Can SQL2KEE use 4GB on x64?

I thought I saw someone mention that SQL2KEE can access a full 4GB on x64.
Can someone verify this? Here are 2 links that appear to support this.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...onsumption.asp
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...management.asp
Running 32-bit version of sqlserver does you no good. See this document for
details.
http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...Advantages.doc
-oj
"Mike Kruchten" <mrk@.fsisolutions.com> wrote in message
news:uyO2zO1eFHA.3836@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>I thought I saw someone mention that SQL2KEE can access a full 4GB on x64.
>Can someone verify this? Here are 2 links that appear to support this.
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...onsumption.asp
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...management.asp
>
|||Well, being from March 2004 this document doesn't say anything about running
32-bit SQL2000 on x64 W2k3. The following quote from one of the links I
provided leads me to believe that SQL2000EE running in this environment will
be able to use a full 4GB of virtual memory.
On the x64 processor, each 32-bit application receives 4 GB virtual address
space in the WOW64 environment, if the application has the
IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE flag set in the image header. If this flag is
not set, the 32-bit application receives 2 GB virtual address space.
"oj" <nospam_ojngo@.home.com> wrote in message
news:u7XB3Q6eFHA.3932@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Running 32-bit version of sqlserver does you no good. See this document
> for details.
> http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...Advantages.doc
>
> --
> -oj
>
>
|||You're right. SQL2K (32bit) SP4 allows you to run it in WOW64. Though, I am
not sure if you can actually use up 4Gb. If you have windbg, you can try to
look it up *live* - don't have a x64 here else I would check it out for
sure.
-oj
"Mike Kruchten" <mrk@.fsisolutions.com> wrote in message
news:ukcPvG%23eFHA.1456@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Well, being from March 2004 this document doesn't say anything about
> running 32-bit SQL2000 on x64 W2k3. The following quote from one of the
> links I provided leads me to believe that SQL2000EE running in this
> environment will be able to use a full 4GB of virtual memory.
>
> On the x64 processor, each 32-bit application receives 4 GB virtual
> address space in the WOW64 environment, if the application has the
> IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE flag set in the image header. If this flag
> is not set, the 32-bit application receives 2 GB virtual address space.
>
>
> "oj" <nospam_ojngo@.home.com> wrote in message
> news:u7XB3Q6eFHA.3932@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
|||Is there any official work on this yet?
Daren
"Mike Kruchten" <mrk@.fsisolutions.com> wrote in message
news:uyO2zO1eFHA.3836@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> I thought I saw someone mention that SQL2KEE can access a full 4GB on x64.
> Can someone verify this? Here are 2 links that appear to support this.
>
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...onsumption.asp
>
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...management.asp
>

Can SQL2KEE use 4GB on x64?

I thought I saw someone mention that SQL2KEE can access a full 4GB on x64.
Can someone verify this? Here are 2 links that appear to support this.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/win64/win64/performance_and_memory_consumption.asp
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/win64/win64/memory_management.aspRunning 32-bit version of sqlserver does you no good. See this document for
details.
http://download.microsoft.com/download/0/4/7/047da8d3-aa80-452a-9148-40a7e8a7048a/SQL64bitAdvantages.doc
-oj
"Mike Kruchten" <mrk@.fsisolutions.com> wrote in message
news:uyO2zO1eFHA.3836@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>I thought I saw someone mention that SQL2KEE can access a full 4GB on x64.
>Can someone verify this? Here are 2 links that appear to support this.
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/win64/win64/performance_and_memory_consumption.asp
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/win64/win64/memory_management.asp
>|||Well, being from March 2004 this document doesn't say anything about running
32-bit SQL2000 on x64 W2k3. The following quote from one of the links I
provided leads me to believe that SQL2000EE running in this environment will
be able to use a full 4GB of virtual memory.
---
On the x64 processor, each 32-bit application receives 4 GB virtual address
space in the WOW64 environment, if the application has the
IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE flag set in the image header. If this flag is
not set, the 32-bit application receives 2 GB virtual address space.
"oj" <nospam_ojngo@.home.com> wrote in message
news:u7XB3Q6eFHA.3932@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Running 32-bit version of sqlserver does you no good. See this document
> for details.
> http://download.microsoft.com/download/0/4/7/047da8d3-aa80-452a-9148-40a7e8a7048a/SQL64bitAdvantages.doc
>
> --
> -oj
>
>|||You're right. SQL2K (32bit) SP4 allows you to run it in WOW64. Though, I am
not sure if you can actually use up 4Gb. If you have windbg, you can try to
look it up *live* - don't have a x64 here else I would check it out for
sure.
--
-oj
"Mike Kruchten" <mrk@.fsisolutions.com> wrote in message
news:ukcPvG%23eFHA.1456@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Well, being from March 2004 this document doesn't say anything about
> running 32-bit SQL2000 on x64 W2k3. The following quote from one of the
> links I provided leads me to believe that SQL2000EE running in this
> environment will be able to use a full 4GB of virtual memory.
>
> ---
> On the x64 processor, each 32-bit application receives 4 GB virtual
> address space in the WOW64 environment, if the application has the
> IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE flag set in the image header. If this flag
> is not set, the 32-bit application receives 2 GB virtual address space.
>
>
> "oj" <nospam_ojngo@.home.com> wrote in message
> news:u7XB3Q6eFHA.3932@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> Running 32-bit version of sqlserver does you no good. See this document
>> for details.
>> http://download.microsoft.com/download/0/4/7/047da8d3-aa80-452a-9148-40a7e8a7048a/SQL64bitAdvantages.doc
>>
>> --
>> -oj
>>
>|||Is there any official work on this yet?
Daren
"Mike Kruchten" <mrk@.fsisolutions.com> wrote in message
news:uyO2zO1eFHA.3836@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> I thought I saw someone mention that SQL2KEE can access a full 4GB on x64.
> Can someone verify this? Here are 2 links that appear to support this.
>
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/win64/win64/performance_and_memory_consumption.asp
>
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/win64/win64/memory_management.asp
>

Can SQL2KEE use 4GB on x64?

I thought I saw someone mention that SQL2KEE can access a full 4GB on x64.
Can someone verify this? Here are 2 links that appear to support this.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...consumption.asp
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d..._management.aspRunning 32-bit version of sqlserver does you no good. See this document for
details.
http://download.microsoft.com/downl...tAdvantages.doc
-oj
"Mike Kruchten" <mrk@.fsisolutions.com> wrote in message
news:uyO2zO1eFHA.3836@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>I thought I saw someone mention that SQL2KEE can access a full 4GB on x64.
>Can someone verify this? Here are 2 links that appear to support this.
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...consumption.asp
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d..._management.asp
>|||Well, being from March 2004 this document doesn't say anything about running
32-bit SQL2000 on x64 W2k3. The following quote from one of the links I
provided leads me to believe that SQL2000EE running in this environment will
be able to use a full 4GB of virtual memory.
---
On the x64 processor, each 32-bit application receives 4 GB virtual address
space in the WOW64 environment, if the application has the
IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE flag set in the image header. If this flag is
not set, the 32-bit application receives 2 GB virtual address space.
"oj" <nospam_ojngo@.home.com> wrote in message
news:u7XB3Q6eFHA.3932@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Running 32-bit version of sqlserver does you no good. See this document
> for details.
> http://download.microsoft.com/downl...tAdvantages.doc
>
> --
> -oj
>
>|||You're right. SQL2K (32bit) SP4 allows you to run it in WOW64. Though, I am
not sure if you can actually use up 4Gb. If you have windbg, you can try to
look it up *live* - don't have a x64 here else I would check it out for
sure.
-oj
"Mike Kruchten" <mrk@.fsisolutions.com> wrote in message
news:ukcPvG%23eFHA.1456@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Well, being from March 2004 this document doesn't say anything about
> running 32-bit SQL2000 on x64 W2k3. The following quote from one of the
> links I provided leads me to believe that SQL2000EE running in this
> environment will be able to use a full 4GB of virtual memory.
>
> ---
> On the x64 processor, each 32-bit application receives 4 GB virtual
> address space in the WOW64 environment, if the application has the
> IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE flag set in the image header. If this flag
> is not set, the 32-bit application receives 2 GB virtual address space.
>
>
> "oj" <nospam_ojngo@.home.com> wrote in message
> news:u7XB3Q6eFHA.3932@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>|||Is there any official work on this yet?
Daren
"Mike Kruchten" <mrk@.fsisolutions.com> wrote in message
news:uyO2zO1eFHA.3836@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> I thought I saw someone mention that SQL2KEE can access a full 4GB on x64.
> Can someone verify this? Here are 2 links that appear to support this.
>
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...consumption.asp
>
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...ent.asp

>

Can SQL Lose Records?

We are running SQL 7 with a front end that links to the tables through ODBC.
In our main table, the user has no way to delete a record through the
interface, though it is possible to delete it by opening the ODBC link.
Users would have no reason to delete a record, but one of our records turned
up missing.

Now, it's possible that a user may have accidentally deleted the record.
But, since users don't have any reason to delete records, and since they
don't access the ODBC links, it seems unlikely (though possible).

I was wondering if anyone had every heard of SQL Server ever "losing" a
record that had previously been saved. I checked the nightly backup from the
night after it was added, and the record was there. So either a user deleted
it, or somehow it got lost in SQL Server. I have no code that deletes
records in this table in any way, shape or form, so it couldn't have been
malfunctioning code.

So, while I have a hard time believing that SQL Server would just "lose" a
record, I also know that anything's possible, so I thought I'd ask if anyone
had ever heard of such a thing.

Thanks!

NeilOn Jun 20, 2:53 pm, "Neil" <nos...@.nospam.netwrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

We are running SQL 7 with a front end that links to the tables through ODBC.
In our main table, the user has no way to delete a record through the
interface, though it is possible to delete it by opening the ODBC link.
Users would have no reason to delete a record, but one of our records turned
up missing.
>
Now, it's possible that a user may have accidentally deleted the record.
But, since users don't have any reason to delete records, and since they
don't access the ODBC links, it seems unlikely (though possible).
>
I was wondering if anyone had every heard of SQL Server ever "losing" a
record that had previously been saved. I checked the nightly backup from the
night after it was added, and the record was there. So either a user deleted
it, or somehow it got lost in SQL Server. I have no code that deletes
records in this table in any way, shape or form, so it couldn't have been
malfunctioning code.
>
So, while I have a hard time believing that SQL Server would just "lose" a
record, I also know that anything's possible, so I thought I'd ask if anyone
had ever heard of such a thing.
>
Thanks!
>
Neil

Never heard of it. Revoke delete permissions from all your users. Add
a trigger prohibiting any deletes.|||I've never seen or heard of a row going missing either, and I spent
plenty of time using 7.0.

Along with what Alex suggested I would suggest doing a complete set of
DBCC integrity checks on the database.

Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 19:53:32 GMT, "Neil" <nospam@.nospam.netwrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>We are running SQL 7 with a front end that links to the tables through ODBC.
>In our main table, the user has no way to delete a record through the
>interface, though it is possible to delete it by opening the ODBC link.
>Users would have no reason to delete a record, but one of our records turned
>up missing.
>
>Now, it's possible that a user may have accidentally deleted the record.
>But, since users don't have any reason to delete records, and since they
>don't access the ODBC links, it seems unlikely (though possible).
>
>I was wondering if anyone had every heard of SQL Server ever "losing" a
>record that had previously been saved. I checked the nightly backup from the
>night after it was added, and the record was there. So either a user deleted
>it, or somehow it got lost in SQL Server. I have no code that deletes
>records in this table in any way, shape or form, so it couldn't have been
>malfunctioning code.
>
>So, while I have a hard time believing that SQL Server would just "lose" a
>record, I also know that anything's possible, so I thought I'd ask if anyone
>had ever heard of such a thing.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Neil

|||Neil (nospam@.nospam.net) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

So, while I have a hard time believing that SQL Server would just "lose"
a record, I also know that anything's possible, so I thought I'd ask if
anyone had ever heard of such a thing.

Well, I have lost rows, but that was a on a system where no one was looking
at the event log or the DBCC logs, and finally the database broke down,
with several levels of corruption.

As Roy said, run DBCC. If it comes up with corruption, then that may be
the answer.

But I'm prepared to place my bets that there was a human involved.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx|||

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Never heard of it. Revoke delete permissions from all your users. Add
a trigger prohibiting any deletes.
>

If I add a trigger prohibiting any deletes, then it wouldn't be possible for
me to go in and delete a record if I ever needed to, right? Or is there a
way to set up a trigger so that it can allow the delete in some cases?

Thanks.|||I'm not familiar with DBCC. Can you point me in the right direction?

Thanks.

"Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@.sommarskog.sewrote in message
news:Xns9955ED0DF77BAYazorman@.127.0.0.1...

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Neil (nospam@.nospam.net) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>So, while I have a hard time believing that SQL Server would just "lose"
>a record, I also know that anything's possible, so I thought I'd ask if
>anyone had ever heard of such a thing.

>
Well, I have lost rows, but that was a on a system where no one was
looking
at the event log or the DBCC logs, and finally the database broke down,
with several levels of corruption.
>
As Roy said, run DBCC. If it comes up with corruption, then that may be
the answer.
>
But I'm prepared to place my bets that there was a human involved.
>
>
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
>
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx

|||On Jun 20, 5:01 pm, "Neil" <nos...@.nospam.netwrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Never heard of it. Revoke delete permissions from all your users. Add
a trigger prohibiting any deletes.

>
If I add a trigger prohibiting any deletes, then it wouldn't be possible for
me to go in and delete a record if I ever needed to, right? Or is there a
way to set up a trigger so that it can allow the delete in some cases?
>
Thanks.

You can disable the trigger for the duration of your delete.
Alternatively you can have you trigger allow you to do whatever you
want, based on user_id() or suser_id(). Trigger can be bypassed using
nested triggers and or recursive trigger setting. There are other ways
best described in T-SQL Programming by Itzik Ben-Gan.

http://sqlserver-tips.blogspot.com/|||Neil (nospam@.nospam.net) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

I'm not familiar with DBCC. Can you point me in the right direction?

There are several DBCC commands, but the one of interest here is DBCC
CHECKDB which checks the database for consistency errors. If the database is
of any size, run it off-hours.

You should regularly run DBCC on your database, for instance as part of a
maintenance job, and make sure that you get alerted if it finds any errors.

If memory serves, you just say "DBCC CHECKDB" in the database you want to
examine. But check Books Online for details.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx|||Hello,

You can think of SQL Profiler as well if still you doubt on the SQL
Activities for some particular time.

Thanks
Ajay

Can report services use Request.QueryString("varName") for record selection?

I know the parameters are available, but let's say if I've got a variable in a request.QueryString() function I want to use from a page which links to the report, is it possible for the record selection to be filtered by the Request.QueryString() variable?You need to pass the page parameters into as report parameter name / value pairs. We do not provide you the raw page querystring in the report (as the report execution isn't even guaranteed to come from a web page).