Lock pages in memory right on IA64 edition

I'm planing to install SQL2000 IA64 on Itanium server with win2003-IA64.
Not sure if I need to add "Lock pages in memory" right to SQL service
account or not. I know it must be used on x86 and is also recommended on x64
systems because they use AWE but on IA64 systems AWE is not used so I would
guess it's not necessary. Am I right?
Tom"Tom" <mcseman@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uFRSdkGOGHA.2036@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> I'm planing to install SQL2000 IA64 on Itanium server with win2003-IA64.
> Not sure if I need to add "Lock pages in memory" right to SQL service
> account or not. I know it must be used on x86 and is also recommended on
> x64 systems because they use AWE but on IA64 systems AWE is not used so I
> would guess it's not necessary. Am I right?
>
No. My understanding is that "Lock pages in memory" is recommended on
64-bit SQL because it prevents the OS from paging out SQL Server memory
under pressure. Instead SQL Server will reduce its own memory usage when it
notices the system is under memory pressure.
David

Lock pages in memory right on IA64 edition

I'm planing to install SQL2000 IA64 on Itanium server with win2003-IA64.
Not sure if I need to add "Lock pages in memory" right to SQL service
account or not. I know it must be used on x86 and is also recommended on x64
systems because they use AWE but on IA64 systems AWE is not used so I would
guess it's not necessary. Am I right?
Tom"Tom" <mcseman@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uFRSdkGOGHA.2036@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> I'm planing to install SQL2000 IA64 on Itanium server with win2003-IA64.
> Not sure if I need to add "Lock pages in memory" right to SQL service
> account or not. I know it must be used on x86 and is also recommended on
> x64 systems because they use AWE but on IA64 systems AWE is not used so I
> would guess it's not necessary. Am I right?
>
No. My understanding is that "Lock pages in memory" is recommended on
64-bit SQL because it prevents the OS from paging out SQL Server memory
under pressure. Instead SQL Server will reduce its own memory usage when it
notices the system is under memory pressure.
David

Lock pages in memory right on IA64 edition

I'm planing to install SQL2000 IA64 on Itanium server with win2003-IA64.
Not sure if I need to add "Lock pages in memory" right to SQL service
account or not. I know it must be used on x86 and is also recommended on x64
systems because they use AWE but on IA64 systems AWE is not used so I would
guess it's not necessary. Am I right?
Tom
"Tom" <mcseman@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uFRSdkGOGHA.2036@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> I'm planing to install SQL2000 IA64 on Itanium server with win2003-IA64.
> Not sure if I need to add "Lock pages in memory" right to SQL service
> account or not. I know it must be used on x86 and is also recommended on
> x64 systems because they use AWE but on IA64 systems AWE is not used so I
> would guess it's not necessary. Am I right?
>
No. My understanding is that "Lock pages in memory" is recommended on
64-bit SQL because it prevents the OS from paging out SQL Server memory
under pressure. Instead SQL Server will reduce its own memory usage when it
notices the system is under memory pressure.
David
sql

Location of database and log files

We are beginning a new implemenation of SQL2000 and considering the locations
of the database and log files. Am I correct that the Log files must reside on
the same server as SQL? Is performance effected at all if the database file
resides on another server?
Well - think what would happen if you lost the other server or even if you
lost network connection.
It's not a good idea.
"SeaBob" <SeaBob@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B5C2383C-D301-4096-8C74-9247CBEE6F75@.microsoft.com...
> We are beginning a new implemenation of SQL2000 and considering the
locations
> of the database and log files. Am I correct that the Log files must reside
on
> the same server as SQL? Is performance effected at all if the database
file
> resides on another server?
|||Data and log files can and should be split across multiple volumes or
devices on a server (either direct-attached or SAN storage) but those
devices must be attached to the server that is running SQL.
In certain very restricted circumstances and on certain hardware only NAS
storage is supported but this is definitely not recommended other than in
exceptional cases.
Installation of databases on a remote server is not supported, nor would it
be a desriable or sensible thing to do from the point of view of
architecture, performance, resilience or data-integrity.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP

Location of database and log files

We are beginning a new implemenation of SQL2000 and considering the locations
of the database and log files. Am I correct that the Log files must reside on
the same server as SQL? Is performance effected at all if the database file
resides on another server?Well - think what would happen if you lost the other server or even if you
lost network connection.
It's not a good idea. :(
"SeaBob" <SeaBob@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B5C2383C-D301-4096-8C74-9247CBEE6F75@.microsoft.com...
> We are beginning a new implemenation of SQL2000 and considering the
locations
> of the database and log files. Am I correct that the Log files must reside
on
> the same server as SQL? Is performance effected at all if the database
file
> resides on another server?|||Data and log files can and should be split across multiple volumes or
devices on a server (either direct-attached or SAN storage) but those
devices must be attached to the server that is running SQL.
In certain very restricted circumstances and on certain hardware only NAS
storage is supported but this is definitely not recommended other than in
exceptional cases.
Installation of databases on a remote server is not supported, nor would it
be a desriable or sensible thing to do from the point of view of
architecture, performance, resilience or data-integrity.
--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--

Local 2K5 server & Remote 2K server

Hi,
I was wondering what the issues I might face if I were to upgrade my
local SQL server to 2005 while my remote hosting server is still SQL
2000. Are there huge differences in formats of dbs, tables, jobs, etc
or is it largely UI & feature enhancements?
There isn't a great deal of interation between the servers, but I would
like to be able to, for instance, continue exporting a nightly copy
down to my local server and it being useable without too having to
re-jig things too much.
Thanks for any help you can lend,
Mick
Mick
I have installed on my pc sql server 2005 and linked/connected to sql server
2000 . By saying "nightly copy" dod you mean a backup of the database and
then restore in on local server. It is also possible.
<mick.hodgson@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162982342.259348.291440@.m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
> Hi,
> I was wondering what the issues I might face if I were to upgrade my
> local SQL server to 2005 while my remote hosting server is still SQL
> 2000. Are there huge differences in formats of dbs, tables, jobs, etc
> or is it largely UI & feature enhancements?
> There isn't a great deal of interation between the servers, but I would
> like to be able to, for instance, continue exporting a nightly copy
> down to my local server and it being useable without too having to
> re-jig things too much.
> Thanks for any help you can lend,
> Mick
>
|||Thanks Uri,
It is a nightly DTS Export which copies the database objects down to
the local server.
Do you have the full 2005 database engine on your PC or just the client
tools? I need to know i can develop on a SQL2005 db and it will work
when uploaded to the SQL2000 db.
Thanks again!
Mick
Uri Dimant wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Mick
> I have installed on my pc sql server 2005 and linked/connected to sql server
> 2000 . By saying "nightly copy" dod you mean a backup of the database and
> then restore in on local server. It is also possible.
>
> <mick.hodgson@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1162982342.259348.291440@.m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
|||Mick
> Do you have the full 2005 database engine on your PC or just the client
> tools? I need to know i can develop on a SQL2005 db and it will work
> when uploaded to the SQL2000 db.
Yes, I do. Using DTS/SSIS to move the data is a headache ,epsecially
between 2000/2005.
Most likely to backup database on the sql server 2000 and restore on sql
server 2005
<mick.hodgson@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162986618.135708.111690@.m7g2000cwm.googlegro ups.com...
> Thanks Uri,
> It is a nightly DTS Export which copies the database objects down to
> the local server.
> Do you have the full 2005 database engine on your PC or just the client
> tools? I need to know i can develop on a SQL2005 db and it will work
> when uploaded to the SQL2000 db.
> Thanks again!
> Mick
> Uri Dimant wrote:
>

Local 2K5 server & Remote 2K server

Hi,
I was wondering what the issues I might face if I were to upgrade my
local SQL server to 2005 while my remote hosting server is still SQL
2000. Are there huge differences in formats of dbs, tables, jobs, etc
or is it largely UI & feature enhancements?
There isn't a great deal of interation between the servers, but I would
like to be able to, for instance, continue exporting a nightly copy
down to my local server and it being useable without too having to
re-jig things too much.
Thanks for any help you can lend,
MickMick
I have installed on my pc sql server 2005 and linked/connected to sql server
2000 . By saying "nightly copy" dod you mean a backup of the database and
then restore in on local server. It is also possible.
<mick.hodgson@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162982342.259348.291440@.m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
> I was wondering what the issues I might face if I were to upgrade my
> local SQL server to 2005 while my remote hosting server is still SQL
> 2000. Are there huge differences in formats of dbs, tables, jobs, etc
> or is it largely UI & feature enhancements?
> There isn't a great deal of interation between the servers, but I would
> like to be able to, for instance, continue exporting a nightly copy
> down to my local server and it being useable without too having to
> re-jig things too much.
> Thanks for any help you can lend,
> Mick
>|||Thanks Uri,
It is a nightly DTS Export which copies the database objects down to
the local server.
Do you have the full 2005 database engine on your PC or just the client
tools? I need to know i can develop on a SQL2005 db and it will work
when uploaded to the SQL2000 db.
Thanks again!
Mick
Uri Dimant wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Mick
> I have installed on my pc sql server 2005 and linked/connected to sql serv
er
> 2000 . By saying "nightly copy" dod you mean a backup of the database and
> then restore in on local server. It is also possible.
>
> <mick.hodgson@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1162982342.259348.291440@.m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...|||Mick
> Do you have the full 2005 database engine on your PC or just the client
> tools? I need to know i can develop on a SQL2005 db and it will work
> when uploaded to the SQL2000 db.
Yes, I do. Using DTS/SSIS to move the data is a headache ,epsecially
between 2000/2005.
Most likely to backup database on the sql server 2000 and restore on sql
server 2005
<mick.hodgson@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162986618.135708.111690@.m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks Uri,
> It is a nightly DTS Export which copies the database objects down to
> the local server.
> Do you have the full 2005 database engine on your PC or just the client
> tools? I need to know i can develop on a SQL2005 db and it will work
> when uploaded to the SQL2000 db.
> Thanks again!
> Mick
> Uri Dimant wrote:
>