How much memory can 32-bit SQL Server 2000 use on Windows Server 2003 Standard x64 Edi

I know the maximum memory that Server 2003 Standard x64 supports is 32 GB.
I know that 32-bit SQL Server 2003 Enterprise can address 8 GB on Win2k Adv.
Server and 64 GB on Win2k Datacenter with AWE enabled. The grand question
I have is how much can it address on Win2003 Standard x64? The full 32 GB?
Or does the x64 editions not support the AWE method that the 32-bit version
uses?
Thanks!
PaulMike,
I might be wrong, but as I understand it, the only 64 bit SQL server 2000 is
for Itanium. For x64,
you need to run 32 bit SQL server (which requires sp4 of SQL2K to be support
ed).
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Mike Hodgson" <mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Obp8hhkcFHA.220@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> You've mixed up SQL & Windows versions & editions in your question a
> little but I think I understand what you're getting at.
> You'd be wanting to run the 64 bit edition of SQL Server 2000
> (Enterprise) if you're planning on running it on a x64 version of
> Windows. Given that, max memory is not really a consideration anymore
> because 64 bit addressing works differently to 32 bit addressing and the
> 64 bit edition of SQL Server 2000 (Enterprise) can address up to 512GB
> of memory (no AWE needed anymore); 64-bit addressing has a theoretical
> limit of 18 Exabytes. So it's pretty much a case of how much memory can
> the OS present to SQL Server?
> Advantages of 64 bit SQL Server:
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/64bit/...tAdvantages.asp
> --
> *mike hodgson* |/ database administrator/ | mallesons stephen jaques
> *T* +61 (2) 9296 3668 |* F* +61 (2) 9296 3885 |* M* +61 (408) 675 907
> *E* mailto:mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com |* W* [url]http://www.mallesons.com[/url
]
>
> Paul Widner wrote:
>
>|||Thanks for the confirmation, Mike. I also found below at the sp4 home page (
which you probably seen,
but just in case):
"SQL Server 2000 Service Pack 4 (SP4) adds platform support for Microsoft Wi
ndows Server 2003 x64
Edition, allowing 32-bit SQL Server 2000 applications to run on 64-bit platf
orms using the Windows
on Windows emulator (WOW64). SP4 addresses specific issues discovered in SQL
Server 2000 since its
ship date. SP4 is also the first service pack to service the 64-bit edition
of SQL Server."
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/downloads/2000/sp4.mspx
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Mike Hodgson" <mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uBu$aXmcFHA.1044@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> On SQL matters I am much more likely to be wrong than you Tibor.
> After conducting a little research on the matter I see you are quite
> right (http://www.microsoft.com/sql/64bit/...nfo/sysreq.mspx). I
> eat humble pie.
> Oh well, at least I found that out before going out and buying SQL
> 64-bit & a brand new quad-Xeon (with EM64T extensions) box running Win
> 2003 x64 and expecting it to run. Hmmm...I'd better rethink our 64-bit
> SQL strategy methinks (good excuse to get some Itanium boxes <grin> ).
> --
> *mike hodgson* |/ database administrator/ | mallesons stephen jaques
> *T* +61 (2) 9296 3668 |* F* +61 (2) 9296 3885 |* M* +61 (408) 675 907
> *E* mailto:mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com |* W* [url]http://www.mallesons.com[/url
]
>
> Tibor Karaszi wrote:
>
>|||I'm guessing here but I think SQL2000 Enterprise should be able to access up
to 4GB on W2003 x64.
A 32bit app won't be able to access any more than 4GB on W2003 x64 because
you can't use PAE extensions, but I think as SQL 2000 is compiled to be
large memory aware it will be able to access more than 2GB.
Peter Lawton
"Paul Widner" <paul_widner@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u0vkGadcFHA.2520@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>I know the maximum memory that Server 2003 Standard x64 supports is 32 GB.
>I know that 32-bit SQL Server 2003 Enterprise can address 8 GB on Win2k
>Adv. Server and 64 GB on Win2k Datacenter with AWE enabled. The grand
>question I have is how much can it address on Win2003 Standard x64? The
>full 32 GB? Or does the x64 editions not support the AWE method that the
>32-bit version uses?
>
> Thanks!
> Paul
>|||PMJI, but SQL2005 will run 64-bit on Windows x64, so I wouldn't rush out and
spend money on an Itanium system unless you really need the performance.
It's supposed to be released the week of Nov. 7th.
Mike Kruchten
"Mike Hodgson" <mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uBu$aXmcFHA.1044@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> On SQL matters I am much more likely to be wrong than you Tibor.
> After conducting a little research on the matter I see you are quite
> right (http://www.microsoft.com/sql/64bit/...nfo/sysreq.mspx). I
> eat humble pie.
> Oh well, at least I found that out before going out and buying SQL
> 64-bit & a brand new quad-Xeon (with EM64T extensions) box running Win
> 2003 x64 and expecting it to run. Hmmm...I'd better rethink our 64-bit
> SQL strategy methinks (good excuse to get some Itanium boxes <grin> ).
> --
> *mike hodgson* |/ database administrator/ | mallesons stephen jaques
> *T* +61 (2) 9296 3668 |* F* +61 (2) 9296 3885 |* M* +61 (408) 675 907
> *E* mailto:mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com |* W*
> http://www.mallesons.com
>
> Tibor Karaszi wrote:
>
>|||Anyone know how I can go about getting an offical response from Microsoft in
regard to this?
Paul
"Peter Lawton" <devnull@.dummydomain.com> wrote in message
news:O1t0yJncFHA.2520@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> I'm guessing here but I think SQL2000 Enterprise should be able to access
> up to 4GB on W2003 x64.
> A 32bit app won't be able to access any more than 4GB on W2003 x64 because
> you can't use PAE extensions, but I think as SQL 2000 is compiled to be
> large memory aware it will be able to access more than 2GB.
> Peter Lawton
> "Paul Widner" <paul_widner@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:u0vkGadcFHA.2520@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>|||Did anyone ever get an answer to this?
"Paul Widner" <paul_widner@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O1fHdVpcFHA.1384@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Anyone know how I can go about getting an offical response from Microsoft
in
> regard to this?
> Paul
>
> "Peter Lawton" <devnull@.dummydomain.com> wrote in message
> news:O1t0yJncFHA.2520@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
access[vbcol=seagreen]
because[vbcol=seagreen]
GB.[vbcol=seagreen]
>sql