Post reply

What is the replacement of AWE?

  • June 7, 2011 at 7:16 am

    #251311

    What is the replacement of AWE?or what solution microsoft has given.

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190673.aspx

    This feature will be removed in the next version of Microsoft SQL Server. Do not use this feature in new development work, and modify applications that currently use this feature as soon as possible

    Thanks

  • June 7, 2011 at 7:26 am

    #1334996

    AWE was the work around for 32 bit systems, because hard drives available RAM got larger than the upper limit of the # of address the system can keep track of on a 32 bit system( i think it's POWER(2.0,32) or 4,294,967,296.0 bytes, (4 gig) right?)

    the fix is the 64 bit operating system with 64 bit SQL installed.

    Lowell

    --help us help you! If you post a question, make sure you include a CREATE TABLE... statement and INSERT INTO... statement into that table to give the volunteers here representative data. with your description of the problem, we can provide a tested, verifiable solution to your question! asking the question the right way gets you a tested answer the fastest way possible!

  • June 7, 2011 at 7:33 am

    #1335001

    Lowell (6/7/2011)

    AWE was the work around for 32 bit systems, because hard drives got larger than the upper limit of the # of address the system can keep track of on a 32 bit system( i think it's POWER(2.0,32) or 4,294,967,296.0 gigs, right?)

    the fix is the 64 bit operating system with 64 bit SQL installed.

    AWE isn't about hard drives. It's about RAM. Also, 4,294,967,296 bytes, not gigs.

    64-bit solves the whole thing and then some. Use that instead of AWE.

    - 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

  • June 7, 2011 at 7:47 am

    #1335016

    doh thanks and i edited my psot...

    Lowell

    --help us help you! If you post a question, make sure you include a CREATE TABLE... statement and INSERT INTO... statement into that table to give the volunteers here representative data. with your description of the problem, we can provide a tested, verifiable solution to your question! asking the question the right way gets you a tested answer the fastest way possible!

  • June 7, 2011 at 8:03 am

    #1335024

    Lowell (6/7/2011)

    doh thanks and i edited my psot...

    Might want to edit this one too ;-).

    P.S. 4 billion GB of ram would be nice :w00t:... maybe some day!

  • June 7, 2011 at 11:37 pm

    #1335448

    Please satisfy me..

    Thanks

  • June 7, 2011 at 11:46 pm

    #1335452

    forsqlserver (6/7/2011)

    Please satisfy me..

    With regard to what?

    GSquared and Lowell have already answered your question. There is no replacement for AWE, there does not need to be a replacement for AWE. AWE is a workaround for large amounts of memory for 32-bit apps. Nothing more. With 64-bit apps (and all server and desktop machines have had 64-bit processors for years now) there is no need for such workarounds.

    Gail Shaw
    Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
    SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability

    We walk in the dark places no others will enter
    We stand on the bridge and no one may pass

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply