Memory Sizing For A SQL 2000 Cluster - Windows 2003 Enterprise SP1
Oct 4, 2007
I am looking for some recommendations for memory sizing and options for a SQL 2000 Cluster. This is a two node cluster built on Windows 2003 ENT SP1 (x86). Both the nodes have the following hardware:
- 4 x Dual Core AMD Processors
- 16 GB Memory
- EMC Shared Disk
We are running six SQL 2000 instances and don't expect each of these instances to use more than 1.7 GB of memory. All these instances are going to support BizTalk 2004 Databases. I already have /PAE enabled on the nodes. I am looking for the following answers:
- Do I need to enable AWE on all the instances even if the instances ? Currently, we don't have that enabled and we have seen some issues regarding excessive paging even when there is physical memory available. The DBAs think that we don't need to enable AWE. I am bit confused on this one.
- We normally run 3 instances on each node and would like size the cluster in such a way that it can take six instances in case of a node failure
I installed MS SQL 2000 on a Windows 2003 server cluster (no servicepacks). Both nodes are online and both domain controllers are online.I tried to install SP3 and got the following error:--------------Logon Account could not be validated.No authority could be contacted for authentication.---------------I installed SQL SP 2 and did not get the error but I do get it everytime I try to install SP3.Does anybody have an idea that might help resolve the problem.
I have a Windows 2003 Enterprise x64 edition cluster setup and functioning normally. Now, I am trying to get SQL Server 2000 installed as a failover cluster but am having some difficulty. When installing, I get the message '[sqsrvres] ODBC sqldriverconnect failed' in the event log. The message happens when the installer is trying to bring the SQL Server Service resource online.
I am able to ping the name of the instance successfully. I am able to manually start the 'MSSQL$InstanceName' service. I have turned off the firewall on both machines, but this did not help. I have the DTC Service setup as a resource in the same cluster group.
I also read http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;815431 which seemed promising, but did not reolve the problem.
Will it be possible to do an in-place upgrade from SQL 2000 Server Enterprise SP4 32 bit running on top of 64 bit Windows 2003 Enterprise , clustered, to SQL 2005 Enterprise 64 bit? The 32 bit SQL 2000 to 64 bit SQL 2005 in place upgrade seems questionable to me... Anybody tried anything like this?
I am in the process of building a 3+1 Win2k3 cluster with SQL 2000. Once I got through all the funky install issues, everything is running great. In fact, working with the new cluster services has been such a breath of fresh air compared even to Win2K. The SAN abilities of W2K3 with on the fly drive additions and such are just awesome.
Anyway, the issue I am seeing has to do with memory. The boxes all have 8gb. First thing I noticed was Win2K3 seems to automatically enable the /PAE option. It's not in the boot.ini but the server "knows" it is using AWE support, which is fine. What confuses me is if I give SQL (awe enabled) a fixed 7.5gb of RAM to play with, it seems to actually use it, without the 3gb option or any regard for the OS. I was able to push it to 7.9gb leaving the OS about 50mb and it allowed it, or at least it looks like it allows it. Target and total memory counters for SQL Memory show it using the full 7.9gb, but taskmgr shows SQL using 80mb. I seem to remember reading that this is normal somewhere; taskmgr can't accurate display memory use. The available physical memory in taskmgr does reflect that all physical ram is in use.
Adding the PAE and 3GB options to the boot.ini appears to have made no impact. Almost like they were already there anyway?
Can anyone explain Win2k3 and SQL 2000 memory stuff to me? I feel dumb right now.
We just upgraded the memory of our database server from 2GB to 4GB. And its OS is windows 2003 standard and sql is 2005 standard edition. According to microsoft(http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143685.aspx and http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx#physical_memory_limits_windows_server_2003), this configuration should allow database use up to 4 GB memory. My question is : Do I need to do anything(such as: adjust the maximum memory in management studio) to let our server be able to consume this extra 2 GB memory?
Does this solution http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750 apply for SQL server 2005?
We have a SQL 2005 installed in Windows 2003 64 bit system, which has 16 CPU and 32GB RAM, but the performance is poor. SQL server is AWE enable and the sql start account with "Lock Pages In Memory". I checked the task manager and it looks that the SQL server used only about 300 MB memory. Here is what I found:
I am busy looking at the WIndows 2003 Comptu Cluster setup (Well I am loading it)
And I am interested to know if any body has run SQL 2005 Enterprise on this platform before ?
I know that Windows Compute Cluster uses a JOB scheduler to run tasks and this can be customised for each task , to allow it to use more resourses or less .
I also know that SQL 2005 is much more capable of running cluster mode with database replication and log file shipping
I want to know is of I load SQL 2005 on a Clustered Compute setup will it handle the SQL jobs, database requests with out the scheduler.
The question might be a bit tricky but any help is appricated
With two 64 bit quad core processors on the server, we have 8 processor cores. Does this mean that we'll need Windows Server 2003 x64 Enterprise edition because Standard only supports up to 4-way SMP?
Hi all,I have a Windows 2003 server, which is also a terminal server forapplication, with sql 2000 installed. My company has developed anapplication that uses SQL 2000 as its database. The application is aclient/server one. In each client computer there's a link to theapplication on the server. There is no problem with Windows 98,Windows 2000 pro, Windows xp pro clients, but the windows 95 onescannot log in to the database. The log of the application shows thefollowing error:connection error -2147467259. Cannot open database requested in login'database name'. Login fails.Till a week ago the application was running on a Windows 2000 serverwith SQL 2000 install and the W95 clients had no problem connecting tothe database, so my guess is the error has something to do withWindows 2003 server, but what'causing the error?I tried to install a newer version of MDAC (MDAC 2.5, the last versionof MDAC you can install on W95)but with no success. By the way W95clients have no problem accessing shared folder on the Windows 2003server.Any idea?ThanksMarino
I am testing SQL 2005 Standard (32 bit) on a Windows 2003 Server 64 bit with 8GB of RAM? Should I enable the AWP Setting or not and should I change the maximum server memory (currently saying 2GB)?
This is a fresh install of SQL Server 2005 (64bit) on a Windows 2003 R2 SP2 64bit OS. The Cluster has been built and SQL 2005 has been installed (Database Engine(clustered), Analysis Server(clustered), Notification Server, Integration Server, Reporting Services). SQL 2005 SP2 has been installed.
Now, I want to install Notification Server, Integration Server and Reporting Services on the second node for high availability.
When I select 'Install New Components' from Add/Remove Programs, the System Configuation Checker tells me theres a version difference and to:
To change an existing instance of Microsoft SQL Server 2005 to a different edition of SQL Server 2005, you must run SQL Server 2005 Setup from the command prompt and include the SKUUPGRADE=1 parameter.
I'm using the same binaries as the original install. Could this be a result of installing SQL 2005 SP2?
Can someone help me out with this. I'd prefer using the setup interface instead of a command line script.
I've installed Windows 2003 SP2 in a stand-alone cluster (will be adding a second node later). I'm now installing SQL Server 2005 Developer Edition 64-bit extended and would like to have the "Create a SQL Server Failover Cluster" box to not be grayed out. Even when I check the "SQL Server Database Services" box, it still has the cluster box grayed out.
I found sql2005 Enterprise cannot be installed under Simplied Chinese win 2003, the only thing i suspect is that win2003 is an envaluation copy with netframework 2.0 be installed.
I need to max out on RAM somewhere around 3 to 4 GB and I am using SQL 2000. Standard SQL 2000 RAM is limited to 2 GB. SQL Enterprise 2000 is maxed out around 32GB and it cost is $1K. I need to purchase a Windows based SQL package but I can't find the specs on SQL Standard 2003 (which is ~$700) to compare. What is the Max RAM for SQL Standard 2003? Which is a better purchase relative to RAM? What O/S is recommended as this also limits RAM usage?
When windows 2003 server is not log on to the domain, SQL worksfine.(workgroup) Everyone can connect to SQL. When everyone is on thedomain, nothing can connect remotely to SQL.
I have an Active/Active/Passive cluster with 64GB RAM on each node running SQL 2000 EE, AWE is enabled as well as the PAE switch, all is dandy with that.
Question: Should I configure each SQL Instance to have only a max mem usage of 32GB in the event both failover to the same node ? or will the memory allocation be handled without any issue if each node is configured to use 64GB ?
We are running a two-node cluster for SQL Server 2000 Enterprise on Windows Server 2003. Each node has four processors and 4GB RAM. Our application is hosted on a seperate IIS server with 150-200 connections accessing the database via ADO.NET (ASP.NET 1.1). Our processor utilization has been high, averaging around 80% and out context switches/sec counter averages around 15,000. We are not using NT Fibers and our performance seems to be sluggish when the context switches/sec counter is high - over 10,000. In peak periods we se this counter hit 30-50,000. I have read articles that state NT Fibers have better performance in machines with 8 or more processors. Is this something that would also help in a four processor machine? The SQL Server is dedicated to SQL, i.e. there are no other applications running. I am also considering using the "Priority Boost" option... do these options really improve performance? I'm trying to squeeze as much performance out of these machines while waiting for new hardware to arrive. Thanks.
I'm working on deploying an ASP.NET 2.0 app onto a Windows 2003 server and I'm having trouble with SQL 2000 authentication. When I run my app from my development box running IIS 5.1 I have no problems. In order to get it to work on my this machine, I had set the account for anonymous access to run under an ASPNETDOMAIN account and configured my SQL database to allow this account.On the Windows 2003 box with IIS 6.0, I've done the same thing with anonymous access for the web app, and also created an application pool that the app runs under and have set the application pool to run under the same account. It appears the app is looking for a local SQL 2005 instance (which doesn't exist). Why would it do this and what do I need to change for this to work?Error:An error has occurred while establishing a connection to the server. When connecting to SQL Server 2005, this failure may be caused by the fact that under the default settings SQL Server does not allow remote connections. (provider: SQL Network Interfaces, error: 26 - Error Locating Server/Instance Specified)Stack Trace:[SqlException (0x80131904): An error has occurred while establishing a connection to the server. When connecting to SQL Server 2005, this failure may be caused by the fact that under the default settings SQL Server does not allow remote connections. (provider: SQL Network Interfaces, error: 26 - Error Locating Server/Instance Specified)] System.Data.SqlClient.SqlInternalConnection.OnError(SqlException exception, Boolean breakConnection) +735043 System.Data.SqlClient.TdsParser.ThrowExceptionAndWarning(TdsParserStateObject stateObj) +188 System.Data.SqlClient.TdsParser.Connect(Boolean& useFailoverPartner, Boolean& failoverDemandDone, String host, String failoverPartner, String protocol, SqlInternalConnectionTds connHandler, Int64 timerExpire, Boolean encrypt, Boolean trustServerCert, Boolean integratedSecurity, SqlConnection owningObject, Boolean aliasLookup) +820 System.Data.SqlClient.SqlInternalConnectionTds.OpenLoginEnlist(SqlConnection owningObject, SqlConnectionString connectionOptions, String newPassword, Boolean redirectedUserInstance) +628 System.Data.SqlClient.SqlInternalConnectionTds..ctor(DbConnectionPoolIdentity identity, SqlConnectionString connectionOptions, Object providerInfo, String newPassword, SqlConnection owningObject, Boolean redirectedUserInstance) +170 System.Data.SqlClient.SqlConnectionFactory.CreateConnection(DbConnectionOptions options, Object poolGroupProviderInfo, DbConnectionPool pool, DbConnection owningConnection) +130 System.Data.ProviderBase.DbConnectionFactory.CreateNonPooledConnection(DbConnection owningConnection, DbConnectionPoolGroup poolGroup) +27 System.Data.ProviderBase.DbConnectionFactory.GetConnection(DbConnection owningConnection) +47 System.Data.ProviderBase.DbConnectionClosed.OpenConnection(DbConnection outerConnection, DbConnectionFactory connectionFactory) +105 System.Data.SqlClient.SqlConnection.Open() +111 System.Web.Management.SqlServices.GetSqlConnection(String server, String user, String password, Boolean trusted, String connectionString) +68
Hello y'all, I have to do a new install of SERVER 2000 using WINDOWS 2003 . Has anyone done this. If so, what are the steps. Should I expect any problems ? Any help appreciated. Thanx
I have XP workstations and windows 2003 SBS. I setup an ODBC for anapplication (tried both User and System DSN), but after a few usage, I getthe following error:Connection failed:SQLState: 'HY000'SQL Server Error: 0[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver]Cannot generate SSPI context.Any ideas? Is this a bug?--Thank youPlease post only
Hi !when installing sqlserver 2000 on a Windows 2003 server it explicitlytells "server not compatible with Windows 2003" during install, but itcan carry on.After we applied serfice pack 3a then the db server seems to runnormally, but does it risk to behave randomly afterwards ???Is sqlserver 2000 standard edition compatible with Windows 2003 server?Or does it exist a specific sqlserver edition for Win2003 ?thanks !Patrice
We got SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition SP3 running on Windows 2003 server.
Now, we would like to apply windows 2003 SP1 to the Operating System.
We are concerned that whether windows 2003 SP1 is compatible with SQL server 2000 (SP3)?
I was looking at the application comaptibility chart for Windows 2003 SP1.Among them SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition Service Pack 3a was listed but not the Standard Edition.
My Question - Is windows 2003 server SP1 is compatible with SQL Server 2000 (SP3)?
Can SQL 2000 32 bit run on a Windows 2003 64-bit Intel OS installation? What about the SQL 2000 64 bit version? Is the Enterprise Edition required for this?
I have been running Windows 2003 64bit and SQL2000 SP4 for over 2 months with out any issues.
Sadly we had a server crash "NTldr missing or corrupted"
now when the one engineer looked at it he suggested to reload the server with Windows 2003 32 bit version as there were known compatibility problems between 2003 64bit and SQL 2000 32bit but that you can install SQL 2000 32bit onto a Windows 2003 64 bit server.
Now i dont really believe this statement nor can i find any documentation supporting this. I believe this server might have crashed due to a new patch that was released the last 2 or 3 week either on Windows or SQL. Does anyone know where i can verify what patches was released?
Maybe someone else can share their thoughts with me.
If SQL Server Setup fails, Setup will roll back the installation but may not remove all .manifest files. The workaround is to rename the files and then rerun Setup. For more information, see How to: Work Around COM+ Check Failure in SQL Server Setup.
I recently bought a Dell server with Windows 2003 enterprise edition. I wanted the X32 version and metnioned of the same to the sales people, but somehow they put the x64 edition on the server. The database I am planning to use does not work on X64 edition as of now. How do I downgrade the OS to X32 version? Do I need to send the system back to Dell? Machine not opened yet. Or is there a way I can get software CD and downgrade to X32 version?
After differential restore I start Remedy service. It starts in few seconds.
After full restore the same service takes 15 minutes to start. Bothe the things are done through SQL service agent. Even manual restaring the service also takes 15 minutes after full restore. WHy is it happening this way?
