I'm log shipping to AWS. Currently, we are shipping from a server with 64 GB RAM to one at AWS with 30. It's not a massive server but does have periods of high usage when certain jobs/tasks run. It's been running fine for a year but the server size is large and is barely used. My understanding is that for simply log shipping, we don't need a lot of memory and I was hoping to drop the instance size down and use an instance with 16 GB Ram instead. It would save thousands per year.
I have windows 2003 with ms sql 2000. The machine has 3.6 gigs of ram and only runs ms sql, nothing else. Whenever the first query is made sql will allocate as much as 1.5 gigs of ram which is just killing the system. This system reboots nightly so this first query happens every morning. We have tried setting the min and max memory of sql, as well as the reserver memory setting to see if it will preallocate all that memory but we've had no luck.
Is there a way to make SQL allocate all that memory ahead of time? maybe make it cache some tables or something?
I know very little about MS SQL so please be very descriptive about possible solutions or troubleshooting steps.
How to find how much memory allocated to SQLCLR by sqlserver. Also is there any way to determine how much memory my code needs to run? Thanks in advance.
I would like to ask regarding the memory allocation fo SQL Server 2000. For example if my Data Server have 8GB physical memory installed how much memory can SQL Server 2000 utilize? Based on my research and understing SQL 2000 Server can only utilize 3GB memory? But using the AWE you can set the memory to a maximum server memory?
I’m setting up a server for development that will have one instance of SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition and one of SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition installed.
The server has a total of 3.5 GB of physical memory, so I was wondering about the best way to allocate the memory. Should I just let both instances have the default allocation and let them fight it out for memory as needed, or allocate a memory limit for each instance?
I am setting up a server under Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition (SP1) and SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition (SP4). The new server is a AMD opteron with 32 GB of memory. I noticed that PAE is enabled automatically by Windows 2003. Should I enable AWE for SQL Server 2000 and specify Max and Min amount of memory for SQL Server ?? Is there a limit on how much I could specify in MAX memory for SQL??
This is the first time I have a server with so much memory so I want to make sure that I do the right thing. In the past I only have servers with 8 GB of memory and we just enable AWE and specify Max memory to 6 GB or so.
I have gotten mixed comments on this topic. I have a 64 bit machine running 64 windows 2003 standard and 64 SQL 2005 standard with 8 GB of RAM. We want to upgrade it to 32 GB. What is the best approach to do this? Dynamic or Stattic giving min and max server memory a value ? and if static what value should I use for 32 GB knowing that this box is only being used for SQL.
Hi,From a previous sys-admin I inherited a a MS-SQL (2000) machine with 3instances. It is a nice machine with 4 Gb of memory but the memory allocationis very weird:Instance A: 1400MbInstance B: 1000MbInstance C: 80Mb (!)Instance C is performing badly under a bit of pressure which seems not strangeconsidering these allocations.With that in mind, is there a way to check and re-allocate memory? I'd like tosee if the instances really need these amounts of memory and if not, to movesome over to other instances.Thanks!Dries Bessels
Are there any *negative* consequences to SQL Server 2000 Standardpaging to disk more often if one reduces the amount of available RAMfrom 2.0 GB to 1.5 GB to give the OS and other apps enough RAM, otherthan things possibly being "slower" and whatever wear and tear couldhappen to the disk drives??Or is it better to add in more RAM per se to bring the server up to 4GB (Win2k3 Svr SP1)?? (it has a 4GB pagefile)Is any information available about judging how much RAM the OS (Windows2003 Server) should have available?? Does IIS require a lot of RAM??Thank you, Tom
I could not able to find Forums in regards to 'Log Shipping' thats why posting this question in here. Appriciate if someone can provide me answers depends on their experience.
Can we switch database recovery model when log shipping is turned on ?
We want to switch from Full Recovery to Bulk Logged Recovery to make sure Bulk Insert operations during the after hours load process will have some performance gain.
I 'm sure I am missing something obvious, hopefully someone could point it out. After a failover log shipping, I want to fail back to my inital Primary server database; however, my database is marked as loading. How can I mark it as normal?
I did the failover as follow:
I did a failover log shipping from the 2 server Sv1 (Primary) and Sv2 (Secondary) by doing the following
1) Stop the primary database by using sp_change_primary_role (Sv1)
2) Change the 2nd server to primary server by running sp_change_secondary_role (Sv2)
3) Change the monitor role by running sp-change_monitor_role (Sv2)
4) Resolve the log ins - (Sv2)
5) Now I want to fail back - I copy the TRN files to Sv1 - use SQL Ent to restore the database at point in time. The task is done; however, the database is still mark as loading. I could not use sp_dboption.
I need to create a 5GB database with 4GB for data and 1GB for log in v7.0. I know that in v6.5 I would have created five 1GB devices - to go easy on the backups.
Could someone please advise on how I should distibute allocation of space. Should I allocate 1GB to the primary files and 1GB each to 3 secondary files? Should I just allocate 4GB to primary?
I would really really appreciate any reponse? If there are articles I would appreciate links.
I have a small data warehouse which periodically has old data deleted. However after a delete the free space within the database is not released. If I copy the tables, drop them, recreate, and copy back, the space is there.
I was wondering, is there a way to allocate processors to SQL2000. I have a server that has 4 processors, I would like to leave one just for the operating system and have SQL2000 use the other 3. Is this possible and do you think it would be recomended to do this? Or should i just leave the 4 processors for everything?
I have one database with multipe MDF files.Normally when I am creating a new table it's going to primary MDF file.How I can allocate a new table to the MDF file which I am specifying when table is creating
can some one throw some light on how the DBAs calucaulate the space allocations?
For example I have 30000 records which has 30 columns each defined as varchar(100) and if the db is full and wants to increase the space. Then how much extrac space should be allocated??
Any comments, please. I have a new server 5x160GB drives. It needs to run IIS for a web app and SQL Server 2005. One user database. I was thinking of dividing space as follows and wanted to get some thoughts from others.
On two different unrelated servers this week, I got these errors from a DBCC CHECKDB(tempdb):
Msg 8905, Level 16, State 1, Server NTSONYX, Procedure P_DATABASE_BACKUPS, Line 121 [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Extent (1:136752) in database ID 2 is marked allocated in the GAM, but no SGAM or IAM has allocated it.
A re-boot solved the problem, but what is causing it?
During daily scheduled maintenance the following error occurs, which causes the maintenance job to fail. How can we fix? Thanks!
Allocation Discrepancy: Page is allocated but not linked; check the following pages and ids: allocation pg#=1085440 extent id=1085464 logical pg#=1085464 object id on extent=8 (object name = syslogs) indid on extent=0
I am getting the following error on a version 6.5 database when I run the weekly database backup.
"Allocation Discrepancy: Page is allocated but not linked; check the following pages and ids: allocation pg#=491520 extent id=491720 logical pg#=491720 object id on extent=8 (object name = syslogs) indid on extent=0"
The backup script I run is as follows.. SQLMAINT.EXE -D ECAP -CkDB -CkAl -UpdSts -BkUpDB F:MSSQLBACKUP -BkUpMedia DISK -DelBkUps 8 -Rpt F:MSSQLLOGECAP_DbBkUp.rpt
This database is a 7 x 24 database. What is the least intrusive and/or best way to correct this problem?
I wanted to know on what basis the disk space allocation for the databases is planned . Suppose if we plan 60 GB for data files ( mdf )for a given database then what should be the space allocation for the log files ( ldf ) and the tempdb ( both mdf and ldf files ).
Is there any thumb rule or any defined ratio for the same ?
Hi all, I am running SQL 2000 Enterprise SP4 on Windows Server 2003 Standard SP2
I am getting the follow error message: Table error: Page (1:53888) allocated to object ID 546100986, index ID 0 was not seen. Page may be invalid or have incorrect object ID information in its header.
I check the hardware and didn't see any issues. I run the following command to check the actual page: dbcc traceon (3604) dbcc PAGE ([Statistics], 1, 53888, 1)
I've been doing some testing on the SAN/Disk subsystem over the past few days. I've run into something that is bugging me though. Hopefully someone here has run into the same thing or can answer.
*All LUNs have been created with default selects.
Test 1: LUN1 (H:) - Created partition with diskmanager in win2003. LUN2 (I:) - Created partition with diskpart and aligned the sectors at 64k. Formatted both disks to have 4k in the allocation units. Created a new blank DB on each disk. With Profiler running, I ran a bulk insert for both disks and also ran a "Select count(*), Sum(total) from tableA" for both databases and cleared the proc cache inbetween. Profiler showed the reads and writes io for the import and selects as a the same number (468721 reads and 312182 writes).
Test 2: Deleted partitions LUN1 (H:) - Created partition with diskmanager in win2003. LUN2 (I:) - Created partition with diskpart and aligned the sectors at 64k. Formatted both disks to have 8k in the allocation units. Created a new blank DB on each disk. With Profiler running, I ran a bulk insert for both disks and also ran a "Select count(*), Sum(total) from tableA" for both databases and cleared the proc cache inbetween. Profiler showed the reads and writes io for the import and selects as a the same number (468721 reads and 312182 writes).
Test 3: Same as test 2 but formatted with 64k allocation units.
So here is my question: Shouldn't the I/O go down or at least change if you change the allocation unit size for the disk?
I was trying to find out how much space is available in a 2000 db for allocation to tables and indexes. I am trying to find the amount of space that has to be used-up before another allocation is automatically made to the database. I looked at sp_spaceused but BOL is rather sketchy at defining what the numbers it returns really mean. Is the "unallocated space" the value I am looking for?
I am using DTS to transfer tables from Oracle 9i to SQL Server 2000 sitting in a shared environment and managed to migrate a lot of tables without glitch..
When I was migration a table <XYZ> from Oracle to SQL Server..The table was created in the SQL Server whilst the DTS threw an error that read when it was copying data and 0 rows were copied with the error message being
"Cannot create a row of size 8387 which is greater than the allowed maximum of 8060"
Incidentally the have a table in the Oracle DB that has 152 Rows of Data with 94 Columns..
Does any change needs do be done on the Admin side of the SQL Server to resolve this problem and faciliate effective transfer of data from the DB's?
Hi, I have a database with about 200Gigs allocated to filegroups and 200Megs data in it presently, and am trying to create a copy of the database on the same server - except I don't have enough diskspace free for another 200Gigs. Is there a way using copy database wizard, or restore that the filegroup allocations can be resized?
