Hi,

I have a windows 2003 server enterprise edition x64 w/SP2 and MS SQL Server
2005 x64 Enterprise Edition (1 instance).

I have a server IBM w/6GB in RAM. The task manager shows only 4GB of
available memory but 6GB of physical memory. In the MS SQL Server properties
/ Memory / Maximum server memory it allows using only 2GB. I have not
activated AWE options because I understand that 64 bits architecture doesn't
need it to work with more than 4GB. Please see images attached.

What I want to do is to assign 4GB of RAM to SQL Server and 2GB for the OS.
I'm not sure if it's the best configuration (5GB and 1GB probably is
better). I have a RAID5 for the data files of the SQL Server and I've being
thinking to use 4GB of cache in this RAID (I don't know if this is a good
idea) for better performance.

I appreciate your comments regarding this matter.

Edmundo J. Davila

From the images I see that your Windows shows 6GB of Physical RAM Totally
and ~4GB of it is available because the rest is being used by Windows and
other applications. So it looks you don't have a problem with Windows and
memory.

You don't need to enable AWE because as you mentioned you don't need it in
x64. However, how do you know it uses only 2GB of RAM? Has you SQL Server
ever needed using more then 2GB of RAM? As it may not need to use more than
2GB of RAM, that might caused you think that it uses only 2GB of it.

If you want your SQL Server to use only 4GB of RAM then you can set the Max
Server Memory value to 4000 from Server Properties in SSMS.

The best configuration for SQL Server database files to seperate the Log and
Data files. If it's possible, put your Log file on a RAID1 and put your data
files on a RAID10 (better) or RAID5.

--
Ekrem Önsoy



"Edmundo J. Davila" <edavila@monisa.com> wrote in message
news:115665FE-144F-4668-93CB-B415FF0C19C3@microsoft.com...
> Hi,
>
> I have a windows 2003 server enterprise edition x64 w/SP2 and MS SQL
> Server
> 2005 x64 Enterprise Edition (1 instance).
>
> I have a server IBM w/6GB in RAM. The task manager shows only 4GB of
> available memory but 6GB of physical memory. In the MS SQL Server
> properties
> / Memory / Maximum server memory it allows using only 2GB. I have not
> activated AWE options because I understand that 64 bits architecture
> doesn't
> need it to work with more than 4GB. Please see images attached.
>
> What I want to do is to assign 4GB of RAM to SQL Server and 2GB for the
> OS.
> I'm not sure if it's the best configuration (5GB and 1GB probably is
> better). I have a RAID5 for the data files of the SQL Server and I've
> being
> thinking to use 4GB of cache in this RAID (I don't know if this is a good
> idea) for better performance.
>
> I appreciate your comments regarding this matter.
>
> Edmundo J. Davila
>

Ekrem,

Thank you for your answer.

I have the following doubts:

1. If 64 bits architecture doesn't need AWE, Why is the option available in
the SQL Server 64 bits?

2. I'm supposing SQL Server is using a maximum of 2GB of RAM, because I
can't increase the maximum server memory in the SQL Server (the top is
2147483647)? Because of that I can't set (at least from the interface) the
maximum memory of SQL Server to 4GB.

3. Why do you think is better RAID10 than RAID5. As far as I know (I'm not
an expert on RAIDs) RAID10 would be slower because of the redundancy.

Your answer has been very useful. I'll appreciate your comments regarding to
my doubts.

Edmundo J. Davila

"Ekrem Önsoy" <ekrem@btegitim.com> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
news:9C9CC0AD-4F63-46F5-BDB3-C858B41EDE7A@microsoft.com...
> From the images I see that your Windows shows 6GB of Physical RAM Totally
> and ~4GB of it is available because the rest is being used by Windows and
> other applications. So it looks you don't have a problem with Windows and
> memory.


>
> You don't need to enable AWE because as you mentioned you don't need it in
> x64. However, how do you know it uses only 2GB of RAM? Has you SQL Server
> ever needed using more then 2GB of RAM? As it may not need to use more
> than 2GB of RAM, that might caused you think that it uses only 2GB of it.
>
> If you want your SQL Server to use only 4GB of RAM then you can set the
> Max Server Memory value to 4000 from Server Properties in SSMS.
>
> The best configuration for SQL Server database files to seperate the Log
> and Data files. If it's possible, put your Log file on a RAID1 and put
> your data files on a RAID10 (better) or RAID5.
>
> --
> Ekrem Önsoy
>
>
>
> "Edmundo J. Davila" <edavila@monisa.com> wrote in message
> news:115665FE-144F-4668-93CB-B415FF0C19C3@microsoft.com...
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a windows 2003 server enterprise edition x64 w/SP2 and MS SQL
>> Server
>> 2005 x64 Enterprise Edition (1 instance).
>>
>> I have a server IBM w/6GB in RAM. The task manager shows only 4GB of
>> available memory but 6GB of physical memory. In the MS SQL Server
>> properties
>> / Memory / Maximum server memory it allows using only 2GB. I have not
>> activated AWE options because I understand that 64 bits architecture
>> doesn't
>> need it to work with more than 4GB. Please see images attached.
>>
>> What I want to do is to assign 4GB of RAM to SQL Server and 2GB for the
>> OS.
>> I'm not sure if it's the best configuration (5GB and 1GB probably is
>> better). I have a RAID5 for the data files of the SQL Server and I've
>> being
>> thinking to use 4GB of cache in this RAID (I don't know if this is a good
>> idea) for better performance.
>>
>> I appreciate your comments regarding this matter.
>>
>> Edmundo J. Davila
>>
>

Hello Edmundo!

Answers are in lines.

--
Ekrem Önsoy
http://www.ekremonsoy.net , http://ekremonsoy.blogspot.com
MCBDA, MCTS: SQL Server 2005, MCITPBA, MCSD.Net, MCSE, MCT



"Edmundo J. Davila" <edavila@monisa.com> wrote in message
news:066B9EFE-EDC3-4AF5-AF01-509F3263EF73@microsoft.com...
> Ekrem,
>
> Thank you for your answer.
>
> I have the following doubts:
>
> 1. If 64 bits architecture doesn't need AWE, Why is the option available
> in the SQL Server 64 bits?

Honestly, I don't really know why that checkbox is exist in x64 version of
SQL Server. I'll ask you to check out the following document from BOL to
learn more about usage of AWE option in SQL Server 2005 and why it's not
necessary to use it in x64 systems.

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms175581.aspx

>
> 2. I'm supposing SQL Server is using a maximum of 2GB of RAM, because I
> can't increase the maximum server memory in the SQL Server (the top is
> 2147483647)? Because of that I can't set (at least from the interface) the
> maximum memory of SQL Server to 4GB.

2147483647 is MB, not KB or BYTE. This is a default and max value.

>
> 3. Why do you think is better RAID10 than RAID5. As far as I know (I'm
> not an expert on RAIDs) RAID10 would be slower because of the redundancy.

Take a look at the following article by S. Kagel:
http://www.miracleas.com/BAARF/RAID5_versus_RAID10.txt

> Your answer has been very useful. I'll appreciate your comments regarding
> to my doubts.
>
> Edmundo J. Davila

Ekrem,

I read Mr. Kagel's article about RAIDs. I'm not complety sure that RAID10 is
the best option if I want performance. In backing up and don't have any
doubt that RAID10 is better than RAID5 (because of the redundancy). I have a
database server with high reading and writing operations. I'm not sure if
RAID10 will make the writing process slower than RAID5.

Edmundo J. Davila
Ekrem Önsoy" <ekrem@btegitim.com> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
news:7473FF0A-8F12-48C5-8E7C-2E6C4DD65054@microsoft.com...
> Hello Edmundo!
>
> Answers are in lines.
>
> --
> Ekrem Önsoy
> http://www.ekremonsoy.net , http://ekremonsoy.blogspot.com
> MCBDA, MCTS: SQL Server 2005, MCITPBA, MCSD.Net, MCSE, MCT
>
>
>
> "Edmundo J. Davila" <edavila@monisa.com> wrote in message
> news:066B9EFE-EDC3-4AF5-AF01-509F3263EF73@microsoft.com...
>> Ekrem,
>>
>> Thank you for your answer.
>>
>> I have the following doubts:
>>
>> 1. If 64 bits architecture doesn't need AWE, Why is the option available
>> in the SQL Server 64 bits?
>
> Honestly, I don't really know why that checkbox is exist in x64 version of
> SQL Server. I'll ask you to check out the following document from BOL to
> learn more about usage of AWE option in SQL Server 2005 and why it's not
> necessary to use it in x64 systems.
>
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms175581.aspx
>
>>
>> 2. I'm supposing SQL Server is using a maximum of 2GB of RAM, because I
>> can't increase the maximum server memory in the SQL Server (the top is
>> 2147483647)? Because of that I can't set (at least from the interface)
>> the maximum memory of SQL Server to 4GB.
>
> 2147483647 is MB, not KB or BYTE. This is a default and max value.
>
>>
>> 3. Why do you think is better RAID10 than RAID5. As far as I know (I'm
>> not an expert on RAIDs) RAID10 would be slower because of the redundancy.
>
> Take a look at the following article by S. Kagel:
> http://www.miracleas.com/BAARF/RAID5_versus_RAID10.txt
>
>> Your answer has been very useful. I'll appreciate your comments regarding
>> to my doubts.
>>
>> Edmundo J. Davila
>

First of all, I'm not a RAID expert. However, I read about RAIDs a lot so I
just shared my idea with you.

However, it would be very useful to test this kind of configuration before
implementing it. Test RAID5 and RAID10 for your environment if you have
time.

You said that your I\O rate is mixed read and write. For this kind of mixed
needs RAID10 is recommended.

Generally tests say that RAID1' s write performance is much more good over
RAID5, so use RAID1 for your log files. RAID5's read performance is much
better than RAID1's so locate your data files on a RAID5. However, if write
rate is high in your environment, than a RAID10 would be more appropriate
for your data files.

After deciding which RAID configuration(s) is the best for your particular
environment, then locate your database log files and data files on different
physical disks according to those RAID choices.

These opinions are from the tests people perform in their environments. We
can not be sure these results would work for everybody perfectly. So, the
best is test test and test it again.

I'll give you some links below, see yourself. Also, read the comments in
those pages.
http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/billg/arc...rformance.aspx
http://www.astro.ufl.edu/~ken/perf_tests.html
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea...-that-bad.aspx

--
Ekrem Önsoy
http://www.ekremonsoy.net , http://ekremonsoy.blogspot.com
MCBDA, MCTS: SQL Server 2005, MCITPBA, MCSD.Net, MCSE, MCT



"Edmundo J. Davila" <edavila@monisa.com> wrote in message
news:91FF0342-72B9-42F8-8BBC-E5FE203E485C@microsoft.com...
> Ekrem,
>
> I read Mr. Kagel's article about RAIDs. I'm not complety sure that RAID10
> is the best option if I want performance. In backing up and don't have any
> doubt that RAID10 is better than RAID5 (because of the redundancy). I have
> a database server with high reading and writing operations. I'm not sure
> if RAID10 will make the writing process slower than RAID5.
>
> Edmundo J. Davila
> Ekrem Önsoy" <ekrem@btegitim.com> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
> news:7473FF0A-8F12-48C5-8E7C-2E6C4DD65054@microsoft.com...
>> Hello Edmundo!
>>
>> Answers are in lines.
>>
>> --
>> Ekrem Önsoy
>> http://www.ekremonsoy.net , http://ekremonsoy.blogspot.com
>> MCBDA, MCTS: SQL Server 2005, MCITPBA, MCSD.Net, MCSE, MCT
>>
>>
>>
>> "Edmundo J. Davila" <edavila@monisa.com> wrote in message
>> news:066B9EFE-EDC3-4AF5-AF01-509F3263EF73@microsoft.com...
>>> Ekrem,
>>>
>>> Thank you for your answer.
>>>
>>> I have the following doubts:
>>>
>>> 1. If 64 bits architecture doesn't need AWE, Why is the option
>>> available in the SQL Server 64 bits?
>>
>> Honestly, I don't really know why that checkbox is exist in x64 version
>> of SQL Server. I'll ask you to check out the following document from BOL
>> to learn more about usage of AWE option in SQL Server 2005 and why it's
>> not necessary to use it in x64 systems.
>>
>> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms175581.aspx
>>
>>>
>>> 2. I'm supposing SQL Server is using a maximum of 2GB of RAM, because I
>>> can't increase the maximum server memory in the SQL Server (the top is
>>> 2147483647)? Because of that I can't set (at least from the interface)
>>> the maximum memory of SQL Server to 4GB.
>>
>> 2147483647 is MB, not KB or BYTE. This is a default and max value.
>>
>>>
>>> 3. Why do you think is better RAID10 than RAID5. As far as I know (I'm
>>> not an expert on RAIDs) RAID10 would be slower because of the
>>> redundancy.
>>
>> Take a look at the following article by S. Kagel:
>> http://www.miracleas.com/BAARF/RAID5_versus_RAID10.txt
>>
>>> Your answer has been very useful. I'll appreciate your comments
>>> regarding to my doubts.
>>>
>>> Edmundo J. Davila
>>
>

Ekrem,
Thank you for all your , it was very uselful. I'll make some tests and
later I'll make my decision.

Regards,

Edmundo J. Davila

"Ekrem Önsoy" <ekrem@btegitim.com> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
news:CD5989AD-2CDB-4610-A39B-65E639AEE326@microsoft.com...
> First of all, I'm not a RAID expert. However, I read about RAIDs a lot so
> I just shared my idea with you.
>
> However, it would be very useful to test this kind of configuration before
> implementing it. Test RAID5 and RAID10 for your environment if you have
> time.
>
> You said that your I\O rate is mixed read and write. For this kind of
> mixed needs RAID10 is recommended.
>
> Generally tests say that RAID1' s write performance is much more good over
> RAID5, so use RAID1 for your log files. RAID5's read performance is much
> better than RAID1's so locate your data files on a RAID5. However, if
> write rate is high in your environment, than a RAID10 would be more
> appropriate for your data files.
>
> After deciding which RAID configuration(s) is the best for your particular
> environment, then locate your database log files and data files on
> different physical disks according to those RAID choices.
>
> These opinions are from the tests people perform in their environments. We
> can not be sure these results would work for everybody perfectly. So, the
> best is test test and test it again.
>
> I'll give you some links below, see yourself. Also, read the comments in
> those pages.
> http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/billg/arc...rformance.aspx
> http://www.astro.ufl.edu/~ken/perf_tests.html
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea...-that-bad.aspx
>
> --
> Ekrem Önsoy
> http://www.ekremonsoy.net , http://ekremonsoy.blogspot.com
> MCBDA, MCTS: SQL Server 2005, MCITPBA, MCSD.Net, MCSE, MCT
>
>
>
> "Edmundo J. Davila" <edavila@monisa.com> wrote in message
> news:91FF0342-72B9-42F8-8BBC-E5FE203E485C@microsoft.com...
>> Ekrem,
>>
>> I read Mr. Kagel's article about RAIDs. I'm not complety sure that RAID10
>> is the best option if I want performance. In backing up and don't have
>> any doubt that RAID10 is better than RAID5 (because of the redundancy). I
>> have a database server with high reading and writing operations. I'm not
>> sure if RAID10 will make the writing process slower than RAID5.
>>
>> Edmundo J. Davila
>> Ekrem Önsoy" <ekrem@btegitim.com> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
>> news:7473FF0A-8F12-48C5-8E7C-2E6C4DD65054@microsoft.com...
>>> Hello Edmundo!
>>>
>>> Answers are in lines.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ekrem Önsoy
>>> http://www.ekremonsoy.net , http://ekremonsoy.blogspot.com
>>> MCBDA, MCTS: SQL Server 2005, MCITPBA, MCSD.Net, MCSE, MCT
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Edmundo J. Davila" <edavila@monisa.com> wrote in message
>>> news:066B9EFE-EDC3-4AF5-AF01-509F3263EF73@microsoft.com...
>>>> Ekrem,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your answer.
>>>>
>>>> I have the following doubts:
>>>>
>>>> 1. If 64 bits architecture doesn't need AWE, Why is the option
>>>> available in the SQL Server 64 bits?
>>>
>>> Honestly, I don't really know why that checkbox is exist in x64 version
>>> of SQL Server. I'll ask you to check out the following document from BOL
>>> to learn more about usage of AWE option in SQL Server 2005 and why it's
>>> not necessary to use it in x64 systems.
>>>
>>> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms175581.aspx
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2. I'm supposing SQL Server is using a maximum of 2GB of RAM, because
>>>> I can't increase the maximum server memory in the SQL Server (the top
>>>> is 2147483647)? Because of that I can't set (at least from the
>>>> interface) the maximum memory of SQL Server to 4GB.
>>>
>>> 2147483647 is MB, not KB or BYTE. This is a default and max value.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3. Why do you think is better RAID10 than RAID5. As far as I know (I'm
>>>> not an expert on RAIDs) RAID10 would be slower because of the
>>>> redundancy.
>>>
>>> Take a look at the following article by S. Kagel:
>>> http://www.miracleas.com/BAARF/RAID5_versus_RAID10.txt
>>>
>>>> Your answer has been very useful. I'll appreciate your comments
>>>> regarding to my doubts.
>>>>
>>>> Edmundo J. Davila
>>>
>>
>

> > 1. If 64 bits architecture doesn't need AWE, Why is the option available
> > in the SQL Server 64 bits?
>
> Honestly, I don't really know why that checkbox is exist in x64 version of
> SQL Server.

For AWE and SQL2005 X64, take a read of the following blog:

http://blogs.msdn.com/slavao/archive...29/413425.aspx

Linchi

"Ekrem Önsoy" wrote:

> Hello Edmundo!
>
> Answers are in lines.
>
> --
> Ekrem nsoy
> http://www.ekremonsoy.net , http://ekremonsoy.blogspot.com
> MCBDA, MCTS: SQL Server 2005, MCITPBA, MCSD.Net, MCSE, MCT
>
>
>
> "Edmundo J. Davila" <edavila@monisa.com> wrote in message
> news:066B9EFE-EDC3-4AF5-AF01-509F3263EF73@microsoft.com...
> > Ekrem,
> >
> > Thank you for your answer.
> >
> > I have the following doubts:
> >
> > 1. If 64 bits architecture doesn't need AWE, Why is the option available
> > in the SQL Server 64 bits?
>
> Honestly, I don't really know why that checkbox is exist in x64 version of
> SQL Server. I'll ask you to check out the following document from BOL to
> learn more about usage of AWE option in SQL Server 2005 and why it's not
> necessary to use it in x64 systems.
>
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms175581.aspx
>
> >
> > 2. I'm supposing SQL Server is using a maximum of 2GB of RAM, because I
> > can't increase the maximum server memory in the SQL Server (the top is
> > 2147483647)? Because of that I can't set (at least from the interface) the
> > maximum memory of SQL Server to 4GB.
>
> 2147483647 is MB, not KB or BYTE. This is a default and max value.
>
> >
> > 3. Why do you think is better RAID10 than RAID5. As far as I know (I'm
> > not an expert on RAIDs) RAID10 would be slower because of the redundancy.
>
> Take a look at the following article by S. Kagel:
> http://www.miracleas.com/BAARF/RAID5_versus_RAID10.txt
>
> > Your answer has been very useful. I'll appreciate your comments regarding
> > to my doubts.
> >
> > Edmundo J. Davila
>

Just want to add that cost is often one of the key factors in considering
RAID5 vs. RAID10. With the same number of drives, RAID5 gives you more usable
space, and thus cheaper in terms of dollars/GB.

Also, in addition the often-cited general performance comparison between
RAID5 and RAID10 (and some other RAID config's), one should keep in mind the
requirements of the app in question. If RAID5 meets the performance
requirements of the app you are deploying, it may be a perfect choice even if
you may get better performance from a RAID10 config.

Linchi

"Ekrem Önsoy" wrote:

> First of all, I'm not a RAID expert. However, I read about RAIDs a lot so I
> just shared my idea with you.
>
> However, it would be very useful to test this kind of configuration before
> implementing it. Test RAID5 and RAID10 for your environment if you have
> time.
>
> You said that your I\O rate is mixed read and write. For this kind of mixed
> needs RAID10 is recommended.
>
> Generally tests say that RAID1' s write performance is much more good over
> RAID5, so use RAID1 for your log files. RAID5's read performance is much
> better than RAID1's so locate your data files on a RAID5. However, if write
> rate is high in your environment, than a RAID10 would be more appropriate
> for your data files.
>
> After deciding which RAID configuration(s) is the best for your particular
> environment, then locate your database log files and data files on different
> physical disks according to those RAID choices.
>
> These opinions are from the tests people perform in their environments. We
> can not be sure these results would work for everybody perfectly. So, the
> best is test test and test it again.
>
> I'll give you some links below, see yourself. Also, read the comments in
> those pages.
> http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/billg/arc...rformance.aspx
> http://www.astro.ufl.edu/~ken/perf_tests.html
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea...-that-bad.aspx
>
> --
> Ekrem nsoy
> http://www.ekremonsoy.net , http://ekremonsoy.blogspot.com
> MCBDA, MCTS: SQL Server 2005, MCITPBA, MCSD.Net, MCSE, MCT
>
>
>
> "Edmundo J. Davila" <edavila@monisa.com> wrote in message
> news:91FF0342-72B9-42F8-8BBC-E5FE203E485C@microsoft.com...
> > Ekrem,
> >
> > I read Mr. Kagel's article about RAIDs. I'm not complety sure that RAID10
> > is the best option if I want performance. In backing up and don't have any
> > doubt that RAID10 is better than RAID5 (because of the redundancy). I have
> > a database server with high reading and writing operations. I'm not sure
> > if RAID10 will make the writing process slower than RAID5.
> >
> > Edmundo J. Davila
> > Ekrem nsoy" <ekrem@btegitim.com> escribi en el mensaje de noticias
> > news:7473FF0A-8F12-48C5-8E7C-2E6C4DD65054@microsoft.com...
> >> Hello Edmundo!
> >>
> >> Answers are in lines.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ekrem nsoy
> >> http://www.ekremonsoy.net , http://ekremonsoy.blogspot.com
> >> MCBDA, MCTS: SQL Server 2005, MCITPBA, MCSD.Net, MCSE, MCT
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Edmundo J. Davila" <edavila@monisa.com> wrote in message
> >> news:066B9EFE-EDC3-4AF5-AF01-509F3263EF73@microsoft.com...
> >>> Ekrem,
> >>>
> >>> Thank you for your answer.
> >>>
> >>> I have the following doubts:
> >>>
> >>> 1. If 64 bits architecture doesn't need AWE, Why is the option
> >>> available in the SQL Server 64 bits?
> >>
> >> Honestly, I don't really know why that checkbox is exist in x64 version
> >> of SQL Server. I'll ask you to check out the following document from BOL
> >> to learn more about usage of AWE option in SQL Server 2005 and why it's
> >> not necessary to use it in x64 systems.
> >>
> >> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms175581.aspx
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 2. I'm supposing SQL Server is using a maximum of 2GB of RAM, because I
> >>> can't increase the maximum server memory in the SQL Server (the top is
> >>> 2147483647)? Because of that I can't set (at least from the interface)
> >>> the maximum memory of SQL Server to 4GB.
> >>
> >> 2147483647 is MB, not KB or BYTE. This is a default and max value.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 3. Why do you think is better RAID10 than RAID5. As far as I know (I'm
> >>> not an expert on RAIDs) RAID10 would be slower because of the
> >>> redundancy.
> >>
> >> Take a look at the following article by S. Kagel:
> >> http://www.miracleas.com/BAARF/RAID5_versus_RAID10.txt
> >>
> >>> Your answer has been very useful. I'll appreciate your comments
> >>> regarding to my doubts.
> >>>
> >>> Edmundo J. Davila
> >>
> >
>

Thanks for the link Linchi.

--
Ekrem Önsoy
http://www.ekremonsoy.net , http://ekremonsoy.blogspot.com
MCBDA, MCTS: SQL Server 2005, MCITPBA, MCSD.Net, MCSE, MCT



"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:21279F4E-BC72-43F0-8A10-DA0B127AD6C0@microsoft.com...
>> > 1. If 64 bits architecture doesn't need AWE, Why is the option
>> > available
>> > in the SQL Server 64 bits?
>>
>> Honestly, I don't really know why that checkbox is exist in x64 version
>> of
>> SQL Server.
>
> For AWE and SQL2005 X64, take a read of the following blog:
>
> http://blogs.msdn.com/slavao/archive...29/413425.aspx
>
> Linchi
>
> "Ekrem Önsoy" wrote:
>
>> Hello Edmundo!
>>
>> Answers are in lines.
>>
>> --
>> Ekrem nsoy
>> http://www.ekremonsoy.net , http://ekremonsoy.blogspot.com
>> MCBDA, MCTS: SQL Server 2005, MCITPBA, MCSD.Net, MCSE, MCT
>>
>>
>>
>> "Edmundo J. Davila" <edavila@monisa.com> wrote in message
>> news:066B9EFE-EDC3-4AF5-AF01-509F3263EF73@microsoft.com...
>> > Ekrem,
>> >
>> > Thank you for your answer.
>> >
>> > I have the following doubts:
>> >
>> > 1. If 64 bits architecture doesn't need AWE, Why is the option
>> > available
>> > in the SQL Server 64 bits?
>>
>> Honestly, I don't really know why that checkbox is exist in x64 version
>> of
>> SQL Server. I'll ask you to check out the following document from BOL to
>> learn more about usage of AWE option in SQL Server 2005 and why it's not
>> necessary to use it in x64 systems.
>>
>> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms175581.aspx
>>
>> >
>> > 2. I'm supposing SQL Server is using a maximum of 2GB of RAM, because
>> > I
>> > can't increase the maximum server memory in the SQL Server (the top is
>> > 2147483647)? Because of that I can't set (at least from the interface)
>> > the
>> > maximum memory of SQL Server to 4GB.
>>
>> 2147483647 is MB, not KB or BYTE. This is a default and max value.
>>
>> >
>> > 3. Why do you think is better RAID10 than RAID5. As far as I know (I'm
>> > not an expert on RAIDs) RAID10 would be slower because of the
>> > redundancy.
>>
>> Take a look at the following article by S. Kagel:
>> http://www.miracleas.com/BAARF/RAID5_versus_RAID10.txt
>>
>> > Your answer has been very useful. I'll appreciate your comments
>> > regarding
>> > to my doubts.
>> >
>> > Edmundo J. Davila
>>