Server 2000 Registry Size Limit Help!

[KAMAZON]

Hello, I am a new DBA to this company and they asked my advice for a problem they are having with their Win2k Server that is used for TSC. They have roughly 20 simultanius connections and about 80 profiles saved at any one point. At around 96-97 mb the new users who try to connect again get a message that they are not able to save their profile and some other errors which I can gladly get to you.

They have tried setting the maximum pool limit in the registry to 48%, putting all FFFFFFFF in the registry size limit in the registry to allow it to go to the maximum, they have put it at 512MB on the registry size limit properties on my computer, we even set the /3g switch on the Boot.Ini file to give more memory to the applications (the server has 4gb of ram).

Right now they have to just keep shrinking the registry. Do you guys know of a better way to do this? Is there an app out there that can shrink the registry size by removing users profile settings or any other unwanted data? Is it typical to have such a large registry size for only 80 saved profiles?

Thanks in advance, but do note MS was not able to solve this problem.

 

[t0mn8r]

Kamazon,
In Win2K there is a way of restricting (and increasing) the size of the registry.

They removed this in XP and Win2K3 because it is handled automatically.

Go to My Computer, Properties and then Advanced.

Sorry, don't have a screenshot for you as I don't run it anymore.

HTH

 

[Nothinman]

we even set the /3g switch on the Boot.Ini file to give more memory to the applications (the server has 4gb of ram).

I don't know about the real source of the problem but that will have absolutely zero affect on your situation and may make things worse since you've limited the kernel to 1G of virtual memory. And on top of that only processes marked as large address aware will be able to use that extra 1G of VM that you've just given them and I really doubt you have any such binaries.

 

[spyordie007]

So I have to ask the obvious, why not rebuild this to 2003?

Nothing is jumping out at me, you've already tried the troubleshooting I would begin with. Can you post the other applicable errors that you're seeing?

You should go back to Microsoft PSS since this is obviously an issue, they should continue working with you until it's taken care of. Continue to use the same case number (even if it's been a while).

Also like Nothingman said, you should not be using the /3GB switch unless your apps are aware (things like Exchange and SQL).

 

[KAMAZON]

Hi guys, thank you all for your responses. Let's start.

t0mn8r:

Currently it's set to 512MB but the users still get the error when the registry hits 96-97 MB. I can get an exact screenshot. I believe I ran across documentation that stated Win2K doesn't handle registry sizes over 100 MB too well.

Nothinman:
I hear ya but this solution was from a MS KB article which is the only reason our IT guys even implemented it (I think). I can get you the article.

spyordie007:
Boy I would love it if they did, as this problem would just go away, however we all know how companies think and they don't spend extra money if they don't absolutely have to. We are in this situation. It's either find a solution or deal with the problem.

Does anyone have any good recommendations for a program that clears up the registry of extra users settings or stops the users from updating the user settings in the registry? If we can stop it from growing, well at least it'll be a decent band-aid until we de-commission these win2k servers.

Thanks for all of the replies guys!

 

[Nothinman]

I hear ya but this solution was from a MS KB article which is the only reason our IT guys even implemented it (I think). I can get you the article.

Please do, I would be extremely surprised to see the /3GB switch recommended for just about anything.

 

[t0mn8r]

Kamazon,
I feel your pain.

If the reg size is set to 512 then there's not much else to be done IMO.

It is true that > 100MB it starts to strugggle a bit but in my (modest) experience I haven't seen it cause too many problems, certainly nothing like what you are reporting.

If it were my installation I would plan to migrate to Win2K3 R2. This is the most stable OS I have ever seen.

I know it's painful but I think that you are chasing your tail in trying to fix this problem.

Migration strategy:
1. Put up a white box server with W2K3
2. Make it a member backup server
3. Migrate the accounts
4. Turn of the POS W2K server
5. Promote the WB server
6. Install W2K3 on original server
7. Demote the WB server
8. Promote the original server
9. Celebrate and get drunk.

HTH

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: KAMAZON
spyordie007:
Boy I would love it if they did, as this problem would just go away, however we all know how companies think and they don't spend extra money if they don't absolutely have to. We are in this situation. It's either find a solution or deal with the problem.

Only if you could delete accounts would it fly...

Since W2k is EOL and nearing end of support, it will become a security risk to remain on that server. Maybe that can help justify the expense of upgrading as well as the system will quit working if it takes on any more users. Sometimes, you have to spend the money. It just takes a good business case and you have the start of it. Got a BA that can help you create a business case for the upgrade?

 

[stash]

Since W2k is EOL and nearing end of support, it will become a security risk to remain on that server.

Windows 2000 is not EOL. It is in extended support until 7/13/2010, meaning security updates will be available for the OS until that date.

edit: extended support, not mainstream.

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: stash

Since W2k is EOL and nearing end of support, it will become a security risk to remain on that server.

Windows 2000 is not EOL. It is in extended support until 7/13/2010, meaning security updates will be available for the OS until that date.

edit: extended support, not mainstream.

It may still be supported, but the fact that it's in "extended support" may still be a point he could use to get the funding. 2000 is just about 8 years old now...

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: stash

Since W2k is EOL and nearing end of support, it will become a security risk to remain on that server.

Windows 2000 is not EOL. It is in extended support until 7/13/2010, meaning security updates will be available for the OS until that date.

edit: extended support, not mainstream.

oops.... Workstation is though, right? I have not had to build a patch package in 2 years, so I forget these things.