Planning For SQL Server 2005: 64-bit, OS, Processor, Memory
Jul 23, 2005
I was browsing Microsoft's SQL Server site, looking for
some details about SQL Server 2005. Didn't find what
I was looking for...
I'm thinking about moving an existing SQL Server 2000
workload to a new box, using SQL Server 2005, and
maybe the 64-bit version.
My questions are:
1. What is the current target date for release of SQL Server 2005?
Will 64-bit ship when 32-bit ships?
2. Will 64-bit SQL Server 2005 require a special version
of Windows Server 2003 (e.g. Windows Server 2003 Enterprise x64)?
Will it work with both Intel and AMD processors?
3. How many CPUs, and how much memory, will be supported by
SQL Server 2005, 32-bit and 64-bit, on each OS that can run
SQL Server 2005.
I'm looking for a chart here, something like the chart on
page 117 of Kalen Delaney's "Inside SQL Server 2000" book.
SQL Server 2005 SQL Server 2005
Feature Enterprise 32-bit Enterprise 64-bit
------------------- ----------------- -----------------
CPUs supported
Win Srvr 2003:
Win Srvr 2003 Adv:
Win Srvr 2003 Ent x64:
Physical memory
supported
Win Srvr 2003:
Win Srvr 2003 Adv:
Win Srvr 2003 Ent x64:
Has Microsoft published this info, and I just can find it?
View 1 Replies
ADVERTISEMENT
Sep 25, 2006
Hi,
We have recently tested upgrading our web service from sql 2000 to 2005 sp1. The upgrade went smoothly enough, however we now have the problem of the sqlserver.exe process taking 90-100 % of the processors time, but using only 100 MB of memory.
We have 6GB available and we are running the enterprise editions of Windows 2003 and SQL 2005.
Machine specs,
DL380 G2, 2 X 2.8 Ghz Zeon, 6GB ram, Raid 5, database partition of 140 GB, Log partition of 35 GB.
Db is 25 GB, Log is 12 GB. Largest table has 32 million rows.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Rob
View 1 Replies
View Related
Apr 30, 2007
Hello,
We are establishing a database server for our product suite containg 14 products- these products is basically intended to be used by CAs and Accountants.
my databaseserver will have 14 databases-
4 are very small, 4 are complex and 6 are Very complex- there is a close intraction between all these databases.
at any time there will be around 500 users using these products but since these products are seasonal there is a chance that all 500 users are connected to one database only.(but there is also a possiblity that load is equally distributed on all the databases)
My product will run on intranat.
My requirement is:
1. What is best server configuration for hosting such type of database.(sqlserver 2005)
2. How many concurrent users sqlserver supports(MSaccess supports 15 concurrent users)
3. I want that if user has license for 10 users my Database should bear load of only 10 user.
View 1 Replies
View Related
Feb 13, 2001
Hi,
I have a new problem .I have a DB on server which is using only one processor and it keeps using up all memory on server.
Any thoughts appreciated!
TIA
PD
View 2 Replies
View Related
Feb 13, 2008
Here are my planning details:
RAID 1:
2 disks RAID 1 for OS and BINS
2 disks RAID 1 for Backups.
RAID 10
4 disks RAID 10 for data
4 disks RAID 10 for log
4 disks RAID 10 for TEMPDB
Should i put the master and other system database on RAID 10 along with TempDB.
Or what else a guru fellow will advise in above setup.
thanks,
View 5 Replies
View Related
Aug 24, 2006
We have a project already developed iusing VS 2003 Enterprise architect edition using sql server 2000(have lots of table and stored procs etc.)
Now planning to switch to Sql server 2005 are there any issues associated with the switch.
I mean front end programming wise asp.net and vb.net front end codes do they work straight away or need to make any changes to all the front end codes, we are using datasets, data readers calling stored procs and also using lot of hash tables and XML object to make bulk loads to sql server via sqlxml3.0 sp3.
Please help thank you very much for the information.
View 1 Replies
View Related
Mar 22, 2002
Hi,
While watching through performance monitor the processor time often goes high above the memory.
Could you please tell me how to find out which process is doing that.
Thanks
John Jayaseelan
View 3 Replies
View Related
Dec 12, 2007
Hi there
Every once in a while (every couple weeks or so) one of our SQL Server 2005 servers will have its performance take a dive. Response time on applications will slow way down. In checking €˜Task Manager€™ the CPU utilization will be up to 50 to 70 percent for the SQL server service. We have tried looking at €˜Perf Mon€™ there doesn€™t seem to be any consistent performance item that is out of whack. On occasion, it may appear to be a lot of paging going on, but I don€™t know what application is causing it. We€™ve looked at SP_who2 to see if there are any blocks, but there do not appear to be any. Though on occasion we will see a €˜Killed/roll-back€™ entry on €˜SP_who2€™ that has a lot of CPU cycles that, at least at one point in time, had a lot of counts against it.
In looking at a trace that we have set up, we don€™t see anything glaring that is held up or even a recurring theme (application) on the list that would point to a problem.
We find that by restarting the SQL Server service, this resolves the issue for another couple of weeks.
Is there something that I can look at that would tell me at least, what PC name is doing all of the IO against the database. I could then at least call the user and say €˜Hey, what are you doing€™ so that we can start to narrow down what is going on.
Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
View 4 Replies
View Related
Mar 5, 2008
I am looking at running SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition in a clustered environment (2 nodes) and am not sure if the 4 processor limit applies to the number of processors per node or the number of processors it will run on in the entire cluster. Could someone please clarify this for me?
View 4 Replies
View Related
Feb 3, 2007
Hi.
I am not able to install "SQL 2005 Server Express Edition " on my AMD64 bit Pc..
My OS is: Windows XP Pro (SP 2)
Plz help me as soon as possible..
Mandar
View 3 Replies
View Related
Oct 9, 2007
Hello all,
We've had a problem for a few months now that has completely stumped us. We are running a heavily cursored massive data manipulation process on a 32 bit SQL Server instance running on a virtual machine, running ontop of VMWare, with the following specs
Processors: 2x2674MHz processors
Memory: 4GB
RAID 10 disk config
When we run our process on this machine, in total it runs in 30 hours.
When this process is run on another 32 bit server with the following specs
Processors: 8x3658MHx processors
Memory: 8 GB
SAN w/ RAID 5 disk config
It runs 25% slower
But here is the real kicker. When this process is run on a 64 bit server with the following specs
Processors: 8x3658MHz processors
Memory: 8 GB
SAN w/ RAID 5 disk config
It runs 75% slower.
This process consists solely of stored procedures written in TSQL. The weird thing is that on our smaller server, the CPUs' % utilization are evenly balanced (at 20-30%) when this large data manipulation process is running. However on the bigger servers, SQL Server latches onto a single processor and doesn't load balance across other processors. Such that what we're seeing is that only one processor out of the eight will be utilized and it will be throttled at 90% while the other 7 are at zero.
The default configuration settings in all three places.
Has anyone ever seen any behavior like this, where only one processor gets used by SQL Server during processing? Granted our processes are single threaded b/c they are using cursors but, it seems that the single thread shouldn't be restricted to one processor.
Any thoughts?
View 3 Replies
View Related
Jan 22, 2007
I have a SProc that runs across many clients without any problems. Every now and then, though, I get the following error:
Internal Query Processor Error: The query processor encountered an unexpected error during execution. [SQLSTATE 42000] (Error 8630).
All I am doing is populating Temp tables with some data and then joining them together to create a Global Temp table that is being BCP'd to a network share.
Has anyone come across this error in SQL Server 2005? I cannot find anything on Google or Microcsoft.
Thanks,
Robert
View 1 Replies
View Related
Oct 11, 2006
Does anyone know what microsoft means when it claims that SQL 2005 inprocessor licensing mode is optimized for web use?Stuart
View 2 Replies
View Related
Jan 3, 2004
With the current web app that I am writing, I am starting to plan ahead to the scalability problems that I am planning on encountering with the number of users that I may have...
My hosting plan now allows for a 50MB SQL Server database, but, I know that will not last long, each user will be using 3-5MB each of the database, so I am going to outgrow my space fast.
Would looking into (until i have enough subscribers to get a dedicated host), SQL Hosting be a good idea? Atleast to start off with something like http://www.alentus.com/hosting/sqlserver.asp ?
But then again, would a SQL Database growing to large get bad? Within a few years, i expect to have at max 5,000 users, so that could grow to a 25GB database... with millions of rows.
Would breaking it up into smaller databases for each N amount of users be a wise idea? Or would it not really matter?
Any help is much appreciated
Happy New Year
Harold.
View 1 Replies
View Related
Jul 4, 2007
We are in the process of installing SQL 2005 Standard Edition on Servers with two Intel Xeon 2.6Ghz processors. We want to buy a processor licence for each server rather than CAL's, but do we have to buy two processor licences or is it possible to configure SQL 2005 to only use one processor on a dual processor server and thus only need to buy a single processor licence.
View 5 Replies
View Related
Jul 20, 2005
HiI joined a project where 100,000 rows were added everyday. Now due toadditional customers the expectation is 2 million reocrds/day ie 10 GB worthof textfiles. We have to estimate the hard disk, memory, # of CPUs etc.Wewill have one yearworth of data in the db. Rest will be in tapes etc.We will be using WIN2000, SQL Server2000.- Any comparable server sizing willbe appreciated.1. Tohandle every day load, I thought that we will have a table for each day(pre created in the database )and have a view with union all selectingfromall these 365 tables. (This is the only way to partition in MSSQL Serverright?).2. The requirement is to populate datawarehouse tables with all the data.However there will be only inserts mostly but there can be updates too whichhappenned in the past 12 days.Hence we have to use the data from the last12 days and massage it etc and populate into datawarehouse tables.How can I do this so that I will have the datawarehouse tables with n-12days of data and I will alwys add the last 12 days data to it.Do you have any suggestions?Ragu
View 3 Replies
View Related
Aug 8, 2007
Hello,
I have been working on SQL Server Capacity Planning for a few weeks now and have gathered a lot of materials, but non of thes materials contain recommended best practices on SQL Server capacity planning and also they do not contain operational guidelines.
I would be glad if anyone can recommend a website or book that contain information on SQL Server Capacity Planning Best Practices.
Thanks,
Jide
View 3 Replies
View Related
May 22, 2008
I am new to this so I hope I'm doing it right.
We are in the process of replacing a computer that currently has SQL 2005 Management Studio Express installed. We are looking at a Intel Core 2 Quad processor (Q6700) and want to know if SQL will be able to make full use of a quad core. Thanks
View 10 Replies
View Related
Sep 16, 2007
Here'a a break down of what I've done so far.
* Windows 2003 32bit Enterprise with 10gb RAM
* SQL 2005 32bit Enterprise
* boot.ini - have added /3GB /PAE switches
* Confirmed which account SQL Server is running under and added that account to Local Policies/User Rights Assignment/Lock pages in memory
* Enabled AWE in SQL SERVER
* set minimum and maximum server memory to 9gb
* Rebooted.
Task manager says the following:
sqlservr.exe - 95MB usage * I know this is normal when using AWE right?
The actual physical memory used is 3.13GB and never goes higher. So this leads to believe that SQL is utilizing 3GB because of the /3GB switch, but it's not using the rest like it should be. I tried it without the /3GB switch and it only went up to about 2.1GB usage.
I've turned on performance monitor and SQL server target memory says 8.65 GB while the Total Server Memory says 2.45GB.
I've run:
EXEC sp_configure 'show advanced options'
RECONFIGURE
GO
EXEC sp_configure 'awe enabled'
RECONFIGURE
GO
And it confirms that the running value for both is 1
Please help.
View 20 Replies
View Related
Mar 26, 2007
Hi
I would like to know how much of memory is taken by sql server 2005 entprise edition 64 bit during sql server startup in default configuration.....(4GB RAM being used).
i also want to know about montioring the performance of sql server 2005.Should i continue to use performance monitor (perfmon) or is there any new feature in slq server 2005 which provides performance monitoring.
Thanks in advance
View 2 Replies
View Related
Dec 11, 2007
Hi all,
I needed to load some tables in memory on startup because of performance reasons.
I'm using "select * from <table>", but there are few questions:
1. How to pin already selected data in memory ? (DBCC PINTABLE doesn't work for 2005)
2. How to put index data in memory ? (do you read document(s) for advance memory management - index data caching ?)
3. How to pin index data in memory ? (otherwise sound very bad - table data in fast memory, index data - in slow disks)
Thanks in advance:
Siol En
View 6 Replies
View Related
Sep 14, 2007
Hi:
I'm running Windows Small Business Server 2003 Premium R2. I installed SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition on this PC. I'm using Std Edition instead of the Workgroup Edition that comes with SBS since I like the additional features in the Std Edition.
I'm a kind of a newbie to Windows Server administration and SQL Server administration although I've written lots of SQL queries, stored procedures, etc.
I have 2GB of RAM on this PC. When I looked in Task Manager, I saw that SQL Server was using somewhere over 1GB of RAM. So, I opened up SQL Management Studio, right clicked on the server node, clicked to get to the memory configuration page and saw that SQL Server was set to use all 2GB of RAM on the PC. I changed that to 500MB(500000000, or 476MB) and decided to reboot the server. When the server came back up, I forgot to check SQL Server's new RAM usage. The server ran without interruption for over 24 hours. Now, when I checked SQL Server's memory usage in Task Manager, I can see it's using over 750MB of RAM.
How do I fix this?
I have Exchange Server 2003 running on this PC as well.
Thx.
View 9 Replies
View Related
Dec 11, 2007
Hi all,
I needed to load some tables in memory on startup because of performance reasons.
I'm using "select * from <table>", but there are few questions:
1. How to pin already selected data in memory ? (DBCC PINTABLE doesn't work for 2005)
2. How to put index data in memory ? (do you read document(s) for advance memory management - index data caching ?)
3. How to pin index data in memory ? (otherwise sound very bad - table data in fast memory, index data - in slow disks)
Thanks in advance:
Siol En
View 3 Replies
View Related
Sep 18, 2007
We have an application that we currently run on SQL Server 2000 that works by creating a DTS package that it then executes.
Due to performance reasons, we have been considering switching to 2005, for a few reasons. Can anyone confirm clarify the following?
1) SQL Server 2000 caps RAM usage at 2GB, whereas SQL Server 2005 is only limited by the OS - RAM usage is a big current issue for us, so if upgrading to 2005 would solve this it would help a lot. Can anyone confirm my understanding of this?
2) Would using the legacy DTS in SQL Server 2005 take advantage of this RAM difference, or is it running on the old 2000 engine and only able to use the 2GB?
Thanks for any help.
View 4 Replies
View Related
Apr 20, 2007
My server is a dual AMD x64 2.19 GHz with 8 GB RAM running under Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition with service pack 1 installed. We have SQL 2000 32-bit Enterprise installed in the default instance. AWE is enabled using Dynamically configured SQL Server memory with 6215 MB minimum memory and 6656 maximum memory settings.
I have now installed, side-by-side, SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition in a separate named instance. Everything is running fine but I believe SQL Server2005 could run faster and need to ensure I am giving it plenty of resources. I realize AWE is not needed with SQL Server 2005 and I have seen suggestions to grant the SQL Server account the 'lock pages in memory' rights. This box only runs the SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 server databases and I would like to ensure, if possible, that each is splitting the available memory equally, at least until we can retire SQL Server 2000 next year. Any suggestions?
View 8 Replies
View Related
Feb 27, 2008
hi all,
I was under the impression that SQL Server 2005 can install on dual processor, quad core Intel machines.
Here's what we have: Intel Quad Core Xeon (E7340) @ 2.4Ghz. (8 way)
Has anyone encountered any issues w/ this setup -- particularly on this Intel CPU version?
thank you,
Cosmin
View 3 Replies
View Related
Aug 13, 2007
A query was taking 20 seconds and consuming 70% CPU takes only 1 second after setting Maximum Memory property to 2048 MB - why?
Server:
OS Microsoft(R) Windows(R) Server 2003, Enterprise Edition
Version5.2.3790 Service Pack 1 Build 3790
8 GB memory
Two Dual-core AMD Opteron 285 2.6GHz Processors
Server is not configured for AWE
Fiber channel connection to EMC Clarion - two LUNs - one for MDF, one for LDF
SQL 2005
SQL 2005 32 bit Standard Edition - SP1 (version 9.0.2047)
Three instances installed on server - only one instance in use
Binaries and system databases on local mirrored disk
Database file (MDF) on one EMC LUN - dedicated physical drives
Log file (LDF) on one EMC LUN - dedicated physical drives
Query in question:
SELECT TOP 10 Address.Address1, Address.Address2, Address.City, Address.County, Address.State, Address.ZIPCode, Address.Country, Client.Name,
Quote.Deleted, Client.PrimaryContact, Client.DBA, Client.Type, Quote.Status, Quote.LOB, Client.ClientID, Quote.QuoteID, Quote.PolicyNumber,
Quote.EffectiveDate, Quote.ExpirationDate, Quote.Description, Quote.Description2, Quote.DateModified, Quote.DateAccessed, Quote.CurrentPremium,
Quote.TransactionDate, Quote.CreationDate, Quote.Producer FROM ((Client INNER JOIN Address ON Client.ClientID = Address.ClientID) INNER JOIN Quote ON
Client.ClientID = Quote.ClientID) WHERE (Quote.Deleted = 0) AND ((Address.AddressType)='Mailing') ORDER BY Client.Name
Address table - 161,075 rows
Client table - 161,634 rows
Quote table - 59,145 rows
With default maximum memory setting (2,147,483,647 MB) - query runs in 20 seconds and consumes over 70 % of the CPU.
After changing maximum memory setting to 2048 MB, query runs in less than 1 second.
Question is:
What is the best practice for setting the minimum and maximum memory settings for SQL 2005?
What can be monitored to identify the cause of these type of issues - using profiler, PerfMon, other tool?
Thanks
View 2 Replies
View Related
Oct 26, 2007
running Sql Server 2005 SP2 on Windows 2003 Server SP1 with 2GB RAM. After start-up, the sqlservr.exe does only take up around 100 MB of RAM, and it stays roughly there even if the DB is used heavily. This leads to very poor performance, even timeouts on simple querys.
In the task manager, I see that of the 2 GB of RAM, more than 1 GB is still available. I don't understand why SQL Server won't take it?
As a test, I configured the min and max amount of RAM SQL Server should used both to 1024 MB and restarted the service - but it is still the same picture. It won't take more than around 100 MB.
The server has just been restarted, but the problem remains.
BTW there is also an instance of SQL 2000 on the same machine. It shows the same behaviour - I even checked the "reserve phyiscal memory" checkbox there, but it stays on a very low number (50 MB) and doesn't adhere to the supposed size.
thanks and best regards,
- Urs
View 3 Replies
View Related
Aug 14, 2007
we wonder about the tradeoffs of t-sql vs clr in sql server 2005 especially from a memory perspective. Is there documentation available on this subject?
View 8 Replies
View Related
Apr 2, 2007
I have a Windows 2003 Server running SQL 2005. The server has 32 GB of memory and I have enabled AWE in SQL. I have also configured the min and max SQL memory as 1 GB and 28 GB, respectively. However, this server currently has very low activity so I'm not sure whether my AWE-related changes worked. SQLSERVR.EXE process takes up about 100 MB of memory. Is there any tool or scripts that I can use to memory stress SQL to confirm that AWE is really in effect ?
View 1 Replies
View Related
Nov 9, 2007
Hi,
I'm having trouble finding the optimum memory settings for SQL Server 2005. I have 4 instances running on a macine with 8 dual-core processors and 18GB of RAM. I have tried the following memory settings so far:
No maximum - one instance used about 12GB of RAM so then the others struggled
Maximum of 4GB each (2GB left for Windows) - meant that 3 instances could be using 1GB each and then another at 4GB and needing more whilst 9GB sat unused.
Minimum of 2GB each - one instance would use up 10GB and then never give any back to the other instances.
I also find that setting a maximum then just causes a high amount of paging. What I would like to do is have each instance use a minimum amount, say 1GB, and then have each instance use a maximum of 13GB (3GB for other 3 instances running at a minimum level and 2GB for Windows). This 13GB should then be released and allocated to another instance when necessary, assuming it is no longer all being used. I do not want paging to occur if an instance reaches 13GB.
How do I go about configuring SQL Server to behave like this? Is it possible?
Thanks.
View 1 Replies
View Related
Jan 2, 2007
Hi forum readers,
we are working on a release 2.0 mobile solution right now. In our version 1.0 we did not have to worry about memory issues as our application was the only application running on our target devices (e.g. T-Mobile MDA Compact II Pocket PCs, WM2005).
Now we need to share the available memory with others. As our application relies on its SQL Server 2005 Mobile Edition database we are wondering about memory usage of that server.
We know that a Pocket PC divides its memory into Storage and Program. If our application uses a 5 MB database and 1.5 MB for DLLs and it's exe-file. These files reside in the storage space when not loaded. When the application starts up it is loaded in the program memory. What happens to the 5 MB database file? Is is loaded into Program memory as well? Are only portions of that file loaded? Or is nothing loaded at all?
Does anyone have a deeper insight into that server an can answer my questions.
Best regards,
Tobias
View 3 Replies
View Related
Feb 11, 2007
We have only a small busines and haven't got too much experience with servers and now have a proliant server coming in with SBS 2003 R2 Premium with the 4 GB max memory that SBS 2003 can handle according to the specs.
We weren't planning on using the SQL 2005 worlgroup edition up till now, but now we might. According to the specs of SQL server 2005 workgroup edition however, it has a max RAM of 3GB!
Is this going to be a problem and should we keep using our previous DB, or can we migrate toward SQL server with the 4 GB of RAM?
View 2 Replies
View Related
