After enabling AWE in SQL I am noticing a good bit more paging than
before. The attached jpg file is a graph of memory usage.
The configuration for this server is:
IBM x360 w/ 4 x 1.6ghz processors, 8GB memory
Storage: C: and D: partitions internal drives
Data stored on SAN volumes: 5 x 683GB volumes
# databases on this server: 162
boot.ini file has the /3GB and /PAE switches
OS sees all 8GB of memory.
SQL Server has AWE enabled with memory settings:
Min: 0 Max: 5500
As soon as I enabled AWE in SQL, I noticed the following:
(see jpg of the memory usage graph)
1. MemPhysUsage jumps up to almost 80%
(this is the 5500 mark) (in green)
2. PageFileUsage starts climbing up over time. (in pink)
There was little or no page file usage prior to enabling AWE.
Any ideas?
Thanks in advance
jtw
--
http://www.UsenetRocket.comHi,
if the server is only a MS SQL 2k Server, change the
Server properties - dynamicly configure SQL Server Memory -
Give the Server the maximum of memory.
J.K
>--Original Message--
>After enabling AWE in SQL I am noticing a good bit more
paging than
>before. The attached jpg file is a graph of memory usage.
>The configuration for this server is:
>IBM x360 w/ 4 x 1.6ghz processors, 8GB memory
>Storage: C: and D: partitions internal drives
>Data stored on SAN volumes: 5 x 683GB volumes
># databases on this server: 162
>boot.ini file has the /3GB and /PAE switches
>OS sees all 8GB of memory.
>SQL Server has AWE enabled with memory settings:
> Min: 0 Max: 5500
>As soon as I enabled AWE in SQL, I noticed the following:
>(see jpg of the memory usage graph)
>1. MemPhysUsage jumps up to almost 80%
> (this is the 5500 mark) (in green)
>2. PageFileUsage starts climbing up over time. (in pink)
>There was little or no page file usage prior to enabling
AWE.
>Any ideas?
>
>Thanks in advance
>jtw
>--
>http://www.UsenetRocket.com
>.
>
Showing posts with label memory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label memory. Show all posts
Monday, March 12, 2012
excessive memory usage problem
We have recently migrated from a Windows Server 2000/Sql Server 2000
Standard Edition machine to Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition/Sql
Server 2000 Standard Edition. We are using the machine as a combined
web and database server running asp and com dll's. The old machine had
about 1GB Ram and sql server used about 700Mb and the machine ran ok.
On the new machine with 2.5GB Ram sql server seems to gradually build
up its memory use to 1.9GB from 300mb after a reeboot. The machine
seems be experiencing some performance problems even though we have
the same amount of website traffic as before, I suspect the memory
usage is a problem, it seems as if sql server it not releasing memory.
Is their a way to diagnose/control this? Is it possible that there is
some difference in windows 2003(with IIS 6) that causes sql server to
retain more memory, perhaps not relasing database connections from asp
as quickly as before'
We have the latest service pack on sql server 2000.
Thanks
ScottIn EM, RClick the server/ props/ memory/ set a max.
>--Original Message--
>We have recently migrated from a Windows Server 2000/Sql
Server 2000
>Standard Edition machine to Windows Server 2003
Standard Edition/Sql
>Server 2000 Standard Edition. We are using the machine as
a combined
>web and database server running asp and com dll's. The
old machine had
>about 1GB Ram and sql server used about 700Mb and the
machine ran ok.
>On the new machine with 2.5GB Ram sql server seems to
gradually build
>up its memory use to 1.9GB from 300mb after a reeboot.
The machine
>seems be experiencing some performance problems even
though we have
>the same amount of website traffic as before, I suspect
the memory
>usage is a problem, it seems as if sql server it not
releasing memory.
>Is their a way to diagnose/control this? Is it possible
that there is
>some difference in windows 2003(with IIS 6) that causes
sql server to
>retain more memory, perhaps not relasing database
connections from asp
>as quickly as before'
>We have the latest service pack on sql server 2000.
>Thanks
>Scott
>.
>|||AFAIK, IIS6/Win2003 should be faster than your previous environment.
If SQL takes 1.9GB, you still have 0.6GB for OS and asp, which is double the
amount you had in your previous configuration, right?
The behaviour you describe is by design I believe - SQLServer will take as
much memory as it can (up to 2GB).
Are you _very_ sure that you have the latest service pack?
I have just very recently been studying maybe a bit similar
ASP/COM/IIS5/SQLServer2000 system which encountered performance problems
(after SP3 installation), and was finally cured when we (re)installed very
latest SP3a to application servers. The effect was really amazing. Our app
was using ODBC.
Just an idea,
pexi
<scott_mcarthur2003@.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:92c92d63.0311200800.124926ff@.posting.google.com...
> We have recently migrated from a Windows Server 2000/Sql Server 2000
> Standard Edition machine to Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition/Sql
> Server 2000 Standard Edition. We are using the machine as a combined
> web and database server running asp and com dll's. The old machine had
> about 1GB Ram and sql server used about 700Mb and the machine ran ok.
> On the new machine with 2.5GB Ram sql server seems to gradually build
> up its memory use to 1.9GB from 300mb after a reeboot. The machine
> seems be experiencing some performance problems even though we have
> the same amount of website traffic as before, I suspect the memory
> usage is a problem, it seems as if sql server it not releasing memory.
> Is their a way to diagnose/control this? Is it possible that there is
> some difference in windows 2003(with IIS 6) that causes sql server to
> retain more memory, perhaps not relasing database connections from asp
> as quickly as before'
> We have the latest service pack on sql server 2000.
> Thanks
> Scott|||Despite the wording in Q814410, below memoryLeak is fixed in SP3A according
to our tests:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;814410
which might explain your experience with SP3A.
/jensk
"Pexi" <pekkadotheimonen@.plenwaredotnospamdotcom> wrote in message
news:ef8Jz05rDHA.560@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> AFAIK, IIS6/Win2003 should be faster than your previous environment.
> If SQL takes 1.9GB, you still have 0.6GB for OS and asp, which is double
the
> amount you had in your previous configuration, right?
> The behaviour you describe is by design I believe - SQLServer will take as
> much memory as it can (up to 2GB).
> Are you _very_ sure that you have the latest service pack?
> I have just very recently been studying maybe a bit similar
> ASP/COM/IIS5/SQLServer2000 system which encountered performance problems
> (after SP3 installation), and was finally cured when we (re)installed very
> latest SP3a to application servers. The effect was really amazing. Our app
> was using ODBC.
> Just an idea,
> pexi
> <scott_mcarthur2003@.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:92c92d63.0311200800.124926ff@.posting.google.com...
> > We have recently migrated from a Windows Server 2000/Sql Server 2000
> > Standard Edition machine to Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition/Sql
> > Server 2000 Standard Edition. We are using the machine as a combined
> > web and database server running asp and com dll's. The old machine had
> > about 1GB Ram and sql server used about 700Mb and the machine ran ok.
> > On the new machine with 2.5GB Ram sql server seems to gradually build
> > up its memory use to 1.9GB from 300mb after a reeboot. The machine
> > seems be experiencing some performance problems even though we have
> > the same amount of website traffic as before, I suspect the memory
> > usage is a problem, it seems as if sql server it not releasing memory.
> > Is their a way to diagnose/control this? Is it possible that there is
> > some difference in windows 2003(with IIS 6) that causes sql server to
> > retain more memory, perhaps not relasing database connections from asp
> > as quickly as before'
> >
> > We have the latest service pack on sql server 2000.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Scott
>
Standard Edition machine to Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition/Sql
Server 2000 Standard Edition. We are using the machine as a combined
web and database server running asp and com dll's. The old machine had
about 1GB Ram and sql server used about 700Mb and the machine ran ok.
On the new machine with 2.5GB Ram sql server seems to gradually build
up its memory use to 1.9GB from 300mb after a reeboot. The machine
seems be experiencing some performance problems even though we have
the same amount of website traffic as before, I suspect the memory
usage is a problem, it seems as if sql server it not releasing memory.
Is their a way to diagnose/control this? Is it possible that there is
some difference in windows 2003(with IIS 6) that causes sql server to
retain more memory, perhaps not relasing database connections from asp
as quickly as before'
We have the latest service pack on sql server 2000.
Thanks
ScottIn EM, RClick the server/ props/ memory/ set a max.
>--Original Message--
>We have recently migrated from a Windows Server 2000/Sql
Server 2000
>Standard Edition machine to Windows Server 2003
Standard Edition/Sql
>Server 2000 Standard Edition. We are using the machine as
a combined
>web and database server running asp and com dll's. The
old machine had
>about 1GB Ram and sql server used about 700Mb and the
machine ran ok.
>On the new machine with 2.5GB Ram sql server seems to
gradually build
>up its memory use to 1.9GB from 300mb after a reeboot.
The machine
>seems be experiencing some performance problems even
though we have
>the same amount of website traffic as before, I suspect
the memory
>usage is a problem, it seems as if sql server it not
releasing memory.
>Is their a way to diagnose/control this? Is it possible
that there is
>some difference in windows 2003(with IIS 6) that causes
sql server to
>retain more memory, perhaps not relasing database
connections from asp
>as quickly as before'
>We have the latest service pack on sql server 2000.
>Thanks
>Scott
>.
>|||AFAIK, IIS6/Win2003 should be faster than your previous environment.
If SQL takes 1.9GB, you still have 0.6GB for OS and asp, which is double the
amount you had in your previous configuration, right?
The behaviour you describe is by design I believe - SQLServer will take as
much memory as it can (up to 2GB).
Are you _very_ sure that you have the latest service pack?
I have just very recently been studying maybe a bit similar
ASP/COM/IIS5/SQLServer2000 system which encountered performance problems
(after SP3 installation), and was finally cured when we (re)installed very
latest SP3a to application servers. The effect was really amazing. Our app
was using ODBC.
Just an idea,
pexi
<scott_mcarthur2003@.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:92c92d63.0311200800.124926ff@.posting.google.com...
> We have recently migrated from a Windows Server 2000/Sql Server 2000
> Standard Edition machine to Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition/Sql
> Server 2000 Standard Edition. We are using the machine as a combined
> web and database server running asp and com dll's. The old machine had
> about 1GB Ram and sql server used about 700Mb and the machine ran ok.
> On the new machine with 2.5GB Ram sql server seems to gradually build
> up its memory use to 1.9GB from 300mb after a reeboot. The machine
> seems be experiencing some performance problems even though we have
> the same amount of website traffic as before, I suspect the memory
> usage is a problem, it seems as if sql server it not releasing memory.
> Is their a way to diagnose/control this? Is it possible that there is
> some difference in windows 2003(with IIS 6) that causes sql server to
> retain more memory, perhaps not relasing database connections from asp
> as quickly as before'
> We have the latest service pack on sql server 2000.
> Thanks
> Scott|||Despite the wording in Q814410, below memoryLeak is fixed in SP3A according
to our tests:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;814410
which might explain your experience with SP3A.
/jensk
"Pexi" <pekkadotheimonen@.plenwaredotnospamdotcom> wrote in message
news:ef8Jz05rDHA.560@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> AFAIK, IIS6/Win2003 should be faster than your previous environment.
> If SQL takes 1.9GB, you still have 0.6GB for OS and asp, which is double
the
> amount you had in your previous configuration, right?
> The behaviour you describe is by design I believe - SQLServer will take as
> much memory as it can (up to 2GB).
> Are you _very_ sure that you have the latest service pack?
> I have just very recently been studying maybe a bit similar
> ASP/COM/IIS5/SQLServer2000 system which encountered performance problems
> (after SP3 installation), and was finally cured when we (re)installed very
> latest SP3a to application servers. The effect was really amazing. Our app
> was using ODBC.
> Just an idea,
> pexi
> <scott_mcarthur2003@.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:92c92d63.0311200800.124926ff@.posting.google.com...
> > We have recently migrated from a Windows Server 2000/Sql Server 2000
> > Standard Edition machine to Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition/Sql
> > Server 2000 Standard Edition. We are using the machine as a combined
> > web and database server running asp and com dll's. The old machine had
> > about 1GB Ram and sql server used about 700Mb and the machine ran ok.
> > On the new machine with 2.5GB Ram sql server seems to gradually build
> > up its memory use to 1.9GB from 300mb after a reeboot. The machine
> > seems be experiencing some performance problems even though we have
> > the same amount of website traffic as before, I suspect the memory
> > usage is a problem, it seems as if sql server it not releasing memory.
> > Is their a way to diagnose/control this? Is it possible that there is
> > some difference in windows 2003(with IIS 6) that causes sql server to
> > retain more memory, perhaps not relasing database connections from asp
> > as quickly as before'
> >
> > We have the latest service pack on sql server 2000.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Scott
>
Excessive memory usage
My sql server apparently makes awful use of the system memory. I have to
restart the server once a day, because use of memory gradually increases to
500-600 mb in one day. What am I doing wrong, can you help me?
Max Muller
Max Muller wrote:
> My sql server apparently makes awful use of the system memory. I have
> to restart the server once a day, because use of memory gradually
> increases to 500-600 mb in one day. What am I doing wrong, can you
> help me?
>
> Max Muller
Nothing to do. That's how SQL works. It uses memory as it needs it and
doesn't give it back unless the OS specifically requests the service
release some memory (which rarely happens).
The fact that SQL Server uses memory shouldn't be a problem for most
servers, since it performs better the more memory it has.
If you're running into a situation where SQL Server is running on a box
with other services and applications, you can set the maximum memory SQL
Server can use in SQL Enterprise Manager.
Can you explain why the memory usage is a concern?
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com
|||Hi All,
I'm experiencing the same memory issue with SQL Server 2000 Standard as Max.
I now understand that it's normal for SQL to hog memory as needed. You
mentioned that if SQL server is running on a box with other services and
apps, we could set the maximum memory usage option. I know you said we
"COULD" but I was wondering if we SHOULD. I have other services and apps on
the box and I was concern about the low memory available. After reading your
comments and http://support.microsoft.com/default...;en-us;q321363
I now know that SQL server will release memory as needed by OS, but I'm
still wondering, is setting the max mem limit a standard practice when
running other services on same box as SQL?
Thanks.
E. Ortega
"David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
news:ejkaIx8DFHA.3976@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Max Muller wrote:
> Nothing to do. That's how SQL works. It uses memory as it needs it and
> doesn't give it back unless the OS specifically requests the service
> release some memory (which rarely happens).
> The fact that SQL Server uses memory shouldn't be a problem for most
> servers, since it performs better the more memory it has.
> If you're running into a situation where SQL Server is running on a box
> with other services and applications, you can set the maximum memory SQL
> Server can use in SQL Enterprise Manager.
> Can you explain why the memory usage is a concern?
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com
|||E Ortega wrote:
> Hi All,
> I'm experiencing the same memory issue with SQL Server 2000 Standard
> as Max. I now understand that it's normal for SQL to hog memory as
> needed. You mentioned that if SQL server is running on a box with
> other services and apps, we could set the maximum memory usage
> option. I know you said we "COULD" but I was wondering if we SHOULD. I
> have other services and apps on the box and I was concern about the
> low memory available. After reading your comments and
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...;en-us;q321363 I now
> know that SQL server will release memory as needed by OS, but I'm
> still wondering, is setting the max mem limit a standard practice
> when running other services on same box as SQL?
> Thanks.
> E. Ortega
>
Yes, it is. The best thing to do is add as much memory as you can to the
server. Memory is so cheap that it can have a dramatic improvement in
performance for all services. But if you have IIS or other services or
applications running on the server, you should set a maximum limit to
make sure SQL Server doesn't leave the other services starved for memory
as writing to disk is very slow and will hurt overall server performance
for all services.
Tuning your SQL is a great way to limit SQL Servers memory and CPU
footprints as well.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com
|||Thanks for your time and info very valuable to me and I'm sure to others out
there. If is not too much trouble, could you please briefly consider my
configuration and give me a suggestion as to what my max mem usage should
be?
SQL 2000 (SP3) Standard
Dual Xeon 3.0 GHz
Memory 2 Gig
Current Task Manager info:
Physical Memory
Total 2096636
Available 155724
System Cache 363272
Totals:
Handles 15422
Threads 731
Processes 56
CPU Usage varies 1% - 7%
sqlservr.exe mem usage is 1,175,992 mem
available mem is 155724, the rest of the mem is used by other
services(docsfusion, veritas storage replicator, etc.).
I have one DB with 50 users.
Thanks in advance for your time and info.
E. Ortega
"David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
news:uR6mDWFEFHA.3972@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>E Ortega wrote:
> Yes, it is. The best thing to do is add as much memory as you can to the
> server. Memory is so cheap that it can have a dramatic improvement in
> performance for all services. But if you have IIS or other services or
> applications running on the server, you should set a maximum limit to make
> sure SQL Server doesn't leave the other services starved for memory as
> writing to disk is very slow and will hurt overall server performance for
> all services.
> Tuning your SQL is a great way to limit SQL Servers memory and CPU
> footprints as well.
>
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com
|||It really depends on just how much memory these other apps need on a regular
basis. If you determine for instance that they need 300MB to operate
properly you might want to drop the max memory down 300MB from the value you
see Sql Server using in task manager. That would be roughly 1.4GB. That
would leave room for the memtoleave portion of sql server and ~300MB for the
other apps. When you run other apps on the same server as Sql Server and
only have 2GB you always have a trade off of who can best use the memory.
Even though Sql Server will dynamically adjust memory if the other apps
require xxMB's all the time it is usually best to limit how much Sql Server
can use.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"E Ortega" <elburu@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eGUritFEFHA.3908@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for your time and info very valuable to me and I'm sure to others
> out there. If is not too much trouble, could you please briefly consider
> my configuration and give me a suggestion as to what my max mem usage
> should be?
> SQL 2000 (SP3) Standard
> Dual Xeon 3.0 GHz
> Memory 2 Gig
> Current Task Manager info:
> Physical Memory
> Total 2096636
> Available 155724
> System Cache 363272
> Totals:
> Handles 15422
> Threads 731
> Processes 56
> CPU Usage varies 1% - 7%
> sqlservr.exe mem usage is 1,175,992 mem
> available mem is 155724, the rest of the mem is used by other
> services(docsfusion, veritas storage replicator, etc.).
> I have one DB with 50 users.
> Thanks in advance for your time and info.
> E. Ortega
>
> "David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
> news:uR6mDWFEFHA.3972@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
|||As always, thanks very much for your time and info.
E. Ortega
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:urxDmcGEFHA.2572@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> It really depends on just how much memory these other apps need on a
> regular basis. If you determine for instance that they need 300MB to
> operate properly you might want to drop the max memory down 300MB from the
> value you see Sql Server using in task manager. That would be roughly
> 1.4GB. That would leave room for the memtoleave portion of sql server and
> ~300MB for the other apps. When you run other apps on the same server as
> Sql Server and only have 2GB you always have a trade off of who can best
> use the memory. Even though Sql Server will dynamically adjust memory if
> the other apps require xxMB's all the time it is usually best to limit how
> much Sql Server can use.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "E Ortega" <elburu@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eGUritFEFHA.3908@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
|||Thanks a lot David, you helped me understand what I'm dealing with.
Max
"David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
news:ejkaIx8DFHA.3976@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Max Muller wrote:
> Nothing to do. That's how SQL works. It uses memory as it needs it and
> doesn't give it back unless the OS specifically requests the service
> release some memory (which rarely happens).
> The fact that SQL Server uses memory shouldn't be a problem for most
> servers, since it performs better the more memory it has.
> If you're running into a situation where SQL Server is running on a box
> with other services and applications, you can set the maximum memory SQL
> Server can use in SQL Enterprise Manager.
> Can you explain why the memory usage is a concern?
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com
restart the server once a day, because use of memory gradually increases to
500-600 mb in one day. What am I doing wrong, can you help me?
Max Muller
Max Muller wrote:
> My sql server apparently makes awful use of the system memory. I have
> to restart the server once a day, because use of memory gradually
> increases to 500-600 mb in one day. What am I doing wrong, can you
> help me?
>
> Max Muller
Nothing to do. That's how SQL works. It uses memory as it needs it and
doesn't give it back unless the OS specifically requests the service
release some memory (which rarely happens).
The fact that SQL Server uses memory shouldn't be a problem for most
servers, since it performs better the more memory it has.
If you're running into a situation where SQL Server is running on a box
with other services and applications, you can set the maximum memory SQL
Server can use in SQL Enterprise Manager.
Can you explain why the memory usage is a concern?
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com
|||Hi All,
I'm experiencing the same memory issue with SQL Server 2000 Standard as Max.
I now understand that it's normal for SQL to hog memory as needed. You
mentioned that if SQL server is running on a box with other services and
apps, we could set the maximum memory usage option. I know you said we
"COULD" but I was wondering if we SHOULD. I have other services and apps on
the box and I was concern about the low memory available. After reading your
comments and http://support.microsoft.com/default...;en-us;q321363
I now know that SQL server will release memory as needed by OS, but I'm
still wondering, is setting the max mem limit a standard practice when
running other services on same box as SQL?
Thanks.
E. Ortega
"David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
news:ejkaIx8DFHA.3976@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Max Muller wrote:
> Nothing to do. That's how SQL works. It uses memory as it needs it and
> doesn't give it back unless the OS specifically requests the service
> release some memory (which rarely happens).
> The fact that SQL Server uses memory shouldn't be a problem for most
> servers, since it performs better the more memory it has.
> If you're running into a situation where SQL Server is running on a box
> with other services and applications, you can set the maximum memory SQL
> Server can use in SQL Enterprise Manager.
> Can you explain why the memory usage is a concern?
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com
|||E Ortega wrote:
> Hi All,
> I'm experiencing the same memory issue with SQL Server 2000 Standard
> as Max. I now understand that it's normal for SQL to hog memory as
> needed. You mentioned that if SQL server is running on a box with
> other services and apps, we could set the maximum memory usage
> option. I know you said we "COULD" but I was wondering if we SHOULD. I
> have other services and apps on the box and I was concern about the
> low memory available. After reading your comments and
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...;en-us;q321363 I now
> know that SQL server will release memory as needed by OS, but I'm
> still wondering, is setting the max mem limit a standard practice
> when running other services on same box as SQL?
> Thanks.
> E. Ortega
>
Yes, it is. The best thing to do is add as much memory as you can to the
server. Memory is so cheap that it can have a dramatic improvement in
performance for all services. But if you have IIS or other services or
applications running on the server, you should set a maximum limit to
make sure SQL Server doesn't leave the other services starved for memory
as writing to disk is very slow and will hurt overall server performance
for all services.
Tuning your SQL is a great way to limit SQL Servers memory and CPU
footprints as well.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com
|||Thanks for your time and info very valuable to me and I'm sure to others out
there. If is not too much trouble, could you please briefly consider my
configuration and give me a suggestion as to what my max mem usage should
be?
SQL 2000 (SP3) Standard
Dual Xeon 3.0 GHz
Memory 2 Gig
Current Task Manager info:
Physical Memory
Total 2096636
Available 155724
System Cache 363272
Totals:
Handles 15422
Threads 731
Processes 56
CPU Usage varies 1% - 7%
sqlservr.exe mem usage is 1,175,992 mem
available mem is 155724, the rest of the mem is used by other
services(docsfusion, veritas storage replicator, etc.).
I have one DB with 50 users.
Thanks in advance for your time and info.
E. Ortega
"David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
news:uR6mDWFEFHA.3972@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>E Ortega wrote:
> Yes, it is. The best thing to do is add as much memory as you can to the
> server. Memory is so cheap that it can have a dramatic improvement in
> performance for all services. But if you have IIS or other services or
> applications running on the server, you should set a maximum limit to make
> sure SQL Server doesn't leave the other services starved for memory as
> writing to disk is very slow and will hurt overall server performance for
> all services.
> Tuning your SQL is a great way to limit SQL Servers memory and CPU
> footprints as well.
>
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com
|||It really depends on just how much memory these other apps need on a regular
basis. If you determine for instance that they need 300MB to operate
properly you might want to drop the max memory down 300MB from the value you
see Sql Server using in task manager. That would be roughly 1.4GB. That
would leave room for the memtoleave portion of sql server and ~300MB for the
other apps. When you run other apps on the same server as Sql Server and
only have 2GB you always have a trade off of who can best use the memory.
Even though Sql Server will dynamically adjust memory if the other apps
require xxMB's all the time it is usually best to limit how much Sql Server
can use.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"E Ortega" <elburu@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eGUritFEFHA.3908@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for your time and info very valuable to me and I'm sure to others
> out there. If is not too much trouble, could you please briefly consider
> my configuration and give me a suggestion as to what my max mem usage
> should be?
> SQL 2000 (SP3) Standard
> Dual Xeon 3.0 GHz
> Memory 2 Gig
> Current Task Manager info:
> Physical Memory
> Total 2096636
> Available 155724
> System Cache 363272
> Totals:
> Handles 15422
> Threads 731
> Processes 56
> CPU Usage varies 1% - 7%
> sqlservr.exe mem usage is 1,175,992 mem
> available mem is 155724, the rest of the mem is used by other
> services(docsfusion, veritas storage replicator, etc.).
> I have one DB with 50 users.
> Thanks in advance for your time and info.
> E. Ortega
>
> "David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
> news:uR6mDWFEFHA.3972@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
|||As always, thanks very much for your time and info.
E. Ortega
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:urxDmcGEFHA.2572@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> It really depends on just how much memory these other apps need on a
> regular basis. If you determine for instance that they need 300MB to
> operate properly you might want to drop the max memory down 300MB from the
> value you see Sql Server using in task manager. That would be roughly
> 1.4GB. That would leave room for the memtoleave portion of sql server and
> ~300MB for the other apps. When you run other apps on the same server as
> Sql Server and only have 2GB you always have a trade off of who can best
> use the memory. Even though Sql Server will dynamically adjust memory if
> the other apps require xxMB's all the time it is usually best to limit how
> much Sql Server can use.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "E Ortega" <elburu@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eGUritFEFHA.3908@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
|||Thanks a lot David, you helped me understand what I'm dealing with.
Max
"David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
news:ejkaIx8DFHA.3976@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Max Muller wrote:
> Nothing to do. That's how SQL works. It uses memory as it needs it and
> doesn't give it back unless the OS specifically requests the service
> release some memory (which rarely happens).
> The fact that SQL Server uses memory shouldn't be a problem for most
> servers, since it performs better the more memory it has.
> If you're running into a situation where SQL Server is running on a box
> with other services and applications, you can set the maximum memory SQL
> Server can use in SQL Enterprise Manager.
> Can you explain why the memory usage is a concern?
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com
Excessive memory usage
Hi.
my sqlservers are using 1.5 gigs of memory and
experiencing slow queries where large amount of rows are
returned. Some page swapping at the os is occurring as
well. Any ideas?
Hi -
Please check the KB Arcticle
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;EN-US;110983
Some time when any relatively heavy query/process comes down... the system
starts paging because there are not enough free sectors to swap out data
Thanks
-Surajit
"KD" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:19ae701c44d63$7558ee40$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi.
> my sqlservers are using 1.5 gigs of memory and
> experiencing slow queries where large amount of rows are
> returned. Some page swapping at the os is occurring as
> well. Any ideas?
my sqlservers are using 1.5 gigs of memory and
experiencing slow queries where large amount of rows are
returned. Some page swapping at the os is occurring as
well. Any ideas?
Hi -
Please check the KB Arcticle
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;EN-US;110983
Some time when any relatively heavy query/process comes down... the system
starts paging because there are not enough free sectors to swap out data
Thanks
-Surajit
"KD" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:19ae701c44d63$7558ee40$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi.
> my sqlservers are using 1.5 gigs of memory and
> experiencing slow queries where large amount of rows are
> returned. Some page swapping at the os is occurring as
> well. Any ideas?
Excessive memory usage
My sql server apparently makes awful use of the system memory. I have to
restart the server once a day, because use of memory gradually increases to
500-600 mb in one day. What am I doing wrong, can you help me?
Max MullerMax Muller wrote:
> My sql server apparently makes awful use of the system memory. I have
> to restart the server once a day, because use of memory gradually
> increases to 500-600 mb in one day. What am I doing wrong, can you
> help me?
>
> Max Muller
Nothing to do. That's how SQL works. It uses memory as it needs it and
doesn't give it back unless the OS specifically requests the service
release some memory (which rarely happens).
The fact that SQL Server uses memory shouldn't be a problem for most
servers, since it performs better the more memory it has.
If you're running into a situation where SQL Server is running on a box
with other services and applications, you can set the maximum memory SQL
Server can use in SQL Enterprise Manager.
Can you explain why the memory usage is a concern?
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||Hi All,
I'm experiencing the same memory issue with SQL Server 2000 Standard as Max.
I now understand that it's normal for SQL to hog memory as needed. You
mentioned that if SQL server is running on a box with other services and
apps, we could set the maximum memory usage option. I know you said we
"COULD" but I was wondering if we SHOULD. I have other services and apps on
the box and I was concern about the low memory available. After reading your
comments and http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...b;en-us;q321363
I now know that SQL server will release memory as needed by OS, but I'm
still wondering, is setting the max mem limit a standard practice when
running other services on same box as SQL?
Thanks.
E. Ortega
"David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
news:ejkaIx8DFHA.3976@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Max Muller wrote:
> Nothing to do. That's how SQL works. It uses memory as it needs it and
> doesn't give it back unless the OS specifically requests the service
> release some memory (which rarely happens).
> The fact that SQL Server uses memory shouldn't be a problem for most
> servers, since it performs better the more memory it has.
> If you're running into a situation where SQL Server is running on a box
> with other services and applications, you can set the maximum memory SQL
> Server can use in SQL Enterprise Manager.
> Can you explain why the memory usage is a concern?
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com|||E Ortega wrote:
> Hi All,
> I'm experiencing the same memory issue with SQL Server 2000 Standard
> as Max. I now understand that it's normal for SQL to hog memory as
> needed. You mentioned that if SQL server is running on a box with
> other services and apps, we could set the maximum memory usage
> option. I know you said we "COULD" but I was wondering if we SHOULD. I
> have other services and apps on the box and I was concern about the
> low memory available. After reading your comments and
> http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...b;en-us;q321363 I now
> know that SQL server will release memory as needed by OS, but I'm
> still wondering, is setting the max mem limit a standard practice
> when running other services on same box as SQL?
> Thanks.
> E. Ortega
>
Yes, it is. The best thing to do is add as much memory as you can to the
server. Memory is so cheap that it can have a dramatic improvement in
performance for all services. But if you have IIS or other services or
applications running on the server, you should set a maximum limit to
make sure SQL Server doesn't leave the other services starved for memory
as writing to disk is very slow and will hurt overall server performance
for all services.
Tuning your SQL is a great way to limit SQL Servers memory and CPU
footprints as well.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||Thanks for your time and info very valuable to me and I'm sure to others out
there. If is not too much trouble, could you please briefly consider my
configuration and give me a suggestion as to what my max mem usage should
be?
SQL 2000 (SP3) Standard
Dual Xeon 3.0 GHz
Memory 2 Gig
Current Task Manager info:
Physical Memory
Total 2096636
Available 155724
System Cache 363272
Totals:
Handles 15422
Threads 731
Processes 56
CPU Usage varies 1% - 7%
sqlservr.exe mem usage is 1,175,992 mem
available mem is 155724, the rest of the mem is used by other
services(docsfusion, veritas storage replicator, etc.).
I have one DB with 50 users.
Thanks in advance for your time and info.
E. Ortega
"David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
news:uR6mDWFEFHA.3972@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>E Ortega wrote:
> Yes, it is. The best thing to do is add as much memory as you can to the
> server. Memory is so cheap that it can have a dramatic improvement in
> performance for all services. But if you have IIS or other services or
> applications running on the server, you should set a maximum limit to make
> sure SQL Server doesn't leave the other services starved for memory as
> writing to disk is very slow and will hurt overall server performance for
> all services.
> Tuning your SQL is a great way to limit SQL Servers memory and CPU
> footprints as well.
>
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com|||It really depends on just how much memory these other apps need on a regular
basis. If you determine for instance that they need 300MB to operate
properly you might want to drop the max memory down 300MB from the value you
see Sql Server using in task manager. That would be roughly 1.4GB. That
would leave room for the memtoleave portion of sql server and ~300MB for the
other apps. When you run other apps on the same server as Sql Server and
only have 2GB you always have a trade off of who can best use the memory.
Even though Sql Server will dynamically adjust memory if the other apps
require xxMB's all the time it is usually best to limit how much Sql Server
can use.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"E Ortega" <elburu@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eGUritFEFHA.3908@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for your time and info very valuable to me and I'm sure to others
> out there. If is not too much trouble, could you please briefly consider
> my configuration and give me a suggestion as to what my max mem usage
> should be?
> SQL 2000 (SP3) Standard
> Dual Xeon 3.0 GHz
> Memory 2 Gig
> Current Task Manager info:
> Physical Memory
> Total 2096636
> Available 155724
> System Cache 363272
> Totals:
> Handles 15422
> Threads 731
> Processes 56
> CPU Usage varies 1% - 7%
> sqlservr.exe mem usage is 1,175,992 mem
> available mem is 155724, the rest of the mem is used by other
> services(docsfusion, veritas storage replicator, etc.).
> I have one DB with 50 users.
> Thanks in advance for your time and info.
> E. Ortega
>
> "David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
> news:uR6mDWFEFHA.3972@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>|||As always, thanks very much for your time and info.
E. Ortega
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:urxDmcGEFHA.2572@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> It really depends on just how much memory these other apps need on a
> regular basis. If you determine for instance that they need 300MB to
> operate properly you might want to drop the max memory down 300MB from the
> value you see Sql Server using in task manager. That would be roughly
> 1.4GB. That would leave room for the memtoleave portion of sql server and
> ~300MB for the other apps. When you run other apps on the same server as
> Sql Server and only have 2GB you always have a trade off of who can best
> use the memory. Even though Sql Server will dynamically adjust memory if
> the other apps require xxMB's all the time it is usually best to limit how
> much Sql Server can use.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "E Ortega" <elburu@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eGUritFEFHA.3908@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>|||Thanks a lot David, you helped me understand what I'm dealing with.
Max
"David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
news:ejkaIx8DFHA.3976@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Max Muller wrote:
> Nothing to do. That's how SQL works. It uses memory as it needs it and
> doesn't give it back unless the OS specifically requests the service
> release some memory (which rarely happens).
> The fact that SQL Server uses memory shouldn't be a problem for most
> servers, since it performs better the more memory it has.
> If you're running into a situation where SQL Server is running on a box
> with other services and applications, you can set the maximum memory SQL
> Server can use in SQL Enterprise Manager.
> Can you explain why the memory usage is a concern?
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com
restart the server once a day, because use of memory gradually increases to
500-600 mb in one day. What am I doing wrong, can you help me?
Max MullerMax Muller wrote:
> My sql server apparently makes awful use of the system memory. I have
> to restart the server once a day, because use of memory gradually
> increases to 500-600 mb in one day. What am I doing wrong, can you
> help me?
>
> Max Muller
Nothing to do. That's how SQL works. It uses memory as it needs it and
doesn't give it back unless the OS specifically requests the service
release some memory (which rarely happens).
The fact that SQL Server uses memory shouldn't be a problem for most
servers, since it performs better the more memory it has.
If you're running into a situation where SQL Server is running on a box
with other services and applications, you can set the maximum memory SQL
Server can use in SQL Enterprise Manager.
Can you explain why the memory usage is a concern?
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||Hi All,
I'm experiencing the same memory issue with SQL Server 2000 Standard as Max.
I now understand that it's normal for SQL to hog memory as needed. You
mentioned that if SQL server is running on a box with other services and
apps, we could set the maximum memory usage option. I know you said we
"COULD" but I was wondering if we SHOULD. I have other services and apps on
the box and I was concern about the low memory available. After reading your
comments and http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...b;en-us;q321363
I now know that SQL server will release memory as needed by OS, but I'm
still wondering, is setting the max mem limit a standard practice when
running other services on same box as SQL?
Thanks.
E. Ortega
"David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
news:ejkaIx8DFHA.3976@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Max Muller wrote:
> Nothing to do. That's how SQL works. It uses memory as it needs it and
> doesn't give it back unless the OS specifically requests the service
> release some memory (which rarely happens).
> The fact that SQL Server uses memory shouldn't be a problem for most
> servers, since it performs better the more memory it has.
> If you're running into a situation where SQL Server is running on a box
> with other services and applications, you can set the maximum memory SQL
> Server can use in SQL Enterprise Manager.
> Can you explain why the memory usage is a concern?
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com|||E Ortega wrote:
> Hi All,
> I'm experiencing the same memory issue with SQL Server 2000 Standard
> as Max. I now understand that it's normal for SQL to hog memory as
> needed. You mentioned that if SQL server is running on a box with
> other services and apps, we could set the maximum memory usage
> option. I know you said we "COULD" but I was wondering if we SHOULD. I
> have other services and apps on the box and I was concern about the
> low memory available. After reading your comments and
> http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...b;en-us;q321363 I now
> know that SQL server will release memory as needed by OS, but I'm
> still wondering, is setting the max mem limit a standard practice
> when running other services on same box as SQL?
> Thanks.
> E. Ortega
>
Yes, it is. The best thing to do is add as much memory as you can to the
server. Memory is so cheap that it can have a dramatic improvement in
performance for all services. But if you have IIS or other services or
applications running on the server, you should set a maximum limit to
make sure SQL Server doesn't leave the other services starved for memory
as writing to disk is very slow and will hurt overall server performance
for all services.
Tuning your SQL is a great way to limit SQL Servers memory and CPU
footprints as well.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||Thanks for your time and info very valuable to me and I'm sure to others out
there. If is not too much trouble, could you please briefly consider my
configuration and give me a suggestion as to what my max mem usage should
be?
SQL 2000 (SP3) Standard
Dual Xeon 3.0 GHz
Memory 2 Gig
Current Task Manager info:
Physical Memory
Total 2096636
Available 155724
System Cache 363272
Totals:
Handles 15422
Threads 731
Processes 56
CPU Usage varies 1% - 7%
sqlservr.exe mem usage is 1,175,992 mem
available mem is 155724, the rest of the mem is used by other
services(docsfusion, veritas storage replicator, etc.).
I have one DB with 50 users.
Thanks in advance for your time and info.
E. Ortega
"David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
news:uR6mDWFEFHA.3972@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>E Ortega wrote:
> Yes, it is. The best thing to do is add as much memory as you can to the
> server. Memory is so cheap that it can have a dramatic improvement in
> performance for all services. But if you have IIS or other services or
> applications running on the server, you should set a maximum limit to make
> sure SQL Server doesn't leave the other services starved for memory as
> writing to disk is very slow and will hurt overall server performance for
> all services.
> Tuning your SQL is a great way to limit SQL Servers memory and CPU
> footprints as well.
>
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com|||It really depends on just how much memory these other apps need on a regular
basis. If you determine for instance that they need 300MB to operate
properly you might want to drop the max memory down 300MB from the value you
see Sql Server using in task manager. That would be roughly 1.4GB. That
would leave room for the memtoleave portion of sql server and ~300MB for the
other apps. When you run other apps on the same server as Sql Server and
only have 2GB you always have a trade off of who can best use the memory.
Even though Sql Server will dynamically adjust memory if the other apps
require xxMB's all the time it is usually best to limit how much Sql Server
can use.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"E Ortega" <elburu@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eGUritFEFHA.3908@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for your time and info very valuable to me and I'm sure to others
> out there. If is not too much trouble, could you please briefly consider
> my configuration and give me a suggestion as to what my max mem usage
> should be?
> SQL 2000 (SP3) Standard
> Dual Xeon 3.0 GHz
> Memory 2 Gig
> Current Task Manager info:
> Physical Memory
> Total 2096636
> Available 155724
> System Cache 363272
> Totals:
> Handles 15422
> Threads 731
> Processes 56
> CPU Usage varies 1% - 7%
> sqlservr.exe mem usage is 1,175,992 mem
> available mem is 155724, the rest of the mem is used by other
> services(docsfusion, veritas storage replicator, etc.).
> I have one DB with 50 users.
> Thanks in advance for your time and info.
> E. Ortega
>
> "David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
> news:uR6mDWFEFHA.3972@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>|||As always, thanks very much for your time and info.
E. Ortega
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:urxDmcGEFHA.2572@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> It really depends on just how much memory these other apps need on a
> regular basis. If you determine for instance that they need 300MB to
> operate properly you might want to drop the max memory down 300MB from the
> value you see Sql Server using in task manager. That would be roughly
> 1.4GB. That would leave room for the memtoleave portion of sql server and
> ~300MB for the other apps. When you run other apps on the same server as
> Sql Server and only have 2GB you always have a trade off of who can best
> use the memory. Even though Sql Server will dynamically adjust memory if
> the other apps require xxMB's all the time it is usually best to limit how
> much Sql Server can use.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "E Ortega" <elburu@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eGUritFEFHA.3908@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>|||Thanks a lot David, you helped me understand what I'm dealing with.
Max
"David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
news:ejkaIx8DFHA.3976@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Max Muller wrote:
> Nothing to do. That's how SQL works. It uses memory as it needs it and
> doesn't give it back unless the OS specifically requests the service
> release some memory (which rarely happens).
> The fact that SQL Server uses memory shouldn't be a problem for most
> servers, since it performs better the more memory it has.
> If you're running into a situation where SQL Server is running on a box
> with other services and applications, you can set the maximum memory SQL
> Server can use in SQL Enterprise Manager.
> Can you explain why the memory usage is a concern?
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com
Excessive memory usage
Hi.
my sqlservers are using 1.5 gigs of memory and
experiencing slow queries where large amount of rows are
returned. Some page swapping at the os is occurring as
well. Any ideas?Hi -
Please check the KB Arcticle
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;EN-US;110983
Some time when any relatively heavy query/process comes down... the system
starts paging because there are not enough free sectors to swap out data
Thanks
-Surajit
"KD" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:19ae701c44d63$7558ee40$a401280a@.phx
.gbl...
> Hi.
> my sqlservers are using 1.5 gigs of memory and
> experiencing slow queries where large amount of rows are
> returned. Some page swapping at the os is occurring as
> well. Any ideas?
my sqlservers are using 1.5 gigs of memory and
experiencing slow queries where large amount of rows are
returned. Some page swapping at the os is occurring as
well. Any ideas?Hi -
Please check the KB Arcticle
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;EN-US;110983
Some time when any relatively heavy query/process comes down... the system
starts paging because there are not enough free sectors to swap out data
Thanks
-Surajit
"KD" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:19ae701c44d63$7558ee40$a401280a@.phx
.gbl...
> Hi.
> my sqlservers are using 1.5 gigs of memory and
> experiencing slow queries where large amount of rows are
> returned. Some page swapping at the os is occurring as
> well. Any ideas?
Excessive memory usage
My sql server apparently makes awful use of the system memory. I have to
restart the server once a day, because use of memory gradually increases to
500-600 mb in one day. What am I doing wrong, can you help me?
Max MullerMax Muller wrote:
> My sql server apparently makes awful use of the system memory. I have
> to restart the server once a day, because use of memory gradually
> increases to 500-600 mb in one day. What am I doing wrong, can you
> help me?
>
> Max Muller
Nothing to do. That's how SQL works. It uses memory as it needs it and
doesn't give it back unless the OS specifically requests the service
release some memory (which rarely happens).
The fact that SQL Server uses memory shouldn't be a problem for most
servers, since it performs better the more memory it has.
If you're running into a situation where SQL Server is running on a box
with other services and applications, you can set the maximum memory SQL
Server can use in SQL Enterprise Manager.
Can you explain why the memory usage is a concern?
--
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||Hi All,
I'm experiencing the same memory issue with SQL Server 2000 Standard as Max.
I now understand that it's normal for SQL to hog memory as needed. You
mentioned that if SQL server is running on a box with other services and
apps, we could set the maximum memory usage option. I know you said we
"COULD" but I was wondering if we SHOULD. I have other services and apps on
the box and I was concern about the low memory available. After reading your
comments and http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;q321363
I now know that SQL server will release memory as needed by OS, but I'm
still wondering, is setting the max mem limit a standard practice when
running other services on same box as SQL?
Thanks.
E. Ortega
"David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
news:ejkaIx8DFHA.3976@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Max Muller wrote:
>> My sql server apparently makes awful use of the system memory. I have
>> to restart the server once a day, because use of memory gradually
>> increases to 500-600 mb in one day. What am I doing wrong, can you
>> help me?
>>
>> Max Muller
> Nothing to do. That's how SQL works. It uses memory as it needs it and
> doesn't give it back unless the OS specifically requests the service
> release some memory (which rarely happens).
> The fact that SQL Server uses memory shouldn't be a problem for most
> servers, since it performs better the more memory it has.
> If you're running into a situation where SQL Server is running on a box
> with other services and applications, you can set the maximum memory SQL
> Server can use in SQL Enterprise Manager.
> Can you explain why the memory usage is a concern?
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com|||E Ortega wrote:
> Hi All,
> I'm experiencing the same memory issue with SQL Server 2000 Standard
> as Max. I now understand that it's normal for SQL to hog memory as
> needed. You mentioned that if SQL server is running on a box with
> other services and apps, we could set the maximum memory usage
> option. I know you said we "COULD" but I was wondering if we SHOULD. I
> have other services and apps on the box and I was concern about the
> low memory available. After reading your comments and
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;q321363 I now
> know that SQL server will release memory as needed by OS, but I'm
> still wondering, is setting the max mem limit a standard practice
> when running other services on same box as SQL?
> Thanks.
> E. Ortega
>
Yes, it is. The best thing to do is add as much memory as you can to the
server. Memory is so cheap that it can have a dramatic improvement in
performance for all services. But if you have IIS or other services or
applications running on the server, you should set a maximum limit to
make sure SQL Server doesn't leave the other services starved for memory
as writing to disk is very slow and will hurt overall server performance
for all services.
Tuning your SQL is a great way to limit SQL Servers memory and CPU
footprints as well.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||Thanks for your time and info very valuable to me and I'm sure to others out
there. If is not too much trouble, could you please briefly consider my
configuration and give me a suggestion as to what my max mem usage should
be?
SQL 2000 (SP3) Standard
Dual Xeon 3.0 GHz
Memory 2 Gig
Current Task Manager info:
Physical Memory
Total 2096636
Available 155724
System Cache 363272
Totals:
Handles 15422
Threads 731
Processes 56
CPU Usage varies 1% - 7%
sqlservr.exe mem usage is 1,175,992 mem
available mem is 155724, the rest of the mem is used by other
services(docsfusion, veritas storage replicator, etc.).
I have one DB with 50 users.
Thanks in advance for your time and info.
E. Ortega
"David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
news:uR6mDWFEFHA.3972@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>E Ortega wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> I'm experiencing the same memory issue with SQL Server 2000 Standard
>> as Max. I now understand that it's normal for SQL to hog memory as
>> needed. You mentioned that if SQL server is running on a box with
>> other services and apps, we could set the maximum memory usage
>> option. I know you said we "COULD" but I was wondering if we SHOULD. I
>> have other services and apps on the box and I was concern about the
>> low memory available. After reading your comments and
>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;q321363 I now
>> know that SQL server will release memory as needed by OS, but I'm
>> still wondering, is setting the max mem limit a standard practice
>> when running other services on same box as SQL?
>> Thanks.
>> E. Ortega
> Yes, it is. The best thing to do is add as much memory as you can to the
> server. Memory is so cheap that it can have a dramatic improvement in
> performance for all services. But if you have IIS or other services or
> applications running on the server, you should set a maximum limit to make
> sure SQL Server doesn't leave the other services starved for memory as
> writing to disk is very slow and will hurt overall server performance for
> all services.
> Tuning your SQL is a great way to limit SQL Servers memory and CPU
> footprints as well.
>
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com|||It really depends on just how much memory these other apps need on a regular
basis. If you determine for instance that they need 300MB to operate
properly you might want to drop the max memory down 300MB from the value you
see Sql Server using in task manager. That would be roughly 1.4GB. That
would leave room for the memtoleave portion of sql server and ~300MB for the
other apps. When you run other apps on the same server as Sql Server and
only have 2GB you always have a trade off of who can best use the memory.
Even though Sql Server will dynamically adjust memory if the other apps
require xxMB's all the time it is usually best to limit how much Sql Server
can use.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"E Ortega" <elburu@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eGUritFEFHA.3908@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for your time and info very valuable to me and I'm sure to others
> out there. If is not too much trouble, could you please briefly consider
> my configuration and give me a suggestion as to what my max mem usage
> should be?
> SQL 2000 (SP3) Standard
> Dual Xeon 3.0 GHz
> Memory 2 Gig
> Current Task Manager info:
> Physical Memory
> Total 2096636
> Available 155724
> System Cache 363272
> Totals:
> Handles 15422
> Threads 731
> Processes 56
> CPU Usage varies 1% - 7%
> sqlservr.exe mem usage is 1,175,992 mem
> available mem is 155724, the rest of the mem is used by other
> services(docsfusion, veritas storage replicator, etc.).
> I have one DB with 50 users.
> Thanks in advance for your time and info.
> E. Ortega
>
> "David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
> news:uR6mDWFEFHA.3972@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>E Ortega wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> I'm experiencing the same memory issue with SQL Server 2000 Standard
>> as Max. I now understand that it's normal for SQL to hog memory as
>> needed. You mentioned that if SQL server is running on a box with
>> other services and apps, we could set the maximum memory usage
>> option. I know you said we "COULD" but I was wondering if we SHOULD. I
>> have other services and apps on the box and I was concern about the
>> low memory available. After reading your comments and
>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;q321363 I now
>> know that SQL server will release memory as needed by OS, but I'm
>> still wondering, is setting the max mem limit a standard practice
>> when running other services on same box as SQL?
>> Thanks.
>> E. Ortega
>>
>> Yes, it is. The best thing to do is add as much memory as you can to the
>> server. Memory is so cheap that it can have a dramatic improvement in
>> performance for all services. But if you have IIS or other services or
>> applications running on the server, you should set a maximum limit to
>> make sure SQL Server doesn't leave the other services starved for memory
>> as writing to disk is very slow and will hurt overall server performance
>> for all services.
>> Tuning your SQL is a great way to limit SQL Servers memory and CPU
>> footprints as well.
>>
>> --
>> David Gugick
>> Imceda Software
>> www.imceda.com
>|||As always, thanks very much for your time and info.
E. Ortega
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:urxDmcGEFHA.2572@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> It really depends on just how much memory these other apps need on a
> regular basis. If you determine for instance that they need 300MB to
> operate properly you might want to drop the max memory down 300MB from the
> value you see Sql Server using in task manager. That would be roughly
> 1.4GB. That would leave room for the memtoleave portion of sql server and
> ~300MB for the other apps. When you run other apps on the same server as
> Sql Server and only have 2GB you always have a trade off of who can best
> use the memory. Even though Sql Server will dynamically adjust memory if
> the other apps require xxMB's all the time it is usually best to limit how
> much Sql Server can use.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "E Ortega" <elburu@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eGUritFEFHA.3908@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks for your time and info very valuable to me and I'm sure to others
>> out there. If is not too much trouble, could you please briefly consider
>> my configuration and give me a suggestion as to what my max mem usage
>> should be?
>> SQL 2000 (SP3) Standard
>> Dual Xeon 3.0 GHz
>> Memory 2 Gig
>> Current Task Manager info:
>> Physical Memory
>> Total 2096636
>> Available 155724
>> System Cache 363272
>> Totals:
>> Handles 15422
>> Threads 731
>> Processes 56
>> CPU Usage varies 1% - 7%
>> sqlservr.exe mem usage is 1,175,992 mem
>> available mem is 155724, the rest of the mem is used by other
>> services(docsfusion, veritas storage replicator, etc.).
>> I have one DB with 50 users.
>> Thanks in advance for your time and info.
>> E. Ortega
>>
>> "David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
>> news:uR6mDWFEFHA.3972@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>E Ortega wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> I'm experiencing the same memory issue with SQL Server 2000 Standard
>> as Max. I now understand that it's normal for SQL to hog memory as
>> needed. You mentioned that if SQL server is running on a box with
>> other services and apps, we could set the maximum memory usage
>> option. I know you said we "COULD" but I was wondering if we SHOULD. I
>> have other services and apps on the box and I was concern about the
>> low memory available. After reading your comments and
>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;q321363 I now
>> know that SQL server will release memory as needed by OS, but I'm
>> still wondering, is setting the max mem limit a standard practice
>> when running other services on same box as SQL?
>> Thanks.
>> E. Ortega
>>
>> Yes, it is. The best thing to do is add as much memory as you can to the
>> server. Memory is so cheap that it can have a dramatic improvement in
>> performance for all services. But if you have IIS or other services or
>> applications running on the server, you should set a maximum limit to
>> make sure SQL Server doesn't leave the other services starved for memory
>> as writing to disk is very slow and will hurt overall server performance
>> for all services.
>> Tuning your SQL is a great way to limit SQL Servers memory and CPU
>> footprints as well.
>>
>> --
>> David Gugick
>> Imceda Software
>> www.imceda.com
>>
>|||Thanks a lot David, you helped me understand what I'm dealing with.
Max
"David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
news:ejkaIx8DFHA.3976@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Max Muller wrote:
>> My sql server apparently makes awful use of the system memory. I have
>> to restart the server once a day, because use of memory gradually
>> increases to 500-600 mb in one day. What am I doing wrong, can you
>> help me?
>>
>> Max Muller
> Nothing to do. That's how SQL works. It uses memory as it needs it and
> doesn't give it back unless the OS specifically requests the service
> release some memory (which rarely happens).
> The fact that SQL Server uses memory shouldn't be a problem for most
> servers, since it performs better the more memory it has.
> If you're running into a situation where SQL Server is running on a box
> with other services and applications, you can set the maximum memory SQL
> Server can use in SQL Enterprise Manager.
> Can you explain why the memory usage is a concern?
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com
restart the server once a day, because use of memory gradually increases to
500-600 mb in one day. What am I doing wrong, can you help me?
Max MullerMax Muller wrote:
> My sql server apparently makes awful use of the system memory. I have
> to restart the server once a day, because use of memory gradually
> increases to 500-600 mb in one day. What am I doing wrong, can you
> help me?
>
> Max Muller
Nothing to do. That's how SQL works. It uses memory as it needs it and
doesn't give it back unless the OS specifically requests the service
release some memory (which rarely happens).
The fact that SQL Server uses memory shouldn't be a problem for most
servers, since it performs better the more memory it has.
If you're running into a situation where SQL Server is running on a box
with other services and applications, you can set the maximum memory SQL
Server can use in SQL Enterprise Manager.
Can you explain why the memory usage is a concern?
--
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||Hi All,
I'm experiencing the same memory issue with SQL Server 2000 Standard as Max.
I now understand that it's normal for SQL to hog memory as needed. You
mentioned that if SQL server is running on a box with other services and
apps, we could set the maximum memory usage option. I know you said we
"COULD" but I was wondering if we SHOULD. I have other services and apps on
the box and I was concern about the low memory available. After reading your
comments and http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;q321363
I now know that SQL server will release memory as needed by OS, but I'm
still wondering, is setting the max mem limit a standard practice when
running other services on same box as SQL?
Thanks.
E. Ortega
"David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
news:ejkaIx8DFHA.3976@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Max Muller wrote:
>> My sql server apparently makes awful use of the system memory. I have
>> to restart the server once a day, because use of memory gradually
>> increases to 500-600 mb in one day. What am I doing wrong, can you
>> help me?
>>
>> Max Muller
> Nothing to do. That's how SQL works. It uses memory as it needs it and
> doesn't give it back unless the OS specifically requests the service
> release some memory (which rarely happens).
> The fact that SQL Server uses memory shouldn't be a problem for most
> servers, since it performs better the more memory it has.
> If you're running into a situation where SQL Server is running on a box
> with other services and applications, you can set the maximum memory SQL
> Server can use in SQL Enterprise Manager.
> Can you explain why the memory usage is a concern?
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com|||E Ortega wrote:
> Hi All,
> I'm experiencing the same memory issue with SQL Server 2000 Standard
> as Max. I now understand that it's normal for SQL to hog memory as
> needed. You mentioned that if SQL server is running on a box with
> other services and apps, we could set the maximum memory usage
> option. I know you said we "COULD" but I was wondering if we SHOULD. I
> have other services and apps on the box and I was concern about the
> low memory available. After reading your comments and
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;q321363 I now
> know that SQL server will release memory as needed by OS, but I'm
> still wondering, is setting the max mem limit a standard practice
> when running other services on same box as SQL?
> Thanks.
> E. Ortega
>
Yes, it is. The best thing to do is add as much memory as you can to the
server. Memory is so cheap that it can have a dramatic improvement in
performance for all services. But if you have IIS or other services or
applications running on the server, you should set a maximum limit to
make sure SQL Server doesn't leave the other services starved for memory
as writing to disk is very slow and will hurt overall server performance
for all services.
Tuning your SQL is a great way to limit SQL Servers memory and CPU
footprints as well.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||Thanks for your time and info very valuable to me and I'm sure to others out
there. If is not too much trouble, could you please briefly consider my
configuration and give me a suggestion as to what my max mem usage should
be?
SQL 2000 (SP3) Standard
Dual Xeon 3.0 GHz
Memory 2 Gig
Current Task Manager info:
Physical Memory
Total 2096636
Available 155724
System Cache 363272
Totals:
Handles 15422
Threads 731
Processes 56
CPU Usage varies 1% - 7%
sqlservr.exe mem usage is 1,175,992 mem
available mem is 155724, the rest of the mem is used by other
services(docsfusion, veritas storage replicator, etc.).
I have one DB with 50 users.
Thanks in advance for your time and info.
E. Ortega
"David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
news:uR6mDWFEFHA.3972@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>E Ortega wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> I'm experiencing the same memory issue with SQL Server 2000 Standard
>> as Max. I now understand that it's normal for SQL to hog memory as
>> needed. You mentioned that if SQL server is running on a box with
>> other services and apps, we could set the maximum memory usage
>> option. I know you said we "COULD" but I was wondering if we SHOULD. I
>> have other services and apps on the box and I was concern about the
>> low memory available. After reading your comments and
>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;q321363 I now
>> know that SQL server will release memory as needed by OS, but I'm
>> still wondering, is setting the max mem limit a standard practice
>> when running other services on same box as SQL?
>> Thanks.
>> E. Ortega
> Yes, it is. The best thing to do is add as much memory as you can to the
> server. Memory is so cheap that it can have a dramatic improvement in
> performance for all services. But if you have IIS or other services or
> applications running on the server, you should set a maximum limit to make
> sure SQL Server doesn't leave the other services starved for memory as
> writing to disk is very slow and will hurt overall server performance for
> all services.
> Tuning your SQL is a great way to limit SQL Servers memory and CPU
> footprints as well.
>
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com|||It really depends on just how much memory these other apps need on a regular
basis. If you determine for instance that they need 300MB to operate
properly you might want to drop the max memory down 300MB from the value you
see Sql Server using in task manager. That would be roughly 1.4GB. That
would leave room for the memtoleave portion of sql server and ~300MB for the
other apps. When you run other apps on the same server as Sql Server and
only have 2GB you always have a trade off of who can best use the memory.
Even though Sql Server will dynamically adjust memory if the other apps
require xxMB's all the time it is usually best to limit how much Sql Server
can use.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"E Ortega" <elburu@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eGUritFEFHA.3908@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for your time and info very valuable to me and I'm sure to others
> out there. If is not too much trouble, could you please briefly consider
> my configuration and give me a suggestion as to what my max mem usage
> should be?
> SQL 2000 (SP3) Standard
> Dual Xeon 3.0 GHz
> Memory 2 Gig
> Current Task Manager info:
> Physical Memory
> Total 2096636
> Available 155724
> System Cache 363272
> Totals:
> Handles 15422
> Threads 731
> Processes 56
> CPU Usage varies 1% - 7%
> sqlservr.exe mem usage is 1,175,992 mem
> available mem is 155724, the rest of the mem is used by other
> services(docsfusion, veritas storage replicator, etc.).
> I have one DB with 50 users.
> Thanks in advance for your time and info.
> E. Ortega
>
> "David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
> news:uR6mDWFEFHA.3972@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>E Ortega wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> I'm experiencing the same memory issue with SQL Server 2000 Standard
>> as Max. I now understand that it's normal for SQL to hog memory as
>> needed. You mentioned that if SQL server is running on a box with
>> other services and apps, we could set the maximum memory usage
>> option. I know you said we "COULD" but I was wondering if we SHOULD. I
>> have other services and apps on the box and I was concern about the
>> low memory available. After reading your comments and
>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;q321363 I now
>> know that SQL server will release memory as needed by OS, but I'm
>> still wondering, is setting the max mem limit a standard practice
>> when running other services on same box as SQL?
>> Thanks.
>> E. Ortega
>>
>> Yes, it is. The best thing to do is add as much memory as you can to the
>> server. Memory is so cheap that it can have a dramatic improvement in
>> performance for all services. But if you have IIS or other services or
>> applications running on the server, you should set a maximum limit to
>> make sure SQL Server doesn't leave the other services starved for memory
>> as writing to disk is very slow and will hurt overall server performance
>> for all services.
>> Tuning your SQL is a great way to limit SQL Servers memory and CPU
>> footprints as well.
>>
>> --
>> David Gugick
>> Imceda Software
>> www.imceda.com
>|||As always, thanks very much for your time and info.
E. Ortega
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:urxDmcGEFHA.2572@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> It really depends on just how much memory these other apps need on a
> regular basis. If you determine for instance that they need 300MB to
> operate properly you might want to drop the max memory down 300MB from the
> value you see Sql Server using in task manager. That would be roughly
> 1.4GB. That would leave room for the memtoleave portion of sql server and
> ~300MB for the other apps. When you run other apps on the same server as
> Sql Server and only have 2GB you always have a trade off of who can best
> use the memory. Even though Sql Server will dynamically adjust memory if
> the other apps require xxMB's all the time it is usually best to limit how
> much Sql Server can use.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "E Ortega" <elburu@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eGUritFEFHA.3908@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks for your time and info very valuable to me and I'm sure to others
>> out there. If is not too much trouble, could you please briefly consider
>> my configuration and give me a suggestion as to what my max mem usage
>> should be?
>> SQL 2000 (SP3) Standard
>> Dual Xeon 3.0 GHz
>> Memory 2 Gig
>> Current Task Manager info:
>> Physical Memory
>> Total 2096636
>> Available 155724
>> System Cache 363272
>> Totals:
>> Handles 15422
>> Threads 731
>> Processes 56
>> CPU Usage varies 1% - 7%
>> sqlservr.exe mem usage is 1,175,992 mem
>> available mem is 155724, the rest of the mem is used by other
>> services(docsfusion, veritas storage replicator, etc.).
>> I have one DB with 50 users.
>> Thanks in advance for your time and info.
>> E. Ortega
>>
>> "David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
>> news:uR6mDWFEFHA.3972@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>E Ortega wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> I'm experiencing the same memory issue with SQL Server 2000 Standard
>> as Max. I now understand that it's normal for SQL to hog memory as
>> needed. You mentioned that if SQL server is running on a box with
>> other services and apps, we could set the maximum memory usage
>> option. I know you said we "COULD" but I was wondering if we SHOULD. I
>> have other services and apps on the box and I was concern about the
>> low memory available. After reading your comments and
>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;q321363 I now
>> know that SQL server will release memory as needed by OS, but I'm
>> still wondering, is setting the max mem limit a standard practice
>> when running other services on same box as SQL?
>> Thanks.
>> E. Ortega
>>
>> Yes, it is. The best thing to do is add as much memory as you can to the
>> server. Memory is so cheap that it can have a dramatic improvement in
>> performance for all services. But if you have IIS or other services or
>> applications running on the server, you should set a maximum limit to
>> make sure SQL Server doesn't leave the other services starved for memory
>> as writing to disk is very slow and will hurt overall server performance
>> for all services.
>> Tuning your SQL is a great way to limit SQL Servers memory and CPU
>> footprints as well.
>>
>> --
>> David Gugick
>> Imceda Software
>> www.imceda.com
>>
>|||Thanks a lot David, you helped me understand what I'm dealing with.
Max
"David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
news:ejkaIx8DFHA.3976@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Max Muller wrote:
>> My sql server apparently makes awful use of the system memory. I have
>> to restart the server once a day, because use of memory gradually
>> increases to 500-600 mb in one day. What am I doing wrong, can you
>> help me?
>>
>> Max Muller
> Nothing to do. That's how SQL works. It uses memory as it needs it and
> doesn't give it back unless the OS specifically requests the service
> release some memory (which rarely happens).
> The fact that SQL Server uses memory shouldn't be a problem for most
> servers, since it performs better the more memory it has.
> If you're running into a situation where SQL Server is running on a box
> with other services and applications, you can set the maximum memory SQL
> Server can use in SQL Enterprise Manager.
> Can you explain why the memory usage is a concern?
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com
Excessive memory usage
Hi.
my sqlservers are using 1.5 gigs of memory and
experiencing slow queries where large amount of rows are
returned. Some page swapping at the os is occurring as
well. Any ideas?Hi -
Please check the KB Arcticle
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;110983
Some time when any relatively heavy query/process comes down... the system
starts paging because there are not enough free sectors to swap out data
Thanks
-Surajit
"KD" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:19ae701c44d63$7558ee40$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi.
> my sqlservers are using 1.5 gigs of memory and
> experiencing slow queries where large amount of rows are
> returned. Some page swapping at the os is occurring as
> well. Any ideas?
my sqlservers are using 1.5 gigs of memory and
experiencing slow queries where large amount of rows are
returned. Some page swapping at the os is occurring as
well. Any ideas?Hi -
Please check the KB Arcticle
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;110983
Some time when any relatively heavy query/process comes down... the system
starts paging because there are not enough free sectors to swap out data
Thanks
-Surajit
"KD" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:19ae701c44d63$7558ee40$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi.
> my sqlservers are using 1.5 gigs of memory and
> experiencing slow queries where large amount of rows are
> returned. Some page swapping at the os is occurring as
> well. Any ideas?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)