Enabling MSSQLServerADHelper

I was installing application software that was trying to install SQL Server 2005 and received the following error message.

"Setup failed because Service MSSQLServerADHelper is disabled for the current hardware profile. Services must be set with the current Hardware Profile logon property profile enabled."

Simple fix for most but I do not know how to do what it asks.

Thanks, Bruce

Check this out as a good place to start:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q313939

Buck Woody

http://www.buckwoody.com

Enabling Mixed Mode Auth. with tSQL?

Is it possible to run a tSql statement that will enable Mixed-Mode authentication? My customers need to have this set and I don't want them to have to go into Enterprise Mgr. Any ideas?
Thanks!I'm not aware of any way. You may want to run a profiler trace and then do it through enterprise manager to see what command sit executes.

Just an idea...|||Valid tip by Loach, but that does include reading thru registry keys which is not advisable to deal with a code.
YOu're better of with GUI supplied tools.|||Originally posted by riceman744
Is it possible to run a tSql statement that will enable Mixed-Mode authentication? My customers need to have this set and I don't want them to have to go into Enterprise Mgr. Any ideas?

Thanks!

Hello,
you can change security model this way

begin
DECLARE @.hr int
DECLARE @.sqlserver int
declare @.hresult int
DECLARE @.IntegratedSecutiry int
declare @.hostname varchar(255)

declare @.servername varchar(255) set @.servername = @.@.servername

EXEC @.hr = master.dbo.sp_OACreate 'SQLDMO.SQLServer', @.sqlserver OUTPUT
IF @.hr = 0
PRINT 'Ok'
ELSE
EXEC sp_OAGetErrorInfo @.sqlserver

EXEC @.hr = master.dbo.sp_OASetProperty @.sqlserver, 'LoginSecure', 'TRUE'
IF @.hr = 0
PRINT 'Ok'
ELSE
EXEC sp_OAGetErrorInfo @.sqlserver


exec @.hr = sp_OAMethod @.sqlserver, 'Connect', NULL, @.servername
IF @.hr = 0
PRINT 'Ok'
ELSE
EXEC sp_OAGetErrorInfo @.sqlserver

EXEC @.hr = master.dbo.sp_OAGetProperty @.sqlserver, 'IntegratedSecurity', @.IntegratedSecutiry OUTPUT
IF @.hr = 0
PRINT 'Ok'
ELSE
EXEC sp_OAGetErrorInfo @.sqlserver


EXEC @.hr = master.dbo.sp_OASetProperty @.IntegratedSecutiry, 'SecurityMode', '2'
IF @.hr = 0
PRINT 'Ok'
ELSE
EXEC sp_OAGetErrorInfo @.sqlserver


EXEC @.hr = master.dbo.sp_OAGetProperty @.IntegratedSecutiry, 'SecurityMode'--, @.IntegratedSecutiry OUTPUT
IF @.hr = 0
PRINT 'Ok'
ELSE
EXEC sp_OAGetErrorInfo @.sqlserver

EXEC @.hr = master.dbo.sp_OADestroy @.sqlserver
end
GO

by
Paan-cha|||You can do it by modifying the registry.
For default instance
HKLM/Software/Microsoft/MSSQLServer/MSSQLServer/LoginMode

= 1 integrated security, 2 mixed.

But you probably don't want them to do that either.|||If you want to go that route then how about:

declare @.IntValue int
exec xp_regread 'HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE','Software\Microsoft\MSSQLServ er\MSSQLServer','LoginMode',@.IntValue OUTPUT
select @.IntValue as LoginMode

exec xp_regwrite 'HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE','Software\Microsoft\MSSQLServ er\MSSQLServer','LoginMode','REG_DWORD',1

exec xp_regread 'HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE','Software\Microsoft\MSSQLServ er\MSSQLServer','LoginMode',@.IntValue OUTPUT
select @.IntValue as LoginMode

Enabling Fulltext Service on database

Hi guys,
one of my customers moved a SQL Database from one server
to another. The database had 2 fulltext catalogs associated.
On the new DB Server the fulltext service doesn't start using
sp_fulltext_database 'enable'.
QA shows "Executing Query Batch..." but never returns.
I googled on the newsgroups and found the solution to update the
path in the sysfulltextcatalogs to a physical existent folder on the
new server. I tried again with sp_fulltext_database but again it
doesn't work.
The only thing I need is to clean/remove the two catalogs, rebuild
them and enabling the fulltext. What can I do ?
I read also the support ms doc #240867.
So, what am I missing ? Thank you all.
David De Giacomi
Microsoft MVP
Blog @. http://blogs.dotnethell.it/david/
http://www.dotnethell.it
sp_fulltext_database 'disable' in your problem database and run profiler to
see where it is getting stuck (if it does at all). Then I would try to
reenable it (sp_fulltext_database 'enable') and again run profiler to see
where it is getting stuck.
Make sure you kick all users out of this database when you run this command.
I would also bounce the box if you have this luxury before running this
command.
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"David De Giacomi [dotNetHell.it]" <david_NOSPAM@.dotnethell.it> wrote in
message news:uv%23YZTGOGHA.812@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi guys,
> one of my customers moved a SQL Database from one server
> to another. The database had 2 fulltext catalogs associated.
> On the new DB Server the fulltext service doesn't start using
> sp_fulltext_database 'enable'.
> QA shows "Executing Query Batch..." but never returns.
> I googled on the newsgroups and found the solution to update the
> path in the sysfulltextcatalogs to a physical existent folder on the
> new server. I tried again with sp_fulltext_database but again it
> doesn't work.
> The only thing I need is to clean/remove the two catalogs, rebuild
> them and enabling the fulltext. What can I do ?
> I read also the support ms doc #240867.
> So, what am I missing ? Thank you all.
> --
> David De Giacomi
> Microsoft MVP
> Blog @. http://blogs.dotnethell.it/david/
> http://www.dotnethell.it
>

Enabling Full-Text search for SQL 2000 Personal Edition

I am having trouble Enabling Full-Text search for SQL 2000 Personal Edition.
I have installed the Microsoft Search service and it is running. When I look
in enterprise manager the Full-Text Search option does not appear in the
Support Services folder. How can I accomplish this?
SQL FTS is not installed by default on the personal edition of SQL Server
You will need to re-run setup to install this component.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"David O. Thomas" <David O. Thomas@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:7DFCF7F9-8AD8-4635-83DB-29AB6F0B9241@.microsoft.com...
> I am having trouble Enabling Full-Text search for SQL 2000 Personal
Edition.
> I have installed the Microsoft Search service and it is running. When I
look
> in enterprise manager the Full-Text Search option does not appear in the
> Support Services folder. How can I accomplish this?

Enabling full text search on existing sql server instance

Hi

I have an existing instance of sql express 2005 w/advanced services installed. When I installed I did not install full text search. Is there a way I can enable full text search on this existing instance?

Thanks

Try this:

sp_configure 'user instances enabled', '0'

sp_fulltext_database 'enable'

Then go ahead and try create your catalogs and indexes as normal.

Enabling Full Text Search Feature in MSSQL

We want to use the full text search feature of MS SQL, for this we need to create the Full-Text catalogs for our databases. How can i do that.
ThanksCombine this link with what is in BOL and you are in business

http://www.databasejournal.com/features/mssql/article.php/1438211

HTH

Enabling Full Text

Is it possible to enable full text indexing on SQL Server without
re-installing (assuming that the full text option was not selected when SQL
was first installed)?
Dirk,
Yes. However, it depends upon the SQL Server version (7.0, 2000 or now 2005)
that you are using... Could you post the full output of -- SELECT
@.@.version -- as this is very helpful info in troubleshooting SQL FTS issues.
FYI, SQL Server 2000 installs the Full-text Search (FTS) components by
default, while SQL Server 7.0 doesn't, but you can use your SQL 7.0 CD and
use "custom installation" and under the server components, select "Full-text
Search".
Regards,
John
"Dirk" <Dirk@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8A7F6B05-3486-44E1-8763-C1F471B053FA@.microsoft.com...
> Is it possible to enable full text indexing on SQL Server without
> re-installing (assuming that the full text option was not selected when
SQL
> was first installed)?
|||Here it is:
Microsoft SQL Server 2000 - 8.00.760 (Intel X86) Dec 17 2002 14:22:05
Copyright (c) 1988-2003 Microsoft Corporation Developer Edition on Windows
NT 5.0 (Build 2195: Service Pack 4)
"John Kane" wrote:

> Dirk,
> Yes. However, it depends upon the SQL Server version (7.0, 2000 or now 2005)
> that you are using... Could you post the full output of -- SELECT
> @.@.version -- as this is very helpful info in troubleshooting SQL FTS issues.
> FYI, SQL Server 2000 installs the Full-text Search (FTS) components by
> default, while SQL Server 7.0 doesn't, but you can use your SQL 7.0 CD and
> use "custom installation" and under the server components, select "Full-text
> Search".
> Regards,
> John
>
> "Dirk" <Dirk@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8A7F6B05-3486-44E1-8763-C1F471B053FA@.microsoft.com...
> SQL
>
>
|||Dirk,
I stand corrected... "SQL Server 2000 installs the Full-text Search (FTS)
components by default," should of been "SQL Server 2000 installs the
Full-text Search (FTS) components by default for Standard Edition and
above". Since, you're using Developer Edition (and THAT is why I asked for
the @.@.version info!), this edition does NOT install the FTS components by
default and you can use the same procedures as I described for SQL Server
7.0...
Basically, you can use your SQL 2000 Developer Edition CD and run setup and
select "custom installation" and under the server components select
"Full-text Search" and the CD will install these components for you. Note,
if you have applied any Service Pack (SPx) to your Developer Edition, you
will need to re-install the SP as well so that any FTS &/or MSSearch fixes
can be applied.
Regards,
John
"Dirk" <Dirk@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C0C7237E-BDAA-47CD-95E7-47A5476C0841@.microsoft.com...
> Here it is:
> Microsoft SQL Server 2000 - 8.00.760 (Intel X86) Dec 17 2002 14:22:05
> Copyright (c) 1988-2003 Microsoft Corporation Developer Edition on
Windows[vbcol=seagreen]
> NT 5.0 (Build 2195: Service Pack 4)
>
> "John Kane" wrote:
2005)[vbcol=seagreen]
issues.[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
"Full-text[vbcol=seagreen]
when[vbcol=seagreen]

Enabling file growth

I am trying to keep my log file at unrestricted file growth, but every time
I save the settings it switches back to restricted growth with a default
file size. I tried to keep it restricted, and change the size llimit, but
it changed back to it'd default limit. Why is this changing automaically by
itself.
I want to keep file growth enabled at 5% with unrestricted growth, but it
keeps changing back to 5% and resticted file growth with a default size. I
don't understand why it changes!!!!ALTER DATABASE [database_name] MODIFY FILE ( NAME = 'file_name',
FILEGROWTH = 5%)
What do you get when you run the above statement with your
database_name and file_name changed?
On Jun 14, 9:35 am, "Matt Fritz" <mafr...@.state.pa.us> wrote:
> I am trying to keep my log file at unrestricted file growth, but every time
> I save the settings it switches back to restricted growth with a default
> file size. I tried to keep it restricted, and change the size llimit, but
> it changed back to it'd default limit. Why is this changing automaically by
> itself.
> I want to keep file growth enabled at 5% with unrestricted growth, but it
> keeps changing back to 5% and resticted file growth with a default size. I
> don't understand why it changes!!!!
On Jun 14, 9:35 am, "Matt Fritz" <mafr...@.state.pa.us> wrote:
> I am trying to keep my log file at unrestricted file growth, but every time
> I save the settings it switches back to restricted growth with a default
> file size. I tried to keep it restricted, and change the size llimit, but
> it changed back to it'd default limit. Why is this changing automaically by
> itself.
> I want to keep file growth enabled at 5% with unrestricted growth, but it
> keeps changing back to 5% and resticted file growth with a default size. I
> don't understand why it changes!!!!|||On 14 Jun, 14:35, "Matt Fritz" <mafr...@.state.pa.us> wrote:
> I am trying to keep my log file at unrestricted file growth, but every time
> I save the settings it switches back to restricted growth with a default
> file size. I tried to keep it restricted, and change the size llimit, but
> it changed back to it'd default limit. Why is this changing automaically by
> itself.
> I want to keep file growth enabled at 5% with unrestricted growth, but it
> keeps changing back to 5% and resticted file growth with a default size. I
> don't understand why it changes!!!!
Why do you want to grow the log at 5%? Log growth is something you
should try to avoid. My advice is to set it to a sufficient size so
that it won't grow.
If you need more help, please post the actual ALTER statements you
ran. Don't rely on the management tools to do it correctly for you.
--
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--

Enabling file growth

I am trying to keep my log file at unrestricted file growth, but every time
I save the settings it switches back to restricted growth with a default
file size. I tried to keep it restricted, and change the size llimit, but
it changed back to it'd default limit. Why is this changing automaically by
itself.
I want to keep file growth enabled at 5% with unrestricted growth, but it
keeps changing back to 5% and resticted file growth with a default size. I
don't understand why it changes!!!!ALTER DATABASE [database_name] MODIFY FILE ( NAME = 'file_name',
FILEGROWTH = 5%)
What do you get when you run the above statement with your
database_name and file_name changed?
On Jun 14, 9:35 am, "Matt Fritz" <mafr...@.state.pa.us> wrote:
> I am trying to keep my log file at unrestricted file growth, but every tim
e
> I save the settings it switches back to restricted growth with a default
> file size. I tried to keep it restricted, and change the size llimit, but
> it changed back to it'd default limit. Why is this changing automaically
by
> itself.
> I want to keep file growth enabled at 5% with unrestricted growth, but it
> keeps changing back to 5% and resticted file growth with a default size.
I
> don't understand why it changes!!!!
On Jun 14, 9:35 am, "Matt Fritz" <mafr...@.state.pa.us> wrote:
> I am trying to keep my log file at unrestricted file growth, but every tim
e
> I save the settings it switches back to restricted growth with a default
> file size. I tried to keep it restricted, and change the size llimit, but
> it changed back to it'd default limit. Why is this changing automaically
by
> itself.
> I want to keep file growth enabled at 5% with unrestricted growth, but it
> keeps changing back to 5% and resticted file growth with a default size.
I
> don't understand why it changes!!!!|||On 14 Jun, 14:35, "Matt Fritz" <mafr...@.state.pa.us> wrote:
> I am trying to keep my log file at unrestricted file growth, but every tim
e
> I save the settings it switches back to restricted growth with a default
> file size. I tried to keep it restricted, and change the size llimit, but
> it changed back to it'd default limit. Why is this changing automaically
by
> itself.
> I want to keep file growth enabled at 5% with unrestricted growth, but it
> keeps changing back to 5% and resticted file growth with a default size.
I
> don't understand why it changes!!!!
Why do you want to grow the log at 5%? Log growth is something you
should try to avoid. My advice is to set it to a sufficient size so
that it won't grow.
If you need more help, please post the actual ALTER statements you
ran. Don't rely on the management tools to do it correctly for you.
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--

Enabling file growth

I am trying to keep my log file at unrestricted file growth, but every time
I save the settings it switches back to restricted growth with a default
file size. I tried to keep it restricted, and change the size llimit, but
it changed back to it'd default limit. Why is this changing automaically by
itself.
I want to keep file growth enabled at 5% with unrestricted growth, but it
keeps changing back to 5% and resticted file growth with a default size. I
don't understand why it changes!!!!
ALTER DATABASE [database_name] MODIFY FILE ( NAME = 'file_name',
FILEGROWTH = 5%)
What do you get when you run the above statement with your
database_name and file_name changed?
On Jun 14, 9:35 am, "Matt Fritz" <mafr...@.state.pa.us> wrote:
> I am trying to keep my log file at unrestricted file growth, but every time
> I save the settings it switches back to restricted growth with a default
> file size. I tried to keep it restricted, and change the size llimit, but
> it changed back to it'd default limit. Why is this changing automaically by
> itself.
> I want to keep file growth enabled at 5% with unrestricted growth, but it
> keeps changing back to 5% and resticted file growth with a default size. I
> don't understand why it changes!!!!
On Jun 14, 9:35 am, "Matt Fritz" <mafr...@.state.pa.us> wrote:
> I am trying to keep my log file at unrestricted file growth, but every time
> I save the settings it switches back to restricted growth with a default
> file size. I tried to keep it restricted, and change the size llimit, but
> it changed back to it'd default limit. Why is this changing automaically by
> itself.
> I want to keep file growth enabled at 5% with unrestricted growth, but it
> keeps changing back to 5% and resticted file growth with a default size. I
> don't understand why it changes!!!!
|||On 14 Jun, 14:35, "Matt Fritz" <mafr...@.state.pa.us> wrote:
> I am trying to keep my log file at unrestricted file growth, but every time
> I save the settings it switches back to restricted growth with a default
> file size. I tried to keep it restricted, and change the size llimit, but
> it changed back to it'd default limit. Why is this changing automaically by
> itself.
> I want to keep file growth enabled at 5% with unrestricted growth, but it
> keeps changing back to 5% and resticted file growth with a default size. I
> don't understand why it changes!!!!
Why do you want to grow the log at 5%? Log growth is something you
should try to avoid. My advice is to set it to a sufficient size so
that it won't grow.
If you need more help, please post the actual ALTER statements you
ran. Don't rely on the management tools to do it correctly for you.
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx

Enabling E-Mail Delivery for RS

What is required in order to schedule a report for email delivery?
I have modified the RSReportServer.config file on SQL Server and created a
subscription for a report.
I can setup the subscription but it never runs.
Is there another step that I have left out?Carl,
Do you get any error messages in the Status column on the Subscriptions page
of report designer?
Andre
"Carl Meister" wrote:
> What is required in order to schedule a report for email delivery?
> I have modified the RSReportServer.config file on SQL Server and created a
> subscription for a report.
> I can setup the subscription but it never runs.
> Is there another step that I have left out?
>|||Andre,
On the subscriptions page for the report in the status column is "New
Subscription".
The Last Run column is empty.
I have this report scheduled to run every hour but it seems like it never
kicks off.
"Andre" wrote:
> Carl,
> Do you get any error messages in the Status column on the Subscriptions page
> of report designer?
> Andre
> "Carl Meister" wrote:
> > What is required in order to schedule a report for email delivery?
> >
> > I have modified the RSReportServer.config file on SQL Server and created a
> > subscription for a report.
> >
> > I can setup the subscription but it never runs.
> >
> > Is there another step that I have left out?
> >|||Hi Carl
I think the "SQL Agent" need to run, check this.
BR Per

Enabling Drill thru in Excel Pivot Table

Am I mistaken, or are we not able to share details contained in the fact table with our excel pivot table users?

I have enabled drill through in Analysis Services and it works terrifically from that console...how can I deliver the same detail content to my pivot table users? If not in a pivot table, what is recommended that can easily be integrated with the pivot tables?No you cannot drillthrough from a pivot table but microsoft was nice enough to give you code to enable a drillthrough. (Although I havn't tested it on fist glance I personally would modigy some of it).

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnexcl2k2/html/odc_xlextendolap.asp|||You're assuming I'm capable. Despite my inadequacy, I will see what I can manage.|||PS - Thanks for the heads-up. It's appreciated.|||Ok, after I tested it I decided against it.
It only works with office XP and an addin.
A link to the AddIn in found on the same page i gave you.
I you have office XP and this works, let me know.
Although this is a pathetic reason to upgrade a office of 300 people to office XP.
Sorry for Bitchin just letting off some steam.

Enabling Diagram Support in SQL 2005

I get the message I must Alter Authorization. I have not been able to get
this to work. If you have successfully done this, please let me know what
you did.
Note: These are databases which have been restored from SQL 2000 backups,
if that is of any consequence.
Thanks
Migrating to SQL 2005
Since SQL 2005 is still in beta, you'll want to post this in the Community
Newsgroups:
http://communities.microsoft.com/new...r2005&slcid=us
--Brian
(Please reply to the newsgroups only.)
"Allan" <Allan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1E015795-FB82-41E7-8A39-C8B347860D35@.microsoft.com...
>I get the message I must Alter Authorization. I have not been able to get
> this to work. If you have successfully done this, please let me know what
> you did.
> Note: These are databases which have been restored from SQL 2000 backups,
> if that is of any consequence.
> Thanks
> --
> Migrating to SQL 2005

Enabling Diagram Support in SQL 2005

I get the message I must Alter Authorization. I have not been able to get
this to work. If you have successfully done this, please let me know what
you did.
Note: These are databases which have been restored from SQL 2000 backups,
if that is of any consequence.
Thanks
--
Migrating to SQL 2005Since SQL 2005 is still in beta, you'll want to post this in the Community
Newsgroups:
http://communities.microsoft.com/ne...lcid=us

--Brian
(Please reply to the newsgroups only.)
"Allan" <Allan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1E015795-FB82-41E7-8A39-C8B347860D35@.microsoft.com...
>I get the message I must Alter Authorization. I have not been able to get
> this to work. If you have successfully done this, please let me know what
> you did.
> Note: These are databases which have been restored from SQL 2000 backups,
> if that is of any consequence.
> Thanks
> --
> Migrating to SQL 2005

Enabling Diagram Support in SQL 2005

I get the message I must Alter Authorization. I have not been able to get
this to work. If you have successfully done this, please let me know what
you did.
Note: These are databases which have been restored from SQL 2000 backups,
if that is of any consequence.
Thanks
--
Migrating to SQL 2005Since SQL 2005 is still in beta, you'll want to post this in the Community
Newsgroups:
http://communities.microsoft.com/newsgroups/default.asp?icp=sqlserver2005&slcid=us
--
--Brian
(Please reply to the newsgroups only.)
"Allan" <Allan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1E015795-FB82-41E7-8A39-C8B347860D35@.microsoft.com...
>I get the message I must Alter Authorization. I have not been able to get
> this to work. If you have successfully done this, please let me know what
> you did.
> Note: These are databases which have been restored from SQL 2000 backups,
> if that is of any consequence.
> Thanks
> --
> Migrating to SQL 2005

Enabling CLR Integration

Hi All,
I'm new to SQL Server Express. But I need to find out how easy it is to create custom types with SQL Server Express because we have to represent house numbers as a custom type in the database. After enabling the CLR integration with the SQL Server Surface Area Configuration tool, I created an SQL Server Project with VS 2005 Pro., created a custom type called HouseNo, deployed it to a database and finally created a table with a column of that custom type. But when I tried to use the option 'Show Table Data' for that table, the following errors always appeared

SQL Execution Error

Executed SQL statement SELECT NP.ToString() AS NP From Table1
Error Source : .NET SqlClient Data Provider
Error Message : Execution of user code in the .NET Framework is disabled. Enable "CLR Enabled" configuration Option. -- I think I've already enabled it.

Does anyone know how to solve the problem? Just one more question, for a custom type implementing the IComparable interface, would SQL Server Express uses the CompareTo method to perform sorting?

Thanks!

Regards,
Nathan
-
The SQL Server Epxress is newest and the following is code for the custom type.

using System;
using System.Data;
using System.Data.SqlClient;
using System.Data.SqlTypes;
using Microsoft.SqlServer.Server;

[Serializable]
[Microsoft.SqlServer.Server.SqlUserDefinedType(Format.UserDefined, IsByteOrdered = true, MaxByteSize = 8000)]
public class HouseNo : INullable, IComparable, IBinarySerialize
{
// Private member

private String number;
private String letter;
private bool m_Null;

public HouseNo()
{
Number = "0";
Letter = "0";
}

public HouseNo(String number, String letter)
{
Number = number;
Letter = letter;
}

public string Number
{
get { return number; }
set { number = value; }
}

public string Letter
{
get { return letter; }
set { letter = value; }
}

public int CompareTo(Object obj)
{
if (obj is HouseNo)
{
HouseNo hno = (HouseNo) obj;
int numCompare = Number.CompareTo(hno.Number);

return (numCompare == 0 ? Letter.CompareTo(hno.Letter) : numCompare);
}
else throw new Exception("Obj is not a HouseNo");

}

public override string ToString()
{
// Replace the following code with your code
return Number+Letter;
}

public bool IsNull
{
get
{
// Put your code here
return m_Null;
}
}

public static HouseNo Null
{
get
{
HouseNo h = new HouseNo();
h.m_Null = true;
return h;
}
}

public static HouseNo Parse(SqlString s)
{
if (s.IsNull)
return Null;
HouseNo u = new HouseNo();
// Put your code here
return u;
}

#region IBinarySerialize Members

public void Read(System.IO.BinaryReader r)
{
Number = r.ReadString();
Letter = r.ReadString();
}

public void Write(System.IO.BinaryWriter w)
{
w.Write(Number);
w.Write(Letter);
}

#endregion

}

hi,

Nathan Lai wrote:

Hi All,
Error Message : Execution of user code in the .NET Framework is disabled. Enable "CLR Enabled" configuration Option. -- I think I've already enabled it.

Does anyone know how to solve the problem?

verify the clr is really enabled...

SET NOCOUNT ON;
EXEC sp_configure 'show advanced options', 1;
GO
RECONFIGURE;
GO
EXEC sp_configure 'clr enabled';
-- EXEC sp_configure 'clr enabled', 1;
GO
EXEC sp_configure 'show advanced options', 0;
GO
RECONFIGURE;

Just one more question, for a custom type implementing the IComparable interface, would SQL Server Express uses the CompareTo method to perform sorting?

[Serializable]
[Microsoft.SqlServer.Server.SqlUserDefinedType(Format.UserDefined, IsByteOrdered = true, MaxByteSize = 8000)]
public class HouseNo : INullable, IComparable, IBinarySerialize
{

public int CompareTo(Object obj)
{
if (obj is HouseNo)
{
HouseNo hno = (HouseNo) obj;
int numCompare = Number.CompareTo(hno.Number);

return (numCompare == 0 ? Letter.CompareTo(hno.Letter) : numCompare);
}
else throw new Exception("Obj is not a HouseNo");

}

yes.. it follows the ICompare implementation

#region IBinarySerialize Members

public void Read(System.IO.BinaryReader r)
{
Number = r.ReadString();
Letter = r.ReadString();
}

public void Write(System.IO.BinaryWriter w)
{
w.Write(Number);
w.Write(Letter);
}

#endregion

}

but you have to be aware on how the sting serialization is performed.. it prefixes data with the lenght of the string to be serialized and then the bytes of the serialized string.. if you directly sort on the row byte data, it will be perfomed from the shortest data, as the lenght is the first "set" of data of the serialized string

the first byte indicates the presence of null, the next one indicates the overall lenghts, then all the bytes storing the actual data..

you can workarond that padding all strings to be serialized to the same lenght with null chars, that's to say

w.Write(this.Letter.PadRight(lenght, (char)0));

and deserialize it like

this.Letter = r.ReadString().TrimEnd(new char[] {(char)0});

this will always pad the string to be serialized to the defined lenght so that byte order is the same as the semantic ordering of the column and thus can even be correctly indexed in it's raw form, and, used in an ORDER BY clause it will perform like a corresponding char(lenght) equivalent column..

regards

|||Hi,

I've checked that the CLR integration has actually been enabled in the database as it is possible to execute the following query using the 'sqlcmd' utility :

> use GIS; -- use the GIS database;
> select NP.ToString() as NP from Table1

This query returned an empty table as a result and reported no errors. But when I did the same thing in VS 2005 Pro., I continued to receive the same error message as stated in the previous post -- Execution of user code in the .NET Framework is disabled. Enable "CLR Enabled" configuration option.

The .NET Framework Data Provider for SQL Server is used to perform the connection. And the following connection string is used :

Data Source=.\SQLEXPRESS;AttachDbFilename="C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL.1\MSSQL\Data\GISDB.mdf";Integrated Security=True;Connect Timeout=30;User Instance=True"

Is there any problem with the connection string?

Thanks!

Regards,
Nathan
|||

Hi Nathan,

Your connection string is fine, but it is for a User Instance, not the main instance. User Instances are completely independent from the parent Instance of SQL Express and you need to configure them separately. When you work in Management Studio, you're working against the parent instance, not the user instance. Check out the User Instance white paper for more information.

Typically, all configuration of a User Instance would be done at runtime, use a SqlCommand to run the configure statement to turn the CLR on for the User Instance.

sp_configure 'clr enabled', 1

You can also use SQLUtil (available in the MS download center) to run queries against the User Instance or connect to a running User Instance from Management Studio or SQLCmd using it's pipe name. To get the pipe name, you'll need to run

select * from sys.dm_os_child_instances

and then make the connection using the pipe name returned for the User Instance you want. There are already a number of posts in this forum explaining User Instances in more detail, just search on my name and 'User Instance' to find them.

Regards,

Mike Wachal

Enabling AWE SQL Server 2005 64-bit

Hi All,
I'm trying to enable AWE to access more physical memory for SQL Server 2005
64-bit. I am not seeing the "Address Windowing Extensions enabled" message in
the SQL server logs when I restart services. I am following SQL documentation
to do this but am having no luck. I have done this with SQL 2000 32-bit no
worries. Are things different for 64-bit SQL 2005?
Please provide advice.
Thanks in advanced,
Cheers,
Phil
Hi Phil
AWE is not needed with 64-bit. AWE is only needed because a 32-bit address
field cannot access any memory address higher than 4GB. With 64 bits for
addressing, you can directly address all the memory on your machine.
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.InsideSQLServer.com
http://sqlblog.com
"philt" <philt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C97C67C8-C6EE-455E-BF13-EE139812B7E5@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> I'm trying to enable AWE to access more physical memory for SQL Server
> 2005
> 64-bit. I am not seeing the "Address Windowing Extensions enabled" message
> in
> the SQL server logs when I restart services. I am following SQL
> documentation
> to do this but am having no luck. I have done this with SQL 2000 32-bit no
> worries. Are things different for 64-bit SQL 2005?
> Please provide advice.
> Thanks in advanced,
> Cheers,
> Phil
|||Thanks Kalen, that's great.
So are you saying I do nothing? eg don't enable AWE in SQL?, don't add PAE
to boot.ini don't configure min and max server memory in SQL config?
Just let SQL 2005 64bit do it's own thing?
I'm using "Windows Server 2003 standard 64bit" and "SQL Server 2005 Standard
edition 64bit".
8GB of ram on server, was wanting to reserver 6 GB for SQL.
Thanks again.
Cheers,
Phil
"Kalen Delaney" wrote:

> Hi Phil
> AWE is not needed with 64-bit. AWE is only needed because a 32-bit address
> field cannot access any memory address higher than 4GB. With 64 bits for
> addressing, you can directly address all the memory on your machine.
> --
> HTH
> Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
> www.InsideSQLServer.com
> http://sqlblog.com
>
> "philt" <philt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C97C67C8-C6EE-455E-BF13-EE139812B7E5@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||configuring min / max is good. I'm using it on all my servers.
AWE will not offer any performance advantage.
PAE mean nothing for an x64 server.
"philt" <philt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0DA946FF-AF53-4D7A-910A-99C088997C49@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks Kalen, that's great.
> So are you saying I do nothing? eg don't enable AWE in SQL?, don't add PAE
> to boot.ini don't configure min and max server memory in SQL config?
> Just let SQL 2005 64bit do it's own thing?
> I'm using "Windows Server 2003 standard 64bit" and "SQL Server 2005
> Standard
> edition 64bit".
> 8GB of ram on server, was wanting to reserver 6 GB for SQL.
> Thanks again.
> Cheers,
> Phil
> "Kalen Delaney" wrote:
|||I saw a question like this: "If we do not need AWE in x64 then why it is
still exists?"
And I saw the answer for this question which was about AWE is not just for
address extention in x86 systems and it has other purposes too however that
was too technical and I didn't understand indeed. I hope I'll manage to find
a simplified answer for this one day =)
So what would your answer be to this question Kalen?
Ekrem nsoy
"Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:elNSnmuMIHA.4740@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Hi Phil
> AWE is not needed with 64-bit. AWE is only needed because a 32-bit address
> field cannot access any memory address higher than 4GB. With 64 bits for
> addressing, you can directly address all the memory on your machine.
> --
> HTH
> Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
> www.InsideSQLServer.com
> http://sqlblog.com
>
> "philt" <philt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C97C67C8-C6EE-455E-BF13-EE139812B7E5@.microsoft.com...
>
|||Correct - you need to do nothing but set max/min memory. I think it is best
practice to set at least some spread between max and min. Assuming there
isn't anything else running on the box, 2GB left for the OS should be
sufficient.
Kevin G. Boles
TheSQLGuru
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"philt" <philt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0DA946FF-AF53-4D7A-910A-99C088997C49@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks Kalen, that's great.
> So are you saying I do nothing? eg don't enable AWE in SQL?, don't add PAE
> to boot.ini don't configure min and max server memory in SQL config?
> Just let SQL 2005 64bit do it's own thing?
> I'm using "Windows Server 2003 standard 64bit" and "SQL Server 2005
> Standard
> edition 64bit".
> 8GB of ram on server, was wanting to reserver 6 GB for SQL.
> Thanks again.
> Cheers,
> Phil
> "Kalen Delaney" wrote:
|||Ekrem
My answer to the question "Why does AWE exist in x64" would be that MS just
didn't remove it from the metadata and the GUI because it is still needed
for 32-bit. Are there other config options or GUI properties that are
different between 32 and 64 bit? I do not have a 64-bit system to test this
out on.
The only issue with AWE that might apply here, that I am aware of, is that
with AWE enabled SQL Server will commit your max (or target) memory
immediately on startup and not wait until the system needs to use that much.
Again, I do not have a 64 bit machine, so anything I say would just be based
on things I have read.
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.InsideSQLServer.com
http://sqlblog.com
"Ekrem nsoy" <ekrem@.btegitim.com> wrote in message
news:B2358AFA-38B1-48E3-B8FC-64FF72EA9834@.microsoft.com...
>I saw a question like this: "If we do not need AWE in x64 then why it is
>still exists?"
> And I saw the answer for this question which was about AWE is not just for
> address extention in x86 systems and it has other purposes too however
> that was too technical and I didn't understand indeed. I hope I'll manage
> to find a simplified answer for this one day =)
> So what would your answer be to this question Kalen?
> --
> Ekrem nsoy
>
> "Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
> news:elNSnmuMIHA.4740@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
|||Hi all,
Although you can't enable AWE directly in the x64 version if you give
the service account the "lock pages in memory" advanced user right in
windows SQL Server will use AWE to access the memory. The only reason
for doing this is if you see a message like "a large portion of SQL
Server memory has been paged out" in the SQL Server error log.
Enabling this means that windows can't page out SQL Server's memory
(just like AWE on 32-bit) and is a fairly recent Microsoft best
practice but guidance has just changed over the last few days. The
best practice now is only to enable it to if you see the "paged out"
error message in the log.
Regards,
Christian Bolton - Database Architect
http://coeo.com - The SQL Server Experts
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/christian
|||I found an answer to this question in the BOL. In a note, they say the
following:
- Note that the sp_configure awe enabled option is present on 64-bit SQL
Server, but it is ignored. It is subject to removal in future releases or
service packs of 64-bit SQL Server.
Link: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms187499.aspx
For reference.
Ekrem nsoy
"Ekrem nsoy" <ekrem@.btegitim.com> wrote in message
news:8AAA5BC9-3D05-406C-BBD7-59977F9E43E6@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Kalen,
> Thanks for sharing your thought with us.
> Well, the question "Why does AWE exist in x64" goes to the x64 version of
> SQL Server. As x64 version and x86 versions are different, this option
> could be removed from the x64 version' s SSMS. By the way I don't know if
> there is any difference between the x86 and x64' s SSMS' ? Or you might be
> right, SSMS is the same SSMS in all systems. If this is the situation,
> then the question is going to be kinda answered. However, if SSMSs are
> different in different architectures then I'd love to learn why AWE option
> is still there, in x64's SSMS.
> Unfortunately I don't have a x64 system either.
> --
> Ekrem nsoy
>
> "Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
> news:ugAL923MIHA.1204@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>

Enabling AWE SQL Server 2005 64-bit

Hi All,
I'm trying to enable AWE to access more physical memory for SQL Server 2005
64-bit. I am not seeing the "Address Windowing Extensions enabled" message i
n
the SQL server logs when I restart services. I am following SQL documentatio
n
to do this but am having no luck. I have done this with SQL 2000 32-bit no
worries. Are things different for 64-bit SQL 2005?
Please provide advice.
Thanks in advanced,
Cheers,
PhilHi Phil
AWE is not needed with 64-bit. AWE is only needed because a 32-bit address
field cannot access any memory address higher than 4GB. With 64 bits for
addressing, you can directly address all the memory on your machine.
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.InsideSQLServer.com
http://sqlblog.com
"philt" <philt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C97C67C8-C6EE-455E-BF13-EE139812B7E5@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> I'm trying to enable AWE to access more physical memory for SQL Server
> 2005
> 64-bit. I am not seeing the "Address Windowing Extensions enabled" message
> in
> the SQL server logs when I restart services. I am following SQL
> documentation
> to do this but am having no luck. I have done this with SQL 2000 32-bit no
> worries. Are things different for 64-bit SQL 2005?
> Please provide advice.
> Thanks in advanced,
> Cheers,
> Phil|||Thanks Kalen, that's great.
So are you saying I do nothing? eg don't enable AWE in SQL?, don't add PAE
to boot.ini don't configure min and max server memory in SQL config?
Just let SQL 2005 64bit do it's own thing?
I'm using "Windows Server 2003 standard 64bit" and "SQL Server 2005 Standard
edition 64bit".
8GB of ram on server, was wanting to reserver 6 GB for SQL.
Thanks again.
Cheers,
Phil
"Kalen Delaney" wrote:

> Hi Phil
> AWE is not needed with 64-bit. AWE is only needed because a 32-bit address
> field cannot access any memory address higher than 4GB. With 64 bits for
> addressing, you can directly address all the memory on your machine.
> --
> HTH
> Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
> www.InsideSQLServer.com
> http://sqlblog.com
>
> "philt" <philt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C97C67C8-C6EE-455E-BF13-EE139812B7E5@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||configuring min / max is good. I'm using it on all my servers.
AWE will not offer any performance advantage.
PAE mean nothing for an x64 server.
"philt" <philt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0DA946FF-AF53-4D7A-910A-99C088997C49@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks Kalen, that's great.
> So are you saying I do nothing? eg don't enable AWE in SQL?, don't add PAE
> to boot.ini don't configure min and max server memory in SQL config?
> Just let SQL 2005 64bit do it's own thing?
> I'm using "Windows Server 2003 standard 64bit" and "SQL Server 2005
> Standard
> edition 64bit".
> 8GB of ram on server, was wanting to reserver 6 GB for SQL.
> Thanks again.
> Cheers,
> Phil
> "Kalen Delaney" wrote:
>|||Its a good idea to set lock pages in memory for the service account too. It
would be bad to page out that much memory.
Jason Massie
www: http://statisticsio.com
rss: http://statisticsio.com/Home/tabid/.../1/Default.aspx
"philt" <philt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0DA946FF-AF53-4D7A-910A-99C088997C49@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks Kalen, that's great.
> So are you saying I do nothing? eg don't enable AWE in SQL?, don't add PAE
> to boot.ini don't configure min and max server memory in SQL config?
> Just let SQL 2005 64bit do it's own thing?
> I'm using "Windows Server 2003 standard 64bit" and "SQL Server 2005
> Standard
> edition 64bit".
> 8GB of ram on server, was wanting to reserver 6 GB for SQL.
> Thanks again.
> Cheers,
> Phil
> "Kalen Delaney" wrote:
>|||I saw a question like this: "If we do not need AWE in x64 then why it is
still exists?"
And I saw the answer for this question which was about AWE is not just for
address extention in x86 systems and it has other purposes too however that
was too technical and I didn't understand indeed. I hope I'll manage to find
a simplified answer for this one day =)
So what would your answer be to this question Kalen?
Ekrem nsoy
"Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:elNSnmuMIHA.4740@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Hi Phil
> AWE is not needed with 64-bit. AWE is only needed because a 32-bit address
> field cannot access any memory address higher than 4GB. With 64 bits for
> addressing, you can directly address all the memory on your machine.
> --
> HTH
> Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
> www.InsideSQLServer.com
> http://sqlblog.com
>
> "philt" <philt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C97C67C8-C6EE-455E-BF13-EE139812B7E5@.microsoft.com...
>|||No go on this one. Lock Pages in Memory on has effect for SQL Server
Enterprise Edition, IIRC.
Kevin G. Boles
TheSQLGuru
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"jason" <jason-r3move@.statisticsio.com> wrote in message
news:8003100B-724F-466B-8ABD-DD3CCEBCFAB9@.microsoft.com...
> Its a good idea to set lock pages in memory for the service account too.
> It would be bad to page out that much memory.
>
> --
> Jason Massie
> www: http://statisticsio.com
> rss: http://statisticsio.com/Home/tabid/.../1/Default.aspx
>
> "philt" <philt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0DA946FF-AF53-4D7A-910A-99C088997C49@.microsoft.com...
>|||Correct - you need to do nothing but set max/min memory. I think it is best
practice to set at least some spread between max and min. Assuming there
isn't anything else running on the box, 2GB left for the OS should be
sufficient.
Kevin G. Boles
TheSQLGuru
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"philt" <philt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0DA946FF-AF53-4D7A-910A-99C088997C49@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks Kalen, that's great.
> So are you saying I do nothing? eg don't enable AWE in SQL?, don't add PAE
> to boot.ini don't configure min and max server memory in SQL config?
> Just let SQL 2005 64bit do it's own thing?
> I'm using "Windows Server 2003 standard 64bit" and "SQL Server 2005
> Standard
> edition 64bit".
> 8GB of ram on server, was wanting to reserver 6 GB for SQL.
> Thanks again.
> Cheers,
> Phil
> "Kalen Delaney" wrote:
>|||Ekrem
My answer to the question "Why does AWE exist in x64" would be that MS just
didn't remove it from the metadata and the GUI because it is still needed
for 32-bit. Are there other config options or GUI properties that are
different between 32 and 64 bit? I do not have a 64-bit system to test this
out on.
The only issue with AWE that might apply here, that I am aware of, is that
with AWE enabled SQL Server will commit your max (or target) memory
immediately on startup and not wait until the system needs to use that much.
Again, I do not have a 64 bit machine, so anything I say would just be based
on things I have read.
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.InsideSQLServer.com
http://sqlblog.com
"Ekrem nsoy" <ekrem@.btegitim.com> wrote in message
news:B2358AFA-38B1-48E3-B8FC-64FF72EA9834@.microsoft.com...
>I saw a question like this: "If we do not need AWE in x64 then why it is
>still exists?"
> And I saw the answer for this question which was about AWE is not just for
> address extention in x86 systems and it has other purposes too however
> that was too technical and I didn't understand indeed. I hope I'll manage
> to find a simplified answer for this one day =)
> So what would your answer be to this question Kalen?
> --
> Ekrem nsoy
>
> "Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
> news:elNSnmuMIHA.4740@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>|||Hi Kalen,
Thanks for sharing your thought with us.
Well, the question "Why does AWE exist in x64" goes to the x64 version of
SQL Server. As x64 version and x86 versions are different, this option could
be removed from the x64 version' s SSMS. By the way I don't know if there is
any difference between the x86 and x64' s SSMS' ? Or you might be right,
SSMS is the same SSMS in all systems. If this is the situation, then the
question is going to be kinda answered. However, if SSMSs are different in
different architectures then I'd love to learn why AWE option is still
there, in x64's SSMS.
Unfortunately I don't have a x64 system either.
Ekrem nsoy
"Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:ugAL923MIHA.1204@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Ekrem
> My answer to the question "Why does AWE exist in x64" would be that MS
> just didn't remove it from the metadata and the GUI because it is still
> needed for 32-bit. Are there other config options or GUI properties that
> are different between 32 and 64 bit? I do not have a 64-bit system to
> test this out on.
> The only issue with AWE that might apply here, that I am aware of, is that
> with AWE enabled SQL Server will commit your max (or target) memory
> immediately on startup and not wait until the system needs to use that
> much. Again, I do not have a 64 bit machine, so anything I say would just
> be based on things I have read.
> --
> HTH
> Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
> www.InsideSQLServer.com
> http://sqlblog.com
>
> "Ekrem nsoy" <ekrem@.btegitim.com> wrote in message
> news:B2358AFA-38B1-48E3-B8FC-64FF72EA9834@.microsoft.com...
>

Enabling AWE SQL Server 2005 64-bit

Hi All,
I'm trying to enable AWE to access more physical memory for SQL Server 2005
64-bit. I am not seeing the "Address Windowing Extensions enabled" message in
the SQL server logs when I restart services. I am following SQL documentation
to do this but am having no luck. I have done this with SQL 2000 32-bit no
worries. Are things different for 64-bit SQL 2005?
Please provide advice.
Thanks in advanced,
Cheers,
PhilHi Phil
AWE is not needed with 64-bit. AWE is only needed because a 32-bit address
field cannot access any memory address higher than 4GB. With 64 bits for
addressing, you can directly address all the memory on your machine.
--
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.InsideSQLServer.com
http://sqlblog.com
"philt" <philt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C97C67C8-C6EE-455E-BF13-EE139812B7E5@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> I'm trying to enable AWE to access more physical memory for SQL Server
> 2005
> 64-bit. I am not seeing the "Address Windowing Extensions enabled" message
> in
> the SQL server logs when I restart services. I am following SQL
> documentation
> to do this but am having no luck. I have done this with SQL 2000 32-bit no
> worries. Are things different for 64-bit SQL 2005?
> Please provide advice.
> Thanks in advanced,
> Cheers,
> Phil|||Thanks Kalen, that's great.
So are you saying I do nothing? eg don't enable AWE in SQL?, don't add PAE
to boot.ini don't configure min and max server memory in SQL config?
Just let SQL 2005 64bit do it's own thing?
I'm using "Windows Server 2003 standard 64bit" and "SQL Server 2005 Standard
edition 64bit".
8GB of ram on server, was wanting to reserver 6 GB for SQL.
Thanks again.
Cheers,
Phil
"Kalen Delaney" wrote:
> Hi Phil
> AWE is not needed with 64-bit. AWE is only needed because a 32-bit address
> field cannot access any memory address higher than 4GB. With 64 bits for
> addressing, you can directly address all the memory on your machine.
> --
> HTH
> Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
> www.InsideSQLServer.com
> http://sqlblog.com
>
> "philt" <philt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C97C67C8-C6EE-455E-BF13-EE139812B7E5@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I'm trying to enable AWE to access more physical memory for SQL Server
> > 2005
> > 64-bit. I am not seeing the "Address Windowing Extensions enabled" message
> > in
> > the SQL server logs when I restart services. I am following SQL
> > documentation
> > to do this but am having no luck. I have done this with SQL 2000 32-bit no
> > worries. Are things different for 64-bit SQL 2005?
> >
> > Please provide advice.
> > Thanks in advanced,
> > Cheers,
> > Phil
>
>|||configuring min / max is good. I'm using it on all my servers.
AWE will not offer any performance advantage.
PAE mean nothing for an x64 server.
"philt" <philt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0DA946FF-AF53-4D7A-910A-99C088997C49@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks Kalen, that's great.
> So are you saying I do nothing? eg don't enable AWE in SQL?, don't add PAE
> to boot.ini don't configure min and max server memory in SQL config?
> Just let SQL 2005 64bit do it's own thing?
> I'm using "Windows Server 2003 standard 64bit" and "SQL Server 2005
> Standard
> edition 64bit".
> 8GB of ram on server, was wanting to reserver 6 GB for SQL.
> Thanks again.
> Cheers,
> Phil
> "Kalen Delaney" wrote:
>> Hi Phil
>> AWE is not needed with 64-bit. AWE is only needed because a 32-bit
>> address
>> field cannot access any memory address higher than 4GB. With 64 bits for
>> addressing, you can directly address all the memory on your machine.
>> --
>> HTH
>> Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
>> www.InsideSQLServer.com
>> http://sqlblog.com
>>
>> "philt" <philt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:C97C67C8-C6EE-455E-BF13-EE139812B7E5@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > I'm trying to enable AWE to access more physical memory for SQL Server
>> > 2005
>> > 64-bit. I am not seeing the "Address Windowing Extensions enabled"
>> > message
>> > in
>> > the SQL server logs when I restart services. I am following SQL
>> > documentation
>> > to do this but am having no luck. I have done this with SQL 2000 32-bit
>> > no
>> > worries. Are things different for 64-bit SQL 2005?
>> >
>> > Please provide advice.
>> > Thanks in advanced,
>> > Cheers,
>> > Phil
>>|||Its a good idea to set lock pages in memory for the service account too. It
would be bad to page out that much memory.
Jason Massie
www: http://statisticsio.com
rss: http://statisticsio.com/Home/tabid/36/rssid/1/Default.aspx
"philt" <philt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0DA946FF-AF53-4D7A-910A-99C088997C49@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks Kalen, that's great.
> So are you saying I do nothing? eg don't enable AWE in SQL?, don't add PAE
> to boot.ini don't configure min and max server memory in SQL config?
> Just let SQL 2005 64bit do it's own thing?
> I'm using "Windows Server 2003 standard 64bit" and "SQL Server 2005
> Standard
> edition 64bit".
> 8GB of ram on server, was wanting to reserver 6 GB for SQL.
> Thanks again.
> Cheers,
> Phil
> "Kalen Delaney" wrote:
>> Hi Phil
>> AWE is not needed with 64-bit. AWE is only needed because a 32-bit
>> address
>> field cannot access any memory address higher than 4GB. With 64 bits for
>> addressing, you can directly address all the memory on your machine.
>> --
>> HTH
>> Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
>> www.InsideSQLServer.com
>> http://sqlblog.com
>>
>> "philt" <philt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:C97C67C8-C6EE-455E-BF13-EE139812B7E5@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > I'm trying to enable AWE to access more physical memory for SQL Server
>> > 2005
>> > 64-bit. I am not seeing the "Address Windowing Extensions enabled"
>> > message
>> > in
>> > the SQL server logs when I restart services. I am following SQL
>> > documentation
>> > to do this but am having no luck. I have done this with SQL 2000 32-bit
>> > no
>> > worries. Are things different for 64-bit SQL 2005?
>> >
>> > Please provide advice.
>> > Thanks in advanced,
>> > Cheers,
>> > Phil
>>|||I saw a question like this: "If we do not need AWE in x64 then why it is
still exists?"
And I saw the answer for this question which was about AWE is not just for
address extention in x86 systems and it has other purposes too however that
was too technical and I didn't understand indeed. I hope I'll manage to find
a simplified answer for this one day =)
So what would your answer be to this question Kalen?
--
Ekrem Önsoy
"Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:elNSnmuMIHA.4740@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Hi Phil
> AWE is not needed with 64-bit. AWE is only needed because a 32-bit address
> field cannot access any memory address higher than 4GB. With 64 bits for
> addressing, you can directly address all the memory on your machine.
> --
> HTH
> Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
> www.InsideSQLServer.com
> http://sqlblog.com
>
> "philt" <philt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C97C67C8-C6EE-455E-BF13-EE139812B7E5@.microsoft.com...
>> Hi All,
>> I'm trying to enable AWE to access more physical memory for SQL Server
>> 2005
>> 64-bit. I am not seeing the "Address Windowing Extensions enabled"
>> message in
>> the SQL server logs when I restart services. I am following SQL
>> documentation
>> to do this but am having no luck. I have done this with SQL 2000 32-bit
>> no
>> worries. Are things different for 64-bit SQL 2005?
>> Please provide advice.
>> Thanks in advanced,
>> Cheers,
>> Phil
>|||No go on this one. Lock Pages in Memory on has effect for SQL Server
Enterprise Edition, IIRC.
--
Kevin G. Boles
TheSQLGuru
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"jason" <jason-r3move@.statisticsio.com> wrote in message
news:8003100B-724F-466B-8ABD-DD3CCEBCFAB9@.microsoft.com...
> Its a good idea to set lock pages in memory for the service account too.
> It would be bad to page out that much memory.
>
> --
> Jason Massie
> www: http://statisticsio.com
> rss: http://statisticsio.com/Home/tabid/36/rssid/1/Default.aspx
>
> "philt" <philt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0DA946FF-AF53-4D7A-910A-99C088997C49@.microsoft.com...
>> Thanks Kalen, that's great.
>> So are you saying I do nothing? eg don't enable AWE in SQL?, don't add
>> PAE
>> to boot.ini don't configure min and max server memory in SQL config?
>> Just let SQL 2005 64bit do it's own thing?
>> I'm using "Windows Server 2003 standard 64bit" and "SQL Server 2005
>> Standard
>> edition 64bit".
>> 8GB of ram on server, was wanting to reserver 6 GB for SQL.
>> Thanks again.
>> Cheers,
>> Phil
>> "Kalen Delaney" wrote:
>> Hi Phil
>> AWE is not needed with 64-bit. AWE is only needed because a 32-bit
>> address
>> field cannot access any memory address higher than 4GB. With 64 bits for
>> addressing, you can directly address all the memory on your machine.
>> --
>> HTH
>> Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
>> www.InsideSQLServer.com
>> http://sqlblog.com
>>
>> "philt" <philt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:C97C67C8-C6EE-455E-BF13-EE139812B7E5@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > I'm trying to enable AWE to access more physical memory for SQL Server
>> > 2005
>> > 64-bit. I am not seeing the "Address Windowing Extensions enabled"
>> > message
>> > in
>> > the SQL server logs when I restart services. I am following SQL
>> > documentation
>> > to do this but am having no luck. I have done this with SQL 2000
>> > 32-bit no
>> > worries. Are things different for 64-bit SQL 2005?
>> >
>> > Please provide advice.
>> > Thanks in advanced,
>> > Cheers,
>> > Phil
>>
>|||Correct - you need to do nothing but set max/min memory. I think it is best
practice to set at least some spread between max and min. Assuming there
isn't anything else running on the box, 2GB left for the OS should be
sufficient.
--
Kevin G. Boles
TheSQLGuru
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"philt" <philt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0DA946FF-AF53-4D7A-910A-99C088997C49@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks Kalen, that's great.
> So are you saying I do nothing? eg don't enable AWE in SQL?, don't add PAE
> to boot.ini don't configure min and max server memory in SQL config?
> Just let SQL 2005 64bit do it's own thing?
> I'm using "Windows Server 2003 standard 64bit" and "SQL Server 2005
> Standard
> edition 64bit".
> 8GB of ram on server, was wanting to reserver 6 GB for SQL.
> Thanks again.
> Cheers,
> Phil
> "Kalen Delaney" wrote:
>> Hi Phil
>> AWE is not needed with 64-bit. AWE is only needed because a 32-bit
>> address
>> field cannot access any memory address higher than 4GB. With 64 bits for
>> addressing, you can directly address all the memory on your machine.
>> --
>> HTH
>> Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
>> www.InsideSQLServer.com
>> http://sqlblog.com
>>
>> "philt" <philt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:C97C67C8-C6EE-455E-BF13-EE139812B7E5@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > I'm trying to enable AWE to access more physical memory for SQL Server
>> > 2005
>> > 64-bit. I am not seeing the "Address Windowing Extensions enabled"
>> > message
>> > in
>> > the SQL server logs when I restart services. I am following SQL
>> > documentation
>> > to do this but am having no luck. I have done this with SQL 2000 32-bit
>> > no
>> > worries. Are things different for 64-bit SQL 2005?
>> >
>> > Please provide advice.
>> > Thanks in advanced,
>> > Cheers,
>> > Phil
>>|||Ekrem
My answer to the question "Why does AWE exist in x64" would be that MS just
didn't remove it from the metadata and the GUI because it is still needed
for 32-bit. Are there other config options or GUI properties that are
different between 32 and 64 bit? I do not have a 64-bit system to test this
out on.
The only issue with AWE that might apply here, that I am aware of, is that
with AWE enabled SQL Server will commit your max (or target) memory
immediately on startup and not wait until the system needs to use that much.
Again, I do not have a 64 bit machine, so anything I say would just be based
on things I have read.
--
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.InsideSQLServer.com
http://sqlblog.com
"Ekrem Önsoy" <ekrem@.btegitim.com> wrote in message
news:B2358AFA-38B1-48E3-B8FC-64FF72EA9834@.microsoft.com...
>I saw a question like this: "If we do not need AWE in x64 then why it is
>still exists?"
> And I saw the answer for this question which was about AWE is not just for
> address extention in x86 systems and it has other purposes too however
> that was too technical and I didn't understand indeed. I hope I'll manage
> to find a simplified answer for this one day =)
> So what would your answer be to this question Kalen?
> --
> Ekrem Önsoy
>
> "Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
> news:elNSnmuMIHA.4740@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Hi Phil
>> AWE is not needed with 64-bit. AWE is only needed because a 32-bit
>> address field cannot access any memory address higher than 4GB. With 64
>> bits for addressing, you can directly address all the memory on your
>> machine.
>> --
>> HTH
>> Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
>> www.InsideSQLServer.com
>> http://sqlblog.com
>>
>> "philt" <philt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:C97C67C8-C6EE-455E-BF13-EE139812B7E5@.microsoft.com...
>> Hi All,
>> I'm trying to enable AWE to access more physical memory for SQL Server
>> 2005
>> 64-bit. I am not seeing the "Address Windowing Extensions enabled"
>> message in
>> the SQL server logs when I restart services. I am following SQL
>> documentation
>> to do this but am having no luck. I have done this with SQL 2000 32-bit
>> no
>> worries. Are things different for 64-bit SQL 2005?
>> Please provide advice.
>> Thanks in advanced,
>> Cheers,
>> Phil
>>
>|||Hi Kalen,
Thanks for sharing your thought with us.
Well, the question "Why does AWE exist in x64" goes to the x64 version of
SQL Server. As x64 version and x86 versions are different, this option could
be removed from the x64 version' s SSMS. By the way I don't know if there is
any difference between the x86 and x64' s SSMS' ? Or you might be right,
SSMS is the same SSMS in all systems. If this is the situation, then the
question is going to be kinda answered. However, if SSMSs are different in
different architectures then I'd love to learn why AWE option is still
there, in x64's SSMS.
Unfortunately I don't have a x64 system either.
--
Ekrem Önsoy
"Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:ugAL923MIHA.1204@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Ekrem
> My answer to the question "Why does AWE exist in x64" would be that MS
> just didn't remove it from the metadata and the GUI because it is still
> needed for 32-bit. Are there other config options or GUI properties that
> are different between 32 and 64 bit? I do not have a 64-bit system to
> test this out on.
> The only issue with AWE that might apply here, that I am aware of, is that
> with AWE enabled SQL Server will commit your max (or target) memory
> immediately on startup and not wait until the system needs to use that
> much. Again, I do not have a 64 bit machine, so anything I say would just
> be based on things I have read.
> --
> HTH
> Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
> www.InsideSQLServer.com
> http://sqlblog.com
>
> "Ekrem Önsoy" <ekrem@.btegitim.com> wrote in message
> news:B2358AFA-38B1-48E3-B8FC-64FF72EA9834@.microsoft.com...
>>I saw a question like this: "If we do not need AWE in x64 then why it is
>>still exists?"
>> And I saw the answer for this question which was about AWE is not just
>> for address extention in x86 systems and it has other purposes too
>> however that was too technical and I didn't understand indeed. I hope
>> I'll manage to find a simplified answer for this one day =)
>> So what would your answer be to this question Kalen?
>> --
>> Ekrem Önsoy
>>
>> "Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
>> news:elNSnmuMIHA.4740@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Hi Phil
>> AWE is not needed with 64-bit. AWE is only needed because a 32-bit
>> address field cannot access any memory address higher than 4GB. With 64
>> bits for addressing, you can directly address all the memory on your
>> machine.
>> --
>> HTH
>> Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
>> www.InsideSQLServer.com
>> http://sqlblog.com
>>
>> "philt" <philt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:C97C67C8-C6EE-455E-BF13-EE139812B7E5@.microsoft.com...
>> Hi All,
>> I'm trying to enable AWE to access more physical memory for SQL Server
>> 2005
>> 64-bit. I am not seeing the "Address Windowing Extensions enabled"
>> message in
>> the SQL server logs when I restart services. I am following SQL
>> documentation
>> to do this but am having no luck. I have done this with SQL 2000 32-bit
>> no
>> worries. Are things different for 64-bit SQL 2005?
>> Please provide advice.
>> Thanks in advanced,
>> Cheers,
>> Phil
>>
>|||Hi all,
Although you can't enable AWE directly in the x64 version if you give
the service account the "lock pages in memory" advanced user right in
windows SQL Server will use AWE to access the memory. The only reason
for doing this is if you see a message like "a large portion of SQL
Server memory has been paged out" in the SQL Server error log.
Enabling this means that windows can't page out SQL Server's memory
(just like AWE on 32-bit) and is a fairly recent Microsoft best
practice but guidance has just changed over the last few days. The
best practice now is only to enable it to if you see the "paged out"
error message in the log.
Regards,
Christian Bolton - Database Architect
http://coeo.com - The SQL Server Experts
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/christian|||I found an answer to this question in the BOL. In a note, they say the
following:
- Note that the sp_configure awe enabled option is present on 64-bit SQL
Server, but it is ignored. It is subject to removal in future releases or
service packs of 64-bit SQL Server.
Link: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms187499.aspx
For reference.
--
Ekrem Önsoy
"Ekrem Önsoy" <ekrem@.btegitim.com> wrote in message
news:8AAA5BC9-3D05-406C-BBD7-59977F9E43E6@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Kalen,
> Thanks for sharing your thought with us.
> Well, the question "Why does AWE exist in x64" goes to the x64 version of
> SQL Server. As x64 version and x86 versions are different, this option
> could be removed from the x64 version' s SSMS. By the way I don't know if
> there is any difference between the x86 and x64' s SSMS' ? Or you might be
> right, SSMS is the same SSMS in all systems. If this is the situation,
> then the question is going to be kinda answered. However, if SSMSs are
> different in different architectures then I'd love to learn why AWE option
> is still there, in x64's SSMS.
> Unfortunately I don't have a x64 system either.
> --
> Ekrem Önsoy
>
> "Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
> news:ugAL923MIHA.1204@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Ekrem
>> My answer to the question "Why does AWE exist in x64" would be that MS
>> just didn't remove it from the metadata and the GUI because it is still
>> needed for 32-bit. Are there other config options or GUI properties that
>> are different between 32 and 64 bit? I do not have a 64-bit system to
>> test this out on.
>> The only issue with AWE that might apply here, that I am aware of, is
>> that with AWE enabled SQL Server will commit your max (or target) memory
>> immediately on startup and not wait until the system needs to use that
>> much. Again, I do not have a 64 bit machine, so anything I say would just
>> be based on things I have read.
>> --
>> HTH
>> Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
>> www.InsideSQLServer.com
>> http://sqlblog.com
>>
>> "Ekrem Önsoy" <ekrem@.btegitim.com> wrote in message
>> news:B2358AFA-38B1-48E3-B8FC-64FF72EA9834@.microsoft.com...
>>I saw a question like this: "If we do not need AWE in x64 then why it is
>>still exists?"
>> And I saw the answer for this question which was about AWE is not just
>> for address extention in x86 systems and it has other purposes too
>> however that was too technical and I didn't understand indeed. I hope
>> I'll manage to find a simplified answer for this one day =)
>> So what would your answer be to this question Kalen?
>> --
>> Ekrem Önsoy
>>
>> "Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
>> news:elNSnmuMIHA.4740@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Hi Phil
>> AWE is not needed with 64-bit. AWE is only needed because a 32-bit
>> address field cannot access any memory address higher than 4GB. With 64
>> bits for addressing, you can directly address all the memory on your
>> machine.
>> --
>> HTH
>> Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
>> www.InsideSQLServer.com
>> http://sqlblog.com
>>
>> "philt" <philt@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:C97C67C8-C6EE-455E-BF13-EE139812B7E5@.microsoft.com...
>> Hi All,
>> I'm trying to enable AWE to access more physical memory for SQL Server
>> 2005
>> 64-bit. I am not seeing the "Address Windowing Extensions enabled"
>> message in
>> the SQL server logs when I restart services. I am following SQL
>> documentation
>> to do this but am having no luck. I have done this with SQL 2000
>> 32-bit no
>> worries. Are things different for 64-bit SQL 2005?
>> Please provide advice.
>> Thanks in advanced,
>> Cheers,
>> Phil
>>
>>
>

enabling AWE

After enabling awe and setting the max server memory, the
Task Manager, Process for sqlserver.exe shows 90MB - is
this normal? I have configured sql server to use 6GB!!!!
How can I be sure the memory is set up correctly?
CBUse perfmon and view the sql server memory counters instead of task manager.
Specifically the target and total memory should show approx 6GB. Did you
set the /PAE switch in the boot.ini as well? How about the /3GB?
87 Shrinking TempDB
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp Using AWE Memory
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=321363 SQL Server 7 & 2000 memory
usage
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=274750 Memory config
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=283037 Large Memory Support Is
Available in Windows 2000 (AWE)
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=811891 Can not use more than 2GB of
memory
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"CB" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:64e201c4cb40$8dab3650$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> After enabling awe and setting the max server memory, the
> Task Manager, Process for sqlserver.exe shows 90MB - is
> this normal? I have configured sql server to use 6GB!!!!
> How can I be sure the memory is set up correctly?
> CB

Enabling AWE

Hi,
Our server has Windows 2003 EE with 3.5 GB RAM. I want to configure SQL
Server 2005 EE to be able to use whole of memory if required.
I have already used "awe enabled" option with sp_configure to change the run
value to 1, but it seems other parameters must be configured on OS.
What's the easiest way to do it?
Many thanks in advance,
LeilaAt the OS level, you have to set the /PAE switch in BOOT.INI. That said,
your machine doesn't really have enough RAM. You don't want to give 100% of
the RAM to SQL Server, since the OS needs memory, too. RAM is cheap. Buy
some before you turn on AWE.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:O%23xDOXzBHHA.4348@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Hi,
Our server has Windows 2003 EE with 3.5 GB RAM. I want to configure SQL
Server 2005 EE to be able to use whole of memory if required.
I have already used "awe enabled" option with sp_configure to change the run
value to 1, but it seems other parameters must be configured on OS.
What's the easiest way to do it?
Many thanks in advance,
Leila|||That is NOT correct. AWE can be enabled without PAE. Using PAE allows the OS
to address more than 4 GB of memory. AWE is an API set that applications
(like SQL) can leverage to reserve chunks of memory for manipulation.
Since he only has 3.5 GB of memory, PAE would get him nothing. Also, SQL
will never be able to reserve all of the memory. The OS needs some, other
services, etc., will also use some memory.
"Tom Moreau" wrote:
> At the OS level, you have to set the /PAE switch in BOOT.INI. That said,
> your machine doesn't really have enough RAM. You don't want to give 100% of
> the RAM to SQL Server, since the OS needs memory, too. RAM is cheap. Buy
> some before you turn on AWE.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> ..
> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:O%23xDOXzBHHA.4348@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Our server has Windows 2003 EE with 3.5 GB RAM. I want to configure SQL
> Server 2005 EE to be able to use whole of memory if required.
> I have already used "awe enabled" option with sp_configure to change the run
> value to 1, but it seems other parameters must be configured on OS.
> What's the easiest way to do it?
> Many thanks in advance,
> Leila
>
>|||Does your boot.ini have the /3GB switch? If not, the operating system will
not be able to allocate all of your memory.
Also, I highly recommend NOT allowing SQL Server to consume *all* of the
memory. The OS needs some, too.
A
"Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:O%23xDOXzBHHA.4348@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Our server has Windows 2003 EE with 3.5 GB RAM. I want to configure SQL
> Server 2005 EE to be able to use whole of memory if required.
> I have already used "awe enabled" option with sp_configure to change the
> run value to 1, but it seems other parameters must be configured on OS.
> What's the easiest way to do it?
> Many thanks in advance,
> Leila
>|||You would be best served, UNTIL you get more memory, to use the /3GB switch.
The /3GB switch gives SQL Server up to 3 GB of memory. The OS requires
memory, so leaving the remaining 512 MB for the OS seems about right.
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
top yourself.
- H. Norman Schwarzkopf
"Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:O%23xDOXzBHHA.4348@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Our server has Windows 2003 EE with 3.5 GB RAM. I want to configure SQL
> Server 2005 EE to be able to use whole of memory if required.
> I have already used "awe enabled" option with sp_configure to change the
> run value to 1, but it seems other parameters must be configured on OS.
> What's the easiest way to do it?
> Many thanks in advance,
> Leila
>|||You would be best served, UNTIL you get more memory, to use the /3GB switch.
The /3GB switch gives SQL Server up to 3 GB of memory. The OS requires
memory, so leaving the remaining 512 MB for the OS seems about right.
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
top yourself.
- H. Norman Schwarzkopf
"Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:O%23xDOXzBHHA.4348@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Our server has Windows 2003 EE with 3.5 GB RAM. I want to configure SQL
> Server 2005 EE to be able to use whole of memory if required.
> I have already used "awe enabled" option with sp_configure to change the
> run value to 1, but it seems other parameters must be configured on OS.
> What's the easiest way to do it?
> Many thanks in advance,
> Leila
>|||Thanks every body!
What's the exact parameter that I must add to boot.ini?
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:OAryIzzBHHA.4892@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Does your boot.ini have the /3GB switch? If not, the operating system
> will not be able to allocate all of your memory.
> Also, I highly recommend NOT allowing SQL Server to consume *all* of the
> memory. The OS needs some, too.
> A
>
>
> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:O%23xDOXzBHHA.4348@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Hi,
>> Our server has Windows 2003 EE with 3.5 GB RAM. I want to configure SQL
>> Server 2005 EE to be able to use whole of memory if required.
>> I have already used "awe enabled" option with sp_configure to change the
>> run value to 1, but it seems other parameters must be configured on OS.
>> What's the easiest way to do it?
>> Many thanks in advance,
>> Leila
>|||/3GB
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
top yourself.
- H. Norman Schwarzkopf
"Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:eH4iWF1BHHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks every body!
> What's the exact parameter that I must add to boot.ini?
>
> "Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in
> message news:OAryIzzBHHA.4892@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Does your boot.ini have the /3GB switch? If not, the operating system
>> will not be able to allocate all of your memory.
>> Also, I highly recommend NOT allowing SQL Server to consume *all* of the
>> memory. The OS needs some, too.
>> A
>>
>>
>> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> news:O%23xDOXzBHHA.4348@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Hi,
>> Our server has Windows 2003 EE with 3.5 GB RAM. I want to configure SQL
>> Server 2005 EE to be able to use whole of memory if required.
>> I have already used "awe enabled" option with sp_configure to change the
>> run value to 1, but it seems other parameters must be configured on OS.
>> What's the easiest way to do it?
>> Many thanks in advance,
>> Leila
>>
>|||Run sp_configure to enable AWE, and set the max server memory. be sure to
leave some memory for the OS. Also, set the /PAE switch in BOOT.INI and
reboot.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Kamal Hassan" <KamalHassan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:92951B59-BB92-47B3-A72F-C544D8DF01C1@.microsoft.com...
Hi All,
I need some help here:
We have Windows 2000 Advanced Server sp4
SQL Server 2000 EE sp4 plus HOT Fix (KB899761)
Boot.ini filoe has /3GB switch
Total Memory Available = 8.0 GB
SQL Server configuration as follow:
min memory per query (KB) = 2048
max server memory (MB) = 5097
The SQL Server service account seems to have all appropriate permisison
(lock memory etc.)
But it seems that SQL Server can only allocate approx 2.4 GB of memory
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Kamal
"Tom Moreau" wrote:
> At the OS level, you have to set the /PAE switch in BOOT.INI. That said,
> your machine doesn't really have enough RAM. You don't want to give 100%
> of
> the RAM to SQL Server, since the OS needs memory, too. RAM is cheap. Buy
> some before you turn on AWE.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> ..
> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:O%23xDOXzBHHA.4348@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Our server has Windows 2003 EE with 3.5 GB RAM. I want to configure SQL
> Server 2005 EE to be able to use whole of memory if required.
> I have already used "awe enabled" option with sp_configure to change the
> run
> value to 1, but it seems other parameters must be configured on OS.
> What's the easiest way to do it?
> Many thanks in advance,
> Leila
>
>

Enabling AWE

Hi,
Our server has Windows 2003 EE with 3.5 GB RAM. I want to configure SQL
Server 2005 EE to be able to use whole of memory if required.
I have already used "awe enabled" option with sp_configure to change the run
value to 1, but it seems other parameters must be configured on OS.
What's the easiest way to do it?
Many thanks in advance,
LeilaAt the OS level, you have to set the /PAE switch in BOOT.INI. That said,
your machine doesn't really have enough RAM. You don't want to give 100% of
the RAM to SQL Server, since the OS needs memory, too. RAM is cheap. Buy
some before you turn on AWE.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:O%23xDOXzBHHA.4348@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Hi,
Our server has Windows 2003 EE with 3.5 GB RAM. I want to configure SQL
Server 2005 EE to be able to use whole of memory if required.
I have already used "awe enabled" option with sp_configure to change the run
value to 1, but it seems other parameters must be configured on OS.
What's the easiest way to do it?
Many thanks in advance,
Leila|||That is NOT correct. AWE can be enabled without PAE. Using PAE allows the OS
to address more than 4 GB of memory. AWE is an API set that applications
(like SQL) can leverage to reserve chunks of memory for manipulation.
Since he only has 3.5 GB of memory, PAE would get him nothing. Also, SQL
will never be able to reserve all of the memory. The OS needs some, other
services, etc., will also use some memory.
"Tom Moreau" wrote:

> At the OS level, you have to set the /PAE switch in BOOT.INI. That said,
> your machine doesn't really have enough RAM. You don't want to give 100%
of
> the RAM to SQL Server, since the OS needs memory, too. RAM is cheap. Buy
> some before you turn on AWE.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> ..
> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:O%23xDOXzBHHA.4348@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Our server has Windows 2003 EE with 3.5 GB RAM. I want to configure SQL
> Server 2005 EE to be able to use whole of memory if required.
> I have already used "awe enabled" option with sp_configure to change the r
un
> value to 1, but it seems other parameters must be configured on OS.
> What's the easiest way to do it?
> Many thanks in advance,
> Leila
>
>|||Does your boot.ini have the /3GB switch? If not, the operating system will
not be able to allocate all of your memory.
Also, I highly recommend NOT allowing SQL Server to consume *all* of the
memory. The OS needs some, too.
A
"Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:O%23xDOXzBHHA.4348@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Our server has Windows 2003 EE with 3.5 GB RAM. I want to configure SQL
> Server 2005 EE to be able to use whole of memory if required.
> I have already used "awe enabled" option with sp_configure to change the
> run value to 1, but it seems other parameters must be configured on OS.
> What's the easiest way to do it?
> Many thanks in advance,
> Leila
>|||You would be best served, UNTIL you get more memory, to use the /3GB switch.
The /3GB switch gives SQL Server up to 3 GB of memory. The OS requires
memory, so leaving the remaining 512 MB for the OS seems about right.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
top yourself.
- H. Norman Schwarzkopf
"Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:O%23xDOXzBHHA.4348@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Our server has Windows 2003 EE with 3.5 GB RAM. I want to configure SQL
> Server 2005 EE to be able to use whole of memory if required.
> I have already used "awe enabled" option with sp_configure to change the
> run value to 1, but it seems other parameters must be configured on OS.
> What's the easiest way to do it?
> Many thanks in advance,
> Leila
>|||You would be best served, UNTIL you get more memory, to use the /3GB switch.
The /3GB switch gives SQL Server up to 3 GB of memory. The OS requires
memory, so leaving the remaining 512 MB for the OS seems about right.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
top yourself.
- H. Norman Schwarzkopf
"Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:O%23xDOXzBHHA.4348@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Our server has Windows 2003 EE with 3.5 GB RAM. I want to configure SQL
> Server 2005 EE to be able to use whole of memory if required.
> I have already used "awe enabled" option with sp_configure to change the
> run value to 1, but it seems other parameters must be configured on OS.
> What's the easiest way to do it?
> Many thanks in advance,
> Leila
>|||Thanks every body!
What's the exact parameter that I must add to boot.ini?
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in mess
age
news:OAryIzzBHHA.4892@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Does your boot.ini have the /3GB switch? If not, the operating system
> will not be able to allocate all of your memory.
> Also, I highly recommend NOT allowing SQL Server to consume *all* of the
> memory. The OS needs some, too.
> A
>
>
> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:O%23xDOXzBHHA.4348@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>|||/3GB
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
top yourself.
- H. Norman Schwarzkopf
"Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:eH4iWF1BHHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks every body!
> What's the exact parameter that I must add to boot.ini?
>
> "Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in
> message news:OAryIzzBHHA.4892@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>|||Hi All,
I need some help here:
We have Windows 2000 Advanced Server sp4
SQL Server 2000 EE sp4 plus HOT Fix (KB899761)
Boot.ini filoe has /3GB switch
Total Memory Available = 8.0 GB
SQL Server configuration as follow:
min memory per query (KB) = 2048
max server memory (MB) = 5097
The SQL Server service account seems to have all appropriate permisison
(lock memory etc.)
But it seems that SQL Server can only allocate approx 2.4 GB of memory
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Kamal
"Tom Moreau" wrote:

> At the OS level, you have to set the /PAE switch in BOOT.INI. That said,
> your machine doesn't really have enough RAM. You don't want to give 100%
of
> the RAM to SQL Server, since the OS needs memory, too. RAM is cheap. Buy
> some before you turn on AWE.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> ..
> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:O%23xDOXzBHHA.4348@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Our server has Windows 2003 EE with 3.5 GB RAM. I want to configure SQL
> Server 2005 EE to be able to use whole of memory if required.
> I have already used "awe enabled" option with sp_configure to change the r
un
> value to 1, but it seems other parameters must be configured on OS.
> What's the easiest way to do it?
> Many thanks in advance,
> Leila
>
>|||Run sp_configure to enable AWE, and set the max server memory. be sure to
leave some memory for the OS. Also, set the /PAE switch in BOOT.INI and
reboot.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Kamal Hassan" <KamalHassan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:92951B59-BB92-47B3-A72F-C544D8DF01C1@.microsoft.com...
Hi All,
I need some help here:
We have Windows 2000 Advanced Server sp4
SQL Server 2000 EE sp4 plus HOT Fix (KB899761)
Boot.ini filoe has /3GB switch
Total Memory Available = 8.0 GB
SQL Server configuration as follow:
min memory per query (KB) = 2048
max server memory (MB) = 5097
The SQL Server service account seems to have all appropriate permisison
(lock memory etc.)
But it seems that SQL Server can only allocate approx 2.4 GB of memory
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Kamal
"Tom Moreau" wrote:

> At the OS level, you have to set the /PAE switch in BOOT.INI. That said,
> your machine doesn't really have enough RAM. You don't want to give 100%
> of
> the RAM to SQL Server, since the OS needs memory, too. RAM is cheap. Buy
> some before you turn on AWE.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> ..
> "Leila" <Leilas@.hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:O%23xDOXzBHHA.4348@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Our server has Windows 2003 EE with 3.5 GB RAM. I want to configure SQL
> Server 2005 EE to be able to use whole of memory if required.
> I have already used "awe enabled" option with sp_configure to change the
> run
> value to 1, but it seems other parameters must be configured on OS.
> What's the easiest way to do it?
> Many thanks in advance,
> Leila
>
>