any point in putting more than 2Gb ram in machine for standard edition ?

if a member server runs 2000 or 2003 with SQL server standard edition is
there any point putting more than 2Gb of ram in the machine ?
i.e i base this on 2Gb being the max for Sql server 200.
thanks for your advice
Scott
Standard edition is limited to 2GB so the additional memory won't be used by
SQL Server directly. However, the OS requires memory too so you should
consider this as well as memory needed by other apps. I usually spec 3GB
for a dedicated SQL Server 2000 running Standard Edition.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"scott" <aintnoapmhere@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23T2POP72FHA.632@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> if a member server runs 2000 or 2003 with SQL server standard edition is
> there any point putting more than 2Gb of ram in the machine ?
> i.e i base this on 2Gb being the max for Sql server 200.
> thanks for your advice
> Scott
>
|||"scott" <aintnoapmhere@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23T2POP72FHA.632@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> if a member server runs 2000 or 2003 with SQL server standard edition is
> there any point putting more than 2Gb of ram in the machine ?
> i.e i base this on 2Gb being the max for Sql server 200.
> thanks for your advice
> Scott
>
Yes.
Don't forget about the O/S and any other stuff that is going on. Put at
least 3GB in the box. 1 for the O/S and 2 for SQL. ;-)
Rick Sawtell
MCT, MCSD, MCDBA
|||brilliant. many thanks
scott

any point in putting more than 2Gb ram in machine for standard edition ?

if a member server runs 2000 or 2003 with SQL server standard edition is
there any point putting more than 2Gb of ram in the machine ?
i.e i base this on 2Gb being the max for Sql server 200.
thanks for your advice
ScottStandard edition is limited to 2GB so the additional memory won't be used by
SQL Server directly. However, the OS requires memory too so you should
consider this as well as memory needed by other apps. I usually spec 3GB
for a dedicated SQL Server 2000 running Standard Edition.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"scott" <aintnoapmhere@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23T2POP72FHA.632@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> if a member server runs 2000 or 2003 with SQL server standard edition is
> there any point putting more than 2Gb of ram in the machine ?
> i.e i base this on 2Gb being the max for Sql server 200.
> thanks for your advice
> Scott
>|||"scott" <aintnoapmhere@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23T2POP72FHA.632@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> if a member server runs 2000 or 2003 with SQL server standard edition is
> there any point putting more than 2Gb of ram in the machine ?
> i.e i base this on 2Gb being the max for Sql server 200.
> thanks for your advice
> Scott
>
Yes.
Don't forget about the O/S and any other stuff that is going on. Put at
least 3GB in the box. 1 for the O/S and 2 for SQL. ;-)
Rick Sawtell
MCT, MCSD, MCDBA|||brilliant. many thanks
scott

any point in putting more than 2Gb ram in machine for standard edition ?

if a member server runs 2000 or 2003 with SQL server standard edition is
there any point putting more than 2Gb of ram in the machine ?
i.e i base this on 2Gb being the max for Sql server 200.
thanks for your advice
ScottStandard edition is limited to 2GB so the additional memory won't be used by
SQL Server directly. However, the OS requires memory too so you should
consider this as well as memory needed by other apps. I usually spec 3GB
for a dedicated SQL Server 2000 running Standard Edition.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"scott" <aintnoapmhere@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23T2POP72FHA.632@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> if a member server runs 2000 or 2003 with SQL server standard edition is
> there any point putting more than 2Gb of ram in the machine ?
> i.e i base this on 2Gb being the max for Sql server 200.
> thanks for your advice
> Scott
>|||"scott" <aintnoapmhere@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23T2POP72FHA.632@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> if a member server runs 2000 or 2003 with SQL server standard edition is
> there any point putting more than 2Gb of ram in the machine ?
> i.e i base this on 2Gb being the max for Sql server 200.
> thanks for your advice
> Scott
>
Yes.
Don't forget about the O/S and any other stuff that is going on. Put at
least 3GB in the box. 1 for the O/S and 2 for SQL. ;-)
Rick Sawtell
MCT, MCSD, MCDBA|||brilliant. many thanks
scott

Any Issues With Windows 2003 SP1?

Hi,
Does anybody know of any issues with Windows 2003 SP1?
We have a Standard SQL Server 2000 with SP3 running on Windows 2003.
Lee Aholima
DBA and IT Support
YES!
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;899599
"dayfive" <dayfive@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6FA46E11-7EB7-4EBC-9160-51411A87A8F3@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Does anybody know of any issues with Windows 2003 SP1?
> We have a Standard SQL Server 2000 with SP3 running on Windows 2003.
> --
> Lee Aholima
> DBA and IT Support
>

Any Issues With Windows 2003 SP1?

Hi,
Does anybody know of any issues with Windows 2003 SP1?
We have a Standard SQL Server 2000 with SP3 running on Windows 2003.
Lee Aholima
DBA and IT SupportYES!
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;899599
"dayfive" <dayfive@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6FA46E11-7EB7-4EBC-9160-51411A87A8F3@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Does anybody know of any issues with Windows 2003 SP1?
> We have a Standard SQL Server 2000 with SP3 running on Windows 2003.
> --
> Lee Aholima
> DBA and IT Support
>

Any Issues With Windows 2003 SP1?

Hi,
Does anybody know of any issues with Windows 2003 SP1?
We have a Standard SQL Server 2000 with SP3 running on Windows 2003.
--
Lee Aholima
DBA and IT SupportYES!
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;899599
"dayfive" <dayfive@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6FA46E11-7EB7-4EBC-9160-51411A87A8F3@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Does anybody know of any issues with Windows 2003 SP1?
> We have a Standard SQL Server 2000 with SP3 running on Windows 2003.
> --
> Lee Aholima
> DBA and IT Support
>

any issues with sql2k on win2k3?

we're about to upgrade from
win2000, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual p3 900mhz, 2gb ram
to
win2003, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual xeon 3ghz hyperthreaded,
2gb ram
the only issue i could find at microsoft was the sql install issue
where win2003 wants sql sp3. any other issues to watch for?
do some people claim better performance by limiting sql server to use
only the two physical processors instead of the two physical processors
and the two logical processors?
"ch" <ch@.dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:41A36D56.E36EF4A7@.dontemailme.com...
> we're about to upgrade from
> win2000, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual p3 900mhz, 2gb ram
> to
> win2003, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual xeon 3ghz hyperthreaded,
> 2gb ram
> the only issue i could find at microsoft was the sql install issue
> where win2003 wants sql sp3. any other issues to watch for?
I think you're covered, operating systems are comparable? In otherwords,
Windows 2000 Standard and Windows 2003 Standard?

> do some people claim better performance by limiting sql server to use
> only the two physical processors instead of the two physical processors
> and the two logical processors?
I prefer not to tinker with processor settings, rather allow the operating
system to manage the processors. in addition, Windows Server 2003 and SQL
Server 2000 does a fairly good job of dynamic memory and interfacing with
the processors. You could always run some benchmarks as there are always
certain situations, applications, etc where manual intervention may be
warranted.
Steve

any issues with sql2k on win2k3?

we're about to upgrade from
win2000, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual p3 900mhz, 2gb ram
to
win2003, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual xeon 3ghz hyperthreaded,
2gb ram
the only issue i could find at microsoft was the sql install issue
where win2003 wants sql sp3. any other issues to watch for?
do some people claim better performance by limiting sql server to use
only the two physical processors instead of the two physical processors
and the two logical processors?"ch" <ch@.dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:41A36D56.E36EF4A7@.dontemailme.com...
> we're about to upgrade from
> win2000, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual p3 900mhz, 2gb ram
> to
> win2003, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual xeon 3ghz hyperthreaded,
> 2gb ram
> the only issue i could find at microsoft was the sql install issue
> where win2003 wants sql sp3. any other issues to watch for?
I think you're covered, operating systems are comparable? In otherwords,
Windows 2000 Standard and Windows 2003 Standard?

> do some people claim better performance by limiting sql server to use
> only the two physical processors instead of the two physical processors
> and the two logical processors?
I prefer not to tinker with processor settings, rather allow the operating
system to manage the processors. in addition, Windows Server 2003 and SQL
Server 2000 does a fairly good job of dynamic memory and interfacing with
the processors. You could always run some benchmarks as there are always
certain situations, applications, etc where manual intervention may be
warranted.
Steve

any issues with sql2k on win2k3?

we're about to upgrade from
win2000, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual p3 900mhz, 2gb ram
to
win2003, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual xeon 3ghz hyperthreaded,
2gb ram
the only issue i could find at microsoft was the sql install issue
where win2003 wants sql sp3. any other issues to watch for?
do some people claim better performance by limiting sql server to use
only the two physical processors instead of the two physical processors
and the two logical processors?"ch" <ch@.dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:41A36D56.E36EF4A7@.dontemailme.com...
> we're about to upgrade from
> win2000, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual p3 900mhz, 2gb ram
> to
> win2003, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual xeon 3ghz hyperthreaded,
> 2gb ram
> the only issue i could find at microsoft was the sql install issue
> where win2003 wants sql sp3. any other issues to watch for?
I think you're covered, operating systems are comparable? In otherwords,
Windows 2000 Standard and Windows 2003 Standard?
> do some people claim better performance by limiting sql server to use
> only the two physical processors instead of the two physical processors
> and the two logical processors?
I prefer not to tinker with processor settings, rather allow the operating
system to manage the processors. in addition, Windows Server 2003 and SQL
Server 2000 does a fairly good job of dynamic memory and interfacing with
the processors. You could always run some benchmarks as there are always
certain situations, applications, etc where manual intervention may be
warranted.
Steve

Any issues with running SQL Server 2000 Standard Edt. on a 4GB server?

Hi,
we have a project where my company and another company is using the same sql
server, the problem is that the sql server crashes approximately every 3-4
days, with something that looks like memory related issues where we get the
following errors in the eventlog just before it crashes:
17120 : SQL Server could not spawn process_loginread thread.
The other company is using some COM objects (asphttp from
www.serverobjects.com) from some stored procedures to call a website(these
are called several thousand times a day) and I think that is the problem
since i can crash my own sql server and several other development sql
servers with calling this COM object through storedprocedues several
thousand times with what looks like a memory leak as sql server uses more
and more memory the more times these stored procedures are called... the
other company of course say that they have been using this product for years
without problems.
Now the other company insists that there is problems with having 4GB memory
in the server and running the standard edition of sql server 2000. We are
not using /3GB switch in boot.ini and yes we know that standard edition of
sql server can only use 2GB max.
Anyone experienced any problems like this before on a similar setup, that
too much ram will kill sql server? because i sure haven't.
Server specs:
Dual 3Ghz Xeon, 4GB ram, Mirrored Raid, HP/compaq branded server running
windows server 2003 standard edition.
SQL Server 2000 standard edition with the latest service packHi
The COM object is leaking the memory and not SQL. SQL can't control it as it
is running in process. Tell them to run the test on their machine a few
million times in a loop and watch their server fall over.
I have seen this many times and it does not matter how much RAM you have.
Regards
Mike
"T. Schmidt" wrote:
> Hi,
> we have a project where my company and another company is using the same sql
> server, the problem is that the sql server crashes approximately every 3-4
> days, with something that looks like memory related issues where we get the
> following errors in the eventlog just before it crashes:
> 17120 : SQL Server could not spawn process_loginread thread.
> The other company is using some COM objects (asphttp from
> www.serverobjects.com) from some stored procedures to call a website(these
> are called several thousand times a day) and I think that is the problem
> since i can crash my own sql server and several other development sql
> servers with calling this COM object through storedprocedues several
> thousand times with what looks like a memory leak as sql server uses more
> and more memory the more times these stored procedures are called... the
> other company of course say that they have been using this product for years
> without problems.
> Now the other company insists that there is problems with having 4GB memory
> in the server and running the standard edition of sql server 2000. We are
> not using /3GB switch in boot.ini and yes we know that standard edition of
> sql server can only use 2GB max.
> Anyone experienced any problems like this before on a similar setup, that
> too much ram will kill sql server? because i sure haven't.
> Server specs:
> Dual 3Ghz Xeon, 4GB ram, Mirrored Raid, HP/compaq branded server running
> windows server 2003 standard edition.
> SQL Server 2000 standard edition with the latest service pack
>
>
>|||I tried using another com object(w3socket www.dimac.net) that does the same
thing and called the stored procedure 100.000 times, and sql server didn't
use anymore memory during the test. I did the same thing with the com object
i suspect leaking and could see that sql servers private bytes was rising
slowly but steadily. That has to be a good indication of a leak wouldn't you
say?
I used process explorer from system internals to monitor sql server.
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:04F273D3-1FEE-4B6A-A7F8-9AC074D79ECE@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> The COM object is leaking the memory and not SQL. SQL can't control it as
it
> is running in process. Tell them to run the test on their machine a few
> million times in a loop and watch their server fall over.
> I have seen this many times and it does not matter how much RAM you have.
> Regards
> Mike
> "T. Schmidt" wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > we have a project where my company and another company is using the same
sql
> > server, the problem is that the sql server crashes approximately every
3-4
> > days, with something that looks like memory related issues where we get
the
> > following errors in the eventlog just before it crashes:
> >
> > 17120 : SQL Server could not spawn process_loginread thread.
> >
> > The other company is using some COM objects (asphttp from
> > www.serverobjects.com) from some stored procedures to call a
website(these
> > are called several thousand times a day) and I think that is the problem
> > since i can crash my own sql server and several other development sql
> > servers with calling this COM object through storedprocedues several
> > thousand times with what looks like a memory leak as sql server uses
more
> > and more memory the more times these stored procedures are called... the
> > other company of course say that they have been using this product for
years
> > without problems.
> >
> > Now the other company insists that there is problems with having 4GB
memory
> > in the server and running the standard edition of sql server 2000. We
are
> > not using /3GB switch in boot.ini and yes we know that standard edition
of
> > sql server can only use 2GB max.
> >
> > Anyone experienced any problems like this before on a similar setup,
that
> > too much ram will kill sql server? because i sure haven't.
> >
> > Server specs:
> >
> > Dual 3Ghz Xeon, 4GB ram, Mirrored Raid, HP/compaq branded server running
> > windows server 2003 standard edition.
> >
> > SQL Server 2000 standard edition with the latest service pack
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

anti-virus on sql server box?

hi!

i am using sql 2005 with sp1 standard edition.

i have a question regarding the antivirus software. Is it ok to install anti-virus software on the sql server box? what are the issues involved if we install anti-virus software on the sql server box?
I heard, it causes some performance and other issues.

Is there anything we need to take care of .if we decide to install anti-virus software on the sql server box?

Can anybody share experience on this?

Thanks

Personally, I am very much against installing anti-virus software on a SQL Server box, for performance reasons. You see conflicting advice from Microsoft about this. The Perf people say no, and the security people say yes. If you decide to run AV on your SQL Server, make sure to exclude the data and log files from the scanning.|||

Generally speaking, it is not a good idea to have anti-virus products on a SQL Server.

Consider that anti-virus products protect the computer from user activities in the Workstation service.

On a SQL Server, there 'should' not be any user activities in the Workstation service.

|||I disagree with the other posts here.

ALWAYS run anti-virus on ALL machines on the network, servers and pcs, with current virus defs.

On SQL server, exclude the data and log directories from the scanning and virus protection.

Many viruses will infect all machines on the entire network, and if you don't have AV on ALL machines, when you remove it from all your PCs, it will hide on your SQL server box until it infects the entire network again and again and again. I know because this has happened to me, with more than one customer who has the same "performance" concerns.
|||Yes, I agree with Tlom. There are several approaches, defined by the policy of the companies which way you can take if you secure SQL Server. You can either exclude the data file and directories or exclude the appropuiate MDF / LDF extensions (which assumes that you are using these extensions with your files) I prefer the extensions exclusion which will makes it even not possible to inject a virus in the data directories of SQL Server.

Jens K. Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

|||Thank you everyone for your replies. I really appreciate it.

So if you exclude the data and log files, are there any performance issues and other issues like communication/blocking etc ?

Thanks
|||

I hope this will help you:

Guidelines for choosing antivirus software to run on the computers that are running SQL Server

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/309422/en-us

ANSI SQL Question

I have been googling the last couple of days hoping to find some "end-all" reference for the ANSI SQL-92 standard. I have come up with nothing.
If any of you know a site or a book that has the entire ANSI SQL-92 standard please let me know!
thanks.http://global.ihs.com/standards.cfm?currency_code=USD&customer_id=2125452A5B0A&shopping_cart_id=27242837254950344E5A5020210A&rid=Z56&country_code=US&lang_code=ENGL|||http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~shadow/sql/sql1992.txt|||Thanks guys, I'm sure this will help!