Help-Can I use 4 GB memory by SQL Server2000?

There is a Server with 4G Memory. I installed a SQL Server 2000 standard
version on it.
I heard that SQLServer2000 could use only up to 2GB memory. Is it true?
How can I use those 4GB memory? I can not upgrade to SQL Server 2005 or
other version because i don't want to take this risk.

Thank you very much.True. Standard edition is limited to 2GB

--
Kevin Hill
3NF Consulting
http://www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
Real-world stuff I run across with SQL Server:
http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com
"Damon" <Damon@.china.comwrote in message
news:3YChh.69507$YV4.69275@.edtnps89...

Quote:

Originally Posted by

There is a Server with 4G Memory. I installed a SQL Server 2000 standard
version on it.
I heard that SQLServer2000 could use only up to 2GB memory. Is it true?
How can I use those 4GB memory? I can not upgrade to SQL Server 2005 or
other version because i don't want to take this risk.
>
Thank you very much.
>

|||Thank you Kevin.
Is there any solution to use 4 GB memory by sql2000?

"Kevin3NF" <kevin@.SPAMTRAP.3nf-inc.comwrote in message
news:uL6CwcuIHHA.4760@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

Quote:

Originally Posted by

True. Standard edition is limited to 2GB
>
--
Kevin Hill
3NF Consulting
http://www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
>
Real-world stuff I run across with SQL Server:
http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com
>
>
"Damon" <Damon@.china.comwrote in message
news:3YChh.69507$YV4.69275@.edtnps89...

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>There is a Server with 4G Memory. I installed a SQL Server 2000 standard
>version on it.
>I heard that SQLServer2000 could use only up to 2GB memory. Is it true?
>How can I use those 4GB memory? I can not upgrade to SQL Server 2005 or
>other version because i don't want to take this risk.
>>
>Thank you very much.
>>

>
>

|||Upgrade to Enterprise Edition.

Configuration -Maximum Capacity Specifications
2000
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d..._ar_ts_8dbn.asp
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc

Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous

You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
top yourself.
- H. Norman Schwarzkopf

"Damon" <Damon@.china.comwrote in message
news:cuDhh.69523$YV4.18832@.edtnps89...

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Thank you Kevin.
Is there any solution to use 4 GB memory by sql2000?
>
"Kevin3NF" <kevin@.SPAMTRAP.3nf-inc.comwrote in message
news:uL6CwcuIHHA.4760@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>True. Standard edition is limited to 2GB
>>
>--
>Kevin Hill
>3NF Consulting
>http://www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
>>
>Real-world stuff I run across with SQL Server:
>http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com
>>
>>
>"Damon" <Damon@.china.comwrote in message
>news:3YChh.69507$YV4.69275@.edtnps89...

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>>There is a Server with 4G Memory. I installed a SQL Server 2000 standard
>>version on it.
>>I heard that SQLServer2000 could use only up to 2GB memory. Is it true?
>>How can I use those 4GB memory? I can not upgrade to SQL Server 2005 or
>>other version because i don't want to take this risk.
>>>
>>Thank you very much.
>>>

>>
>>

>
>

|||Damon (Damon@.china.com) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Thank you Kevin.
Is there any solution to use 4 GB memory by sql2000?

Upgrade to Enterprise Edition of SQL 2000.

Which is quite more expensive than moving to SQL 2005 Standard, I believe.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx|||"Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@.sommarskog.sewrote in message
news:Xns989DEE520DF4DYazorman@.127.0.0.1...

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Damon (Damon@.china.com) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>Thank you Kevin.
>Is there any solution to use 4 GB memory by sql2000?

>
Upgrade to Enterprise Edition of SQL 2000.
>
Which is quite more expensive than moving to SQL 2005 Standard, I believe.

Would a "Named Instance" on SQL 2000 Standard be able to use most of the
remaining half of the 4GB? When I expirimented with named instances back in
2001 - and decided not to use them in a production environment - I only had
2GB in the server.

Even if possible I'm not sure this would be a good solution, just wondering
what the behavior is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
>
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx

|||The OS will require some memory I leave 512 MB as a minimum. The remaining
memory could be divided between the various instances of SQL Server,
equally, or one instance getting 2GB and the other only 1.5GB, etc.

You would need to use the Server setting for MAX Server Memory on each
instance.

--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc

Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous

You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
top yourself.
- H. Norman Schwarzkopf

"Russ Rose" <russrose@.hotmail.comwrote in message
news:5_-dnWp8N8-s1BrYnZ2dnUVZ_u63nZ2d@.comcast.com...

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>
"Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@.sommarskog.sewrote in message
news:Xns989DEE520DF4DYazorman@.127.0.0.1...

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>Damon (Damon@.china.com) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>>Thank you Kevin.
>>Is there any solution to use 4 GB memory by sql2000?

>>
>Upgrade to Enterprise Edition of SQL 2000.
>>
>Which is quite more expensive than moving to SQL 2005 Standard, I
>believe.

>
Would a "Named Instance" on SQL 2000 Standard be able to use most of the
remaining half of the 4GB? When I expirimented with named instances back
in 2001 - and decided not to use them in a production environment - I only
had 2GB in the server.
>
Even if possible I'm not sure this would be a good solution, just
wondering what the behavior is.
>

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>>
>--
>Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
>>
>Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
>http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
>Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
>http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx

>
>

|||"Russ Rose" <russrose@.hotmail.comwrote in message
news:5_-dnWp8N8-s1BrYnZ2dnUVZ_u63nZ2d@.comcast.com...

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>
"Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@.sommarskog.sewrote in message
news:Xns989DEE520DF4DYazorman@.127.0.0.1...

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>Damon (Damon@.china.com) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>>Thank you Kevin.
>>Is there any solution to use 4 GB memory by sql2000?

>>
>Upgrade to Enterprise Edition of SQL 2000.
>>
>Which is quite more expensive than moving to SQL 2005 Standard, I
>believe.

>
Would a "Named Instance" on SQL 2000 Standard be able to use most of the
remaining half of the 4GB? When I expirimented with named instances back
in 2001 - and decided not to use them in a production environment - I only
had 2GB in the server.

Note for say a website, as I recall, you need a CPU license for each
physical CPU in the machine for each instance (in Standard).

However, this probably won't necessarily help. It depends on the OS.

If you're running Windows 2000 Standard, you're limited to 4 GB of physical
RAM anyway.

Now, 2 gig of physical RAM can be given to a process (3 gig if compiled with
the right options, but that raises other issues here.)

So, if you have 5 gig of physical RAM and an OS that can address all of
that, in theory this could support 2 processes each using 2 gig of physical
RAM with 1 gig reserved for the OS.

If you have less memory, obviously this won't work as well.

Quite honestly, I think your best bet if you really need the memory (and
while I'm always a fan of more memory, sometimes it's just not worth it) is
to move to SQL 2005.

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>
Even if possible I'm not sure this would be a good solution, just
wondering what the behavior is.
>

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>>
>--
>Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
>>
>Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
>http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
>Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
>http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx

>
>

|||Thank you every body!
Now, I am going to move to SQL 2005.

Merry Christmas.

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@.greenms.comwrote in message
news:MdRhh.917$yx6.284@.newsread2.news.pas.earthlin k.net...

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>
"Russ Rose" <russrose@.hotmail.comwrote in message
news:5_-dnWp8N8-s1BrYnZ2dnUVZ_u63nZ2d@.comcast.com...

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>>
>"Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@.sommarskog.sewrote in message
>news:Xns989DEE520DF4DYazorman@.127.0.0.1...

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>>Damon (Damon@.china.com) writes:
>>>Thank you Kevin.
>>>Is there any solution to use 4 GB memory by sql2000?
>>>
>>Upgrade to Enterprise Edition of SQL 2000.
>>>
>>Which is quite more expensive than moving to SQL 2005 Standard, I
>>believe.

>>
>Would a "Named Instance" on SQL 2000 Standard be able to use most of the
>remaining half of the 4GB? When I expirimented with named instances back
>in 2001 - and decided not to use them in a production environment - I
>only had 2GB in the server.

>
>
Note for say a website, as I recall, you need a CPU license for each
physical CPU in the machine for each instance (in Standard).
>
However, this probably won't necessarily help. It depends on the OS.
>
If you're running Windows 2000 Standard, you're limited to 4 GB of
physical RAM anyway.
>
Now, 2 gig of physical RAM can be given to a process (3 gig if compiled
with the right options, but that raises other issues here.)
>
So, if you have 5 gig of physical RAM and an OS that can address all of
that, in theory this could support 2 processes each using 2 gig of
physical RAM with 1 gig reserved for the OS.
>
If you have less memory, obviously this won't work as well.
>
Quite honestly, I think your best bet if you really need the memory (and
while I'm always a fan of more memory, sometimes it's just not worth it)
is to move to SQL 2005.
>
>

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>>
>Even if possible I'm not sure this would be a good solution, just
>wondering what the behavior is.
>>

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>>>
>>--
>>Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
>>>
>>Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
>>http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
>>Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
>>http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx

>>
>>

>
>