 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
SQL Server Forum / DB Engine / SQL Server / July 2008Enabling AWE SQL Server 2005 64-bit
Hi All, I'm trying to enable AWE to access more physical memory for SQL Server 2005 64-bit. I am not seeing the "Address Windowing Extensions enabled" message in the SQL server logs when I restart services. I am following SQL documentation to do this but am having no luck. I have done this with SQL 2000 32-bit no worries. Are things different for 64-bit SQL 2005? Please provide advice. Thanks in advanced, Cheers, Phil Hi Phil AWE is not needed with 64-bit. AWE is only needed because a 32-bit address field cannot access any memory address higher than 4GB. With 64 bits for addressing, you can directly address all the memory on your machine.  SignatureHTH Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP www.InsideSQLServer.com http://sqlblog.com > Hi All, > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Cheers, > Phil Thanks Kalen, that's great. So are you saying I do nothing? eg don't enable AWE in SQL?, don't add PAE to boot.ini don't configure min and max server memory in SQL config? Just let SQL 2005 64bit do it's own thing? I'm using "Windows Server 2003 standard 64bit" and "SQL Server 2005 Standard edition 64bit". 8GB of ram on server, was wanting to reserver 6 GB for SQL. Thanks again. Cheers, Phil > Hi Phil > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Cheers, > > Phil configuring min / max is good. I'm using it on all my servers. AWE will not offer any performance advantage. PAE mean nothing for an x64 server. > Thanks Kalen, that's great. > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >> > Cheers, >> > Phil Its a good idea to set lock pages in memory for the service account too. It would be bad to page out that much memory. SignatureJason Massie www: http://statisticsio.com rss: http://statisticsio.com/Home/tabid/36/rssid/1/Default.aspx > Thanks Kalen, that's great. > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >> > Cheers, >> > Phil No go on this one. Lock Pages in Memory on has effect for SQL Server Enterprise Edition, IIRC. SignatureKevin G. Boles TheSQLGuru Indicium Resources, Inc. > Its a good idea to set lock pages in memory for the service account too. > It would be bad to page out that much memory. [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >>> > Cheers, >>> > Phil Correct - you need to do nothing but set max/min memory. I think it is best practice to set at least some spread between max and min. Assuming there isn't anything else running on the box, 2GB left for the OS should be sufficient. SignatureKevin G. Boles TheSQLGuru Indicium Resources, Inc. > Thanks Kalen, that's great. > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >> > Cheers, >> > Phil I saw a question like this: "If we do not need AWE in x64 then why it is still exists?" And I saw the answer for this question which was about AWE is not just for address extention in x86 systems and it has other purposes too however that was too technical and I didn't understand indeed. I hope I'll manage to find a simplified answer for this one day =) So what would your answer be to this question Kalen? SignatureEkrem Önsoy > Hi Phil > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> Cheers, >> Phil Ekrem My answer to the question "Why does AWE exist in x64" would be that MS just didn't remove it from the metadata and the GUI because it is still needed for 32-bit. Are there other config options or GUI properties that are different between 32 and 64 bit? I do not have a 64-bit system to test this out on. The only issue with AWE that might apply here, that I am aware of, is that with AWE enabled SQL Server will commit your max (or target) memory immediately on startup and not wait until the system needs to use that much. Again, I do not have a 64 bit machine, so anything I say would just be based on things I have read. SignatureHTH Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP www.InsideSQLServer.com http://sqlblog.com >I saw a question like this: "If we do not need AWE in x64 then why it is >still exists?" [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >>> Cheers, >>> Phil Hi Kalen, Thanks for sharing your thought with us. Well, the question "Why does AWE exist in x64" goes to the x64 version of SQL Server. As x64 version and x86 versions are different, this option could be removed from the x64 version' s SSMS. By the way I don't know if there is any difference between the x86 and x64' s SSMS' ? Or you might be right, SSMS is the same SSMS in all systems. If this is the situation, then the question is going to be kinda answered. However, if SSMSs are different in different architectures then I'd love to learn why AWE option is still there, in x64's SSMS. Unfortunately I don't have a x64 system either. SignatureEkrem Önsoy > Ekrem > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >>>> Cheers, >>>> Phil Hi all, Although you can't enable AWE directly in the x64 version if you give the service account the "lock pages in memory" advanced user right in windows SQL Server will use AWE to access the memory. The only reason for doing this is if you see a message like "a large portion of SQL Server memory has been paged out" in the SQL Server error log. Enabling this means that windows can't page out SQL Server's memory (just like AWE on 32-bit) and is a fairly recent Microsoft best practice but guidance has just changed over the last few days. The best practice now is only to enable it to if you see the "paged out" error message in the log. Regards, Christian Bolton - Database Architect http://coeo.com - The SQL Server Experts http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/christian I found an answer to this question in the BOL. In a note, they say the following: - Note that the sp_configure awe enabled option is present on 64-bit SQL Server, but it is ignored. It is subject to removal in future releases or service packs of 64-bit SQL Server. Link: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms187499.aspx For reference. SignatureEkrem Önsoy > Hi Kalen, > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Phil I am very interested in this discussion. I would like to learn from you all about the guideline for min/max memory configure for multiple instances. My server is SQL2005 64-bit, with 36 GB memory and 16 named instances. Any suggestions or best practices to follow? Thank you, Vivien Xing Hi Christian, can you please point to me the link regarding this? "... a fairly recent Microsoft best practice but guidance has just changed over the last few days. The best practice now is only to enable it to if you see the "paged out" error message in the log." Thank you, Vivien Xing In terms of best practice, the first question may be, "do you really need to have 16 named instances on that machine?" It's generally not a good idea to have that many instances unless you have a specific reason for that. Linchi > I am very interested in this discussion. I would like to learn from you all about the guideline for min/max memory configure for multiple instances. My server is SQL2005 64-bit, with 36 GB memory and 16 named instances. Any suggestions or best practices to follow? > > Thank you, > Vivien Xing |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.