Peformance of AWE cache

#1

Hi,

I've got the option of using AWE cache on a 4GB Win 2003 Standard box
running, exclusively, an SA 10.0.1.3689 database server.

Apart from the obvious performance gain of the extra cache, are there any
other pros or cons about going with this option? Does everything work as
under a non-AWE system?

Thanks.

#2

Hi

Our experience has been that you get a considerable boost from the extra
cache with no downside. 64-bit is still better though if you can go to that.

There was an issue with the early releases of Server 2003 that could
cause server crashes when AWE was used, but it was fixed by service pack
1 (I think, possibly 2) - it was an MS issue not a Sybase one.

There are several settings you need to make including some granting of
windows permissions, but it's all in the docs.

Justin Willey

Roger Holmes wrote:

Quote:

Hi,

I've got the option of using AWE cache on a 4GB Win 2003 Standard box
running, exclusively, an SA 10.0.1.3689 database server.

Apart from the obvious performance gain of the extra cache, are there any
other pros or cons about going with this option? Does everything work as
under a non-AWE system?

Thanks.

#3

Hi Justin - thanks for replying.

Quote:

There was an issue with the early releases of Server 2003
It's W2003 Release 2 SP2 so that should be fine.

Quote:

There are several settings you need to make including some granting of
permissions
I've checked the docs and understand what's required.

Quote:

64-bit is still better though if you can go to that.
I would - but the client can't/won't

Thanks again for your experience - I'll give it a go and report back.

Roger

"Justin Willey" <gjw (AT) nospam (DOT) iqx.co.uk> wrote

Quote:

Hi

Our experience has been that you get a considerable boost from the extra
cache with no downside. 64-bit is still better though if you can go to
that.

There was an issue with the early releases of Server 2003 that could cause
server crashes when AWE was used, but it was fixed by service pack 1 (I
think, possibly 2) - it was an MS issue not a Sybase one.

There are several settings you need to make including some granting of
windows permissions, but it's all in the docs.

Justin Willey

Roger Holmes wrote:
Hi,

I've got the option of using AWE cache on a 4GB Win 2003 Standard box
running, exclusively, an SA 10.0.1.3689 database server.

Apart from the obvious performance gain of the extra cache, are there any
other pros or cons about going with this option? Does everything work as
under a non-AWE system?

Thanks.

#4

Hi again,

Ok - The W2003Std server has 3.5GB of memory. I've put "-cw -c 2500M" in the
switch file.

The server log output contains:

I. 10/15 17:48:18. 8 logical processor(s) on 2 physical processor(s)
detected.
I. 10/15 17:48:18. Running Windows 2003 Build 3790 Service Pack 2 on X86
(X86_64)
I. 10/15 17:48:18. Server built for X86 processor architecture
I. 10/15 17:48:19. 2560000K of memory used for caching
I. 10/15 17:48:19. Physical memory allocated for images: 2529968K
I. 10/15 17:48:19. Address space allocated: 1485640K

So the 2560000K is what I've requested, the 2529968K is what I've been given
(correct?) and the address space is 1485640K. Is this address figure
correct? I haven't supplied any (/3GB) switches to windows. Should I?

Thanks for your help,

Roger Holmes

"Roger Holmes" <a@a.com> wrote

Quote:

Hi Justin - thanks for replying.

There was an issue with the early releases of Server 2003
It's W2003 Release 2 SP2 so that should be fine.

There are several settings you need to make including some granting of
permissions
I've checked the docs and understand what's required.

64-bit is still better though if you can go to that.
I would - but the client can't/won't

Thanks again for your experience - I'll give it a go and report back.

Roger

"Justin Willey" <gjw (AT) nospam (DOT) iqx.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4ac4a4eb (AT) forums-1-dub (DOT) ..
Hi

Our experience has been that you get a considerable boost from the extra
cache with no downside. 64-bit is still better though if you can go to
that.

There was an issue with the early releases of Server 2003 that could
cause server crashes when AWE was used, but it was fixed by service pack
1 (I think, possibly 2) - it was an MS issue not a Sybase one.

There are several settings you need to make including some granting of
windows permissions, but it's all in the docs.

Justin Willey

Roger Holmes wrote:
Hi,

I've got the option of using AWE cache on a 4GB Win 2003 Standard box
running, exclusively, an SA 10.0.1.3689 database server.

Apart from the obvious performance gain of the extra cache, are there
any other pros or cons about going with this option? Does everything
work as under a non-AWE system?

Thanks.

#5

The address space looks correct to me. Without /3GB on a 32-bit OS, your
process is limited to 2GB of address space. Some is in use for code &
normal data segment plus we always leave some free for future use by
your process. Adding /3GB is recommended and should give you about 2.5GB
of address space. More address space means we will need to remap pages
(assign physical memory to a given address) less often.

-john.

--
John Smirnios
Senior Software Developer
iAnywhere Solutions Engineering

Whitepapers, TechDocs, bug fixes are all available through the iAnywhere
Developer Community at http://www.ianywhere.com/developer

Roger Holmes wrote:

Quote:

Hi again,

Ok - The W2003Std server has 3.5GB of memory. I've put "-cw -c 2500M" in the
switch file.

The server log output contains:

I. 10/15 17:48:18. 8 logical processor(s) on 2 physical processor(s)
detected.
I. 10/15 17:48:18. Running Windows 2003 Build 3790 Service Pack 2 on X86
(X86_64)
I. 10/15 17:48:18. Server built for X86 processor architecture
I. 10/15 17:48:19. 2560000K of memory used for caching
I. 10/15 17:48:19. Physical memory allocated for images: 2529968K
I. 10/15 17:48:19. Address space allocated: 1485640K

So the 2560000K is what I've requested, the 2529968K is what I've been given
(correct?) and the address space is 1485640K. Is this address figure
correct? I haven't supplied any (/3GB) switches to windows. Should I?

Thanks for your help,

Roger Holmes

"Roger Holmes" <a@a.com> wrote

Hi Justin - thanks for replying.

There was an issue with the early releases of Server 2003
It's W2003 Release 2 SP2 so that should be fine.

There are several settings you need to make including some granting of
permissions
I've checked the docs and understand what's required.

64-bit is still better though if you can go to that.
I would - but the client can't/won't

Thanks again for your experience - I'll give it a go and report back.

Roger

"Justin Willey" <gjw (AT) nospam (DOT) iqx.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4ac4a4eb (AT) forums-1-dub (DOT) ..
Hi

Our experience has been that you get a considerable boost from the extra
cache with no downside. 64-bit is still better though if you can go to
that.

There was an issue with the early releases of Server 2003 that could
cause server crashes when AWE was used, but it was fixed by service pack
1 (I think, possibly 2) - it was an MS issue not a Sybase one.

There are several settings you need to make including some granting of
windows permissions, but it's all in the docs.

Justin Willey

Roger Holmes wrote:
Hi,

I've got the option of using AWE cache on a 4GB Win 2003 Standard box
running, exclusively, an SA 10.0.1.3689 database server.

Apart from the obvious performance gain of the extra cache, are there
any other pros or cons about going with this option? Does everything
work as under a non-AWE system?

Thanks.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Peformance of AWE cache

sybase.public.sqlanywhere.general sybase.public.sqlanywhere.general

Peformance of AWE cache - 10-01-2009 , 05:18 AM

Re: Peformance of AWE cache - 10-01-2009 , 07:47 AM

Re: Peformance of AWE cache - 10-01-2009 , 08:06 AM

Re: Peformance of AWE cache - 10-16-2009 , 07:22 AM

Re: Peformance of AWE cache - 10-16-2009 , 03:09 PM