Re: PAE VS SQL Server AWE

From: Kalen Delaney (replies_at_public_newsgroups.com)
Date: 02/18/05 

Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 09:36:04 -0800

Yes, this is exactly what I wasa referring to.
That fact that YMMV. 

-- 
HTH
----------------
Kalen Delaney
SQL Server MVP
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@epprecht.net> wrote in message 
news:OxsVjraFFHA.3928@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hi
>
> Officially, from MS, 16GB is the number, but some hardware vendors (they
> might produce ES 7000's) have recommended to customers to use a maximum of
> 12GB.
>
> Regards
> --------------------------------
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
>
> IM: mike@epprecht.net
>
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
>
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
>
> "Mike Hodgson" <mike.hodgson@mallesons.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:unS1eUYFFHA.1264@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> Ken Henderson from Microsoft (is he still there?) says in _The Guru's
>> Guide to SQL Server Architecture and Internals_ (awesome book - right up
>> there with _Inside SQL Server 2000, Second Edition_ by someone named
>> Kalen Delaney :-P   ) that when you shrink the kernel mode address space
>> from 2GB to 1GB (with /3GB) one of the main things that suffers is "the
>> table Windows uses to manage the physical memory....such that it can
>> manage a maximum of only 16GB of physical memory."  Is that right or is
>> 12GB the magic figure?
>>
>> --
>> *mike hodgson* |/ database administrator/ | mallesons stephen jaques
>> *T* +61 (2) 9296 3668 |* F* +61 (2) 9296 3885 |* M* +61 (408) 675 907
>> *E* mailto:mike.hodgson@mallesons.nospam.com |* W*
> http://www.mallesons.com
>>
>>
>>
>> Kalen Delaney wrote:
>>
>> >This should be fine.
>> >Problems can occur if you use /3GB when you have over 12GB of Memory,
>> >although some people say you can go up to 16GB. You'd have to test it on
>> >your system. But 6GB should be fine.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>

Relevant Pages