I'm running Outlook 2003 on a Win 2kServer machine.
When setting up a rule, what is the purpose of the "this machine only"
option? I did not notice this option in previous versions of Outlook. Why
would someone setup a rule without this option? What is the effect if this
option is not selected? Is it possible to share rules between different
machines?
For the "Stop processing more rules" - I'm assuming that this option is only
executed when the rule matches. For example, if rule #1 says "if sender is
abc@.xyz.com, move this message to xyz folder, and stop processing more
rules", and the message is not from that sender, shouldn't Outlook then move
on to rule #2? Also, if you get a hit on a rule with incoming message
number 1, shouldn't the rules start again from the top for message #2, or
does the "stop processing more rules" keep this from happening? I'm seeing
a situation where, when I get some new messages, it appears that the rules
don't immediately run. I can't tell if one of them is firing then the rules
stop processing the rest of the messages. If I go and click the
Send/Receive button, the rules will all run.
Thanks,
John Schneider
Sorry! I inadvertently posted this to the wrong newsgroup.
"John Schneider" <JohnDONTSPAMME.Schneider@.eWebITNOSPAM.Kom> wrote in
message news:eTTXupW0EHA.2676@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> I'm running Outlook 2003 on a Win 2kServer machine.
> When setting up a rule, what is the purpose of the "this machine only"
> option? I did not notice this option in previous versions of Outlook.
Why
> would someone setup a rule without this option? What is the effect if
this
> option is not selected? Is it possible to share rules between different
> machines?
> For the "Stop processing more rules" - I'm assuming that this option is
only
> executed when the rule matches. For example, if rule #1 says "if sender
is
> abc@.xyz.com, move this message to xyz folder, and stop processing more
> rules", and the message is not from that sender, shouldn't Outlook then
move
> on to rule #2? Also, if you get a hit on a rule with incoming message
> number 1, shouldn't the rules start again from the top for message #2, or
> does the "stop processing more rules" keep this from happening? I'm
seeing
> a situation where, when I get some new messages, it appears that the rules
> don't immediately run. I can't tell if one of them is firing then the
rules
> stop processing the rest of the messages. If I go and click the
> Send/Receive button, the rules will all run.
> Thanks,
> John Schneider
>
Showing posts with label setting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label setting. Show all posts
Friday, March 16, 2012
Saturday, February 25, 2012
"Maximum Memory" setting in SQL Server properties
I have inherrited a sql 2k standard server running Win2K standard Ed with 3.5
gb RAM (!?!) on a raid 5 (!?!). The server is dedicated for SQL only and has
4 CPUs.
The "maximum memory" setting is set to 3500 MB and SQL is using around 1.75
GB of physical ram and 1.75 GB of Virtual Memory (total:3500 MB). Any inputs
on if the "maximum memory" setting should be left to 3500mb or should it be
reduced to 2000 MB so SQL uses only the physical ram? I am aware that the
transaction log should not be on a raid 5 for performance reasons and I know
that SQL 2k Standard + Win2k standard will not let me use more than 2 GB of
RAM for SQL. The average Physical Disk (_total) activity is 56% which is
considered very high.
Any inputs would be appreciated on this setting while we order the SQL2K
Enterprise on Win2K Advanced Ed. and add an extra controller and 15 RPM
drives...Hi
SQL Server Standard Edition is limited to 2GB of RAM. If you have more, it
will not use it. You need to install SQL Server Expertise Edition to use
more RAM (and set /3GB switch in your boot.ini). SQL Server knows it must
leave space for the OS, so the .25 is left for the OS in the sub 2GB memory
area.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E5260014-1A9E-47AF-9247-0F8F5B25F8DF@.microsoft.com...
> I have inherrited a sql 2k standard server running Win2K standard Ed with
3.5
> gb RAM (!?!) on a raid 5 (!?!). The server is dedicated for SQL only and
has
> 4 CPUs.
> The "maximum memory" setting is set to 3500 MB and SQL is using around
1.75
> GB of physical ram and 1.75 GB of Virtual Memory (total:3500 MB). Any
inputs
> on if the "maximum memory" setting should be left to 3500mb or should it
be
> reduced to 2000 MB so SQL uses only the physical ram? I am aware that the
> transaction log should not be on a raid 5 for performance reasons and I
know
> that SQL 2k Standard + Win2k standard will not let me use more than 2 GB
of
> RAM for SQL. The average Physical Disk (_total) activity is 56% which is
> considered very high.
> Any inputs would be appreciated on this setting while we order the SQL2K
> Enterprise on Win2K Advanced Ed. and add an extra controller and 15 RPM
> drives...
>|||Thanks for your reply.
I fully understand what you are saying (as it was also statement in my
request). I am interested to know about he virtual memory portion of it.
Thanks again
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> SQL Server Standard Edition is limited to 2GB of RAM. If you have more, it
> will not use it. You need to install SQL Server Expertise Edition to use
> more RAM (and set /3GB switch in your boot.ini). SQL Server knows it must
> leave space for the OS, so the .25 is left for the OS in the sub 2GB memory
> area.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E5260014-1A9E-47AF-9247-0F8F5B25F8DF@.microsoft.com...
> > I have inherrited a sql 2k standard server running Win2K standard Ed with
> 3.5
> > gb RAM (!?!) on a raid 5 (!?!). The server is dedicated for SQL only and
> has
> > 4 CPUs.
> >
> > The "maximum memory" setting is set to 3500 MB and SQL is using around
> 1.75
> > GB of physical ram and 1.75 GB of Virtual Memory (total:3500 MB). Any
> inputs
> > on if the "maximum memory" setting should be left to 3500mb or should it
> be
> > reduced to 2000 MB so SQL uses only the physical ram? I am aware that the
> > transaction log should not be on a raid 5 for performance reasons and I
> know
> > that SQL 2k Standard + Win2k standard will not let me use more than 2 GB
> of
> > RAM for SQL. The average Physical Disk (_total) activity is 56% which is
> > considered very high.
> >
> > Any inputs would be appreciated on this setting while we order the SQL2K
> > Enterprise on Win2K Advanced Ed. and add an extra controller and 15 RPM
> > drives...
> >
> >
>
>|||"Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1D46A3CC-2D84-4FAA-AA97-24DDA8A27443@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks for your reply.
> I fully understand what you are saying (as it was also statement in my
> request). I am interested to know about he virtual memory portion of it.
From the application's point of view physical and virtual memory are just
the same. You must not sum them up. Physical mem in TaskMGR shows the
portion of the application that's actually in main memory while virtual
mem shows the total allocated size. Your case is optimal with regard to
swapping: the process is completely in physical mem.
As Mike said, your SQL Server will never use more than what it uses at the
moment unless you install enterprise edition.
You should use perfmon to determine what causes the high disk activity.
Regards
robert
> Thanks again
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > SQL Server Standard Edition is limited to 2GB of RAM. If you have
more, it
> > will not use it. You need to install SQL Server Expertise Edition to
use
> > more RAM (and set /3GB switch in your boot.ini). SQL Server knows it
must
> > leave space for the OS, so the .25 is left for the OS in the sub 2GB
memory
> > area.
> >
> > Regards
> > --
> > Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> > Zurich, Switzerland
> >
> > IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> >
> > MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> >
> > Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> >
> > "Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:E5260014-1A9E-47AF-9247-0F8F5B25F8DF@.microsoft.com...
> > > I have inherrited a sql 2k standard server running Win2K standard Ed
with
> > 3.5
> > > gb RAM (!?!) on a raid 5 (!?!). The server is dedicated for SQL
only and
> > has
> > > 4 CPUs.
> > >
> > > The "maximum memory" setting is set to 3500 MB and SQL is using
around
> > 1.75
> > > GB of physical ram and 1.75 GB of Virtual Memory (total:3500 MB).
Any
> > inputs
> > > on if the "maximum memory" setting should be left to 3500mb or
should it
> > be
> > > reduced to 2000 MB so SQL uses only the physical ram? I am aware
that the
> > > transaction log should not be on a raid 5 for performance reasons
and I
> > know
> > > that SQL 2k Standard + Win2k standard will not let me use more than
2 GB
> > of
> > > RAM for SQL. The average Physical Disk (_total) activity is 56%
which is
> > > considered very high.
> > >
> > > Any inputs would be appreciated on this setting while we order the
SQL2K
> > > Enterprise on Win2K Advanced Ed. and add an extra controller and 15
RPM
> > > drives...
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
gb RAM (!?!) on a raid 5 (!?!). The server is dedicated for SQL only and has
4 CPUs.
The "maximum memory" setting is set to 3500 MB and SQL is using around 1.75
GB of physical ram and 1.75 GB of Virtual Memory (total:3500 MB). Any inputs
on if the "maximum memory" setting should be left to 3500mb or should it be
reduced to 2000 MB so SQL uses only the physical ram? I am aware that the
transaction log should not be on a raid 5 for performance reasons and I know
that SQL 2k Standard + Win2k standard will not let me use more than 2 GB of
RAM for SQL. The average Physical Disk (_total) activity is 56% which is
considered very high.
Any inputs would be appreciated on this setting while we order the SQL2K
Enterprise on Win2K Advanced Ed. and add an extra controller and 15 RPM
drives...Hi
SQL Server Standard Edition is limited to 2GB of RAM. If you have more, it
will not use it. You need to install SQL Server Expertise Edition to use
more RAM (and set /3GB switch in your boot.ini). SQL Server knows it must
leave space for the OS, so the .25 is left for the OS in the sub 2GB memory
area.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E5260014-1A9E-47AF-9247-0F8F5B25F8DF@.microsoft.com...
> I have inherrited a sql 2k standard server running Win2K standard Ed with
3.5
> gb RAM (!?!) on a raid 5 (!?!). The server is dedicated for SQL only and
has
> 4 CPUs.
> The "maximum memory" setting is set to 3500 MB and SQL is using around
1.75
> GB of physical ram and 1.75 GB of Virtual Memory (total:3500 MB). Any
inputs
> on if the "maximum memory" setting should be left to 3500mb or should it
be
> reduced to 2000 MB so SQL uses only the physical ram? I am aware that the
> transaction log should not be on a raid 5 for performance reasons and I
know
> that SQL 2k Standard + Win2k standard will not let me use more than 2 GB
of
> RAM for SQL. The average Physical Disk (_total) activity is 56% which is
> considered very high.
> Any inputs would be appreciated on this setting while we order the SQL2K
> Enterprise on Win2K Advanced Ed. and add an extra controller and 15 RPM
> drives...
>|||Thanks for your reply.
I fully understand what you are saying (as it was also statement in my
request). I am interested to know about he virtual memory portion of it.
Thanks again
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> SQL Server Standard Edition is limited to 2GB of RAM. If you have more, it
> will not use it. You need to install SQL Server Expertise Edition to use
> more RAM (and set /3GB switch in your boot.ini). SQL Server knows it must
> leave space for the OS, so the .25 is left for the OS in the sub 2GB memory
> area.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E5260014-1A9E-47AF-9247-0F8F5B25F8DF@.microsoft.com...
> > I have inherrited a sql 2k standard server running Win2K standard Ed with
> 3.5
> > gb RAM (!?!) on a raid 5 (!?!). The server is dedicated for SQL only and
> has
> > 4 CPUs.
> >
> > The "maximum memory" setting is set to 3500 MB and SQL is using around
> 1.75
> > GB of physical ram and 1.75 GB of Virtual Memory (total:3500 MB). Any
> inputs
> > on if the "maximum memory" setting should be left to 3500mb or should it
> be
> > reduced to 2000 MB so SQL uses only the physical ram? I am aware that the
> > transaction log should not be on a raid 5 for performance reasons and I
> know
> > that SQL 2k Standard + Win2k standard will not let me use more than 2 GB
> of
> > RAM for SQL. The average Physical Disk (_total) activity is 56% which is
> > considered very high.
> >
> > Any inputs would be appreciated on this setting while we order the SQL2K
> > Enterprise on Win2K Advanced Ed. and add an extra controller and 15 RPM
> > drives...
> >
> >
>
>|||"Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1D46A3CC-2D84-4FAA-AA97-24DDA8A27443@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks for your reply.
> I fully understand what you are saying (as it was also statement in my
> request). I am interested to know about he virtual memory portion of it.
From the application's point of view physical and virtual memory are just
the same. You must not sum them up. Physical mem in TaskMGR shows the
portion of the application that's actually in main memory while virtual
mem shows the total allocated size. Your case is optimal with regard to
swapping: the process is completely in physical mem.
As Mike said, your SQL Server will never use more than what it uses at the
moment unless you install enterprise edition.
You should use perfmon to determine what causes the high disk activity.
Regards
robert
> Thanks again
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > SQL Server Standard Edition is limited to 2GB of RAM. If you have
more, it
> > will not use it. You need to install SQL Server Expertise Edition to
use
> > more RAM (and set /3GB switch in your boot.ini). SQL Server knows it
must
> > leave space for the OS, so the .25 is left for the OS in the sub 2GB
memory
> > area.
> >
> > Regards
> > --
> > Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> > Zurich, Switzerland
> >
> > IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> >
> > MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> >
> > Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> >
> > "Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:E5260014-1A9E-47AF-9247-0F8F5B25F8DF@.microsoft.com...
> > > I have inherrited a sql 2k standard server running Win2K standard Ed
with
> > 3.5
> > > gb RAM (!?!) on a raid 5 (!?!). The server is dedicated for SQL
only and
> > has
> > > 4 CPUs.
> > >
> > > The "maximum memory" setting is set to 3500 MB and SQL is using
around
> > 1.75
> > > GB of physical ram and 1.75 GB of Virtual Memory (total:3500 MB).
Any
> > inputs
> > > on if the "maximum memory" setting should be left to 3500mb or
should it
> > be
> > > reduced to 2000 MB so SQL uses only the physical ram? I am aware
that the
> > > transaction log should not be on a raid 5 for performance reasons
and I
> > know
> > > that SQL 2k Standard + Win2k standard will not let me use more than
2 GB
> > of
> > > RAM for SQL. The average Physical Disk (_total) activity is 56%
which is
> > > considered very high.
> > >
> > > Any inputs would be appreciated on this setting while we order the
SQL2K
> > > Enterprise on Win2K Advanced Ed. and add an extra controller and 15
RPM
> > > drives...
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
"Maximum Memory" setting in SQL Server properties
I have inherrited a sql 2k standard server running Win2K standard Ed with 3.5
gb RAM (!?!) on a raid 5 (!?!). The server is dedicated for SQL only and has
4 CPUs.
The "maximum memory" setting is set to 3500 MB and SQL is using around 1.75
GB of physical ram and 1.75 GB of Virtual Memory (total:3500 MB). Any inputs
on if the "maximum memory" setting should be left to 3500mb or should it be
reduced to 2000 MB so SQL uses only the physical ram? I am aware that the
transaction log should not be on a raid 5 for performance reasons and I know
that SQL 2k Standard + Win2k standard will not let me use more than 2 GB of
RAM for SQL. The average Physical Disk (_total) activity is 56% which is
considered very high.
Any inputs would be appreciated on this setting while we order the SQL2K
Enterprise on Win2K Advanced Ed. and add an extra controller and 15 RPM
drives...
Hi
SQL Server Standard Edition is limited to 2GB of RAM. If you have more, it
will not use it. You need to install SQL Server Expertise Edition to use
more RAM (and set /3GB switch in your boot.ini). SQL Server knows it must
leave space for the OS, so the .25 is left for the OS in the sub 2GB memory
area.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E5260014-1A9E-47AF-9247-0F8F5B25F8DF@.microsoft.com...
> I have inherrited a sql 2k standard server running Win2K standard Ed with
3.5
> gb RAM (!?!) on a raid 5 (!?!). The server is dedicated for SQL only and
has
> 4 CPUs.
> The "maximum memory" setting is set to 3500 MB and SQL is using around
1.75
> GB of physical ram and 1.75 GB of Virtual Memory (total:3500 MB). Any
inputs
> on if the "maximum memory" setting should be left to 3500mb or should it
be
> reduced to 2000 MB so SQL uses only the physical ram? I am aware that the
> transaction log should not be on a raid 5 for performance reasons and I
know
> that SQL 2k Standard + Win2k standard will not let me use more than 2 GB
of
> RAM for SQL. The average Physical Disk (_total) activity is 56% which is
> considered very high.
> Any inputs would be appreciated on this setting while we order the SQL2K
> Enterprise on Win2K Advanced Ed. and add an extra controller and 15 RPM
> drives...
>
|||Thanks for your reply.
I fully understand what you are saying (as it was also statement in my
request). I am interested to know about he virtual memory portion of it.
Thanks again
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> SQL Server Standard Edition is limited to 2GB of RAM. If you have more, it
> will not use it. You need to install SQL Server Expertise Edition to use
> more RAM (and set /3GB switch in your boot.ini). SQL Server knows it must
> leave space for the OS, so the .25 is left for the OS in the sub 2GB memory
> area.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E5260014-1A9E-47AF-9247-0F8F5B25F8DF@.microsoft.com...
> 3.5
> has
> 1.75
> inputs
> be
> know
> of
>
>
|||"Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1D46A3CC-2D84-4FAA-AA97-24DDA8A27443@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks for your reply.
> I fully understand what you are saying (as it was also statement in my
> request). I am interested to know about he virtual memory portion of it.
From the application's point of view physical and virtual memory are just
the same. You must not sum them up. Physical mem in TaskMGR shows the
portion of the application that's actually in main memory while virtual
mem shows the total allocated size. Your case is optimal with regard to
swapping: the process is completely in physical mem.
As Mike said, your SQL Server will never use more than what it uses at the
moment unless you install enterprise edition.
You should use perfmon to determine what causes the high disk activity.
Regards
robert
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks again
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
more, it[vbcol=seagreen]
use[vbcol=seagreen]
must[vbcol=seagreen]
memory[vbcol=seagreen]
with[vbcol=seagreen]
only and[vbcol=seagreen]
around[vbcol=seagreen]
Any[vbcol=seagreen]
should it[vbcol=seagreen]
that the[vbcol=seagreen]
and I[vbcol=seagreen]
2 GB[vbcol=seagreen]
which is[vbcol=seagreen]
SQL2K[vbcol=seagreen]
RPM[vbcol=seagreen]
gb RAM (!?!) on a raid 5 (!?!). The server is dedicated for SQL only and has
4 CPUs.
The "maximum memory" setting is set to 3500 MB and SQL is using around 1.75
GB of physical ram and 1.75 GB of Virtual Memory (total:3500 MB). Any inputs
on if the "maximum memory" setting should be left to 3500mb or should it be
reduced to 2000 MB so SQL uses only the physical ram? I am aware that the
transaction log should not be on a raid 5 for performance reasons and I know
that SQL 2k Standard + Win2k standard will not let me use more than 2 GB of
RAM for SQL. The average Physical Disk (_total) activity is 56% which is
considered very high.
Any inputs would be appreciated on this setting while we order the SQL2K
Enterprise on Win2K Advanced Ed. and add an extra controller and 15 RPM
drives...
Hi
SQL Server Standard Edition is limited to 2GB of RAM. If you have more, it
will not use it. You need to install SQL Server Expertise Edition to use
more RAM (and set /3GB switch in your boot.ini). SQL Server knows it must
leave space for the OS, so the .25 is left for the OS in the sub 2GB memory
area.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E5260014-1A9E-47AF-9247-0F8F5B25F8DF@.microsoft.com...
> I have inherrited a sql 2k standard server running Win2K standard Ed with
3.5
> gb RAM (!?!) on a raid 5 (!?!). The server is dedicated for SQL only and
has
> 4 CPUs.
> The "maximum memory" setting is set to 3500 MB and SQL is using around
1.75
> GB of physical ram and 1.75 GB of Virtual Memory (total:3500 MB). Any
inputs
> on if the "maximum memory" setting should be left to 3500mb or should it
be
> reduced to 2000 MB so SQL uses only the physical ram? I am aware that the
> transaction log should not be on a raid 5 for performance reasons and I
know
> that SQL 2k Standard + Win2k standard will not let me use more than 2 GB
of
> RAM for SQL. The average Physical Disk (_total) activity is 56% which is
> considered very high.
> Any inputs would be appreciated on this setting while we order the SQL2K
> Enterprise on Win2K Advanced Ed. and add an extra controller and 15 RPM
> drives...
>
|||Thanks for your reply.
I fully understand what you are saying (as it was also statement in my
request). I am interested to know about he virtual memory portion of it.
Thanks again
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> SQL Server Standard Edition is limited to 2GB of RAM. If you have more, it
> will not use it. You need to install SQL Server Expertise Edition to use
> more RAM (and set /3GB switch in your boot.ini). SQL Server knows it must
> leave space for the OS, so the .25 is left for the OS in the sub 2GB memory
> area.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E5260014-1A9E-47AF-9247-0F8F5B25F8DF@.microsoft.com...
> 3.5
> has
> 1.75
> inputs
> be
> know
> of
>
>
|||"Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1D46A3CC-2D84-4FAA-AA97-24DDA8A27443@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks for your reply.
> I fully understand what you are saying (as it was also statement in my
> request). I am interested to know about he virtual memory portion of it.
From the application's point of view physical and virtual memory are just
the same. You must not sum them up. Physical mem in TaskMGR shows the
portion of the application that's actually in main memory while virtual
mem shows the total allocated size. Your case is optimal with regard to
swapping: the process is completely in physical mem.
As Mike said, your SQL Server will never use more than what it uses at the
moment unless you install enterprise edition.
You should use perfmon to determine what causes the high disk activity.
Regards
robert
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks again
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
more, it[vbcol=seagreen]
use[vbcol=seagreen]
must[vbcol=seagreen]
memory[vbcol=seagreen]
with[vbcol=seagreen]
only and[vbcol=seagreen]
around[vbcol=seagreen]
Any[vbcol=seagreen]
should it[vbcol=seagreen]
that the[vbcol=seagreen]
and I[vbcol=seagreen]
2 GB[vbcol=seagreen]
which is[vbcol=seagreen]
SQL2K[vbcol=seagreen]
RPM[vbcol=seagreen]
"Maximum Memory" setting in SQL Server properties
I have inherrited a sql 2k standard server running Win2K standard Ed with 3.
5
gb RAM (!?!) on a raid 5 (!?!). The server is dedicated for SQL only and ha
s
4 CPUs.
The "maximum memory" setting is set to 3500 MB and SQL is using around 1.75
GB of physical ram and 1.75 GB of Virtual Memory (total:3500 MB). Any inputs
on if the "maximum memory" setting should be left to 3500mb or should it be
reduced to 2000 MB so SQL uses only the physical ram? I am aware that the
transaction log should not be on a raid 5 for performance reasons and I know
that SQL 2k Standard + Win2k standard will not let me use more than 2 GB of
RAM for SQL. The average Physical Disk (_total) activity is 56% which is
considered very high.
Any inputs would be appreciated on this setting while we order the SQL2K
Enterprise on Win2K Advanced Ed. and add an extra controller and 15 RPM
drives...Hi
SQL Server Standard Edition is limited to 2GB of RAM. If you have more, it
will not use it. You need to install SQL Server Expertise Edition to use
more RAM (and set /3GB switch in your boot.ini). SQL Server knows it must
leave space for the OS, so the .25 is left for the OS in the sub 2GB memory
area.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E5260014-1A9E-47AF-9247-0F8F5B25F8DF@.microsoft.com...
> I have inherrited a sql 2k standard server running Win2K standard Ed with
3.5
> gb RAM (!?!) on a raid 5 (!?!). The server is dedicated for SQL only and
has
> 4 CPUs.
> The "maximum memory" setting is set to 3500 MB and SQL is using around
1.75
> GB of physical ram and 1.75 GB of Virtual Memory (total:3500 MB). Any
inputs
> on if the "maximum memory" setting should be left to 3500mb or should it
be
> reduced to 2000 MB so SQL uses only the physical ram? I am aware that the
> transaction log should not be on a raid 5 for performance reasons and I
know
> that SQL 2k Standard + Win2k standard will not let me use more than 2 GB
of
> RAM for SQL. The average Physical Disk (_total) activity is 56% which is
> considered very high.
> Any inputs would be appreciated on this setting while we order the SQL2K
> Enterprise on Win2K Advanced Ed. and add an extra controller and 15 RPM
> drives...
>|||Thanks for your reply.
I fully understand what you are saying (as it was also statement in my
request). I am interested to know about he virtual memory portion of it.
Thanks again
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> SQL Server Standard Edition is limited to 2GB of RAM. If you have more, it
> will not use it. You need to install SQL Server Expertise Edition to use
> more RAM (and set /3GB switch in your boot.ini). SQL Server knows it must
> leave space for the OS, so the .25 is left for the OS in the sub 2GB memor
y
> area.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E5260014-1A9E-47AF-9247-0F8F5B25F8DF@.microsoft.com...
> 3.5
> has
> 1.75
> inputs
> be
> know
> of
>
>|||"Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1D46A3CC-2D84-4FAA-AA97-24DDA8A27443@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks for your reply.
> I fully understand what you are saying (as it was also statement in my
> request). I am interested to know about he virtual memory portion of it.
From the application's point of view physical and virtual memory are just
the same. You must not sum them up. Physical mem in TaskMGR shows the
portion of the application that's actually in main memory while virtual
mem shows the total allocated size. Your case is optimal with regard to
swapping: the process is completely in physical mem.
As Mike said, your SQL Server will never use more than what it uses at the
moment unless you install enterprise edition.
You should use perfmon to determine what causes the high disk activity.
Regards
robert
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks again
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
>
more, it[vbcol=seagreen]
use[vbcol=seagreen]
must[vbcol=seagreen]
memory[vbcol=seagreen]
with[vbcol=seagreen]
only and[vbcol=seagreen]
around[vbcol=seagreen]
Any[vbcol=seagreen]
should it[vbcol=seagreen]
that the[vbcol=seagreen]
and I[vbcol=seagreen]
2 GB[vbcol=seagreen]
which is[vbcol=seagreen]
SQL2K[vbcol=seagreen]
RPM[vbcol=seagreen]
5
gb RAM (!?!) on a raid 5 (!?!). The server is dedicated for SQL only and ha
s
4 CPUs.
The "maximum memory" setting is set to 3500 MB and SQL is using around 1.75
GB of physical ram and 1.75 GB of Virtual Memory (total:3500 MB). Any inputs
on if the "maximum memory" setting should be left to 3500mb or should it be
reduced to 2000 MB so SQL uses only the physical ram? I am aware that the
transaction log should not be on a raid 5 for performance reasons and I know
that SQL 2k Standard + Win2k standard will not let me use more than 2 GB of
RAM for SQL. The average Physical Disk (_total) activity is 56% which is
considered very high.
Any inputs would be appreciated on this setting while we order the SQL2K
Enterprise on Win2K Advanced Ed. and add an extra controller and 15 RPM
drives...Hi
SQL Server Standard Edition is limited to 2GB of RAM. If you have more, it
will not use it. You need to install SQL Server Expertise Edition to use
more RAM (and set /3GB switch in your boot.ini). SQL Server knows it must
leave space for the OS, so the .25 is left for the OS in the sub 2GB memory
area.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E5260014-1A9E-47AF-9247-0F8F5B25F8DF@.microsoft.com...
> I have inherrited a sql 2k standard server running Win2K standard Ed with
3.5
> gb RAM (!?!) on a raid 5 (!?!). The server is dedicated for SQL only and
has
> 4 CPUs.
> The "maximum memory" setting is set to 3500 MB and SQL is using around
1.75
> GB of physical ram and 1.75 GB of Virtual Memory (total:3500 MB). Any
inputs
> on if the "maximum memory" setting should be left to 3500mb or should it
be
> reduced to 2000 MB so SQL uses only the physical ram? I am aware that the
> transaction log should not be on a raid 5 for performance reasons and I
know
> that SQL 2k Standard + Win2k standard will not let me use more than 2 GB
of
> RAM for SQL. The average Physical Disk (_total) activity is 56% which is
> considered very high.
> Any inputs would be appreciated on this setting while we order the SQL2K
> Enterprise on Win2K Advanced Ed. and add an extra controller and 15 RPM
> drives...
>|||Thanks for your reply.
I fully understand what you are saying (as it was also statement in my
request). I am interested to know about he virtual memory portion of it.
Thanks again
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> SQL Server Standard Edition is limited to 2GB of RAM. If you have more, it
> will not use it. You need to install SQL Server Expertise Edition to use
> more RAM (and set /3GB switch in your boot.ini). SQL Server knows it must
> leave space for the OS, so the .25 is left for the OS in the sub 2GB memor
y
> area.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E5260014-1A9E-47AF-9247-0F8F5B25F8DF@.microsoft.com...
> 3.5
> has
> 1.75
> inputs
> be
> know
> of
>
>|||"Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1D46A3CC-2D84-4FAA-AA97-24DDA8A27443@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks for your reply.
> I fully understand what you are saying (as it was also statement in my
> request). I am interested to know about he virtual memory portion of it.
From the application's point of view physical and virtual memory are just
the same. You must not sum them up. Physical mem in TaskMGR shows the
portion of the application that's actually in main memory while virtual
mem shows the total allocated size. Your case is optimal with regard to
swapping: the process is completely in physical mem.
As Mike said, your SQL Server will never use more than what it uses at the
moment unless you install enterprise edition.
You should use perfmon to determine what causes the high disk activity.
Regards
robert
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks again
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
>
more, it[vbcol=seagreen]
use[vbcol=seagreen]
must[vbcol=seagreen]
memory[vbcol=seagreen]
with[vbcol=seagreen]
only and[vbcol=seagreen]
around[vbcol=seagreen]
Any[vbcol=seagreen]
should it[vbcol=seagreen]
that the[vbcol=seagreen]
and I[vbcol=seagreen]
2 GB[vbcol=seagreen]
which is[vbcol=seagreen]
SQL2K[vbcol=seagreen]
RPM[vbcol=seagreen]
Saturday, February 11, 2012
"Could not continue scan with NOLOCK due to data" error during Replication Synchronization
I am receiving this message "Agent message code 601. Could not
continue scan with NOLOCK due to data" during the initial
synchronization after setting up a subscriber.
It is a straightforward tarnsactional replication of maybe twenty
tables.
I have never seen that message in the context of replication.
I think the 601 error looks to be slightly misleading as the previous
message in the log looks to indcate a successful snapshot
synchronization:
Delivered snapshot from the 'unc\serverX\20070208105750\' sub-folder
in 519625 milliseconds.
I have tried setting up the subscriber and publisher mulitple times
from scratch but always run into this message. Also all of the
replicated tables have multiple indexes and this is on a SQL Server
2005 SP1 Mirrored database. I have ran checkdb on database with no
problems found. This is halting the database from being replicated -
anyone know a way around this?
On Feb 8, 5:14 pm, "Calculated" <sarahjco...@.gmail.com> wrote:
> I am receiving this message "Agent message code 601.Could notcontinue scan with NOLOCK due to data"duringthe initialsynchronizationafter setting up a subscriber.
> It is a straightforward tarnsactionalreplicationof maybe twenty
> tables.
> I have never seen that message in the context ofreplication.
> I think the 601errorlooks to be slightly misleading as the previous
> message in the log looks to indcate a successful snapshotsynchronization:
> Delivered snapshot from the 'unc\serverX\20070208105750\' sub-folder
> in 519625 milliseconds.
> I have tried setting up the subscriber and publisher mulitple times
> from scratch but always run into this message. Also all of the
> replicated tables have multiple indexes and this is on a SQL Server
> 2005 SP1 Mirrored database. I have ran checkdb on database with no
> problems found. This is halting the database from being replicated -
> anyone know a way around this?
Resolved this - if anyone else has this problem try adding a table at
a time to the publication article and re-initializing the subscription
until you identify the problem table. Then either filter the table to
break down into smaller chunks (largest table in db was causing
problem in my case) or play around with the copy clustered index and
copy nonclustered index options on the specific table.
continue scan with NOLOCK due to data" during the initial
synchronization after setting up a subscriber.
It is a straightforward tarnsactional replication of maybe twenty
tables.
I have never seen that message in the context of replication.
I think the 601 error looks to be slightly misleading as the previous
message in the log looks to indcate a successful snapshot
synchronization:
Delivered snapshot from the 'unc\serverX\20070208105750\' sub-folder
in 519625 milliseconds.
I have tried setting up the subscriber and publisher mulitple times
from scratch but always run into this message. Also all of the
replicated tables have multiple indexes and this is on a SQL Server
2005 SP1 Mirrored database. I have ran checkdb on database with no
problems found. This is halting the database from being replicated -
anyone know a way around this?
On Feb 8, 5:14 pm, "Calculated" <sarahjco...@.gmail.com> wrote:
> I am receiving this message "Agent message code 601.Could notcontinue scan with NOLOCK due to data"duringthe initialsynchronizationafter setting up a subscriber.
> It is a straightforward tarnsactionalreplicationof maybe twenty
> tables.
> I have never seen that message in the context ofreplication.
> I think the 601errorlooks to be slightly misleading as the previous
> message in the log looks to indcate a successful snapshotsynchronization:
> Delivered snapshot from the 'unc\serverX\20070208105750\' sub-folder
> in 519625 milliseconds.
> I have tried setting up the subscriber and publisher mulitple times
> from scratch but always run into this message. Also all of the
> replicated tables have multiple indexes and this is on a SQL Server
> 2005 SP1 Mirrored database. I have ran checkdb on database with no
> problems found. This is halting the database from being replicated -
> anyone know a way around this?
Resolved this - if anyone else has this problem try adding a table at
a time to the publication article and re-initializing the subscription
until you identify the problem table. Then either filter the table to
break down into smaller chunks (largest table in db was causing
problem in my case) or play around with the copy clustered index and
copy nonclustered index options on the specific table.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
