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 of 8.00.2039 seems correct.