PHWinfo - Afficher un message - Windows 2003 Standard, SQL Server 2005, and RAM

03/11/2006, 17h19

The OS needs some memory, and according to various Microsoft documents, AWE requires up to 1 GB as operational overhead.

I recommend using the /3GB switch, and leaving AWE out of the mix. However, you may wish to explore what happens to performance if you were to use AWE with only 4GB of total memory.

See these articles for more guidance:

Configuration -Memory, Adjust Memory Usage
http://support.microsoft.com/default...;en-us;q321363

Configuration -Memory, AWE, Not usable < 4GB
http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...dv64BitEnv.doc

Configuration -Memory, Can not use more than 2GB of memory
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=811891

Configuration -Memory, Large Memory Support Is Available in Windows 2000 (AWE)
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=283037

Configuration -Memory, SQL Server 7 & 2000 memory usage
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=321363

Configuration -Memory, SQL Server Memory
http://sqljunkies.com/Tutorial/0D4FF...2FE2D58F6.scuk

Configuration -Memory, SQL Server to use more than 2 GB of physical memory
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750/

Configuration -Memory, Using AWE Memory
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp

--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc

Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous

You can't someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the top yourself.
- H. Norman Schwarzkopf

"Michael Gorsuch" <michael.gorsuch@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1162562717.322395.275500@k70g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>I am using standard edition. What about AWE? Is that an effective way
> to assign the extra 2G over to SQL Server?
>
> Thanks for the reply,
>
> Michael
>
> On Nov 2, 4:53 pm, "Arnie Rowland" <a...@1568.com> wrote:
>> You can easily SQL Server 3GB of memory by using the /3GB switch. That
>> leaves the remaining 1GB for the OS.
>>
>> However, you didn't mention which version of SQL Server 2005 you are using.
>> Express can ONLY use 1 GB, and Workgroup maxes out at 3GB.
>>
>> --
>> Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
>> Westwood Consulting, Inc
>>
>> Most good judgment comes from experience.
>> Most experience comes from bad judgment.
>> - Anonymous
>>
>> You can't someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
>> top yourself.
>> - H. Norman Schwarzkopf
>>
>> "Michael Gorsuch" <michael.gors...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1162502106.049109.306060@h54g2000cwb.g ooglegroups.com...
>>
>> > Hey guys. I'm trying to understand how Windows handles addressable
>> > memory with SQL Server.
>>
>> > I have read that Windows will give 2GB to apps, and save 2 for the OS /
>> > Shared pool. Right now, I have 2 GB of RAM in my box, but would like
>> > to be able to give SQL Server 2005 a dedicated 2 GB.
>>
>> > If I expand my box to 4 GB of RAM (which it can handle), can I expect
>> > to be able to assign the extra 2GB to SQL? Will it really be able to
>> > take advantage of this, or is this just wishful thinking?
>>
>> > Thanks,
>>
>> > Michael
>

03/11/2006, 17h19	#4
Arnie Rowland Messages: n/a Hébergeur:	Re: Windows 2003 Standard, SQL Server 2005, and RAM The OS needs some memory, and according to various Microsoft documents, AWE requires up to 1 GB as operational overhead. I recommend using the /3GB switch, and leaving AWE out of the mix. However, you may wish to explore what happens to performance if you were to use AWE with only 4GB of total memory. See these articles for more guidance: Configuration -Memory, Adjust Memory Usage http://support.microsoft.com/default...;en-us;q321363 Configuration -Memory, AWE, Not usable < 4GB http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...dv64BitEnv.doc Configuration -Memory, Can not use more than 2GB of memory http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=811891 Configuration -Memory, Large Memory Support Is Available in Windows 2000 (AWE) http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=283037 Configuration -Memory, SQL Server 7 & 2000 memory usage http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=321363 Configuration -Memory, SQL Server Memory http://sqljunkies.com/Tutorial/0D4FF...2FE2D58F6.scuk Configuration -Memory, SQL Server to use more than 2 GB of physical memory http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750/ Configuration -Memory, Using AWE Memory http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp -- Arnie Rowland, Ph.D. Westwood Consulting, Inc Most good judgment comes from experience. Most experience comes from bad judgment. - Anonymous You can't someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the top yourself. - H. Norman Schwarzkopf "Michael Gorsuch" <michael.gorsuch@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1162562717.322395.275500@k70g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com... >I am using standard edition. What about AWE? Is that an effective way > to assign the extra 2G over to SQL Server? > > Thanks for the reply, > > Michael > > On Nov 2, 4:53 pm, "Arnie Rowland" <a...@1568.com> wrote: >> You can easily SQL Server 3GB of memory by using the /3GB switch. That >> leaves the remaining 1GB for the OS. >> >> However, you didn't mention which version of SQL Server 2005 you are using. >> Express can ONLY use 1 GB, and Workgroup maxes out at 3GB. >> >> -- >> Arnie Rowland, Ph.D. >> Westwood Consulting, Inc >> >> Most good judgment comes from experience. >> Most experience comes from bad judgment. >> - Anonymous >> >> You can't someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the >> top yourself. >> - H. Norman Schwarzkopf >> >> "Michael Gorsuch" <michael.gors...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1162502106.049109.306060@h54g2000cwb.g ooglegroups.com... >> >> > Hey guys. I'm trying to understand how Windows handles addressable >> > memory with SQL Server. >> >> > I have read that Windows will give 2GB to apps, and save 2 for the OS / >> > Shared pool. Right now, I have 2 GB of RAM in my box, but would like >> > to be able to give SQL Server 2005 a dedicated 2 GB. >> >> > If I expand my box to 4 GB of RAM (which it can handle), can I expect >> > to be able to assign the extra 2GB to SQL? Will it really be able to >> > take advantage of this, or is this just wishful thinking? >> >> > Thanks, >> >> > Michael >