When I see high pages/sec, does SQL go to the pagefile to read or write
pages that need to be flushed out of physical memory or to be retrieved into
physical memory?Yes, that is what the pages/sec counter is measuring.
What numbers are you seeing? If you average 20 pages/sec or less you
are within the design of a standard installation of sql server. If I
was seeing more than 20, I would be adding more memory after some
obvious checking (size of pagefile and its utilization: page file: %
usage) That will give you a good idea of how much benefit extra
memory will give you too
On Jan 1, 9:41=A0pm, "Hassan" <has...@.test.com> wrote:
> When I see high pages/sec, does SQL go to the pagefile to read or write
> pages that need to be flushed out of physical memory or to be retrieved in=[/vbcol
]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
> physical memory?|||It depends on how you have your memory configured. A better counter to
monitor for memory pressure is page life expectancy.
Jason Massie
Web: http://statisticsio.com
RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/statisticsio
"Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
news:%23NNZlIQTIHA.280@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> When I see high pages/sec, does SQL go to the pagefile to read or write
> pages that need to be flushed out of physical memory or to be retrieved
> into physical memory?|||I'd also veryfy whether pages/sec was caused by the SQL Server process or by
some other apps.
Linchi
"Hassan" wrote:
> When I see high pages/sec, does SQL go to the pagefile to read or write
> pages that need to be flushed out of physical memory or to be retrieved in
to
> physical memory?
>|||How do you verify that Linchi ?
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5C03FF55-90CE-4B88-9D9E-6AC3B562EB34@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> I'd also veryfy whether pages/sec was caused by the SQL Server process or
> by
> some other apps.
> Linchi
> "Hassan" wrote:
>|||You can check page faults/sec for the SQL Server process either under the
perfmon instance Process\<sql process> or using Task Manager by adding the
page faults column on the Processes tab. Now, page faults are not a hard
paging indicator for the process as Pages/sec is for the OS. That is, you
can't necessarily say that a process is causing hard paging if it has high
page faults. But page faults may give you an indication. So if you see no
other process but the SQL process incurring page faults that nicely correlat
e
with the occurence of hard paging, you have reason to suspect the hard pagin
g
si caused by the SQL process.
Linchi
"Hassan" wrote:
> How do you verify that Linchi ?
> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:5C03FF55-90CE-4B88-9D9E-6AC3B562EB34@.microsoft.com...
>sql
Showing posts with label physical. Show all posts
Showing posts with label physical. Show all posts
Friday, March 23, 2012
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
High pages/sec.. memory pressure ?
When I see high pages/sec, does SQL go to the pagefile to read or write
pages that need to be flushed out of physical memory or to be retrieved into
physical memory?Yes, that is what the pages/sec counter is measuring.
What numbers are you seeing? If you average 20 pages/sec or less you
are within the design of a standard installation of sql server. If I
was seeing more than 20, I would be adding more memory after some
obvious checking (size of pagefile and its utilization: page file: %
usage) That will give you a good idea of how much benefit extra
memory will give you too
On Jan 1, 9:41=A0pm, "Hassan" <has...@.test.com> wrote:
> When I see high pages/sec, does SQL go to the pagefile to read or write
> pages that need to be flushed out of physical memory or to be retrieved in=to
> physical memory?|||It depends on how you have your memory configured. A better counter to
monitor for memory pressure is page life expectancy.
--
Jason Massie
Web: http://statisticsio.com
RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/statisticsio
"Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
news:%23NNZlIQTIHA.280@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> When I see high pages/sec, does SQL go to the pagefile to read or write
> pages that need to be flushed out of physical memory or to be retrieved
> into physical memory?|||I'd also veryfy whether pages/sec was caused by the SQL Server process or by
some other apps.
Linchi
"Hassan" wrote:
> When I see high pages/sec, does SQL go to the pagefile to read or write
> pages that need to be flushed out of physical memory or to be retrieved into
> physical memory?
>|||How do you verify that Linchi ?
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5C03FF55-90CE-4B88-9D9E-6AC3B562EB34@.microsoft.com...
> I'd also veryfy whether pages/sec was caused by the SQL Server process or
> by
> some other apps.
> Linchi
> "Hassan" wrote:
>> When I see high pages/sec, does SQL go to the pagefile to read or write
>> pages that need to be flushed out of physical memory or to be retrieved
>> into
>> physical memory?
>>|||You can check page faults/sec for the SQL Server process either under the
perfmon instance Process\<sql process> or using Task Manager by adding the
page faults column on the Processes tab. Now, page faults are not a hard
paging indicator for the process as Pages/sec is for the OS. That is, you
can't necessarily say that a process is causing hard paging if it has high
page faults. But page faults may give you an indication. So if you see no
other process but the SQL process incurring page faults that nicely correlate
with the occurence of hard paging, you have reason to suspect the hard paging
si caused by the SQL process.
Linchi
"Hassan" wrote:
> How do you verify that Linchi ?
> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:5C03FF55-90CE-4B88-9D9E-6AC3B562EB34@.microsoft.com...
> > I'd also veryfy whether pages/sec was caused by the SQL Server process or
> > by
> > some other apps.
> >
> > Linchi
> >
> > "Hassan" wrote:
> >
> >> When I see high pages/sec, does SQL go to the pagefile to read or write
> >> pages that need to be flushed out of physical memory or to be retrieved
> >> into
> >> physical memory?
> >>
> >>
>
pages that need to be flushed out of physical memory or to be retrieved into
physical memory?Yes, that is what the pages/sec counter is measuring.
What numbers are you seeing? If you average 20 pages/sec or less you
are within the design of a standard installation of sql server. If I
was seeing more than 20, I would be adding more memory after some
obvious checking (size of pagefile and its utilization: page file: %
usage) That will give you a good idea of how much benefit extra
memory will give you too
On Jan 1, 9:41=A0pm, "Hassan" <has...@.test.com> wrote:
> When I see high pages/sec, does SQL go to the pagefile to read or write
> pages that need to be flushed out of physical memory or to be retrieved in=to
> physical memory?|||It depends on how you have your memory configured. A better counter to
monitor for memory pressure is page life expectancy.
--
Jason Massie
Web: http://statisticsio.com
RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/statisticsio
"Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
news:%23NNZlIQTIHA.280@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> When I see high pages/sec, does SQL go to the pagefile to read or write
> pages that need to be flushed out of physical memory or to be retrieved
> into physical memory?|||I'd also veryfy whether pages/sec was caused by the SQL Server process or by
some other apps.
Linchi
"Hassan" wrote:
> When I see high pages/sec, does SQL go to the pagefile to read or write
> pages that need to be flushed out of physical memory or to be retrieved into
> physical memory?
>|||How do you verify that Linchi ?
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5C03FF55-90CE-4B88-9D9E-6AC3B562EB34@.microsoft.com...
> I'd also veryfy whether pages/sec was caused by the SQL Server process or
> by
> some other apps.
> Linchi
> "Hassan" wrote:
>> When I see high pages/sec, does SQL go to the pagefile to read or write
>> pages that need to be flushed out of physical memory or to be retrieved
>> into
>> physical memory?
>>|||You can check page faults/sec for the SQL Server process either under the
perfmon instance Process\<sql process> or using Task Manager by adding the
page faults column on the Processes tab. Now, page faults are not a hard
paging indicator for the process as Pages/sec is for the OS. That is, you
can't necessarily say that a process is causing hard paging if it has high
page faults. But page faults may give you an indication. So if you see no
other process but the SQL process incurring page faults that nicely correlate
with the occurence of hard paging, you have reason to suspect the hard paging
si caused by the SQL process.
Linchi
"Hassan" wrote:
> How do you verify that Linchi ?
> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:5C03FF55-90CE-4B88-9D9E-6AC3B562EB34@.microsoft.com...
> > I'd also veryfy whether pages/sec was caused by the SQL Server process or
> > by
> > some other apps.
> >
> > Linchi
> >
> > "Hassan" wrote:
> >
> >> When I see high pages/sec, does SQL go to the pagefile to read or write
> >> pages that need to be flushed out of physical memory or to be retrieved
> >> into
> >> physical memory?
> >>
> >>
>
High pages/sec.. memory pressure ?
When I see high pages/sec, does SQL go to the pagefile to read or write
pages that need to be flushed out of physical memory or to be retrieved into
physical memory?
Yes, that is what the pages/sec counter is measuring.
What numbers are you seeing? If you average 20 pages/sec or less you
are within the design of a standard installation of sql server. If I
was seeing more than 20, I would be adding more memory after some
obvious checking (size of pagefile and its utilization: page file: %
usage) That will give you a good idea of how much benefit extra
memory will give you too
On Jan 1, 9:41Xpm, "Hassan" <has...@.test.com> wrote:
> When I see high pages/sec, does SQL go to the pagefile to read or write
> pages that need to be flushed out of physical memory or to be retrieved into
> physical memory?
|||It depends on how you have your memory configured. A better counter to
monitor for memory pressure is page life expectancy.
Jason Massie
Web: http://statisticsio.com
RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/statisticsio
"Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
news:%23NNZlIQTIHA.280@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> When I see high pages/sec, does SQL go to the pagefile to read or write
> pages that need to be flushed out of physical memory or to be retrieved
> into physical memory?
|||I'd also veryfy whether pages/sec was caused by the SQL Server process or by
some other apps.
Linchi
"Hassan" wrote:
> When I see high pages/sec, does SQL go to the pagefile to read or write
> pages that need to be flushed out of physical memory or to be retrieved into
> physical memory?
>
|||How do you verify that Linchi ?
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5C03FF55-90CE-4B88-9D9E-6AC3B562EB34@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> I'd also veryfy whether pages/sec was caused by the SQL Server process or
> by
> some other apps.
> Linchi
> "Hassan" wrote:
|||You can check page faults/sec for the SQL Server process either under the
perfmon instance Process\<sql process> or using Task Manager by adding the
page faults column on the Processes tab. Now, page faults are not a hard
paging indicator for the process as Pages/sec is for the OS. That is, you
can't necessarily say that a process is causing hard paging if it has high
page faults. But page faults may give you an indication. So if you see no
other process but the SQL process incurring page faults that nicely correlate
with the occurence of hard paging, you have reason to suspect the hard paging
si caused by the SQL process.
Linchi
"Hassan" wrote:
> How do you verify that Linchi ?
> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:5C03FF55-90CE-4B88-9D9E-6AC3B562EB34@.microsoft.com...
>
pages that need to be flushed out of physical memory or to be retrieved into
physical memory?
Yes, that is what the pages/sec counter is measuring.
What numbers are you seeing? If you average 20 pages/sec or less you
are within the design of a standard installation of sql server. If I
was seeing more than 20, I would be adding more memory after some
obvious checking (size of pagefile and its utilization: page file: %
usage) That will give you a good idea of how much benefit extra
memory will give you too
On Jan 1, 9:41Xpm, "Hassan" <has...@.test.com> wrote:
> When I see high pages/sec, does SQL go to the pagefile to read or write
> pages that need to be flushed out of physical memory or to be retrieved into
> physical memory?
|||It depends on how you have your memory configured. A better counter to
monitor for memory pressure is page life expectancy.
Jason Massie
Web: http://statisticsio.com
RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/statisticsio
"Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
news:%23NNZlIQTIHA.280@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> When I see high pages/sec, does SQL go to the pagefile to read or write
> pages that need to be flushed out of physical memory or to be retrieved
> into physical memory?
|||I'd also veryfy whether pages/sec was caused by the SQL Server process or by
some other apps.
Linchi
"Hassan" wrote:
> When I see high pages/sec, does SQL go to the pagefile to read or write
> pages that need to be flushed out of physical memory or to be retrieved into
> physical memory?
>
|||How do you verify that Linchi ?
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5C03FF55-90CE-4B88-9D9E-6AC3B562EB34@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> I'd also veryfy whether pages/sec was caused by the SQL Server process or
> by
> some other apps.
> Linchi
> "Hassan" wrote:
|||You can check page faults/sec for the SQL Server process either under the
perfmon instance Process\<sql process> or using Task Manager by adding the
page faults column on the Processes tab. Now, page faults are not a hard
paging indicator for the process as Pages/sec is for the OS. That is, you
can't necessarily say that a process is causing hard paging if it has high
page faults. But page faults may give you an indication. So if you see no
other process but the SQL process incurring page faults that nicely correlate
with the occurence of hard paging, you have reason to suspect the hard paging
si caused by the SQL process.
Linchi
"Hassan" wrote:
> How do you verify that Linchi ?
> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:5C03FF55-90CE-4B88-9D9E-6AC3B562EB34@.microsoft.com...
>
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)