Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Windows 64bit > Win 2003 Srv Standard x 64 /sql2005 x64 and > 2GB RAM

Reply
Thread Tools

Win 2003 Srv Standard x 64 /sql2005 x64 and > 2GB RAM

 
 
bill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2006
We will be buying a Proliant DL385 which runs Windows 2003 Server Standard
x64 edition. We will install sql 2005 x64 standard edition and 8GB of RAM
(to start). Do we need to enable the "/3GB? switch or"PAE" for sql to
recognize this extended memory space. Or will it happen automatically in a
64 bit world?

TIA,
Bill


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Rob Perkins
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2006
bill wrote:
> We will be buying a Proliant DL385 which runs Windows 2003 Server Standard
> x64 edition. We will install sql 2005 x64 standard edition and 8GB of RAM
> (to start). Do we need to enable the "/3GB? switch or"PAE" for sql to
> recognize this extended memory space. Or will it happen automatically in a
> 64 bit world?


One supposes that an x64 edition of SQL Server 2005 will have little
problem addressing 16 terabytes of virtual memory space, and the 32-bit
programs with LARGEADDRESSAWARE flags on them will get 4 GB of space.
Naturally your performance will degrade to unacceptability well before
you reach the 16 terabyte boundry...

See http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/u...loringx64.mspx

Rob
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2006
You do not need to add any switches whatsoever to see far more than 2 GB of
virtual memory address space. You'll actually have a full 8 terrabytes of
virtual memory address space to work with, and since SQL Server is the x64
edition, it will be able to directly address all of that.

For clarity - 32-bit applications can address 2 GB of virtual memory
directly if they are ordinary 32-bit applications. But 32bit applications
that have been written and compiled to support more memory (via the /3GB
switch) will automatically see a full 4GB of virtual memory with no switches
required.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64

bill wrote:
> We will be buying a Proliant DL385 which runs Windows 2003 Server Standard
> x64 edition. We will install sql 2005 x64 standard edition and 8GB of RAM
> (to start). Do we need to enable the "/3GB? switch or"PAE" for sql to
> recognize this extended memory space. Or will it happen automatically in a
> 64 bit world?
>
> TIA,
> Bill



 
Reply With Quote
 
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2006
Actually, they only get to see 8 TB - the other 8 TB is reserved for the OS.
But I don't think we need to worry yet.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64

Rob Perkins wrote:
> bill wrote:
>> We will be buying a Proliant DL385 which runs Windows 2003 Server
>> Standard x64 edition. We will install sql 2005 x64 standard edition and
>> 8GB of RAM (to start). Do we need to enable the "/3GB? switch or"PAE" for
>> sql to recognize this extended memory space. Or will it happen
>> automatically in a 64 bit world?

>
> One supposes that an x64 edition of SQL Server 2005 will have little
> problem addressing 16 terabytes of virtual memory space, and the 32-bit
> programs with LARGEADDRESSAWARE flags on them will get 4 GB of space.
> Naturally your performance will degrade to unacceptability well before
> you reach the 16 terabyte boundry...
>
> See
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/u...loringx64.mspx
> Rob



 
Reply With Quote
 
Rob Perkins
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2006
Charlie Russel - MVP wrote:
> Actually, they only get to see 8 TB - the other 8 TB is reserved for the OS.
> But I don't think we need to worry yet.


That's what we all said about 2 GB of virtual memory, back in the day.
Three years ago, one of my customers crossed it.

So, yeah, maybe with Windows Vista R10?

Rob, who tries hard to keep up with Microsoft product naming schemes...
 
Reply With Quote
 
bill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2006
>>
> Actually, they only get to see 8 TB - the other 8 TB is reserved for the
> OS.
>>


Now I am a bit confused. sql 2005 x64 will only get to see half of the
installed RA? (8GB in or case) and the other 8GB of RAM is reserved for the
Win 2003 x64 OS? I'd like Sql to have access to at least 12GB or the 16GB.

Bill

"Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Actually, they only get to see 8 TB - the other 8 TB is reserved for the
> OS. But I don't think we need to worry yet.
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>
> Rob Perkins wrote:
>> bill wrote:
>>> We will be buying a Proliant DL385 which runs Windows 2003 Server
>>> Standard x64 edition. We will install sql 2005 x64 standard edition and
>>> 8GB of RAM (to start). Do we need to enable the "/3GB? switch or"PAE"
>>> for sql to recognize this extended memory space. Or will it happen
>>> automatically in a 64 bit world?

>>
>> One supposes that an x64 edition of SQL Server 2005 will have little
>> problem addressing 16 terabytes of virtual memory space, and the 32-bit
>> programs with LARGEADDRESSAWARE flags on them will get 4 GB of space.
>> Naturally your performance will degrade to unacceptability well before
>> you reach the 16 terabyte boundry...
>>
>> See
>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/u...loringx64.mspx
>> Rob

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2006
Notice I didn't say we didn't need to worry ever! I've been around since the
days when 64 Kb was considered a huge machine.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64

Rob Perkins wrote:
> Charlie Russel - MVP wrote:
>> Actually, they only get to see 8 TB - the other 8 TB is reserved for the
>> OS. But I don't think we need to worry yet.

>
> That's what we all said about 2 GB of virtual memory, back in the day.
> Three years ago, one of my customers crossed it.
>
> So, yeah, maybe with Windows Vista R10?
>
> Rob, who tries hard to keep up with Microsoft product naming schemes...



 
Reply With Quote
 
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2006
Keep in mind here we're talking apples and oranges. Virtual Memory Address
space is the amount of virtual memory that can be directly addressed. It is
8 terrabytes in x64 - way more than your 8, 12 or even 16 gigabytes. RAM is
the physical RAM on your machine. It is limited by the version of Windows
you run more than by the address space. The operating system needs a certain
amount of address space, and RAM, to work, obviously. But it needs a much
larger address space than it needs RAM. So not to worry.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64

bill wrote:
>> Actually, they only get to see 8 TB - the other 8 TB is reserved for the
>> OS.
>>>

>
> Now I am a bit confused. sql 2005 x64 will only get to see half of the
> installed RA? (8GB in or case) and the other 8GB of RAM is reserved for
> the Win 2003 x64 OS? I'd like Sql to have access to at least 12GB or the
> 16GB.
> Bill
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Actually, they only get to see 8 TB - the other 8 TB is reserved for the
>> OS. But I don't think we need to worry yet.
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>
>> Rob Perkins wrote:
>>> bill wrote:
>>>> We will be buying a Proliant DL385 which runs Windows 2003 Server
>>>> Standard x64 edition. We will install sql 2005 x64 standard edition and
>>>> 8GB of RAM (to start). Do we need to enable the "/3GB? switch or"PAE"
>>>> for sql to recognize this extended memory space. Or will it happen
>>>> automatically in a 64 bit world?
>>>
>>> One supposes that an x64 edition of SQL Server 2005 will have little
>>> problem addressing 16 terabytes of virtual memory space, and the 32-bit
>>> programs with LARGEADDRESSAWARE flags on them will get 4 GB of space.
>>> Naturally your performance will degrade to unacceptability well before
>>> you reach the 16 terabyte boundry...
>>>
>>> See
>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/u...loringx64.mspx
>>> Rob



 
Reply With Quote
 
Steve Foster [SBS MVP]
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2006
Charlie Russel - MVP wrote:

>Actually, they only get to see 8 TB - the other 8 TB is reserved for the
>OS. But I don't think we need to worry yet.


Hmmm, wonder if MS will still be recommending a PageFile of 1.5 x RAM by
then... <g>

--
Steve Foster [SBS MVP]
---------------------------------------
MVPs do not work for Microsoft. Please reply only to the newsgroups.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rob Perkins
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2006
Charlie Russel - MVP wrote:
> Keep in mind here we're talking apples and oranges. Virtual Memory Address
> space is the amount of virtual memory that can be directly addressed. It is
> 8 terrabytes in x64 - way more than your 8, 12 or even 16 gigabytes. RAM is
> the physical RAM on your machine. It is limited by the version of Windows
> you run more than by the address space. The operating system needs a certain
> amount of address space, and RAM, to work, obviously. But it needs a much
> larger address space than it needs RAM. So not to worry.


Oh yeah; I had to explain this once to a Unix guy. Refine me where I get
this wrong, OK?

Your computer has 8 GB RAM. The BIOS "sees" 8 GB.

The operating system sees 8 GB RAM PLUS the size of your virtual memory
swapfile. Probably 4 GB disk space, for a total "commit charge" capacity
of 12 GB RAM. So, the OS "sees" 12 GB. Sort of. It knows that there are
12 GB of "memory page" space out there to assign to itself or to running
programs.

Your *programs*, no matter the address word size (32 bit or 64 bit) care
nothing for that. In Win32 they "see" (sort of) a subset of 2 GB,
roughly 1/6 of all the memory resources on your computer. In Win64, they
"see" (again, sort of) a subset of 8 TB, roughly *4000 times* the
memory resources actually available to them.

The Windows operating system contains a "Virtual Memory Manager", and
makes use of a "Memory Management Unit" in your hardware which
translates between what the BIOS sees, and what the OS sees, and what
your program actually gets to use.

(By now, a good picture or two is commonly in order. The Wikipedia entry
for "Virtual Memory" is decent enough for that.)

Usually, programs get access to this memory by invoking magic, um, I
mean "malloc", or something like it, which asks the operating system to
set all this up. When the OS returns with information about a block of
memory, it gives the program a number corresponding to the starting
location of that memory, or it returns a failure code; an explanation
why the program can't have that memory it just asked for.

(Don't let's get started discussing thread-local memory, or locked
memory, or memory-mapped files, or the differences between code and data
segments of memory. Pay no attention to the MMU behind the curtain!)

This is a long winded way of saying that in 32-bit Windows, each of your
programs "sees" 4 GB of memory, 2 GB of which contains neat things
like the locations of all the Windows API calls, all the device driver
entrypoints, other stuff. The other 2 GB contains the program and the
data for the program.

Back in the early 90's, when Windows NT was beginning to be something,
was when this scheme was hatched up. Recall at the time that servers
usually had 64 MB of RAM in them, and a 200 MB hard disk, meaning that
each program running under NT had a 2 GB space, to be sure, but only 4%
of that potential was backed up by hardware resrouces.

Which meant that it was going to be impossible for years and years to
reach the limits of an NT-based memory management system.

Well, we did (and it did take years and years, so they were not wrong!)
My company's products can get there, any midsize database management
system as well. So along comes Windows x64...

....which uses the same ideas, only instead of a 2 GB space for your
programs, you get 8 "terabytes", roughly 4000 times the addressable
space for programs as you got with NT/2000/XP-IA32. However, your
hardware will only provide programs with less than 0.1% of that potential.

This is the same class of problem as we all encountered back when we
started installing 2 MB of memory into 386 PC's; we'd reached DOS's 640
Kbyte limitation, and started to whine. Today, the transition is
markedly easier than then; emulators are soooo much better.

Rob
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Applet to run on Win 98, Win ME, Win XP, Win Vista & Win 7 ?? Krist Java 6 05-06-2010 11:53 PM
2GB RAM Limit in Win XP? Jack B. Pollack Computer Support 33 05-26-2007 01:19 PM
how to make a 32bit application use more than 2GB RAM on 64bit Windows 2003 chaojen.chen@gmail.com Windows 64bit 8 09-05-2006 01:42 PM
Can't format my 2GB SD card to be 2GB tyler.parke@gmail.com Digital Photography 1 08-21-2006 06:23 PM
RAM - 2gb becomes 4gb becomes 2gb b Computer Support 10 04-27-2006 11:58 PM



Advertisments