Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase ««12

AWE ,memory management and 64bit OS Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Friday, February 15, 2013 2:18 PM


SSC-Forever

SSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-Forever

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 2:09 PM
Points: 40,193, Visits: 36,597
Aurelio Alvarez (2/15/2013)
Now to squeeze more money from you, just the OS restricts you to force you to upgrade.


Been that way well before the 32 bit/64 bit changes.

The same genious to work around should apply in either case, I am hoping.


So you want the OS to provide a mechanism for you to evade the OS's built in memory limits? o.O

In either case we don't need the OS to manage the memory, technically.


Except the OS did manage AWE memory... Hence why the PAE switch was required for the OS before SQL could have AWE enabled.



Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server 2008, MVP
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability

We walk in the dark places no others will enter
We stand on the bridge and no one may pass

Post #1420766
Posted Friday, February 15, 2013 2:24 PM
Grasshopper

GrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopper

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 6:40 AM
Points: 21, Visits: 52
If its an artificial limitation yes.
I get it. You dig Microsoft.
I dig some of their stuff.
I'm not evading anything, just saying 32 bit OS never was designed for big memory yet good programming dealt with it.
Now it's a built in artificial limit to squeeze more money from you.
You and I both know they didn't squeeze more money from you to lift the 32 bit OS limits. We paid good money for SQL that rightly got around it.
Now that same SQL aids and abets squeezing even more for you though both SW and OS easily support it.
Anyway, it's not evading to expect software you bought that intelligently helped you overcome OS memory limits before to continue to do do now that its 64 bit and easily could.
I appreciate your insight regardless of difference of opinion on the non-technicals.
Post #1420769
Posted Friday, February 15, 2013 2:35 PM


SSC-Forever

SSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-Forever

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 2:09 PM
Points: 40,193, Visits: 36,597
A. A. (2/15/2013)
You and I both know they didn't squeeze more money from you to lift the 32 bit OS limits. We paid good money for SQL that rightly got around it.


*sigh* The facility to get around the 32 bit limits was built into the OS. Any program that could access the AWE APIs (OS-level APIs) could access memory above the 4GB boundary. Hence it was not SQL that was evading an OS limitation, it was SQL using the OS-provided APIs to access memory above what a 32-bit process can directly address

Anyway, it's not evading to expect software you bought that intelligently helped you overcome OS memory limits before to continue to do do now that its 64 bit and easily could.


Again, the 32 bit limit was not an OS limitation. The OS was what provided the ability for 32 bit processes to access memory above the 4 GB boundary.

Now, if you want to continue to believe the opposite, be my guest. This is not MS fandom, this is fact, you can go and read up on memory architecture and memory access and it'll tell you just the same.



Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server 2008, MVP
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability

We walk in the dark places no others will enter
We stand on the bridge and no one may pass

Post #1420776
Posted Friday, February 15, 2013 3:01 PM
Grasshopper

GrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopper

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 6:40 AM
Points: 21, Visits: 52
I know what I'm talking about too, though less than you I admit.
I'm talking about the general attitude of the OS, and I think we're diverging on politics.
Obviously 32 bit OS couldn't "handle" more than that or it would have, and there would not have been a limit. Instead, it let you enable relinquishing control to special programs designed to really handle it.
Now it's a conscious decision to limit, that's all.
Either way we both know what we're talking about and will never see eye to eye on the politics arguing.
Thanks for your help!
Post #1420790
Posted Friday, February 15, 2013 3:10 PM


SSC-Forever

SSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-Forever

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 2:09 PM
Points: 40,193, Visits: 36,597
A. A. (2/15/2013)
Obviously 32 bit OS couldn't "handle" more than that or it would have, and there would not have been a limit. Instead, it let you enable relinquishing control to special programs designed to really handle it.


No, that's not what happened. There were no 'special programs' designed to handle memory that the OS couldn't. Rather additional APIs were added into the OS to circumvent the 32-bit direct addressing limitation. Note, into the OS. There's no politics here, there's just additional APIs in the OS to indirectly address the memory above 4GB, APIs that any application running on that OS could call.



Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server 2008, MVP
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability

We walk in the dark places no others will enter
We stand on the bridge and no one may pass

Post #1420794
Posted Friday, February 15, 2013 3:19 PM
Grasshopper

GrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopper

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 6:40 AM
Points: 21, Visits: 52
I will learn more.
Thanks.
Post #1420804
Posted Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:36 PM
Grasshopper

GrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopper

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 6:40 AM
Points: 21, Visits: 52
Hi,
I found a good microsoft article that may help you understand what I am saying, if you care. It's really old news though.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms187499(v=sql.100).aspx
So basically, an old 32 bit Windows 2000 Server running the same copy of SQL Server can use more memory than a 64 bit newer 2008 R2 server.
SQL Server Enterprise was designed to use AWE to take advantage of up to 64 GB memory on an old Windows 2000 server. Now that the OS can easily handle more than 4GB itself, it disables this ability of SQL Server unless you pay more for Enterprise.
In the end, it's not much different than "upgrading" your XP computer and if, for example, it turned out the new version of Windows required you to pay more for the version that supports Media Player.
If you already knew this and want to dance around semantics and politics, I really have no interest in arguing, but if you do care, I wanted you to understand my disappointment to find out a relatively new server with 64 bit OS is artificially inferior, memory wise, because instead of working with you to unleash SQL Server it artificially limits your memory now unless you pony up for Server Enterprise. Maybe it's too old school to matter.
Peace
Post #1422847
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase ««12

Permissions Expand / Collapse