We added several indexs to a DB.
We have not changed our number of transactions.
The rate of log file growth has moved from about 320MB per hour before the
indexes to 2GB per hour after the indexes were added.
How would we go about finding the operations that are causing the increase
in log file growth?
OwenC"OwenC" <OwenC@.community.nospam> wrote in message
news:OW4IUQ8eHHA.1312@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> We added several indexs to a DB.
> We have not changed our number of transactions.
> The rate of log file growth has moved from about 320MB per hour before the
> indexes to 2GB per hour after the indexes were added.
> How would we go about finding the operations that are causing the increase
> in log file growth?
Are you doing and DBCC dbreindex, etc on your indexes?
Are your indexes finished building, or still building?
> OwenC
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html|||Hi, OwenC,
I understand that the transaction log file grew fast after the indexes were
added.
If I have misunderstood, please let me know.
This might be normal behavior if your index operations are large-scale,
since large-scale index operations will cause heavy data loads that can
cause the transaction log to fill quickly.
Please refer to the recommendations of this article:
Transaction Log Disk Space for Index Operations
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms184246.aspx
If you have any other questions or concerns, please feel free to let me
know.
Best regards,
Charles Wang
Microsoft Online Community Support
=====================================================Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/managednewsgroups/default.aspx#notif
ications
If you are using Outlook Express, please make sure you clear the check box
"Tools/Options/Read: Get 300 headers at a time" to see your reply promptly.
Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/support/default.aspx.
======================================================When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
from this issue.
======================================================This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
======================================================|||We are not doing a DBCC REINDEX. Once we applied the indexes we left them
alone.
The indexes have finished building.
OwenC
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@.greenms.com> wrote in message
news:Olqu6J%23eHHA.1312@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> "OwenC" <OwenC@.community.nospam> wrote in message
> news:OW4IUQ8eHHA.1312@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> We added several indexs to a DB.
>> We have not changed our number of transactions.
>> The rate of log file growth has moved from about 320MB per hour before
>> the indexes to 2GB per hour after the indexes were added.
>> How would we go about finding the operations that are causing the
>> increase in log file growth?
> Are you doing and DBCC dbreindex, etc on your indexes?
> Are your indexes finished building, or still building?
>
>> OwenC
>
> --
> Greg Moore
> SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
> Email: sql (at) greenms.com
> http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html
>|||Hi, OwenC,
I think that the data volume of your database is huge, right?
If you frequently perform database backup and the disk space is limited, I
recommend that set your database recovery model to simple to reduce logging
increasing speed;
If you want to leave database recovery model to FULL so that you can
restore your database to any time point that you want, I recommend that you
start a job to truncate your transaction log every day.
For more information, you may refer to "Recovery models" and "BACKUP LOG"
in SQL Server Books Online.
Best regards,
Charles Wang
Microsoft Online Community Support
=====================================================Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/managednewsgroups/default.aspx#notif
ications
If you are using Outlook Express, please make sure you clear the check box
"Tools/Options/Read: Get 300 headers at a time" to see your reply promptly.
Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/support/default.aspx.
======================================================When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
from this issue.
======================================================This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
======================================================|||"Charles Wang[MSFT]" <changliw@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:APJ0YWMfHHA.6068@.TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl...
> Hi, OwenC,
> I think that the data volume of your database is huge, right?
> If you frequently perform database backup and the disk space is limited, I
> recommend that set your database recovery model to simple to reduce
> logging
> increasing speed;
> If you want to leave database recovery model to FULL so that you can
> restore your database to any time point that you want, I recommend that
> you
> start a job to truncate your transaction log every day.
Umm... That's not great advice. That would invalidate his transaction log
backup chain.
And once truncated, he'd lose the ability to restore your database to any
time point you want.
> For more information, you may refer to "Recovery models" and "BACKUP LOG"
> in SQL Server Books Online.
> Best regards,
> Charles Wang
> Microsoft Online Community Support
> =====================================================> Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to:
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/managednewsgroups/default.aspx#notif
> ications
> If you are using Outlook Express, please make sure you clear the check box
> "Tools/Options/Read: Get 300 headers at a time" to see your reply
> promptly.
>
> Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
> where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
> Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
> up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
> professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
> most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
> that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
> project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
> handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
> Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/support/default.aspx.
> ======================================================> When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
> your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
> from this issue.
> ======================================================> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
> ======================================================>
>
>
>
>
--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html|||Hi, Greg,
Thanks for your pointing out.
Yes, if the log file is truncated, he would lose the ability to restore his
database to any time point he want; however if their disk space is limited,
the truncate operation may be neccessary no matter in any recovery mode.
Simple recovery mode can produce less transaction logs than FULL recovery
mode. The logs increasing speed is slow, and this may be able to suit his
needs.
Best regards,
Charles Wang
Microsoft Online Community Support
=====================================================Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/managednewsgroups/default.aspx#notif
ications
If you are using Outlook Express, please make sure you clear the check box
"Tools/Options/Read: Get 300 headers at a time" to see your reply promptly.
Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/support/default.aspx.
======================================================When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
from this issue.
======================================================This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
======================================================|||I need to run the FULL recovery mode as this is the DB for an ERP
application. I can't afford to lose even any transactions!!!
We actually do transaction log backups and truncate them every 2 hours.
We use Backup Exec to do this.
It seems from further investigation that what caused the increased growth is
that the indexes that were added made some DB operations 20 times faster.
This caused some batch processes to run faster than they had been able to.
There was a backlog of these batches and so in clearing the backlog it
caused the growth rate of the log file to increase.
OwenC
"Charles Wang[MSFT]" <changliw@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:YvPadJNfHHA.4368@.TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl...
> Hi, Greg,
> Thanks for your pointing out.
> Yes, if the log file is truncated, he would lose the ability to restore
> his
> database to any time point he want; however if their disk space is
> limited,
> the truncate operation may be neccessary no matter in any recovery mode.
> Simple recovery mode can produce less transaction logs than FULL recovery
> mode. The logs increasing speed is slow, and this may be able to suit his
> needs.
> Best regards,
> Charles Wang
> Microsoft Online Community Support
> =====================================================> Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to:
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/managednewsgroups/default.aspx#notif
> ications
> If you are using Outlook Express, please make sure you clear the check box
> "Tools/Options/Read: Get 300 headers at a time" to see your reply
> promptly.
>
> Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
> where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
> Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
> up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
> professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
> most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
> that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
> project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
> handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
> Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/support/default.aspx.
> ======================================================> When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
> your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
> from this issue.
> ======================================================> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
> ======================================================>
>
>
>|||Hi, OwenC,
Thanks for your updating and response.
I am glad to hear that you found the real cause in your situation. What is
the kind of the backlog as you mentioned? Have you found a way to resolve
it now?
Please feel free to let me know if you need any assistance.
Best regards,
Charles Wang
Microsoft Online Community Support
=====================================================Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/managednewsgroups/default.aspx#notif
ications
If you are using Outlook Express, please make sure you clear the check box
"Tools/Options/Read: Get 300 headers at a time" to see your reply promptly.
Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/support/default.aspx.
======================================================When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
from this issue.
======================================================This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
======================================================|||Hi, Owen
I am interested in this issue. Would you mind letting me know the result of
this issue? If you need further assistance, feel free to let me know.
I will be more than happy to be of assistance.
Charles Wang
Microsoft Online Community Support
======================================================When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
from this issue.
======================================================This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
======================================================
Showing posts with label moved. Show all posts
Showing posts with label moved. Show all posts
Friday, March 23, 2012
High rate of log file growth
We added several indexs to a DB.
We have not changed our number of transactions.
The rate of log file growth has moved from about 320MB per hour before the
indexes to 2GB per hour after the indexes were added.
How would we go about finding the operations that are causing the increase
in log file growth?
OwenC"OwenC" <OwenC@.community.nospam> wrote in message
news:OW4IUQ8eHHA.1312@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> We added several indexs to a DB.
> We have not changed our number of transactions.
> The rate of log file growth has moved from about 320MB per hour before the
> indexes to 2GB per hour after the indexes were added.
> How would we go about finding the operations that are causing the increase
> in log file growth?
Are you doing and DBCC dbreindex, etc on your indexes?
Are your indexes finished building, or still building?
> OwenC
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html|||Hi, OwenC,
I understand that the transaction log file grew fast after the indexes were
added.
If I have misunderstood, please let me know.
This might be normal behavior if your index operations are large-scale,
since large-scale index operations will cause heavy data loads that can
cause the transaction log to fill quickly.
Please refer to the recommendations of this article:
Transaction Log Disk Space for Index Operations
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms184246.aspx
If you have any other questions or concerns, please feel free to let me
know.
Best regards,
Charles Wang
Microsoft Online Community Support
========================================
=============
Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscript...ault.aspx#notif
ications
If you are using Outlook Express, please make sure you clear the check box
"Tools/Options/Read: Get 300 headers at a time" to see your reply promptly.
Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscript...t/default.aspx.
========================================
==============
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
from this issue.
========================================
==============
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
========================================
==============|||We are not doing a DBCC REINDEX. Once we applied the indexes we left them
alone.
The indexes have finished building.
OwenC
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@.greenms.com> wrote in message
news:Olqu6J%23eHHA.1312@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> "OwenC" <OwenC@.community.nospam> wrote in message
> news:OW4IUQ8eHHA.1312@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Are you doing and DBCC dbreindex, etc on your indexes?
> Are your indexes finished building, or still building?
>
>
> --
> Greg Moore
> SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
> Email: sql (at) greenms.com
> http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html
>|||Hi, OwenC,
I think that the data volume of your database is huge, right?
If you frequently perform database backup and the disk space is limited, I
recommend that set your database recovery model to simple to reduce logging
increasing speed;
If you want to leave database recovery model to FULL so that you can
restore your database to any time point that you want, I recommend that you
start a job to truncate your transaction log every day.
For more information, you may refer to "Recovery models" and "BACKUP LOG"
in SQL Server Books Online.
Best regards,
Charles Wang
Microsoft Online Community Support
========================================
=============
Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscript...ault.aspx#notif
ications
If you are using Outlook Express, please make sure you clear the check box
"Tools/Options/Read: Get 300 headers at a time" to see your reply promptly.
Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscript...t/default.aspx.
========================================
==============
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
from this issue.
========================================
==============
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
========================================
==============|||"Charles Wang[MSFT]" <changliw@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:APJ0YWMfHHA.6068@.TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl...
> Hi, OwenC,
> I think that the data volume of your database is huge, right?
> If you frequently perform database backup and the disk space is limited, I
> recommend that set your database recovery model to simple to reduce
> logging
> increasing speed;
> If you want to leave database recovery model to FULL so that you can
> restore your database to any time point that you want, I recommend that
> you
> start a job to truncate your transaction log every day.
Umm... That's not great advice. That would invalidate his transaction log
backup chain.
And once truncated, he'd lose the ability to restore your database to any
time point you want.
> For more information, you may refer to "Recovery models" and "BACKUP LOG"
> in SQL Server Books Online.
> Best regards,
> Charles Wang
> Microsoft Online Community Support
> ========================================
=============
> Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to:
> [url]http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/managednewsgroups/default.aspx#notif[/ur
l]
> ications
> If you are using Outlook Express, please make sure you clear the check box
> "Tools/Options/Read: Get 300 headers at a time" to see your reply
> promptly.
>
> Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
> where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
> Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
> up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
> professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
> most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
> that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
> project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
> handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
> Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscript...t/default.aspx.
> ========================================
==============
> When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
> your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
> from this issue.
> ========================================
==============
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
> ========================================
==============
>
>
>
>
>
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html|||Hi, Greg,
Thanks for your pointing out.
Yes, if the log file is truncated, he would lose the ability to restore his
database to any time point he want; however if their disk space is limited,
the truncate operation may be neccessary no matter in any recovery mode.
Simple recovery mode can produce less transaction logs than FULL recovery
mode. The logs increasing speed is slow, and this may be able to suit his
needs.
Best regards,
Charles Wang
Microsoft Online Community Support
========================================
=============
Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscript...ault.aspx#notif
ications
If you are using Outlook Express, please make sure you clear the check box
"Tools/Options/Read: Get 300 headers at a time" to see your reply promptly.
Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscript...t/default.aspx.
========================================
==============
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
from this issue.
========================================
==============
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
========================================
==============|||Lines: 69
In-Reply-To: <YvPadJNfHHA.4368@.TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6000.16386
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6000.16386
NNTP-Posting-Host: port0005-agk-adsl.cwjamaica.com 72.27.124.5
Xref: leafnode.mcse.ms microsoft.public.sqlserver.server:32327
I need to run the FULL recovery mode as this is the DB for an ERP
application. I can't afford to lose even any transactions!!!
We actually do transaction log backups and truncate them every 2 hours.
We use Backup Exec to do this.
It seems from further investigation that what caused the increased growth is
that the indexes that were added made some DB operations 20 times faster.
This caused some batch processes to run faster than they had been able to.
There was a backlog of these batches and so in clearing the backlog it
caused the growth rate of the log file to increase.
OwenC
"Charles Wang[MSFT]" <changliw@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:YvPadJNfHHA.4368@.TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl...
> Hi, Greg,
> Thanks for your pointing out.
> Yes, if the log file is truncated, he would lose the ability to restore
> his
> database to any time point he want; however if their disk space is
> limited,
> the truncate operation may be neccessary no matter in any recovery mode.
> Simple recovery mode can produce less transaction logs than FULL recovery
> mode. The logs increasing speed is slow, and this may be able to suit his
> needs.
> Best regards,
> Charles Wang
> Microsoft Online Community Support
> ========================================
=============
> Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to:
> [url]http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/managednewsgroups/default.aspx#notif[/ur
l]
> ications
> If you are using Outlook Express, please make sure you clear the check box
> "Tools/Options/Read: Get 300 headers at a time" to see your reply
> promptly.
>
> Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
> where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
> Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
> up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
> professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
> most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
> that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
> project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
> handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
> Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscript...t/default.aspx.
> ========================================
==============
> When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
> your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
> from this issue.
> ========================================
==============
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
> ========================================
==============
>
>
>
>|||Hi, OwenC,
Thanks for your updating and response.
I am glad to hear that you found the real cause in your situation. What is
the kind of the backlog as you mentioned? Have you found a way to resolve
it now?
Please feel free to let me know if you need any assistance.
Best regards,
Charles Wang
Microsoft Online Community Support
========================================
=============
Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscript...ault.aspx#notif
ications
If you are using Outlook Express, please make sure you clear the check box
"Tools/Options/Read: Get 300 headers at a time" to see your reply promptly.
Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscript...t/default.aspx.
========================================
==============
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
from this issue.
========================================
==============
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
========================================
==============|||Hi, Owen
I am interested in this issue. Would you mind letting me know the result of
this issue? If you need further assistance, feel free to let me know.
I will be more than happy to be of assistance.
Charles Wang
Microsoft Online Community Support
========================================
==============
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
from this issue.
========================================
==============
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
========================================
==============
We have not changed our number of transactions.
The rate of log file growth has moved from about 320MB per hour before the
indexes to 2GB per hour after the indexes were added.
How would we go about finding the operations that are causing the increase
in log file growth?
OwenC"OwenC" <OwenC@.community.nospam> wrote in message
news:OW4IUQ8eHHA.1312@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> We added several indexs to a DB.
> We have not changed our number of transactions.
> The rate of log file growth has moved from about 320MB per hour before the
> indexes to 2GB per hour after the indexes were added.
> How would we go about finding the operations that are causing the increase
> in log file growth?
Are you doing and DBCC dbreindex, etc on your indexes?
Are your indexes finished building, or still building?
> OwenC
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html|||Hi, OwenC,
I understand that the transaction log file grew fast after the indexes were
added.
If I have misunderstood, please let me know.
This might be normal behavior if your index operations are large-scale,
since large-scale index operations will cause heavy data loads that can
cause the transaction log to fill quickly.
Please refer to the recommendations of this article:
Transaction Log Disk Space for Index Operations
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms184246.aspx
If you have any other questions or concerns, please feel free to let me
know.
Best regards,
Charles Wang
Microsoft Online Community Support
========================================
=============
Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscript...ault.aspx#notif
ications
If you are using Outlook Express, please make sure you clear the check box
"Tools/Options/Read: Get 300 headers at a time" to see your reply promptly.
Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscript...t/default.aspx.
========================================
==============
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
from this issue.
========================================
==============
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
========================================
==============|||We are not doing a DBCC REINDEX. Once we applied the indexes we left them
alone.
The indexes have finished building.
OwenC
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@.greenms.com> wrote in message
news:Olqu6J%23eHHA.1312@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> "OwenC" <OwenC@.community.nospam> wrote in message
> news:OW4IUQ8eHHA.1312@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Are you doing and DBCC dbreindex, etc on your indexes?
> Are your indexes finished building, or still building?
>
>
> --
> Greg Moore
> SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
> Email: sql (at) greenms.com
> http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html
>|||Hi, OwenC,
I think that the data volume of your database is huge, right?
If you frequently perform database backup and the disk space is limited, I
recommend that set your database recovery model to simple to reduce logging
increasing speed;
If you want to leave database recovery model to FULL so that you can
restore your database to any time point that you want, I recommend that you
start a job to truncate your transaction log every day.
For more information, you may refer to "Recovery models" and "BACKUP LOG"
in SQL Server Books Online.
Best regards,
Charles Wang
Microsoft Online Community Support
========================================
=============
Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscript...ault.aspx#notif
ications
If you are using Outlook Express, please make sure you clear the check box
"Tools/Options/Read: Get 300 headers at a time" to see your reply promptly.
Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscript...t/default.aspx.
========================================
==============
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
from this issue.
========================================
==============
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
========================================
==============|||"Charles Wang[MSFT]" <changliw@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:APJ0YWMfHHA.6068@.TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl...
> Hi, OwenC,
> I think that the data volume of your database is huge, right?
> If you frequently perform database backup and the disk space is limited, I
> recommend that set your database recovery model to simple to reduce
> logging
> increasing speed;
> If you want to leave database recovery model to FULL so that you can
> restore your database to any time point that you want, I recommend that
> you
> start a job to truncate your transaction log every day.
Umm... That's not great advice. That would invalidate his transaction log
backup chain.
And once truncated, he'd lose the ability to restore your database to any
time point you want.
> For more information, you may refer to "Recovery models" and "BACKUP LOG"
> in SQL Server Books Online.
> Best regards,
> Charles Wang
> Microsoft Online Community Support
> ========================================
=============
> Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to:
> [url]http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/managednewsgroups/default.aspx#notif[/ur
l]
> ications
> If you are using Outlook Express, please make sure you clear the check box
> "Tools/Options/Read: Get 300 headers at a time" to see your reply
> promptly.
>
> Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
> where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
> Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
> up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
> professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
> most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
> that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
> project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
> handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
> Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscript...t/default.aspx.
> ========================================
==============
> When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
> your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
> from this issue.
> ========================================
==============
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
> ========================================
==============
>
>
>
>
>
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html|||Hi, Greg,
Thanks for your pointing out.
Yes, if the log file is truncated, he would lose the ability to restore his
database to any time point he want; however if their disk space is limited,
the truncate operation may be neccessary no matter in any recovery mode.
Simple recovery mode can produce less transaction logs than FULL recovery
mode. The logs increasing speed is slow, and this may be able to suit his
needs.
Best regards,
Charles Wang
Microsoft Online Community Support
========================================
=============
Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscript...ault.aspx#notif
ications
If you are using Outlook Express, please make sure you clear the check box
"Tools/Options/Read: Get 300 headers at a time" to see your reply promptly.
Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscript...t/default.aspx.
========================================
==============
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
from this issue.
========================================
==============
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
========================================
==============|||Lines: 69
In-Reply-To: <YvPadJNfHHA.4368@.TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6000.16386
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6000.16386
NNTP-Posting-Host: port0005-agk-adsl.cwjamaica.com 72.27.124.5
Xref: leafnode.mcse.ms microsoft.public.sqlserver.server:32327
I need to run the FULL recovery mode as this is the DB for an ERP
application. I can't afford to lose even any transactions!!!
We actually do transaction log backups and truncate them every 2 hours.
We use Backup Exec to do this.
It seems from further investigation that what caused the increased growth is
that the indexes that were added made some DB operations 20 times faster.
This caused some batch processes to run faster than they had been able to.
There was a backlog of these batches and so in clearing the backlog it
caused the growth rate of the log file to increase.
OwenC
"Charles Wang[MSFT]" <changliw@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:YvPadJNfHHA.4368@.TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl...
> Hi, Greg,
> Thanks for your pointing out.
> Yes, if the log file is truncated, he would lose the ability to restore
> his
> database to any time point he want; however if their disk space is
> limited,
> the truncate operation may be neccessary no matter in any recovery mode.
> Simple recovery mode can produce less transaction logs than FULL recovery
> mode. The logs increasing speed is slow, and this may be able to suit his
> needs.
> Best regards,
> Charles Wang
> Microsoft Online Community Support
> ========================================
=============
> Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to:
> [url]http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/managednewsgroups/default.aspx#notif[/ur
l]
> ications
> If you are using Outlook Express, please make sure you clear the check box
> "Tools/Options/Read: Get 300 headers at a time" to see your reply
> promptly.
>
> Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
> where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
> Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
> up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
> professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
> most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
> that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
> project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
> handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
> Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscript...t/default.aspx.
> ========================================
==============
> When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
> your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
> from this issue.
> ========================================
==============
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
> ========================================
==============
>
>
>
>|||Hi, OwenC,
Thanks for your updating and response.
I am glad to hear that you found the real cause in your situation. What is
the kind of the backlog as you mentioned? Have you found a way to resolve
it now?
Please feel free to let me know if you need any assistance.
Best regards,
Charles Wang
Microsoft Online Community Support
========================================
=============
Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscript...ault.aspx#notif
ications
If you are using Outlook Express, please make sure you clear the check box
"Tools/Options/Read: Get 300 headers at a time" to see your reply promptly.
Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscript...t/default.aspx.
========================================
==============
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
from this issue.
========================================
==============
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
========================================
==============|||Hi, Owen
I am interested in this issue. Would you mind letting me know the result of
this issue? If you need further assistance, feel free to let me know.
I will be more than happy to be of assistance.
Charles Wang
Microsoft Online Community Support
========================================
==============
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
from this issue.
========================================
==============
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
========================================
==============
High rate of log file growth
We added several indexs to a DB.
We have not changed our number of transactions.
The rate of log file growth has moved from about 320MB per hour before the
indexes to 2GB per hour after the indexes were added.
How would we go about finding the operations that are causing the increase
in log file growth?
OwenC
"OwenC" <OwenC@.community.nospam> wrote in message
news:OW4IUQ8eHHA.1312@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> We added several indexs to a DB.
> We have not changed our number of transactions.
> The rate of log file growth has moved from about 320MB per hour before the
> indexes to 2GB per hour after the indexes were added.
> How would we go about finding the operations that are causing the increase
> in log file growth?
Are you doing and DBCC dbreindex, etc on your indexes?
Are your indexes finished building, or still building?
> OwenC
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html
|||We are not doing a DBCC REINDEX. Once we applied the indexes we left them
alone.
The indexes have finished building.
OwenC
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@.greenms.com> wrote in message
news:Olqu6J%23eHHA.1312@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> "OwenC" <OwenC@.community.nospam> wrote in message
> news:OW4IUQ8eHHA.1312@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Are you doing and DBCC dbreindex, etc on your indexes?
> Are your indexes finished building, or still building?
>
>
> --
> Greg Moore
> SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
> Email: sql (at) greenms.com
> http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html
>
|||Hi, OwenC,
I think that the data volume of your database is huge, right?
If you frequently perform database backup and the disk space is limited, I
recommend that set your database recovery model to simple to reduce logging
increasing speed;
If you want to leave database recovery model to FULL so that you can
restore your database to any time point that you want, I recommend that you
start a job to truncate your transaction log every day.
For more information, you may refer to "Recovery models" and "BACKUP LOG"
in SQL Server Books Online.
Best regards,
Charles Wang
Microsoft Online Community Support
================================================== ===
Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/managednewsgroups/default.aspx#notif
ications
If you are using Outlook Express, please make sure you clear the check box
"Tools/Options/Read: Get 300 headers at a time" to see your reply promptly.
Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/support/default.aspx.
================================================== ====
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
from this issue.
================================================== ====
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
================================================== ====
|||"Charles Wang[MSFT]" <changliw@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:APJ0YWMfHHA.6068@.TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl...
> Hi, OwenC,
> I think that the data volume of your database is huge, right?
> If you frequently perform database backup and the disk space is limited, I
> recommend that set your database recovery model to simple to reduce
> logging
> increasing speed;
> If you want to leave database recovery model to FULL so that you can
> restore your database to any time point that you want, I recommend that
> you
> start a job to truncate your transaction log every day.
Umm... That's not great advice. That would invalidate his transaction log
backup chain.
And once truncated, he'd lose the ability to restore your database to any
time point you want.
> For more information, you may refer to "Recovery models" and "BACKUP LOG"
> in SQL Server Books Online.
> Best regards,
> Charles Wang
> Microsoft Online Community Support
> ================================================== ===
> Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to:
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/managednewsgroups/default.aspx#notif
> ications
> If you are using Outlook Express, please make sure you clear the check box
> "Tools/Options/Read: Get 300 headers at a time" to see your reply
> promptly.
>
> Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
> where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
> Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
> up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
> professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
> most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
> that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
> project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
> handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
> Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/support/default.aspx.
> ================================================== ====
> When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
> your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
> from this issue.
> ================================================== ====
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
> ================================================== ====
>
>
>
>
>
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html
|||Hi, Greg,
Thanks for your pointing out.
Yes, if the log file is truncated, he would lose the ability to restore his
database to any time point he want; however if their disk space is limited,
the truncate operation may be neccessary no matter in any recovery mode.
Simple recovery mode can produce less transaction logs than FULL recovery
mode. The logs increasing speed is slow, and this may be able to suit his
needs.
Best regards,
Charles Wang
Microsoft Online Community Support
================================================== ===
Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/managednewsgroups/default.aspx#notif
ications
If you are using Outlook Express, please make sure you clear the check box
"Tools/Options/Read: Get 300 headers at a time" to see your reply promptly.
Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/support/default.aspx.
================================================== ====
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
from this issue.
================================================== ====
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
================================================== ====
|||I need to run the FULL recovery mode as this is the DB for an ERP
application. I can't afford to lose even any transactions!!!
We actually do transaction log backups and truncate them every 2 hours.
We use Backup Exec to do this.
It seems from further investigation that what caused the increased growth is
that the indexes that were added made some DB operations 20 times faster.
This caused some batch processes to run faster than they had been able to.
There was a backlog of these batches and so in clearing the backlog it
caused the growth rate of the log file to increase.
OwenC
"Charles Wang[MSFT]" <changliw@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:YvPadJNfHHA.4368@.TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl...
> Hi, Greg,
> Thanks for your pointing out.
> Yes, if the log file is truncated, he would lose the ability to restore
> his
> database to any time point he want; however if their disk space is
> limited,
> the truncate operation may be neccessary no matter in any recovery mode.
> Simple recovery mode can produce less transaction logs than FULL recovery
> mode. The logs increasing speed is slow, and this may be able to suit his
> needs.
> Best regards,
> Charles Wang
> Microsoft Online Community Support
> ================================================== ===
> Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to:
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/managednewsgroups/default.aspx#notif
> ications
> If you are using Outlook Express, please make sure you clear the check box
> "Tools/Options/Read: Get 300 headers at a time" to see your reply
> promptly.
>
> Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
> where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
> Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
> up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
> professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
> most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
> that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
> project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
> handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
> Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/support/default.aspx.
> ================================================== ====
> When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
> your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
> from this issue.
> ================================================== ====
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
> ================================================== ====
>
>
>
>
|||Hi, OwenC,
Thanks for your updating and response.
I am glad to hear that you found the real cause in your situation. What is
the kind of the backlog as you mentioned? Have you found a way to resolve
it now?
Please feel free to let me know if you need any assistance.
Best regards,
Charles Wang
Microsoft Online Community Support
================================================== ===
Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/managednewsgroups/default.aspx#notif
ications
If you are using Outlook Express, please make sure you clear the check box
"Tools/Options/Read: Get 300 headers at a time" to see your reply promptly.
Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/support/default.aspx.
================================================== ====
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
from this issue.
================================================== ====
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
================================================== ====
|||Hi, Owen
I am interested in this issue. Would you mind letting me know the result of
this issue? If you need further assistance, feel free to let me know.
I will be more than happy to be of assistance.
Charles Wang
Microsoft Online Community Support
================================================== ====
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
from this issue.
================================================== ====
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
================================================== ====
sql
We have not changed our number of transactions.
The rate of log file growth has moved from about 320MB per hour before the
indexes to 2GB per hour after the indexes were added.
How would we go about finding the operations that are causing the increase
in log file growth?
OwenC
"OwenC" <OwenC@.community.nospam> wrote in message
news:OW4IUQ8eHHA.1312@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> We added several indexs to a DB.
> We have not changed our number of transactions.
> The rate of log file growth has moved from about 320MB per hour before the
> indexes to 2GB per hour after the indexes were added.
> How would we go about finding the operations that are causing the increase
> in log file growth?
Are you doing and DBCC dbreindex, etc on your indexes?
Are your indexes finished building, or still building?
> OwenC
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html
|||We are not doing a DBCC REINDEX. Once we applied the indexes we left them
alone.
The indexes have finished building.
OwenC
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@.greenms.com> wrote in message
news:Olqu6J%23eHHA.1312@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> "OwenC" <OwenC@.community.nospam> wrote in message
> news:OW4IUQ8eHHA.1312@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Are you doing and DBCC dbreindex, etc on your indexes?
> Are your indexes finished building, or still building?
>
>
> --
> Greg Moore
> SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
> Email: sql (at) greenms.com
> http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html
>
|||Hi, OwenC,
I think that the data volume of your database is huge, right?
If you frequently perform database backup and the disk space is limited, I
recommend that set your database recovery model to simple to reduce logging
increasing speed;
If you want to leave database recovery model to FULL so that you can
restore your database to any time point that you want, I recommend that you
start a job to truncate your transaction log every day.
For more information, you may refer to "Recovery models" and "BACKUP LOG"
in SQL Server Books Online.
Best regards,
Charles Wang
Microsoft Online Community Support
================================================== ===
Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/managednewsgroups/default.aspx#notif
ications
If you are using Outlook Express, please make sure you clear the check box
"Tools/Options/Read: Get 300 headers at a time" to see your reply promptly.
Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/support/default.aspx.
================================================== ====
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
from this issue.
================================================== ====
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
================================================== ====
|||"Charles Wang[MSFT]" <changliw@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:APJ0YWMfHHA.6068@.TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl...
> Hi, OwenC,
> I think that the data volume of your database is huge, right?
> If you frequently perform database backup and the disk space is limited, I
> recommend that set your database recovery model to simple to reduce
> logging
> increasing speed;
> If you want to leave database recovery model to FULL so that you can
> restore your database to any time point that you want, I recommend that
> you
> start a job to truncate your transaction log every day.
Umm... That's not great advice. That would invalidate his transaction log
backup chain.
And once truncated, he'd lose the ability to restore your database to any
time point you want.
> For more information, you may refer to "Recovery models" and "BACKUP LOG"
> in SQL Server Books Online.
> Best regards,
> Charles Wang
> Microsoft Online Community Support
> ================================================== ===
> Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to:
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/managednewsgroups/default.aspx#notif
> ications
> If you are using Outlook Express, please make sure you clear the check box
> "Tools/Options/Read: Get 300 headers at a time" to see your reply
> promptly.
>
> Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
> where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
> Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
> up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
> professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
> most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
> that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
> project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
> handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
> Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/support/default.aspx.
> ================================================== ====
> When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
> your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
> from this issue.
> ================================================== ====
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
> ================================================== ====
>
>
>
>
>
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html
|||Hi, Greg,
Thanks for your pointing out.
Yes, if the log file is truncated, he would lose the ability to restore his
database to any time point he want; however if their disk space is limited,
the truncate operation may be neccessary no matter in any recovery mode.
Simple recovery mode can produce less transaction logs than FULL recovery
mode. The logs increasing speed is slow, and this may be able to suit his
needs.
Best regards,
Charles Wang
Microsoft Online Community Support
================================================== ===
Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/managednewsgroups/default.aspx#notif
ications
If you are using Outlook Express, please make sure you clear the check box
"Tools/Options/Read: Get 300 headers at a time" to see your reply promptly.
Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/support/default.aspx.
================================================== ====
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
from this issue.
================================================== ====
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
================================================== ====
|||I need to run the FULL recovery mode as this is the DB for an ERP
application. I can't afford to lose even any transactions!!!
We actually do transaction log backups and truncate them every 2 hours.
We use Backup Exec to do this.
It seems from further investigation that what caused the increased growth is
that the indexes that were added made some DB operations 20 times faster.
This caused some batch processes to run faster than they had been able to.
There was a backlog of these batches and so in clearing the backlog it
caused the growth rate of the log file to increase.
OwenC
"Charles Wang[MSFT]" <changliw@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:YvPadJNfHHA.4368@.TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl...
> Hi, Greg,
> Thanks for your pointing out.
> Yes, if the log file is truncated, he would lose the ability to restore
> his
> database to any time point he want; however if their disk space is
> limited,
> the truncate operation may be neccessary no matter in any recovery mode.
> Simple recovery mode can produce less transaction logs than FULL recovery
> mode. The logs increasing speed is slow, and this may be able to suit his
> needs.
> Best regards,
> Charles Wang
> Microsoft Online Community Support
> ================================================== ===
> Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to:
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/managednewsgroups/default.aspx#notif
> ications
> If you are using Outlook Express, please make sure you clear the check box
> "Tools/Options/Read: Get 300 headers at a time" to see your reply
> promptly.
>
> Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
> where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
> Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
> up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
> professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
> most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
> that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
> project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
> handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
> Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/support/default.aspx.
> ================================================== ====
> When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
> your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
> from this issue.
> ================================================== ====
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
> ================================================== ====
>
>
>
>
|||Hi, OwenC,
Thanks for your updating and response.
I am glad to hear that you found the real cause in your situation. What is
the kind of the backlog as you mentioned? Have you found a way to resolve
it now?
Please feel free to let me know if you need any assistance.
Best regards,
Charles Wang
Microsoft Online Community Support
================================================== ===
Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/managednewsgroups/default.aspx#notif
ications
If you are using Outlook Express, please make sure you clear the check box
"Tools/Options/Read: Get 300 headers at a time" to see your reply promptly.
Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/support/default.aspx.
================================================== ====
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
from this issue.
================================================== ====
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
================================================== ====
|||Hi, Owen
I am interested in this issue. Would you mind letting me know the result of
this issue? If you need further assistance, feel free to let me know.
I will be more than happy to be of assistance.
Charles Wang
Microsoft Online Community Support
================================================== ====
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
from this issue.
================================================== ====
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
================================================== ====
sql
High performance isn't always an advantage...
Hello
MSSQL 2000 + SP3 on Windows 2000 AS + SP4
I've moved my databases to new server.
IO subsystem now TEN times faster!
I have the system of two jobs performing defragmentation
of my data. One of the jobs issues DBCC INDEXDEFRAG
statements and the second one monitors state of transaction
log and stops first job if log more than 70% full. SQLAgent
can run jobs only with 1 minute intervals. So I can monitor
log status only once in minute. Everything was all right at old
server. Now on new hardware log overfills in couple of seconds
and monitoring job can't catch the moment of overfilling and
correctly stop the defragmentation.
Two questions:
1. Should I increase Tlog size depending on hardware performance
2. Is there any way to monitor log state more ofter than once
in a minute?
Thanks.
Serge ShakhovYou can have a job which uses an endless loop and WAITFOR with, say, 10 seconds.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
"Serge Shakhov" <REMOVETHIS_ACETYLENE@.mail.ru> wrote in message
news:83ndmb.5kr.ln@.proxyserver.ctd.mmk.chel.su...
> Hello
> MSSQL 2000 + SP3 on Windows 2000 AS + SP4
> I've moved my databases to new server.
> IO subsystem now TEN times faster!
> I have the system of two jobs performing defragmentation
> of my data. One of the jobs issues DBCC INDEXDEFRAG
> statements and the second one monitors state of transaction
> log and stops first job if log more than 70% full. SQLAgent
> can run jobs only with 1 minute intervals. So I can monitor
> log status only once in minute. Everything was all right at old
> server. Now on new hardware log overfills in couple of seconds
> and monitoring job can't catch the moment of overfilling and
> correctly stop the defragmentation.
> Two questions:
> 1. Should I increase Tlog size depending on hardware performance
> 2. Is there any way to monitor log state more ofter than once
> in a minute?
> Thanks.
> Serge Shakhov
>|||Hello
> You can have a job which uses an endless loop and WAITFOR with, say, 10
seconds.
That's a good idea!
But I'll try to avoid cycling process by executing every minute job wich
will last 58-59 seconds and perform checks say every 5 seconds...
Thank you Tibor.
Serge Shakhovsql
MSSQL 2000 + SP3 on Windows 2000 AS + SP4
I've moved my databases to new server.
IO subsystem now TEN times faster!
I have the system of two jobs performing defragmentation
of my data. One of the jobs issues DBCC INDEXDEFRAG
statements and the second one monitors state of transaction
log and stops first job if log more than 70% full. SQLAgent
can run jobs only with 1 minute intervals. So I can monitor
log status only once in minute. Everything was all right at old
server. Now on new hardware log overfills in couple of seconds
and monitoring job can't catch the moment of overfilling and
correctly stop the defragmentation.
Two questions:
1. Should I increase Tlog size depending on hardware performance
2. Is there any way to monitor log state more ofter than once
in a minute?
Thanks.
Serge ShakhovYou can have a job which uses an endless loop and WAITFOR with, say, 10 seconds.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
"Serge Shakhov" <REMOVETHIS_ACETYLENE@.mail.ru> wrote in message
news:83ndmb.5kr.ln@.proxyserver.ctd.mmk.chel.su...
> Hello
> MSSQL 2000 + SP3 on Windows 2000 AS + SP4
> I've moved my databases to new server.
> IO subsystem now TEN times faster!
> I have the system of two jobs performing defragmentation
> of my data. One of the jobs issues DBCC INDEXDEFRAG
> statements and the second one monitors state of transaction
> log and stops first job if log more than 70% full. SQLAgent
> can run jobs only with 1 minute intervals. So I can monitor
> log status only once in minute. Everything was all right at old
> server. Now on new hardware log overfills in couple of seconds
> and monitoring job can't catch the moment of overfilling and
> correctly stop the defragmentation.
> Two questions:
> 1. Should I increase Tlog size depending on hardware performance
> 2. Is there any way to monitor log state more ofter than once
> in a minute?
> Thanks.
> Serge Shakhov
>|||Hello
> You can have a job which uses an endless loop and WAITFOR with, say, 10
seconds.
That's a good idea!
But I'll try to avoid cycling process by executing every minute job wich
will last 58-59 seconds and perform checks say every 5 seconds...
Thank you Tibor.
Serge Shakhovsql
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
High Memory Usage by SQL 2000
Hi,
Recently i've moved some of our databases from a Windows 2000 Server with
512 physical memory to a newer Windows 2003 Server with 1024MB physical
memory.
The new server functions OK, but there is a very high usage of memory in
comparison to the old server: the sqlservr.exe process used around 400MB of
memory,
while the new one is using near 850MB after only 2 weeks (while at the
beginning it used something like 600 MB).
Is such a behaviour is normal and can be explained by that the new server
has larger available amount of physical memory?
In any case, are there any tools that helps to determine which application
catch the largest amount of memory used by SQL?
I think that such a large usage for relatively no so hard-working server is
something strange.
Any help/tips will be highly appreciated!!!
Thanks in advance,
BarakBarak,
SQL Server 2000 will grab and hold on to as much memory as it needs. SQL
Server 2000, will not, by default, release memory back to the operating
system after using it. This is normal and expected behavior. The basic
reason is that Microsoft expects that SQL Server 2000 is installed as a
stand-alone application on a server. Thus not only is nothing gained by SQL
Server 2000 releasing memory back to the OS, but, in fact, performance is
hurt if SQL Server 2000 was continually requesting and releasing memory ...
the request for and release of memory is fairly obviously an activity that
requires some resources, at the very least CPU time, that could otherwise be
utilized.
Additional information is available in the SQL Server 2000 Books Online in
sections "Memory Architecture" and "Dynamically Managing Memory on Windows
NT and Windows 2000".
Chief Tenaya
"Barak Turovsky" <baraktur@.mail.ru> wrote in message
news:uslssSIHEHA.1432@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Recently i've moved some of our databases from a Windows 2000 Server with
> 512 physical memory to a newer Windows 2003 Server with 1024MB physical
> memory.
> The new server functions OK, but there is a very high usage of memory in
> comparison to the old server: the sqlservr.exe process used around 400MB
of
> memory,
> while the new one is using near 850MB after only 2 weeks (while at the
> beginning it used something like 600 MB).
> Is such a behaviour is normal and can be explained by that the new server
> has larger available amount of physical memory?
> In any case, are there any tools that helps to determine which application
> catch the largest amount of memory used by SQL?
> I think that such a large usage for relatively no so hard-working server
is
> something strange.
> Any help/tips will be highly appreciated!!!
> Thanks in advance,
> Barak
>|||Barak,
BTW, within limits, the more memory available to SQL Server 2000, the better
one can expect performance from SQL Server 2000. Additional memory allows
SQL Server 2000 to create and use a larger memory cache area, thus reducing
physical I/O ... and physical I/O is more often then not what drags down
performance in most any database.
Chief Tenaya
"Barak Turovsky" <baraktur@.mail.ru> wrote in message
news:uslssSIHEHA.1432@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Recently i've moved some of our databases from a Windows 2000 Server with
> 512 physical memory to a newer Windows 2003 Server with 1024MB physical
> memory.
> The new server functions OK, but there is a very high usage of memory in
> comparison to the old server: the sqlservr.exe process used around 400MB
of
> memory,
> while the new one is using near 850MB after only 2 weeks (while at the
> beginning it used something like 600 MB).
> Is such a behaviour is normal and can be explained by that the new server
> has larger available amount of physical memory?
> In any case, are there any tools that helps to determine which application
> catch the largest amount of memory used by SQL?
> I think that such a large usage for relatively no so hard-working server
is
> something strange.
> Any help/tips will be highly appreciated!!!
> Thanks in advance,
> Barak
>
Recently i've moved some of our databases from a Windows 2000 Server with
512 physical memory to a newer Windows 2003 Server with 1024MB physical
memory.
The new server functions OK, but there is a very high usage of memory in
comparison to the old server: the sqlservr.exe process used around 400MB of
memory,
while the new one is using near 850MB after only 2 weeks (while at the
beginning it used something like 600 MB).
Is such a behaviour is normal and can be explained by that the new server
has larger available amount of physical memory?
In any case, are there any tools that helps to determine which application
catch the largest amount of memory used by SQL?
I think that such a large usage for relatively no so hard-working server is
something strange.
Any help/tips will be highly appreciated!!!
Thanks in advance,
BarakBarak,
SQL Server 2000 will grab and hold on to as much memory as it needs. SQL
Server 2000, will not, by default, release memory back to the operating
system after using it. This is normal and expected behavior. The basic
reason is that Microsoft expects that SQL Server 2000 is installed as a
stand-alone application on a server. Thus not only is nothing gained by SQL
Server 2000 releasing memory back to the OS, but, in fact, performance is
hurt if SQL Server 2000 was continually requesting and releasing memory ...
the request for and release of memory is fairly obviously an activity that
requires some resources, at the very least CPU time, that could otherwise be
utilized.
Additional information is available in the SQL Server 2000 Books Online in
sections "Memory Architecture" and "Dynamically Managing Memory on Windows
NT and Windows 2000".
Chief Tenaya
"Barak Turovsky" <baraktur@.mail.ru> wrote in message
news:uslssSIHEHA.1432@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Recently i've moved some of our databases from a Windows 2000 Server with
> 512 physical memory to a newer Windows 2003 Server with 1024MB physical
> memory.
> The new server functions OK, but there is a very high usage of memory in
> comparison to the old server: the sqlservr.exe process used around 400MB
of
> memory,
> while the new one is using near 850MB after only 2 weeks (while at the
> beginning it used something like 600 MB).
> Is such a behaviour is normal and can be explained by that the new server
> has larger available amount of physical memory?
> In any case, are there any tools that helps to determine which application
> catch the largest amount of memory used by SQL?
> I think that such a large usage for relatively no so hard-working server
is
> something strange.
> Any help/tips will be highly appreciated!!!
> Thanks in advance,
> Barak
>|||Barak,
BTW, within limits, the more memory available to SQL Server 2000, the better
one can expect performance from SQL Server 2000. Additional memory allows
SQL Server 2000 to create and use a larger memory cache area, thus reducing
physical I/O ... and physical I/O is more often then not what drags down
performance in most any database.
Chief Tenaya
"Barak Turovsky" <baraktur@.mail.ru> wrote in message
news:uslssSIHEHA.1432@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Recently i've moved some of our databases from a Windows 2000 Server with
> 512 physical memory to a newer Windows 2003 Server with 1024MB physical
> memory.
> The new server functions OK, but there is a very high usage of memory in
> comparison to the old server: the sqlservr.exe process used around 400MB
of
> memory,
> while the new one is using near 850MB after only 2 weeks (while at the
> beginning it used something like 600 MB).
> Is such a behaviour is normal and can be explained by that the new server
> has larger available amount of physical memory?
> In any case, are there any tools that helps to determine which application
> catch the largest amount of memory used by SQL?
> I think that such a large usage for relatively no so hard-working server
is
> something strange.
> Any help/tips will be highly appreciated!!!
> Thanks in advance,
> Barak
>
High Memory Usage by SQL 2000
Hi,
Recently i've moved some of our databases from a Windows 2000 Server with
512 physical memory to a newer Windows 2003 Server with 1024MB physical
memory.
The new server functions OK, but there is a very high usage of memory in
comparison to the old server: the sqlservr.exe process used around 400MB of
memory,
while the new one is using near 850MB after only 2 weeks (while at the
beginning it used something like 600 MB).
Is such a behaviour is normal and can be explained by that the new server
has larger available amount of physical memory?
In any case, are there any tools that helps to determine which application
catch the largest amount of memory used by SQL?
I think that such a large usage for relatively no so hard-working server is
something strange.
Any help/tips will be highly appreciated!!!
Thanks in advance,
BarakBarak,
SQL Server 2000 will grab and hold on to as much memory as it needs. SQL
Server 2000, will not, by default, release memory back to the operating
system after using it. This is normal and expected behavior. The basic
reason is that Microsoft expects that SQL Server 2000 is installed as a
stand-alone application on a server. Thus not only is nothing gained by SQL
Server 2000 releasing memory back to the OS, but, in fact, performance is
hurt if SQL Server 2000 was continually requesting and releasing memory ...
the request for and release of memory is fairly obviously an activity that
requires some resources, at the very least CPU time, that could otherwise be
utilized.
Additional information is available in the SQL Server 2000 Books Online in
sections "Memory Architecture" and "Dynamically Managing Memory on Windows
NT and Windows 2000".
Chief Tenaya
"Barak Turovsky" <baraktur@.mail.ru> wrote in message
news:uslssSIHEHA.1432@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Recently i've moved some of our databases from a Windows 2000 Server with
> 512 physical memory to a newer Windows 2003 Server with 1024MB physical
> memory.
> The new server functions OK, but there is a very high usage of memory in
> comparison to the old server: the sqlservr.exe process used around 400MB
of
> memory,
> while the new one is using near 850MB after only 2 weeks (while at the
> beginning it used something like 600 MB).
> Is such a behaviour is normal and can be explained by that the new server
> has larger available amount of physical memory?
> In any case, are there any tools that helps to determine which application
> catch the largest amount of memory used by SQL?
> I think that such a large usage for relatively no so hard-working server
is
> something strange.
> Any help/tips will be highly appreciated!!!
> Thanks in advance,
> Barak
>|||Barak,
BTW, within limits, the more memory available to SQL Server 2000, the better
one can expect performance from SQL Server 2000. Additional memory allows
SQL Server 2000 to create and use a larger memory cache area, thus reducing
physical I/O ... and physical I/O is more often then not what drags down
performance in most any database.
Chief Tenaya
"Barak Turovsky" <baraktur@.mail.ru> wrote in message
news:uslssSIHEHA.1432@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Recently i've moved some of our databases from a Windows 2000 Server with
> 512 physical memory to a newer Windows 2003 Server with 1024MB physical
> memory.
> The new server functions OK, but there is a very high usage of memory in
> comparison to the old server: the sqlservr.exe process used around 400MB
of
> memory,
> while the new one is using near 850MB after only 2 weeks (while at the
> beginning it used something like 600 MB).
> Is such a behaviour is normal and can be explained by that the new server
> has larger available amount of physical memory?
> In any case, are there any tools that helps to determine which application
> catch the largest amount of memory used by SQL?
> I think that such a large usage for relatively no so hard-working server
is
> something strange.
> Any help/tips will be highly appreciated!!!
> Thanks in advance,
> Barak
>
Recently i've moved some of our databases from a Windows 2000 Server with
512 physical memory to a newer Windows 2003 Server with 1024MB physical
memory.
The new server functions OK, but there is a very high usage of memory in
comparison to the old server: the sqlservr.exe process used around 400MB of
memory,
while the new one is using near 850MB after only 2 weeks (while at the
beginning it used something like 600 MB).
Is such a behaviour is normal and can be explained by that the new server
has larger available amount of physical memory?
In any case, are there any tools that helps to determine which application
catch the largest amount of memory used by SQL?
I think that such a large usage for relatively no so hard-working server is
something strange.
Any help/tips will be highly appreciated!!!
Thanks in advance,
BarakBarak,
SQL Server 2000 will grab and hold on to as much memory as it needs. SQL
Server 2000, will not, by default, release memory back to the operating
system after using it. This is normal and expected behavior. The basic
reason is that Microsoft expects that SQL Server 2000 is installed as a
stand-alone application on a server. Thus not only is nothing gained by SQL
Server 2000 releasing memory back to the OS, but, in fact, performance is
hurt if SQL Server 2000 was continually requesting and releasing memory ...
the request for and release of memory is fairly obviously an activity that
requires some resources, at the very least CPU time, that could otherwise be
utilized.
Additional information is available in the SQL Server 2000 Books Online in
sections "Memory Architecture" and "Dynamically Managing Memory on Windows
NT and Windows 2000".
Chief Tenaya
"Barak Turovsky" <baraktur@.mail.ru> wrote in message
news:uslssSIHEHA.1432@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Recently i've moved some of our databases from a Windows 2000 Server with
> 512 physical memory to a newer Windows 2003 Server with 1024MB physical
> memory.
> The new server functions OK, but there is a very high usage of memory in
> comparison to the old server: the sqlservr.exe process used around 400MB
of
> memory,
> while the new one is using near 850MB after only 2 weeks (while at the
> beginning it used something like 600 MB).
> Is such a behaviour is normal and can be explained by that the new server
> has larger available amount of physical memory?
> In any case, are there any tools that helps to determine which application
> catch the largest amount of memory used by SQL?
> I think that such a large usage for relatively no so hard-working server
is
> something strange.
> Any help/tips will be highly appreciated!!!
> Thanks in advance,
> Barak
>|||Barak,
BTW, within limits, the more memory available to SQL Server 2000, the better
one can expect performance from SQL Server 2000. Additional memory allows
SQL Server 2000 to create and use a larger memory cache area, thus reducing
physical I/O ... and physical I/O is more often then not what drags down
performance in most any database.
Chief Tenaya
"Barak Turovsky" <baraktur@.mail.ru> wrote in message
news:uslssSIHEHA.1432@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Recently i've moved some of our databases from a Windows 2000 Server with
> 512 physical memory to a newer Windows 2003 Server with 1024MB physical
> memory.
> The new server functions OK, but there is a very high usage of memory in
> comparison to the old server: the sqlservr.exe process used around 400MB
of
> memory,
> while the new one is using near 850MB after only 2 weeks (while at the
> beginning it used something like 600 MB).
> Is such a behaviour is normal and can be explained by that the new server
> has larger available amount of physical memory?
> In any case, are there any tools that helps to determine which application
> catch the largest amount of memory used by SQL?
> I think that such a large usage for relatively no so hard-working server
is
> something strange.
> Any help/tips will be highly appreciated!!!
> Thanks in advance,
> Barak
>
High Memory Usage by SQL 2000
Hi,
Recently i've moved some of our databases from a Windows 2000 Server with
512 physical memory to a newer Windows 2003 Server with 1024MB physical
memory.
The new server functions OK, but there is a very high usage of memory in
comparison to the old server: the sqlservr.exe process used around 400MB of
memory,
while the new one is using near 850MB after only 2 weeks (while at the
beginning it used something like 600 MB).
Is such a behaviour is normal and can be explained by that the new server
has larger available amount of physical memory?
In any case, are there any tools that helps to determine which application
catch the largest amount of memory used by SQL?
I think that such a large usage for relatively no so hard-working server is
something strange.
Any help/tips will be highly appreciated!!!
Thanks in advance,
Barak
Barak,
SQL Server 2000 will grab and hold on to as much memory as it needs. SQL
Server 2000, will not, by default, release memory back to the operating
system after using it. This is normal and expected behavior. The basic
reason is that Microsoft expects that SQL Server 2000 is installed as a
stand-alone application on a server. Thus not only is nothing gained by SQL
Server 2000 releasing memory back to the OS, but, in fact, performance is
hurt if SQL Server 2000 was continually requesting and releasing memory ...
the request for and release of memory is fairly obviously an activity that
requires some resources, at the very least CPU time, that could otherwise be
utilized.
Additional information is available in the SQL Server 2000 Books Online in
sections "Memory Architecture" and "Dynamically Managing Memory on Windows
NT and Windows 2000".
Chief Tenaya
"Barak Turovsky" <baraktur@.mail.ru> wrote in message
news:uslssSIHEHA.1432@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Recently i've moved some of our databases from a Windows 2000 Server with
> 512 physical memory to a newer Windows 2003 Server with 1024MB physical
> memory.
> The new server functions OK, but there is a very high usage of memory in
> comparison to the old server: the sqlservr.exe process used around 400MB
of
> memory,
> while the new one is using near 850MB after only 2 weeks (while at the
> beginning it used something like 600 MB).
> Is such a behaviour is normal and can be explained by that the new server
> has larger available amount of physical memory?
> In any case, are there any tools that helps to determine which application
> catch the largest amount of memory used by SQL?
> I think that such a large usage for relatively no so hard-working server
is
> something strange.
> Any help/tips will be highly appreciated!!!
> Thanks in advance,
> Barak
>
|||Barak,
BTW, within limits, the more memory available to SQL Server 2000, the better
one can expect performance from SQL Server 2000. Additional memory allows
SQL Server 2000 to create and use a larger memory cache area, thus reducing
physical I/O ... and physical I/O is more often then not what drags down
performance in most any database.
Chief Tenaya
"Barak Turovsky" <baraktur@.mail.ru> wrote in message
news:uslssSIHEHA.1432@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Recently i've moved some of our databases from a Windows 2000 Server with
> 512 physical memory to a newer Windows 2003 Server with 1024MB physical
> memory.
> The new server functions OK, but there is a very high usage of memory in
> comparison to the old server: the sqlservr.exe process used around 400MB
of
> memory,
> while the new one is using near 850MB after only 2 weeks (while at the
> beginning it used something like 600 MB).
> Is such a behaviour is normal and can be explained by that the new server
> has larger available amount of physical memory?
> In any case, are there any tools that helps to determine which application
> catch the largest amount of memory used by SQL?
> I think that such a large usage for relatively no so hard-working server
is
> something strange.
> Any help/tips will be highly appreciated!!!
> Thanks in advance,
> Barak
>
|||Chief Tenaya is correct and gave you some good references. You should also
take a look at 321363 INF: SQL Server Memory Usage
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=321363.
Cindy Gross, MCDBA, MCSE
http://cindygross.tripod.com
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Recently i've moved some of our databases from a Windows 2000 Server with
512 physical memory to a newer Windows 2003 Server with 1024MB physical
memory.
The new server functions OK, but there is a very high usage of memory in
comparison to the old server: the sqlservr.exe process used around 400MB of
memory,
while the new one is using near 850MB after only 2 weeks (while at the
beginning it used something like 600 MB).
Is such a behaviour is normal and can be explained by that the new server
has larger available amount of physical memory?
In any case, are there any tools that helps to determine which application
catch the largest amount of memory used by SQL?
I think that such a large usage for relatively no so hard-working server is
something strange.
Any help/tips will be highly appreciated!!!
Thanks in advance,
Barak
Barak,
SQL Server 2000 will grab and hold on to as much memory as it needs. SQL
Server 2000, will not, by default, release memory back to the operating
system after using it. This is normal and expected behavior. The basic
reason is that Microsoft expects that SQL Server 2000 is installed as a
stand-alone application on a server. Thus not only is nothing gained by SQL
Server 2000 releasing memory back to the OS, but, in fact, performance is
hurt if SQL Server 2000 was continually requesting and releasing memory ...
the request for and release of memory is fairly obviously an activity that
requires some resources, at the very least CPU time, that could otherwise be
utilized.
Additional information is available in the SQL Server 2000 Books Online in
sections "Memory Architecture" and "Dynamically Managing Memory on Windows
NT and Windows 2000".
Chief Tenaya
"Barak Turovsky" <baraktur@.mail.ru> wrote in message
news:uslssSIHEHA.1432@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Recently i've moved some of our databases from a Windows 2000 Server with
> 512 physical memory to a newer Windows 2003 Server with 1024MB physical
> memory.
> The new server functions OK, but there is a very high usage of memory in
> comparison to the old server: the sqlservr.exe process used around 400MB
of
> memory,
> while the new one is using near 850MB after only 2 weeks (while at the
> beginning it used something like 600 MB).
> Is such a behaviour is normal and can be explained by that the new server
> has larger available amount of physical memory?
> In any case, are there any tools that helps to determine which application
> catch the largest amount of memory used by SQL?
> I think that such a large usage for relatively no so hard-working server
is
> something strange.
> Any help/tips will be highly appreciated!!!
> Thanks in advance,
> Barak
>
|||Barak,
BTW, within limits, the more memory available to SQL Server 2000, the better
one can expect performance from SQL Server 2000. Additional memory allows
SQL Server 2000 to create and use a larger memory cache area, thus reducing
physical I/O ... and physical I/O is more often then not what drags down
performance in most any database.
Chief Tenaya
"Barak Turovsky" <baraktur@.mail.ru> wrote in message
news:uslssSIHEHA.1432@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Recently i've moved some of our databases from a Windows 2000 Server with
> 512 physical memory to a newer Windows 2003 Server with 1024MB physical
> memory.
> The new server functions OK, but there is a very high usage of memory in
> comparison to the old server: the sqlservr.exe process used around 400MB
of
> memory,
> while the new one is using near 850MB after only 2 weeks (while at the
> beginning it used something like 600 MB).
> Is such a behaviour is normal and can be explained by that the new server
> has larger available amount of physical memory?
> In any case, are there any tools that helps to determine which application
> catch the largest amount of memory used by SQL?
> I think that such a large usage for relatively no so hard-working server
is
> something strange.
> Any help/tips will be highly appreciated!!!
> Thanks in advance,
> Barak
>
|||Chief Tenaya is correct and gave you some good references. You should also
take a look at 321363 INF: SQL Server Memory Usage
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=321363.
Cindy Gross, MCDBA, MCSE
http://cindygross.tripod.com
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
High Memory Usage by SQL 2000
Hi,
Recently i've moved some of our databases from a Windows 2000 Server with
512 physical memory to a newer Windows 2003 Server with 1024MB physical
memory.
The new server functions OK, but there is a very high usage of memory in
comparison to the old server: the sqlservr.exe process used around 400MB of
memory,
while the new one is using near 850MB after only 2 weeks (while at the
beginning it used something like 600 MB).
Is such a behaviour is normal and can be explained by that the new server
has larger available amount of physical memory?
In any case, are there any tools that helps to determine which application
catch the largest amount of memory used by SQL?
I think that such a large usage for relatively no so hard-working server is
something strange.
Any help/tips will be highly appreciated!!!
Thanks in advance,
Barak
Barak,
SQL Server 2000 will grab and hold on to as much memory as it needs. SQL
Server 2000, will not, by default, release memory back to the operating
system after using it. This is normal and expected behavior. The basic
reason is that Microsoft expects that SQL Server 2000 is installed as a
stand-alone application on a server. Thus not only is nothing gained by SQL
Server 2000 releasing memory back to the OS, but, in fact, performance is
hurt if SQL Server 2000 was continually requesting and releasing memory ...
the request for and release of memory is fairly obviously an activity that
requires some resources, at the very least CPU time, that could otherwise be
utilized.
Additional information is available in the SQL Server 2000 Books Online in
sections "Memory Architecture" and "Dynamically Managing Memory on Windows
NT and Windows 2000".
Chief Tenaya
"Barak Turovsky" <baraktur@.mail.ru> wrote in message
news:uslssSIHEHA.1432@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Recently i've moved some of our databases from a Windows 2000 Server with
> 512 physical memory to a newer Windows 2003 Server with 1024MB physical
> memory.
> The new server functions OK, but there is a very high usage of memory in
> comparison to the old server: the sqlservr.exe process used around 400MB
of
> memory,
> while the new one is using near 850MB after only 2 weeks (while at the
> beginning it used something like 600 MB).
> Is such a behaviour is normal and can be explained by that the new server
> has larger available amount of physical memory?
> In any case, are there any tools that helps to determine which application
> catch the largest amount of memory used by SQL?
> I think that such a large usage for relatively no so hard-working server
is
> something strange.
> Any help/tips will be highly appreciated!!!
> Thanks in advance,
> Barak
>
|||Barak,
BTW, within limits, the more memory available to SQL Server 2000, the better
one can expect performance from SQL Server 2000. Additional memory allows
SQL Server 2000 to create and use a larger memory cache area, thus reducing
physical I/O ... and physical I/O is more often then not what drags down
performance in most any database.
Chief Tenaya
"Barak Turovsky" <baraktur@.mail.ru> wrote in message
news:uslssSIHEHA.1432@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Recently i've moved some of our databases from a Windows 2000 Server with
> 512 physical memory to a newer Windows 2003 Server with 1024MB physical
> memory.
> The new server functions OK, but there is a very high usage of memory in
> comparison to the old server: the sqlservr.exe process used around 400MB
of
> memory,
> while the new one is using near 850MB after only 2 weeks (while at the
> beginning it used something like 600 MB).
> Is such a behaviour is normal and can be explained by that the new server
> has larger available amount of physical memory?
> In any case, are there any tools that helps to determine which application
> catch the largest amount of memory used by SQL?
> I think that such a large usage for relatively no so hard-working server
is
> something strange.
> Any help/tips will be highly appreciated!!!
> Thanks in advance,
> Barak
>
Recently i've moved some of our databases from a Windows 2000 Server with
512 physical memory to a newer Windows 2003 Server with 1024MB physical
memory.
The new server functions OK, but there is a very high usage of memory in
comparison to the old server: the sqlservr.exe process used around 400MB of
memory,
while the new one is using near 850MB after only 2 weeks (while at the
beginning it used something like 600 MB).
Is such a behaviour is normal and can be explained by that the new server
has larger available amount of physical memory?
In any case, are there any tools that helps to determine which application
catch the largest amount of memory used by SQL?
I think that such a large usage for relatively no so hard-working server is
something strange.
Any help/tips will be highly appreciated!!!
Thanks in advance,
Barak
Barak,
SQL Server 2000 will grab and hold on to as much memory as it needs. SQL
Server 2000, will not, by default, release memory back to the operating
system after using it. This is normal and expected behavior. The basic
reason is that Microsoft expects that SQL Server 2000 is installed as a
stand-alone application on a server. Thus not only is nothing gained by SQL
Server 2000 releasing memory back to the OS, but, in fact, performance is
hurt if SQL Server 2000 was continually requesting and releasing memory ...
the request for and release of memory is fairly obviously an activity that
requires some resources, at the very least CPU time, that could otherwise be
utilized.
Additional information is available in the SQL Server 2000 Books Online in
sections "Memory Architecture" and "Dynamically Managing Memory on Windows
NT and Windows 2000".
Chief Tenaya
"Barak Turovsky" <baraktur@.mail.ru> wrote in message
news:uslssSIHEHA.1432@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Recently i've moved some of our databases from a Windows 2000 Server with
> 512 physical memory to a newer Windows 2003 Server with 1024MB physical
> memory.
> The new server functions OK, but there is a very high usage of memory in
> comparison to the old server: the sqlservr.exe process used around 400MB
of
> memory,
> while the new one is using near 850MB after only 2 weeks (while at the
> beginning it used something like 600 MB).
> Is such a behaviour is normal and can be explained by that the new server
> has larger available amount of physical memory?
> In any case, are there any tools that helps to determine which application
> catch the largest amount of memory used by SQL?
> I think that such a large usage for relatively no so hard-working server
is
> something strange.
> Any help/tips will be highly appreciated!!!
> Thanks in advance,
> Barak
>
|||Barak,
BTW, within limits, the more memory available to SQL Server 2000, the better
one can expect performance from SQL Server 2000. Additional memory allows
SQL Server 2000 to create and use a larger memory cache area, thus reducing
physical I/O ... and physical I/O is more often then not what drags down
performance in most any database.
Chief Tenaya
"Barak Turovsky" <baraktur@.mail.ru> wrote in message
news:uslssSIHEHA.1432@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Recently i've moved some of our databases from a Windows 2000 Server with
> 512 physical memory to a newer Windows 2003 Server with 1024MB physical
> memory.
> The new server functions OK, but there is a very high usage of memory in
> comparison to the old server: the sqlservr.exe process used around 400MB
of
> memory,
> while the new one is using near 850MB after only 2 weeks (while at the
> beginning it used something like 600 MB).
> Is such a behaviour is normal and can be explained by that the new server
> has larger available amount of physical memory?
> In any case, are there any tools that helps to determine which application
> catch the largest amount of memory used by SQL?
> I think that such a large usage for relatively no so hard-working server
is
> something strange.
> Any help/tips will be highly appreciated!!!
> Thanks in advance,
> Barak
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)