> > > But to answer your question, it depends - we saw little difference,
> except
> > > that HT is off now everywhere because of OS/Hardware stability problems.
> > >
> > > Just test it for yourself.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Kevin Connell, MCDBA
> > > ----
> > > The views expressed here are my own
> > > and not of my employer.
> > > ----
> > > "Kevin Jackson" <softwiz@.covad.net> wrote in message
> > > news:eBpRK29gDHA.1192@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > >
> > > > We are running SQL Server 2000 SP3 on Windows 2000 SP4 on a quad P4
> xeon
> > > 2.8
> > > > ghz with 12 gig of ram. Hyperthreading is turned on and SQL sees 8
> > > > processors.
> > > >
> > > > I've heard that it performs better with HT turned off. Anyone here
> that?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

OWC in Windows 98 connect to Analysis Services 2005

Is there a posibility to make OWC installed in Windows 98 connect to Analysis Services 2005?

The thing is we cannot install the OLE DB Provider 9.0 for Analysis Services 2005, because it needs Windows Installer 3.1, and we really need to connect OWC to 2005, because we could do it with Analysis Services 2000.

How can we do?

Thanks in advance.

If you want to use OWC, you must have the OLEDB provider 9.0 for Analysis Services. OWC executes on the client and uses OLEDB to talk to the SSAS server.

Unfortunately the only options I can think of if you cannot get the OLEDB provider installed is to either upgrade the client or to look at using something other than OWC. Some of the commercial "thin client" solutions would probably work. Mosha has a list on his site at www.mosha.com/msolap .

Monday, February 20, 2012

Overhead of Multiple SQL Calls

Hey folks,
I've got a client server C# Windows Form app that communicates with a SQL
Server database backend. The number of users is less than 50.
I'm wondering what the difference in overhead is when say:
a) A Stored Procedure is called ten times, returning 1 record each time
VS.
b) The same Stored Procedure is called once returning 10 records
Due to connection pooling I would think the overhead is somewhat negligible,
especially when there's less than 50 users. I know option 'b' would be the
preffered method when it comes to database communication, but is there
really a BIG difference between the two when dealing with this few users?
Thanks!
(also posted on windows.forms newsgroup on Feb 25 with no response)Hi John,
I would think the network traffic would be significantly greater when
submiting 10 calls to get 1 record each as opposed to 1 call to get 10
records. That's automatically 10X the client-to-server network traffic.
Constantly opening and closing connections, as well as maintaining
connections that aren't in use, can use up a lot of resources on SQL Server
also. Now whether this should cause problems with a small number of users
is another story... It probably depends on how they're using the server...
Are they running automated reports that are requesting records one at a time
and might include thousands of separate requests? Or maybe they're just
accessing 30 records/hour on average each?
Connection pooling helps, but it can't compensate completely for a design
flaw.
Are you using C#.NET? If so, you might look into ADO.NET. ADO.NET is
designed to handle a lot of the management issues for you.
Thanks,
Mike C.
"John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
news:OHFsJQqHFHA.560@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hey folks,
> I've got a client server C# Windows Form app that communicates with a SQL
> Server database backend. The number of users is less than 50.
> I'm wondering what the difference in overhead is when say:
> a) A Stored Procedure is called ten times, returning 1 record each time
> VS.
> b) The same Stored Procedure is called once returning 10 records
> Due to connection pooling I would think the overhead is somewhat
> negligible,
> especially when there's less than 50 users. I know option 'b' would be
> the
> preffered method when it comes to database communication, but is there
> really a BIG difference between the two when dealing with this few users?
> Thanks!
> (also posted on windows.forms newsgroup on Feb 25 with no response)
>|||You have that many today but what about tomorrow? Seriously you should
always keep scalability in mind when designing the app and the schema. In
your example you are incurring about 10 times the overhead on not only the
server but the network and the client. There certainly may be times when it
might make sense to do it the A way but if you can do it the B way then you
should.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
news:OHFsJQqHFHA.560@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hey folks,
> I've got a client server C# Windows Form app that communicates with a SQL
> Server database backend. The number of users is less than 50.
> I'm wondering what the difference in overhead is when say:
> a) A Stored Procedure is called ten times, returning 1 record each time
> VS.
> b) The same Stored Procedure is called once returning 10 records
> Due to connection pooling I would think the overhead is somewhat
> negligible,
> especially when there's less than 50 users. I know option 'b' would be
> the
> preffered method when it comes to database communication, but is there
> really a BIG difference between the two when dealing with this few users?
> Thanks!
> (also posted on windows.forms newsgroup on Feb 25 with no response)
>

Overhead of Multiple SQL Calls

Hey folks,
I've got a client server C# Windows Form app that communicates with a SQL
Server database backend. The number of users is less than 50.
I'm wondering what the difference in overhead is when say:
a) A Stored Procedure is called ten times, returning 1 record each time
VS.
b) The same Stored Procedure is called once returning 10 records
Due to connection pooling I would think the overhead is somewhat negligible,
especially when there's less than 50 users. I know option 'b' would be the
preffered method when it comes to database communication, but is there
really a BIG difference between the two when dealing with this few users?
Thanks!
(also posted on windows.forms newsgroup on Feb 25 with no response)Hi John,
I would think the network traffic would be significantly greater when
submiting 10 calls to get 1 record each as opposed to 1 call to get 10
records. That's automatically 10X the client-to-server network traffic.
Constantly opening and closing connections, as well as maintaining
connections that aren't in use, can use up a lot of resources on SQL Server
also. Now whether this should cause problems with a small number of users
is another story... It probably depends on how they're using the server...
Are they running automated reports that are requesting records one at a time
and might include thousands of separate requests? Or maybe they're just
accessing 30 records/hour on average each?
Connection pooling helps, but it can't compensate completely for a design
flaw.
Are you using C#.NET? If so, you might look into ADO.NET. ADO.NET is
designed to handle a lot of the management issues for you.
Thanks,
Mike C.
"John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
news:OHFsJQqHFHA.560@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hey folks,
> I've got a client server C# Windows Form app that communicates with a SQL
> Server database backend. The number of users is less than 50.
> I'm wondering what the difference in overhead is when say:
> a) A Stored Procedure is called ten times, returning 1 record each time
> VS.
> b) The same Stored Procedure is called once returning 10 records
> Due to connection pooling I would think the overhead is somewhat
> negligible,
> especially when there's less than 50 users. I know option 'b' would be
> the
> preffered method when it comes to database communication, but is there
> really a BIG difference between the two when dealing with this few users?
> Thanks!
> (also posted on windows.forms newsgroup on Feb 25 with no response)
>|||You have that many today but what about tomorrow? Seriously you should
always keep scalability in mind when designing the app and the schema. In
your example you are incurring about 10 times the overhead on not only the
server but the network and the client. There certainly may be times when it
might make sense to do it the A way but if you can do it the B way then you
should.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
news:OHFsJQqHFHA.560@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hey folks,
> I've got a client server C# Windows Form app that communicates with a SQL
> Server database backend. The number of users is less than 50.
> I'm wondering what the difference in overhead is when say:
> a) A Stored Procedure is called ten times, returning 1 record each time
> VS.
> b) The same Stored Procedure is called once returning 10 records
> Due to connection pooling I would think the overhead is somewhat
> negligible,
> especially when there's less than 50 users. I know option 'b' would be
> the
> preffered method when it comes to database communication, but is there
> really a BIG difference between the two when dealing with this few users?
> Thanks!
> (also posted on windows.forms newsgroup on Feb 25 with no response)
>

Overhead of Multiple SQL Calls

Hey folks,
I've got a client server C# Windows Form app that communicates with a SQL
Server database backend. The number of users is less than 50.
I'm wondering what the difference in overhead is when say:
a) A Stored Procedure is called ten times, returning 1 record each time
VS.
b) The same Stored Procedure is called once returning 10 records
Due to connection pooling I would think the overhead is somewhat negligible,
especially when there's less than 50 users. I know option 'b' would be the
preffered method when it comes to database communication, but is there
really a BIG difference between the two when dealing with this few users?
Thanks!
(also posted on windows.forms newsgroup on Feb 25 with no response)
Hi John,
I would think the network traffic would be significantly greater when
submiting 10 calls to get 1 record each as opposed to 1 call to get 10
records. That's automatically 10X the client-to-server network traffic.
Constantly opening and closing connections, as well as maintaining
connections that aren't in use, can use up a lot of resources on SQL Server
also. Now whether this should cause problems with a small number of users
is another story... It probably depends on how they're using the server...
Are they running automated reports that are requesting records one at a time
and might include thousands of separate requests? Or maybe they're just
accessing 30 records/hour on average each?
Connection pooling helps, but it can't compensate completely for a design
flaw.
Are you using C#.NET? If so, you might look into ADO.NET. ADO.NET is
designed to handle a lot of the management issues for you.
Thanks,
Mike C.
"John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
news:OHFsJQqHFHA.560@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hey folks,
> I've got a client server C# Windows Form app that communicates with a SQL
> Server database backend. The number of users is less than 50.
> I'm wondering what the difference in overhead is when say:
> a) A Stored Procedure is called ten times, returning 1 record each time
> VS.
> b) The same Stored Procedure is called once returning 10 records
> Due to connection pooling I would think the overhead is somewhat
> negligible,
> especially when there's less than 50 users. I know option 'b' would be
> the
> preffered method when it comes to database communication, but is there
> really a BIG difference between the two when dealing with this few users?
> Thanks!
> (also posted on windows.forms newsgroup on Feb 25 with no response)
>
|||You have that many today but what about tomorrow? Seriously you should
always keep scalability in mind when designing the app and the schema. In
your example you are incurring about 10 times the overhead on not only the
server but the network and the client. There certainly may be times when it
might make sense to do it the A way but if you can do it the B way then you
should.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
news:OHFsJQqHFHA.560@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hey folks,
> I've got a client server C# Windows Form app that communicates with a SQL
> Server database backend. The number of users is less than 50.
> I'm wondering what the difference in overhead is when say:
> a) A Stored Procedure is called ten times, returning 1 record each time
> VS.
> b) The same Stored Procedure is called once returning 10 records
> Due to connection pooling I would think the overhead is somewhat
> negligible,
> especially when there's less than 50 users. I know option 'b' would be
> the
> preffered method when it comes to database communication, but is there
> really a BIG difference between the two when dealing with this few users?
> Thanks!
> (also posted on windows.forms newsgroup on Feb 25 with no response)
>

Overcoming the connection limitations of MSDE....

I have a Windows application I have developed in VB using a MSDE
database. I will be distributing this to clients, most of which will
have only about 2-4 terminals, but there are many that will have 10-15
terminals running my application. I am afraid of what the performance
is going to be like with clients running a high number of terminals
because of the limitations of MSDE. I looked into the price of the
full version of SQL server for clients with a larger number of
terminals but it would cost way to much so that simply is not an
option for any of them.
I have spoken to other companies who develop products like mine and
they say they have clients running close to 30 terminals off of MSDE
with no slow down. They say they have done this by using connection
pooling. I have looked around on this issue and most people post
articles on connection pooling and the MSDE workload governor but I
have not seen any practical examples on specifically how to setup a
client application to overcome the MSDE workload limit.
As far as connection pooling is concerned, how exactly will this help
in limiting the workload? Does anyone have an specific examples of
how I would do this? I don't want to keep looking around and having
to experiment around with things that may or may not work because I
have no real way of testing this other than giving it to clients to
test. I'd really like to see an actual example of how someone has
done specifically what I'm doing here and has gotten it to work. I'm
surprised there are not more articles on this specific subject, but I
could not find any.
Any help would be appreciated, thanks...
On 15 Apr 2004 08:45:47 -0700, bostonpartykid@.yahoo.com (Ray Lavelle)
wrote:

>I have a Windows application I have developed in VB using a MSDE
>database. I will be distributing this to clients, most of which will
>have only about 2-4 terminals, but there are many that will have 10-15
>terminals running my application. I am afraid of what the performance
>is going to be like with clients running a high number of terminals
>because of the limitations of MSDE. I looked into the price of the
>full version of SQL server for clients with a larger number of
>terminals but it would cost way to much so that simply is not an
>option for any of them.
>I have spoken to other companies who develop products like mine and
>they say they have clients running close to 30 terminals off of MSDE
>with no slow down. They say they have done this by using connection
>pooling. I have looked around on this issue and most people post
>articles on connection pooling and the MSDE workload governor but I
>have not seen any practical examples on specifically how to setup a
>client application to overcome the MSDE workload limit.
>As far as connection pooling is concerned, how exactly will this help
>in limiting the workload? Does anyone have an specific examples of
>how I would do this? I don't want to keep looking around and having
>to experiment around with things that may or may not work because I
>have no real way of testing this other than giving it to clients to
>test. I'd really like to see an actual example of how someone has
>done specifically what I'm doing here and has gotten it to work. I'm
>surprised there are not more articles on this specific subject, but I
>could not find any.
>Any help would be appreciated, thanks...
Don't keep your connection open. Open a connection, get the desired
data and then close the connection. Open a connection, update/insert
the desired data and then close the connection. If your app doesn't
do really intensive data access and you aren't keeping the connection
open, chances of having more than 5 users hit the DB at the same time
are pretty slim.
HTH,
Bryan
__________________________________________________ __________
New Vision Software "When the going gets weird,"
Bryan Stafford "the weird turn pro."
alpine_don'tsendspam@.mvps.org Hunter S. Thompson -
Microsoft MVP-Visual Basic Fear and Loathing in LasVegas
|||hi Ray,
"Ray Lavelle" <bostonpartykid@.yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:d8653140.0404150745.2f9911ec@.posting.google.c om...
> I have a Windows application I have developed in VB using a MSDE
> database. I will be distributing this to clients, most of which will
> have only about 2-4 terminals, but there are many that will have 10-15
> terminals running my application.
> CUT
as Bryan already pointed out, keep your transactions as short as possible...
it's not a matter of connections, becouse users are "usually" idle, and
connection pooling is on by default, but can be not that useful, becouse
connections in the pool can be reused only if the connection string is exact
the same as the last used...
but, again, keep your batches as short as possible.
Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtmhttp://italy.mvps.org
DbaMgr2k ver 0.7.0 - DbaMgr ver 0.53.0
(my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a visual
interface)
-- remove DMO to reply
|||Ray I have one question though about your scenario as I am in the same boat as you are...
How do you plan to deploy your app with MSDE. I know Microsoft has dismissed merge modules way and is advising the bootstrapper. I am still investigating the bootstrapper but was wondering how will you be setting up your desktop app (I believe it is des
ktop app) so that the data (MSDE database) is on shared server. Are their any specific customizations that you are doing to the setup. Do you have any code for this which you can post for all...
Thanks a goodluck
dev
|||The number of connection that you can have with MSDE are the same as SQL
Server (32767) . The limits in MSDE are related to the amount of work that
it can do at any given time and the size of the database. If your clients
are not hammering the database server with constant requests then it is
certainly possible to scale to possibly hundreds of connections. For
information about how this workload governor works see this link:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/?u...asp?frame=true
Your application should only hit the database when it needs to and you
should strive to get all the data you need for a function of your
application in one request. Use stored procedures to handle the logic of
what data elements you need; rather than getting a piece of data returning
it to the application, deciding you need an additional pieces of data and
then fetching them repeatedly from the database.
We have customers using MSDE with our application and running many client
workstations with no problems. On the other hand, many of our customers
already have one or more installations of SQL Server on site which they
install our database to and are able to scale to dozens of workstations.
Jim
"Ray Lavelle" <bostonpartykid@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d8653140.0404150745.2f9911ec@.posting.google.c om...
> I have a Windows application I have developed in VB using a MSDE
> database. I will be distributing this to clients, most of which will
> have only about 2-4 terminals, but there are many that will have 10-15
> terminals running my application. I am afraid of what the performance
> is going to be like with clients running a high number of terminals
> because of the limitations of MSDE. I looked into the price of the
> full version of SQL server for clients with a larger number of
> terminals but it would cost way to much so that simply is not an
> option for any of them.
> I have spoken to other companies who develop products like mine and
> they say they have clients running close to 30 terminals off of MSDE
> with no slow down. They say they have done this by using connection
> pooling. I have looked around on this issue and most people post
> articles on connection pooling and the MSDE workload governor but I
> have not seen any practical examples on specifically how to setup a
> client application to overcome the MSDE workload limit.
> As far as connection pooling is concerned, how exactly will this help
> in limiting the workload? Does anyone have an specific examples of
> how I would do this? I don't want to keep looking around and having
> to experiment around with things that may or may not work because I
> have no real way of testing this other than giving it to clients to
> test. I'd really like to see an actual example of how someone has
> done specifically what I'm doing here and has gotten it to work. I'm
> surprised there are not more articles on this specific subject, but I
> could not find any.
> Any help would be appreciated, thanks...
|||Jim,
Just curious, how do you change the connection string to specify where the database as some of your clients use MSDE and some use SQL Server.. does it happen during the installation. Also do you prompt them during installation on whether they want to ins
tall MSDE or use SQL Server they already have...
thanks
dev
|||You'd be much better off just disabling the workload governor. It's really
easy to do, all you need is change one byte in a hex editor.
Here's the method:
1. The file you will be changing is SQLBOOT.DLL. This can be found in
Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\Binn. The rest of this method only applies to
version 2000.080.0194.00 of the file, as included in Service Pack 3a.
Check the version of the file by looking at the Version tab of its
Properties window, and the size of the file, which should be 33,340 bytes.
You may also want to check the MD5 sum of the file, which is
175b236765fb446f46da5da635681ab8.
2. Obtain a suitable hex editor from somewhere. A fairly decent one that can
do the job is available here:
http://www.catch22.org.uk/software/hexedit.asp
3. Make a backup copy of SQLBOOT.DLL somewhere, just in case.
4. Stop MSDE's MSSQLSERVER service.
5. Open the original SQLBOOT.DLL in the hex editor.
6. Find the byte at location 10145 decimal / 0x27A1 hexadecimal.
7. The current value of the byte should be 08. Change it to 00.
This changes the target benchmark users / concurrent workload limit value
from eight to zero. When the SQL Server reads this as being zero, it
disables the workload governor.
8. Save SQLBOOT.DLL.
9. Start the MSSQLSERVER service.
If it worked, the SQL statement "DBCC CONCURRENCYVIOLATION" should return
without any output (normally it would display a summary of when the workload
governor has been active.)
Hope this helps!

Friday, March 30, 2012

PAE VS SQL Server AWE

PAE VS SQL Server AWE

PAE VS SQL Server AWE

PAE & AWE Question

PAE & AWE on x64 Windows & SQL

PAE & AWE on x64 Windows & SQL

Monday, March 26, 2012

PackageForTheWEB error

Friday, March 23, 2012

Package scheduling and error trace-

Monday, March 12, 2012

P4 xeon Hyperthreading

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

OWC in Windows 98 connect to Analysis Services 2005

Monday, February 20, 2012

Overhead of Multiple SQL Calls

Overhead of Multiple SQL Calls

Overhead of Multiple SQL Calls

Overcoming the connection limitations of MSDE....

sql overflow error

Blog Archive

About Me