Multiple Instances of SQL Server Service Manager

- I am running SQL Server 2000 (Standard Edition, SP3) on a Windows Server
2003 (Standard, v5.2) server operating in terminal services mode. The SQL
Server Service Manager is in the startup folder for all users, so multiple
instances are running when more than one user is logged in.
- I am having some problems with this server, so I'm trying to stop anything
that doesn't need to run.
- Can I delete the SQL Server Service Manager from the all users startup
folder? (I would start Service Manager when the Administrator logs in.)
- Thanks.
Hi
SQL Server Service Manager is not required for SQL Server operation. You can
remove it from the startup folder.
You can still manage SQL Server though Enterprise Manager and Control Panel
> Services.
Any reason you have a server that SQL Server needs to share with Terminal
Server users? It is not an optimal configuration.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Dave" wrote:

> - I am running SQL Server 2000 (Standard Edition, SP3) on a Windows Server
> 2003 (Standard, v5.2) server operating in terminal services mode. The SQL
> Server Service Manager is in the startup folder for all users, so multiple
> instances are running when more than one user is logged in.
> - I am having some problems with this server, so I'm trying to stop anything
> that doesn't need to run.
> - Can I delete the SQL Server Service Manager from the all users startup
> folder? (I would start Service Manager when the Administrator logs in.)
> - Thanks.
|||Mike,
- Thanks for the info.
- Re your question, I am running Act2005 (which uses SQL2000) for a company
that offices virtually. We setup this server in a hosted datacenter, and
loaded all of our apps (Act, MSOffice, a cpl others) and access everything
using terminal services on the server and remote desktop connection on the
client PCs.
- This configuration generally works, although there are some bugs which I
attribute to the poor job done by my IT provider, and the fact that Act2005
is not designed for terminal services. My only big problem is that Act
occasionally starts using a lot of memory (over 1GB of VM in some cases) and
the whole server slows down.
- Thanks again for your help, and please let me know if you have any
suggestions for my configuration.
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> SQL Server Service Manager is not required for SQL Server operation. You can
> remove it from the startup folder.
> You can still manage SQL Server though Enterprise Manager and Control Panel
> Any reason you have a server that SQL Server needs to share with Terminal
> Server users? It is not an optimal configuration.
> Regards
> --
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
>
> "Dave" wrote:
sql

Multiple Instances of SQL Server Service Manager

- I am running SQL Server 2000 (Standard Edition, SP3) on a Windows Server
2003 (Standard, v5.2) server operating in terminal services mode. The SQL
Server Service Manager is in the startup folder for all users, so multiple
instances are running when more than one user is logged in.
- I am having some problems with this server, so I'm trying to stop anything
that doesn't need to run.
- Can I delete the SQL Server Service Manager from the all users startup
folder? (I would start Service Manager when the Administrator logs in.)
- Thanks.Hi
SQL Server Service Manager is not required for SQL Server operation. You can
remove it from the startup folder.
You can still manage SQL Server though Enterprise Manager and Control Panel
> Services.
Any reason you have a server that SQL Server needs to share with Terminal
Server users? It is not an optimal configuration.
Regards
--
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Dave" wrote:
> - I am running SQL Server 2000 (Standard Edition, SP3) on a Windows Server
> 2003 (Standard, v5.2) server operating in terminal services mode. The SQL
> Server Service Manager is in the startup folder for all users, so multiple
> instances are running when more than one user is logged in.
> - I am having some problems with this server, so I'm trying to stop anything
> that doesn't need to run.
> - Can I delete the SQL Server Service Manager from the all users startup
> folder? (I would start Service Manager when the Administrator logs in.)
> - Thanks.|||Mike,
- Thanks for the info.
- Re your question, I am running Act2005 (which uses SQL2000) for a company
that offices virtually. We setup this server in a hosted datacenter, and
loaded all of our apps (Act, MSOffice, a cpl others) and access everything
using terminal services on the server and remote desktop connection on the
client PCs.
- This configuration generally works, although there are some bugs which I
attribute to the poor job done by my IT provider, and the fact that Act2005
is not designed for terminal services. My only big problem is that Act
occasionally starts using a lot of memory (over 1GB of VM in some cases) and
the whole server slows down.
- Thanks again for your help, and please let me know if you have any
suggestions for my configuration.
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> SQL Server Service Manager is not required for SQL Server operation. You can
> remove it from the startup folder.
> You can still manage SQL Server though Enterprise Manager and Control Panel
> > Services.
> Any reason you have a server that SQL Server needs to share with Terminal
> Server users? It is not an optimal configuration.
> Regards
> --
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
>
> "Dave" wrote:
> > - I am running SQL Server 2000 (Standard Edition, SP3) on a Windows Server
> > 2003 (Standard, v5.2) server operating in terminal services mode. The SQL
> > Server Service Manager is in the startup folder for all users, so multiple
> > instances are running when more than one user is logged in.
> > - I am having some problems with this server, so I'm trying to stop anything
> > that doesn't need to run.
> > - Can I delete the SQL Server Service Manager from the all users startup
> > folder? (I would start Service Manager when the Administrator logs in.)
> > - Thanks.

Multiple Instances of SQL Server Service Manager

- I am running SQL Server 2000 (Standard Edition, SP3) on a Windows Server
2003 (Standard, v5.2) server operating in terminal services mode. The SQL
Server Service Manager is in the startup folder for all users, so multiple
instances are running when more than one user is logged in.
- I am having some problems with this server, so I'm trying to stop anything
that doesn't need to run.
- Can I delete the SQL Server Service Manager from the all users startup
folder? (I would start Service Manager when the Administrator logs in.)
- Thanks.Hi
SQL Server Service Manager is not required for SQL Server operation. You can
remove it from the startup folder.
You can still manage SQL Server though Enterprise Manager and Control Panel
> Services.
Any reason you have a server that SQL Server needs to share with Terminal
Server users? It is not an optimal configuration.
Regards
--
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Dave" wrote:

> - I am running SQL Server 2000 (Standard Edition, SP3) on a Windows Server
> 2003 (Standard, v5.2) server operating in terminal services mode. The SQL
> Server Service Manager is in the startup folder for all users, so multiple
> instances are running when more than one user is logged in.
> - I am having some problems with this server, so I'm trying to stop anythi
ng
> that doesn't need to run.
> - Can I delete the SQL Server Service Manager from the all users startup
> folder? (I would start Service Manager when the Administrator logs in.)
> - Thanks.|||Mike,
- Thanks for the info.
- Re your question, I am running Act2005 (which uses SQL2000) for a company
that offices virtually. We setup this server in a hosted datacenter, and
loaded all of our apps (Act, MSOffice, a cpl others) and access everything
using terminal services on the server and remote desktop connection on the
client PCs.
- This configuration generally works, although there are some bugs which I
attribute to the poor job done by my IT provider, and the fact that Act2005
is not designed for terminal services. My only big problem is that Act
occasionally starts using a lot of memory (over 1GB of VM in some cases) and
the whole server slows down.
- Thanks again for your help, and please let me know if you have any
suggestions for my configuration.
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> SQL Server Service Manager is not required for SQL Server operation. You c
an
> remove it from the startup folder.
> You can still manage SQL Server though Enterprise Manager and Control Pane
l
> Any reason you have a server that SQL Server needs to share with Terminal
> Server users? It is not an optimal configuration.
> Regards
> --
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
>
> "Dave" wrote:
>

Multiple Instances of SQL Server

Can I install different editions of SQL Server 2000 on one server. Meaning
like SQL Server 2000 Enterprise , Standard and Desktop Edition , can it be
installed all together as different / multiple instances on a W2k Server...?
?
I know same types of database can be installed ( depending on the O.S. type
) like multiple instances of Entp Edn or multiple instances of Std Edn.
Thanks in advance.Hi,
Yes, you can do that in Windows 2000 Server. All are independant and will
use hardware resources seperately.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Piku" <Piku@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C78018CC-F972-49DC-9399-67E1AA52D11A@.microsoft.com...
> Can I install different editions of SQL Server 2000 on one server. Meaning
> like SQL Server 2000 Enterprise , Standard and Desktop Edition , can it be
> installed all together as different / multiple instances on a W2k
> Server...'
> I know same types of database can be installed ( depending on the O.S.
> type
> ) like multiple instances of Entp Edn or multiple instances of Std Edn.
> Thanks in advance.|||Thanks Hari appreciete it.
"Hari Prasad" wrote:

> Hi,
> Yes, you can do that in Windows 2000 Server. All are independant and will
> use hardware resources seperately.
> Thanks
> Hari
> SQL Server MVP
> "Piku" <Piku@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C78018CC-F972-49DC-9399-67E1AA52D11A@.microsoft.com...
>
>

Multiple Instances of SQL Server

Can I install different editions of SQL Server 2000 on one server. Meaning
like SQL Server 2000 Enterprise , Standard and Desktop Edition , can it be
installed all together as different / multiple instances on a W2k Server...?
I know same types of database can be installed ( depending on the O.S. type
) like multiple instances of Entp Edn or multiple instances of Std Edn.
Thanks in advance.
Hi,
Yes, you can do that in WINDOWS 2000 Server. All are independant and will
use hardware resources seperately.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Piku" <Piku@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C78018CC-F972-49DC-9399-67E1AA52D11A@.microsoft.com...
> Can I install different editions of SQL Server 2000 on one server. Meaning
> like SQL Server 2000 Enterprise , Standard and Desktop Edition , can it be
> installed all together as different / multiple instances on a W2k
> Server...?
> I know same types of database can be installed ( depending on the O.S.
> type
> ) like multiple instances of Entp Edn or multiple instances of Std Edn.
> Thanks in advance.
|||Thanks Hari appreciete it.
"Hari Prasad" wrote:

> Hi,
> Yes, you can do that in WINDOWS 2000 Server. All are independant and will
> use hardware resources seperately.
> Thanks
> Hari
> SQL Server MVP
> "Piku" <Piku@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C78018CC-F972-49DC-9399-67E1AA52D11A@.microsoft.com...
>
>
sql

Multiple Instances of SQL Server

Can I install different editions of SQL Server 2000 on one server. Meaning
like SQL Server 2000 Enterprise , Standard and Desktop Edition , can it be
installed all together as different / multiple instances on a W2k Server...'
I know same types of database can be installed ( depending on the O.S. type
) like multiple instances of Entp Edn or multiple instances of Std Edn.
Thanks in advance.Hi,
Yes, you can do that in WINDOWS 2000 Server. All are independant and will
use hardware resources seperately.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Piku" <Piku@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C78018CC-F972-49DC-9399-67E1AA52D11A@.microsoft.com...
> Can I install different editions of SQL Server 2000 on one server. Meaning
> like SQL Server 2000 Enterprise , Standard and Desktop Edition , can it be
> installed all together as different / multiple instances on a W2k
> Server...'
> I know same types of database can be installed ( depending on the O.S.
> type
> ) like multiple instances of Entp Edn or multiple instances of Std Edn.
> Thanks in advance.|||Thanks Hari appreciete it.
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
> Hi,
> Yes, you can do that in WINDOWS 2000 Server. All are independant and will
> use hardware resources seperately.
> Thanks
> Hari
> SQL Server MVP
> "Piku" <Piku@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C78018CC-F972-49DC-9399-67E1AA52D11A@.microsoft.com...
> > Can I install different editions of SQL Server 2000 on one server. Meaning
> > like SQL Server 2000 Enterprise , Standard and Desktop Edition , can it be
> > installed all together as different / multiple instances on a W2k
> > Server...'
> >
> > I know same types of database can be installed ( depending on the O.S.
> > type
> > ) like multiple instances of Entp Edn or multiple instances of Std Edn.
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
>
>

Multiple instances

If I installl 2 standard edition SQL 2K instances on a Server with 4 G RAM.
Does it mean each instance can can use its own 2G RAM without interfering
with other instance?
Yes, each instance can use up to 2GB. In practice, you'll need to consider
memory requirements for the OS and other apps as well. Monitor and adjust
SQL Server 'max server memory' as needed to avoid excessive paging. Also,
consider your licensing mode.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Aziz" <Aziz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9DB27D4B-B9F0-4B3C-84C8-08AFEF94DE80@.microsoft.com...
> If I installl 2 standard edition SQL 2K instances on a Server with 4 G
> RAM.
> Does it mean each instance can can use its own 2G RAM without interfering
> with other instance?
|||"Aziz" <Aziz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9DB27D4B-B9F0-4B3C-84C8-08AFEF94DE80@.microsoft.com...
> If I installl 2 standard edition SQL 2K instances on a Server with 4 G
> RAM.
> Does it mean each instance can can use its own 2G RAM without interfering
> with other instance?
Yes.
David
|||Hi,
Yes, it does by itself if both are standard edition. But still I will say to
make the memory static if you have multiple instances of sql server running
in a single machine. Measure the memory requirement per instance using
perfmon during the peak usage and fix the memory required.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Aziz" <Aziz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9DB27D4B-B9F0-4B3C-84C8-08AFEF94DE80@.microsoft.com...
> If I installl 2 standard edition SQL 2K instances on a Server with 4 G
> RAM.
> Does it mean each instance can can use its own 2G RAM without interfering
> with other instance?
sql

Multiple instances

If I installl 2 standard edition SQL 2K instances on a Server with 4 G RAM.
Does it mean each instance can can use its own 2G RAM without interfering
with other instance?Yes, each instance can use up to 2GB. In practice, you'll need to consider
memory requirements for the OS and other apps as well. Monitor and adjust
SQL Server 'max server memory' as needed to avoid excessive paging. Also,
consider your licensing mode.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Aziz" <Aziz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9DB27D4B-B9F0-4B3C-84C8-08AFEF94DE80@.microsoft.com...
> If I installl 2 standard edition SQL 2K instances on a Server with 4 G
> RAM.
> Does it mean each instance can can use its own 2G RAM without interfering
> with other instance?|||"Aziz" <Aziz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9DB27D4B-B9F0-4B3C-84C8-08AFEF94DE80@.microsoft.com...
> If I installl 2 standard edition SQL 2K instances on a Server with 4 G
> RAM.
> Does it mean each instance can can use its own 2G RAM without interfering
> with other instance?
Yes.
David|||Hi,
Yes, it does by itself if both are standard edition. But still I will say to
make the memory static if you have multiple instances of sql server running
in a single machine. Measure the memory requirement per instance using
perfmon during the peak usage and fix the memory required.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Aziz" <Aziz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9DB27D4B-B9F0-4B3C-84C8-08AFEF94DE80@.microsoft.com...
> If I installl 2 standard edition SQL 2K instances on a Server with 4 G
> RAM.
> Does it mean each instance can can use its own 2G RAM without interfering
> with other instance?

Multiple instances

If I installl 2 standard edition SQL 2K instances on a Server with 4 G RAM.
Does it mean each instance can can use its own 2G RAM without interfering
with other instance?Yes, each instance can use up to 2GB. In practice, you'll need to consider
memory requirements for the OS and other apps as well. Monitor and adjust
SQL Server 'max server memory' as needed to avoid excessive paging. Also,
consider your licensing mode.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Aziz" <Aziz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9DB27D4B-B9F0-4B3C-84C8-08AFEF94DE80@.microsoft.com...
> If I installl 2 standard edition SQL 2K instances on a Server with 4 G
> RAM.
> Does it mean each instance can can use its own 2G RAM without interfering
> with other instance?|||"Aziz" <Aziz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9DB27D4B-B9F0-4B3C-84C8-08AFEF94DE80@.microsoft.com...
> If I installl 2 standard edition SQL 2K instances on a Server with 4 G
> RAM.
> Does it mean each instance can can use its own 2G RAM without interfering
> with other instance?
Yes.
David|||Hi,
Yes, it does by itself if both are standard edition. But still I will say to
make the memory static if you have multiple instances of sql server running
in a single machine. Measure the memory requirement per instance using
perfmon during the peak usage and fix the memory required.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Aziz" <Aziz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9DB27D4B-B9F0-4B3C-84C8-08AFEF94DE80@.microsoft.com...
> If I installl 2 standard edition SQL 2K instances on a Server with 4 G
> RAM.
> Does it mean each instance can can use its own 2G RAM without interfering
> with other instance?

Multiple Instance Memory Utilization

I have a Dell server with 4GB of memory and 4 CPUs with 1.6G each, hosting
one major application database. SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition was
installed on the server, OS is Windows 2000 Server. Currently with single
instance installed, I checked the memory usage using task manager, the wholes
system can only use up to less then 2 GB of memory. The peak is less than 2
GB. The system neven utilizing more than 2 GM of memory. I am in the process
of doing server consolidation and planning to move another major application
database to this dell server. I want to utilize 4 G of memory after I
consolidate the other SQL server to the Dell Server. If I just move the
database to this dell server without creating a new instance, the most memory
we can utilize is 3GB with 3 GB switch set in boot.ini. If we create a new
instance, does that mean we can utilize the other 2 GB of Memory on the
server? Security is not a major concern when using single instance. What are
the Pros and Cons?
Thank you very much for your help.
You need Enterprise edition to use more than 2GB. Windows 2000 server does
not use the /3GB switch other than in a test scenario. Yes you can use two
instances and each can use 2GB but you have to be careful as now you can
lead to a situation where there is little left for the OS. If you are
consolidating then you should look at using Enterprise edition and Win2000
ADV Server (or Win2003) so you can use all 3GB for Sql Server and have a GB
for the OS and any other apps.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"royHe" <royHe@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8B395A5C-26F6-4E71-95B2-D9CE53E62100@.microsoft.com...
>I have a Dell server with 4GB of memory and 4 CPUs with 1.6G each, hosting
> one major application database. SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition was
> installed on the server, OS is Windows 2000 Server. Currently with single
> instance installed, I checked the memory usage using task manager, the
> wholes
> system can only use up to less then 2 GB of memory. The peak is less than
> 2
> GB. The system neven utilizing more than 2 GM of memory. I am in the
> process
> of doing server consolidation and planning to move another major
> application
> database to this dell server. I want to utilize 4 G of memory after I
> consolidate the other SQL server to the Dell Server. If I just move the
> database to this dell server without creating a new instance, the most
> memory
> we can utilize is 3GB with 3 GB switch set in boot.ini. If we create a new
> instance, does that mean we can utilize the other 2 GB of Memory on the
> server? Security is not a major concern when using single instance. What
> are
> the Pros and Cons?
> Thank you very much for your help.
>
|||Thank you very much.
This is a dedicated SQL server. I find out in my situation the OS use very
little memory. Probably If I reserve 256M to 300M for the OS is enough.
Currently the peak for the OS Memory usage is around 250M.
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

> You need Enterprise edition to use more than 2GB. Windows 2000 server does
> not use the /3GB switch other than in a test scenario. Yes you can use two
> instances and each can use 2GB but you have to be careful as now you can
> lead to a situation where there is little left for the OS. If you are
> consolidating then you should look at using Enterprise edition and Win2000
> ADV Server (or Win2003) so you can use all 3GB for Sql Server and have a GB
> for the OS and any other apps.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "royHe" <royHe@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8B395A5C-26F6-4E71-95B2-D9CE53E62100@.microsoft.com...
>
>

Multiple Instance Memory Utilization

I have a Dell server with 4GB of memory and 4 CPUs with 1.6G each, hosting
one major application database. SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition was
installed on the server, OS is Windows 2000 Server. Currently with single
instance installed, I checked the memory usage using task manager, the wholes
system can only use up to less then 2 GB of memory. The peak is less than 2
GB. The system neven utilizing more than 2 GM of memory. I am in the process
of doing server consolidation and planning to move another major application
database to this dell server. I want to utilize 4 G of memory after I
consolidate the other SQL server to the Dell Server. If I just move the
database to this dell server without creating a new instance, the most memory
we can utilize is 3GB with 3 GB switch set in boot.ini. If we create a new
instance, does that mean we can utilize the other 2 GB of Memory on the
server? Security is not a major concern when using single instance. What are
the Pros and Cons?
Thank you very much for your help.You need Enterprise edition to use more than 2GB. Windows 2000 server does
not use the /3GB switch other than in a test scenario. Yes you can use two
instances and each can use 2GB but you have to be careful as now you can
lead to a situation where there is little left for the OS. If you are
consolidating then you should look at using Enterprise edition and Win2000
ADV Server (or Win2003) so you can use all 3GB for Sql Server and have a GB
for the OS and any other apps.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"royHe" <royHe@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8B395A5C-26F6-4E71-95B2-D9CE53E62100@.microsoft.com...
>I have a Dell server with 4GB of memory and 4 CPUs with 1.6G each, hosting
> one major application database. SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition was
> installed on the server, OS is Windows 2000 Server. Currently with single
> instance installed, I checked the memory usage using task manager, the
> wholes
> system can only use up to less then 2 GB of memory. The peak is less than
> 2
> GB. The system neven utilizing more than 2 GM of memory. I am in the
> process
> of doing server consolidation and planning to move another major
> application
> database to this dell server. I want to utilize 4 G of memory after I
> consolidate the other SQL server to the Dell Server. If I just move the
> database to this dell server without creating a new instance, the most
> memory
> we can utilize is 3GB with 3 GB switch set in boot.ini. If we create a new
> instance, does that mean we can utilize the other 2 GB of Memory on the
> server? Security is not a major concern when using single instance. What
> are
> the Pros and Cons?
> Thank you very much for your help.
>|||Thank you very much.
This is a dedicated SQL server. I find out in my situation the OS use very
little memory. Probably If I reserve 256M to 300M for the OS is enough.
Currently the peak for the OS Memory usage is around 250M.
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> You need Enterprise edition to use more than 2GB. Windows 2000 server does
> not use the /3GB switch other than in a test scenario. Yes you can use two
> instances and each can use 2GB but you have to be careful as now you can
> lead to a situation where there is little left for the OS. If you are
> consolidating then you should look at using Enterprise edition and Win2000
> ADV Server (or Win2003) so you can use all 3GB for Sql Server and have a GB
> for the OS and any other apps.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "royHe" <royHe@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8B395A5C-26F6-4E71-95B2-D9CE53E62100@.microsoft.com...
> >I have a Dell server with 4GB of memory and 4 CPUs with 1.6G each, hosting
> > one major application database. SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition was
> > installed on the server, OS is Windows 2000 Server. Currently with single
> > instance installed, I checked the memory usage using task manager, the
> > wholes
> > system can only use up to less then 2 GB of memory. The peak is less than
> > 2
> > GB. The system neven utilizing more than 2 GM of memory. I am in the
> > process
> > of doing server consolidation and planning to move another major
> > application
> > database to this dell server. I want to utilize 4 G of memory after I
> > consolidate the other SQL server to the Dell Server. If I just move the
> > database to this dell server without creating a new instance, the most
> > memory
> > we can utilize is 3GB with 3 GB switch set in boot.ini. If we create a new
> > instance, does that mean we can utilize the other 2 GB of Memory on the
> > server? Security is not a major concern when using single instance. What
> > are
> > the Pros and Cons?
> >
> > Thank you very much for your help.
> >
> >
>
>

Multiple Instance Memory Utilization

I have a Dell server with 4GB of memory and 4 CPUs with 1.6G each, hosting
one major application database. SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition was
installed on the server, OS is Windows 2000 Server. Currently with single
instance installed, I checked the memory usage using task manager, the whole
s
system can only use up to less then 2 GB of memory. The peak is less than 2
GB. The system neven utilizing more than 2 GM of memory. I am in the proces
s
of doing server consolidation and planning to move another major application
database to this dell server. I want to utilize 4 G of memory after I
consolidate the other SQL server to the Dell Server. If I just move the
database to this dell server without creating a new instance, the most memor
y
we can utilize is 3GB with 3 GB switch set in boot.ini. If we create a new
instance, does that mean we can utilize the other 2 GB of Memory on the
server? Security is not a major concern when using single instance. What ar
e
the Pros and Cons?
Thank you very much for your help.You need Enterprise edition to use more than 2GB. Windows 2000 server does
not use the /3GB switch other than in a test scenario. Yes you can use two
instances and each can use 2GB but you have to be careful as now you can
lead to a situation where there is little left for the OS. If you are
consolidating then you should look at using Enterprise edition and Win2000
ADV Server (or Win2003) so you can use all 3GB for Sql Server and have a GB
for the OS and any other apps.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"royHe" <royHe@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8B395A5C-26F6-4E71-95B2-D9CE53E62100@.microsoft.com...
>I have a Dell server with 4GB of memory and 4 CPUs with 1.6G each, hosting
> one major application database. SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition was
> installed on the server, OS is Windows 2000 Server. Currently with single
> instance installed, I checked the memory usage using task manager, the
> wholes
> system can only use up to less then 2 GB of memory. The peak is less than
> 2
> GB. The system neven utilizing more than 2 GM of memory. I am in the
> process
> of doing server consolidation and planning to move another major
> application
> database to this dell server. I want to utilize 4 G of memory after I
> consolidate the other SQL server to the Dell Server. If I just move the
> database to this dell server without creating a new instance, the most
> memory
> we can utilize is 3GB with 3 GB switch set in boot.ini. If we create a new
> instance, does that mean we can utilize the other 2 GB of Memory on the
> server? Security is not a major concern when using single instance. What
> are
> the Pros and Cons?
> Thank you very much for your help.
>|||Thank you very much.
This is a dedicated SQL server. I find out in my situation the OS use very
little memory. Probably If I reserve 256M to 300M for the OS is enough.
Currently the peak for the OS Memory usage is around 250M.
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

> You need Enterprise edition to use more than 2GB. Windows 2000 server do
es
> not use the /3GB switch other than in a test scenario. Yes you can use tw
o
> instances and each can use 2GB but you have to be careful as now you can
> lead to a situation where there is little left for the OS. If you are
> consolidating then you should look at using Enterprise edition and Win2000
> ADV Server (or Win2003) so you can use all 3GB for Sql Server and have a G
B
> for the OS and any other apps.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "royHe" <royHe@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8B395A5C-26F6-4E71-95B2-D9CE53E62100@.microsoft.com...
>
>sql

Multiple distribution agents running on subscriber

I have 1 production db and 1 subscriber db using transaction replication on
SQL Server 2000 standard edition. They are over 100 gb in size. Essentially
the subscriber is a hot backup for the the production server. The db was
restored manually at the subscriber because it is to large for snapshot.
After reading Hilary's book, scanning the internet and posting to this
group, I made an exucutive decision to split up the articles into smaller
subscriptions: 6 to be exact, using pull subscriptions to minimize problems
on the production server. This allowed me to better control/assess problems,
latency, etc.
Everything is going alot better (if you've read any of my previous posts)
and I have most of the problems under control and latency is way down.
(Thank Hilary and Paul!) I do have one BIG question though, since there
doesn't seem to be a lot of documentation on this type of set up (multiple
subscriptions and publications with a 1to1 database.)
Okay here is the question. My distribution agents that are running on the
subscriber will "stop" running once they have "succeeded" or no replicated
transactions are available for that subscription. What is the best way to
get notified once these have stopped and setup a schedule for restart when
new transactions are available? If there is no way of knowing when new
ones are available, can I set a job to automatically start the agents when
for peak times that transactions will be available for the particular
subscription? Right now I am doing it manually which isn't very condusive to
sleep.
For example I know my subscription called "Main Bulk" will need to be
running most often during working hours while my subscription called "Price
History" will need to be running mostly overnight. Hope I've explained this
clear enough.
Thanks!!!!
Kristy
I think your best bet would be to query
distribution.dbo.msdistribution_status and then start up the distribution
agent after a certain number of undelivered commands are pooled for a single
agent in the distribution database.
ie
select * from distribution.dbo.msdistribution_status where agent_id=7 and
UndelivCmdsInDistDB > 2000
if @.@.rowcount > 1000
exec sp_start_job @.job_id=0x8458390850805824052
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
"Kristy" <pleasereplyby@.posting.com> wrote in message
news:egY1BEoUFHA.3840@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> I have 1 production db and 1 subscriber db using transaction replication
on
> SQL Server 2000 standard edition. They are over 100 gb in size.
Essentially
> the subscriber is a hot backup for the the production server. The db was
> restored manually at the subscriber because it is to large for snapshot.
> After reading Hilary's book, scanning the internet and posting to this
> group, I made an exucutive decision to split up the articles into smaller
> subscriptions: 6 to be exact, using pull subscriptions to minimize
problems
> on the production server. This allowed me to better control/assess
problems,
> latency, etc.
> Everything is going alot better (if you've read any of my previous posts)
> and I have most of the problems under control and latency is way down.
> (Thank Hilary and Paul!) I do have one BIG question though, since there
> doesn't seem to be a lot of documentation on this type of set up (multiple
> subscriptions and publications with a 1to1 database.)
> Okay here is the question. My distribution agents that are running on the
> subscriber will "stop" running once they have "succeeded" or no replicated
> transactions are available for that subscription. What is the best way to
> get notified once these have stopped and setup a schedule for restart when
> new transactions are available? If there is no way of knowing when new
> ones are available, can I set a job to automatically start the agents when
> for peak times that transactions will be available for the particular
> subscription? Right now I am doing it manually which isn't very condusive
to
> sleep.
> For example I know my subscription called "Main Bulk" will need to be
> running most often during working hours while my subscription called
"Price
> History" will need to be running mostly overnight. Hope I've explained
this
> clear enough.
> Thanks!!!!
> Kristy
>
>
sql

multiple distribution agents running

hi !

I am using sql server 2005 sp1 standard edition.

I have a transactional replication set up from one server to another.
From last couple of days i am noticing two distribution agents running for the same subscription in the replication monitor. Before this only one distribution agent was running. Is there any problem having two distribution agents running in parallel for the same subscription on a server?

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks

No, this is by design. Its the old independent agent option from SQL 2000. By default SQL Server 2005 has this option enabled by default. Any time you have two or more publications in the same publication database pushing to the same subscription database on the same server SQL Server will use multiple distribution agents.

The problems you might face are overloading resources on the subscriber if the subscriber is a single proc machine or if the load is high, or if there are DRI dependencies between the articles in different publications. Also check to see if the SubscriptionStreams parameter has a value for your distribution agents.

Multiple Browser Connection Problem

I'm having problems working on a DNN Site. I'm doing all the dev work local
on my machine. I've got SQL 2005 Developer Edition. I'm running a DNN site on
the local IIS. I've enabled both tcp and named pipe connections and I've
started the browser service. The web config is pointed to Server=(local).
Simply put I get the message
The page cannot be displayed
There are too many people accessing the Web site at this time.
I realize they don't want people running big-ol' web sites on this but come
one. I've simply got 3 browser windows open. I've got 2 on the local machine
and then I use remote desktop to view the page from another machine and
logged into the site as a test user while on my local machine I'm logged in
as a superuser making changes. I don't know what the heck is going on. I
don't know if changing it to TCP only or even specifying localhost instead of
(local) in the connection string. If anyone has a fix for this please let me
know. Honestly this is pretty silly on Microsofts part. If this is just
something you can't get around, one of those By design failures, Does anyone
know if there is an upgrade I can get from dev edition to standard (or
whatever marketing is calling it this year).
hi,
NetFodder wrote:
> I'm having problems working on a DNN Site. I'm doing all the dev work
> local on my machine. I've got SQL 2005 Developer Edition. I'm running
> a DNN site on the local IIS. I've enabled both tcp and named pipe
> connections and I've started the browser service. The web config is
> pointed to Server=(local). Simply put I get the message
> The page cannot be displayed
> There are too many people accessing the Web site at this time.
as the instance you are referencing is a default instance, there's no need
of the the SQL Browser service..

> I realize they don't want people running big-ol' web sites on this
> but come one. I've simply got 3 browser windows open. I've got 2 on
> the local machine and then I use remote desktop to view the page from
> another machine and logged into the site as a test user while on my
> local machine I'm logged in as a superuser making changes. I don't
> know what the heck is going on. I don't know if changing it to TCP
> only or even specifying localhost instead of (local) in the
> connection string. If anyone has a fix for this please let me know.
> Honestly this is pretty silly on Microsofts part. If this is just
> something you can't get around, one of those By design failures, Does
> anyone know if there is an upgrade I can get from dev edition to
> standard (or whatever marketing is calling it this year).
actually I do not think the problem is SQLExpress related, as SQLExpress
does not limit this way the max number of connections to the SQL Server
instance..
Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
http://www.asql.biz http://italy.mvps.org
DbaMgr2k ver 0.21.0 - DbaMgr ver 0.65.0 and further SQL Tools
-- remove DMO to reply
|||Actually I did a bunch of research and found a couple of solutions for it.
First the developer edition also does not have a limit (programatically) on
the number of connections. However, for some reason my system did. After
fixing that by uninstalling/reboot/re-installing, I ran into an IIS
limitation. Most likely because I'm working on some modules that actually use
specified user accounts for running. They work kind of the same as SQL, or
exchange where the services need a service account to run. These need a web
account to run so think of them as DNN Service Accounts. Anywho, 2 pieces
together fixed it. First I used MetaEdit to change the IIS limit from 10 to
40. Then I unchecked the box on the web site properties page for KeepAlives.
If anyone runs into this, I hope this helps.
"Andrea Montanari" wrote:

> hi,
> NetFodder wrote:
> as the instance you are referencing is a default instance, there's no need
> of the the SQL Browser service..
>
> actually I do not think the problem is SQLExpress related, as SQLExpress
> does not limit this way the max number of connections to the SQL Server
> instance..
> --
> Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
> http://www.asql.biz http://italy.mvps.org
> DbaMgr2k ver 0.21.0 - DbaMgr ver 0.65.0 and further SQL Tools
> -- remove DMO to reply
>
>

Multiple Ado Connections

Hi, I have a VB application running on SQL Enterprise Edition. Physically there are only 20 users loging in to the software at one time. However i can see more that 12 SPIDs for each user. The developers have been opening a new connection for each form in the application i guess. Is it normal or is there any specific requirement that foces them to do so? Shall i need to change the default WORKER-THREADS option on the server for peformance? Suggestions please!!!

Regards.They should close connections when the retrieving of data is completed
(or updates, or inserts are completed)

one connection per user is the best way to control connection leaks
(when developpers forget to close an unusefull connection)|||Means that they can open multiple connections for retrieving data for multiple forms however the connections must be closed later. What about the max-worker threads. Is there any need to change the settings, for i have more that 300 SPIDs at a time on the server.
Thanx for the kind response.|||programs are almost always "linear"
> open connection
> retrieve data1
> close connection

> open connection
> retrieve data2
> close connection
...

even if you've got 300 users there's rarely 300 connections
opened at the same time because they are closed most of the time
(except if users do big SELECTs on your database connections will
be opened longer)

Originally posted by TALAT
Means that they can open multiple connections for retrieving data for multiple forms however the connections must be closed later. What about the max-worker threads. Is there any need to change the settings, for i have more that 300 SPIDs at a time on the server.
Thanx for the kind response.|||The developers(genius) say that they close the connections in an error handler routine only, i.e., if an exception is thrown; they have written the code to close the connection for that particular form, otherwise not. What a nice coding technique they have adopted.

Regards.|||they could open a connection and leave it opened
but they should reuse this connection
instead of reopening new ones

this could be an other way to control the connection leaks

> start program : open ONE connection
> window1
> window2
> use program
> use program
...
> end program : close THE connection

in this case
Nb users = Nb connections

but if you have for example a max nb of connections at 100
only 100 users can connect at the same time

but with the other solution (open/close unuseful connection)
you can have more users than the max connections (100 in this example)
the users are not connected all the time of the use of the program
and they do not connect at the same time
if the max connections is reached a user just has to wait a little for a
connection to be liberated by an other user|||good luck with your consuming-connections-developper

just say to him that a connection is a very precious thing to waste
many users dreamed of having one free
and db-administrator cannot multiply them indefinitly

If ONE should use a connection
ONE should use it shortly
ONE should think of liberating it rapidly
ONE should carefully close it
ONE should know that ONE is not alone
For MANY use the program
Even if only ONE develops it|||I shall rather force them to stop doing this and to change their coding techiniques. Thanx for guiding and responding so quick. Thanx again!!

Regards.