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.com> wrote in message
news:3YChh.69507$YV4.69275@.edtnps89...
> There is a Server with 4G Memory. I installed a SQL Server 2000 standard
> version on it.
> I heard that SQLServer2000 could use only up to 2GB memory. Is it true?
> How can I use those 4GB memory? I can not upgrade to SQL Server 2005 or
> other version because i don't want to take this risk.
> Thank you very much.
>
|||Thank you Kevin.
Is there any solution to use 4 GB memory by sql2000?
"Kevin3NF" <kevin@.SPAMTRAP.3nf-inc.com> wrote in message
news:uL6CwcuIHHA.4760@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> True. Standard edition is limited to 2GB
> --
> Kevin Hill
> 3NF Consulting
> http://www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
> Real-world stuff I run across with SQL Server:
> http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com
>
> "Damon" <Damon@.china.com> wrote in message
> news:3YChh.69507$YV4.69275@.edtnps89...
>
|||Upgrade to Enterprise Edition.
Configuration -Maximum Capacity Specifications
2000
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/architec/8_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.com> wrote in message
news:cuDhh.69523$YV4.18832@.edtnps89...
> Thank you Kevin.
> Is there any solution to use 4 GB memory by sql2000?
> "Kevin3NF" <kevin@.SPAMTRAP.3nf-inc.com> wrote in message
> news:uL6CwcuIHHA.4760@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
|||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.
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx
|||"Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@.sommarskog.se> wrote in message
news:Xns989DEE520DF4DYazorman@.127.0.0.1...
> Damon (Damon@.china.com) writes:
> 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.
> --
> Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
> Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx
> Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/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.com> wrote in message
news:5_-dnWp8N8-s1BrYnZ2dnUVZ_u63nZ2d@.comcast.com...
> "Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@.sommarskog.se> wrote in message
> news:Xns989DEE520DF4DYazorman@.127.0.0.1...
> 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.
>
>
|||"Russ Rose" <russrose@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5_-dnWp8N8-s1BrYnZ2dnUVZ_u63nZ2d@.comcast.com...
> "Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@.sommarskog.se> wrote in message
> news:Xns989DEE520DF4DYazorman@.127.0.0.1...
> 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.
> Even if possible I'm not sure this would be a good solution, just
> wondering what the behavior is.
>
>
|||Thank you every body!
Now, I am going to move to SQL 2005.
Merry Christmas.
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@.greenms.com> wrote in message
news:MdRhh.917$yx6.284@.newsread2.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
> "Russ Rose" <russrose@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5_-dnWp8N8-s1BrYnZ2dnUVZ_u63nZ2d@.comcast.com...
>
> 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.
>
>
Showing posts with label server2000. Show all posts
Showing posts with label server2000. Show all posts
Friday, March 9, 2012
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.com> wrote in message
news:3YChh.69507$YV4.69275@.edtnps89...
> There is a Server with 4G Memory. I installed a SQL Server 2000 standard
> version on it.
> I heard that SQLServer2000 could use only up to 2GB memory. Is it true?
> How can I use those 4GB memory? I can not upgrade to SQL Server 2005 or
> other version because i don't want to take this risk.
> Thank you very much.
>|||Thank you Kevin.
Is there any solution to use 4 GB memory by sql2000?
"Kevin3NF" <kevin@.SPAMTRAP.3nf-inc.com> wrote in message
news:uL6CwcuIHHA.4760@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> True. Standard edition is limited to 2GB
> --
> Kevin Hill
> 3NF Consulting
> http://www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
> Real-world stuff I run across with SQL Server:
> http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com
>
> "Damon" <Damon@.china.com> wrote in message
> news:3YChh.69507$YV4.69275@.edtnps89...
>|||Upgrade to Enterprise Edition.
Configuration -Maximum Capacity Specifications
2000
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...br />
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.com> wrote in message
news:cuDhh.69523$YV4.18832@.edtnps89...
> Thank you Kevin.
> Is there any solution to use 4 GB memory by sql2000?
> "Kevin3NF" <kevin@.SPAMTRAP.3nf-inc.com> wrote in message
> news:uL6CwcuIHHA.4760@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>|||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.
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.se> wrote in message
news:Xns989DEE520DF4DYazorman@.127.0.0.1...
> Damon (Damon@.china.com) writes:
> 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.
> --
> 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.com> wrote in message
news:5_-dnWp8N8-s1BrYnZ2dnUVZ_u63nZ2d@.comcast.com...
> "Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@.sommarskog.se> wrote in message
> news:Xns989DEE520DF4DYazorman@.127.0.0.1...
> 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.
>
>|||"Russ Rose" <russrose@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5_-dnWp8N8-s1BrYnZ2dnUVZ_u63nZ2d@.comcast.com...
> "Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@.sommarskog.se> wrote in message
> news:Xns989DEE520DF4DYazorman@.127.0.0.1...
> 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.
> Even if possible I'm not sure this would be a good solution, just
> wondering what the behavior is.
>
>|||Lines: 71
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.145.111.181
X-Trace: edtnps90 1166550467 68.145.111.181 (Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:47:47 MST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:47:47 MST
Xref: leafnode.mcse.ms microsoft.public.sqlserver.server:22144
Thank you every body!
Now, I am going to move to SQL 2005.
Merry Christmas.
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@.greenms.com> wrote in message
news:MdRhh.917$yx6.284@.newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Russ Rose" <russrose@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5_-dnWp8N8-s1BrYnZ2dnUVZ_u63nZ2d@.comcast.com...
>
> 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.
>
>
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.com> wrote in message
news:3YChh.69507$YV4.69275@.edtnps89...
> There is a Server with 4G Memory. I installed a SQL Server 2000 standard
> version on it.
> I heard that SQLServer2000 could use only up to 2GB memory. Is it true?
> How can I use those 4GB memory? I can not upgrade to SQL Server 2005 or
> other version because i don't want to take this risk.
> Thank you very much.
>|||Thank you Kevin.
Is there any solution to use 4 GB memory by sql2000?
"Kevin3NF" <kevin@.SPAMTRAP.3nf-inc.com> wrote in message
news:uL6CwcuIHHA.4760@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> True. Standard edition is limited to 2GB
> --
> Kevin Hill
> 3NF Consulting
> http://www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
> Real-world stuff I run across with SQL Server:
> http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com
>
> "Damon" <Damon@.china.com> wrote in message
> news:3YChh.69507$YV4.69275@.edtnps89...
>|||Upgrade to Enterprise Edition.
Configuration -Maximum Capacity Specifications
2000
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...br />
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.com> wrote in message
news:cuDhh.69523$YV4.18832@.edtnps89...
> Thank you Kevin.
> Is there any solution to use 4 GB memory by sql2000?
> "Kevin3NF" <kevin@.SPAMTRAP.3nf-inc.com> wrote in message
> news:uL6CwcuIHHA.4760@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>|||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.
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.se> wrote in message
news:Xns989DEE520DF4DYazorman@.127.0.0.1...
> Damon (Damon@.china.com) writes:
> 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.
> --
> 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.com> wrote in message
news:5_-dnWp8N8-s1BrYnZ2dnUVZ_u63nZ2d@.comcast.com...
> "Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@.sommarskog.se> wrote in message
> news:Xns989DEE520DF4DYazorman@.127.0.0.1...
> 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.
>
>|||"Russ Rose" <russrose@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5_-dnWp8N8-s1BrYnZ2dnUVZ_u63nZ2d@.comcast.com...
> "Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@.sommarskog.se> wrote in message
> news:Xns989DEE520DF4DYazorman@.127.0.0.1...
> 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.
> Even if possible I'm not sure this would be a good solution, just
> wondering what the behavior is.
>
>|||Lines: 71
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.145.111.181
X-Trace: edtnps90 1166550467 68.145.111.181 (Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:47:47 MST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:47:47 MST
Xref: leafnode.mcse.ms microsoft.public.sqlserver.server:22144
Thank you every body!
Now, I am going to move to SQL 2005.
Merry Christmas.
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@.greenms.com> wrote in message
news:MdRhh.917$yx6.284@.newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Russ Rose" <russrose@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5_-dnWp8N8-s1BrYnZ2dnUVZ_u63nZ2d@.comcast.com...
>
> 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.
>
>
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.
Is there any solution to use 4 GB memory by sql2000?
>
>|||Upgrade to Enterprise Edition.
>>
>>
>
>|||Damon (Damon@.china.com) writes:
Upgrade to Enterprise Edition of SQL 2000.
>
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.
memory could be divided between the various instances of SQL Server,
equally, or one instance getting 2GB and the other only 1.5GB, etc.
>>
>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.
>
>
>|||"Russ Rose" <russrose@.hotmail.comwrote in message
news:5_-dnWp8N8-s1BrYnZ2dnUVZ_u63nZ2d@.comcast.com...
>>
>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).
>
>|||Thank you every body!
Now, I am going to move to SQL 2005.
>>
>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.
>
>
>>
>>
>
>
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$YV4.69275@.edtnps89...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
There is a Server with 4G Memory. I installed a SQL Server 2000 standard
version on it.
I heard that SQLServer2000 could use only up to 2GB memory. Is it true?
How can I use those 4GB memory? I can not upgrade to SQL Server 2005 or
other version because i don't want to take this risk.
>
Thank you very much.
>
Is there any solution to use 4 GB memory by sql2000?
"Kevin3NF" <kevin@.SPAMTRAP.3nf-inc.comwrote in message
news:uL6CwcuIHHA.4760@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
True. Standard edition is limited to 2GB
>
--
Kevin Hill
3NF Consulting
http://www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
>
Real-world stuff I run across with SQL Server:
http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com
>
>
"Damon" <Damon@.china.comwrote in message
news:3YChh.69507$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
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
>>
>>
>
>
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.com> wrote in message
news:3YChh.69507$YV4.69275@.edtnps89...
> 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.com> wrote in message
news:uL6CwcuIHHA.4760@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> 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.com> wrote in message
> news:3YChh.69507$YV4.69275@.edtnps89...
>> There is a Server with 4G Memory. I installed a SQL Server 2000 standard
>> version on it.
>> I heard that SQLServer2000 could use only up to 2GB memory. Is it true?
>> How can I use those 4GB memory? I can not upgrade to SQL Server 2005 or
>> other version because i don't want to take this risk.
>> Thank you very much.
>|||Upgrade to Enterprise Edition.
Configuration -Maximum Capacity Specifications
2000
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/architec/8_ar_ts_8dbn.asp
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
top yourself.
- H. Norman Schwarzkopf
"Damon" <Damon@.china.com> wrote in message
news:cuDhh.69523$YV4.18832@.edtnps89...
> Thank you Kevin.
> Is there any solution to use 4 GB memory by sql2000?
> "Kevin3NF" <kevin@.SPAMTRAP.3nf-inc.com> wrote in message
> news:uL6CwcuIHHA.4760@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> 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.com> wrote in message
>> news:3YChh.69507$YV4.69275@.edtnps89...
>> 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:
> 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/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx|||"Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@.sommarskog.se> wrote in message
news:Xns989DEE520DF4DYazorman@.127.0.0.1...
> 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.
Even if possible I'm not sure this would be a good solution, just wondering
what the behavior is.
> --
> Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
> Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx
> Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/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.com> wrote in message
news:5_-dnWp8N8-s1BrYnZ2dnUVZ_u63nZ2d@.comcast.com...
> "Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@.sommarskog.se> wrote in message
> news:Xns989DEE520DF4DYazorman@.127.0.0.1...
>> 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.
> Even if possible I'm not sure this would be a good solution, just
> wondering what the behavior is.
>> --
>> Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
>> Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
>> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx
>> Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
>> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx
>|||"Russ Rose" <russrose@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5_-dnWp8N8-s1BrYnZ2dnUVZ_u63nZ2d@.comcast.com...
> "Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@.sommarskog.se> wrote in message
> news:Xns989DEE520DF4DYazorman@.127.0.0.1...
>> 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.
> Even if possible I'm not sure this would be a good solution, just
> wondering what the behavior is.
>> --
>> Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
>> Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
>> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx
>> Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
>> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx
>|||Thank you every body!
Now, I am going to move to SQL 2005.
Merry Christmas.
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@.greenms.com> wrote in message
news:MdRhh.917$yx6.284@.newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Russ Rose" <russrose@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5_-dnWp8N8-s1BrYnZ2dnUVZ_u63nZ2d@.comcast.com...
>> "Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@.sommarskog.se> wrote in message
>> news:Xns989DEE520DF4DYazorman@.127.0.0.1...
>> 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.
>
>> Even if possible I'm not sure this would be a good solution, just
>> wondering what the behavior is.
>>
>> --
>> Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
>> Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
>> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx
>> Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
>> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx
>>
>
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.com> wrote in message
news:3YChh.69507$YV4.69275@.edtnps89...
> There is a Server with 4G Memory. I installed a SQL Server 2000 standard
> version on it.
> I heard that SQLServer2000 could use only up to 2GB memory. Is it true?
> How can I use those 4GB memory? I can not upgrade to SQL Server 2005 or
> other version because i don't want to take this risk.
> Thank you very much.
>|||Thank you Kevin.
Is there any solution to use 4 GB memory by sql2000?
"Kevin3NF" <kevin@.SPAMTRAP.3nf-inc.com> wrote in message
news:uL6CwcuIHHA.4760@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> True. Standard edition is limited to 2GB
> --
> Kevin Hill
> 3NF Consulting
> http://www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
> Real-world stuff I run across with SQL Server:
> http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com
>
> "Damon" <Damon@.china.com> wrote in message
> news:3YChh.69507$YV4.69275@.edtnps89...
>> 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/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/architec/8_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.com> wrote in message
news:cuDhh.69523$YV4.18832@.edtnps89...
> Thank you Kevin.
> Is there any solution to use 4 GB memory by sql2000?
> "Kevin3NF" <kevin@.SPAMTRAP.3nf-inc.com> wrote in message
> news:uL6CwcuIHHA.4760@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> True. Standard edition is limited to 2GB
>> --
>> Kevin Hill
>> 3NF Consulting
>> http://www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
>> Real-world stuff I run across with SQL Server:
>> http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com
>>
>> "Damon" <Damon@.china.com> wrote in message
>> news:3YChh.69507$YV4.69275@.edtnps89...
>> 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:
> 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/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx|||"Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@.sommarskog.se> wrote in message
news:Xns989DEE520DF4DYazorman@.127.0.0.1...
> 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.
Even if possible I'm not sure this would be a good solution, just wondering
what the behavior is.
> --
> Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
> Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx
> Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/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.com> wrote in message
news:5_-dnWp8N8-s1BrYnZ2dnUVZ_u63nZ2d@.comcast.com...
> "Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@.sommarskog.se> wrote in message
> news:Xns989DEE520DF4DYazorman@.127.0.0.1...
>> 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.
> Even if possible I'm not sure this would be a good solution, just
> wondering what the behavior is.
>> --
>> Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
>> Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
>> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx
>> Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
>> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx
>|||"Russ Rose" <russrose@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5_-dnWp8N8-s1BrYnZ2dnUVZ_u63nZ2d@.comcast.com...
> "Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@.sommarskog.se> wrote in message
> news:Xns989DEE520DF4DYazorman@.127.0.0.1...
>> 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.
> Even if possible I'm not sure this would be a good solution, just
> wondering what the behavior is.
>> --
>> Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
>> Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
>> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx
>> Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
>> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx
>|||Thank you every body!
Now, I am going to move to SQL 2005.
Merry Christmas.
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@.greenms.com> wrote in message
news:MdRhh.917$yx6.284@.newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Russ Rose" <russrose@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5_-dnWp8N8-s1BrYnZ2dnUVZ_u63nZ2d@.comcast.com...
>> "Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@.sommarskog.se> wrote in message
>> news:Xns989DEE520DF4DYazorman@.127.0.0.1...
>> 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.
>
>> Even if possible I'm not sure this would be a good solution, just
>> wondering what the behavior is.
>>
>> --
>> Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
>> Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
>> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx
>> Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
>> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx
>>
>
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Help; ASP web site, IIS 6.0, Server 2003, SQL server 2000
Hi
I,m new to Server 2003 and I'm moving an ASP website to it.
This is what I have; an basic ASP web site that connects to a "SQL server
2000" database on Windows XP box, using IIS.
Now I have moved the site to Server 2003, on IIS 6, but I'm still using "SQL
Server 2000"
However I can't get the website to connect to the database. this is the
error I'm am geting
Microsoft OLE DB Provider for SQL Server error '80004005'
[DBNETLIB][ConnectionOpen (Connect()).]SQL Server does not exist or access
denied.
/uoc/include/Common.asp, line 100
In IIS 6.0, under the Directory Security tab, I'm using anonymous access,
and it uses the user IUSR_<computername>. Also I have Integrated Windows
authentication checked off. Is there some security setting that I need to
set, or do I need to give more access to the "IUSR" user? (oh and I also
confirmed that SQL server is using SQL Server and Windows Authentication )
Thanks for any help you can give me.
http://spaces.msn.com/members/anthonyarms/
is there an OLEDB connection string in that Common.asp page? it sounds
like thats your connection string. you may need to modify it
accordingly.
|||Thanks for the reply
My connection looks like this :
Application("Connection_ConnectionString") = "Provider=SQLOLEDB.1;Persist
Security Info=False;User ID=[database_name];Initial Catalog=UOC;Data
Source=[computer_name];Use Procedure for Prepare=1;Auto Translate=True;Packet
Size=4096;Workstation ID=[computer_name];Use Encryption for Data=False;Tag
with column collation when possible=False;User
Id=[user_name];PASSWORD=[password];"
I don't know if I need to change anything on Server 2003 (the only things I
changed is the text in the square brackets )
Do you think it could be something else?
thanks for any incite you can provide
http://spaces.msn.com/members/anthonyarms/
"GlennThomas5" wrote:
> is there an OLEDB connection string in that Common.asp page? it sounds
> like thats your connection string. you may need to modify it
> accordingly.
>
I,m new to Server 2003 and I'm moving an ASP website to it.
This is what I have; an basic ASP web site that connects to a "SQL server
2000" database on Windows XP box, using IIS.
Now I have moved the site to Server 2003, on IIS 6, but I'm still using "SQL
Server 2000"
However I can't get the website to connect to the database. this is the
error I'm am geting
Microsoft OLE DB Provider for SQL Server error '80004005'
[DBNETLIB][ConnectionOpen (Connect()).]SQL Server does not exist or access
denied.
/uoc/include/Common.asp, line 100
In IIS 6.0, under the Directory Security tab, I'm using anonymous access,
and it uses the user IUSR_<computername>. Also I have Integrated Windows
authentication checked off. Is there some security setting that I need to
set, or do I need to give more access to the "IUSR" user? (oh and I also
confirmed that SQL server is using SQL Server and Windows Authentication )
Thanks for any help you can give me.
http://spaces.msn.com/members/anthonyarms/
is there an OLEDB connection string in that Common.asp page? it sounds
like thats your connection string. you may need to modify it
accordingly.
|||Thanks for the reply
My connection looks like this :
Application("Connection_ConnectionString") = "Provider=SQLOLEDB.1;Persist
Security Info=False;User ID=[database_name];Initial Catalog=UOC;Data
Source=[computer_name];Use Procedure for Prepare=1;Auto Translate=True;Packet
Size=4096;Workstation ID=[computer_name];Use Encryption for Data=False;Tag
with column collation when possible=False;User
Id=[user_name];PASSWORD=[password];"
I don't know if I need to change anything on Server 2003 (the only things I
changed is the text in the square brackets )
Do you think it could be something else?
thanks for any incite you can provide
http://spaces.msn.com/members/anthonyarms/
"GlennThomas5" wrote:
> is there an OLEDB connection string in that Common.asp page? it sounds
> like thats your connection string. you may need to modify it
> accordingly.
>
Help; ASP web site, IIS 6.0, Server 2003, SQL server 2000
Hi
I,m new to Server 2003 and I'm moving an ASP website to it.
This is what I have; an basic ASP web site that connects to a "SQL server
2000" database on Windows XP box, using IIS.
Now I have moved the site to Server 2003, on IIS 6, but I'm still using "SQL
Server 2000"
However I can't get the website to connect to the database. this is the
error I'm am geting
Microsoft OLE DB Provider for SQL Server error '80004005'
[DBNETLIB][ConnectionOpen (Connect()).]SQL Server does not exist or
access
denied.
/uoc/include/Common.asp, line 100
In IIS 6.0, under the Directory Security tab, I'm using anonymous access,
and it uses the user IUSR_<computername>. Also I have Integrated Windows
authentication checked off. Is there some security setting that I need to
set, or do I need to give more access to the "IUSR" user? (oh and I also
confirmed that SQL server is using SQL Server and Windows Authentication )
Thanks for any help you can give me.
--
http://spaces.msn.com/members/anthonyarms/Try adding a SQL Server UID and PWD to the connection string.
"ARMS" <anthonyarms@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:289D8794-31E0-4F67-BC55-F07E18A0875C@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I,m new to Server 2003 and I'm moving an ASP website to it.
> This is what I have; an basic ASP web site that connects to a "SQL server
> 2000" database on Windows XP box, using IIS.
> Now I have moved the site to Server 2003, on IIS 6, but I'm still using
"SQL
> Server 2000"
> However I can't get the website to connect to the database. this is the
> error I'm am geting
> Microsoft OLE DB Provider for SQL Server error '80004005'
> [DBNETLIB][ConnectionOpen (Connect()).]SQL Server does not exist o
r access
> denied.
> /uoc/include/Common.asp, line 100
> In IIS 6.0, under the Directory Security tab, I'm using anonymous access,
> and it uses the user IUSR_<computername>. Also I have Integrated Windows
> authentication checked off. Is there some security setting that I need to
> set, or do I need to give more access to the "IUSR" user? (oh and I also
> confirmed that SQL server is using SQL Server and Windows Authentication )
> Thanks for any help you can give me.
> --
> http://spaces.msn.com/members/anthonyarms/
I,m new to Server 2003 and I'm moving an ASP website to it.
This is what I have; an basic ASP web site that connects to a "SQL server
2000" database on Windows XP box, using IIS.
Now I have moved the site to Server 2003, on IIS 6, but I'm still using "SQL
Server 2000"
However I can't get the website to connect to the database. this is the
error I'm am geting
Microsoft OLE DB Provider for SQL Server error '80004005'
[DBNETLIB][ConnectionOpen (Connect()).]SQL Server does not exist or
access
denied.
/uoc/include/Common.asp, line 100
In IIS 6.0, under the Directory Security tab, I'm using anonymous access,
and it uses the user IUSR_<computername>. Also I have Integrated Windows
authentication checked off. Is there some security setting that I need to
set, or do I need to give more access to the "IUSR" user? (oh and I also
confirmed that SQL server is using SQL Server and Windows Authentication )
Thanks for any help you can give me.
--
http://spaces.msn.com/members/anthonyarms/Try adding a SQL Server UID and PWD to the connection string.
"ARMS" <anthonyarms@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:289D8794-31E0-4F67-BC55-F07E18A0875C@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I,m new to Server 2003 and I'm moving an ASP website to it.
> This is what I have; an basic ASP web site that connects to a "SQL server
> 2000" database on Windows XP box, using IIS.
> Now I have moved the site to Server 2003, on IIS 6, but I'm still using
"SQL
> Server 2000"
> However I can't get the website to connect to the database. this is the
> error I'm am geting
> Microsoft OLE DB Provider for SQL Server error '80004005'
> [DBNETLIB][ConnectionOpen (Connect()).]SQL Server does not exist o
r access
> denied.
> /uoc/include/Common.asp, line 100
> In IIS 6.0, under the Directory Security tab, I'm using anonymous access,
> and it uses the user IUSR_<computername>. Also I have Integrated Windows
> authentication checked off. Is there some security setting that I need to
> set, or do I need to give more access to the "IUSR" user? (oh and I also
> confirmed that SQL server is using SQL Server and Windows Authentication )
> Thanks for any help you can give me.
> --
> http://spaces.msn.com/members/anthonyarms/
Help; ASP web site, IIS 6.0, Server 2003, SQL server 2000
Hi
I,m new to Server 2003 and I'm moving an ASP website to it.
This is what I have; an basic ASP web site that connects to a "SQL server
2000" database on Windows XP box, using IIS.
Now I have moved the site to Server 2003, on IIS 6, but I'm still using "SQL
Server 2000"
However I can't get the website to connect to the database. this is the
error I'm am geting
Microsoft OLE DB Provider for SQL Server error '80004005'
[DBNETLIB][ConnectionOpen (Connect()).]SQL Server does not exist or access
denied.
/uoc/include/Common.asp, line 100
In IIS 6.0, under the Directory Security tab, I'm using anonymous access,
and it uses the user IUSR_<computername>. Also I have Integrated Windows
authentication checked off. Is there some security setting that I need to
set, or do I need to give more access to the "IUSR" user? (oh and I also
confirmed that SQL server is using SQL Server and Windows Authentication )
Thanks for any help you can give me.
http://spaces.msn.com/members/anthonyarms/
Try adding a SQL Server UID and PWD to the connection string.
"ARMS" <anthonyarms@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:289D8794-31E0-4F67-BC55-F07E18A0875C@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I,m new to Server 2003 and I'm moving an ASP website to it.
> This is what I have; an basic ASP web site that connects to a "SQL server
> 2000" database on Windows XP box, using IIS.
> Now I have moved the site to Server 2003, on IIS 6, but I'm still using
"SQL
> Server 2000"
> However I can't get the website to connect to the database. this is the
> error I'm am geting
> Microsoft OLE DB Provider for SQL Server error '80004005'
> [DBNETLIB][ConnectionOpen (Connect()).]SQL Server does not exist or access
> denied.
> /uoc/include/Common.asp, line 100
> In IIS 6.0, under the Directory Security tab, I'm using anonymous access,
> and it uses the user IUSR_<computername>. Also I have Integrated Windows
> authentication checked off. Is there some security setting that I need to
> set, or do I need to give more access to the "IUSR" user? (oh and I also
> confirmed that SQL server is using SQL Server and Windows Authentication )
> Thanks for any help you can give me.
> --
> http://spaces.msn.com/members/anthonyarms/
I,m new to Server 2003 and I'm moving an ASP website to it.
This is what I have; an basic ASP web site that connects to a "SQL server
2000" database on Windows XP box, using IIS.
Now I have moved the site to Server 2003, on IIS 6, but I'm still using "SQL
Server 2000"
However I can't get the website to connect to the database. this is the
error I'm am geting
Microsoft OLE DB Provider for SQL Server error '80004005'
[DBNETLIB][ConnectionOpen (Connect()).]SQL Server does not exist or access
denied.
/uoc/include/Common.asp, line 100
In IIS 6.0, under the Directory Security tab, I'm using anonymous access,
and it uses the user IUSR_<computername>. Also I have Integrated Windows
authentication checked off. Is there some security setting that I need to
set, or do I need to give more access to the "IUSR" user? (oh and I also
confirmed that SQL server is using SQL Server and Windows Authentication )
Thanks for any help you can give me.
http://spaces.msn.com/members/anthonyarms/
Try adding a SQL Server UID and PWD to the connection string.
"ARMS" <anthonyarms@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:289D8794-31E0-4F67-BC55-F07E18A0875C@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I,m new to Server 2003 and I'm moving an ASP website to it.
> This is what I have; an basic ASP web site that connects to a "SQL server
> 2000" database on Windows XP box, using IIS.
> Now I have moved the site to Server 2003, on IIS 6, but I'm still using
"SQL
> Server 2000"
> However I can't get the website to connect to the database. this is the
> error I'm am geting
> Microsoft OLE DB Provider for SQL Server error '80004005'
> [DBNETLIB][ConnectionOpen (Connect()).]SQL Server does not exist or access
> denied.
> /uoc/include/Common.asp, line 100
> In IIS 6.0, under the Directory Security tab, I'm using anonymous access,
> and it uses the user IUSR_<computername>. Also I have Integrated Windows
> authentication checked off. Is there some security setting that I need to
> set, or do I need to give more access to the "IUSR" user? (oh and I also
> confirmed that SQL server is using SQL Server and Windows Authentication )
> Thanks for any help you can give me.
> --
> http://spaces.msn.com/members/anthonyarms/
Help; ASP web site, IIS 6.0, Server 2003, SQL server 2000
Hi
I,m new to Server 2003 and I'm moving an ASP website to it.
This is what I have; an basic ASP web site that connects to a "SQL server
2000" database on Windows XP box, using IIS.
Now I have moved the site to Server 2003, on IIS 6, but I'm still using "SQL
Server 2000"
However I can't get the website to connect to the database. this is the
error I'm am geting
Microsoft OLE DB Provider for SQL Server error '80004005'
[DBNETLIB][ConnectionOpen (Connect()).]SQL Server does not exist or
access
denied.
/uoc/include/Common.asp, line 100
In IIS 6.0, under the Directory Security tab, I'm using anonymous access,
and it uses the user IUSR_<computername>. Also I have Integrated Windows
authentication checked off. Is there some security setting that I need to
set, or do I need to give more access to the "IUSR" user? (oh and I also
confirmed that SQL server is using SQL Server and Windows Authentication )
Thanks for any help you can give me.
--
http://spaces.msn.com/members/anthonyarms/is there an OLEDB connection string in that Common.asp page? it sounds
like thats your connection string. you may need to modify it
accordingly.|||Thanks for the reply
My connection looks like this :
Application("Connection_ConnectionString") = "Provider=SQLOLEDB.1;Persist
Security Info=False;User ID=[database_name];Initial Catalog=UOC;Data
Source=[computer_name];Use Procedure for Prepare=1;Auto Translate=True;P
acket
Size=4096;Workstation ID=[computer_name];Use Encryption for Data=False;T
ag
with column collation when possible=False;User
Id=[user_name];PASSWORD=[password];"
I don't know if I need to change anything on Server 2003 (the only things I
changed is the text in the square brackets )
Do you think it could be something else?
thanks for any incite you can provide
--
http://spaces.msn.com/members/anthonyarms/
"GlennThomas5" wrote:
> is there an OLEDB connection string in that Common.asp page? it sounds
> like thats your connection string. you may need to modify it
> accordingly.
>
I,m new to Server 2003 and I'm moving an ASP website to it.
This is what I have; an basic ASP web site that connects to a "SQL server
2000" database on Windows XP box, using IIS.
Now I have moved the site to Server 2003, on IIS 6, but I'm still using "SQL
Server 2000"
However I can't get the website to connect to the database. this is the
error I'm am geting
Microsoft OLE DB Provider for SQL Server error '80004005'
[DBNETLIB][ConnectionOpen (Connect()).]SQL Server does not exist or
access
denied.
/uoc/include/Common.asp, line 100
In IIS 6.0, under the Directory Security tab, I'm using anonymous access,
and it uses the user IUSR_<computername>. Also I have Integrated Windows
authentication checked off. Is there some security setting that I need to
set, or do I need to give more access to the "IUSR" user? (oh and I also
confirmed that SQL server is using SQL Server and Windows Authentication )
Thanks for any help you can give me.
--
http://spaces.msn.com/members/anthonyarms/is there an OLEDB connection string in that Common.asp page? it sounds
like thats your connection string. you may need to modify it
accordingly.|||Thanks for the reply
My connection looks like this :
Application("Connection_ConnectionString") = "Provider=SQLOLEDB.1;Persist
Security Info=False;User ID=[database_name];Initial Catalog=UOC;Data
Source=[computer_name];Use Procedure for Prepare=1;Auto Translate=True;P
acket
Size=4096;Workstation ID=[computer_name];Use Encryption for Data=False;T
ag
with column collation when possible=False;User
Id=[user_name];PASSWORD=[password];"
I don't know if I need to change anything on Server 2003 (the only things I
changed is the text in the square brackets )
Do you think it could be something else?
thanks for any incite you can provide
--
http://spaces.msn.com/members/anthonyarms/
"GlennThomas5" wrote:
> is there an OLEDB connection string in that Common.asp page? it sounds
> like thats your connection string. you may need to modify it
> accordingly.
>
Monday, February 27, 2012
Help: SQL Server 2000 failed to restart after NT Server reboot
Hi,
We have a NT Server that's set to reboot every weekend. SQL server
2000 and SQL Server Agent were set to auto-restart after reboot. It's
been working fine for a long time.
But several weeks ago,both SQL server and SQL server agent didn't
restart after the reboot so all DTS jobs didn't run until we manually
restart the Server and the server agent. We didn't receive any error
message and event log didn't
have any error either. It did show the SQL server was shut down by
request and the server agent was stoped successfully. But there's no
log about the server starting and ready for client connection. The
services are set with local system account.
We have a utility to check the connection to the server and it came
back with error of "[Shared Memory]SQL Server does not exist or access
denied. [Shared Memory]ConnectionOpen (Connect())"
If the SQL server was never asked to restart by the OS, what could be
the reason and how can I fix it?
Thanks a lot.
Ping LiWhat are you getting with issuing the command OSQL -L at the
commandline. Did you try to restart the SQL Server service the Service
Panel in Windows ? If not, do so and see if the server is coming u and
if not what kind of error message you are getting here. There must be
some event log message if the SQl Server doesnt=B4start up properly
(even if it does there is an entry). Is your event log outta space ?
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.|||Hi, Jens,
Thanks for your reply. I tried OSQL -L and the result is:
(local)
commserver\commvaultqinetix
digital
zpm
I have no idea what it means.
We were able to restart the SQL server every time it failed to start
automatically after reboot. There's no entry about the server at all.
The last entry is the sql server was shut down by request(we schedule
the task) and the server agent was stopped successfully.
There is no error about the event log out of space. Can you guess what
the possible reason for the failure? They were set to restart
automatically.
Thank you for your help.
Ping
I have no idea what it means.
We have a NT Server that's set to reboot every weekend. SQL server
2000 and SQL Server Agent were set to auto-restart after reboot. It's
been working fine for a long time.
But several weeks ago,both SQL server and SQL server agent didn't
restart after the reboot so all DTS jobs didn't run until we manually
restart the Server and the server agent. We didn't receive any error
message and event log didn't
have any error either. It did show the SQL server was shut down by
request and the server agent was stoped successfully. But there's no
log about the server starting and ready for client connection. The
services are set with local system account.
We have a utility to check the connection to the server and it came
back with error of "[Shared Memory]SQL Server does not exist or access
denied. [Shared Memory]ConnectionOpen (Connect())"
If the SQL server was never asked to restart by the OS, what could be
the reason and how can I fix it?
Thanks a lot.
Ping LiWhat are you getting with issuing the command OSQL -L at the
commandline. Did you try to restart the SQL Server service the Service
Panel in Windows ? If not, do so and see if the server is coming u and
if not what kind of error message you are getting here. There must be
some event log message if the SQl Server doesnt=B4start up properly
(even if it does there is an entry). Is your event log outta space ?
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.|||Hi, Jens,
Thanks for your reply. I tried OSQL -L and the result is:
(local)
commserver\commvaultqinetix
digital
zpm
I have no idea what it means.
We were able to restart the SQL server every time it failed to start
automatically after reboot. There's no entry about the server at all.
The last entry is the sql server was shut down by request(we schedule
the task) and the server agent was stopped successfully.
There is no error about the event log out of space. Can you guess what
the possible reason for the failure? They were set to restart
automatically.
Thank you for your help.
Ping
I have no idea what it means.
Help: SQL Server 2000 failed to restart after NT Server reboot
Hi,
We have a NT Server that's set to reboot every weekend. SQL server
2000 and SQL Server Agent were set to auto-restart after reboot. It's
been working fine for a long time.
But several weeks ago,both SQL server and SQL server agent didn't
restart after the reboot so all DTS jobs didn't run until we manually
restart the Server and the server agent. We didn't receive any error
message and event log didn't
have any error either. It did show the SQL server was shut down by
request and the server agent was stoped successfully. But there's no
log about the server starting and ready for client connection. The
services are set with local system account.
We have a utility to check the connection to the server and it came
back with error of "[Shared Memory]SQL Server does not exist or access
denied. [Shared Memory]ConnectionOpen (Connect())"
If the SQL server was never asked to restart by the OS, what could be
the reason and how can I fix it?
Thanks a lot.
Ping Li
What are you getting with issuing the command OSQL -L at the
commandline. Did you try to restart the SQL Server service the Service
Panel in Windows ? If not, do so and see if the server is coming u and
if not what kind of error message you are getting here. There must be
some event log message if the SQl Server doesnt=B4start up properly
(even if it does there is an entry). Is your event log outta space ?
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
|||Hi, Jens,
Thanks for your reply. I tried OSQL -L and the result is:
(local)
commserver\commvaultqinetix
digital
zpm
I have no idea what it means.
We were able to restart the SQL server every time it failed to start
automatically after reboot. There's no entry about the server at all.
The last entry is the sql server was shut down by request(we schedule
the task) and the server agent was stopped successfully.
There is no error about the event log out of space. Can you guess what
the possible reason for the failure? They were set to restart
automatically.
Thank you for your help.
Ping
I have no idea what it means.
We have a NT Server that's set to reboot every weekend. SQL server
2000 and SQL Server Agent were set to auto-restart after reboot. It's
been working fine for a long time.
But several weeks ago,both SQL server and SQL server agent didn't
restart after the reboot so all DTS jobs didn't run until we manually
restart the Server and the server agent. We didn't receive any error
message and event log didn't
have any error either. It did show the SQL server was shut down by
request and the server agent was stoped successfully. But there's no
log about the server starting and ready for client connection. The
services are set with local system account.
We have a utility to check the connection to the server and it came
back with error of "[Shared Memory]SQL Server does not exist or access
denied. [Shared Memory]ConnectionOpen (Connect())"
If the SQL server was never asked to restart by the OS, what could be
the reason and how can I fix it?
Thanks a lot.
Ping Li
What are you getting with issuing the command OSQL -L at the
commandline. Did you try to restart the SQL Server service the Service
Panel in Windows ? If not, do so and see if the server is coming u and
if not what kind of error message you are getting here. There must be
some event log message if the SQl Server doesnt=B4start up properly
(even if it does there is an entry). Is your event log outta space ?
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
|||Hi, Jens,
Thanks for your reply. I tried OSQL -L and the result is:
(local)
commserver\commvaultqinetix
digital
zpm
I have no idea what it means.
We were able to restart the SQL server every time it failed to start
automatically after reboot. There's no entry about the server at all.
The last entry is the sql server was shut down by request(we schedule
the task) and the server agent was stopped successfully.
There is no error about the event log out of space. Can you guess what
the possible reason for the failure? They were set to restart
automatically.
Thank you for your help.
Ping
I have no idea what it means.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)