This is an annoying one.
I have 4 test boxes running our application. The application is a wervice
using ADO.Net to connect to SQL Server. The machines are all P4, 2.8GHZ CPU.
Windows Server 2003 Std. Edition, w/ all current patches (as of 10/13/04)
running SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition. SP3a. The machines are also
runnign Share Point Services and BIz Talk 2004, although neither of those are
doing anything at this time. Two of the machines have 1GB physical memory, 2
have 2GB.
We have one test case where have to process a 50MB message (SOAP post with
50MB payload). The problem, interestingly enough occurs on both of the
machines with 2GB. With a default install of SQL Server, configured to
dynamically allocate memory, the insert saving the 50MB message fails. SQL
Server logs "Error: 17803, Severity 20, State:12 Insufficient memory
available." Monitoring physical memory it doesn't appear that the box is
even close to out of memory. If I change the SQL server configuration to use
a fixed or minimum amount of memory (1GB) the insert works 8 out of 9 times,
but it still occasionally fails logging the same error. It makes no sense,
especially where it works 100% of the time on the two boxes with less memory.
Any help here would be appreciated.
Hi GGould,
The answer to your question lies in the the way SQL allocates memory.
Every process (on a 32bits machine) gets and 4 GB Virtual address space in
this address space 2 GB is devote to user, 2 GB for kernel allocations.
SQL server, when it starts with the default memory configuration will map
his executable and dlls into this 2 GB virtual user address space and will
allocate all physical memory in the system to it's Bpool data "cache" of 8K
buffers, leaving 256 MB of his virtual address space for his so called mem to
leave which ican be used for all memory allocations > 8 KB.
On a system with 2 GB SQL will allocate ~1.7 GB physical memory for its
bpool and .exe/dlls. Mapping all this into the virtual address space exactlu
leaves ~256 mb for the mem to leave area
On a s system with 1 GB, SQL will allocate ~.7 GB physical mmeory for bpool
and .exe/dlls. Mapping this memory into the virtual address space leaves
~1.256 mb for allocations ending up in the mem to leave area.
As for your action it's required to allocate a >8kb block SQL will allocate
such block and map it in to the memto leave area.
If you need a memory block > can fit in mem to leave area you get the
insufficient memory error.
To workaround on the 2 GB system you can use the -gxxx startup parametera nd
specify > 256 for xxx . At startup SQL will leave more space for the mem to
leave area at the cost of Bpool
Ab othe options is if you have a enterprice edition of the OS to use the
/3GB. take care however wjen using terminal server and make sure the machine
is a dedicated SQL server else don't use /3gb in the boot.ini.
Regards,
Jago
> This is an annoying one.
> I have 4 test boxes running our application. The application is a wervice
> using ADO.Net to connect to SQL Server. The machines are all P4, 2.8GHZ CPU.
> Windows Server 2003 Std. Edition, w/ all current patches (as of 10/13/04)
> running SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition. SP3a. The machines are also
> runnign Share Point Services and BIz Talk 2004, although neither of those are
> doing anything at this time. Two of the machines have 1GB physical memory, 2
> have 2GB.
> We have one test case where have to process a 50MB message (SOAP post with
> 50MB payload). The problem, interestingly enough occurs on both of the
> machines with 2GB. With a default install of SQL Server, configured to
> dynamically allocate memory, the insert saving the 50MB message fails. SQL
> Server logs "Error: 17803, Severity 20, State:12 Insufficient memory
> available." Monitoring physical memory it doesn't appear that the box is
> even close to out of memory. If I change the SQL server configuration to use
> a fixed or minimum amount of memory (1GB) the insert works 8 out of 9 times,
> but it still occasionally fails logging the same error. It makes no sense,
> especially where it works 100% of the time on the two boxes with less memory.
> Any help here would be appreciated.
|||Thanks,
That seems to have taken care of it.
"Jago" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi GGould,
> The answer to your question lies in the the way SQL allocates memory.
> Every process (on a 32bits machine) gets and 4 GB Virtual address space in
> this address space 2 GB is devote to user, 2 GB for kernel allocations.
> SQL server, when it starts with the default memory configuration will map
> his executable and dlls into this 2 GB virtual user address space and will
> allocate all physical memory in the system to it's Bpool data "cache" of 8K
> buffers, leaving 256 MB of his virtual address space for his so called mem to
> leave which ican be used for all memory allocations > 8 KB.
> On a system with 2 GB SQL will allocate ~1.7 GB physical memory for its
> bpool and .exe/dlls. Mapping all this into the virtual address space exactlu
> leaves ~256 mb for the mem to leave area
> On a s system with 1 GB, SQL will allocate ~.7 GB physical mmeory for bpool
> and .exe/dlls. Mapping this memory into the virtual address space leaves
> ~1.256 mb for allocations ending up in the mem to leave area.
> As for your action it's required to allocate a >8kb block SQL will allocate
> such block and map it in to the memto leave area.
> If you need a memory block > can fit in mem to leave area you get the
> insufficient memory error.
> To workaround on the 2 GB system you can use the -gxxx startup parametera nd
> specify > 256 for xxx . At startup SQL will leave more space for the mem to
> leave area at the cost of Bpool
> Ab othe options is if you have a enterprice edition of the OS to use the
> /3GB. take care however wjen using terminal server and make sure the machine
> is a dedicated SQL server else don't use /3gb in the boot.ini.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jago
sql
Showing posts with label machines. Show all posts
Showing posts with label machines. Show all posts
Monday, March 26, 2012
Error 17803, Severity: 20, State: 12
This is an annoying one.
I have 4 test boxes running our application. The application is a wervice
using ADO.Net to connect to SQL Server. The machines are all P4, 2.8GHZ CPU
.
Windows Server 2003 Std. Edition, w/ all current patches (as of 10/13/04)
running SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition. SP3a. The machines are also
runnign Share Point Services and BIz Talk 2004, although neither of those ar
e
doing anything at this time. Two of the machines have 1GB physical memory,
2
have 2GB.
We have one test case where have to process a 50MB message (SOAP post with
50MB payload). The problem, interestingly enough occurs on both of the
machines with 2GB. With a default install of SQL Server, configured to
dynamically allocate memory, the insert saving the 50MB message fails. SQL
Server logs "Error: 17803, Severity 20, State:12 Insufficient memory
available." Monitoring physical memory it doesn't appear that the box is
even close to out of memory. If I change the SQL server configuration to us
e
a fixed or minimum amount of memory (1GB) the insert works 8 out of 9 times,
but it still occasionally fails logging the same error. It makes no sense,
especially where it works 100% of the time on the two boxes with less memory
.
Any help here would be appreciated.Hi GGould,
The answer to your question lies in the the way SQL allocates memory.
Every process (on a 32bits machine) gets and 4 GB Virtual address space in
this address space 2 GB is devote to user, 2 GB for kernel allocations.
SQL server, when it starts with the default memory configuration will map
his executable and dlls into this 2 GB virtual user address space and will
allocate all physical memory in the system to it's Bpool data "cache" of 8K
buffers, leaving 256 MB of his virtual address space for his so called mem t
o
leave which ican be used for all memory allocations > 8 KB.
On a system with 2 GB SQL will allocate ~1.7 GB physical memory for its
bpool and .exe/dlls. Mapping all this into the virtual address space exactlu
leaves ~256 mb for the mem to leave area
On a s system with 1 GB, SQL will allocate ~.7 GB physical mmeory for bpool
and .exe/dlls. Mapping this memory into the virtual address space leaves
~1.256 mb for allocations ending up in the mem to leave area.
As for your action it's required to allocate a >8kb block SQL will allocate
such block and map it in to the memto leave area.
If you need a memory block > can fit in mem to leave area you get the
insufficient memory error.
To workaround on the 2 GB system you can use the -gxxx startup parametera nd
specify > 256 for xxx . At startup SQL will leave more space for the mem to
leave area at the cost of Bpool
Ab othe options is if you have a enterprice edition of the OS to use the
/3GB. take care however wjen using terminal server and make sure the machine
is a dedicated SQL server else don't use /3gb in the boot.ini.
Regards,
Jago
> This is an annoying one.
> I have 4 test boxes running our application. The application is a wervice
> using ADO.Net to connect to SQL Server. The machines are all P4, 2.8GHZ C
PU.
> Windows Server 2003 Std. Edition, w/ all current patches (as of 10/13/04)
> running SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition. SP3a. The machines are also
> runnign Share Point Services and BIz Talk 2004, although neither of those
are
> doing anything at this time. Two of the machines have 1GB physical memory
, 2
> have 2GB.
> We have one test case where have to process a 50MB message (SOAP post with
> 50MB payload). The problem, interestingly enough occurs on both of the
> machines with 2GB. With a default install of SQL Server, configured to
> dynamically allocate memory, the insert saving the 50MB message fails. SQ
L
> Server logs "Error: 17803, Severity 20, State:12 Insufficient memory
> available." Monitoring physical memory it doesn't appear that the box is
> even close to out of memory. If I change the SQL server configuration to
use
> a fixed or minimum amount of memory (1GB) the insert works 8 out of 9 time
s,
> but it still occasionally fails logging the same error. It makes no sense
,
> especially where it works 100% of the time on the two boxes with less memo
ry.
> Any help here would be appreciated.|||Thanks,
That seems to have taken care of it.
"Jago" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi GGould,
> The answer to your question lies in the the way SQL allocates memory.
> Every process (on a 32bits machine) gets and 4 GB Virtual address space in
> this address space 2 GB is devote to user, 2 GB for kernel allocations.
> SQL server, when it starts with the default memory configuration will map
> his executable and dlls into this 2 GB virtual user address space and will
> allocate all physical memory in the system to it's Bpool data "cache" of 8
K
> buffers, leaving 256 MB of his virtual address space for his so called mem
to
> leave which ican be used for all memory allocations > 8 KB.
> On a system with 2 GB SQL will allocate ~1.7 GB physical memory for its
> bpool and .exe/dlls. Mapping all this into the virtual address space exact
lu
> leaves ~256 mb for the mem to leave area
> On a s system with 1 GB, SQL will allocate ~.7 GB physical mmeory for bpoo
l
> and .exe/dlls. Mapping this memory into the virtual address space leaves
> ~1.256 mb for allocations ending up in the mem to leave area.
> As for your action it's required to allocate a >8kb block SQL will allocat
e
> such block and map it in to the memto leave area.
> If you need a memory block > can fit in mem to leave area you get the
> insufficient memory error.
> To workaround on the 2 GB system you can use the -gxxx startup parametera
nd
> specify > 256 for xxx . At startup SQL will leave more space for the mem t
o
> leave area at the cost of Bpool
> Ab othe options is if you have a enterprice edition of the OS to use the
> /3GB. take care however wjen using terminal server and make sure the machi
ne
> is a dedicated SQL server else don't use /3gb in the boot.ini.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jago
I have 4 test boxes running our application. The application is a wervice
using ADO.Net to connect to SQL Server. The machines are all P4, 2.8GHZ CPU
.
Windows Server 2003 Std. Edition, w/ all current patches (as of 10/13/04)
running SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition. SP3a. The machines are also
runnign Share Point Services and BIz Talk 2004, although neither of those ar
e
doing anything at this time. Two of the machines have 1GB physical memory,
2
have 2GB.
We have one test case where have to process a 50MB message (SOAP post with
50MB payload). The problem, interestingly enough occurs on both of the
machines with 2GB. With a default install of SQL Server, configured to
dynamically allocate memory, the insert saving the 50MB message fails. SQL
Server logs "Error: 17803, Severity 20, State:12 Insufficient memory
available." Monitoring physical memory it doesn't appear that the box is
even close to out of memory. If I change the SQL server configuration to us
e
a fixed or minimum amount of memory (1GB) the insert works 8 out of 9 times,
but it still occasionally fails logging the same error. It makes no sense,
especially where it works 100% of the time on the two boxes with less memory
.
Any help here would be appreciated.Hi GGould,
The answer to your question lies in the the way SQL allocates memory.
Every process (on a 32bits machine) gets and 4 GB Virtual address space in
this address space 2 GB is devote to user, 2 GB for kernel allocations.
SQL server, when it starts with the default memory configuration will map
his executable and dlls into this 2 GB virtual user address space and will
allocate all physical memory in the system to it's Bpool data "cache" of 8K
buffers, leaving 256 MB of his virtual address space for his so called mem t
o
leave which ican be used for all memory allocations > 8 KB.
On a system with 2 GB SQL will allocate ~1.7 GB physical memory for its
bpool and .exe/dlls. Mapping all this into the virtual address space exactlu
leaves ~256 mb for the mem to leave area
On a s system with 1 GB, SQL will allocate ~.7 GB physical mmeory for bpool
and .exe/dlls. Mapping this memory into the virtual address space leaves
~1.256 mb for allocations ending up in the mem to leave area.
As for your action it's required to allocate a >8kb block SQL will allocate
such block and map it in to the memto leave area.
If you need a memory block > can fit in mem to leave area you get the
insufficient memory error.
To workaround on the 2 GB system you can use the -gxxx startup parametera nd
specify > 256 for xxx . At startup SQL will leave more space for the mem to
leave area at the cost of Bpool
Ab othe options is if you have a enterprice edition of the OS to use the
/3GB. take care however wjen using terminal server and make sure the machine
is a dedicated SQL server else don't use /3gb in the boot.ini.
Regards,
Jago
> This is an annoying one.
> I have 4 test boxes running our application. The application is a wervice
> using ADO.Net to connect to SQL Server. The machines are all P4, 2.8GHZ C
PU.
> Windows Server 2003 Std. Edition, w/ all current patches (as of 10/13/04)
> running SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition. SP3a. The machines are also
> runnign Share Point Services and BIz Talk 2004, although neither of those
are
> doing anything at this time. Two of the machines have 1GB physical memory
, 2
> have 2GB.
> We have one test case where have to process a 50MB message (SOAP post with
> 50MB payload). The problem, interestingly enough occurs on both of the
> machines with 2GB. With a default install of SQL Server, configured to
> dynamically allocate memory, the insert saving the 50MB message fails. SQ
L
> Server logs "Error: 17803, Severity 20, State:12 Insufficient memory
> available." Monitoring physical memory it doesn't appear that the box is
> even close to out of memory. If I change the SQL server configuration to
use
> a fixed or minimum amount of memory (1GB) the insert works 8 out of 9 time
s,
> but it still occasionally fails logging the same error. It makes no sense
,
> especially where it works 100% of the time on the two boxes with less memo
ry.
> Any help here would be appreciated.|||Thanks,
That seems to have taken care of it.
"Jago" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi GGould,
> The answer to your question lies in the the way SQL allocates memory.
> Every process (on a 32bits machine) gets and 4 GB Virtual address space in
> this address space 2 GB is devote to user, 2 GB for kernel allocations.
> SQL server, when it starts with the default memory configuration will map
> his executable and dlls into this 2 GB virtual user address space and will
> allocate all physical memory in the system to it's Bpool data "cache" of 8
K
> buffers, leaving 256 MB of his virtual address space for his so called mem
to
> leave which ican be used for all memory allocations > 8 KB.
> On a system with 2 GB SQL will allocate ~1.7 GB physical memory for its
> bpool and .exe/dlls. Mapping all this into the virtual address space exact
lu
> leaves ~256 mb for the mem to leave area
> On a s system with 1 GB, SQL will allocate ~.7 GB physical mmeory for bpoo
l
> and .exe/dlls. Mapping this memory into the virtual address space leaves
> ~1.256 mb for allocations ending up in the mem to leave area.
> As for your action it's required to allocate a >8kb block SQL will allocat
e
> such block and map it in to the memto leave area.
> If you need a memory block > can fit in mem to leave area you get the
> insufficient memory error.
> To workaround on the 2 GB system you can use the -gxxx startup parametera
nd
> specify > 256 for xxx . At startup SQL will leave more space for the mem t
o
> leave area at the cost of Bpool
> Ab othe options is if you have a enterprice edition of the OS to use the
> /3GB. take care however wjen using terminal server and make sure the machi
ne
> is a dedicated SQL server else don't use /3gb in the boot.ini.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jago
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Error 1603 trying to install SRS on client machines
Hello all. I'm hoping I can get some insight as to what's going wrong
here. We have CRM 3.0 and want to give developers SRS Report Designer
on their workstations to design some reports. I'm trying to install SRS
2000 on the first developer's machine, and after running setup it gives
me three warnings indicating:
* IIS is not installed;
* ASP.NET is not installed or not registered with IIS;
* IIS is not installed. (This error is listed twice).
This is to be expected as it's a workstation, not a server. But it
should only prevent me from installing certain server components such
as the Report Manager, as far as I can tell. So I click Next and see it
preparing to install. Then comes the error:
SetDialogs
Error Code: 1603
I have VS.NET 2003 installed with Visual C++ and the .NET SDK. From my
reading, all that's necessary is the basic VS.NET framework, so this
should also be acceptable. So -- help. What can I do to get past this?
Is it expecting something particular? I'm running the SRS setup from
the CRM installation media; might that be a problem?Fixed it myself, fortunately. It turned out that all I had to do was
ensure the ASPNET account was present on the local machine. Just
creating this account made everything work quite happily. More
properly, I followed the instructions in KB 320112 to repair the 1.1
framework which had the effect of creating this account.
here. We have CRM 3.0 and want to give developers SRS Report Designer
on their workstations to design some reports. I'm trying to install SRS
2000 on the first developer's machine, and after running setup it gives
me three warnings indicating:
* IIS is not installed;
* ASP.NET is not installed or not registered with IIS;
* IIS is not installed. (This error is listed twice).
This is to be expected as it's a workstation, not a server. But it
should only prevent me from installing certain server components such
as the Report Manager, as far as I can tell. So I click Next and see it
preparing to install. Then comes the error:
SetDialogs
Error Code: 1603
I have VS.NET 2003 installed with Visual C++ and the .NET SDK. From my
reading, all that's necessary is the basic VS.NET framework, so this
should also be acceptable. So -- help. What can I do to get past this?
Is it expecting something particular? I'm running the SRS setup from
the CRM installation media; might that be a problem?Fixed it myself, fortunately. It turned out that all I had to do was
ensure the ASPNET account was present on the local machine. Just
creating this account made everything work quite happily. More
properly, I followed the instructions in KB 320112 to repair the 1.1
framework which had the effect of creating this account.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Error 1418, NT AUTHORITY\Anonymous login
Hello All!
Can you help me with that problem:
I want to mirror some database to another server (without witness server)
I have 2 machines, where Microsoft SqL '05 Developer Edition SP1 installed.
Two machines working in domain network, one of them is a server, secondmachine enters into domain with username and password.
I can ping each machine by the ip adress and by the networks name, like a.machine.com, b.machine.com
TCP/IP is enabled in Server Configuration.
What I DO:
1. Create full backup of my database on server A
2. Create full backup of transaction logs on server A
3. Restore my database and transaction logs from backup WITH NO RESTORE on server B
4. On machine A: I open tasks -> mirroring properties dialog (configuring mirroring) and go to configure security dialog.
5. I use standart properties (port, endpoint name, ecryption)
6. On page "Mirror Server Instanse" i click "Browse for more" and type there server B adrress (b.machine.com). Click connect.
7. Server configuring was sucsessful
8. Server network addresses were:
Principal : TCP://a.machine.com:5022
Mirror : TCP://b.machine.com:5022
9. I click Start Mirroring but system gives me error:
Error 1418, The Server network address can not be reached or does not exists.
I open logs on machine b (mirror server):
Message
Database Mirroring login attempt by user 'NT AUTHORITY\Anonymous login.' failed with error:
'Connection handshake failed. The login 'NT AUTHORITY\Anonymous login' does not have CONNECT permission on the endpoint.
State 84.'. [CLIENT: 172.168.0.130]
and this message before:
The database 'mybase' is marked RESTORING and is in a state that does not allow recovery to be run.
When I configured database mirroring, i choose "Windows Authentication", Why 'NT AUTHORITY\Anonymous login.' ...?
Hi
From the errors it looks like your SQL Server is not using domain account to run SQL Server service.
Please use a domain account and ensure that account has permissions on the Database mirroring endpoints.
Jag
|||I did it!
My error was:
I don't add domain user in security -logins at both servers.
Whet i added my user1 to server A and server B - it workes!
Jag Sandhu - thank you for your reply, I used domain accounts, but i forgot to allow access for current user in database.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)