Hi,
We have HP4640 64-bit Itanium machines. Can we run SQL Server Standard
Edition (32-bit) on them? Is that via IA32EL? Is there a performance
degradation with IA32EL?
I believe our only option is to go for 64-bit Enterprise Edition.
RegardsHi
For SQL Server 2000, 64 on 64. 32 on 64 is not supported.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Yusuf" <Yusuf@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DDB2DF76-81EB-4A5B-BFC4-051CC274E46A@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> We have HP4640 64-bit Itanium machines. Can we run SQL Server Standard
> Edition (32-bit) on them? Is that via IA32EL? Is there a performance
> degradation with IA32EL?
> I believe our only option is to go for 64-bit Enterprise Edition.
> Regards
Showing posts with label edition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label edition. Show all posts
Thursday, March 22, 2012
"Your upgrade is blocked"
I am getting the following error message when I tried installing the 2005 Developer Edition from the MSDN kit. I previously installed the 2005 Express Edition, and it worked just fine, so I thought that the install failed as it was at a lower version than the Express Edition. I uninstalled the SQLExpress Edition, however, when I try to install SQL Server 2005 again, I get the following message:
Name: Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Tools
Reason: Your upgrade is blocked. For more information about upgrade support, see the "Version and Edition Upgrades" and "Hardware and Software Requirements" topics in SQL Server 2005 Setup Help or SQL Server 2005 Books Online.
Build version check:
Your upgrade is blocked because the existing component is a later version than the version you are trying to upgrade to. To modify an existing SQL Server component, go to Add or Remove Programs in Control Panel, select the component you would like to modify, and then click Change/Remove.
Name: Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Tools
Reason: Your upgrade is blocked. For more information about upgrade support, see the "Version and Edition Upgrades" and "Hardware and Software Requirements" topics in SQL Server 2005 Setup Help or SQL Server 2005 Books Online.
Build version check:
Your upgrade is blocked because the existing component is a later version than the version you are trying to upgrade to. To modify an existing SQL Server component, go to Add or Remove Programs in Control Panel, select the component you would like to modify, and then click Change/Remove.
I have also installed Visual Studio NET, and I wonder if some component in the Studio app is holding back the SQL Server install. I have uninstalled all SQL components several times already, and I keep on getting this message.
Gregory
Gregory
Gregory, when you go to Add/Remove Programs, do you see any SQL 2005 installation info there? If so, what versions does the report say?
Also, what version of SQL Server Express did you install? RTM or SP1?
Thanks,
Samuel Lester (MSFT)
Monday, March 19, 2012
"The feature(s) specified are not valid for this edition of SQL Server" error when ins
I've successfully installed SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition on an Enterprise edition of Windows Server 2003 x64. I'm now (and also tried & failed during the install of the database engine) attempting to install the "Management Tools" component on the same server. However, in all my attempts to do so, I receive the following error:
The feature(s) specified are not valid for this edition of SQL Server
The message box does not list the features that are not valid but since the only item I've selected to install is the "Management Tools" option under "Client Components" it obviously points to something with that.
Am I missing something or are the Management Tools not supported in my config - most notably SQL Server 2005 Standard edition running on Windows Server 2003 x64?
Thanks.
- Lance
Colorado State University
I was finally able to install the "Management Tools" with a pretty simple solution: Install using the installer files directly off of the physical DVD. My prior attempts had all been using a copy of the files on the DVD stored locally on the server. Incidently, I had used the same copied files to successfully install the DB engine and SSIS. Go figure.
"Setup has detected one or more instances of SQL Server 2000..."
Tried to install the CTP and got a message stating that 2008 won't coexist with 2000. I had an instance of 2000 Developer Edition on here that I was testing some stuff with. I removed that, rebooted, and I still get the same message. Am I to assume that you can't even install 2008 if you've got the 2000 client tools installed, or am I missing something else?
Have a look at section 2.1.1 of the readme file, it states "To work around this issue, manually remove the registry key at HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL Server\80, and then re-run SQL Server "Katmai" June CTP Setup." Note that this will likely break the 2000 tools so uninstall them first or better yet use VPC/VMWare to create an isolated environment. CTP's often don't play well with other versions and can be difficult to uninstall cleanly.|||Ah ha, the actual CTP ISO has an outdated readme that doesn't mention that part. I bet that'll do the trick. Thanks.
|||
Have a look at section 2.1.1 of the readme file, it states "To work around this issue, manually remove the registry key at HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL Server\80, and then re-run SQL Server "Katmai" June CTP Setup." Note that this will likely break the 2000 tools so uninstall them first or better yet use VPC/VMWare to create an isolated environment. CTP's often don't play well with other versions and can be difficult to uninstall cleanly.|||Ah ha, the actual CTP ISO has an outdated readme that doesn't mention that part. I bet that'll do the trick. Thanks.
|||
Hi,
I also got the same warning message about side by side running of SQL2k and Katmai June CTP. But I could not find any note about SQL 2000 in the readme documents of the installation.
|||Yeah, the readme file that's included with the installation is slightly out of date. I think this is the one you need: http://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/Downloads/DownloadDetails.aspx?DownloadID=6834|||
Hi David,
Thanks for the link. Great help!
"Setup has detected one or more instances of SQL Server 2000..."
Tried to install the CTP and got a message stating that 2008 won't coexist with 2000. I had an instance of 2000 Developer Edition on here that I was testing some stuff with. I removed that, rebooted, and I still get the same message. Am I to assume that you can't even install 2008 if you've got the 2000 client tools installed, or am I missing something else?
Have a look at section 2.1.1 of the readme file, it states "To work around this issue, manually remove the registry key at HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL Server\80, and then re-run SQL Server "Katmai" June CTP Setup." Note that this will likely break the 2000 tools so uninstall them first or better yet use VPC/VMWare to create an isolated environment. CTP's often don't play well with other versions and can be difficult to uninstall cleanly.|||Ah ha, the actual CTP ISO has an outdated readme that doesn't mention that part. I bet that'll do the trick. Thanks.
|||
Have a look at section 2.1.1 of the readme file, it states "To work around this issue, manually remove the registry key at HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL Server\80, and then re-run SQL Server "Katmai" June CTP Setup." Note that this will likely break the 2000 tools so uninstall them first or better yet use VPC/VMWare to create an isolated environment. CTP's often don't play well with other versions and can be difficult to uninstall cleanly.|||Ah ha, the actual CTP ISO has an outdated readme that doesn't mention that part. I bet that'll do the trick. Thanks.
|||
Hi,
I also got the same warning message about side by side running of SQL2k and Katmai June CTP. But I could not find any note about SQL 2000 in the readme documents of the installation.
|||Yeah, the readme file that's included with the installation is slightly out of date. I think this is the one you need: http://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/Downloads/DownloadDetails.aspx?DownloadID=6834|||
Hi David,
Thanks for the link. Great help!
Saturday, February 25, 2012
"could not open connection to SQL Server"?
I just installed a new SQL 2005 Server (September CTP - Developer Edition) on Windows Server 2003 (Using Virtual PC).
I have created a Data Model to be used for creating reports. When I tried to deploy the Model, I got an error along the lines of "...SQL Server does not allow remote connections...".
I then took a step back and tried to browse the report server (http://localhost/reportserver) and I got the message below:
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: Named Pipes Provider, error: 40 - Could not open a connection to SQL Server)
I also notice that when I go into the Reporting Services Configuration Manager, I see that the Initialization item in the left hand side is Not Configured (has a "red x"). When I try clicking on this item, I get a similar message to the one above.
I am very new at SQL 2005 and this is my first install of it (I have been using other installations in the past). I did some searching and found that I should use the SQL Server Surface Area Configuration utility to allow remote connections for both TCP and Named Pipes. I did this and rebooted my server and I am still getting the same error messages.
Is there something I have yet to configure?
Any and all help is very much appreciated!!!
Thanks!
Brian McCulloughRight after I posted this I realized I renamed the Computer after I installed SQL. The problem was that when I installed reporting services, it created all the connection information based on the "old" computer name.
Brian|||What did you have to do to fix it? Where is the connection information?|||In the Reporting Services Configuration Manager select the Database Setup item on the left-hand side. This is where you specify the Database connection properties for the ReportServer database. I had to change the Server Name to match the current machine name, not what I had it as originally.
-Brian|||I had a similar problem - I was able to fix it by specifying my server as computer-name\servername
Hope this helps
"could not open connection to SQL Server"?
I just installed a new SQL 2005 Server (September CTP - Developer Edition) on Windows Server 2003 (Using Virtual PC).
I have created a Data Model to be used for creating reports. When I tried to deploy the Model, I got an error along the lines of "...SQL Server does not allow remote connections...".
I then took a step back and tried to browse the report server (http://localhost/reportserver) and I got the message below:
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: Named Pipes Provider, error: 40 - Could not open a connection to SQL Server)
I also notice that when I go into the Reporting Services Configuration Manager, I see that the Initialization item in the left hand side is Not Configured (has a "red x"). When I try clicking on this item, I get a similar message to the one above.
I am very new at SQL 2005 and this is my first install of it (I have been using other installations in the past). I did some searching and found that I should use the SQL Server Surface Area Configuration utility to allow remote connections for both TCP and Named Pipes. I did this and rebooted my server and I am still getting the same error messages.
Is there something I have yet to configure?
Any and all help is very much appreciated!!!
Thanks!
Brian McCulloughRight after I posted this I realized I renamed the Computer after I installed SQL. The problem was that when I installed reporting services, it created all the connection information based on the "old" computer name.
Brian|||What did you have to do to fix it? Where is the connection information?|||In the Reporting Services Configuration Manager select the Database Setup item on the left-hand side. This is where you specify the Database connection properties for the ReportServer database. I had to change the Server Name to match the current machine name, not what I had it as originally.
-Brian|||I had a similar problem - I was able to fix it by specifying my server as computer-name\servername
Hope this helps
"Cannot open user default database"
[2005 Developer Edition] In Management Studio I changed my default database to a user db. I subsequently unselected that db as the default leaving me with no default db (I think - it's been awhile and I may not have this exactly right). But regardless, I can no longer Connect to Server using Management Studio (Windows authentication) - I get
Cannot open user default database. Login failed.
Login failed for user 'DANA\Administrator'. (Microsoft SQL Server, Error: 4064)
The only thing suspicious in C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL.1\MSSQL\LOG\ERRORLOG is
The SQL Network Interface library could not deregister the Service Principal Name (SPN) for the SQL Server service. Error: 0x54b. Administrator should deregister this SPN manually to avoid client authentication errors.
From Configuration Manager > SQL Server > Properties > Advanced > Startup Parameters
-dC:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\data\master.mdf;-eC:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\log\ERRORLOG;-lC:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\data\mastlog.ldf
Any idea what's going on here?
Hi,
I guess these are two different errors. The one first mentioned can be changed by logging on with a sysadmin role account or securityadmin role account and using the statement sp_defaultdb 'DANA\Administrator','master'
HTH, jens Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
See if this thread helps you: http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=388163&SiteID=1.
You should try specifying the database you want to use at connection time as shown in the above thread.
Thanks
Laurentiu
HTH, jens Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
|||The thread reference did the trick - thanks a lot! BTW the original problem was caused by takinig the default (user) database offline, then exiting Management Studio.Thursday, February 16, 2012
<<SQL2k5>>
Can I have SQL2k5, Sql2k2, Sql2k5 Express Edition installed and functioning
correctly on 1 box?
TIA> Can I have SQL2k5, Sql2k2, Sql2k5 Express Edition installed and
functioning
> correctly on 1 box?
From
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnsse/html/sseoverview.asp:
Multiple SQL Server 2005 Express installations can coexist on the same
machine along with other installations of SQL Server 2000, SQL Server 2005,
or Microsoft Desktop Engine (MSDE). In general, it is best that SQL Server
2000 instances be upgraded to SP3a or higher. The maximum limit to the
number of SQL instances is 50 on the same machine. These instances must be
uniquely named for the purpose of identifying them.
Still, be aware that SQL 2005 is in Beta version, so you might experience
problems. I prefer installing beta versions in a virtual machine.
--
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
Associate Mentor
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
correctly on 1 box?
TIA> Can I have SQL2k5, Sql2k2, Sql2k5 Express Edition installed and
functioning
> correctly on 1 box?
From
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnsse/html/sseoverview.asp:
Multiple SQL Server 2005 Express installations can coexist on the same
machine along with other installations of SQL Server 2000, SQL Server 2005,
or Microsoft Desktop Engine (MSDE). In general, it is best that SQL Server
2000 instances be upgraded to SP3a or higher. The maximum limit to the
number of SQL instances is 50 on the same machine. These instances must be
uniquely named for the purpose of identifying them.
Still, be aware that SQL 2005 is in Beta version, so you might experience
problems. I prefer installing beta versions in a virtual machine.
--
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
Associate Mentor
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
<<SQL2k5>>
Can I have SQL2k5, Sql2k2, Sql2k5 Express Edition installed and functioning
correctly on 1 box?
TIA
> Can I have SQL2k5, Sql2k2, Sql2k5 Express Edition installed and
functioning
> correctly on 1 box?
From
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...eoverview.asp:
Multiple SQL Server 2005 Express installations can coexist on the same
machine along with other installations of SQL Server 2000, SQL Server 2005,
or Microsoft Desktop Engine (MSDE). In general, it is best that SQL Server
2000 instances be upgraded to SP3a or higher. The maximum limit to the
number of SQL instances is 50 on the same machine. These instances must be
uniquely named for the purpose of identifying them.
Still, be aware that SQL 2005 is in Beta version, so you might experience
problems. I prefer installing beta versions in a virtual machine.
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
Associate Mentor
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
correctly on 1 box?
TIA
> Can I have SQL2k5, Sql2k2, Sql2k5 Express Edition installed and
functioning
> correctly on 1 box?
From
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...eoverview.asp:
Multiple SQL Server 2005 Express installations can coexist on the same
machine along with other installations of SQL Server 2000, SQL Server 2005,
or Microsoft Desktop Engine (MSDE). In general, it is best that SQL Server
2000 instances be upgraded to SP3a or higher. The maximum limit to the
number of SQL instances is 50 on the same machine. These instances must be
uniquely named for the purpose of identifying them.
Still, be aware that SQL 2005 is in Beta version, so you might experience
problems. I prefer installing beta versions in a virtual machine.
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
Associate Mentor
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
<<SQL2k5>>
Can I have SQL2k5, Sql2k2, Sql2k5 Express Edition installed and functioning
correctly on 1 box?
TIA> Can I have SQL2k5, Sql2k2, Sql2k5 Express Edition installed and
functioning
> correctly on 1 box?
From
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d... />
rview.asp:
Multiple SQL Server 2005 Express installations can coexist on the same
machine along with other installations of SQL Server 2000, SQL Server 2005,
or Microsoft Desktop Engine (MSDE). In general, it is best that SQL Server
2000 instances be upgraded to SP3a or higher. The maximum limit to the
number of SQL instances is 50 on the same machine. These instances must be
uniquely named for the purpose of identifying them.
Still, be aware that SQL 2005 is in Beta version, so you might experience
problems. I prefer installing beta versions in a virtual machine.
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
Associate Mentor
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
correctly on 1 box?
TIA> Can I have SQL2k5, Sql2k2, Sql2k5 Express Edition installed and
functioning
> correctly on 1 box?
From
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d... />
rview.asp:
Multiple SQL Server 2005 Express installations can coexist on the same
machine along with other installations of SQL Server 2000, SQL Server 2005,
or Microsoft Desktop Engine (MSDE). In general, it is best that SQL Server
2000 instances be upgraded to SP3a or higher. The maximum limit to the
number of SQL instances is 50 on the same machine. These instances must be
uniquely named for the purpose of identifying them.
Still, be aware that SQL 2005 is in Beta version, so you might experience
problems. I prefer installing beta versions in a virtual machine.
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
Associate Mentor
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
>2G ram & Standard Edition supported?
We have SQLServer standard edition running on a machine
with 2.2G of RAM. The sales faq appears to indicate that
SQLServer is not supported on a machine with more than 2G
of RAM. Is this the case?
Thanks,
Simon
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.asp
Q. What is the maximum amount of RAM supported by SQL
Server 2000?
A. SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition supports up to 2
gigabytes (GB) of RAM. SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition
supports up to 64 GB of RAM.Simon
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;274750
"Simon Massey" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3e9101c3e40f$4aa2c710$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
that MS will still give you technical support if you run it this way.
However Standard Edition only "supports" 2GB of RAM, meaning it will not use
more even if the machine has more installed.
To get SQL Server to use more than 2GB RAM you need the Enterprise Edition.
Note that the OS and other programs on that server could utilize the RAM,
like Analysis Services, Reporting Services or Notification Services.
Mike Kruchten
"Simon Massey" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3e9101c3e40f$4aa2c710$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
with 2.2G of RAM. The sales faq appears to indicate that
SQLServer is not supported on a machine with more than 2G
of RAM. Is this the case?
Thanks,
Simon
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.asp
Q. What is the maximum amount of RAM supported by SQL
Server 2000?
A. SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition supports up to 2
gigabytes (GB) of RAM. SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition
supports up to 64 GB of RAM.Simon
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;274750
"Simon Massey" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3e9101c3e40f$4aa2c710$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
quote:|||SQL Server Standard Edition is "supported" on machines with > 2GB, meaning
> We have SQLServer standard edition running on a machine
> with 2.2G of RAM. The sales faq appears to indicate that
> SQLServer is not supported on a machine with more than 2G
> of RAM. Is this the case?
> Thanks,
> Simon
> --
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.asp
> Q. What is the maximum amount of RAM supported by SQL
> Server 2000?
> A. SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition supports up to 2
> gigabytes (GB) of RAM. SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition
> supports up to 64 GB of RAM.
>
that MS will still give you technical support if you run it this way.
However Standard Edition only "supports" 2GB of RAM, meaning it will not use
more even if the machine has more installed.
To get SQL Server to use more than 2GB RAM you need the Enterprise Edition.
Note that the OS and other programs on that server could utilize the RAM,
like Analysis Services, Reporting Services or Notification Services.
Mike Kruchten
"Simon Massey" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3e9101c3e40f$4aa2c710$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
quote:
> We have SQLServer standard edition running on a machine
> with 2.2G of RAM. The sales faq appears to indicate that
> SQLServer is not supported on a machine with more than 2G
> of RAM. Is this the case?
> Thanks,
> Simon
> --
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.asp
> Q. What is the maximum amount of RAM supported by SQL
> Server 2000?
> A. SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition supports up to 2
> gigabytes (GB) of RAM. SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition
> supports up to 64 GB of RAM.
>
>2G ram & Standard Edition supported?
We have SQLServer standard edition running on a machine
with 2.2G of RAM. The sales faq appears to indicate that
SQLServer is not supported on a machine with more than 2G
of RAM. Is this the case?
Thanks,
Simon
--
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.asp
Q. What is the maximum amount of RAM supported by SQL
Server 2000?
A. SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition supports up to 2
gigabytes (GB) of RAM. SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition
supports up to 64 GB of RAM.Simon
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;274750
"Simon Massey" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3e9101c3e40f$4aa2c710$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> We have SQLServer standard edition running on a machine
> with 2.2G of RAM. The sales faq appears to indicate that
> SQLServer is not supported on a machine with more than 2G
> of RAM. Is this the case?
> Thanks,
> Simon
> --
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.asp
> Q. What is the maximum amount of RAM supported by SQL
> Server 2000?
> A. SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition supports up to 2
> gigabytes (GB) of RAM. SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition
> supports up to 64 GB of RAM.
>|||SQL Server Standard Edition is "supported" on machines with > 2GB, meaning
that MS will still give you technical support if you run it this way.
However Standard Edition only "supports" 2GB of RAM, meaning it will not use
more even if the machine has more installed.
To get SQL Server to use more than 2GB RAM you need the Enterprise Edition.
Note that the OS and other programs on that server could utilize the RAM,
like Analysis Services, Reporting Services or Notification Services.
Mike Kruchten
"Simon Massey" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3e9101c3e40f$4aa2c710$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> We have SQLServer standard edition running on a machine
> with 2.2G of RAM. The sales faq appears to indicate that
> SQLServer is not supported on a machine with more than 2G
> of RAM. Is this the case?
> Thanks,
> Simon
> --
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.asp
> Q. What is the maximum amount of RAM supported by SQL
> Server 2000?
> A. SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition supports up to 2
> gigabytes (GB) of RAM. SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition
> supports up to 64 GB of RAM.
>
with 2.2G of RAM. The sales faq appears to indicate that
SQLServer is not supported on a machine with more than 2G
of RAM. Is this the case?
Thanks,
Simon
--
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.asp
Q. What is the maximum amount of RAM supported by SQL
Server 2000?
A. SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition supports up to 2
gigabytes (GB) of RAM. SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition
supports up to 64 GB of RAM.Simon
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;274750
"Simon Massey" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3e9101c3e40f$4aa2c710$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> We have SQLServer standard edition running on a machine
> with 2.2G of RAM. The sales faq appears to indicate that
> SQLServer is not supported on a machine with more than 2G
> of RAM. Is this the case?
> Thanks,
> Simon
> --
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.asp
> Q. What is the maximum amount of RAM supported by SQL
> Server 2000?
> A. SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition supports up to 2
> gigabytes (GB) of RAM. SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition
> supports up to 64 GB of RAM.
>|||SQL Server Standard Edition is "supported" on machines with > 2GB, meaning
that MS will still give you technical support if you run it this way.
However Standard Edition only "supports" 2GB of RAM, meaning it will not use
more even if the machine has more installed.
To get SQL Server to use more than 2GB RAM you need the Enterprise Edition.
Note that the OS and other programs on that server could utilize the RAM,
like Analysis Services, Reporting Services or Notification Services.
Mike Kruchten
"Simon Massey" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3e9101c3e40f$4aa2c710$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> We have SQLServer standard edition running on a machine
> with 2.2G of RAM. The sales faq appears to indicate that
> SQLServer is not supported on a machine with more than 2G
> of RAM. Is this the case?
> Thanks,
> Simon
> --
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.asp
> Q. What is the maximum amount of RAM supported by SQL
> Server 2000?
> A. SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition supports up to 2
> gigabytes (GB) of RAM. SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition
> supports up to 64 GB of RAM.
>
Monday, February 13, 2012
% Disk Time (Perfmon)
I have a Windows 2000 Advanced Server with SQL Server 2000
Enterprise Edition on a SAN. What units are the %Disk
Time measured in from Perfmon?
Is the (% Disk Time E) = (Disk Time E) / (Total % Disk
Time) ?
Please help me with these questions.
Thanks,
MikeMike
This counter measured how busy a physical array is. In general it should be
less 55% otherwise you probably jave IO bottleneck.
"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:c13201c47a1b$4db045c0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have a Windows 2000 Advanced Server with SQL Server 2000
> Enterprise Edition on a SAN. What units are the %Disk
> Time measured in from Perfmon?
> Is the (% Disk Time E) = (Disk Time E) / (Total % Disk
> Time) ?
> Please help me with these questions.
> Thanks,
> Mike|||I don't tend to agree with that advice.
On it's own
<<
'%Disk Time
Is not a very reliable indicator of an IO bottleneck. You could easily have
a bottleneck if this counter is much lower than 55%. You might NOT have a
bottleneck if this counter is 55% or higher.
There are many, many more counters which you should take a look. You need to
take a look at queue lenght, wait times for disk transfers, time it takes
per read and write. In addition, there are a host of other counters
specific to your SAN that you should take a look at.
Unfortunately, I'm running a bit late right now and I don't have time to
write a long message. Tom Davidson from MS has a nice article in SQL Server
Magazine that dicusses some of these counters. I believe it might also be on
MSDN. It shouldn't be too hard to track down if you search by his name on
each site.
--
Brian Moran
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:u1rJ0yheEHA.3520@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Mike
> This counter measured how busy a physical array is. In general it should
be
> less 55% otherwise you probably jave IO bottleneck.
>
>
> "Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:c13201c47a1b$4db045c0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> >
> > I have a Windows 2000 Advanced Server with SQL Server 2000
> > Enterprise Edition on a SAN. What units are the %Disk
> > Time measured in from Perfmon?
> >
> > Is the (% Disk Time E) = (Disk Time E) / (Total % Disk
> > Time) ?
> >
> > Please help me with these questions.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Mike
>|||Brian
First of all i have said 'probably'
Secondly if you have this counter higher than 55% for continuous periods
(let me say 15 min)then your SQL Server
may be experiencing an I/O bottleneck.
"Brian Moran" <brian@.solidqualitylearning.com> wrote in message
news:%23r7TWIieEHA.2848@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I don't tend to agree with that advice.
> On it's own
> <<
> '%Disk Time
> >>
> Is not a very reliable indicator of an IO bottleneck. You could easily
have
> a bottleneck if this counter is much lower than 55%. You might NOT have a
> bottleneck if this counter is 55% or higher.
> There are many, many more counters which you should take a look. You need
to
> take a look at queue lenght, wait times for disk transfers, time it takes
> per read and write. In addition, there are a host of other counters
> specific to your SAN that you should take a look at.
>
> Unfortunately, I'm running a bit late right now and I don't have time to
> write a long message. Tom Davidson from MS has a nice article in SQL
Server
> Magazine that dicusses some of these counters. I believe it might also be
on
> MSDN. It shouldn't be too hard to track down if you search by his name on
> each site.
> --
> Brian Moran
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
> news:u1rJ0yheEHA.3520@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > Mike
> > This counter measured how busy a physical array is. In general it should
> be
> > less 55% otherwise you probably jave IO bottleneck.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:c13201c47a1b$4db045c0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> > >
> > > I have a Windows 2000 Advanced Server with SQL Server 2000
> > > Enterprise Edition on a SAN. What units are the %Disk
> > > Time measured in from Perfmon?
> > >
> > > Is the (% Disk Time E) = (Disk Time E) / (Total % Disk
> > > Time) ?
> > >
> > > Please help me with these questions.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Mike
> >
> >
>
Enterprise Edition on a SAN. What units are the %Disk
Time measured in from Perfmon?
Is the (% Disk Time E) = (Disk Time E) / (Total % Disk
Time) ?
Please help me with these questions.
Thanks,
MikeMike
This counter measured how busy a physical array is. In general it should be
less 55% otherwise you probably jave IO bottleneck.
"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:c13201c47a1b$4db045c0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have a Windows 2000 Advanced Server with SQL Server 2000
> Enterprise Edition on a SAN. What units are the %Disk
> Time measured in from Perfmon?
> Is the (% Disk Time E) = (Disk Time E) / (Total % Disk
> Time) ?
> Please help me with these questions.
> Thanks,
> Mike|||I don't tend to agree with that advice.
On it's own
<<
'%Disk Time
Is not a very reliable indicator of an IO bottleneck. You could easily have
a bottleneck if this counter is much lower than 55%. You might NOT have a
bottleneck if this counter is 55% or higher.
There are many, many more counters which you should take a look. You need to
take a look at queue lenght, wait times for disk transfers, time it takes
per read and write. In addition, there are a host of other counters
specific to your SAN that you should take a look at.
Unfortunately, I'm running a bit late right now and I don't have time to
write a long message. Tom Davidson from MS has a nice article in SQL Server
Magazine that dicusses some of these counters. I believe it might also be on
MSDN. It shouldn't be too hard to track down if you search by his name on
each site.
--
Brian Moran
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:u1rJ0yheEHA.3520@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Mike
> This counter measured how busy a physical array is. In general it should
be
> less 55% otherwise you probably jave IO bottleneck.
>
>
> "Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:c13201c47a1b$4db045c0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> >
> > I have a Windows 2000 Advanced Server with SQL Server 2000
> > Enterprise Edition on a SAN. What units are the %Disk
> > Time measured in from Perfmon?
> >
> > Is the (% Disk Time E) = (Disk Time E) / (Total % Disk
> > Time) ?
> >
> > Please help me with these questions.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Mike
>|||Brian
First of all i have said 'probably'
Secondly if you have this counter higher than 55% for continuous periods
(let me say 15 min)then your SQL Server
may be experiencing an I/O bottleneck.
"Brian Moran" <brian@.solidqualitylearning.com> wrote in message
news:%23r7TWIieEHA.2848@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I don't tend to agree with that advice.
> On it's own
> <<
> '%Disk Time
> >>
> Is not a very reliable indicator of an IO bottleneck. You could easily
have
> a bottleneck if this counter is much lower than 55%. You might NOT have a
> bottleneck if this counter is 55% or higher.
> There are many, many more counters which you should take a look. You need
to
> take a look at queue lenght, wait times for disk transfers, time it takes
> per read and write. In addition, there are a host of other counters
> specific to your SAN that you should take a look at.
>
> Unfortunately, I'm running a bit late right now and I don't have time to
> write a long message. Tom Davidson from MS has a nice article in SQL
Server
> Magazine that dicusses some of these counters. I believe it might also be
on
> MSDN. It shouldn't be too hard to track down if you search by his name on
> each site.
> --
> Brian Moran
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
> news:u1rJ0yheEHA.3520@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > Mike
> > This counter measured how busy a physical array is. In general it should
> be
> > less 55% otherwise you probably jave IO bottleneck.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:c13201c47a1b$4db045c0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> > >
> > > I have a Windows 2000 Advanced Server with SQL Server 2000
> > > Enterprise Edition on a SAN. What units are the %Disk
> > > Time measured in from Perfmon?
> > >
> > > Is the (% Disk Time E) = (Disk Time E) / (Total % Disk
> > > Time) ?
> > >
> > > Please help me with these questions.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Mike
> >
> >
>
% Disk Time (Perfmon)
I have a Windows 2000 Advanced Server with SQL Server 2000
Enterprise Edition on a SAN. What units are the %Disk
Time measured in from Perfmon?
Is the (% Disk Time E) = (Disk Time E) / (Total % Disk
Time) ?
Please help me with these questions.
Thanks,
Mike
Mike
This counter measured how busy a physical array is. In general it should be
less 55% otherwise you probably jave IO bottleneck.
"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:c13201c47a1b$4db045c0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have a Windows 2000 Advanced Server with SQL Server 2000
> Enterprise Edition on a SAN. What units are the %Disk
> Time measured in from Perfmon?
> Is the (% Disk Time E) = (Disk Time E) / (Total % Disk
> Time) ?
> Please help me with these questions.
> Thanks,
> Mike
|||I don't tend to agree with that advice.
On it's own
<<
'%Disk Time[vbcol=seagreen]
Is not a very reliable indicator of an IO bottleneck. You could easily have
a bottleneck if this counter is much lower than 55%. You might NOT have a
bottleneck if this counter is 55% or higher.
There are many, many more counters which you should take a look. You need to
take a look at queue lenght, wait times for disk transfers, time it takes
per read and write. In addition, there are a host of other counters
specific to your SAN that you should take a look at.
Unfortunately, I'm running a bit late right now and I don't have time to
write a long message. Tom Davidson from MS has a nice article in SQL Server
Magazine that dicusses some of these counters. I believe it might also be on
MSDN. It shouldn't be too hard to track down if you search by his name on
each site.
Brian Moran
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:u1rJ0yheEHA.3520@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Mike
> This counter measured how busy a physical array is. In general it should
be
> less 55% otherwise you probably jave IO bottleneck.
>
>
> "Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:c13201c47a1b$4db045c0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
>
|||Brian
First of all i have said 'probably'
Secondly if you have this counter higher than 55% for continuous periods
(let me say 15 min)then your SQL Server
may be experiencing an I/O bottleneck.
"Brian Moran" <brian@.solidqualitylearning.com> wrote in message
news:%23r7TWIieEHA.2848@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I don't tend to agree with that advice.
> On it's own
> <<
> '%Disk Time
> Is not a very reliable indicator of an IO bottleneck. You could easily
have
> a bottleneck if this counter is much lower than 55%. You might NOT have a
> bottleneck if this counter is 55% or higher.
> There are many, many more counters which you should take a look. You need
to
> take a look at queue lenght, wait times for disk transfers, time it takes
> per read and write. In addition, there are a host of other counters
> specific to your SAN that you should take a look at.
>
> Unfortunately, I'm running a bit late right now and I don't have time to
> write a long message. Tom Davidson from MS has a nice article in SQL
Server
> Magazine that dicusses some of these counters. I believe it might also be
on
> MSDN. It shouldn't be too hard to track down if you search by his name on
> each site.
> --
> Brian Moran
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
> news:u1rJ0yheEHA.3520@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> be
>
Enterprise Edition on a SAN. What units are the %Disk
Time measured in from Perfmon?
Is the (% Disk Time E) = (Disk Time E) / (Total % Disk
Time) ?
Please help me with these questions.
Thanks,
Mike
Mike
This counter measured how busy a physical array is. In general it should be
less 55% otherwise you probably jave IO bottleneck.
"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:c13201c47a1b$4db045c0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have a Windows 2000 Advanced Server with SQL Server 2000
> Enterprise Edition on a SAN. What units are the %Disk
> Time measured in from Perfmon?
> Is the (% Disk Time E) = (Disk Time E) / (Total % Disk
> Time) ?
> Please help me with these questions.
> Thanks,
> Mike
|||I don't tend to agree with that advice.
On it's own
<<
'%Disk Time[vbcol=seagreen]
Is not a very reliable indicator of an IO bottleneck. You could easily have
a bottleneck if this counter is much lower than 55%. You might NOT have a
bottleneck if this counter is 55% or higher.
There are many, many more counters which you should take a look. You need to
take a look at queue lenght, wait times for disk transfers, time it takes
per read and write. In addition, there are a host of other counters
specific to your SAN that you should take a look at.
Unfortunately, I'm running a bit late right now and I don't have time to
write a long message. Tom Davidson from MS has a nice article in SQL Server
Magazine that dicusses some of these counters. I believe it might also be on
MSDN. It shouldn't be too hard to track down if you search by his name on
each site.
Brian Moran
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:u1rJ0yheEHA.3520@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Mike
> This counter measured how busy a physical array is. In general it should
be
> less 55% otherwise you probably jave IO bottleneck.
>
>
> "Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:c13201c47a1b$4db045c0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
>
|||Brian
First of all i have said 'probably'
Secondly if you have this counter higher than 55% for continuous periods
(let me say 15 min)then your SQL Server
may be experiencing an I/O bottleneck.
"Brian Moran" <brian@.solidqualitylearning.com> wrote in message
news:%23r7TWIieEHA.2848@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I don't tend to agree with that advice.
> On it's own
> <<
> '%Disk Time
> Is not a very reliable indicator of an IO bottleneck. You could easily
have
> a bottleneck if this counter is much lower than 55%. You might NOT have a
> bottleneck if this counter is 55% or higher.
> There are many, many more counters which you should take a look. You need
to
> take a look at queue lenght, wait times for disk transfers, time it takes
> per read and write. In addition, there are a host of other counters
> specific to your SAN that you should take a look at.
>
> Unfortunately, I'm running a bit late right now and I don't have time to
> write a long message. Tom Davidson from MS has a nice article in SQL
Server
> Magazine that dicusses some of these counters. I believe it might also be
on
> MSDN. It shouldn't be too hard to track down if you search by his name on
> each site.
> --
> Brian Moran
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
> news:u1rJ0yheEHA.3520@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> be
>
% Disk Time (Perfmon)
I have a Windows 2000 Advanced Server with SQL Server 2000
Enterprise Edition on a SAN. What units are the %Disk
Time measured in from Perfmon?
Is the (% Disk Time E) = (Disk Time E) / (Total % Disk
Time) ?
Please help me with these questions.
Thanks,
MikeMike
This counter measured how busy a physical array is. In general it should be
less 55% otherwise you probably jave IO bottleneck.
"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:c13201c47a1b$4db045c0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have a Windows 2000 Advanced Server with SQL Server 2000
> Enterprise Edition on a SAN. What units are the %Disk
> Time measured in from Perfmon?
> Is the (% Disk Time E) = (Disk Time E) / (Total % Disk
> Time) ?
> Please help me with these questions.
> Thanks,
> Mike|||I don't tend to agree with that advice.
On it's own
<<
'%Disk Time
Is not a very reliable indicator of an IO bottleneck. You could easily have
a bottleneck if this counter is much lower than 55%. You might NOT have a
bottleneck if this counter is 55% or higher.
There are many, many more counters which you should take a look. You need to
take a look at queue lenght, wait times for disk transfers, time it takes
per read and write. In addition, there are a host of other counters
specific to your SAN that you should take a look at.
Unfortunately, I'm running a bit late right now and I don't have time to
write a long message. Tom Davidson from MS has a nice article in SQL Server
Magazine that dicusses some of these counters. I believe it might also be on
MSDN. It shouldn't be too hard to track down if you search by his name on
each site.
--
Brian Moran
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:u1rJ0yheEHA.3520@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Mike
> This counter measured how busy a physical array is. In general it should
be
> less 55% otherwise you probably jave IO bottleneck.
>
>
> "Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:c13201c47a1b$4db045c0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
>|||Brian
First of all i have said 'probably'
Secondly if you have this counter higher than 55% for continuous periods
(let me say 15 min)then your SQL Server
may be experiencing an I/O bottleneck.
"Brian Moran" <brian@.solidqualitylearning.com> wrote in message
news:%23r7TWIieEHA.2848@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I don't tend to agree with that advice.
> On it's own
> <<
> '%Disk Time
> Is not a very reliable indicator of an IO bottleneck. You could easily
have
> a bottleneck if this counter is much lower than 55%. You might NOT have a
> bottleneck if this counter is 55% or higher.
> There are many, many more counters which you should take a look. You need
to
> take a look at queue lenght, wait times for disk transfers, time it takes
> per read and write. In addition, there are a host of other counters
> specific to your SAN that you should take a look at.
>
> Unfortunately, I'm running a bit late right now and I don't have time to
> write a long message. Tom Davidson from MS has a nice article in SQL
Server
> Magazine that dicusses some of these counters. I believe it might also be
on
> MSDN. It shouldn't be too hard to track down if you search by his name on
> each site.
> --
> Brian Moran
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
> news:u1rJ0yheEHA.3520@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> be
>
Enterprise Edition on a SAN. What units are the %Disk
Time measured in from Perfmon?
Is the (% Disk Time E) = (Disk Time E) / (Total % Disk
Time) ?
Please help me with these questions.
Thanks,
MikeMike
This counter measured how busy a physical array is. In general it should be
less 55% otherwise you probably jave IO bottleneck.
"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:c13201c47a1b$4db045c0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have a Windows 2000 Advanced Server with SQL Server 2000
> Enterprise Edition on a SAN. What units are the %Disk
> Time measured in from Perfmon?
> Is the (% Disk Time E) = (Disk Time E) / (Total % Disk
> Time) ?
> Please help me with these questions.
> Thanks,
> Mike|||I don't tend to agree with that advice.
On it's own
<<
'%Disk Time
Is not a very reliable indicator of an IO bottleneck. You could easily have
a bottleneck if this counter is much lower than 55%. You might NOT have a
bottleneck if this counter is 55% or higher.
There are many, many more counters which you should take a look. You need to
take a look at queue lenght, wait times for disk transfers, time it takes
per read and write. In addition, there are a host of other counters
specific to your SAN that you should take a look at.
Unfortunately, I'm running a bit late right now and I don't have time to
write a long message. Tom Davidson from MS has a nice article in SQL Server
Magazine that dicusses some of these counters. I believe it might also be on
MSDN. It shouldn't be too hard to track down if you search by his name on
each site.
--
Brian Moran
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:u1rJ0yheEHA.3520@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Mike
> This counter measured how busy a physical array is. In general it should
be
> less 55% otherwise you probably jave IO bottleneck.
>
>
> "Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:c13201c47a1b$4db045c0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
>|||Brian
First of all i have said 'probably'
Secondly if you have this counter higher than 55% for continuous periods
(let me say 15 min)then your SQL Server
may be experiencing an I/O bottleneck.
"Brian Moran" <brian@.solidqualitylearning.com> wrote in message
news:%23r7TWIieEHA.2848@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I don't tend to agree with that advice.
> On it's own
> <<
> '%Disk Time
> Is not a very reliable indicator of an IO bottleneck. You could easily
have
> a bottleneck if this counter is much lower than 55%. You might NOT have a
> bottleneck if this counter is 55% or higher.
> There are many, many more counters which you should take a look. You need
to
> take a look at queue lenght, wait times for disk transfers, time it takes
> per read and write. In addition, there are a host of other counters
> specific to your SAN that you should take a look at.
>
> Unfortunately, I'm running a bit late right now and I don't have time to
> write a long message. Tom Davidson from MS has a nice article in SQL
Server
> Magazine that dicusses some of these counters. I believe it might also be
on
> MSDN. It shouldn't be too hard to track down if you search by his name on
> each site.
> --
> Brian Moran
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
> news:u1rJ0yheEHA.3520@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> be
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)