reserver memory should be fixed or dynamic?

Hello -
I want to use the reserve physical memory option to get test if this will
give me any added (faster) performance on a database.
If I use 'dynamic' with 'reserve physical memory', is the maximum amount of
memory allocated or minimum?
Should I use fixed with 'reserve' to set aside as much memory instead?
I guess I'm not sure what 'dynamic' with 'reserve physical' means. Any
clues?
Thanks,
bruceHave a look at BOL for "set working set size". You want to use a fixed
amount
"Do not set set working set size if you are allowing SQL Server to use
memory dynamically. Before setting set working set size to 1, set both min
server memory and max server memory to the same value, the amount of memory
you want SQL Server to use"
--
HTH
Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
I support PASS - the definitive, global
community for SQL Server professionals -
http://www.sqlpass.org
"NO.bruceradtke.SPAM@.NO.earthlink.net.SPAM"
<bruceradtke@.NO.earthlink.net.SPAM> wrote in message
news:v3%Hb.14005$IM3.12306@.newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Hello -
> I want to use the reserve physical memory option to get test if this will
> give me any added (faster) performance on a database.
> If I use 'dynamic' with 'reserve physical memory', is the maximum amount
of
> memory allocated or minimum?
> Should I use fixed with 'reserve' to set aside as much memory instead?
> I guess I'm not sure what 'dynamic' with 'reserve physical' means. Any
> clues?
>
> Thanks,
> bruce
>

Request for confirmation: This bug is fixed

Hello World,
One of our customers keeps getting the following error:
ODBC error code: -1
Net library error code: 2746x (10054)
SQLState: 01000
Description: ConnectionWrite(send())
I have looked up on the Microsoft web pages and have found:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q303120/
The description on this page states that this bug was fixed with SQL
Server 2000, service pack 2, so I asked the customer about the server
version number of his SQL Server 2000.
He has 8.00.818 (and lightweight pooling to default, which is off).
Accorind to the SQL Server 2000, service pack 3 description, an
installed SP3 has number 8.00.760.
Due to this circumstances I suppose our customer has a fixed version of
SQL Server 2000 and the problem is located somewhere else. Am I right?
Thanks for your help and best regards
Andreas
--
Andreas Tscharner andreas.tscharner@.metromec.ch
---
Das Denken eines Programmierers ist stets logisch (IF 1=2 THEN CALL
MainProgram), immer strukturiert und von keinerlei Vorurteilen
beeinträchtigt (ON Hunger GOSUB Aldi ELSE RETURN).
-- aus Murphy's Computergesetzen8.00.818 is the version number for the MS03-031 security patch. It was released after SP3a.
/risun
>--Original Message--
>Hello World,
>One of our customers keeps getting the following error:
>ODBC error code: -1
>Net library error code: 2746x (10054)
>SQLState: 01000
>Description: ConnectionWrite(send())
>I have looked up on the Microsoft web pages and have found:
>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q303120/
>The description on this page states that this bug was fixed with SQL >Server 2000, service pack 2, so I asked the customer about the server >version number of his SQL Server 2000.
>He has 8.00.818 (and lightweight pooling to default, which is off). >Accorind to the SQL Server 2000, service pack 3 description, an >installed SP3 has number 8.00.760.
>Due to this circumstances I suppose our customer has a fixed version of >SQL Server 2000 and the problem is located somewhere else. Am I right?
>Thanks for your help and best regards
> Andreas
>-- >Andreas Tscharner andreas.tscharner@.metromec.ch
>----
--
>Das Denken eines Programmierers ist stets logisch (IF 1=3D2 THEN CALL
>MainProgram), immer strukturiert und von keinerlei Vorurteilen
>beeintr=E4chtigt (ON Hunger GOSUB Aldi ELSE RETURN).
> -- aus Murphy's Computergesetzen
>.
>|||Anthony,
Please stop confusing people by referring to build 817 (or 818 or 819
or MS03-031) as the "Slammer Worm build." This has nothing to do with
Slammer. As I've already pointed out, and as you can verify by reading
the security bulletins, MS03-031 addresses three post-Slammer
vulnerabilities. Like all Microsoft hotfixes, it is cumulative, but it
is definitely not the "Slammer Worm build," and it was released long
after the patch and service pack addressing the Slammer vulnerability
were released.
SK
AnthonyThomas wrote:
>Actually, 817 is the MS03-031 Slammer Worm build. 818 fixes an error MS03-031 introduced into the DTSGUI.dll and build 819 fixes a SQLEM password error introduced by the 818 fix. You should have build 819 to have all the tools fixed.
>Also, there have been three other publicly available hot fixes since then, 839, 859, and the latest, 879.
>Sincerely,
>
>Anthony Thomas
>
>|||Thanks for clearing this up, Anthony!
SK
AnthonyThomas wrote:
>My apologies to everyone. You, of course, are absolutely right. The Sapphire/Slammer Worm attacked Jan. 25, 2003, but the patches were available the prior summer but had not been applied by many. Obviously, MS03-031 was deployed until later 2003. Both deal with protocol hijacking and buffer overrun issues and, since we had been applying SP3, then shortly thereafter, SP3a, this seemed like the proactive release.
>The confusion was entirely my own.
>Sincerely,
>
>Anthony Thomas
>
>

Request for confirmation: This bug is fixed

8.00.818 is the version number for the MS03-031 security=20
patch. It was released after SP3a.=20
/risun

>--Original Message--
>Hello World,
>One of our customers keeps getting the following error:
>ODBC error code: -1
>Net library error code: 2746x (10054)
>SQLState: 01000
>Description: ConnectionWrite(send())
>I have looked up on the Microsoft web pages and have=20
found:
>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q303120/
>The description on this page states that this bug was=20
fixed with SQL=20
>Server 2000, service pack 2, so I asked the customer=20
about the server=20
>version number of his SQL Server 2000.
>He has 8.00.818 (and lightweight pooling to default,=20
which is off).=20
>Accorind to the SQL Server 2000, service pack 3=20
description, an=20
>installed SP3 has number 8.00.760.
>Due to this circumstances I suppose our customer has a=20
fixed version of=20
>SQL Server 2000 and the problem is located somewhere=20
else. Am I right?
>Thanks for your help and best regards
>Andreas
>--=20
>Andreas Tscharner =20
andreas.tscharner@.metromec.ch
>----
--
>Das Denken eines Programmierers ist stets logisch (IF 1=3D2=20
THEN CALL
>MainProgram), immer strukturiert und von keinerlei=20
Vorurteilen
>beeintr=E4chtigt (ON Hunger GOSUB Aldi ELSE RETURN).
> -- aus Murphy's=20
Computergesetzen
>.
>
Actually, 817 is the MS03-031 Slammer Worm build. 818 fixes an error MS03-031 introduced into the DTSGUI.dll and build 819 fixes a SQLEM password error introduced by the 818 fix. You should have build 819 to have all the tools fixed.
Also, there have been three other publicly available hot fixes since then, 839, 859, and the latest, 879.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas

"Risun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:4a1d01c4c65d$fad72b40$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
8.00.818 is the version number for the MS03-031 security
patch. It was released after SP3a.
/risun

>--Original Message--
>Hello World,
>
>One of our customers keeps getting the following error:
>
>ODBC error code: -1
>Net library error code: 2746x (10054)
>SQLState: 01000
>Description: ConnectionWrite(send())
>
>I have looked up on the Microsoft web pages and have

found:

>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q303120/
>
>The description on this page states that this bug was

fixed with SQL

>Server 2000, service pack 2, so I asked the customer

about the server

>version number of his SQL Server 2000.
>He has 8.00.818 (and lightweight pooling to default,

which is off).

>Accorind to the SQL Server 2000, service pack 3

description, an

>installed SP3 has number 8.00.760.
>
>Due to this circumstances I suppose our customer has a

fixed version of

>SQL Server 2000 and the problem is located somewhere

else. Am I right?

>
>Thanks for your help and best regards
> Andreas
>--
>Andreas Tscharner

andreas.tscharner@.metromec.ch

>----

--

>Das Denken eines Programmierers ist stets logisch (IF 1=2

THEN CALL

>MainProgram), immer strukturiert und von keinerlei

Vorurteilen

>beeintrchtigt (ON Hunger GOSUB Aldi ELSE RETURN).
> -- aus Murphy's

Computergesetzen

>.
>|||Anthony,
Please stop confusing people by referring to build 817 (or 818 or 819
or MS03-031) as the "Slammer Worm build." This has nothing to do with
Slammer. As I've already pointed out, and as you can verify by reading
the security bulletins, MS03-031 addresses three post-Slammer
vulnerabilities. Like all Microsoft hotfixes, it is cumulative, but it
is definitely not the "Slammer Worm build," and it was released long
after the patch and service pack addressing the Slammer vulnerability
were released.
SK
AnthonyThomas wrote:

>Actually, 817 is the MS03-031 Slammer Worm build. 818 fixes an error MS03-031 introduced into the DTSGUI.dll and build 819 fixes a SQLEM password error introduced by the 818 fix. You should have build 819 to have all the tools fixed.
>Also, there have been three other publicly available hot fixes since then, 839, 859, and the latest, 879.
>Sincerely,
>
>Anthony Thomas
>
>
|||My apologies to everyone. You, of course, are absolutely right. The Sapphire/Slammer Worm attacked Jan. 25, 2003, but the patches were available the prior summer but had not been applied by many. Obviously, MS03-031 was deployed until later 2003. Both deal with protocol hijacking and buffer overrun issues and, since we had been applying SP3, then shortly thereafter, SP3a, this seemed like the proactive release.
The confusion was entirely my own.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas

"Steve Kass" <skass@.drew.edu> wrote in message news:uRlKFoi1EHA.208@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Anthony,
Please stop confusing people by referring to build 817 (or 818 or 819
or MS03-031) as the "Slammer Worm build." This has nothing to do with
Slammer. As I've already pointed out, and as you can verify by reading
the security bulletins, MS03-031 addresses three post-Slammer
vulnerabilities. Like all Microsoft hotfixes, it is cumulative, but it
is definitely not the "Slammer Worm build," and it was released long
after the patch and service pack addressing the Slammer vulnerability
were released.
SK
AnthonyThomas wrote:

>Actually, 817 is the MS03-031 Slammer Worm build. 818 fixes an error MS03-031 introduced into the DTSGUI.dll and build 819 fixes a SQLEM password error introduced by the 818 fix. You should have build 819 to have all the tools fixed.
>
>Also, there have been three other publicly available hot fixes since then, 839, 859, and the latest, 879.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>
>Anthony Thomas
>
>
>
>|||Thanks for clearing this up, Anthony!
SK
AnthonyThomas wrote:

>My apologies to everyone. You, of course, are absolutely right. The Sapphire/Slammer Worm attacked Jan. 25, 2003, but the patches were available the prior summer but had not been applied by many. Obviously, MS03-031 was deployed until later 2003. Bot
h deal with protocol hijacking and buffer overrun issues and, since we had been applying SP3, then shortly thereafter, SP3a, this seemed like the proactive release.
>The confusion was entirely my own.
>Sincerely,
>
>Anthony Thomas
>
>

Request for confirmation: This bug is fixed

8.00.818 is the version number for the MS03-031 security=20
patch. It was released after SP3a.=20
/risun

>--Original Message--
>Hello World,
>One of our customers keeps getting the following error:
>ODBC error code: -1
>Net library error code: 2746x (10054)
>SQLState: 01000
>Description: ConnectionWrite(send())
>I have looked up on the Microsoft web pages and have=20
found:
>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q303120/
>The description on this page states that this bug was=20
fixed with SQL=20
>Server 2000, service pack 2, so I asked the customer=20
about the server=20
>version number of his SQL Server 2000.
>He has 8.00.818 (and lightweight pooling to default,=20
which is off).=20
>Accorind to the SQL Server 2000, service pack 3=20
description, an=20
>installed SP3 has number 8.00.760.
>Due to this circumstances I suppose our customer has a=20
fixed version of=20
>SQL Server 2000 and the problem is located somewhere=20
else. Am I right?
>Thanks for your help and best regards
> Andreas
>--=20
>Andreas Tscharner =20
andreas.tscharner@.metromec.ch
>----
--
>Das Denken eines Programmierers ist stets logisch (IF 1=3D2=20
THEN CALL
>MainProgram), immer strukturiert und von keinerlei=20
Vorurteilen
>beeintr=E4chtigt (ON Hunger GOSUB Aldi ELSE RETURN).
> -- aus Murphy's=20
Computergesetzen
>.
>Actually, 817 is the MS03-031 Slammer Worm build. 818 fixes an error MS03-0
31 introduced into the DTSGUI.dll and build 819 fixes a SQLEM password error
introduced by the 818 fix. You should have build 819 to have all the tools
fixed.
Also, there have been three other publicly available hot fixes since then, 8
39, 859, and the latest, 879.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
--
"Risun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:4a1d01
c4c65d$fad72b40$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
8.00.818 is the version number for the MS03-031 security
patch. It was released after SP3a.
/risun

>--Original Message--
>Hello World,
>
>One of our customers keeps getting the following error:
>
>ODBC error code: -1
>Net library error code: 2746x (10054)
>SQLState: 01000
>Description: ConnectionWrite(send())
>
>I have looked up on the Microsoft web pages and have
found:
>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q303120/
>
>The description on this page states that this bug was
fixed with SQL
>Server 2000, service pack 2, so I asked the customer
about the server
>version number of his SQL Server 2000.
>He has 8.00.818 (and lightweight pooling to default,
which is off).
>Accorind to the SQL Server 2000, service pack 3
description, an
>installed SP3 has number 8.00.760.
>
>Due to this circumstances I suppose our customer has a
fixed version of
>SQL Server 2000 and the problem is located somewhere
else. Am I right?
>
>Thanks for your help and best regards
> Andreas
>--
>Andreas Tscharner
andreas.tscharner@.metromec.ch
>----
--
>Das Denken eines Programmierers ist stets logisch (IF 1=2
THEN CALL
>MainProgram), immer strukturiert und von keinerlei
Vorurteilen
>beeintrchtigt (ON Hunger GOSUB Aldi ELSE RETURN).
> -- aus Murphy's
Computergesetzen
>.
>|||Anthony,
Please stop confusing people by referring to build 817 (or 818 or 819
or MS03-031) as the "Slammer Worm build." This has nothing to do with
Slammer. As I've already pointed out, and as you can verify by reading
the security bulletins, MS03-031 addresses three post-Slammer
vulnerabilities. Like all Microsoft hotfixes, it is cumulative, but it
is definitely not the "Slammer Worm build," and it was released long
after the patch and service pack addressing the Slammer vulnerability
were released.
SK
AnthonyThomas wrote:

>Actually, 817 is the MS03-031 Slammer Worm build. 818 fixes an error MS03-
031 introduced into the DTSGUI.dll and build 819 fixes a SQLEM password erro
r introduced by the 818 fix. You should have build 819 to have all the tool
s fixed.
>Also, there have been three other publicly available hot fixes since then,
839, 859, and the latest, 879.
>Sincerely,
>
>Anthony Thomas
>
>|||My apologies to everyone. You, of course, are absolutely right. The Sapphi
re/Slammer Worm attacked Jan. 25, 2003, but the patches were available the p
rior summer but had not been applied by many. Obviously, MS03-031 was deplo
yed until later 2003. Both deal with protocol hijacking and buffer overrun
issues and, since we had been applying SP3, then shortly thereafter, SP3a, t
his seemed like the proactive release.
The confusion was entirely my own.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
--
"Steve Kass" <skass@.drew.edu> wrote in message news:uRlKFoi1EHA.208@.TK2MSF
TNGP12.phx.gbl...
Anthony,
Please stop confusing people by referring to build 817 (or 818 or 819
or MS03-031) as the "Slammer Worm build." This has nothing to do with
Slammer. As I've already pointed out, and as you can verify by reading
the security bulletins, MS03-031 addresses three post-Slammer
vulnerabilities. Like all Microsoft hotfixes, it is cumulative, but it
is definitely not the "Slammer Worm build," and it was released long
after the patch and service pack addressing the Slammer vulnerability
were released.
SK
AnthonyThomas wrote:

>Actually, 817 is the MS03-031 Slammer Worm build. 818 fixes an error MS0
3-031 introduced into the DTSGUI.dll and build 819 fixes a SQLEM password er
ror introduced by the 818 fix. You should have build 819 to have all the to
ols fixed.
>
>Also, there have been three other publicly available hot fixes since then
, 839, 859, and the latest, 879.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>
>Anthony Thomas
>
>
>
>|||Thanks for clearing this up, Anthony!
SK
AnthonyThomas wrote:

>My apologies to everyone. You, of course, are absolutely right. The Sapphire/Slam
mer Worm attacked Jan. 25, 2003, but the patches were available the prior summer but
had not been applied by many. Obviously, MS03-031 was deployed until later 2003.
Bot
h deal with protocol hijacking and buffer overrun issues and, since we had been applying SP3
, then shortly thereafter, SP3a, this seemed like the proactive release.
>The confusion was entirely my own.
>Sincerely,
>
>Anthony Thomas
>
>