September 24, 2008 at 2:45 am
Hi.
I have the following single SQL 2005 server :
A.OS= W3K std. edition w/SP2
B. SQL 2005 server std.edition as follows:
Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio9.00.3042.00
Microsoft Analysis Services Client Tools2005.090.3042.00
Microsoft Data Access Components (MDAC)2000.086.3959.00 (srv03_sp2_rtm.070216-1710)
Microsoft MSXML2.6 3.0 4.0 6.0
Microsoft Internet Explorer6.0.3790.3959
Microsoft .NET Framework2.0.50727.42
Operating System5.2.3790
C. 12 small SQL DB instances with a memory consumption from min. 65MB to 1735 when monitored in Task manager.
My main question is: is it a good idea to enable AWE memory function at this single SQL 2005 server ?
Can I expect a big difference in how this single SQL 2005 server will behave regarding to the topic memory consumption?
regards
Ken
September 24, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Since you're on Windows Standard, you can't go above 4 Gig of RAM in use anyway, so there's no point to AWE. I don't think you can even enable it on Windows Standard, but I'm not certain on that point.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
September 24, 2008 at 3:22 pm
GSquared (9/24/2008)
Since you're on Windows Standard, you can't go above 4 Gig of RAM in use anyway, so there's no point to AWE. I don't think you can even enable it on Windows Standard, but I'm not certain on that point.
Actually, Windows 2003 Standard (x64) can use up to 32GB of memory. The actual values are:
Windows Server 2003 Standard (x64) - 16GB
Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard (x64) - 32GB
But, if you are running x64 you wouldn't need to worry about setting AWE and/or the /3GB switch anyways 😉
I am a bit confused by the post though. Do you have one instance of SQL Server on this machine, or multiple instances? If you really do have multiple instances (12 separate instances of SQL Server installed), you definitely should be running Windows Server 2003 Enterprise and have much more memory available.
With 12 instances - you would have to be very specific on how much memory is allocated to each instance. And, I would not run SQL Server with less than 512MB allocated to a single instance. That would limit you to no more than 6 instances with the /3GB switch set to limit the OS to 1GB of memory.
Jeffrey Williams
“We are all faced with a series of great opportunities brilliantly disguised as impossible situations.”
― Charles R. Swindoll
How to post questions to get better answers faster
Managing Transaction Logs
September 26, 2008 at 7:13 am
I kind of assumed the original post wasn't about 64-bit, since that would kind of make the question pointless.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
September 26, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Yeah - that's what I think also, based upon the original post. Still, have to wonder why someone would run 12 instances on a system with only 4GB of memory.
Jeffrey Williams
“We are all faced with a series of great opportunities brilliantly disguised as impossible situations.”
― Charles R. Swindoll
How to post questions to get better answers faster
Managing Transaction Logs
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply