I've been reading the documentation on merge replication in BOL and I feel
like it's too fragmented. Can anyone recommend links/books that explain it
clearly? (And no I don't mind someone plugging their own material.)
I have written a book which is being edited. I am not sure when it will be
out, but soon.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"CLM" <CLM@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:84EB200B-CFC1-420F-9813-4E9671B9012D@.microsoft.com...
> I've been reading the documentation on merge replication in BOL and I feel
> like it's too fragmented. Can anyone recommend links/books that explain
> it
> clearly? (And no I don't mind someone plugging their own material.)
sql
Showing posts with label reading. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reading. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
MemToLeave and ODBC
We are running SQL Server 2005, SP2, Standard Edition, 64bit.
We are considering an ODBC solution for client reporting, and have been
reading that the ODBC driver uses MemToLeave memory, up to 7MB per connection.
I was wondering if the queries sent via this ODBC connection, also utilize
MemToLeave, or if those queries use the Buffer Pool?
And then a separate question, not involving ODBC...does an adhoc query
executed from Management Studio utilize Buffer Pool memory, if it needs less
than 8K contiguous memory, or do all adhoc queries in general go directly
against MemToLeave?
As a side note, I have read some from Ken Hendersons blog, threads in this
discussion group, and other posts on the web. I cannot seem to find the
answer to the above questions. Thx.
--
Message posted via SQLMonster.com
http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200710/1Still seeking for answers. Please help.
cbrichards wrote:
>We are running SQL Server 2005, SP2, Standard Edition, 64bit.
>We are considering an ODBC solution for client reporting, and have been
>reading that the ODBC driver uses MemToLeave memory, up to 7MB per connection.
>I was wondering if the queries sent via this ODBC connection, also utilize
>MemToLeave, or if those queries use the Buffer Pool?
>And then a separate question, not involving ODBC...does an adhoc query
>executed from Management Studio utilize Buffer Pool memory, if it needs less
>than 8K contiguous memory, or do all adhoc queries in general go directly
>against MemToLeave?
>As a side note, I have read some from Ken Hendersons blog, threads in this
>discussion group, and other posts on the web. I cannot seem to find the
>answer to the above questions. Thx.
--
Message posted via SQLMonster.com
http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200710/1|||On a 64bit SQL instance, you should have little to worry about MemToLeave
because you have a huge virtual address space to go about. I might be wrong,
but my understanding is that whether MemToLeave is used depends on factors
such as memory allocation size, not on what database API is being used on the
client side.
Linchi
"cbrichards via SQLMonster.com" wrote:
> We are running SQL Server 2005, SP2, Standard Edition, 64bit.
> We are considering an ODBC solution for client reporting, and have been
> reading that the ODBC driver uses MemToLeave memory, up to 7MB per connection.
> I was wondering if the queries sent via this ODBC connection, also utilize
> MemToLeave, or if those queries use the Buffer Pool?
> And then a separate question, not involving ODBC...does an adhoc query
> executed from Management Studio utilize Buffer Pool memory, if it needs less
> than 8K contiguous memory, or do all adhoc queries in general go directly
> against MemToLeave?
> As a side note, I have read some from Ken Hendersons blog, threads in this
> discussion group, and other posts on the web. I cannot seem to find the
> answer to the above questions. Thx.
> --
> Message posted via SQLMonster.com
> http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200710/1
>|||So if I am running SQL Server 2005, SP2, Standard Edition, 64bit, with 16GB
RAM (14GB set as Max Server Memory), are you saying that just because I am
running 64bit, that I have a huge virtual address space? Where does this huge
virtual address space come from if 14Gb is dedicated to SQL Server? The disks?
Linchi Shea wrote:
>On a 64bit SQL instance, you should have little to worry about MemToLeave
>because you have a huge virtual address space to go about. I might be wrong,
>but my understanding is that whether MemToLeave is used depends on factors
>such as memory allocation size, not on what database API is being used on the
>client side.
>Linchi
>> We are running SQL Server 2005, SP2, Standard Edition, 64bit.
>[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>> discussion group, and other posts on the web. I cannot seem to find the
>> answer to the above questions. Thx.
--
Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com|||Yes, SQL Server isn't even aware of what API is used by the client application.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:76F3D546-8C00-4E8A-81A6-CDA22E1E0193@.microsoft.com...
> On a 64bit SQL instance, you should have little to worry about MemToLeave
> because you have a huge virtual address space to go about. I might be wrong,
> but my understanding is that whether MemToLeave is used depends on factors
> such as memory allocation size, not on what database API is being used on the
> client side.
> Linchi
> "cbrichards via SQLMonster.com" wrote:
>> We are running SQL Server 2005, SP2, Standard Edition, 64bit.
>> We are considering an ODBC solution for client reporting, and have been
>> reading that the ODBC driver uses MemToLeave memory, up to 7MB per connection.
>> I was wondering if the queries sent via this ODBC connection, also utilize
>> MemToLeave, or if those queries use the Buffer Pool?
>> And then a separate question, not involving ODBC...does an adhoc query
>> executed from Management Studio utilize Buffer Pool memory, if it needs less
>> than 8K contiguous memory, or do all adhoc queries in general go directly
>> against MemToLeave?
>> As a side note, I have read some from Ken Hendersons blog, threads in this
>> discussion group, and other posts on the web. I cannot seem to find the
>> answer to the above questions. Thx.
>> --
>> Message posted via SQLMonster.com
>> http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200710/1
>>|||MemToLeave is a virtual memory address space concept. It has nothing to do
with how mch physical memory you have.
Let's forget about performance and physical memory for now. When you write a
program in a high-level programming language, you may feel like you can just
keep allocating data structures. But eventually you'll run into out of memory
error because the compiler/OS knows that there is a limit to the number of
unique virtual memory addresses for a process. If those addresses are all
used up in the process, you are not allowed to allocate any more and it's the
OS' job to keep track of the usage of the virtual memeory addresses.
On a 32-bit system, the number of virtual memory addresses is limited.
Basically there are 2GB for a program to allocate its data structures (the
other 2GB are taken by the kernel). Since the SQL process' virtual address
space may get fragmented after it has been allocating data structures for a
while and fragmentation can get so bad so that it may not be able to find
contiguious virtual addrsses for larger data structures (i.e. larger than
8K), the strategy that SQL Server uses is to pre-allocate a chunk of virutal
addresses when it starts so that this chunk is available regardless of it
snormal allocation activities. This pre-allocated chunk of virtual memory
addresses is MemToLeave.
Now with a 64-bit system, the virutal address space is so large that there
is little to no danger that a SQL instance (primarily its buffer pool) will
ever use up so much of virtual addresses that its process will have no
contiguious virtual addresses left for larger data structures.
Again, this is all related virtual memory addresses, and has nothing to do
with how much physical memory you may have on a particular system. In
reality, of course if you don't have enough physical memory, you risk
swapping things to paging files and your performance will suffer.
Linchi
"cbrichards via SQLMonster.com" wrote:
> So if I am running SQL Server 2005, SP2, Standard Edition, 64bit, with 16GB
> RAM (14GB set as Max Server Memory), are you saying that just because I am
> running 64bit, that I have a huge virtual address space? Where does this huge
> virtual address space come from if 14Gb is dedicated to SQL Server? The disks?
>
> Linchi Shea wrote:
> >On a 64bit SQL instance, you should have little to worry about MemToLeave
> >because you have a huge virtual address space to go about. I might be wrong,
> >but my understanding is that whether MemToLeave is used depends on factors
> >such as memory allocation size, not on what database API is being used on the
> >client side.
> >
> >Linchi
> >
> >> We are running SQL Server 2005, SP2, Standard Edition, 64bit.
> >>
> >[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> >> discussion group, and other posts on the web. I cannot seem to find the
> >> answer to the above questions. Thx.
> --
> Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com
>|||I am really perplexed at this whole virtual address space with 64bit and I do
not seem to be getting a straight answer. It is probably the way I am
phrasing my questions. If so I apologize. If I have 16GB RAM, of which 14GB
is configured as MaxServerMemory, and I have 100GB carved out on the SAN for
my disks, then if the 14GB is being used by SQL Server, and then another
query comes along, and the 14GB is consumed, is the virtual address space the
2GB left for the operating system, plus the 100GB carved out on the SAN?
Tibor Karaszi wrote:
>Yes, SQL Server isn't even aware of what API is used by the client application.
>> On a 64bit SQL instance, you should have little to worry about MemToLeave
>> because you have a huge virtual address space to go about. I might be wrong,
>[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>> discussion group, and other posts on the web. I cannot seem to find the
>> answer to the above questions. Thx.
--
Message posted via SQLMonster.com
http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200710/1|||First of all, virtual address space of a process has nothing to do with how
much physial memory or disk storage you may have on a system. On 32-bit
Windows, the user-mode virtual address space is 2GB (or 3GB with /3GB switch
in the boot.ini). On 64-bit Windows, the virtual address space of a process
is 8TB. These numbers don't change regardless how much RAM or disk storage
you have.
Secondly, the size of the virtual address space is a function of the width
of the address or the number of unique pointer values. So in theory, on
32-bit system, the virtual address space is 2^32, and if each address points
to a byte, that's 4GB. Also in theory, on a 64-bit system, the virtual
address space is 2^64, and if each points to a byte, that's more than 16
exabytes. But actual implementations often impose additional restriction. For
instance, 32-bit Windows gives 2GB to the kernel and leave 2GB to your app to
use. And since 16 exabytes are excessive, currently beyond reach anyway, and
costly to support, only 43 bits are actually used for user-mode virtual
addresses on current x64, and that's ~8TB.
Now, if you really end using this much virtual address space, they (i.e.
virtual memory allocated to represent your data structures) have to be
backed/supported with real stores, which can be physical memory or paging
files.
Linchi
"cbrichards via SQLMonster.com" wrote:
> I am really perplexed at this whole virtual address space with 64bit and I do
> not seem to be getting a straight answer. It is probably the way I am
> phrasing my questions. If so I apologize. If I have 16GB RAM, of which 14GB
> is configured as MaxServerMemory, and I have 100GB carved out on the SAN for
> my disks, then if the 14GB is being used by SQL Server, and then another
> query comes along, and the 14GB is consumed, is the virtual address space the
> 2GB left for the operating system, plus the 100GB carved out on the SAN?
> Tibor Karaszi wrote:
> >Yes, SQL Server isn't even aware of what API is used by the client application.
> >
> >> On a 64bit SQL instance, you should have little to worry about MemToLeave
> >> because you have a huge virtual address space to go about. I might be wrong,
> >[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> >> discussion group, and other posts on the web. I cannot seem to find the
> >> answer to the above questions. Thx.
> --
> Message posted via SQLMonster.com
> http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200710/1
>|||On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 01:49:25 GMT, "cbrichards via SQLMonster.com"
<u3288@.uwe> wrote:
>If I have 16GB RAM, of which 14GB
>is configured as MaxServerMemory, and I have 100GB carved out on the SAN for
>my disks, then if the 14GB is being used by SQL Server, and then another
>query comes along, and the 14GB is consumed, is the virtual address space the
>2GB left for the operating system, plus the 100GB carved out on the SAN?
There are, or so I heard at some time way in the past, computers with
the architecture where memory and disk are mapped with a common
address space, as if each was an extension of the other. That sounds
like what you are asking about. Microsoft SQL Server does not run on
any such architecture.
To oversimplify a bit... Most of SQL Server's memory is used for
caching database pages. If SQL Server needs a page that is already in
cache it is just referenced from that memory location. If it needs a
page that is not in cache it is read into cache. When there is no
room in memory for a new page a page that hasn't been used recently is
overwritten. When a page is updated it will be written to disk -
eventually. (Logs are handled a bit differently and always written
immediately.)
Sorry if I have misunderstood your statement.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT
We are considering an ODBC solution for client reporting, and have been
reading that the ODBC driver uses MemToLeave memory, up to 7MB per connection.
I was wondering if the queries sent via this ODBC connection, also utilize
MemToLeave, or if those queries use the Buffer Pool?
And then a separate question, not involving ODBC...does an adhoc query
executed from Management Studio utilize Buffer Pool memory, if it needs less
than 8K contiguous memory, or do all adhoc queries in general go directly
against MemToLeave?
As a side note, I have read some from Ken Hendersons blog, threads in this
discussion group, and other posts on the web. I cannot seem to find the
answer to the above questions. Thx.
--
Message posted via SQLMonster.com
http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200710/1Still seeking for answers. Please help.
cbrichards wrote:
>We are running SQL Server 2005, SP2, Standard Edition, 64bit.
>We are considering an ODBC solution for client reporting, and have been
>reading that the ODBC driver uses MemToLeave memory, up to 7MB per connection.
>I was wondering if the queries sent via this ODBC connection, also utilize
>MemToLeave, or if those queries use the Buffer Pool?
>And then a separate question, not involving ODBC...does an adhoc query
>executed from Management Studio utilize Buffer Pool memory, if it needs less
>than 8K contiguous memory, or do all adhoc queries in general go directly
>against MemToLeave?
>As a side note, I have read some from Ken Hendersons blog, threads in this
>discussion group, and other posts on the web. I cannot seem to find the
>answer to the above questions. Thx.
--
Message posted via SQLMonster.com
http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200710/1|||On a 64bit SQL instance, you should have little to worry about MemToLeave
because you have a huge virtual address space to go about. I might be wrong,
but my understanding is that whether MemToLeave is used depends on factors
such as memory allocation size, not on what database API is being used on the
client side.
Linchi
"cbrichards via SQLMonster.com" wrote:
> We are running SQL Server 2005, SP2, Standard Edition, 64bit.
> We are considering an ODBC solution for client reporting, and have been
> reading that the ODBC driver uses MemToLeave memory, up to 7MB per connection.
> I was wondering if the queries sent via this ODBC connection, also utilize
> MemToLeave, or if those queries use the Buffer Pool?
> And then a separate question, not involving ODBC...does an adhoc query
> executed from Management Studio utilize Buffer Pool memory, if it needs less
> than 8K contiguous memory, or do all adhoc queries in general go directly
> against MemToLeave?
> As a side note, I have read some from Ken Hendersons blog, threads in this
> discussion group, and other posts on the web. I cannot seem to find the
> answer to the above questions. Thx.
> --
> Message posted via SQLMonster.com
> http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200710/1
>|||So if I am running SQL Server 2005, SP2, Standard Edition, 64bit, with 16GB
RAM (14GB set as Max Server Memory), are you saying that just because I am
running 64bit, that I have a huge virtual address space? Where does this huge
virtual address space come from if 14Gb is dedicated to SQL Server? The disks?
Linchi Shea wrote:
>On a 64bit SQL instance, you should have little to worry about MemToLeave
>because you have a huge virtual address space to go about. I might be wrong,
>but my understanding is that whether MemToLeave is used depends on factors
>such as memory allocation size, not on what database API is being used on the
>client side.
>Linchi
>> We are running SQL Server 2005, SP2, Standard Edition, 64bit.
>[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>> discussion group, and other posts on the web. I cannot seem to find the
>> answer to the above questions. Thx.
--
Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com|||Yes, SQL Server isn't even aware of what API is used by the client application.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:76F3D546-8C00-4E8A-81A6-CDA22E1E0193@.microsoft.com...
> On a 64bit SQL instance, you should have little to worry about MemToLeave
> because you have a huge virtual address space to go about. I might be wrong,
> but my understanding is that whether MemToLeave is used depends on factors
> such as memory allocation size, not on what database API is being used on the
> client side.
> Linchi
> "cbrichards via SQLMonster.com" wrote:
>> We are running SQL Server 2005, SP2, Standard Edition, 64bit.
>> We are considering an ODBC solution for client reporting, and have been
>> reading that the ODBC driver uses MemToLeave memory, up to 7MB per connection.
>> I was wondering if the queries sent via this ODBC connection, also utilize
>> MemToLeave, or if those queries use the Buffer Pool?
>> And then a separate question, not involving ODBC...does an adhoc query
>> executed from Management Studio utilize Buffer Pool memory, if it needs less
>> than 8K contiguous memory, or do all adhoc queries in general go directly
>> against MemToLeave?
>> As a side note, I have read some from Ken Hendersons blog, threads in this
>> discussion group, and other posts on the web. I cannot seem to find the
>> answer to the above questions. Thx.
>> --
>> Message posted via SQLMonster.com
>> http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200710/1
>>|||MemToLeave is a virtual memory address space concept. It has nothing to do
with how mch physical memory you have.
Let's forget about performance and physical memory for now. When you write a
program in a high-level programming language, you may feel like you can just
keep allocating data structures. But eventually you'll run into out of memory
error because the compiler/OS knows that there is a limit to the number of
unique virtual memory addresses for a process. If those addresses are all
used up in the process, you are not allowed to allocate any more and it's the
OS' job to keep track of the usage of the virtual memeory addresses.
On a 32-bit system, the number of virtual memory addresses is limited.
Basically there are 2GB for a program to allocate its data structures (the
other 2GB are taken by the kernel). Since the SQL process' virtual address
space may get fragmented after it has been allocating data structures for a
while and fragmentation can get so bad so that it may not be able to find
contiguious virtual addrsses for larger data structures (i.e. larger than
8K), the strategy that SQL Server uses is to pre-allocate a chunk of virutal
addresses when it starts so that this chunk is available regardless of it
snormal allocation activities. This pre-allocated chunk of virtual memory
addresses is MemToLeave.
Now with a 64-bit system, the virutal address space is so large that there
is little to no danger that a SQL instance (primarily its buffer pool) will
ever use up so much of virtual addresses that its process will have no
contiguious virtual addresses left for larger data structures.
Again, this is all related virtual memory addresses, and has nothing to do
with how much physical memory you may have on a particular system. In
reality, of course if you don't have enough physical memory, you risk
swapping things to paging files and your performance will suffer.
Linchi
"cbrichards via SQLMonster.com" wrote:
> So if I am running SQL Server 2005, SP2, Standard Edition, 64bit, with 16GB
> RAM (14GB set as Max Server Memory), are you saying that just because I am
> running 64bit, that I have a huge virtual address space? Where does this huge
> virtual address space come from if 14Gb is dedicated to SQL Server? The disks?
>
> Linchi Shea wrote:
> >On a 64bit SQL instance, you should have little to worry about MemToLeave
> >because you have a huge virtual address space to go about. I might be wrong,
> >but my understanding is that whether MemToLeave is used depends on factors
> >such as memory allocation size, not on what database API is being used on the
> >client side.
> >
> >Linchi
> >
> >> We are running SQL Server 2005, SP2, Standard Edition, 64bit.
> >>
> >[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> >> discussion group, and other posts on the web. I cannot seem to find the
> >> answer to the above questions. Thx.
> --
> Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com
>|||I am really perplexed at this whole virtual address space with 64bit and I do
not seem to be getting a straight answer. It is probably the way I am
phrasing my questions. If so I apologize. If I have 16GB RAM, of which 14GB
is configured as MaxServerMemory, and I have 100GB carved out on the SAN for
my disks, then if the 14GB is being used by SQL Server, and then another
query comes along, and the 14GB is consumed, is the virtual address space the
2GB left for the operating system, plus the 100GB carved out on the SAN?
Tibor Karaszi wrote:
>Yes, SQL Server isn't even aware of what API is used by the client application.
>> On a 64bit SQL instance, you should have little to worry about MemToLeave
>> because you have a huge virtual address space to go about. I might be wrong,
>[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>> discussion group, and other posts on the web. I cannot seem to find the
>> answer to the above questions. Thx.
--
Message posted via SQLMonster.com
http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200710/1|||First of all, virtual address space of a process has nothing to do with how
much physial memory or disk storage you may have on a system. On 32-bit
Windows, the user-mode virtual address space is 2GB (or 3GB with /3GB switch
in the boot.ini). On 64-bit Windows, the virtual address space of a process
is 8TB. These numbers don't change regardless how much RAM or disk storage
you have.
Secondly, the size of the virtual address space is a function of the width
of the address or the number of unique pointer values. So in theory, on
32-bit system, the virtual address space is 2^32, and if each address points
to a byte, that's 4GB. Also in theory, on a 64-bit system, the virtual
address space is 2^64, and if each points to a byte, that's more than 16
exabytes. But actual implementations often impose additional restriction. For
instance, 32-bit Windows gives 2GB to the kernel and leave 2GB to your app to
use. And since 16 exabytes are excessive, currently beyond reach anyway, and
costly to support, only 43 bits are actually used for user-mode virtual
addresses on current x64, and that's ~8TB.
Now, if you really end using this much virtual address space, they (i.e.
virtual memory allocated to represent your data structures) have to be
backed/supported with real stores, which can be physical memory or paging
files.
Linchi
"cbrichards via SQLMonster.com" wrote:
> I am really perplexed at this whole virtual address space with 64bit and I do
> not seem to be getting a straight answer. It is probably the way I am
> phrasing my questions. If so I apologize. If I have 16GB RAM, of which 14GB
> is configured as MaxServerMemory, and I have 100GB carved out on the SAN for
> my disks, then if the 14GB is being used by SQL Server, and then another
> query comes along, and the 14GB is consumed, is the virtual address space the
> 2GB left for the operating system, plus the 100GB carved out on the SAN?
> Tibor Karaszi wrote:
> >Yes, SQL Server isn't even aware of what API is used by the client application.
> >
> >> On a 64bit SQL instance, you should have little to worry about MemToLeave
> >> because you have a huge virtual address space to go about. I might be wrong,
> >[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> >> discussion group, and other posts on the web. I cannot seem to find the
> >> answer to the above questions. Thx.
> --
> Message posted via SQLMonster.com
> http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200710/1
>|||On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 01:49:25 GMT, "cbrichards via SQLMonster.com"
<u3288@.uwe> wrote:
>If I have 16GB RAM, of which 14GB
>is configured as MaxServerMemory, and I have 100GB carved out on the SAN for
>my disks, then if the 14GB is being used by SQL Server, and then another
>query comes along, and the 14GB is consumed, is the virtual address space the
>2GB left for the operating system, plus the 100GB carved out on the SAN?
There are, or so I heard at some time way in the past, computers with
the architecture where memory and disk are mapped with a common
address space, as if each was an extension of the other. That sounds
like what you are asking about. Microsoft SQL Server does not run on
any such architecture.
To oversimplify a bit... Most of SQL Server's memory is used for
caching database pages. If SQL Server needs a page that is already in
cache it is just referenced from that memory location. If it needs a
page that is not in cache it is read into cache. When there is no
room in memory for a new page a page that hasn't been used recently is
overwritten. When a page is updated it will be written to disk -
eventually. (Logs are handled a bit differently and always written
immediately.)
Sorry if I have misunderstood your statement.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Memory question
I've been reading a lot of the posts about memory but I'm still unclear.
We have 3.37GB RAM - Win2003 SP1 - SQL2005 SP1.
Min Server Memory = 0
Max Server Memory=2147483647
Will SQL use more than 2GB memory with this setup. I saw note of a boot.ini
file in other posts but I couldn't find one on our server. Will SQL use 3GB
if it needs it?
Thanks.
RonHi
Min and Max server memory settings are in Megabytes.
You need to set the /3GB switch in boot.ini for SQL Server to use more than
2GB RAM in your configuration.
--
Regards
Michel Epprecht [MSFT]
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Ron" <Ron@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0A1CE509-ACE9-4D01-8F54-757C38074D91@.microsoft.com...
> I've been reading a lot of the posts about memory but I'm still unclear.
> We have 3.37GB RAM - Win2003 SP1 - SQL2005 SP1.
> Min Server Memory = 0
> Max Server Memory=2147483647
> Will SQL use more than 2GB memory with this setup. I saw note of a
> boot.ini
> file in other posts but I couldn't find one on our server. Will SQL use
> 3GB
> if it needs it?
> Thanks.
> Ron
>|||Where is the boot.ini file? I search the hard drive and couldn't find it.
"Michael Epprecht [MSFT]" wrote:
> Hi
> Min and Max server memory settings are in Megabytes.
> You need to set the /3GB switch in boot.ini for SQL Server to use more than
> 2GB RAM in your configuration.
> --
> Regards
> Michel Epprecht [MSFT]
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> "Ron" <Ron@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0A1CE509-ACE9-4D01-8F54-757C38074D91@.microsoft.com...
> > I've been reading a lot of the posts about memory but I'm still unclear.
> >
> > We have 3.37GB RAM - Win2003 SP1 - SQL2005 SP1.
> > Min Server Memory = 0
> > Max Server Memory=2147483647
> >
> > Will SQL use more than 2GB memory with this setup. I saw note of a
> > boot.ini
> > file in other posts but I couldn't find one on our server. Will SQL use
> > 3GB
> > if it needs it?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Ron
> >
>
We have 3.37GB RAM - Win2003 SP1 - SQL2005 SP1.
Min Server Memory = 0
Max Server Memory=2147483647
Will SQL use more than 2GB memory with this setup. I saw note of a boot.ini
file in other posts but I couldn't find one on our server. Will SQL use 3GB
if it needs it?
Thanks.
RonHi
Min and Max server memory settings are in Megabytes.
You need to set the /3GB switch in boot.ini for SQL Server to use more than
2GB RAM in your configuration.
--
Regards
Michel Epprecht [MSFT]
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Ron" <Ron@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0A1CE509-ACE9-4D01-8F54-757C38074D91@.microsoft.com...
> I've been reading a lot of the posts about memory but I'm still unclear.
> We have 3.37GB RAM - Win2003 SP1 - SQL2005 SP1.
> Min Server Memory = 0
> Max Server Memory=2147483647
> Will SQL use more than 2GB memory with this setup. I saw note of a
> boot.ini
> file in other posts but I couldn't find one on our server. Will SQL use
> 3GB
> if it needs it?
> Thanks.
> Ron
>|||Where is the boot.ini file? I search the hard drive and couldn't find it.
"Michael Epprecht [MSFT]" wrote:
> Hi
> Min and Max server memory settings are in Megabytes.
> You need to set the /3GB switch in boot.ini for SQL Server to use more than
> 2GB RAM in your configuration.
> --
> Regards
> Michel Epprecht [MSFT]
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> "Ron" <Ron@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0A1CE509-ACE9-4D01-8F54-757C38074D91@.microsoft.com...
> > I've been reading a lot of the posts about memory but I'm still unclear.
> >
> > We have 3.37GB RAM - Win2003 SP1 - SQL2005 SP1.
> > Min Server Memory = 0
> > Max Server Memory=2147483647
> >
> > Will SQL use more than 2GB memory with this setup. I saw note of a
> > boot.ini
> > file in other posts but I couldn't find one on our server. Will SQL use
> > 3GB
> > if it needs it?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Ron
> >
>
Memory question
I've been reading a lot of the posts about memory but I'm still unclear.
We have 3.37GB RAM - Win2003 SP1 - SQL2005 SP1.
Min Server Memory = 0
Max Server Memory=2147483647
Will SQL use more than 2GB memory with this setup. I saw note of a boot.ini
file in other posts but I couldn't find one on our server. Will SQL use 3GB
if it needs it?
Thanks.
Ron
Hi
Min and Max server memory settings are in Megabytes.
You need to set the /3GB switch in boot.ini for SQL Server to use more than
2GB RAM in your configuration.
Regards
Michel Epprecht [MSFT]
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Ron" <Ron@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0A1CE509-ACE9-4D01-8F54-757C38074D91@.microsoft.com...
> I've been reading a lot of the posts about memory but I'm still unclear.
> We have 3.37GB RAM - Win2003 SP1 - SQL2005 SP1.
> Min Server Memory = 0
> Max Server Memory=2147483647
> Will SQL use more than 2GB memory with this setup. I saw note of a
> boot.ini
> file in other posts but I couldn't find one on our server. Will SQL use
> 3GB
> if it needs it?
> Thanks.
> Ron
>
|||Where is the boot.ini file? I search the hard drive and couldn't find it.
"Michael Epprecht [MSFT]" wrote:
> Hi
> Min and Max server memory settings are in Megabytes.
> You need to set the /3GB switch in boot.ini for SQL Server to use more than
> 2GB RAM in your configuration.
> --
> Regards
> Michel Epprecht [MSFT]
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> "Ron" <Ron@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0A1CE509-ACE9-4D01-8F54-757C38074D91@.microsoft.com...
>
We have 3.37GB RAM - Win2003 SP1 - SQL2005 SP1.
Min Server Memory = 0
Max Server Memory=2147483647
Will SQL use more than 2GB memory with this setup. I saw note of a boot.ini
file in other posts but I couldn't find one on our server. Will SQL use 3GB
if it needs it?
Thanks.
Ron
Hi
Min and Max server memory settings are in Megabytes.
You need to set the /3GB switch in boot.ini for SQL Server to use more than
2GB RAM in your configuration.
Regards
Michel Epprecht [MSFT]
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Ron" <Ron@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0A1CE509-ACE9-4D01-8F54-757C38074D91@.microsoft.com...
> I've been reading a lot of the posts about memory but I'm still unclear.
> We have 3.37GB RAM - Win2003 SP1 - SQL2005 SP1.
> Min Server Memory = 0
> Max Server Memory=2147483647
> Will SQL use more than 2GB memory with this setup. I saw note of a
> boot.ini
> file in other posts but I couldn't find one on our server. Will SQL use
> 3GB
> if it needs it?
> Thanks.
> Ron
>
|||Where is the boot.ini file? I search the hard drive and couldn't find it.
"Michael Epprecht [MSFT]" wrote:
> Hi
> Min and Max server memory settings are in Megabytes.
> You need to set the /3GB switch in boot.ini for SQL Server to use more than
> 2GB RAM in your configuration.
> --
> Regards
> Michel Epprecht [MSFT]
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> "Ron" <Ron@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0A1CE509-ACE9-4D01-8F54-757C38074D91@.microsoft.com...
>
Memory question
I've been reading a lot of the posts about memory but I'm still unclear.
We have 3.37GB RAM - Win2003 SP1 - SQL2005 SP1.
Min Server Memory = 0
Max Server Memory=2147483647
Will SQL use more than 2GB memory with this setup. I saw note of a boot.ini
file in other posts but I couldn't find one on our server. Will SQL use 3G
B
if it needs it?
Thanks.
RonHi
Min and Max server memory settings are in Megabytes.
You need to set the /3GB switch in boot.ini for SQL Server to use more than
2GB RAM in your configuration.
Regards
Michel Epprecht [MSFT]
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Ron" <Ron@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0A1CE509-ACE9-4D01-8F54-757C38074D91@.microsoft.com...
> I've been reading a lot of the posts about memory but I'm still unclear.
> We have 3.37GB RAM - Win2003 SP1 - SQL2005 SP1.
> Min Server Memory = 0
> Max Server Memory=2147483647
> Will SQL use more than 2GB memory with this setup. I saw note of a
> boot.ini
> file in other posts but I couldn't find one on our server. Will SQL use
> 3GB
> if it needs it?
> Thanks.
> Ron
>|||Where is the boot.ini file? I search the hard drive and couldn't find it.
"Michael Epprecht [MSFT]" wrote:
> Hi
> Min and Max server memory settings are in Megabytes.
> You need to set the /3GB switch in boot.ini for SQL Server to use more tha
n
> 2GB RAM in your configuration.
> --
> Regards
> Michel Epprecht [MSFT]
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
.
> "Ron" <Ron@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0A1CE509-ACE9-4D01-8F54-757C38074D91@.microsoft.com...
>
We have 3.37GB RAM - Win2003 SP1 - SQL2005 SP1.
Min Server Memory = 0
Max Server Memory=2147483647
Will SQL use more than 2GB memory with this setup. I saw note of a boot.ini
file in other posts but I couldn't find one on our server. Will SQL use 3G
B
if it needs it?
Thanks.
RonHi
Min and Max server memory settings are in Megabytes.
You need to set the /3GB switch in boot.ini for SQL Server to use more than
2GB RAM in your configuration.
Regards
Michel Epprecht [MSFT]
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Ron" <Ron@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0A1CE509-ACE9-4D01-8F54-757C38074D91@.microsoft.com...
> I've been reading a lot of the posts about memory but I'm still unclear.
> We have 3.37GB RAM - Win2003 SP1 - SQL2005 SP1.
> Min Server Memory = 0
> Max Server Memory=2147483647
> Will SQL use more than 2GB memory with this setup. I saw note of a
> boot.ini
> file in other posts but I couldn't find one on our server. Will SQL use
> 3GB
> if it needs it?
> Thanks.
> Ron
>|||Where is the boot.ini file? I search the hard drive and couldn't find it.
"Michael Epprecht [MSFT]" wrote:
> Hi
> Min and Max server memory settings are in Megabytes.
> You need to set the /3GB switch in boot.ini for SQL Server to use more tha
n
> 2GB RAM in your configuration.
> --
> Regards
> Michel Epprecht [MSFT]
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
.
> "Ron" <Ron@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0A1CE509-ACE9-4D01-8F54-757C38074D91@.microsoft.com...
>
Monday, February 20, 2012
Memory Leak Reading Appointment from MS Exchange Mailbox
Hi,
When using the following code to read an appointment from a MS Exchange mailbox the application experiences a memory leak.
I can provide a test application that easily demonstrates the issue.
ADODB.Connection _Conn = new ADODB.Connection();
_Conn.Provider = "exoledb.datasource";
try
{
this.Cursor = Cursors.WaitCursor;
_Conn.Open("http://" + Environment.UserDomainName + "." + Environment.MachineName + "/Exchange/" + this.txtMailbox.Text + "/Calendar", "", "", 0);
CDO.Appointment cdoAppointment = new CDO.Appointment();
try
{
for (int i = 1; i < int.Parse(this.txtNoOfTestReads.Text); i++)
{
cdoAppointment.DataSource.Open("http://" + Environment.UserDomainName + "." + Environment.MachineName + "/Exchange/" + this.txtMailbox.Text + "/Calendar/" + this.txtApptFileName.Text + ".eml", _Conn, ADODB.ConnectModeEnum.adModeReadWrite, ADODB.RecordCreateOptionsEnum.adFailIfNotExists, ADODB.RecordOpenOptionsEnum.adOpenSource, "", "");
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
MessageBox.Show(ex.Message);
}
finally
{
cdoAppointment = null;
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
MessageBox.Show(ex.Message);
}
finally
{
if (_Conn.State == (int)ADODB.ObjectStateEnum.adStateOpen)
_Conn.Close();
_Conn = null;
this.Cursor = Cursors.Default;
}
Regards,
Craig
I would post this to the exchange dl ->
http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/en-us/default.aspx?dg=microsoft.public.exchange.applications
This could just be a GC issue, try adding a line in the loop like below:
System.Gc.Collect();
System.Gc.WaitForPendingFinalizers();
Matt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)