sql local data: running

Showing posts with label running. Show all posts

Friday, March 30, 2012

Locked files during backups on a cluster

Hello,
I am running an active-active cluster on SQL 2000 SP3a over a Windows 2003
Enterprise server. We have two production instances running (SQL1 and SQL2).
Each was setup on a different node originally. When the two instances are
running on the same node, the instance that was not setup on that node
experiences locked files and failed backups.
Here is an example:
SQL1 was setup on Node1 and SQL2 was setup on Node2. When SQL1 and SQL2 are
both running on Node1, our backup job fails because it sees that a couple of
the database backup files are locked. Even after I clear the locks and re-ru
n
the backup script, the job still fails for the same reason. Now when I run
the same job when SQL2 is back on Node2, the job completes successfully. Not
all of the database backups fail, just the ones that are over 2Gb.
Has anyone experienced this or heard about this before? I've checked posting
s
here as well as TechNet, but haven't found anything.
Thanks for your assistance.
Michael
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forum...server/200609/1> both running on Node1, our backup job fails
By 'our backup job', I assume you meant the SQL Server database backup job.
The problem should not have anything to do with how the two instances were
originally set up. Nor should it necessarily have anything to do with the
fact that the two instances were running on the same node. It was a
coincident that it did happen when the two instances were running on the sam
e
node.
To resolve the problem, you need to first determine what process(es) or
programs are locking the backup files. My hunch is that they are most likely
locked either by an anti-virus program or a network file backup job. In othe
r
words, the anti-virus or the network file backup job happened to collide wit
h
the database backup on this particular node.
One way to be sure about what is locking the backup file is to add another
step immediately before the SQL Server backup to dump out all the NT handles
or just the handles on the backup file. You can use the sysinternals tool
handle.exe for this purpose.
Linchi
"michaelg via droptable.com" wrote:

> Hello,
> I am running an active-active cluster on SQL 2000 SP3a over a Windows 2003
> Enterprise server. We have two production instances running (SQL1 and SQL2
).
> Each was setup on a different node originally. When the two instances are
> running on the same node, the instance that was not setup on that node
> experiences locked files and failed backups.
> Here is an example:
> SQL1 was setup on Node1 and SQL2 was setup on Node2. When SQL1 and SQL2 ar
e
> both running on Node1, our backup job fails because it sees that a couple
of
> the database backup files are locked. Even after I clear the locks and re-
run
> the backup script, the job still fails for the same reason. Now when I run
> the same job when SQL2 is back on Node2, the job completes successfully. N
ot
> all of the database backups fail, just the ones that are over 2Gb.
> Has anyone experienced this or heard about this before? I've checked posti
ngs
> here as well as TechNet, but haven't found anything.
> Thanks for your assistance.
> Michael
> --
> Message posted via droptable.com
> http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forum...server/200609/1
>|||Yes, I meant the SQL Server database backup jobs.
This is not a one-time event. No matter what time I run the database backup
job on Node1, the job fails. This makes me think that it is not a tape backu
p
or any scheduled event. When I moved back to Node2 this morning, the job ran
fine multiple times.
I am not familiar with the handle.exe. Is this a 3rd party tool or is it
included in Microsoft?
Thanks!
Linchi Shea wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
>By 'our backup job', I assume you meant the SQL Server database backup job.
>The problem should not have anything to do with how the two instances were
>originally set up. Nor should it necessarily have anything to do with the
>fact that the two instances were running on the same node. It was a
>coincident that it did happen when the two instances were running on the sa
me
>node.
>To resolve the problem, you need to first determine what process(es) or
>programs are locking the backup files. My hunch is that they are most likel
y
>locked either by an anti-virus program or a network file backup job. In oth
er
>words, the anti-virus or the network file backup job happened to collide wi
th
>the database backup on this particular node.
>One way to be sure about what is locking the backup file is to add another
>step immediately before the SQL Server backup to dump out all the NT handle
s
>or just the handles on the backup file. You can use the sysinternals tool
>handle.exe for this purpose.
>Linchi
>
>[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
Message posted via http://www.droptable.com|||This is a sysinternals tool available from www.sysinternals.com.
Linchi
"michaelg via droptable.com" wrote:

> Yes, I meant the SQL Server database backup jobs.
> This is not a one-time event. No matter what time I run the database backu
p
> job on Node1, the job fails. This makes me think that it is not a tape bac
kup
> or any scheduled event. When I moved back to Node2 this morning, the job r
an
> fine multiple times.
> I am not familiar with the handle.exe. Is this a 3rd party tool or is it
> included in Microsoft?
> Thanks!
> Linchi Shea wrote:
> --
> Message posted via http://www.droptable.com
>

Locked files during backups on a cluster

Hello,
I am running an active-active cluster on SQL 2000 SP3a over a Windows 2003
Enterprise server. We have two production instances running (SQL1 and SQL2).
Each was setup on a different node originally. When the two instances are
running on the same node, the instance that was not setup on that node
experiences locked files and failed backups.
Here is an example:
SQL1 was setup on Node1 and SQL2 was setup on Node2. When SQL1 and SQL2 are
both running on Node1, our backup job fails because it sees that a couple of
the database backup files are locked. Even after I clear the locks and re-run
the backup script, the job still fails for the same reason. Now when I run
the same job when SQL2 is back on Node2, the job completes successfully. Not
all of the database backups fail, just the ones that are over 2Gb.
Has anyone experienced this or heard about this before? I've checked postings
here as well as TechNet, but haven't found anything.
Thanks for your assistance.
Michael
--
Message posted via SQLMonster.com
http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200609/1> both running on Node1, our backup job fails
By 'our backup job', I assume you meant the SQL Server database backup job.
The problem should not have anything to do with how the two instances were
originally set up. Nor should it necessarily have anything to do with the
fact that the two instances were running on the same node. It was a
coincident that it did happen when the two instances were running on the same
node.
To resolve the problem, you need to first determine what process(es) or
programs are locking the backup files. My hunch is that they are most likely
locked either by an anti-virus program or a network file backup job. In other
words, the anti-virus or the network file backup job happened to collide with
the database backup on this particular node.
One way to be sure about what is locking the backup file is to add another
step immediately before the SQL Server backup to dump out all the NT handles
or just the handles on the backup file. You can use the sysinternals tool
handle.exe for this purpose.
Linchi
"michaelg via SQLMonster.com" wrote:
> Hello,
> I am running an active-active cluster on SQL 2000 SP3a over a Windows 2003
> Enterprise server. We have two production instances running (SQL1 and SQL2).
> Each was setup on a different node originally. When the two instances are
> running on the same node, the instance that was not setup on that node
> experiences locked files and failed backups.
> Here is an example:
> SQL1 was setup on Node1 and SQL2 was setup on Node2. When SQL1 and SQL2 are
> both running on Node1, our backup job fails because it sees that a couple of
> the database backup files are locked. Even after I clear the locks and re-run
> the backup script, the job still fails for the same reason. Now when I run
> the same job when SQL2 is back on Node2, the job completes successfully. Not
> all of the database backups fail, just the ones that are over 2Gb.
> Has anyone experienced this or heard about this before? I've checked postings
> here as well as TechNet, but haven't found anything.
> Thanks for your assistance.
> Michael
> --
> Message posted via SQLMonster.com
> http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200609/1
>|||Yes, I meant the SQL Server database backup jobs.
This is not a one-time event. No matter what time I run the database backup
job on Node1, the job fails. This makes me think that it is not a tape backup
or any scheduled event. When I moved back to Node2 this morning, the job ran
fine multiple times.
I am not familiar with the handle.exe. Is this a 3rd party tool or is it
included in Microsoft?
Thanks!
Linchi Shea wrote:
>> both running on Node1, our backup job fails
>By 'our backup job', I assume you meant the SQL Server database backup job.
>The problem should not have anything to do with how the two instances were
>originally set up. Nor should it necessarily have anything to do with the
>fact that the two instances were running on the same node. It was a
>coincident that it did happen when the two instances were running on the same
>node.
>To resolve the problem, you need to first determine what process(es) or
>programs are locking the backup files. My hunch is that they are most likely
>locked either by an anti-virus program or a network file backup job. In other
>words, the anti-virus or the network file backup job happened to collide with
>the database backup on this particular node.
>One way to be sure about what is locking the backup file is to add another
>step immediately before the SQL Server backup to dump out all the NT handles
>or just the handles on the backup file. You can use the sysinternals tool
>handle.exe for this purpose.
>Linchi
>> Hello,
>[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>> Thanks for your assistance.
>> Michael
--
Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com|||This is a sysinternals tool available from www.sysinternals.com.
Linchi
"michaelg via SQLMonster.com" wrote:
> Yes, I meant the SQL Server database backup jobs.
> This is not a one-time event. No matter what time I run the database backup
> job on Node1, the job fails. This makes me think that it is not a tape backup
> or any scheduled event. When I moved back to Node2 this morning, the job ran
> fine multiple times.
> I am not familiar with the handle.exe. Is this a 3rd party tool or is it
> included in Microsoft?
> Thanks!
> Linchi Shea wrote:
> >> both running on Node1, our backup job fails
> >
> >By 'our backup job', I assume you meant the SQL Server database backup job.
> >
> >The problem should not have anything to do with how the two instances were
> >originally set up. Nor should it necessarily have anything to do with the
> >fact that the two instances were running on the same node. It was a
> >coincident that it did happen when the two instances were running on the same
> >node.
> >
> >To resolve the problem, you need to first determine what process(es) or
> >programs are locking the backup files. My hunch is that they are most likely
> >locked either by an anti-virus program or a network file backup job. In other
> >words, the anti-virus or the network file backup job happened to collide with
> >the database backup on this particular node.
> >
> >One way to be sure about what is locking the backup file is to add another
> >step immediately before the SQL Server backup to dump out all the NT handles
> >or just the handles on the backup file. You can use the sysinternals tool
> >handle.exe for this purpose.
> >
> >Linchi
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> >> Thanks for your assistance.
> >> Michael
> --
> Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com
>

Lock/block retained after commit

I am using SQL server 2000 with Uniface (4GL).

I am running a process which commits every 30 seconds or so on one
machine and another user is trying to perform a small update at the
same time on the one of the tables whose data is modified by the first
process.

I accept that the two second process may get blocked at times by the
first but expect that to only happen rarely due to the likelihood of
both processes trying to update the very same row in a large table.
Other users are also on line at the same time performing updates
across the database.

What I have witnessed though was the second process being blocked by
the first (confirmed by looking in enterprise manager) and REMAINING
BLOCKED EVEN AFTER A COMMIT in the first process!!

My big problem is that I have only seen this happen once on a customer
site and have not been able to reproduce it myself to provide any
further information.

The application is set to use row level locking and is also in read
uncommited mode.

Any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Bob."Bob Jones" <uniface_list@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1ba5e227.0410120559.52e0f339@.posting.google.c om...
>I am using SQL server 2000 with Uniface (4GL).
> I am running a process which commits every 30 seconds or so on one
> machine and another user is trying to perform a small update at the
> same time on the one of the tables whose data is modified by the first
> process.
> I accept that the two second process may get blocked at times by the
> first but expect that to only happen rarely due to the likelihood of
> both processes trying to update the very same row in a large table.
> Other users are also on line at the same time performing updates
> across the database.
> What I have witnessed though was the second process being blocked by
> the first (confirmed by looking in enterprise manager) and REMAINING
> BLOCKED EVEN AFTER A COMMIT in the first process!!
> My big problem is that I have only seen this happen once on a customer
> site and have not been able to reproduce it myself to provide any
> further information.
> The application is set to use row level locking and is also in read
> uncommited mode.
> Any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
> Bob.

I would start by trying to identify what the lock is and on which object -
you can use a combination of sp_lock and sp_who2, but you might find
Erland's tool to be more flexible:

http://www.sommarskog.se/sqlutil/aba_lockinfo.html

You could also use a Profiler trace to gather more information about the
processes which are active when the problem occurs. Hopefully that will give
you enough information to narrow down the problem to a specific component or
piece of code. Finally, you should probably make sure that the transaction
really is COMMITted, especially if it's started in a middle-tier or client
component as opposed to a stored procedure - Profiler should be able to help
there, and of course DBCC OPENTRAN.

Simon|||I am pretty sure the cause for the blocking is that the transaction in the
first process did NOT really commit. If this shows up again, you can use
the following cmd to find out who is blocking the second process and whether
it has any active transaction associated with.

select spid, blocked, open_tran from sysprocesses

--
Gang He
Software Design Engineer
Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Bob Jones" <uniface_list@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1ba5e227.0410120559.52e0f339@.posting.google.c om...
> I am using SQL server 2000 with Uniface (4GL).
> I am running a process which commits every 30 seconds or so on one
> machine and another user is trying to perform a small update at the
> same time on the one of the tables whose data is modified by the first
> process.
> I accept that the two second process may get blocked at times by the
> first but expect that to only happen rarely due to the likelihood of
> both processes trying to update the very same row in a large table.
> Other users are also on line at the same time performing updates
> across the database.
> What I have witnessed though was the second process being blocked by
> the first (confirmed by looking in enterprise manager) and REMAINING
> BLOCKED EVEN AFTER A COMMIT in the first process!!
> My big problem is that I have only seen this happen once on a customer
> site and have not been able to reproduce it myself to provide any
> further information.
> The application is set to use row level locking and is also in read
> uncommited mode.
> Any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
> Bob.|||The most likely cause is that either the COMMIT is not being executed as
expected or more than one BEGIN TRAN was executed before the COMMIT. Since
this occurs with only one of your customers, it may be that data differences
cause a different code path to be executed.

--
Hope this helps.

Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP

"Bob Jones" <uniface_list@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1ba5e227.0410120559.52e0f339@.posting.google.c om...
>I am using SQL server 2000 with Uniface (4GL).
> I am running a process which commits every 30 seconds or so on one
> machine and another user is trying to perform a small update at the
> same time on the one of the tables whose data is modified by the first
> process.
> I accept that the two second process may get blocked at times by the
> first but expect that to only happen rarely due to the likelihood of
> both processes trying to update the very same row in a large table.
> Other users are also on line at the same time performing updates
> across the database.
> What I have witnessed though was the second process being blocked by
> the first (confirmed by looking in enterprise manager) and REMAINING
> BLOCKED EVEN AFTER A COMMIT in the first process!!
> My big problem is that I have only seen this happen once on a customer
> site and have not been able to reproduce it myself to provide any
> further information.
> The application is set to use row level locking and is also in read
> uncommited mode.
> Any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
> Bob.

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

lock timeouts

I have a procedure running which is locking a table. I want to execute another one, knowing fullwell it wants to use the locked table. Can I go home and expect the 2nd proc. to run when the table becomes unlocked or will it time out while waiting and send an error.
-KThe procedure will wait indefinitely unless there is a deadlock or the LOCK_TIMEOUT setting has a value other than -1.

lock timeout

my SQL studio view is running into timeout error block. how do i insert the

SET LOCK_TIMEOUT -1
GO

in the SQL statement of the view to allow this to run to completion? an example of the SQL view is;

SELECT TOP (100) PERCENT dbo.Entry_Race.E_TDR, dbo.Entry_Race.E_Surface, dbo.Entry_Race.E_Race_Class_Codes,
FROM dbo.Entry_Race INNER JOIN
dbo.Entry_Horse ON dbo.Entry_Race.E_TDR = dbo.Entry_Horse.E_TDR
WHERE (CONVERT(varchar(07), dbo.Entry_Horse.E_Date) BETWEEN CONVERT(varchar(07), GETDATE(), 0) AND CONVERT(varchar(07), GETDATE() + 1, 0))
ORDER BY dbo.Entry_Race.E_TDR, dbo.Entry_Horse.E_Horse, dbo.Entry_Horse.E_Traininer

Do you really need to wait indefinitelly? It is not a very normal situation to have the client waiting tens of seconds for a response - why not using a more optimistic locking mechanism?

You shouldn't user the convert funcion to compare the dates, but using dateadd () over the getdate() functions and compare directly - as it is, any indexes over dbo.Entry_Horse.E_Date will not be used by SQL...

Lock timeout

Hi all,
I need to set a default value for lock timeout on all
connections. Is there any way to do this without running:
set @.@.lock_timeout = ?
at the beginning of every connection? I'd like a global
setting on this.
Best regardsHi,
I feel there is no setting to control Lock time out at server level.
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"Johnny" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0a5c01c3c8f9$8a88d120$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> I need to set a default value for lock timeout on all
> connections. Is there any way to do this without running:
> set @.@.lock_timeout = ?
> at the beginning of every connection? I'd like a global
> setting on this.
> Best regardssql

Monday, March 26, 2012

Lock Question - Should I delete them all??

I have SQL Server 2000 and ASP.NET applications running. It was brought to my attention that some of my applications hitting one of my databases was Timing Out. After a little bit of troubleshooting, I found out it was due to some Locks that existed on my database. I have since then 'Killed Process' and everything seems to be working.

What I did was go to Enterprise Manager, picked the Server --> Management --> Current Activity --> Locks/Object and then found 2 IDs that needed to be killed.

Since then there aren't any hang-ups, but I have noticed under Locks/Objects there are many Process IDs in there. Is it good to Kill all of them? How dangerous is this? All of these processes have the following attributes:

Lock Type = DB
Mode = S
Status = GRANT
Ownder = Sess

I have read BOL and other literature, but can't seem to get the answer I am looking for. And who the heck is Sess?

Your assistance will be greatly appreciated.Don't be worried about this lock, this lock is necessary and you should not kill this process. It is a required System process. The mode is 'S' which menas Shared this is not a strong lock and will not cause deadlocks, so don't worry.

Lock Problem and application is slowed down

Dear Memebers,

I have a critical problem. I have an application is running on 64 bit
machine. It used to be running on 32 bit machine. That application is
using a Stored Procedure that uses SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE statements.
Whenever this applicataion is being run all the processes are locked
and INSERTING operation becomes cumbersome. We tested again on 32 bit
machine however it happened again. So what might be the problem? Can
somebody help me ? Application creates a lot of processes in a minute
Should SQL Server be caple of recieving these fast inserting processes?
As a DB Admin what should I do to find out whether this problem is
coming from SQL Server or not?

If you respond me ASAP I really appreciate it

Regards

LSlaststubborn (arafatsalih@.gmail.com) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

This question is difficult to answer because of lack of hard information,
and I'm afraid that I will have to ask for clarification.

So there is a stored procedure running. Do I understand that there are
multiple instances of the procedure running? What processes are blocked?
Other processes that are running the same stored procedure? Which operations
are blocked?

Which version of SQL Server do you have?

In general terms, the way to address blocking issues to investigate if
there are any indexes missing. The longer time a query takes to run,
the bigger the risk for blocking. Of course, you also need to know
what is blocked and where in the procedure blocking occurs. I have a
stored procedure that can assist with that, check out
http://www.sommarskog.se/sqlutil/aba_lockinfo.html.

--
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|||Hi Erland ,

Here are the answers of your questions:
-Yes the same SP was kept locing the Database
-The other processes are not the same we have other SELECt or UPDATE or
INSERT processes on our Database
-Our database is MS SQL 20000
Thanks

Erland Sommarskog wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

laststubborn (arafatsalih@.gmail.com) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>
This question is difficult to answer because of lack of hard information,
and I'm afraid that I will have to ask for clarification.
>
So there is a stored procedure running. Do I understand that there are
multiple instances of the procedure running? What processes are blocked?
Other processes that are running the same stored procedure? Which operations
are blocked?
>
Which version of SQL Server do you have?
>
In general terms, the way to address blocking issues to investigate if
there are any indexes missing. The longer time a query takes to run,
the bigger the risk for blocking. Of course, you also need to know
what is blocked and where in the procedure blocking occurs. I have a
stored procedure that can assist with that, check out
http://www.sommarskog.se/sqlutil/aba_lockinfo.html.
>
>
--
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

|||laststubborn (arafatsalih@.gmail.com) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Sorry for the late respond. Eventhough we solved the problem and the
problem was coming from the application, I would like to know my
necessary steps to take the action on SQL Server along with your
suggestions.
>
Here are the answers of your questions:
-Yes the same SP was kept locing the Database
-The other processes are not the same we have other SELECt or UPDATE or
INSERT processes on our Database
-Our database is MS SQL 20000

I'm afraid that I don't have much to add than teh suggestion to use
aba_lockinfo to get an overview of who is locking whom, and from this
try to understand why.

One situation that I should have mentioned is that if your application
has set up a command timeout (which is 30 seconds by default in many
APIs) and cancels the batch after this time, the application should
always submit a

IF @.@.trancount 0 ROLLBACK TRANSACTION

since a timeout expired does not rollback any transactions, and not rolling
back in this situations can lead to locks piling up.

Lock pages in memory.

If SQL Server is running on Local System account, does it automatically
have the "Lock Pages in memory" right or does this have to be manually
set?
If manual, which account is the Local System, in the list of domain accounts
that appears in gpedit.msc.
Any help greatly appreciated.Help me here<g>
I need to know this, in order to tell whether my sql server local
system account is managing awe memory properly.
Please...
"Stressed" <k@.c.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eV5Du$BYDHA.736@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> If SQL Server is running on Local System account, does it automatically
> have the "Lock Pages in memory" right or does this have to be manually
> set?
> If manual, which account is the Local System, in the list of domain
accounts
> that appears in gpedit.msc.
> Any help greatly appreciated.
>|||One more thing,
If the "lock pages in memory " permission is not granted you should have
seen error in the errorlog.
In the SQL Server log, you will see the following message:
Cannot use Address Windowing Extensions because lock memory privilege was
not granted.
Sincerely,
Yih-Yoon Lee [Microsoft]
Microsoft SQL Server Support
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Subscribe to MSDN & use http://msdn.microsoft.com/newsgroups.|||Thanks for the reply, was very helpful.
"Yih-Yoon Lee [MS]" <yihyoonl@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:doqK3sTYDHA.304@.cpmsftngxa06.phx.gbl...
> One more thing,
> If the "lock pages in memory " permission is not granted you should have
> seen error in the errorlog.
> In the SQL Server log, you will see the following message:
> Cannot use Address Windowing Extensions because lock memory privilege was
> not granted.
> Sincerely,
> Yih-Yoon Lee [Microsoft]
> Microsoft SQL Server Support
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
> Subscribe to MSDN & use http://msdn.microsoft.com/newsgroups.
>

Lock Pages in Memory on x64 Standard

All,

I have a new database server running W2K3/MSSQL2K5 x64. I read in BOL that you can use the Lock Pages in Memory option to improve performance on your database server. I did some research on the internet and some sources are stating that you can only use that option with MSSQL2K5 Enterprise but in BOL they state that you can use this option in Standard/Enterprise.

Can anyone confirm that "Lock Pages in Memory on x64 Standard" works in MSSQL2K5 Standard?

Thanks in advance for the help.As far as I understand this, it is available on 32-bit systems with AWE and on 64-bit systems. The three versions supporting this feature is thus Standard, Enterprise and Developer.

Lock Pages in Memory

My understanding is that running 64 bit SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition, the
Lock Pages in Memory setting is ignored.
We have 16GB RAM with 14GB dedicated to SQL Server (as per Max Server Memory
configuration). The only other application sharing SQL Server resources is
CLR.
With the Lock Pages in Memory setting ignored, does this mean that the 14GB
dedicated to SQL Server is fair game, to be taken as desired by other
processes whenever needed? Is Max Server Memory even needed in this case?
--
Message posted via SQLMonster.com
http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200710/1Still hoping for an answer.
We had a server running 32bit with 2 GB RAM, converted it to 64bit with 16GB
RAM (14GB Max Server Memory) and in less than a week we are getting the
following error in our error log:
"A significant part of sql server process memory has been paged out. This may
result in a performance degradation. Duration: 0 seconds. Working set (KB):
117484, committed (KB): 11856700, memory utilization: 0%."
We have not made any modifications to MemToLeave, so it is at the default
(256MB?). But from what I understand, 64bit gives you a huge extended memory.
So we have not done anything to MemToLeave.
Why do we have memory issues with 16GB RAM, 64bit, but did not have memory
issues on 2GB with 32 bit?
cbrichards wrote:
>My understanding is that running 64 bit SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition, the
>Lock Pages in Memory setting is ignored.
>We have 16GB RAM with 14GB dedicated to SQL Server (as per Max Server Memory
>configuration). The only other application sharing SQL Server resources is
>CLR.
>With the Lock Pages in Memory setting ignored, does this mean that the 14GB
>dedicated to SQL Server is fair game, to be taken as desired by other
>processes whenever needed? Is Max Server Memory even needed in this case?
--
Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com|||Hello there!
Have you read the following document?
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/918483
Ekrem Ã?nsoy
"cbrichards via SQLMonster.com" <u3288@.uwe> wrote in message
news:7925eb5963cda@.uwe...
> My understanding is that running 64 bit SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition,
> the
> Lock Pages in Memory setting is ignored.
> We have 16GB RAM with 14GB dedicated to SQL Server (as per Max Server
> Memory
> configuration). The only other application sharing SQL Server resources is
> CLR.
> With the Lock Pages in Memory setting ignored, does this mean that the
> 14GB
> dedicated to SQL Server is fair game, to be taken as desired by other
> processes whenever needed? Is Max Server Memory even needed in this case?
> --
> Message posted via SQLMonster.com
> http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200710/1
>|||I highly recommend you read the KB that was posted by Ekrem. I don't
believe Std Edition supports Lock Pages in Memory but you have to understand
there is a huge difference in how memory is utilized between 32 and 64 bit
and even SQL2000 and 2005. These messages are not related to the MemToLeave
area. That memory is pre-allocated and will not be paged out. But unlike in
32 bit the 64 bit SQL Server can utilize all of the memory for things
normally confined to the 2 or 3GB area in a 32 env and can use considerably
more memory than before. For instance the procedure cache would have been
limited to less than 2GB on your old server. Now it can grow at times to as
much as 75% ( exact amount changes with service packs and current conditions
and this is peak, usually won't be more than 50%) of total available memory.
This memory is all dynamic by default and if windows needs more it can call
for memory from SQL Server which will give you the messages you are seeing.
My guess is that you have a lot of adhoc SQL and the proc cache is huge due
to all the non-reusable plans. And or you have operations other than SQL
Server itself running on the server such as SSIS, CLR, Term Services,
Winzip, Notepad etc.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"cbrichards via SQLMonster.com" <u3288@.uwe> wrote in message
news:7929227ce194c@.uwe...
> Still hoping for an answer.
> We had a server running 32bit with 2 GB RAM, converted it to 64bit with
> 16GB
> RAM (14GB Max Server Memory) and in less than a week we are getting the
> following error in our error log:
> "A significant part of sql server process memory has been paged out. This
> may
> result in a performance degradation. Duration: 0 seconds. Working set
> (KB):
> 117484, committed (KB): 11856700, memory utilization: 0%."
> We have not made any modifications to MemToLeave, so it is at the default
> (256MB?). But from what I understand, 64bit gives you a huge extended
> memory.
> So we have not done anything to MemToLeave.
> Why do we have memory issues with 16GB RAM, 64bit, but did not have memory
> issues on 2GB with 32 bit?
> cbrichards wrote:
>>My understanding is that running 64 bit SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition,
>>the
>>Lock Pages in Memory setting is ignored.
>>We have 16GB RAM with 14GB dedicated to SQL Server (as per Max Server
>>Memory
>>configuration). The only other application sharing SQL Server resources is
>>CLR.
>>With the Lock Pages in Memory setting ignored, does this mean that the
>>14GB
>>dedicated to SQL Server is fair game, to be taken as desired by other
>>processes whenever needed? Is Max Server Memory even needed in this case?
> --
> Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com
>|||Well, Hello Ekrem!
I have read that document, and that applies to SQL Server 2005 64 bit
Enterprise Edition. In SQL Server 2005 64 bit Standard Edition (which I noted
in my post, is what we run), that Lock Pages in Memory is ignored.
So, I am still, seeking for answers...
Ekrem Ã?nsoy wrote:
>Hello there!
>Have you read the following document?
>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/918483
>> My understanding is that running 64 bit SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition,
>> the
>[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>> dedicated to SQL Server is fair game, to be taken as desired by other
>> processes whenever needed? Is Max Server Memory even needed in this case?
--
Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com|||So now the question is, if I cannot lock pages in memory, then is my only
choice to upgrade to Enterprise edition?
cbrichards wrote:
>Well, Hello Ekrem!
>I have read that document, and that applies to SQL Server 2005 64 bit
>Enterprise Edition. In SQL Server 2005 64 bit Standard Edition (which I noted
>in my post, is what we run), that Lock Pages in Memory is ignored.
>So, I am still, seeking for answers...
>>Hello there!
>[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>> dedicated to SQL Server is fair game, to be taken as desired by other
>> processes whenever needed? Is Max Server Memory even needed in this case?
--
Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com|||Thanks Andrew for the information.
From what you wrote, I believe our server ran out of memory due to an export
of data from a 250,000,000 row table. This table holds 90 days worth of
archive data and the "adhoc" query was selecting 1 day to export.
I am still perplexed, because this same archive table was (a week ago) on a
32 bit server with 2 GB RAM, and nothing like this ever happened (running out
of memory). The volume of data, number of stored procedures, user connections,
etc., etc. are all the same as when it was on a 32 bit server. One month ago
I performed this same export when it was 32 bit, and while the CPU escalated,
the server did not crater.
I am having difficulty wrapping my arms around the fact that the server did
not crater under 32 bit and 2 GB RAM, but the same operation cratered 64 bit
with 16 GB RAM.
The following came from running DBCC MemoryStatus:
Procedure Cache Value
-- --
TotalProcs 88
TotalPages 2086
InUsePages 70
Any further insights would be appreciated. We are nervous to move forward
with 64 bit Standard Edition with all these unknowns.
Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
>I highly recommend you read the KB that was posted by Ekrem. I don't
>believe Std Edition supports Lock Pages in Memory but you have to understand
>there is a huge difference in how memory is utilized between 32 and 64 bit
>and even SQL2000 and 2005. These messages are not related to the MemToLeave
>area. That memory is pre-allocated and will not be paged out. But unlike in
>32 bit the 64 bit SQL Server can utilize all of the memory for things
>normally confined to the 2 or 3GB area in a 32 env and can use considerably
>more memory than before. For instance the procedure cache would have been
>limited to less than 2GB on your old server. Now it can grow at times to as
>much as 75% ( exact amount changes with service packs and current conditions
>and this is peak, usually won't be more than 50%) of total available memory.
>This memory is all dynamic by default and if windows needs more it can call
>for memory from SQL Server which will give you the messages you are seeing.
>My guess is that you have a lot of adhoc SQL and the proc cache is huge due
>to all the non-reusable plans. And or you have operations other than SQL
>Server itself running on the server such as SSIS, CLR, Term Services,
>Winzip, Notepad etc.
>> Still hoping for an answer.
>[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>>dedicated to SQL Server is fair game, to be taken as desired by other
>>processes whenever needed? Is Max Server Memory even needed in this case?
--
Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com|||OK now we are getting somewhere. You keep feeding bits and pieces to us but
it would be great to have a more detailed description of the issue and
circumstances. Exactly how are you doing this data export? Is it SSIS? If
so that explains a lot. SSIS is a totally separate process from SQL Server
and it will use it's own memory space just like another app on the server.
On a 32 bit machine it can only use up to 2GB max but probably a lot less.
On the 64 bit it can use all it wants. Since the memory is dynamic it will
compete with SQL Server for sure if run on the same machine. SSIS like to do
the work totally in memory if at all possible and can use a lot more than
you might expect. If you provide more details we can give a more directed or
intelligent answer. Also if you do something like this routinely it sounds
like you may want to partition the data to suite these needs.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"cbrichards via SQLMonster.com" <u3288@.uwe> wrote in message
news:79322e221281d@.uwe...
> Thanks Andrew for the information.
> From what you wrote, I believe our server ran out of memory due to an
> export
> of data from a 250,000,000 row table. This table holds 90 days worth of
> archive data and the "adhoc" query was selecting 1 day to export.
> I am still perplexed, because this same archive table was (a week ago) on
> a
> 32 bit server with 2 GB RAM, and nothing like this ever happened (running
> out
> of memory). The volume of data, number of stored procedures, user
> connections,
> etc., etc. are all the same as when it was on a 32 bit server. One month
> ago
> I performed this same export when it was 32 bit, and while the CPU
> escalated,
> the server did not crater.
> I am having difficulty wrapping my arms around the fact that the server
> did
> not crater under 32 bit and 2 GB RAM, but the same operation cratered 64
> bit
> with 16 GB RAM.
> The following came from running DBCC MemoryStatus:
> Procedure Cache Value
> -- --
> TotalProcs 88
> TotalPages 2086
> InUsePages 70
> Any further insights would be appreciated. We are nervous to move forward
> with 64 bit Standard Edition with all these unknowns.
> Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
>>I highly recommend you read the KB that was posted by Ekrem. I don't
>>believe Std Edition supports Lock Pages in Memory but you have to
>>understand
>>there is a huge difference in how memory is utilized between 32 and 64 bit
>>and even SQL2000 and 2005. These messages are not related to the
>>MemToLeave
>>area. That memory is pre-allocated and will not be paged out. But unlike
>>in
>>32 bit the 64 bit SQL Server can utilize all of the memory for things
>>normally confined to the 2 or 3GB area in a 32 env and can use
>>considerably
>>more memory than before. For instance the procedure cache would have been
>>limited to less than 2GB on your old server. Now it can grow at times to
>>as
>>much as 75% ( exact amount changes with service packs and current
>>conditions
>>and this is peak, usually won't be more than 50%) of total available
>>memory.
>>This memory is all dynamic by default and if windows needs more it can
>>call
>>for memory from SQL Server which will give you the messages you are
>>seeing.
>>My guess is that you have a lot of adhoc SQL and the proc cache is huge
>>due
>>to all the non-reusable plans. And or you have operations other than SQL
>>Server itself running on the server such as SSIS, CLR, Term Services,
>>Winzip, Notepad etc.
>> Still hoping for an answer.
>>[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>>dedicated to SQL Server is fair game, to be taken as desired by other
>>processes whenever needed? Is Max Server Memory even needed in this
>>case?
> --
> Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com
>|||> Is Max Server Memory even needed in this case?
Personally, I'd always set Max Server Memory and Min Server Memory on any
serious instance. Why let the SQL Server process engage in expensive back and
forth memory trading with OS?
Linchi
"cbrichards via SQLMonster.com" wrote:
> My understanding is that running 64 bit SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition, the
> Lock Pages in Memory setting is ignored.
> We have 16GB RAM with 14GB dedicated to SQL Server (as per Max Server Memory
> configuration). The only other application sharing SQL Server resources is
> CLR.
> With the Lock Pages in Memory setting ignored, does this mean that the 14GB
> dedicated to SQL Server is fair game, to be taken as desired by other
> processes whenever needed? Is Max Server Memory even needed in this case?
> --
> Message posted via SQLMonster.com
> http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200710/1
>|||Interesting...
I am using SSIS to perform the export.
This adds more questions:
1. You stated, "On a 32 bit machine it can only use up to 2GB max but
probably a lot less." Why only 2GB and probably a lot less?
2. You stated, "On the 64 bit it can use all it wants. Since the memory is
dynamic..." Is this true even when using Enterprise edition when you can lock
pages in memory?
Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
>OK now we are getting somewhere. You keep feeding bits and pieces to us but
>it would be great to have a more detailed description of the issue and
>circumstances. Exactly how are you doing this data export? Is it SSIS? If
>so that explains a lot. SSIS is a totally separate process from SQL Server
>and it will use it's own memory space just like another app on the server.
>On a 32 bit machine it can only use up to 2GB max but probably a lot less.
>On the 64 bit it can use all it wants. Since the memory is dynamic it will
>compete with SQL Server for sure if run on the same machine. SSIS like to do
>the work totally in memory if at all possible and can use a lot more than
>you might expect. If you provide more details we can give a more directed or
>intelligent answer. Also if you do something like this routinely it sounds
>like you may want to partition the data to suite these needs.
>> Thanks Andrew for the information.
>[quoted text clipped - 65 lines]
>>processes whenever needed? Is Max Server Memory even needed in this
>>case?
--
Message posted via SQLMonster.com
http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200710/1|||> This adds more questions:
> 1. You stated, "On a 32 bit machine it can only use up to 2GB max but
> probably a lot less." Why only 2GB and probably a lot less?
Well if the system only had 2GB you need memory for other things as well.
But in 32 bit OS by default any app can only use up to 2GB of directly
addressable memory. If you had more than 2GB and the OS was capable of using
PAE and the app was AWE aware it may be able to use more than 2GB. But I
don't think SSIS was AWE aware so on 32 bit I believe it was only able to
use 2GB or 3GB if /3gb was set max. I could be wrong there but I am pretty
sure that is correct.
> 2. You stated, "On the 64 bit it can use all it wants. Since the memory is
> dynamic..." Is this true even when using Enterprise edition when you can
> lock
> pages in memory?
No. The purpose of Lock Pages is to prevent something else from stealing or
borrowing those pages once they are allocated. You can achieve a similar
functionality as Linchi mentioned by setting the MIN and MAX to the same
value. Then as long as you start SQL Server, use that much memory and the
memory is available it will keep it once it has used it. But now you have
another potentially serious issue and that is with the memory that is left.
If you have 16GB and you allocate 14GB to SQL that leave you 2GB for the OS
and anything else you run. If you attempt to run that SSIS package again in
this mode you will surely starve the OS of memory and the machine and
everything on it will not be happy. This is one of the main reasons why it
is recommended you run larger SSIS packages on a separate machine.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"cbrichards via SQLMonster.com" <u3288@.uwe> wrote in message
news:79367cc8cda07@.uwe...
> Interesting...
> I am using SSIS to perform the export.
> This adds more questions:
> 1. You stated, "On a 32 bit machine it can only use up to 2GB max but
> probably a lot less." Why only 2GB and probably a lot less?
> 2. You stated, "On the 64 bit it can use all it wants. Since the memory is
> dynamic..." Is this true even when using Enterprise edition when you can
> lock
> pages in memory?
> Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
>>OK now we are getting somewhere. You keep feeding bits and pieces to us
>>but
>>it would be great to have a more detailed description of the issue and
>>circumstances. Exactly how are you doing this data export? Is it SSIS?
>>If
>>so that explains a lot. SSIS is a totally separate process from SQL Server
>>and it will use it's own memory space just like another app on the server.
>>On a 32 bit machine it can only use up to 2GB max but probably a lot less.
>>On the 64 bit it can use all it wants. Since the memory is dynamic it will
>>compete with SQL Server for sure if run on the same machine. SSIS like to
>>do
>>the work totally in memory if at all possible and can use a lot more than
>>you might expect. If you provide more details we can give a more directed
>>or
>>intelligent answer. Also if you do something like this routinely it
>>sounds
>>like you may want to partition the data to suite these needs.
>> Thanks Andrew for the information.
>>[quoted text clipped - 65 lines]
>>processes whenever needed? Is Max Server Memory even needed in this
>>case?
> --
> Message posted via SQLMonster.com
> http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200710/1
>|||> 1. So, in my case, if SSIS were to be run on a separate machine, would it
> not
> equally starve the Memory on the separate machine?
If those are the only two processes on the machine they would live much
better together than with SQL Server and lock pages.
> 2. When running this SSIS export on the same machine, (loosely speaking)
> does
> SSIS first consume the 14GB, then go after the 2GB of the OS?
I don't know the allocations work at that level but I would say there are
factors that would make it a DEPENDS type of answer.
> 3. At what point does the 8TB of virtual address space get used.
Virtual address space is always used but if you mean when does it start
swapping to disk? Then generally when all the physical memory is depleted.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"cbrichards via SQLMonster.com" <u3288@.uwe> wrote in message
news:793df7e614c62@.uwe...
> This raises a few more questions:
> 1. So, in my case, if SSIS were to be run on a separate machine, would it
> not
> equally starve the Memory on the separate machine?
> 2. When running this SSIS export on the same machine, (loosely speaking)
> does
> SSIS first consume the 14GB, then go after the 2GB of the OS?
> 3. At what point does the 8TB of virtual address space get used.
> Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
>> This adds more questions:
>> 1. You stated, "On a 32 bit machine it can only use up to 2GB max but
>> probably a lot less." Why only 2GB and probably a lot less?
>>Well if the system only had 2GB you need memory for other things as well.
>>But in 32 bit OS by default any app can only use up to 2GB of directly
>>addressable memory. If you had more than 2GB and the OS was capable of
>>using
>>PAE and the app was AWE aware it may be able to use more than 2GB. But I
>>don't think SSIS was AWE aware so on 32 bit I believe it was only able to
>>use 2GB or 3GB if /3gb was set max. I could be wrong there but I am
>>pretty
>>sure that is correct.
>> 2. You stated, "On the 64 bit it can use all it wants. Since the memory
>> is
>> dynamic..." Is this true even when using Enterprise edition when you can
>> lock
>> pages in memory?
>>No. The purpose of Lock Pages is to prevent something else from stealing
>>or
>>borrowing those pages once they are allocated. You can achieve a similar
>>functionality as Linchi mentioned by setting the MIN and MAX to the same
>>value. Then as long as you start SQL Server, use that much memory and the
>>memory is available it will keep it once it has used it. But now you have
>>another potentially serious issue and that is with the memory that is
>>left.
>>If you have 16GB and you allocate 14GB to SQL that leave you 2GB for the
>>OS
>>and anything else you run. If you attempt to run that SSIS package again
>>in
>>this mode you will surely starve the OS of memory and the machine and
>>everything on it will not be happy. This is one of the main reasons why
>>it
>>is recommended you run larger SSIS packages on a separate machine.
>> Interesting...
>>[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>>>processes whenever needed? Is Max Server Memory even needed in this
>>>case?
> --
> Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com
>|||This raises a few more questions:
1. So, in my case, if SSIS were to be run on a separate machine, would it not
equally starve the Memory on the separate machine?
2. When running this SSIS export on the same machine, (loosely speaking) does
SSIS first consume the 14GB, then go after the 2GB of the OS?
3. At what point does the 8TB of virtual address space get used.
Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
>> This adds more questions:
>> 1. You stated, "On a 32 bit machine it can only use up to 2GB max but
>> probably a lot less." Why only 2GB and probably a lot less?
>Well if the system only had 2GB you need memory for other things as well.
>But in 32 bit OS by default any app can only use up to 2GB of directly
>addressable memory. If you had more than 2GB and the OS was capable of using
>PAE and the app was AWE aware it may be able to use more than 2GB. But I
>don't think SSIS was AWE aware so on 32 bit I believe it was only able to
>use 2GB or 3GB if /3gb was set max. I could be wrong there but I am pretty
>sure that is correct.
>> 2. You stated, "On the 64 bit it can use all it wants. Since the memory is
>> dynamic..." Is this true even when using Enterprise edition when you can
>> lock
>> pages in memory?
>No. The purpose of Lock Pages is to prevent something else from stealing or
>borrowing those pages once they are allocated. You can achieve a similar
>functionality as Linchi mentioned by setting the MIN and MAX to the same
>value. Then as long as you start SQL Server, use that much memory and the
>memory is available it will keep it once it has used it. But now you have
>another potentially serious issue and that is with the memory that is left.
>If you have 16GB and you allocate 14GB to SQL that leave you 2GB for the OS
>and anything else you run. If you attempt to run that SSIS package again in
>this mode you will surely starve the OS of memory and the machine and
>everything on it will not be happy. This is one of the main reasons why it
>is recommended you run larger SSIS packages on a separate machine.
>> Interesting...
>[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>>>processes whenever needed? Is Max Server Memory even needed in this
>>>case?
--
Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com|||Thanks for all the info, Andrew.
Hopefully, (for your sake) this is my last set of questions. If I set my
Min/Max Server Memory settings the same (14GB) and leave 2GB for the OS, then,
if I execute an expensive adhoc query directly on the server from Management
Studio, and that query consumes the 14GB, is that query able to consume any
of the OS memory?
On the flip side, if my Max Server Memory is set to 14GB and Min Server
Memory is left at its default (0), then with this configuration, the same
adhoc query is executed above, does that mean the query could consume both
the 14GB as well as the 2GB OS?
Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
>> 1. So, in my case, if SSIS were to be run on a separate machine, would it
>> not
>> equally starve the Memory on the separate machine?
>If those are the only two processes on the machine they would live much
>better together than with SQL Server and lock pages.
>> 2. When running this SSIS export on the same machine, (loosely speaking)
>> does
>> SSIS first consume the 14GB, then go after the 2GB of the OS?
>I don't know the allocations work at that level but I would say there are
>factors that would make it a DEPENDS type of answer.
>> 3. At what point does the 8TB of virtual address space get used.
>Virtual address space is always used but if you mean when does it start
>swapping to disk? Then generally when all the physical memory is depleted.
>> This raises a few more questions:
>> 1. So, in my case, if SSIS were to be run on a separate machine, would it
>[quoted text clipped - 49 lines]
>>>processes whenever needed? Is Max Server Memory even needed in this
>>>case?
--
Message posted via SQLMonster.com
http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200710/1|||> Hopefully, (for your sake) this is my last set of questions. If I set my
> Min/Max Server Memory settings the same (14GB) and leave 2GB for the OS,
> then,
> if I execute an expensive adhoc query directly on the server from
> Management
> Studio, and that query consumes the 14GB, is that query able to consume
> any
> of the OS memory?
Well the portion of memory that used to be called MemTo Leave still comes
into play as a section of memory pre-reserved at startup and is not part of
the buffer pool. In 2000 that defaulted to about 384MB (128M for the worker
threads). In 2005 the allocations are a little more complicated but lets
just say 384MB comes right off the top. The MAX Memory is for the buffer
pool only. So you can theoriticallyuse 14GB for bufferpool and 384MB for
Contiguous memory. That will leave about 1.7GB for the OS. Having said that
none of the 1.7GB will be used for a query in SQL Server under the
conditions you outlined.
> On the flip side, if my Max Server Memory is set to 14GB and Min Server
> Memory is left at its default (0), then with this configuration, the same
> adhoc query is executed above, does that mean the query could consume both
> the 14GB as well as the 2GB OS?
No, this still follows the exact same rules. The MIN just states that after
SQL Server grabs that memory it will not give it back to the OS.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"cbrichards via SQLMonster.com" <u3288@.uwe> wrote in message
news:793ea42168c08@.uwe...
> Thanks for all the info, Andrew.
> Hopefully, (for your sake) this is my last set of questions. If I set my
> Min/Max Server Memory settings the same (14GB) and leave 2GB for the OS,
> then,
> if I execute an expensive adhoc query directly on the server from
> Management
> Studio, and that query consumes the 14GB, is that query able to consume
> any
> of the OS memory?
> On the flip side, if my Max Server Memory is set to 14GB and Min Server
> Memory is left at its default (0), then with this configuration, the same
> adhoc query is executed above, does that mean the query could consume both
> the 14GB as well as the 2GB OS?
> Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
>> 1. So, in my case, if SSIS were to be run on a separate machine, would
>> it
>> not
>> equally starve the Memory on the separate machine?
>>If those are the only two processes on the machine they would live much
>>better together than with SQL Server and lock pages.
>> 2. When running this SSIS export on the same machine, (loosely speaking)
>> does
>> SSIS first consume the 14GB, then go after the 2GB of the OS?
>>I don't know the allocations work at that level but I would say there are
>>factors that would make it a DEPENDS type of answer.
>> 3. At what point does the 8TB of virtual address space get used.
>>Virtual address space is always used but if you mean when does it start
>>swapping to disk? Then generally when all the physical memory is
>>depleted.
>> This raises a few more questions:
>> 1. So, in my case, if SSIS were to be run on a separate machine, would
>> it
>>[quoted text clipped - 49 lines]
>>>>processes whenever needed? Is Max Server Memory even needed in
>>>>this
>>>>case?
> --
> Message posted via SQLMonster.com
> http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200710/1
>|||Thanks for the advice Linchi.
I am trying to understand the difference between the ability to lock pages in
memory on 64 bit Enterprise Edition and setting the Min/Max Server Memory
setting the same on a 64 bit Standard Edition.
We are running 64 bit Standard Edition, with 16 GB RAM, and have the Min
Server Memory set to zero and Max Server Memory set to 14336.
We are still experiencing a shortage of memory and I believe it is either a
separate application, such as Reporting Services or SSIS that is depleting
our memory.
So, it this were an Enterprise addition box (instead of Standard Edition),
and I had the ability to Lock Pages in Memory, how would this change my
situation?
Or, with my current Standard Edition situation, how would setting the Min and
Max Server Memory to the same amount change my situation?
Linchi Shea wrote:
>> Is Max Server Memory even needed in this case?
>Personally, I'd always set Max Server Memory and Min Server Memory on any
>serious instance. Why let the SQL Server process engage in expensive back and
>forth memory trading with OS?
>Linchi
>> My understanding is that running 64 bit SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition, the
>> Lock Pages in Memory setting is ignored.
>[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>> dedicated to SQL Server is fair game, to be taken as desired by other
>> processes whenever needed? Is Max Server Memory even needed in this case?
--
Message posted via SQLMonster.com
http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200710/1sql

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Location of query results (sql 2000)

I have a multi user application running with a query to fill GUI components
(Delphi)
I get a 'share violation' for 'del1.mb' (according to a user). All users run
with the same userid/password against the SQL server. Now I wonder where MS
SQL put the resultset from the query and if access rights to this folder is
the cause of this problem.
Can anyone help?
LanCan you tell what is del1.mb. I feel share violation is because of some
concurrency and locking and not to do with file access.
-Omnibuzz
--
Please post ddls and sample data for your queries and close the thread if
you got the answer for your question.
"Lan" wrote:

> I have a multi user application running with a query to fill GUI component
s
> (Delphi)
> I get a 'share violation' for 'del1.mb' (according to a user). All users r
un
> with the same userid/password against the SQL server. Now I wonder where M
S
> SQL put the resultset from the query and if access rights to this folder i
s
> the cause of this problem.
> Can anyone help?
> Lan|||SQL Server doesn't store the results in a file. It sends the result to the c
lient application. So,
you have to ask this in a Delphi forum.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Lan" <Lan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4A9D1C6F-7866-4BC8-81E3-C8F88C96FC90@.microsoft.com...
>I have a multi user application running with a query to fill GUI components
> (Delphi)
> I get a 'share violation' for 'del1.mb' (according to a user). All users r
un
> with the same userid/password against the SQL server. Now I wonder where M
S
> SQL put the resultset from the query and if access rights to this folder i
s
> the cause of this problem.
> Can anyone help?
> Lansql

Location of Logs and data files

Do the logs and data files of a database have to be on the same server as the
SQL Server software?
I am running SQL Server 2000, and have several DBs on the server. However I
am expecting a new one to grow quite fast, and would like to place the data
and log files on a separate server. However, when I create a new DB and try
to locate the data and log files elsewhere, it only appears to allow me to
place them on the same server. Is there any way round this?
> Do the logs and data files of a database have to be on the same server as the
> SQL Server software?
Yes. They can be on a SAN, though, as a SAN is seen as locally attached..
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Petet Tickler" <Petet Tickler@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:60DF8C3F-8C66-4FB9-9731-569DE8B3F832@.microsoft.com...
> Do the logs and data files of a database have to be on the same server as the
> SQL Server software?
> I am running SQL Server 2000, and have several DBs on the server. However I
> am expecting a new one to grow quite fast, and would like to place the data
> and log files on a separate server. However, when I create a new DB and try
> to locate the data and log files elsewhere, it only appears to allow me to
> place them on the same server. Is there any way round this?
>
|||Petet Tickler wrote:
> Do the logs and data files of a database have to be on the same server as the
> SQL Server software?
> I am running SQL Server 2000, and have several DBs on the server. However I
> am expecting a new one to grow quite fast, and would like to place the data
> and log files on a separate server. However, when I create a new DB and try
> to locate the data and log files elsewhere, it only appears to allow me to
> place them on the same server. Is there any way round this?
>
Having you database files on another server, is not enabled in SQL Server.
If you have a NAS, you can have your files on this, but it's not
recommended.
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;304261
Regards
Steen

Location of Logs and data files

Do the logs and data files of a database have to be on the same server as th
e
SQL Server software?
I am running SQL Server 2000, and have several DBs on the server. However I
am expecting a new one to grow quite fast, and would like to place the data
and log files on a separate server. However, when I create a new DB and try
to locate the data and log files elsewhere, it only appears to allow me to
place them on the same server. Is there any way round this'> Do the logs and data files of a database have to be on the same server as theen">
> SQL Server software?
Yes. They can be on a SAN, though, as a SAN is seen as locally attached..
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Petet Tickler" <Petet Tickler@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:60DF8C3F-8C66-4FB9-9731-569DE8B3F832@.microsoft.com...
> Do the logs and data files of a database have to be on the same server as
the
> SQL Server software?
> I am running SQL Server 2000, and have several DBs on the server. However
I
> am expecting a new one to grow quite fast, and would like to place the dat
a
> and log files on a separate server. However, when I create a new DB and tr
y
> to locate the data and log files elsewhere, it only appears to allow me to
> place them on the same server. Is there any way round this'
>|||Petet Tickler wrote:
> Do the logs and data files of a database have to be on the same server as
the
> SQL Server software?
> I am running SQL Server 2000, and have several DBs on the server. However
I
> am expecting a new one to grow quite fast, and would like to place the dat
a
> and log files on a separate server. However, when I create a new DB and tr
y
> to locate the data and log files elsewhere, it only appears to allow me to
> place them on the same server. Is there any way round this'
>
Having you database files on another server, is not enabled in SQL Server.
If you have a NAS, you can have your files on this, but it's not
recommended.
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;304261
Regards
Steen

Location of Logs and data files

Do the logs and data files of a database have to be on the same server as the
SQL Server software?
I am running SQL Server 2000, and have several DBs on the server. However I
am expecting a new one to grow quite fast, and would like to place the data
and log files on a separate server. However, when I create a new DB and try
to locate the data and log files elsewhere, it only appears to allow me to
place them on the same server. Is there any way round this'> Do the logs and data files of a database have to be on the same server as the
> SQL Server software?
Yes. They can be on a SAN, though, as a SAN is seen as locally attached..
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Petet Tickler" <Petet Tickler@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:60DF8C3F-8C66-4FB9-9731-569DE8B3F832@.microsoft.com...
> Do the logs and data files of a database have to be on the same server as the
> SQL Server software?
> I am running SQL Server 2000, and have several DBs on the server. However I
> am expecting a new one to grow quite fast, and would like to place the data
> and log files on a separate server. However, when I create a new DB and try
> to locate the data and log files elsewhere, it only appears to allow me to
> place them on the same server. Is there any way round this'
>|||Petet Tickler wrote:
> Do the logs and data files of a database have to be on the same server as the
> SQL Server software?
> I am running SQL Server 2000, and have several DBs on the server. However I
> am expecting a new one to grow quite fast, and would like to place the data
> and log files on a separate server. However, when I create a new DB and try
> to locate the data and log files elsewhere, it only appears to allow me to
> place them on the same server. Is there any way round this'
>
Having you database files on another server, is not enabled in SQL Server.
If you have a NAS, you can have your files on this, but it's not
recommended.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;304261
Regards
Steen

Monday, March 19, 2012

LocalSystem account does not start SQLAgent

All,
Running SQL 2000 SP4 on a Windows 2003 server. I'm having some trouble
getting SQL Agent service to start using the LocalSystem account. The
MSSQLSERVER starts ok with the account? After setup I removed the builtin
admin's group - something I do on all my installs, but I ha to add it back
to get the LocalSystem to start the service. Anybody have any idea why this
is happening?
Thanks
Mike Gasperino
Sr. Software Developer
office: 919-807-2310
Helpdesk: (919)807-2300
doa.helpdesk@.ncmail.net
****************************************
************************************
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law "NCGS.Ch.132" and may be disclosed to third
parties
****************************************
************************************See reply in microsoft.public.sqlserver.setup
HTH
Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
http://www.sqldbatips.com
I support PASS - the definitive, global
community for SQL Server professionals -
http://www.sqlpass.org
"Mike" <announ@.tkd.net> wrote in message
news:uJUJULbmFHA.3536@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> All,
> Running SQL 2000 SP4 on a Windows 2003 server. I'm having some trouble
> getting SQL Agent service to start using the LocalSystem account. The
> MSSQLSERVER starts ok with the account? After setup I removed the builtin
> admin's group - something I do on all my installs, but I ha to add it back
> to get the LocalSystem to start the service. Anybody have any idea why
> this
> is happening?
> Thanks
>
> --
> Mike Gasperino
> Sr. Software Developer
> office: 919-807-2310
> Helpdesk: (919)807-2300
> doa.helpdesk@.ncmail.net
> ****************************************
**********************************
**
> E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North
> Carolina Public Records Law "NCGS.Ch.132" and may be disclosed to third
> parties
> ****************************************
**********************************
**
>

Monday, March 12, 2012

Localization issue

Hi All,

I already have a web site running with SQL Server as a backend (in
english)For future growth, I would like to make it localized. Regarding
the database, I have come up with several approaches.

1) just simply add the column in those table which needs different
language.

2) add additional tables to do it.

3) create a new database to store different language's information

As mentioned, my database have already been implemented, so the minimum
modification is preferred. Could you guys suggest me the best way to do
it?

Another thing, if I alter my existing database into UTF-8 now, will it
affect the original data (ie. English).

Thanks.

Iceiceriver (hfung@.hotmail.com) writes:
> I already have a web site running with SQL Server as a backend (in
> english)For future growth, I would like to make it localized. Regarding
> the database, I have come up with several approaches.
> 1) just simply add the column in those table which needs different
> language.
> 2) add additional tables to do it.
> 3) create a new database to store different language's information
> As mentioned, my database have already been implemented, so the minimum
> modification is preferred. Could you guys suggest me the best way to do
> it?

Adding multi-language support is a task with an impact. Without knowing
the nature of your database it is hard to give recommendations.

In the system I work with, we once faced this problem. At that time,
many our tables had two name columns, for instance countryname and
countrynamefor, holding the Swedish and English name respectively. As
we entered the Finnish market, we needed support for a third language,
since in Finland, both Swedish and Finnish are official languages.

After some discussion, we decided to take the big step: the names were
moved out specific name tables. For instance the countries table
would get a subtable countrynames with the key (countrycode, languageid).
For simplicity we did keep a name column in the main table, so we
can use that as a fall back if there is no name in the current language
in the name table.

Adding an extra column may be easy for the first language you support,
but if you add specific tables, you have the infrastructre built for
your third, fourth language etc.

> Another thing, if I alter my existing database into UTF-8 now, will it
> affect the original data (ie. English).

There is no support for storing data in SQL Server as UTF-8. To store
Unicode data, use UCS-2. (The same as UTF-16, but SQL 2000 does not
support surrogates.) That is the nchar/nvarchar datatypes. Note that
depending on which languages you plan to support, you can still make it with
char/varchar.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp|||Erland,

Thanks for your reply. I am wondering if there is any sample DB schema
available on the web. I would like to see an example that how several
related-tables also need to be localized. Any suggestion to re-arrange
those existing relationship? I am kinda new to localization problem,
please give me some hints.

"After some discussion, we decided to take the big step: the names were
moved out specific name tables. For instance the countries table
would get a subtable countrynames with the key (countrycode,
languageid).
For simplicity we did keep a name column in the main table, so we
can use that as a fall back if there is no name in the current language
in the name table."

Erland Sommarskog wrote:
> iceriver (hfung@.hotmail.com) writes:
> > I already have a web site running with SQL Server as a backend (in
> > english)For future growth, I would like to make it localized.
Regarding
> > the database, I have come up with several approaches.
> > 1) just simply add the column in those table which needs different
> > language.
> > 2) add additional tables to do it.
> > 3) create a new database to store different language's information
> > As mentioned, my database have already been implemented, so the
minimum
> > modification is preferred. Could you guys suggest me the best way
to do
> > it?
> Adding multi-language support is a task with an impact. Without
knowing
> the nature of your database it is hard to give recommendations.
> In the system I work with, we once faced this problem. At that time,
> many our tables had two name columns, for instance countryname and
> countrynamefor, holding the Swedish and English name respectively. As
> we entered the Finnish market, we needed support for a third
language,
> since in Finland, both Swedish and Finnish are official languages.
> After some discussion, we decided to take the big step: the names
were
> moved out specific name tables. For instance the countries table
> would get a subtable countrynames with the key (countrycode,
languageid).
> For simplicity we did keep a name column in the main table, so we
> can use that as a fall back if there is no name in the current
language
> in the name table.
> Adding an extra column may be easy for the first language you
support,
> but if you add specific tables, you have the infrastructre built for
> your third, fourth language etc.
> > Another thing, if I alter my existing database into UTF-8 now, will
it
> > affect the original data (ie. English).
> There is no support for storing data in SQL Server as UTF-8. To store
> Unicode data, use UCS-2. (The same as UTF-16, but SQL 2000 does not
> support surrogates.) That is the nchar/nvarchar datatypes. Note that
> depending on which languages you plan to support, you can still make
it with
> char/varchar.
> --
> Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
> Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp|||iceriver wrote:
> Erland,
> Thanks for your reply. I am wondering if there is any sample DB
schema
> available on the web. I would like to see an example that how several
> related-tables also need to be localized. Any suggestion to
re-arrange
> those existing relationship? I am kinda new to localization problem,
> please give me some hints.

Why change the database, other than just for the different language?
I'd suggest that keeping table and field names in the original language
would be simplest.
It's the user interface really needs to have local name of fields and
(perhaps) localised error messages.
How you'd do this best depends on what the user interface is
specifically written in.

One method...
Stick these in an xml file distributed with the app or a table in the
database with a structure something like
Language,
Message_No,
Message
Use something in the app to specify the language your user has and look
up the entry in the message field for each text box/error.
Potentially a fair bit of work. The last app I wrote is multi-national
but the company's standard language for computer systems is english for
this reason.

You also have to remember to handle different formatting of dates,
numbers ( comma or full stop as decimal place ).|||iceriver (hfung@.hotmail.com) writes:
> Thanks for your reply. I am wondering if there is any sample DB schema
> available on the web. I would like to see an example that how several
> related-tables also need to be localized. Any suggestion to re-arrange
> those existing relationship? I am kinda new to localization problem,
> please give me some hints.

I have no idea what is out there. But I have a strong feeling that the
answer depends on your business, and you are asking me question about a
database I don't know anything about. What was the right answer for us
may not be for you.

But there is one thing I forgot to mention in my prevoius reply: the
database is the easy part. The hard and expensive work is all the
translation. With a good architecture, you can easily add an other
language from a technical point of view. But the translation work will
be the same each time. And the maintenance of all languages will increase
for each new language you add.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp|||Andy: Thanks, I also heard about the XML stuff may help, but I don't
know too much details in it.

Erland: Thanks, how a architecture and language addition will increase
the maintenance load?

If you guys encounter any good book/web reference regarding the
localization issue, please feel free to let me know. Thanks so much.|||Andy: Thanks, I also heard about the XML stuff may help, but I don't
know too much details in it.

Erland: Thanks, how a architecture and language addition will increase
the maintenance load?

If you guys encounter any good book/web reference regarding the
localization issue, please feel free to let me know. Thanks so much.|||iceriver (hfung@.hotmail.com) writes:
> Erland: Thanks, how a architecture and language addition will increase
> the maintenance load?

You don't localize once. As you change your site, you will have localize
all those changes as well.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp

Friday, March 9, 2012

Local user XP -> remote XP

HI Guys,
Got the following scenario:
Client machine: Windows XP Pro (SP2), logged in as local user
Server machine: Windows XP Pro (SP2), running SQL Server 2000
both machines in same Domain.
I am attempting to connect from the client to the server using SQL
Server authentication, which is definitely enabled as an option on the
remote machine. SQL Client Network lists TCP/IP and Named Pipes
enabled, with TCP/IP highest. Neither connecting through TCP/IP nor
name pipes (using isql) succeeds, and I get a generic "SQL Server does
not exist" type message through query analyzer.
This started with a problem running an ASP.NET website against a remote
database, but I've verified I can 1) Connect to the server using
Windows Authentication, when I'm logged in as a domain user, 2) Connect
using the SQL Server credentials, when I'm logged in as a domain user.
I wouldn't be surprised for NP to fail when I'm a local user, but
TCP/IP shouldn't be affected by who's logged in, should it?
Okay, normal bits now of "this used to work, and I'm sure I haven't
changed anything". Only thing I have done recently was install the
latest MS updates as delivered through Automatic Updates. I'm not sure
if anything has changed on the server, since it's another devs
development machine, but I wouldn't expect him to have been "playing"
in this area.
I was initially unconcerned by this problem, since our live webserver
talks directly to a local instance of SQL, so all should be well. Until
I remembered that as part of the next rollout, we plan to move the
databases onto a separate box. So I'd like to understand this problem
in the development area in case it happens on live as well.
Sorry for rambling on. And I've probably forgotten something important
too. Thanks in advance for any help.
DamienHi,
I guess secuzrity is blocking your request on the other machine. YOu
have to open the ports of SQL Server on the hosting machine that the
client can connect to an instance. The default port of SQL Server is
1433, but that can be different on your machine if you changed another
one on installation time. For more information about Windows XP SP2 and
SQL Server read the following article.
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;841249
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
--|||Jens wrote:
> Hi,
> I guess secuzrity is blocking your request on the other machine. YOu
> have to open the ports of SQL Server on the hosting machine that the
> client can connect to an instance. The default port of SQL Server is
> 1433, but that can be different on your machine if you changed another
> one on installation time. For more information about Windows XP SP2 and
> SQL Server read the following article.
> http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;841249
> HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
> --
> http://www.sqlserver2005.de
> --
Doh! The thing I forgot to do was... Check that TCP connections worked
directly. Turned out that all my previous succesful connections were NP
connections. So I'll be looking at the firewall then...
Cheers,
Damien

Local system account and Mirroring.

Hi,

Is it possible to set up database mirroring between two servers that have SQL Service running under Local system? I tried to setup mirroring between two servers running under Local system but was running into the following error:

Server or Network address cannot be reached or does not exist.

What are the pre-requisites for setting up database mirroring if the service runs under Local system? Do I have to configure certificates? Is that mandatory? Can anyone please let me know. Any other gotchas?

Thanks

Hi Ankith,
You can setup mirroring with local system account if there are two instances of sql server in the same machine !
you can refer the below link for settingup mirroring using local system account with 3 instances of sql server in the same machine,
Certificates is not required !
http://www.sql-articles.com/articles/dbmrr.htm

Thanxx
Deepak

|||

Hi Deepak,

Thanks for your reply. My scenario is not the same as you have mentioned. I have two different servers in the same domain but in different continents and running under local system. They are not instances on the same machine. They are two servers geographically apart. Can I still configure them without certificates?

Thanks again

|||Is there some reason why you can't run the SQL Server services using a domain account? That is, after all, what Microsoft recommends. You would have to configure the endpoints to use windows authentication.
|||

Hi Bob,

Thanks for your reply. I configured the endpoints using windows authentication but no luck. It still failed. we will use domain accounts.

Thanks

|||

You can not use local system to span machines. Local system, as the name describes, is LOCAL to the machine it is on. Local system has no security context outside of the local machine. Therefore, it does not have a valid SID on any other machine and can not be resolved. Since it can not be resolved, you can not use it to gain access to any resource external to the machine it exists on. Every Windows machine has an account named local system, but every single one of them is a different account with a SID only valid on its own machine.

You have to be using either local, named accounts or domain accounts.

Local system account and Mirroring.

Hi,

Server or Network address cannot be reached or does not exist.

Thanks

Thanxx
Deepak

|||

Hi Deepak,

Thanks again

Hi Bob,

Thanks for your reply. I configured the endpoints using windows authentication but no luck. It still failed. we will use domain accounts.

Thanks

|||

You have to be using either local, named accounts or domain accounts.

Friday, March 30, 2012

Locked files during backups on a cluster

Locked files during backups on a cluster

Lock/block retained after commit

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

lock timeouts

lock timeout

Lock timeout

Monday, March 26, 2012

Lock Question - Should I delete them all??

Lock Problem and application is slowed down

Lock pages in memory.

Lock Pages in Memory on x64 Standard

Lock Pages in Memory

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Location of query results (sql 2000)

Location of Logs and data files

Location of Logs and data files

Location of Logs and data files

Monday, March 19, 2012

LocalSystem account does not start SQLAgent

Monday, March 12, 2012

Localization issue

Friday, March 9, 2012

Local user XP -> remote XP

Local system account and Mirroring.

Local system account and Mirroring.

sql local data

Blog Archive

About Me