BUG: using FOR XML AUTO

I have installed this software:
- Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition.
- SQL Server 2005, Client tools (Server is in an another machine)
- VirusScan Enterprise 8.0.0
When i execute the next query:
USE AdventureWorks
SELECT * FROM Person.Contact
WHERE ContactID = 1 FOR XML AUTO
VirusScan report me this:
Pathname: C:\Documents and Settings\<user>\Local Settings\Temp\tmp5B.tmp
Detected As: Exploit-ObscuredHtml
Detection Type: Trojan
Application: SqlWb.exe
And SQL Server Management Studio:
An error occurred while executing batch. Error message is: Invalid calling
sequence: file stream must be initialized first.
*****
I apreciate any sugestion !
Thank you.I turn off the antivirus and the query work,
I reported the problem to McAfee...
"Ubeimar Vergara" wrote:

> I have installed this software:
> - Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition.
> - SQL Server 2005, Client tools (Server is in an another machine)
> - VirusScan Enterprise 8.0.0
> When i execute the next query:
> USE AdventureWorks
> SELECT * FROM Person.Contact
> WHERE ContactID = 1 FOR XML AUTO
> VirusScan report me this:
> Pathname: C:\Documents and Settings\<user>\Local Settings\Temp\tmp5B.tmp
> Detected As: Exploit-ObscuredHtml
> Detection Type: Trojan
> Application: SqlWb.exe
> And SQL Server Management Studio:
> An error occurred while executing batch. Error message is: Invalid calling
> sequence: file stream must be initialized first.
> *****
> I apreciate any sugestion !
> Thank you.

BUG: using FOR XML AUTO

I have installed this software:
- Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition.
- SQL Server 2005, Client tools (Server is in an another machine)
- VirusScan Enterprise 8.0.0
When i execute the next query:
USE AdventureWorks
SELECT * FROM Person.Contact
WHERE ContactID = 1 FOR XML AUTO
VirusScan report me this:
Pathname: C:\Documents and Settings\<user>\Local Settings\Temp\tmp5B.tmp
Detected As: Exploit-ObscuredHtml
Detection Type: Trojan
Application: SqlWb.exe
And SQL Server Management Studio:
An error occurred while executing batch. Error message is: Invalid calling
sequence: file stream must be initialized first.
*****
I apreciate any sugestion !
Thank you.TURN OFF anti-virus software on the server!!
A properly configured SQL Server 'should' not need anti-virus software
installed on the server.
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"Ubeimar Vergara" <Ubeimar Vergara@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:9CD7E5A0-C308-44C6-A3EA-A0B4CC2D346F@.microsoft.com...
>I have installed this software:
> - Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition.
> - SQL Server 2005, Client tools (Server is in an another machine)
> - VirusScan Enterprise 8.0.0
> When i execute the next query:
> USE AdventureWorks
> SELECT * FROM Person.Contact
> WHERE ContactID = 1 FOR XML AUTO
> VirusScan report me this:
> Pathname: C:\Documents and Settings\<user>\Local Settings\Temp\tmp5B.tmp
> Detected As: Exploit-ObscuredHtml
> Detection Type: Trojan
> Application: SqlWb.exe
> And SQL Server Management Studio:
> An error occurred while executing batch. Error message is: Invalid calling
> sequence: file stream must be initialized first.
> *****
> I apreciate any sugestion !
> Thank you.|||"Ubeimar Vergara" <Ubeimar Vergara@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:9CD7E5A0-C308-44C6-A3EA-A0B4CC2D346F@.microsoft.com...
>I have installed this software:
> - Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition.
> - SQL Server 2005, Client tools (Server is in an another machine)
> - VirusScan Enterprise 8.0.0
> When i execute the next query:
> USE AdventureWorks
> SELECT * FROM Person.Contact
> WHERE ContactID = 1 FOR XML AUTO
> VirusScan report me this:
> Pathname: C:\Documents and Settings\<user>\Local Settings\Temp\tmp5B.tmp
> Detected As: Exploit-ObscuredHtml
> Detection Type: Trojan
> Application: SqlWb.exe
> And SQL Server Management Studio:
> An error occurred while executing batch. Error message is: Invalid calling
> sequence: file stream must be initialized first.
>
Sounds like a bug in your Antivirus program interfering with the operation
of Management Studio on your client computer.
David|||I turn off the antivirus and the query work,
I reported the problem to McAfee...
"Ubeimar Vergara" wrote:
> I have installed this software:
> - Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition.
> - SQL Server 2005, Client tools (Server is in an another machine)
> - VirusScan Enterprise 8.0.0
> When i execute the next query:
> USE AdventureWorks
> SELECT * FROM Person.Contact
> WHERE ContactID = 1 FOR XML AUTO
> VirusScan report me this:
> Pathname: C:\Documents and Settings\<user>\Local Settings\Temp\tmp5B.tmp
> Detected As: Exploit-ObscuredHtml
> Detection Type: Trojan
> Application: SqlWb.exe
> And SQL Server Management Studio:
> An error occurred while executing batch. Error message is: Invalid calling
> sequence: file stream must be initialized first.
> *****
> I apreciate any sugestion !
> Thank you.sql

BUG: Cannot create subscription as NT AUTHORITY\NETWORK SERVICE

Platform:
Windows 2003 Server Enterprise Edition
SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition SP 3
Reporting Services 2000 Developer Edition SP 2
Hi,
I believe I have encountered a bug in Reporting Services and SQL Server.
To reproduce:
Set the Reporting Service Web Service to run as NT AUTHORITY\NETWORK SERVICE
(I believe this is the default on Windows 2003 server as opposed to the
local ASPNET account) using rsconfig.exe, et al.
Make sure NT AUTHORITY\NETWORK SERVICE has RSExecRole privilege on the
Report Server database, Report Server temp database, master, and msdb.
Then try and create a report subscription. I receive this error:
An internal error occurred on the report server. See the error log for more
details. (rsInternalError) The specified '@.owner_login_name' is invalid
(valid values are returned by sp_helplogins[excluding Windows NT groups]).
My guess is that when the Report Server tries to create a subscription it
does so by invoking sp_add_job/sp_verify_job, this then fails because NT
AUTHORITY\NETWORK SERVICE is a Windows Group. I believe the actual error
above is thrown by the stored procedure, sp_verify_job:
Server: Msg 14234, Level 16, State 1, Procedure sp_verify_job, Line 198
The specified '@.owner_login_name' is invalid (valid values are returned by
sp_helplogins [excluding Windows NT groups]).
or
From sp_verify_job:
-- Now just check that the login id is valid (ie. it exists and isn't an NT
group)
IF (@.owner_sid IS NULL) OR (EXISTS (SELECT *
FROM master.dbo.syslogins
WHERE (sid = @.owner_sid)
AND (isntgroup <> 0)))
BEGIN
-- NOTE: In the following message we quote @.owner_login_name instead of
@.owner_sid
-- since this is the parameter the user passed to the calling SP
(ie. either
-- sp_add_job or sp_update_job)
SELECT @.res_valid_range = FORMATMESSAGE(14203)
RAISERROR(14234, -1, -1, '@.owner_login_name', @.res_valid_range)
RETURN(1) -- Failure
END
Thanks,
Bryan"BDB" <bdb@.reply.to.group.com> wrote in message
news:OJi2X7QnFHA.3900@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Platform:
> Windows 2003 Server Enterprise Edition
> SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition SP 3
> Reporting Services 2000 Developer Edition SP 2
> Hi,
> I believe I have encountered a bug in Reporting Services and SQL Server.
> To reproduce:
> Set the Reporting Service Web Service to run as NT AUTHORITY\NETWORK
> SERVICE (I believe this is the default on Windows 2003 server as opposed
> to the local ASPNET account) using rsconfig.exe, et al.
> Make sure NT AUTHORITY\NETWORK SERVICE has RSExecRole privilege on the
> Report Server database, Report Server temp database, master, and msdb.
> Then try and create a report subscription. I receive this error:
> An internal error occurred on the report server. See the error log for
> more details. (rsInternalError) The specified '@.owner_login_name' is
> invalid (valid values are returned by sp_helplogins[excluding Windows NT
> groups]).
>
> My guess is that when the Report Server tries to create a subscription it
> does so by invoking sp_add_job/sp_verify_job, this then fails because NT
> AUTHORITY\NETWORK SERVICE is a Windows Group. I believe the actual error
> above is thrown by the stored procedure, sp_verify_job:
> Server: Msg 14234, Level 16, State 1, Procedure sp_verify_job, Line 198
> The specified '@.owner_login_name' is invalid (valid values are returned by
> sp_helplogins [excluding Windows NT groups]).
> or
> From sp_verify_job:
> -- Now just check that the login id is valid (ie. it exists and isn't an
> NT group)
> IF (@.owner_sid IS NULL) OR (EXISTS (SELECT *
> FROM master.dbo.syslogins
> WHERE (sid = @.owner_sid)
> AND (isntgroup <> 0)))
> BEGIN
> -- NOTE: In the following message we quote @.owner_login_name instead of
> @.owner_sid
> -- since this is the parameter the user passed to the calling SP
> (ie. either
> -- sp_add_job or sp_update_job)
> SELECT @.res_valid_range = FORMATMESSAGE(14203)
> RAISERROR(14234, -1, -1, '@.owner_login_name', @.res_valid_range)
> RETURN(1) -- Failure
> END
>
> Thanks,
> Bryan
>
This bug was fixed (hacked, IMO) in SQL Server 2000 SP4. I have no idea if
a KB article was ever published.|||We've applied SP4 for SQL and still have the error. How did you "fix" it?
--
Thanks,
CGW
"BDB" wrote:
> "BDB" <bdb@.reply.to.group.com> wrote in message
> news:OJi2X7QnFHA.3900@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > Platform:
> > Windows 2003 Server Enterprise Edition
> > SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition SP 3
> > Reporting Services 2000 Developer Edition SP 2
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I believe I have encountered a bug in Reporting Services and SQL Server.
> >
> > To reproduce:
> >
> > Set the Reporting Service Web Service to run as NT AUTHORITY\NETWORK
> > SERVICE (I believe this is the default on Windows 2003 server as opposed
> > to the local ASPNET account) using rsconfig.exe, et al.
> >
> > Make sure NT AUTHORITY\NETWORK SERVICE has RSExecRole privilege on the
> > Report Server database, Report Server temp database, master, and msdb.
> >
> > Then try and create a report subscription. I receive this error:
> >
> > An internal error occurred on the report server. See the error log for
> > more details. (rsInternalError) The specified '@.owner_login_name' is
> > invalid (valid values are returned by sp_helplogins[excluding Windows NT
> > groups]).
> >
> >
> >
> > My guess is that when the Report Server tries to create a subscription it
> > does so by invoking sp_add_job/sp_verify_job, this then fails because NT
> > AUTHORITY\NETWORK SERVICE is a Windows Group. I believe the actual error
> > above is thrown by the stored procedure, sp_verify_job:
> >
> > Server: Msg 14234, Level 16, State 1, Procedure sp_verify_job, Line 198
> > The specified '@.owner_login_name' is invalid (valid values are returned by
> > sp_helplogins [excluding Windows NT groups]).
> >
> > or
> >
> > From sp_verify_job:
> >
> > -- Now just check that the login id is valid (ie. it exists and isn't an
> > NT group)
> > IF (@.owner_sid IS NULL) OR (EXISTS (SELECT *
> > FROM master.dbo.syslogins
> > WHERE (sid = @.owner_sid)
> > AND (isntgroup <> 0)))
> > BEGIN
> > -- NOTE: In the following message we quote @.owner_login_name instead of
> > @.owner_sid
> > -- since this is the parameter the user passed to the calling SP
> > (ie. either
> > -- sp_add_job or sp_update_job)
> > SELECT @.res_valid_range = FORMATMESSAGE(14203)
> > RAISERROR(14234, -1, -1, '@.owner_login_name', @.res_valid_range)
> > RETURN(1) -- Failure
> > END
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bryan
> >
> This bug was fixed (hacked, IMO) in SQL Server 2000 SP4. I have no idea if
> a KB article was ever published.
>
>

Bug in UPDATE statement and 1 : n cardinality ?

The problem is in one-to-many cardinality and UPDATE statement :
( SQL server 2005 developer edition )

create table #table1( id int, firstCol int)
insert #table1 values ( 1,0)
insert #table1 values ( 2,0)
go

create table #table2( id int, secondCol int)
insert #table2 values ( 1,10)
insert #table2 values ( 1,20)
insert #table2 values ( 1,30)
insert #table2 values ( 3,100)
go

--

1. shape UPDATE

update #table1 set firstCol = firstCol +( select secondCol from #table2
where #table1.id = #table2.id )

return error message :

Msg 512, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Subquery returned more than 1 value. This is not permitted when the subquery follows =, !=, <, <= , >, >= or when the subquery is used as an expression.
The statement has been terminated.

2. shape UPDATE

update r set firstCol = firstCol + s.secondCol
from #table1 r
join ( select id,secondCol from #table2 ) s
on r.id = s.id

return message : (1 row(s) affected)
and #table1 is updated only one of row ( generally random ) from #table2 for ID = 1

select * from #table1

id firstCol
-- --
1 10
2 0

3. shape UPDATE

update #table1 set firstCol = firstCol + secondCol
from #table2 where #table1.id = #table2.id

return message : (1 row(s) affected)
and #table1 is updated only one of row ( generally random ) from #table2 for ID = 1

--

Is it normal ? I expected error message or summary value for ID = 1 from #table2 .

The behavior of SQL Server's proprietary UPDATE .. FROM statement

is undefined in this situation, and this is documented in Books

Online:

UPDATE (Transact-SQL)

ms-help://MS.SQLCC.v9/MS.SQLSVR.v9.en/tsqlref9/html/40e63302-0c68-4593-af3e-6d190181fee7.htm

The results of an UPDATE statement are undefined if the statement

includes a FROM clause that is not specified in such a way that

only one value is available for each column occurrence that is

updated, that is if the UPDATE statement is not deterministic.

For example, in the UPDATE statement in the following script,

both rows in Table1 meet the qualifications of the FROM clause

in the UPDATE statement; but it is undefined which row from

Table1 is used to update the row in Table2.

Similar language appears in the article

Changing Data by Using the FROM Clause

ms-help://MS.SQLCC.v9/MS.SQLSVR.v9.en/udb9/html/f4b7f060-f21b-4117-93cb-c7a7cc75569c.htm

Steve Kass

Drew University

http://www.stevekass.com

Jiri Lichtenberg@.discussions.microsoft.com wrote:

>

>

> The problem is in one-to-many cardinality and UPDATE statement :

> ( SQL server 2005 developer edition )

>

> create table #table1( id int, firstCol int)

> insert #table1 values ( 1,0)

> insert #table1 values ( 2,0)

> go

>

> create table #table2( id int, secondCol int)

> insert #table2 values ( 1,10)

> insert #table2 values ( 1,20)

> insert #table2 values ( 1,30)

> insert #table2 values ( 3,100)

> go

>

>

> --

>

> 1. shape UPDATE

>

> update #table1 set firstCol = firstCol +( select secondCol from #table2

> where #table1.id = #table2.id )

>

> return error message :

>

> Msg 512, Level 16, State 1, Line 1

> Subquery returned more than 1 value. This is not permitted when the

> subquery follows =, !=, <, <= , >, >= or when the subquery is used as an

> expression.

> The statement has been terminated.

>

> 2. shape UPDATE

>

> update r set firstCol = firstCol + s.secondCol

> from #table1 r

> join ( select id,secondCol from #table2 ) s

> on r.id = s.id

>

> return message : (1 row(s) affected)

> and #table1 is updated only one of row ( generally random ) from #table2

> for ID = 1

>

> select * from #table1

>

> id firstCol

> -- --

> 1 10

> 2 0

>

> 3. shape UPDATE

>

> update #table1 set firstCol = firstCol + secondCol

> from #table2 where #table1.id = #table2.id

>

> return message : (1 row(s) affected)

> and #table1 is updated only one of row ( generally random ) from #table2

> for ID = 1

>

>

> --

>

> Is it normal ? I expected error message or summary value for ID = 1

> from #table2 .

>

>

>

>

Bug ?->Can not make a new connection to SQL Server 2005 X64

Can not make a new connection to SQL Server 2005 X64 until the SQL Server
service is restarted.
OS is Windows 2003 X64 Enterprise Edition all updates are applied.
This repeats every few hours. Server protocols enabled are TCP IP and Named
Pipes
Client protocols are Named Piped only.
The following error is thrown MSg 17
"SQL Server does not exist or access is denied"
Since I am not finding solution this problem on many forums I assume this is
a bug.
Thanks
Kiran"SQL Server does not exist or access is denied" could indicate a problem
resolving the name of the instance. Is this a default instance listening on
the default named pipe, or a named instance? The second would require the
SQL Server Browser Service or require connecting to a specific pipe name. So
is the SQL Server Browser Service running?
--
Rick Byham
MCDBA, MCSE, MCSA
Documentation Manager,
Microsoft, SQL Server Books Online
This posting is provided "as is" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Kiran" <Kiran@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9CED6B9C-9643-43C5-9961-8BD1E00BFA8A@.microsoft.com...
> Can not make a new connection to SQL Server 2005 X64 until the SQL Server
> service is restarted.
> OS is Windows 2003 X64 Enterprise Edition all updates are applied.
> This repeats every few hours. Server protocols enabled are TCP IP and
> Named
> Pipes
> Client protocols are Named Piped only.
> The following error is thrown MSg 17
> "SQL Server does not exist or access is denied"
> Since I am not finding solution this problem on many forums I assume this
> is
> a bug.
> Thanks
> Kiran
>

Bug ?->Can not make a new connection to SQL Server 2005 X64

Can not make a new connection to SQL Server 2005 X64 until the SQL Server
service is restarted.
OS is Windows 2003 X64 Enterprise Edition all updates are applied.
This repeats every few hours. Server protocols enabled are TCP IP and Named
Pipes
Client protocols are Named Piped only.
The following error is thrown MSg 17
"SQL Server does not exist or access is denied"
Since I am not finding solution this problem on many forums I assume this is
a bug.
Thanks
Kiran
"SQL Server does not exist or access is denied" could indicate a problem
resolving the name of the instance. Is this a default instance listening on
the default named pipe, or a named instance? The second would require the
SQL Server Browser Service or require connecting to a specific pipe name. So
is the SQL Server Browser Service running?
Rick Byham
MCDBA, MCSE, MCSA
Documentation Manager,
Microsoft, SQL Server Books Online
This posting is provided "as is" with
no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Kiran" <Kiran@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9CED6B9C-9643-43C5-9961-8BD1E00BFA8A@.microsoft.com...
> Can not make a new connection to SQL Server 2005 X64 until the SQL Server
> service is restarted.
> OS is Windows 2003 X64 Enterprise Edition all updates are applied.
> This repeats every few hours. Server protocols enabled are TCP IP and
> Named
> Pipes
> Client protocols are Named Piped only.
> The following error is thrown MSg 17
> "SQL Server does not exist or access is denied"
> Since I am not finding solution this problem on many forums I assume this
> is
> a bug.
> Thanks
> Kiran
>

Budget Clustering Standard Edition.

I am aware that the standard edition does not 'include'
fail over clustering.
I have read this newgroup on items containing the
budget / standard edition clustering.
I get the strong impression that 'budget clustering' is
strongly advised against.
WHY ?
Thanks for your attention,
ben brugman
Elaboration :
We want to have two options :
1. Standard edition.
2. Enterprise / San / Fail over.
Offcourse for high availability, you have to pay and
go for the second solution.
But to make the first solution as good as possible,
we are thinking in lines of the 'suggested' budget
fail over clustering.
So we plan :
Two servers with internal OS / SQL-server software.
Two Raid storage units which will be host based mirrored.
(So each file is stored four times).
Two locations, one for each server, storage unit.
If a part of the storage fails, there is plenty of redundancy.
But if a server fails we plan to do a fail over to the 'second'
machine, just reattaching the disks. (With MSA management
software).
We want the maximum amount of availability which can be
obtained with using the standard edition.
If that is not enough management can choose for the second
configuration, which will be more expensive.
We do not want to make the choice but supply the management
with enough 'numbers' and arguments to make a sollid choice on
the configuration.
1) Standard Edition is not supported
2) No Cluster resources will be created, thus adding tons of work during the
install
3) It is a violation of EULA
4) It will not failover properly
5) See number 1
Cheers,
Rod
"ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
news:%23kCvdN%23REHA.1340@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> I am aware that the standard edition does not 'include'
> fail over clustering.
> I have read this newgroup on items containing the
> budget / standard edition clustering.
> I get the strong impression that 'budget clustering' is
> strongly advised against.
> WHY ?
> Thanks for your attention,
> ben brugman
>
>
>
>
> Elaboration :
> We want to have two options :
> 1. Standard edition.
> 2. Enterprise / San / Fail over.
> Offcourse for high availability, you have to pay and
> go for the second solution.
> But to make the first solution as good as possible,
> we are thinking in lines of the 'suggested' budget
> fail over clustering.
> So we plan :
> Two servers with internal OS / SQL-server software.
> Two Raid storage units which will be host based mirrored.
> (So each file is stored four times).
> Two locations, one for each server, storage unit.
> If a part of the storage fails, there is plenty of redundancy.
> But if a server fails we plan to do a fail over to the 'second'
> machine, just reattaching the disks. (With MSA management
> software).
> We want the maximum amount of availability which can be
> obtained with using the standard edition.
> If that is not enough management can choose for the second
> configuration, which will be more expensive.
> We do not want to make the choice but supply the management
> with enough 'numbers' and arguments to make a sollid choice on
> the configuration.
>
>
|||Sorry could you explain what "budget clustering" is? Are you talking about 3rd party software?
Thanks
DaveK
http://www.sqlporn.co.uk
|||He is asking about a low-cost cluster. Using Standard Edition instead of
Enterprise.
Cheers,
Rod
"DaveK" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:31F9BABD-78FB-4174-B831-9E1B0C3D3093@.microsoft.com...
> Sorry could you explain what "budget clustering" is? Are you talking about
3rd party software?
> Thanks
> DaveK
> http://www.sqlporn.co.uk
|||First of all thanks for your time.
I would like to go over the points one at the time.
In my original mail I did (on purpose) elaborate, but
only at the end of the message.
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:uonKad#REHA.3708@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> 1) Standard Edition is not supported
We do not intend to automatically fail over, but doing the fail over by
'hand',
in this group there are a lot of advices how to do this.

> 2) No Cluster resources will be created, thus adding tons of work during
the
> install
We need an extra machine and an extra installation of OS/SQL-server and
of course the setting up of the hardware and hardware management.
But I doubt if 'real' clustering has less work.

> 3) It is a violation of EULA
I do not see a violation of the EULA, with this set up.
(But then EULA's are so complex that allthough I do understand them,
this is not totaly 100 %).

> 4) It will not failover properly
I think by hand it wil. If this is not true please point out why.

> 5) See number 1
See number one.
As said we will do the switch manually, also switching the
application servers. (By newly resolving the name and reconnecting).
So the fail over is manually, but we do not need to restore and recover.
So there is less availability than for 'real' clustering, but more than
if a (backup) restore recover is done in case of a server failure.
Any new insights ?
ben brugman.

> Cheers,
> Rod
> "ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
> news:%23kCvdN%23REHA.1340@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
|||"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:OskDg1#REHA.3660@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> He is asking about a low-cost cluster. Using Standard Edition instead of
> Enterprise.
> Cheers,
> Rod
> "DaveK" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:31F9BABD-78FB-4174-B831-9E1B0C3D3093@.microsoft.com...
about
> 3rd party software?
>
I do not see the 'original message of DaveK, so I'll attach my anwser here.
By budget clustering, different people have different meanings.
What I did understand and mean by budget clustering is :
Using the standard edition SQL-server.
Setting up a second machine similar to the first machine.
If the first machine fails, attach the 'database' disks to the
second machine.
And start up SQL-server on the second machine.
Because this machine has a different name and ip address the
applications have to reconnect after a new name resolve.
(So this has to be changed as well).
Of course here we are missing a lot of the advantages of the
'real' clustering mechanism where 'everything' goed automatic.
(failure detection, switching over, name resolving and if the
application is cluster aware the reconnection).
But the advantage of this way creating high availability is that
you do not have to restore and recover a database in case of
a server failure.
So in my this 'might' give a higher availability then using the
backup and restore route.
Remarks :
Offcourse have you datastorage redundant. So that a storage failure
(disk or system) can be handled.
A server failure will be a rare event (using servers which have redundancy
in power supply, memory etc.). So during a server failure you might lose
some availability time.
But losing say an hour every two years because of a server failure, or
paying for the more expensive 'real fail over' capable system, is something
that has to be decided by the management.
Off course there will also be down time during regular upgrades of mainly
software and rearely hardware, but that can be planned.
Although we run a 7 x 24 hours shop, planned downtime is not to disruptive.
With my question, I hope to get some insight in how realistic this set up
is. I would like to form an opinion based on more than : "That won't work"
or "That is not supported" or "That is not allowed".
ben brugman
|||I think you want to look at creating a SQL Standby Server, which is
supported and very easy to do. Nothing to do with clustering, but neither
does your solution.
Cheers,
Rod
"ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
news:c9k4ft$dt5$1@.reader10.wxs.nl...
> First of all thanks for your time.
> I would like to go over the points one at the time.
> In my original mail I did (on purpose) elaborate, but
> only at the end of the message.
>
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
> message news:uonKad#REHA.3708@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> We do not intend to automatically fail over, but doing the fail over by
> 'hand',
> in this group there are a lot of advices how to do this.
> the
> We need an extra machine and an extra installation of OS/SQL-server and
> of course the setting up of the hardware and hardware management.
> But I doubt if 'real' clustering has less work.
>
> I do not see a violation of the EULA, with this set up.
> (But then EULA's are so complex that allthough I do understand them,
> this is not totaly 100 %).
> I think by hand it wil. If this is not true please point out why.
>
> See number one.
> As said we will do the switch manually, also switching the
> application servers. (By newly resolving the name and reconnecting).
> So the fail over is manually, but we do not need to restore and recover.
> So there is less availability than for 'real' clustering, but more than
> if a (backup) restore recover is done in case of a server failure.
> Any new insights ?
> ben brugman.
>
>
|||Thanks,
ben
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:OIAIp1JSEHA.2936@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> I think you want to look at creating a SQL Standby Server, which is
> supported and very easy to do. Nothing to do with clustering, but neither
> does your solution.
> Cheers,
> Rod
> "ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
> news:c9k4ft$dt5$1@.reader10.wxs.nl...
during
>
|||"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:OIAIp1JSEHA.2936@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I think you want to look at creating a SQL Standby Server, which is
> supported and very easy to do. Nothing to do with clustering, but neither
> does your solution.
Did look up standby servers, but this is not what I meant.
In my mail I described that we didn't want to use the
backup / restore sequence, but just the switching of the
disks.
I have seen this mentioned as "budget clustering", but could
be wrong there. Sorry for that misunderstanding. Haven't got
a name / term for it.
ben
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Cheers,
> Rod
> "ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
> news:c9k4ft$dt5$1@.reader10.wxs.nl...
during
>
|||FYI, you can do a fully functional "budget cluster" using standard edition
of SQL/Windows using Legato's clustering product. Of course, it ain't free,
so that might blow your budget :-)
Regards,
John
"ben brugman" <ben@.niethier.nl> wrote in message
news:c9k58t$e84$1@.reader10.wxs.nl...
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
> message news:OskDg1#REHA.3660@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> about
> I do not see the 'original message of DaveK, so I'll attach my anwser
here.
> By budget clustering, different people have different meanings.
> What I did understand and mean by budget clustering is :
> Using the standard edition SQL-server.
> Setting up a second machine similar to the first machine.
> If the first machine fails, attach the 'database' disks to the
> second machine.
> And start up SQL-server on the second machine.
> Because this machine has a different name and ip address the
> applications have to reconnect after a new name resolve.
> (So this has to be changed as well).
> Of course here we are missing a lot of the advantages of the
> 'real' clustering mechanism where 'everything' goed automatic.
> (failure detection, switching over, name resolving and if the
> application is cluster aware the reconnection).
> But the advantage of this way creating high availability is that
> you do not have to restore and recover a database in case of
> a server failure.
> So in my this 'might' give a higher availability then using the
> backup and restore route.
> Remarks :
> Offcourse have you datastorage redundant. So that a storage failure
> (disk or system) can be handled.
> A server failure will be a rare event (using servers which have redundancy
> in power supply, memory etc.). So during a server failure you might lose
> some availability time.
> But losing say an hour every two years because of a server failure, or
> paying for the more expensive 'real fail over' capable system, is
something
> that has to be decided by the management.
> Off course there will also be down time during regular upgrades of mainly
> software and rearely hardware, but that can be planned.
> Although we run a 7 x 24 hours shop, planned downtime is not to
disruptive.
> With my question, I hope to get some insight in how realistic this set up
> is. I would like to form an opinion based on more than : "That won't work"
> or "That is not supported" or "That is not allowed".
> ben brugman
>

Break Deadlocks Quicker

Is there a parameter within SQL Server 2000 Enterprise
Edition that will break deadlocks quicker and use less
resources?
Thanks,
MikeSQL Server usually detects deadlocks pretty quickly and when it does it
wastes no time killing one of the participants. You can however use a hint
called SET DEADLOCK_PRIORITY to potentially affect who gets killed.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:f55e01c43dcf$fb009320$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> Is there a parameter within SQL Server 2000 Enterprise
> Edition that will break deadlocks quicker and use less
> resources?
> Thanks,
> Mike
>|||Mike,
you might want to check out
SET LOCK_TIMEOUT
SET DEADLOCK_PRIORITY
in BOL.
HTH,
Paul Ibison

Brand new / totally confused / am I in the right place?

I downloaded MS SQL Server 2005 Express Edition. The MS site said that it was "easy to install, use and manage." However I'm totally confused. I'm not a total neophyte but I can't even seem to launch the program.

I have an MS SQL database powering my website. I view the database on my home computer using MS Access 2000 with an ODBC connection. MS Access 2000 however, does not let me make changes to the structure of the database. I can't add, delete or modify fields in my current tables. I can't add or delete tables. Is MS SQL Server 2005 Express Edition the proper software to perform these functions? If it is, is there a guide to helping me launch the program, connect to my MS SQL database and perform these functions? If this is not the right software, what is?

I would greatly appreciate any guidance anyone can offer.

Thanks!

http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=196509&SiteID=1

HTH

BOOT.INI File for 4GB RAM and SQL 2005

I have 3 questions regarding memory configuration on a Windows Server 2003
SP2 Enterprise Edition with SQL2005 SP2.
1. Can someone advise on the correct boot.ini file configuration to utilize
4GB of local memory? I'm not sure if I need the 3GB switch?
multi(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Windows Server 2003,
Enterprise"/3GB/fastdetect/PAE/NoExectute=OptOut
2. Once Boot.ini configured, is the only setting in SQL 2005 to modify is
the sp_configure awe enabled config_value=1 and run_value=1 ?
3. Assuming nothing else is to be done to have SQL 2005 utilize more than
the 2GB memory space, how do you verify or validate SQL 2005 is using more
memory?
Thanks in advancezorro
Is it 64 bit or 32 bit?
> 1. Can someone advise on the correct boot.ini file configuration to
> utilize
> 4GB of local memory? I'm not sure if I need the 3GB switch?
You do need 3GB switch
> 2. Once Boot.ini configured, is the only setting in SQL 2005 to modify is
> the sp_configure awe enabled config_value=1 and run_value=1 ?
AWE is for utilyze more than 4GB
Yes, unless you use 64 bit , then you do not need AWE , make sure that an
account SQL Serverc runs under is added to LockPages in Memory Local Group
Policy
> 3. Assuming nothing else is to be done to have SQL 2005 utilize more than
> the 2GB memory space, how do you verify or validate SQL 2005 is using more
> memory?
Task Manager
"zorro" <zorro@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C2009B55-7B5D-4F65-8986-3AF00547FA1E@.microsoft.com...
>I have 3 questions regarding memory configuration on a Windows Server 2003
> SP2 Enterprise Edition with SQL2005 SP2.
> 1. Can someone advise on the correct boot.ini file configuration to
> utilize
> 4GB of local memory? I'm not sure if I need the 3GB switch?
> multi(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Windows Server 2003,
> Enterprise"/3GB/fastdetect/PAE/NoExectute=OptOut
> 2. Once Boot.ini configured, is the only setting in SQL 2005 to modify is
> the sp_configure awe enabled config_value=1 and run_value=1 ?
> 3. Assuming nothing else is to be done to have SQL 2005 utilize more than
> the 2GB memory space, how do you verify or validate SQL 2005 is using more
> memory?
> Thanks in advance
>|||>> 3. Assuming nothing else is to be done to have SQL 2005 utilize more than
>> the 2GB memory space, how do you verify or validate SQL 2005 is using
>> more
>> memory?
> Task Manager
Actually, I would use performance monitor. Task manager tends to
under-report what SQL Server is actually using.|||Aaron
I agreee. I assumed the OP wants to utilize 4GB ONLY , so after adding
3GB switch you can actually observe in TM.
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:%23qL67StfIHA.5088@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> 3. Assuming nothing else is to be done to have SQL 2005 utilize more
>> than
>> the 2GB memory space, how do you verify or validate SQL 2005 is using
>> more
>> memory?
>> Task Manager
> Actually, I would use performance monitor. Task manager tends to
> under-report what SQL Server is actually using.|||Thanks Uri,
1. 32 bit Windows Server 2003 version.
2. To verify 3GB switch is needed for my 5GB physically installed RAM?
3. Also good catch on the LockPages in Memory setting within the gpedit.msc
Thanks,
zorro
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> zorro
> Is it 64 bit or 32 bit?
> > 1. Can someone advise on the correct boot.ini file configuration to
> > utilize
> > 4GB of local memory? I'm not sure if I need the 3GB switch?
> You do need 3GB switch
> > 2. Once Boot.ini configured, is the only setting in SQL 2005 to modify is
> > the sp_configure awe enabled config_value=1 and run_value=1 ?
> AWE is for utilyze more than 4GB
> Yes, unless you use 64 bit , then you do not need AWE , make sure that an
> account SQL Serverc runs under is added to LockPages in Memory Local Group
> Policy
> > 3. Assuming nothing else is to be done to have SQL 2005 utilize more than
> > the 2GB memory space, how do you verify or validate SQL 2005 is using more
> > memory?
> Task Manager
>
>
> "zorro" <zorro@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C2009B55-7B5D-4F65-8986-3AF00547FA1E@.microsoft.com...
> >I have 3 questions regarding memory configuration on a Windows Server 2003
> > SP2 Enterprise Edition with SQL2005 SP2.
> >
> > 1. Can someone advise on the correct boot.ini file configuration to
> > utilize
> > 4GB of local memory? I'm not sure if I need the 3GB switch?
> >
> > multi(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Windows Server 2003,
> > Enterprise"/3GB/fastdetect/PAE/NoExectute=OptOut
> >
> > 2. Once Boot.ini configured, is the only setting in SQL 2005 to modify is
> > the sp_configure awe enabled config_value=1 and run_value=1 ?
> >
> > 3. Assuming nothing else is to be done to have SQL 2005 utilize more than
> > the 2GB memory space, how do you verify or validate SQL 2005 is using more
> > memory?
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> >
> >
>
>|||See comments inline.
Linchi
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> zorro
> Is it 64 bit or 32 bit?
> > 1. Can someone advise on the correct boot.ini file configuration to
> > utilize
> > 4GB of local memory? I'm not sure if I need the 3GB switch?
> You do need 3GB switch
>
Why?
> > 2. Once Boot.ini configured, is the only setting in SQL 2005 to modify is
> > the sp_configure awe enabled config_value=1 and run_value=1 ?
> AWE is for utilyze more than 4GB
I keep hearing that AWE is for utilizing more than 4GB. Not sure where that
comes from. Technically, it's not.
> Yes, unless you use 64 bit , then you do not need AWE , make sure that an
> account SQL Serverc runs under is added to LockPages in Memory Local Group
> Policy
> > 3. Assuming nothing else is to be done to have SQL 2005 utilize more than
> > the 2GB memory space, how do you verify or validate SQL 2005 is using more
> > memory?
> Task Manager
>
>
> "zorro" <zorro@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C2009B55-7B5D-4F65-8986-3AF00547FA1E@.microsoft.com...
> >I have 3 questions regarding memory configuration on a Windows Server 2003
> > SP2 Enterprise Edition with SQL2005 SP2.
> >
> > 1. Can someone advise on the correct boot.ini file configuration to
> > utilize
> > 4GB of local memory? I'm not sure if I need the 3GB switch?
> >
> > multi(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Windows Server 2003,
> > Enterprise"/3GB/fastdetect/PAE/NoExectute=OptOut
> >
> > 2. Once Boot.ini configured, is the only setting in SQL 2005 to modify is
> > the sp_configure awe enabled config_value=1 and run_value=1 ?
> >
> > 3. Assuming nothing else is to be done to have SQL 2005 utilize more than
> > the 2GB memory space, how do you verify or validate SQL 2005 is using more
> > memory?
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> >
> >
>
>|||Hi Linchi
You are right, that technically, it's not. If I have 4GB RAM and want tio
utilize 3GB for SQL Server, so I simple add switch in BOOT.INI and why
bother enabling AWE? What do you think?
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:61A4195E-F98E-4AE2-A24F-0BC6AC668D08@.microsoft.com...
> See comments inline.
> Linchi
> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
>> zorro
>> Is it 64 bit or 32 bit?
>> > 1. Can someone advise on the correct boot.ini file configuration to
>> > utilize
>> > 4GB of local memory? I'm not sure if I need the 3GB switch?
>> You do need 3GB switch
> Why?
>> > 2. Once Boot.ini configured, is the only setting in SQL 2005 to modify
>> > is
>> > the sp_configure awe enabled config_value=1 and run_value=1 ?
>> AWE is for utilyze more than 4GB
> I keep hearing that AWE is for utilizing more than 4GB. Not sure where
> that
> comes from. Technically, it's not.
>> Yes, unless you use 64 bit , then you do not need AWE , make sure that
>> an
>> account SQL Serverc runs under is added to LockPages in Memory Local
>> Group
>> Policy
>> > 3. Assuming nothing else is to be done to have SQL 2005 utilize more
>> > than
>> > the 2GB memory space, how do you verify or validate SQL 2005 is using
>> > more
>> > memory?
>> Task Manager
>>
>>
>> "zorro" <zorro@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:C2009B55-7B5D-4F65-8986-3AF00547FA1E@.microsoft.com...
>> >I have 3 questions regarding memory configuration on a Windows Server
>> >2003
>> > SP2 Enterprise Edition with SQL2005 SP2.
>> >
>> > 1. Can someone advise on the correct boot.ini file configuration to
>> > utilize
>> > 4GB of local memory? I'm not sure if I need the 3GB switch?
>> >
>> > multi(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Windows Server 2003,
>> > Enterprise"/3GB/fastdetect/PAE/NoExectute=OptOut
>> >
>> > 2. Once Boot.ini configured, is the only setting in SQL 2005 to modify
>> > is
>> > the sp_configure awe enabled config_value=1 and run_value=1 ?
>> >
>> > 3. Assuming nothing else is to be done to have SQL 2005 utilize more
>> > than
>> > the 2GB memory space, how do you verify or validate SQL 2005 is using
>> > more
>> > memory?
>> >
>> > Thanks in advance
>> >
>> >
>>

BOOT.INI File for 4GB RAM and SQL 2005

I have 3 questions regarding memory configuration on a Windows Server 2003
SP2 Enterprise Edition with SQL2005 SP2.
1. Can someone advise on the correct boot.ini file configuration to utilize
4GB of local memory? I'm not sure if I need the 3GB switch?
multi(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Windows Server 2003,
Enterprise"/3GB/fastdetect/PAE/NoExectute=OptOut
2. Once Boot.ini configured, is the only setting in SQL 2005 to modify is
the sp_configure awe enabled config_value=1 and run_value=1 ?
3. Assuming nothing else is to be done to have SQL 2005 utilize more than
the 2GB memory space, how do you verify or validate SQL 2005 is using more
memory?
Thanks in advance
zorro
Is it 64 bit or 32 bit?
> 1. Can someone advise on the correct boot.ini file configuration to
> utilize
> 4GB of local memory? I'm not sure if I need the 3GB switch?
You do need 3GB switch

> 2. Once Boot.ini configured, is the only setting in SQL 2005 to modify is
> the sp_configure awe enabled config_value=1 and run_value=1 ?
AWE is for utilyze more than 4GB
Yes, unless you use 64 bit , then you do not need AWE , make sure that an
account SQL Serverc runs under is added to LockPages in Memory Local Group
Policy

> 3. Assuming nothing else is to be done to have SQL 2005 utilize more than
> the 2GB memory space, how do you verify or validate SQL 2005 is using more
> memory?
Task Manager
"zorro" <zorro@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C2009B55-7B5D-4F65-8986-3AF00547FA1E@.microsoft.com...
>I have 3 questions regarding memory configuration on a Windows Server 2003
> SP2 Enterprise Edition with SQL2005 SP2.
> 1. Can someone advise on the correct boot.ini file configuration to
> utilize
> 4GB of local memory? I'm not sure if I need the 3GB switch?
> multi(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Windows Server 2003,
> Enterprise"/3GB/fastdetect/PAE/NoExectute=OptOut
> 2. Once Boot.ini configured, is the only setting in SQL 2005 to modify is
> the sp_configure awe enabled config_value=1 and run_value=1 ?
> 3. Assuming nothing else is to be done to have SQL 2005 utilize more than
> the 2GB memory space, how do you verify or validate SQL 2005 is using more
> memory?
> Thanks in advance
>
|||>> 3. Assuming nothing else is to be done to have SQL 2005 utilize more than
> Task Manager
Actually, I would use performance monitor. Task manager tends to
under-report what SQL Server is actually using.
|||Aaron
I agreee. I assumed the OP wants to utilize 4GB ONLY , so after adding
3GB switch you can actually observe in TM.
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:%23qL67StfIHA.5088@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Actually, I would use performance monitor. Task manager tends to
> under-report what SQL Server is actually using.
|||Thanks Uri,
1. 32 bit Windows Server 2003 version.
2. To verify 3GB switch is needed for my 5GB physically installed RAM?
3. Also good catch on the LockPages in Memory setting within the gpedit.msc
Thanks,
zorro
"Uri Dimant" wrote:

> zorro
> Is it 64 bit or 32 bit?
> You do need 3GB switch
>
> AWE is for utilyze more than 4GB
> Yes, unless you use 64 bit , then you do not need AWE , make sure that an
> account SQL Serverc runs under is added to LockPages in Memory Local Group
> Policy
>
> Task Manager
>
>
> "zorro" <zorro@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C2009B55-7B5D-4F65-8986-3AF00547FA1E@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||See comments inline.
Linchi
"Uri Dimant" wrote:

> zorro
> Is it 64 bit or 32 bit?
> You do need 3GB switch
>
Why?

> AWE is for utilyze more than 4GB
I keep hearing that AWE is for utilizing more than 4GB. Not sure where that
comes from. Technically, it's not.

> Yes, unless you use 64 bit , then you do not need AWE , make sure that an
> account SQL Serverc runs under is added to LockPages in Memory Local Group
> Policy
>
> Task Manager
>
>
> "zorro" <zorro@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C2009B55-7B5D-4F65-8986-3AF00547FA1E@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Hi Linchi
You are right, that technically, it's not. If I have 4GB RAM and want tio
utilize 3GB for SQL Server, so I simple add switch in BOOT.INI and why
bother enabling AWE? What do you think?
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:61A4195E-F98E-4AE2-A24F-0BC6AC668D08@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> See comments inline.
> Linchi
> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
>
> Why?
>
> I keep hearing that AWE is for utilizing more than 4GB. Not sure where
> that
> comes from. Technically, it's not.

boot.ini /3GB problem

Hello,
I have win 2k3 standard edition, 4 GB of memory, SQL 2000 enterprise
edition. I have tryed to get more than 2 GB for sql. I have tryed /3GB swich
with awe enabled on sql 2000 without any good result. I could said even
situation is wors because now sql allocate maximum 1,327 GB.
Does anyone hnow what can be wrong '
I have read many of support pages from MS for allocate more than 2G and
nothing is working :(
regards
Pawel MylkaHi
Task manager is not the correct tool to evaluate if memory over 2 GB is
being used as it is not capable of it.
Use Windows Performance Monitor (%SystemRoot%\system32\perfmon.msc /s) to
see how much "Target Server Memory" is. It should be close to 2700 when SQL
Server is configured correctly.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Pawel Mylka" <pawel.mylka@.itcontrol.pl> wrote in message
news:eEnOZij4FHA.252@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I have win 2k3 standard edition, 4 GB of memory, SQL 2000 enterprise
> edition. I have tryed to get more than 2 GB for sql. I have tryed /3GB
> swich
> with awe enabled on sql 2000 without any good result. I could said even
> situation is wors because now sql allocate maximum 1,327 GB.
> Does anyone hnow what can be wrong '
> I have read many of support pages from MS for allocate more than 2G and
> nothing is working :(
> regards
> Pawel Mylka
>|||Hi,
As Mike pointed out use Performance monitor to view the memory usage. As
well as make the memory static (set min and max meory)
once you enable AWE to SQL Server.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Pawel Mylka" <pawel.mylka@.itcontrol.pl> wrote in message
news:eEnOZij4FHA.252@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I have win 2k3 standard edition, 4 GB of memory, SQL 2000 enterprise
> edition. I have tryed to get more than 2 GB for sql. I have tryed /3GB
> swich
> with awe enabled on sql 2000 without any good result. I could said even
> situation is wors because now sql allocate maximum 1,327 GB.
> Does anyone hnow what can be wrong '
> I have read many of support pages from MS for allocate more than 2G and
> nothing is working :(
> regards
> Pawel Mylka
>|||Don't enable AWE unless you intend to go beyond 3GB.
"Hari Prasad" <hari_prasad_k@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OoI%23Nzt4FHA.3876@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> As Mike pointed out use Performance monitor to view the memory usage. As
> well as make the memory static (set min and max meory)
> once you enable AWE to SQL Server.
> Thanks
> Hari
> SQL Server MVP
> "Pawel Mylka" <pawel.mylka@.itcontrol.pl> wrote in message
> news:eEnOZij4FHA.252@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> Hello,
>> I have win 2k3 standard edition, 4 GB of memory, SQL 2000 enterprise
>> edition. I have tryed to get more than 2 GB for sql. I have tryed /3GB
>> swich
>> with awe enabled on sql 2000 without any good result. I could said even
>> situation is wors because now sql allocate maximum 1,327 GB.
>> Does anyone hnow what can be wrong '
>> I have read many of support pages from MS for allocate more than 2G and
>> nothing is working :(
>> regards
>> Pawel Mylka
>>
>

boot.ini /3GB problem

Hello,
I have win 2k3 standard edition, 4 GB of memory, SQL 2000 enterprise
edition. I have tryed to get more than 2 GB for sql. I have tryed /3GB swich
with awe enabled on sql 2000 without any good result. I could said even
situation is wors because now sql allocate maximum 1,327 GB.
Does anyone hnow what can be wrong ?
I have read many of support pages from MS for allocate more than 2G and
nothing is working
regards
Pawel Mylka
Hi
Task manager is not the correct tool to evaluate if memory over 2 GB is
being used as it is not capable of it.
Use Windows Performance Monitor (%SystemRoot%\system32\perfmon.msc /s) to
see how much "Target Server Memory" is. It should be close to 2700 when SQL
Server is configured correctly.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Pawel Mylka" <pawel.mylka@.itcontrol.pl> wrote in message
news:eEnOZij4FHA.252@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I have win 2k3 standard edition, 4 GB of memory, SQL 2000 enterprise
> edition. I have tryed to get more than 2 GB for sql. I have tryed /3GB
> swich
> with awe enabled on sql 2000 without any good result. I could said even
> situation is wors because now sql allocate maximum 1,327 GB.
> Does anyone hnow what can be wrong ?
> I have read many of support pages from MS for allocate more than 2G and
> nothing is working
> regards
> Pawel Mylka
>
|||Hi,
As Mike pointed out use Performance monitor to view the memory usage. As
well as make the memory static (set min and max meory)
once you enable AWE to SQL Server.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Pawel Mylka" <pawel.mylka@.itcontrol.pl> wrote in message
news:eEnOZij4FHA.252@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I have win 2k3 standard edition, 4 GB of memory, SQL 2000 enterprise
> edition. I have tryed to get more than 2 GB for sql. I have tryed /3GB
> swich
> with awe enabled on sql 2000 without any good result. I could said even
> situation is wors because now sql allocate maximum 1,327 GB.
> Does anyone hnow what can be wrong ?
> I have read many of support pages from MS for allocate more than 2G and
> nothing is working
> regards
> Pawel Mylka
>
|||Don't enable AWE unless you intend to go beyond 3GB.
"Hari Prasad" <hari_prasad_k@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OoI%23Nzt4FHA.3876@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> As Mike pointed out use Performance monitor to view the memory usage. As
> well as make the memory static (set min and max meory)
> once you enable AWE to SQL Server.
> Thanks
> Hari
> SQL Server MVP
> "Pawel Mylka" <pawel.mylka@.itcontrol.pl> wrote in message
> news:eEnOZij4FHA.252@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>

boot.ini /3GB problem

Hello,
I have win 2k3 standard edition, 4 GB of memory, SQL 2000 enterprise
edition. I have tryed to get more than 2 GB for sql. I have tryed /3GB swich
with awe enabled on sql 2000 without any good result. I could said even
situation is wors because now sql allocate maximum 1,327 GB.
Does anyone hnow what can be wrong '
I have read many of support pages from MS for allocate more than 2G and
nothing is working
regards
Pawel MylkaHi
Task manager is not the correct tool to evaluate if memory over 2 GB is
being used as it is not capable of it.
Use Windows Performance Monitor (%SystemRoot%\system32\perfmon.msc /s) to
see how much "Target Server Memory" is. It should be close to 2700 when SQL
Server is configured correctly.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Pawel Mylka" <pawel.mylka@.itcontrol.pl> wrote in message
news:eEnOZij4FHA.252@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I have win 2k3 standard edition, 4 GB of memory, SQL 2000 enterprise
> edition. I have tryed to get more than 2 GB for sql. I have tryed /3GB
> swich
> with awe enabled on sql 2000 without any good result. I could said even
> situation is wors because now sql allocate maximum 1,327 GB.
> Does anyone hnow what can be wrong '
> I have read many of support pages from MS for allocate more than 2G and
> nothing is working
> regards
> Pawel Mylka
>|||Hi,
As Mike pointed out use Performance monitor to view the memory usage. As
well as make the memory static (set min and max meory)
once you enable AWE to SQL Server.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Pawel Mylka" <pawel.mylka@.itcontrol.pl> wrote in message
news:eEnOZij4FHA.252@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I have win 2k3 standard edition, 4 GB of memory, SQL 2000 enterprise
> edition. I have tryed to get more than 2 GB for sql. I have tryed /3GB
> swich
> with awe enabled on sql 2000 without any good result. I could said even
> situation is wors because now sql allocate maximum 1,327 GB.
> Does anyone hnow what can be wrong '
> I have read many of support pages from MS for allocate more than 2G and
> nothing is working
> regards
> Pawel Mylka
>|||Don't enable AWE unless you intend to go beyond 3GB.
"Hari Prasad" <hari_prasad_k@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OoI%23Nzt4FHA.3876@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> As Mike pointed out use Performance monitor to view the memory usage. As
> well as make the memory static (set min and max meory)
> once you enable AWE to SQL Server.
> Thanks
> Hari
> SQL Server MVP
> "Pawel Mylka" <pawel.mylka@.itcontrol.pl> wrote in message
> news:eEnOZij4FHA.252@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>