> Re: a side note: Are you saying that the initial (32-bit) database size of
> 15Gb after a 136 hours upgrade ended up as a 57Gb on the (64-bit) server??
>

"John Kane" wrote:

> You're welcome, Chris,
>
> 1) Do you recommend running SQL using AWE for a dedicate DB server with 2G
> FT catalogs?
> A. No, as with 64-bit servers and their very large flat-memory space you do
> not need nor is AWE available. You might want to read the very good (I
> helped write it) 64-bit white paper from Unisys & Scalability Experts at
> http://www.unisys.com/datacenter/SQL64/ScalabilityWP.pdf as it discusses in
> detail the 32-bit AWE vs. 64-bit memory (see the chart on page 14 for
> details).
>
>
> 2) To be clear - each DB instance with FT catalogs will use a max of 512M -
> or is it 512M across all DB FT catalogs?
> A. The 512Mb RAM usage limit of the MSSearch service is at the server level
> as there can only be one "Microsoft Search" service per server, even if
> there are multiple instances of SQL Server 2000 installed. Note, this
> changes in SQL Server 2005 and the new MSFTESQL service is fully instance
> aware.
>
>
> 3) If it were your dedicated DB server - I assume you would run OS - /PAE
> /3GB and SQL using AWE?
> A. See the above answer and 64-bit white paper link for question #1 above.
>
> Re: a side note: Are you saying that the initial (32-bit) database size of
> 15Gb after a 136 hours upgrade ended up as a 57Gb on the (64-bit) server??
>
> Re: Adobe's 32-bit PDF IFilter on a 64-bit server: This will never work with
> SQL Server 2000 (64-bit) until Adobe or other IFilter vendors provide a
> 64-bit version of their 32-bit IFitlers :-(...
>
> Regards,
> John
>
> --
> SQL Full Text Search Blog
> http://spaces.msn.com/members/jtkane/
>
>
> "Chris" <Chris@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:2ADE031B-7E64-4A3F-8650-4AE1250191DF@microsoft.com...
> > John - thanks for the info. I have posted to the OS newsgroup. "No" to
> the
> > Adobe file question.
> >
> > 1) Do you recommend running SQL using AWE for a dedicate DB server with
> 2G
> > FT catalogs?
> > 2) To be clear - each DB instance with FT catalogs will use a max of
> 512M -
> > or is it 512M across all DB FT catalogs?
> > 3) If it were your dedicated DB server - I assume you would run OS - /PAE
> > /3GB and SQL using AWE? Maybe an OS question - but is 1G remaining enough
> > for OS. Maybe that's why it's an art to tune.
> >
> > As a side note - I ran an application upgrade program (3rd party vendor) -
> > migrating a 15G DB to the new application version - on the Opteron - it
> toook
> > 136 hours to complete. Nice coding. DB size ended up being 57G. At
> least I
> > have some confidence in the OS and SQL SP4!
> >
> > Thanks John
> >
> >
> >
> > "John Kane" wrote:
> >
> > > Chris,
> > > While I do not have access to a x64 or IA64 server (and I'm envious of
> your
> > > server's config :-), I can answer your questions, but I cannot confirm
> them
> > > independently....
> > >
> > > Q. How do I optimize full-text search?
> > > A. The same way you would optimize it under a 32-bit system. See my blog
> > > entry "SQL Server 2000 Full-Text Search Resources and Links" at
> > >
> http://spaces.msn.com/members/jtkane/Blog/cns!1pWDBCiDX1uvH5ATJmNCVLPQ!305.entry
> > > For SQL Server 2000 Full-text Search and Full-text Indexing using the
> > > MSSearch service, there is no distinct advantage for x64 or IA64 servers
> > > over 32-bit servers. You will have to upgrade to SQL Server 2005 (Yukon)
> to
> > > take full advantage of 64-bit servers for FTI and FTS.
> > >
> > > Q. Does OS do it by default?
> > > A. No. You have to configure and tune FTI and FTS as you would on a
> 32-bit
> > > server, see the blog entry above for performance tuning hints as well as
> > > "64-bit Windows Server blog and SQL Server 2000" at
> > >
> http://spaces.msn.com/members/jtkane/Blog/cns!1pWDBCiDX1uvH5ATJmNCVLPQ!355.entry
> > >
> > > In regards to "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Search\1.0\Indexer
> in
> > > Registry", I believe that there will be a hive for 32-bit apps, but I'm
> not
> > > sure of the exact path.
> > >
> > > Q. Under Windows Server 2003 Ent. (32 bit) - will it help Search
> performance
> > > if I delete non-essential DB's & their catalog files?
> > > A. Only if the non-essential DB's and FT Catalogs were on the same drive
> as
> > > your large (~2Gb) FT Catalog.
> > >
> > > In a nut-shell, 64-bit server's won't help SQL Server 2000 FT Indexing
> or FT
> > > Search performance, other than what may be contributed by the
> improvements
> > > of SQL Server 2000 (64-bit), as the MSSearch service is the limiting
> factor
> > > here... To take full advantage of 64-bit processors for FTI and FTS
> > > performance, you'll need to upgrade to SQL Server 2005...
> > >
> > > Follow-up question: Do you plan to store Adobe PDF files in SQL Server
> 2000
> > > (64-bit) image column and then FT Index their content?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > John
> > > --
> > > SQL Full Text Search Blog
> > > http://spaces.msn.com/members/jtkane/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Chris" <Chris@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > news:6B2018A0-A343-4CFA-8B38-FA314ABBA12B@microsoft.com...
> > > > Running Windows Server 2003 Ent. x64 Edition on a quad Opteron server
> with
> > > > 16G memory. SQL Server 2000 SP4. Total catalog files size ~2G .
> > > >
> > > > How do I optimize full-text search?
> > > > Does OS do it by default?
> > > > There does not seem to be
> > > > HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Search\1.0\Indexer in Registry.
> > > >
> > > > Also - under Windows Server 2003 Ent. (32 bit) - will it help Search
> > > > performance if I delete non-essential DB's & their catalog files?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks - Chris
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>