Hello,
I need some assistance configuring SQL 2005 running on an 8GB server running
Windows 2003 Enterprise. I've read some of the SQL 2005 documentation, but
I'm still confused as to what I need to do. Given this configuration, do I
need to do anything for SQL 2005 to be able to utilize the 8GB of RAM, and if
I do, what exactly needs to be done? Sorry, I'm a newbie when it comes to SQL
2005.
Thanks."Marks70" <Marks70@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:28A505B8-A98A-4394-8802-F04AC63E72B5@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I need some assistance configuring SQL 2005 running on an 8GB server
> running
> Windows 2003 Enterprise. I've read some of the SQL 2005 documentation, but
> I'm still confused as to what I need to do. Given this configuration, do I
> need to do anything for SQL 2005 to be able to utilize the 8GB of RAM, and
> if
> I do, what exactly needs to be done? Sorry, I'm a newbie when it comes to
> SQL
> 2005.
>
When running 64bit Windows and 64bit SQL Server, nothing special needs to be
done.
On 32bit Windows, or when running 32bit SQL Server on 64bit Windows, see the
following BOL topic:
Using AWE
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms175581.aspx
However, AWE has a performance penalty, so you might be better off just
using the /3GB switch and limiting SQL Server to non-AWE memory. Basically
each server workload will, at some point, experience a diminishing
performance return for incremental memory addition. Under load, measure the
SQLServer:Buffer Manager: Page reads/sec. If adding memory stops materially
affecting this number at or below 3GB, you probably don't want to use AWE.
David|||Thanks for your response. Please let me know if I am understanding this
correctly. If I use the /3GB switch, my OS will have access to 1GB of memory
and SQL 2005 (and other apps) will have access to 3GB. However, the remaining
4GB of the server's total of 8GB will not be used? Am I understanding this
correctly?
Also, if I use the /pae parameter (and therefore should not use the /3GB
parameter), I would have access to the entire 8GB but may not have as good of
performance as with using the /3GB switch? Did I understand you correctly?
Thanks!
"David Browne" wrote:
> "Marks70" <Marks70@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:28A505B8-A98A-4394-8802-F04AC63E72B5@.microsoft.com...
> > Hello,
> >
> > I need some assistance configuring SQL 2005 running on an 8GB server
> > running
> > Windows 2003 Enterprise. I've read some of the SQL 2005 documentation, but
> > I'm still confused as to what I need to do. Given this configuration, do I
> > need to do anything for SQL 2005 to be able to utilize the 8GB of RAM, and
> > if
> > I do, what exactly needs to be done? Sorry, I'm a newbie when it comes to
> > SQL
> > 2005.
> >
> When running 64bit Windows and 64bit SQL Server, nothing special needs to be
> done.
> On 32bit Windows, or when running 32bit SQL Server on 64bit Windows, see the
> following BOL topic:
> Using AWE
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms175581.aspx
>
> However, AWE has a performance penalty, so you might be better off just
> using the /3GB switch and limiting SQL Server to non-AWE memory. Basically
> each server workload will, at some point, experience a diminishing
> performance return for incremental memory addition. Under load, measure the
> SQLServer:Buffer Manager: Page reads/sec. If adding memory stops materially
> affecting this number at or below 3GB, you probably don't want to use AWE.
> David
>
>|||The penalty for AWE is not that heavy that you should ignore it altogether.
The /PAE is so windows can access memory above 4GB and allows apps using AWE
to also access the memory above 4GB as well. The If SQL Server is the only
app on the server then I would set the /3GB and /PAE in the boot.ini. Then
set the MAX Memory setting in SQL Server to 7GB and turn on AWE. You may
have to adjust the max setting down some if you need more memory for the os
or other apps.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Marks70" <Marks70@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8F92E162-EADB-4ECD-A616-A6A5E9ADF7A6@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks for your response. Please let me know if I am understanding this
> correctly. If I use the /3GB switch, my OS will have access to 1GB of
> memory
> and SQL 2005 (and other apps) will have access to 3GB. However, the
> remaining
> 4GB of the server's total of 8GB will not be used? Am I understanding this
> correctly?
> Also, if I use the /pae parameter (and therefore should not use the /3GB
> parameter), I would have access to the entire 8GB but may not have as good
> of
> performance as with using the /3GB switch? Did I understand you correctly?
> Thanks!
> "David Browne" wrote:
>> "Marks70" <Marks70@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:28A505B8-A98A-4394-8802-F04AC63E72B5@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I need some assistance configuring SQL 2005 running on an 8GB server
>> > running
>> > Windows 2003 Enterprise. I've read some of the SQL 2005 documentation,
>> > but
>> > I'm still confused as to what I need to do. Given this configuration,
>> > do I
>> > need to do anything for SQL 2005 to be able to utilize the 8GB of RAM,
>> > and
>> > if
>> > I do, what exactly needs to be done? Sorry, I'm a newbie when it comes
>> > to
>> > SQL
>> > 2005.
>> >
>> When running 64bit Windows and 64bit SQL Server, nothing special needs to
>> be
>> done.
>> On 32bit Windows, or when running 32bit SQL Server on 64bit Windows, see
>> the
>> following BOL topic:
>> Using AWE
>> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms175581.aspx
>>
>> However, AWE has a performance penalty, so you might be better off just
>> using the /3GB switch and limiting SQL Server to non-AWE memory.
>> Basically
>> each server workload will, at some point, experience a diminishing
>> performance return for incremental memory addition. Under load, measure
>> the
>> SQLServer:Buffer Manager: Page reads/sec. If adding memory stops
>> materially
>> affecting this number at or below 3GB, you probably don't want to use
>> AWE.
>> David
>>|||Thanks Andrew. You actually answered a follow-up question I had reqarding
whether or not I should be using both the /3GB and /PAE in the boot.ini file.
Do you know what the affect would be if I only added the /PAE switch without
the /3GB switch?
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> The penalty for AWE is not that heavy that you should ignore it altogether.
> The /PAE is so windows can access memory above 4GB and allows apps using AWE
> to also access the memory above 4GB as well. The If SQL Server is the only
> app on the server then I would set the /3GB and /PAE in the boot.ini. Then
> set the MAX Memory setting in SQL Server to 7GB and turn on AWE. You may
> have to adjust the max setting down some if you need more memory for the os
> or other apps.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Marks70" <Marks70@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8F92E162-EADB-4ECD-A616-A6A5E9ADF7A6@.microsoft.com...
> > Thanks for your response. Please let me know if I am understanding this
> > correctly. If I use the /3GB switch, my OS will have access to 1GB of
> > memory
> > and SQL 2005 (and other apps) will have access to 3GB. However, the
> > remaining
> > 4GB of the server's total of 8GB will not be used? Am I understanding this
> > correctly?
> >
> > Also, if I use the /pae parameter (and therefore should not use the /3GB
> > parameter), I would have access to the entire 8GB but may not have as good
> > of
> > performance as with using the /3GB switch? Did I understand you correctly?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > "David Browne" wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "Marks70" <Marks70@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:28A505B8-A98A-4394-8802-F04AC63E72B5@.microsoft.com...
> >> > Hello,
> >> >
> >> > I need some assistance configuring SQL 2005 running on an 8GB server
> >> > running
> >> > Windows 2003 Enterprise. I've read some of the SQL 2005 documentation,
> >> > but
> >> > I'm still confused as to what I need to do. Given this configuration,
> >> > do I
> >> > need to do anything for SQL 2005 to be able to utilize the 8GB of RAM,
> >> > and
> >> > if
> >> > I do, what exactly needs to be done? Sorry, I'm a newbie when it comes
> >> > to
> >> > SQL
> >> > 2005.
> >> >
> >>
> >> When running 64bit Windows and 64bit SQL Server, nothing special needs to
> >> be
> >> done.
> >>
> >> On 32bit Windows, or when running 32bit SQL Server on 64bit Windows, see
> >> the
> >> following BOL topic:
> >> Using AWE
> >> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms175581.aspx
> >>
> >>
> >> However, AWE has a performance penalty, so you might be better off just
> >> using the /3GB switch and limiting SQL Server to non-AWE memory.
> >> Basically
> >> each server workload will, at some point, experience a diminishing
> >> performance return for incremental memory addition. Under load, measure
> >> the
> >> SQLServer:Buffer Manager: Page reads/sec. If adding memory stops
> >> materially
> >> affecting this number at or below 3GB, you probably don't want to use
> >> AWE.
> >>
> >> David
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>|||"Marks70" <Marks70@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3D3541BC-D7AA-43FD-881E-19FBDE54BFF9@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks Andrew. You actually answered a follow-up question I had reqarding
> whether or not I should be using both the /3GB and /PAE in the boot.ini
> file.
> Do you know what the affect would be if I only added the /PAE switch
> without
> the /3GB switch?
>
SQL Server would use a 2GB user mode address space and access the rest of
the memory through AWE.
David|||As opposed to using a 3GB user mode address space if the /3GB switch was
used? I guess I'm trying to get a better idea of why I would use the /3GB
switch in conjunction with using the /PAE switch as opposed to just using the
/PAE switch by itself.
"David Browne" wrote:
> "Marks70" <Marks70@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:3D3541BC-D7AA-43FD-881E-19FBDE54BFF9@.microsoft.com...
> > Thanks Andrew. You actually answered a follow-up question I had reqarding
> > whether or not I should be using both the /3GB and /PAE in the boot.ini
> > file.
> > Do you know what the affect would be if I only added the /PAE switch
> > without
> > the /3GB switch?
> >
> SQL Server would use a 2GB user mode address space and access the rest of
> the memory through AWE.
> David
>
>|||"Marks70" <Marks70@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4E5ACEB7-F6F1-47BA-A867-33664F4362A2@.microsoft.com...
> As opposed to using a 3GB user mode address space if the /3GB switch was
> used?
>I guess I'm trying to get a better idea of why I would use the /3GB
> switch in conjunction with using the /PAE switch as opposed to just using
> the
> /PAE switch by itself.
>
Using /3GB gives SQL Server a larger user mode address space (which is
good), but constricts to total kernel memory to 1GB. This limits the total
physical memory usable on the server to (I think) 16GB.
David
> "David Browne" wrote:
>> "Marks70" <Marks70@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:3D3541BC-D7AA-43FD-881E-19FBDE54BFF9@.microsoft.com...
>> > Thanks Andrew. You actually answered a follow-up question I had
>> > reqarding
>> > whether or not I should be using both the /3GB and /PAE in the boot.ini
>> > file.
>> > Do you know what the affect would be if I only added the /PAE switch
>> > without
>> > the /3GB switch?
>> >
>> SQL Server would use a 2GB user mode address space and access the rest of
>> the memory through AWE.
>> David
>>|||For one that is 1GB more that SQL Server can address directly (without using
AWE) and 1 GB less that needs to be managed by AWE. But it can also come in
handy if you need more directly addressable memory than just 2GB. The data
buffer is the only part of SQL Server than can use the AWE memory.
Everything else needs to use the 2 or 3GB (depending on the /3GB) so it can
get tight with only 2GB in some cases.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Marks70" <Marks70@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4E5ACEB7-F6F1-47BA-A867-33664F4362A2@.microsoft.com...
> As opposed to using a 3GB user mode address space if the /3GB switch was
> used? I guess I'm trying to get a better idea of why I would use the /3GB
> switch in conjunction with using the /PAE switch as opposed to just using
> the
> /PAE switch by itself.
> "David Browne" wrote:
>> "Marks70" <Marks70@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:3D3541BC-D7AA-43FD-881E-19FBDE54BFF9@.microsoft.com...
>> > Thanks Andrew. You actually answered a follow-up question I had
>> > reqarding
>> > whether or not I should be using both the /3GB and /PAE in the boot.ini
>> > file.
>> > Do you know what the affect would be if I only added the /PAE switch
>> > without
>> > the /3GB switch?
>> >
>> SQL Server would use a 2GB user mode address space and access the rest of
>> the memory through AWE.
>> David
>>
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment