Hello:

Is it true that 32-bit Windows Server 2003s max out at 2GB, even if the
System property settings say "3.50 GB"?



childofthe1980s

"childofthe1980s" <childofthe1980s@newsgroup> wrote in
message news:CAC2795C-D6C6-437A-BBBD-2483F0385086@newsgroup

> Hello:
>
> Is it true that 32-bit Windows Server 2003s max out at 2GB, even if the
> System property settings say "3.50 GB"?
>
> childofthe1980s

No, it doesn't. Not sure where you heard that it only supports 2 GB from. It
also depends on what version of Windows 2003 you have.

Windows 2003 Standard Edition supports up to 4GB physical RAM, and
Enterprise Edition way beyond that. Keep in mind, when it says "32 bit," it
translates that to 2^32, or about 4.3 billion, which is essentially 4 GB.
For Enterprise 32 bit to support beyond that, in the boot.ini file you need
to add the /pae switch (Physical Address Extensions), which allow the system
to "translate" RAM above the physical addressable limit that a 32 bit OS
imposes.

Also, another thing to look at is that if you do have 4 GB of RAM, for
example, the system or kernel will take 2 GB of RAM for it's own functions,
leaving 2 GB of RAM for applications. Some applications, such as Exchange,
will need more than that. In that case, what you can do is provide the /3GB
switch in the boot.ini file. This forces the machine to only use 1 GB
leaving 3 GB to apps that support the use of the /3GB switch.

Of course if the Windows version is the 64bit version, it can address it
directly without the switches, but these versions have physical limits, too,
and not necessarily a mathematical function that the 32 bit versions have
outlined in my second paragraph. Windows 2003 Standard x64 supports up to
16GB, and 2003 Enterprise x64 up to 64GB.

Confused yet? Next week's class topic will be about fractions. :-)

Read more on it in the following links.

The 4GB Windows Memory Limit: What does it really mean? - Brian ...This
kernel memory limit only applies to 32-bit systems (from a ...... Windows
2003 Server only see 3.5GB of memory... seeing all these threads just ...
http://www.brianmadden.com/blogs/bri...ally-mean.aspx

Memory Limits for Windows Releases (Windows)The following table specifies
the limits on physical memory for Windows Server 2003. Limits over 4 GB for
32-bit Windows assume that PAE is enabled. ...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...78(VS.85).aspx

I hope that helps.

--
Ace

This posting is provided "AS-IS" with no warranties or guarantees and
confers no rights.

Please reply back to the newsgroup or forum for collaboration benefit among
responding engineers, and to help others benefit from your resolution.

Ace Fekay, MVP, MCT, MCITP EA, MCTS Windows 2008 & Exchange 2007, MCSE &
MCSA 2003/2000, MCSA Messaging 2003
Microsoft Certified Trainer
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services

If you feel this is an urgent issue and require immediate assistance, please
contact Microsoft PSS directly. Please check http://support.microsoft.com
for regional support phone numbers.

Thanks for the link Ace,
According to...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...ws_server_2003
it seems that Windows Server 2003 Web Edition is limited to 2GB.



"Ace Fekay [MVP-DS, MCT]" <aceman@newsgroup> wrote in message
news:uzdOBI9mKHA.5692@newsgroup

> "childofthe1980s" <childofthe1980s@newsgroup> wrote in
> message news:CAC2795C-D6C6-437A-BBBD-2483F0385086@newsgroup

>> Hello:
>>
>> Is it true that 32-bit Windows Server 2003s max out at 2GB, even if the
>> System property settings say "3.50 GB"?
>>
>> childofthe1980s

>
>
> No, it doesn't. Not sure where you heard that it only supports 2 GB from.
> It also depends on what version of Windows 2003 you have.
>
> Windows 2003 Standard Edition supports up to 4GB physical RAM, and
> Enterprise Edition way beyond that. Keep in mind, when it says "32 bit,"
> it translates that to 2^32, or about 4.3 billion, which is essentially 4
> GB. For Enterprise 32 bit to support beyond that, in the boot.ini file you
> need to add the /pae switch (Physical Address Extensions), which allow the
> system to "translate" RAM above the physical addressable limit that a 32
> bit OS imposes.
>
> Also, another thing to look at is that if you do have 4 GB of RAM, for
> example, the system or kernel will take 2 GB of RAM for it's own
> functions, leaving 2 GB of RAM for applications. Some applications, such
> as Exchange, will need more than that. In that case, what you can do is
> provide the /3GB switch in the boot.ini file. This forces the machine to
> only use 1 GB leaving 3 GB to apps that support the use of the /3GB
> switch.
>
> Of course if the Windows version is the 64bit version, it can address it
> directly without the switches, but these versions have physical limits,
> too, and not necessarily a mathematical function that the 32 bit versions
> have outlined in my second paragraph. Windows 2003 Standard x64 supports
> up to 16GB, and 2003 Enterprise x64 up to 64GB.
>
> Confused yet? Next week's class topic will be about fractions. :-)
>
> Read more on it in the following links.
>
> The 4GB Windows Memory Limit: What does it really mean? - Brian ...This
> kernel memory limit only applies to 32-bit systems (from a ...... Windows
> 2003 Server only see 3.5GB of memory... seeing all these threads just ...
> http://www.brianmadden.com/blogs/bri...ally-mean.aspx
>
> Memory Limits for Windows Releases (Windows)The following table specifies
> the limits on physical memory for Windows Server 2003. Limits over 4 GB
> for 32-bit Windows assume that PAE is enabled. ...
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...78(VS.85).aspx
>
> I hope that helps.
>
> --
> Ace
>
> This posting is provided "AS-IS" with no warranties or guarantees and
> confers no rights.
>
> Please reply back to the newsgroup or forum for collaboration benefit
> among responding engineers, and to help others benefit from your
> resolution.
>
> Ace Fekay, MVP, MCT, MCITP EA, MCTS Windows 2008 & Exchange 2007, MCSE &
> MCSA 2003/2000, MCSA Messaging 2003
> Microsoft Certified Trainer
> Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
>
> If you feel this is an urgent issue and require immediate assistance,
> please contact Microsoft PSS directly. Please check
> http://support.microsoft.com for regional support phone numbers.
>

Read more on it in the following links.




It's even more complex than that.&nbsp; The limits on physical memory and the limits on virtual memory are disjoint.&nbsp; Not only do people erroneously conflate physical memory and virtual memory when they ask questions such as the one in the subject line, but they also don't realize that tweaking the settings affecting the one doesn't affect the other.&nbsp; This article is another one to read.

Thanks, Ace!

SQL Programmer (it's just a name)

"Ace Fekay [MVP-DS, MCT]" wrote:

> "childofthe1980s" <childofthe1980s@newsgroup> wrote in
> message news:CAC2795C-D6C6-437A-BBBD-2483F0385086@newsgroup

> > Hello:
> >
> > Is it true that 32-bit Windows Server 2003s max out at 2GB, even if the
> > System property settings say "3.50 GB"?
> >
> > childofthe1980s

>
>
> No, it doesn't. Not sure where you heard that it only supports 2 GB from. It
> also depends on what version of Windows 2003 you have.
>
> Windows 2003 Standard Edition supports up to 4GB physical RAM, and
> Enterprise Edition way beyond that. Keep in mind, when it says "32 bit," it
> translates that to 2^32, or about 4.3 billion, which is essentially 4 GB.
> For Enterprise 32 bit to support beyond that, in the boot.ini file you need
> to add the /pae switch (Physical Address Extensions), which allow the system
> to "translate" RAM above the physical addressable limit that a 32 bit OS
> imposes.
>
> Also, another thing to look at is that if you do have 4 GB of RAM, for
> example, the system or kernel will take 2 GB of RAM for it's own functions,
> leaving 2 GB of RAM for applications. Some applications, such as Exchange,
> will need more than that. In that case, what you can do is provide the /3GB
> switch in the boot.ini file. This forces the machine to only use 1 GB
> leaving 3 GB to apps that support the use of the /3GB switch.
>
> Of course if the Windows version is the 64bit version, it can address it
> directly without the switches, but these versions have physical limits, too,
> and not necessarily a mathematical function that the 32 bit versions have
> outlined in my second paragraph. Windows 2003 Standard x64 supports up to
> 16GB, and 2003 Enterprise x64 up to 64GB.
>
> Confused yet? Next week's class topic will be about fractions. :-)
>
> Read more on it in the following links.
>
> The 4GB Windows Memory Limit: What does it really mean? - Brian ...This
> kernel memory limit only applies to 32-bit systems (from a ...... Windows
> 2003 Server only see 3.5GB of memory... seeing all these threads just ...
> http://www.brianmadden.com/blogs/bri...ally-mean.aspx
>
> Memory Limits for Windows Releases (Windows)The following table specifies
> the limits on physical memory for Windows Server 2003. Limits over 4 GB for
> 32-bit Windows assume that PAE is enabled. ...
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...78(VS.85).aspx
>
> I hope that helps.
>
> --
> Ace
>
> This posting is provided "AS-IS" with no warranties or guarantees and
> confers no rights.
>
> Please reply back to the newsgroup or forum for collaboration benefit among
> responding engineers, and to help others benefit from your resolution.
>
> Ace Fekay, MVP, MCT, MCITP EA, MCTS Windows 2008 & Exchange 2007, MCSE &
> MCSA 2003/2000, MCSA Messaging 2003
> Microsoft Certified Trainer
> Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
>
> If you feel this is an urgent issue and require immediate assistance, please
> contact Microsoft PSS directly. Please check http://support.microsoft.com
> for regional support phone numbers.
>
>
> .
>

Thanks, Dusko!

SQL Programmer (it's just a name)

"Dusko Savatovic" wrote:

> Thanks for the link Ace,
> According to...
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...ws_server_2003
> it seems that Windows Server 2003 Web Edition is limited to 2GB.
>
>
>
> "Ace Fekay [MVP-DS, MCT]" <aceman@newsgroup> wrote in message
> news:uzdOBI9mKHA.5692@newsgroup

> > "childofthe1980s" <childofthe1980s@newsgroup> wrote in
> > message news:CAC2795C-D6C6-437A-BBBD-2483F0385086@newsgroup

> >> Hello:
> >>
> >> Is it true that 32-bit Windows Server 2003s max out at 2GB, even if the
> >> System property settings say "3.50 GB"?
> >>
> >> childofthe1980s

> >
> >
> > No, it doesn't. Not sure where you heard that it only supports 2 GB from.
> > It also depends on what version of Windows 2003 you have.
> >
> > Windows 2003 Standard Edition supports up to 4GB physical RAM, and
> > Enterprise Edition way beyond that. Keep in mind, when it says "32 bit,"
> > it translates that to 2^32, or about 4.3 billion, which is essentially 4
> > GB. For Enterprise 32 bit to support beyond that, in the boot.ini file you
> > need to add the /pae switch (Physical Address Extensions), which allow the
> > system to "translate" RAM above the physical addressable limit that a 32
> > bit OS imposes.
> >
> > Also, another thing to look at is that if you do have 4 GB of RAM, for
> > example, the system or kernel will take 2 GB of RAM for it's own
> > functions, leaving 2 GB of RAM for applications. Some applications, such
> > as Exchange, will need more than that. In that case, what you can do is
> > provide the /3GB switch in the boot.ini file. This forces the machine to
> > only use 1 GB leaving 3 GB to apps that support the use of the /3GB
> > switch.
> >
> > Of course if the Windows version is the 64bit version, it can address it
> > directly without the switches, but these versions have physical limits,
> > too, and not necessarily a mathematical function that the 32 bit versions
> > have outlined in my second paragraph. Windows 2003 Standard x64 supports
> > up to 16GB, and 2003 Enterprise x64 up to 64GB.
> >
> > Confused yet? Next week's class topic will be about fractions. :-)
> >
> > Read more on it in the following links.
> >
> > The 4GB Windows Memory Limit: What does it really mean? - Brian ...This
> > kernel memory limit only applies to 32-bit systems (from a ...... Windows
> > 2003 Server only see 3.5GB of memory... seeing all these threads just ...
> > http://www.brianmadden.com/blogs/bri...ally-mean.aspx
> >
> > Memory Limits for Windows Releases (Windows)The following table specifies
> > the limits on physical memory for Windows Server 2003. Limits over 4 GB
> > for 32-bit Windows assume that PAE is enabled. ...
> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...78(VS.85).aspx
> >
> > I hope that helps.
> >
> > --
> > Ace
> >
> > This posting is provided "AS-IS" with no warranties or guarantees and
> > confers no rights.
> >
> > Please reply back to the newsgroup or forum for collaboration benefit
> > among responding engineers, and to help others benefit from your
> > resolution.
> >
> > Ace Fekay, MVP, MCT, MCITP EA, MCTS Windows 2008 & Exchange 2007, MCSE &
> > MCSA 2003/2000, MCSA Messaging 2003
> > Microsoft Certified Trainer
> > Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
> >
> > If you feel this is an urgent issue and require immediate assistance,
> > please contact Microsoft PSS directly. Please check
> > http://support.microsoft.com for regional support phone numbers.
> >

> .
>

"Dusko Savatovic" <savatovic@newsgroup> wrote in message
news:u1SuflBnKHA.4436@newsgroup

You're welcome, Dusko, and thanks for pointing that out about Webserver
edition. I overlooked it and forgot, possibly because I have never used it.
:-)

Ace

> Thanks for the link Ace,
> According to...
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...ws_server_2003
> it seems that Windows Server 2003 Web Edition is limited to 2GB.
>
>
>
> "Ace Fekay [MVP-DS, MCT]" <aceman@newsgroup> wrote in
> message news:uzdOBI9mKHA.5692@newsgroup

>> "childofthe1980s" <childofthe1980s@newsgroup> wrote in
>> message news:CAC2795C-D6C6-437A-BBBD-2483F0385086@newsgroup

>>> Hello:
>>>
>>> Is it true that 32-bit Windows Server 2003s max out at 2GB, even if the
>>> System property settings say "3.50 GB"?
>>>
>>> childofthe1980s

>>
>>
>> No, it doesn't. Not sure where you heard that it only supports 2 GB from.
>> It also depends on what version of Windows 2003 you have.
>>
>> Windows 2003 Standard Edition supports up to 4GB physical RAM, and
>> Enterprise Edition way beyond that. Keep in mind, when it says "32 bit,"
>> it translates that to 2^32, or about 4.3 billion, which is essentially 4
>> GB. For Enterprise 32 bit to support beyond that, in the boot.ini file
>> you need to add the /pae switch (Physical Address Extensions), which
>> allow the system to "translate" RAM above the physical addressable limit
>> that a 32 bit OS imposes.
>>
>> Also, another thing to look at is that if you do have 4 GB of RAM, for
>> example, the system or kernel will take 2 GB of RAM for it's own
>> functions, leaving 2 GB of RAM for applications. Some applications, such
>> as Exchange, will need more than that. In that case, what you can do is
>> provide the /3GB switch in the boot.ini file. This forces the machine to
>> only use 1 GB leaving 3 GB to apps that support the use of the /3GB
>> switch.
>>
>> Of course if the Windows version is the 64bit version, it can address it
>> directly without the switches, but these versions have physical limits,
>> too, and not necessarily a mathematical function that the 32 bit versions
>> have outlined in my second paragraph. Windows 2003 Standard x64 supports
>> up to 16GB, and 2003 Enterprise x64 up to 64GB.
>>
>> Confused yet? Next week's class topic will be about fractions. :-)
>>
>> Read more on it in the following links.
>>
>> The 4GB Windows Memory Limit: What does it really mean? - Brian ...This
>> kernel memory limit only applies to 32-bit systems (from a ...... Windows
>> 2003 Server only see 3.5GB of memory... seeing all these threads just ...
>> http://www.brianmadden.com/blogs/bri...ally-mean.aspx
>>
>> Memory Limits for Windows Releases (Windows)The following table specifies
>> the limits on physical memory for Windows Server 2003. Limits over 4 GB
>> for 32-bit Windows assume that PAE is enabled. ...
>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...78(VS.85).aspx
>>
>> I hope that helps.
>>
>> --
>> Ace
>>
>> This posting is provided "AS-IS" with no warranties or guarantees and
>> confers no rights.
>>
>> Please reply back to the newsgroup or forum for collaboration benefit
>> among responding engineers, and to help others benefit from your
>> resolution.
>>
>> Ace Fekay, MVP, MCT, MCITP EA, MCTS Windows 2008 & Exchange 2007, MCSE &
>> MCSA 2003/2000, MCSA Messaging 2003
>> Microsoft Certified Trainer
>> Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
>>
>> If you feel this is an urgent issue and require immediate assistance,
>> please contact Microsoft PSS directly. Please check
>> http://support.microsoft.com for regional support phone numbers.
>>

"SQL Programmer" <SQLProgrammer@newsgroup> wrote in message
news:AA8065FF-D555-4877-B538-AB73A1DF0819@newsgroup

> Thanks, Ace!
>
> SQL Programmer (it's just a name)
>

You are welcome!

Ace

"Jonathan de Boyne Pollard" <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@newsgroup> wrote
in message
news:IU.D20100123.T161608.P5441.Q0@newsgroup

> Read more on it in the following links.
>
>
> It's even more complex than that. The limits on physical memory and the
> limits on virtual memory are disjoint. Not only do people erroneously
> conflate physical memory and virtual memory when they ask questions such
> as the one in the subject line, but they also don't realize that tweaking
> the settings affecting the one doesn't affect the other. This article is
> another one to read.
>
>

Which article? I don't see a link.

Ace

It's even more complex than that. The limits on physical memory and the limits on virtual memory are disjoint. Not only do people erroneously conflate physical memory and virtual memory when they ask questions such as the one in the subject line, but they also don't realize that tweaking the settings affecting the one doesn't affect the other. This article is another one to read.




Which article? I don't see a link.




There's something wrong at your end, then.&nbsp; The hyperlink was definitely there in the original, and is also in the copies of the message on other servers, at Google Groups, and on several WWW mirrors of this newsgroup.&nbsp; I've re-added it to this message.&nbsp; You might want to compare what your NUA tells you is the message content with what it actually retrieved from your NNTP server in the first place.