get table size: win2k

Showing posts with label win2k. Show all posts

Monday, March 26, 2012

How Much More Can I Put on This SQL Server?

We have a 4 processor (Xeon 700mhz), 3GB, SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition,
Win2K Standard, with 3 RAID Array's. Currently running about 20 databases,
75 concurrent connections. Performance monitor readings look good,
processor rarely goes above 35 percent, memory looks good, the disk drives
spike but are usually not too busy.
My question is how much more can I load on this thing (ballpark) before it
starts to get even medium stress. I'm looking for anyone with a similar
configuration, with much bigger numbers to get some idea of how fare I can
go with this machine. I have looked on www.tpc.org site and similar
configurations list 67,000 concurrent users and 87,000 tmp, but that just
doesn't seem real.
Thanks for any info.
Steven BerringerIt depends on kind of db applications you are running,
database design, overall size of databases in GB etc. A
database which is not bulky (for example more than 50gb)
in size, where most tables have a pk, and pre-defined
queries fetch one or few records at a time based on a
unique where condition, you could have few hundreds
simulaneious connections. Whereas in a data warehouse
application where you have really huge tables, users are
allowed to create and run queries as they like, and each
query ususally reads through millions of records, few
simulatneious users can saturate the system, and sometime
even one user can dominate the whole system.
Based on the information you have given, your db server
falls more into the first category, 150 or more
simultaneous users could stress the system. If possible,
you should run a stress test to see when the cpu hits 90%
or more utilization, that will be the saturation point.
i hope this answers your question to some extent. Let us
know if you have further questions.
>--Original Message--
>We have a 4 processor (Xeon 700mhz), 3GB, SQL Server 2000
Standard Edition,
>Win2K Standard, with 3 RAID Array's. Currently running
about 20 databases,
>75 concurrent connections. Performance monitor readings
look good,
>processor rarely goes above 35 percent, memory looks
good, the disk drives
>spike but are usually not too busy.
>My question is how much more can I load on this thing
(ballpark) before it
>starts to get even medium stress. I'm looking for anyone
with a similar
>configuration, with much bigger numbers to get some idea
of how fare I can
>go with this machine. I have looked on www.tpc.org site
and similar
>configurations list 67,000 concurrent users and 87,000
tmp, but that just
>doesn't seem real.
>Thanks for any info.
>Steven Berringer
>
>.
>|||Thanks for the feedback. I guess I was hoping to hear from someone who had
a similar configuration and had X number of users connected and running at
the same time. I understand the OLTP versus OLAP and good database design,
and all that, but 150 is a far cry from the 67,000 listed on the tpm web
site for a 4 processor box.
Does anyone have any real world stories?
Thanks
Steven
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1401701c3f7c3$8b5961c0$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> It depends on kind of db applications you are running,
> database design, overall size of databases in GB etc. A
> database which is not bulky (for example more than 50gb)
> in size, where most tables have a pk, and pre-defined
> queries fetch one or few records at a time based on a
> unique where condition, you could have few hundreds
> simulaneious connections. Whereas in a data warehouse
> application where you have really huge tables, users are
> allowed to create and run queries as they like, and each
> query ususally reads through millions of records, few
> simulatneious users can saturate the system, and sometime
> even one user can dominate the whole system.
> Based on the information you have given, your db server
> falls more into the first category, 150 or more
> simultaneous users could stress the system. If possible,
> you should run a stress test to see when the cpu hits 90%
> or more utilization, that will be the saturation point.
> i hope this answers your question to some extent. Let us
> know if you have further questions.
>
> >--Original Message--
> >We have a 4 processor (Xeon 700mhz), 3GB, SQL Server 2000
> Standard Edition,
> >Win2K Standard, with 3 RAID Array's. Currently running
> about 20 databases,
> >75 concurrent connections. Performance monitor readings
> look good,
> >processor rarely goes above 35 percent, memory looks
> good, the disk drives
> >spike but are usually not too busy.
> >
> >My question is how much more can I load on this thing
> (ballpark) before it
> >starts to get even medium stress. I'm looking for anyone
> with a similar
> >configuration, with much bigger numbers to get some idea
> of how fare I can
> >go with this machine. I have looked on www.tpc.org site
> and similar
> >configurations list 67,000 concurrent users and 87,000
> tmp, but that just
> >doesn't seem real.
> >
> >Thanks for any info.
> >Steven Berringer
> >
> >
> >.
> >sql

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

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!
PaulThis is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--070906010403080101090103
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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/productinfo/SQL64bitAdvantages.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* http://www.mallesons.com
Paul Widner wrote:
>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
>
>
--070906010403080101090103
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<tt>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: 
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://links.10026.com/?link=http://www.microsoft.com/sql/64bit/productinfo/SQL64bitAdvantages.asp</a> ">http://www.microsoft.com/sql/64bit/productinfo/SQL64bitAdvantages.asp">http://www.microsoft.com/sql/64bit/productinfo/SQL64bitAdvantages.asp</a> 
</tt>
<div class="moz-signature">
<title></title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
-- 
 mike
hodgson | database administrator
| mallesons stephen jaques 
T +61 (2) 9296 3668 | F +61
(2) 9296 3885 | M +61
(408) 675 907 
E
<a href="http://links.10026.com/?link=mailto:mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com">
mailto:mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com</a> | W <a href="http://links.10026.com/?link=/">http://www.mallesons.com">
http://www.mallesons.com</a> 
</div>
 
 
Paul Widner wrote:
<blockquote cite="midu0vkGadcFHA.2520@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
--070906010403080101090103--|||Mike,
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 supported).
--
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/productinfo/SQL64bitAdvantages.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* http://www.mallesons.com
>
> Paul Widner wrote:
>>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
>>
>>
>|||This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--070805020306060307040909
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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/productinfo/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:
>Mike,
>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 supported).
>
>
--070805020306060307040909
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<tt>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 (</tt><tt><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://links.10026.com/?link=http://www.microsoft.com/sql/64bit/productinfo/sysreq.mspx</a></tt><tt>). ">http://www.microsoft.com/sql/64bit/productinfo/sysreq.mspx">http://www.microsoft.com/sql/64bit/productinfo/sysreq.mspx</a></tt><tt>).
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 </tt><tt>expecting it to run</tt><tt>. Hmmm...I'd
better rethink our 64-bit SQL strategy methinks (good excuse to get
some Itanium boxes <grin>). 
</tt>
<div class="moz-signature">
<title></title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
-- 
 mike
hodgson | database administrator
| mallesons stephen jaques 
T +61 (2) 9296 3668 | F +61
(2) 9296 3885 | M +61
(408) 675 907 
E
<a href="http://links.10026.com/?link=mailto:mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com">
mailto:mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com</a> | W <a href="http://links.10026.com/?link=/">http://www.mallesons.com">
http://www.mallesons.com</a> 
</div>
 
 
Tibor Karaszi wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid%23FTpD4lcFHA.3040@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Mike,
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 supported).
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
--070805020306060307040909--|||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 Windows Server 2003 x64
Edition, allowing 32-bit SQL Server 2000 applications to run on 64-bit platforms 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/productinfo/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:
>>Mike,
>>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 supported).
>>
>|||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/productinfo/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:
>>Mike,
>>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
>>supported).
>>
>|||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...
>>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
>|||This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--050007030501090103020505
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Flick Paul Flessner or Euan Garden an email?
--
*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
Paul Widner 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...
>>
>>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
>>
>>
>
>
--050007030501090103020505
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<tt>Flick Paul Flessner or Euan Garden an email?</tt> 
<div class="moz-signature">
<title></title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
-- 
 mike
hodgson | database administrator
| mallesons stephen jaques 
T +61 (2) 9296 3668 | F +61
(2) 9296 3885 | M +61
(408) 675 907 
E
<a href="http://links.10026.com/?link=mailto:mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com">
mailto:mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com</a> | W <a href="http://links.10026.com/?link=/">http://www.mallesons.com">
http://www.mallesons.com</a> 
</div>
 
 
Paul Widner wrote:
<blockquote cite="midO1fHdVpcFHA.1384@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Anyone know how I can go about getting an offical response from Microsoft in
regard to this?
Paul
"Peter Lawton" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://links.10026.com/?link=mailto:devnull@.dummydomain.com"><devnull@.dummydomain.com></a> wrote in message
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://links.10026.com/?link=news:O1t0yJncFHA.2520@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl">news:O1t0yJncFHA.2520@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl</a>...
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://links.10026.com/?link=mailto:paul_widner@.hotmail.com"><paul_widner@.hotmail.com></a> wrote in message
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://links.10026.com/?link=news:u0vkGadcFHA.2520@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl">news:u0vkGadcFHA.2520@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl</a>...
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!-->
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
--050007030501090103020505--|||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...
> > 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
> >>
> >
> >
>

Monday, March 26, 2012

How Much More Can I Put on This SQL Server?

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

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

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

get table size

Blog Archive

About Me