We are running the June CTP.
When some users go to htttp://theserver/Reports, all they see is the
word 'Home' and a line across the page.
This happens even though I have added these users as both
Administrators and Users.
I imagine that this has something to do with the domain, but I don't
see what arrangement would allow them to get to a partially completed
page.
Any ideas?
JimMake sure the RS services are running under a domain log in and that the
login has permissions on the Tempfiles directory under ths MSSQL.3
directory.
--
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
<jhcorey@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125062702.187423.141040@.g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> We are running the June CTP.
> When some users go to htttp://theserver/Reports, all they see is the
> word 'Home' and a line across the page.
> This happens even though I have added these users as both
> Administrators and Users.
> I imagine that this has something to do with the domain, but I don't
> see what arrangement would allow them to get to a partially completed
> page.
> Any ideas?
> Jim
>|||The services are running under a login that is an admin in the domain,
as well as an admin on the machine.
We notice that there is a user group on the machine called.
SQLServer2005ReportServerUser$MSSQLServer. Users that we've added to
this can use RS normally. But as I noted, users that we've added from
the web site cannot. These are all users in the same domain.|||My guess here is that they have not been setup in a role. The windows groups
are for validation of who they are, not what they can do. You need to assign
users or groups to a role (in report manager). Read up in books online about
roles. What I do is have a local group to that local group I add domain
groups and invidual users. I then assign the local group to the browser
role.
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
<jhcorey@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125330865.896229.33860@.f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> The services are running under a login that is an admin in the domain,
> as well as an admin on the machine.
> We notice that there is a user group on the machine called.
> SQLServer2005ReportServerUser$MSSQLServer. Users that we've added to
> this can use RS normally. But as I noted, users that we've added from
> the web site cannot. These are all users in the same domain.
>|||Ah yes, it was simple of course once one knew where to look -- in the
properties for the home page.
I was thinking that System security would take care of everything.
Showing posts with label running. Show all posts
Showing posts with label running. Show all posts
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Home Network w/ 2 SQLServers: 1-way problem
I have a WinXP Pro home network which is behind a firewall. Within
this network I have 2 computers running SQLServer 2000: my desktop and
my laptop. Both instances are configured identically and use Windows
authentication. I use Enterprise Manager.
- My laptop can "see" the desktop's instance; i.e., I'm able to create
a SQLServer Registration entry and browse the desktop's databases
- My desktop can NOT "see" the laptop's instance. When I try to create
a SQLServer Registration, I receive "SQL Server does not exist or
access denied..."
I've tried registering via the laptop's computer name, and I've tried
registering via the laptop's local IP address.
My firewall is not allowing access to port 1433 for either computer.
Both computers can see each other through file/printer sharing.
SQLServer seems to be the only case where there is a "blockage".
Any help is appreciated...
-JeffOne other note -- both machines can ping each other by IP and by name.
Jeff wrote:
> I have a WinXP Pro home network which is behind a firewall. Within
> this network I have 2 computers running SQLServer 2000: my desktop
and
> my laptop. Both instances are configured identically and use Windows
> authentication. I use Enterprise Manager.
> - My laptop can "see" the desktop's instance; i.e., I'm able to
create
> a SQLServer Registration entry and browse the desktop's databases
> - My desktop can NOT "see" the laptop's instance. When I try to
create
> a SQLServer Registration, I receive "SQL Server does not exist or
> access denied..."
> I've tried registering via the laptop's computer name, and I've tried
> registering via the laptop's local IP address.
> My firewall is not allowing access to port 1433 for either computer.
> Both computers can see each other through file/printer sharing.
> SQLServer seems to be the only case where there is a "blockage".
> Any help is appreciated...
> -Jeff|||Jeff wrote:
> I have a WinXP Pro home network which is behind a firewall. Within
> this network I have 2 computers running SQLServer 2000: my desktop
> and my laptop. Both instances are configured identically and use
> Windows authentication. I use Enterprise Manager.
>
If you're blocking 1433 on both PCs, how are you connecting to the
desktop from the laptop? Named Pipes? Try using the same network
protocol to connect the other way around.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||Would the firewall blockage apply internally? I thought the firewall
would only prevent outside access? In other words, I didn't think that
my firewall would prevent internal machines from communicating?
Anyhow, both Named Pipes and TCP/IP are enabled.
The Server Network Utility and Client Network Utility settings are
identical on both machines.
> If you're blocking 1433 on both PCs, how are you connecting to the
> desktop from the laptop? Named Pipes? Try using the same network
> protocol to connect the other way around.
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com|||Jeff wrote:
> Would the firewall blockage apply internally? I thought the firewall
> would only prevent outside access? In other words, I didn't think
> that my firewall would prevent internal machines from communicating?
> Anyhow, both Named Pipes and TCP/IP are enabled.
> The Server Network Utility and Client Network Utility settings are
> identical on both machines.
Turn off any firewalls and see what happens.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||Is your Firewall also acting as your LAN router? If so, it is probably
blocking your internal traffic as well. Consider putting your Firewall in
front of a real LAN router, that's how it is usually configured. If so,
then that configuration would behave as you suspect, blocking only traffic
onto/out of the router, but not packets routed between back end hosts.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
news:%23mN$uleHFHA.3196@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Jeff wrote:
> Would the firewall blockage apply internally? I thought the firewall
> would only prevent outside access? In other words, I didn't think
> that my firewall would prevent internal machines from communicating?
> Anyhow, both Named Pipes and TCP/IP are enabled.
> The Server Network Utility and Client Network Utility settings are
> identical on both machines.
Turn off any firewalls and see what happens.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.comsql
this network I have 2 computers running SQLServer 2000: my desktop and
my laptop. Both instances are configured identically and use Windows
authentication. I use Enterprise Manager.
- My laptop can "see" the desktop's instance; i.e., I'm able to create
a SQLServer Registration entry and browse the desktop's databases
- My desktop can NOT "see" the laptop's instance. When I try to create
a SQLServer Registration, I receive "SQL Server does not exist or
access denied..."
I've tried registering via the laptop's computer name, and I've tried
registering via the laptop's local IP address.
My firewall is not allowing access to port 1433 for either computer.
Both computers can see each other through file/printer sharing.
SQLServer seems to be the only case where there is a "blockage".
Any help is appreciated...
-JeffOne other note -- both machines can ping each other by IP and by name.
Jeff wrote:
> I have a WinXP Pro home network which is behind a firewall. Within
> this network I have 2 computers running SQLServer 2000: my desktop
and
> my laptop. Both instances are configured identically and use Windows
> authentication. I use Enterprise Manager.
> - My laptop can "see" the desktop's instance; i.e., I'm able to
create
> a SQLServer Registration entry and browse the desktop's databases
> - My desktop can NOT "see" the laptop's instance. When I try to
create
> a SQLServer Registration, I receive "SQL Server does not exist or
> access denied..."
> I've tried registering via the laptop's computer name, and I've tried
> registering via the laptop's local IP address.
> My firewall is not allowing access to port 1433 for either computer.
> Both computers can see each other through file/printer sharing.
> SQLServer seems to be the only case where there is a "blockage".
> Any help is appreciated...
> -Jeff|||Jeff wrote:
> I have a WinXP Pro home network which is behind a firewall. Within
> this network I have 2 computers running SQLServer 2000: my desktop
> and my laptop. Both instances are configured identically and use
> Windows authentication. I use Enterprise Manager.
>
If you're blocking 1433 on both PCs, how are you connecting to the
desktop from the laptop? Named Pipes? Try using the same network
protocol to connect the other way around.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||Would the firewall blockage apply internally? I thought the firewall
would only prevent outside access? In other words, I didn't think that
my firewall would prevent internal machines from communicating?
Anyhow, both Named Pipes and TCP/IP are enabled.
The Server Network Utility and Client Network Utility settings are
identical on both machines.
> If you're blocking 1433 on both PCs, how are you connecting to the
> desktop from the laptop? Named Pipes? Try using the same network
> protocol to connect the other way around.
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com|||Jeff wrote:
> Would the firewall blockage apply internally? I thought the firewall
> would only prevent outside access? In other words, I didn't think
> that my firewall would prevent internal machines from communicating?
> Anyhow, both Named Pipes and TCP/IP are enabled.
> The Server Network Utility and Client Network Utility settings are
> identical on both machines.
Turn off any firewalls and see what happens.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||Is your Firewall also acting as your LAN router? If so, it is probably
blocking your internal traffic as well. Consider putting your Firewall in
front of a real LAN router, that's how it is usually configured. If so,
then that configuration would behave as you suspect, blocking only traffic
onto/out of the router, but not packets routed between back end hosts.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
news:%23mN$uleHFHA.3196@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Jeff wrote:
> Would the firewall blockage apply internally? I thought the firewall
> would only prevent outside access? In other words, I didn't think
> that my firewall would prevent internal machines from communicating?
> Anyhow, both Named Pipes and TCP/IP are enabled.
> The Server Network Utility and Client Network Utility settings are
> identical on both machines.
Turn off any firewalls and see what happens.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.comsql
Home Network w/ 2 SQLServers: 1-way problem
I have a WinXP Pro home network which is behind a firewall. Within
this network I have 2 computers running SQLServer 2000: my desktop and
my laptop. Both instances are configured identically and use Windows
authentication. I use Enterprise Manager.
- My laptop can "see" the desktop's instance; i.e., I'm able to create
a SQLServer Registration entry and browse the desktop's databases
- My desktop can NOT "see" the laptop's instance. When I try to create
a SQLServer Registration, I receive "SQL Server does not exist or
access denied..."
I've tried registering via the laptop's computer name, and I've tried
registering via the laptop's local IP address.
My firewall is not allowing access to port 1433 for either computer.
Both computers can see each other through file/printer sharing.
SQLServer seems to be the only case where there is a "blockage".
Any help is appreciated...
-Jeff
One other note -- both machines can ping each other by IP and by name.
Jeff wrote:
> I have a WinXP Pro home network which is behind a firewall. Within
> this network I have 2 computers running SQLServer 2000: my desktop
and
> my laptop. Both instances are configured identically and use Windows
> authentication. I use Enterprise Manager.
> - My laptop can "see" the desktop's instance; i.e., I'm able to
create
> a SQLServer Registration entry and browse the desktop's databases
> - My desktop can NOT "see" the laptop's instance. When I try to
create
> a SQLServer Registration, I receive "SQL Server does not exist or
> access denied..."
> I've tried registering via the laptop's computer name, and I've tried
> registering via the laptop's local IP address.
> My firewall is not allowing access to port 1433 for either computer.
> Both computers can see each other through file/printer sharing.
> SQLServer seems to be the only case where there is a "blockage".
> Any help is appreciated...
> -Jeff
|||Jeff wrote:
> I have a WinXP Pro home network which is behind a firewall. Within
> this network I have 2 computers running SQLServer 2000: my desktop
> and my laptop. Both instances are configured identically and use
> Windows authentication. I use Enterprise Manager.
>
If you're blocking 1433 on both PCs, how are you connecting to the
desktop from the laptop? Named Pipes? Try using the same network
protocol to connect the other way around.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com
|||Would the firewall blockage apply internally? I thought the firewall
would only prevent outside access? In other words, I didn't think that
my firewall would prevent internal machines from communicating?
Anyhow, both Named Pipes and TCP/IP are enabled.
The Server Network Utility and Client Network Utility settings are
identical on both machines.
> If you're blocking 1433 on both PCs, how are you connecting to the
> desktop from the laptop? Named Pipes? Try using the same network
> protocol to connect the other way around.
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com
|||Jeff wrote:
> Would the firewall blockage apply internally? I thought the firewall
> would only prevent outside access? In other words, I didn't think
> that my firewall would prevent internal machines from communicating?
> Anyhow, both Named Pipes and TCP/IP are enabled.
> The Server Network Utility and Client Network Utility settings are
> identical on both machines.
Turn off any firewalls and see what happens.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com
|||Is your Firewall also acting as your LAN router? If so, it is probably
blocking your internal traffic as well. Consider putting your Firewall in
front of a real LAN router, that's how it is usually configured. If so,
then that configuration would behave as you suspect, blocking only traffic
onto/out of the router, but not packets routed between back end hosts.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
news:%23mN$uleHFHA.3196@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Jeff wrote:
> Would the firewall blockage apply internally? I thought the firewall
> would only prevent outside access? In other words, I didn't think
> that my firewall would prevent internal machines from communicating?
> Anyhow, both Named Pipes and TCP/IP are enabled.
> The Server Network Utility and Client Network Utility settings are
> identical on both machines.
Turn off any firewalls and see what happens.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com
this network I have 2 computers running SQLServer 2000: my desktop and
my laptop. Both instances are configured identically and use Windows
authentication. I use Enterprise Manager.
- My laptop can "see" the desktop's instance; i.e., I'm able to create
a SQLServer Registration entry and browse the desktop's databases
- My desktop can NOT "see" the laptop's instance. When I try to create
a SQLServer Registration, I receive "SQL Server does not exist or
access denied..."
I've tried registering via the laptop's computer name, and I've tried
registering via the laptop's local IP address.
My firewall is not allowing access to port 1433 for either computer.
Both computers can see each other through file/printer sharing.
SQLServer seems to be the only case where there is a "blockage".
Any help is appreciated...
-Jeff
One other note -- both machines can ping each other by IP and by name.
Jeff wrote:
> I have a WinXP Pro home network which is behind a firewall. Within
> this network I have 2 computers running SQLServer 2000: my desktop
and
> my laptop. Both instances are configured identically and use Windows
> authentication. I use Enterprise Manager.
> - My laptop can "see" the desktop's instance; i.e., I'm able to
create
> a SQLServer Registration entry and browse the desktop's databases
> - My desktop can NOT "see" the laptop's instance. When I try to
create
> a SQLServer Registration, I receive "SQL Server does not exist or
> access denied..."
> I've tried registering via the laptop's computer name, and I've tried
> registering via the laptop's local IP address.
> My firewall is not allowing access to port 1433 for either computer.
> Both computers can see each other through file/printer sharing.
> SQLServer seems to be the only case where there is a "blockage".
> Any help is appreciated...
> -Jeff
|||Jeff wrote:
> I have a WinXP Pro home network which is behind a firewall. Within
> this network I have 2 computers running SQLServer 2000: my desktop
> and my laptop. Both instances are configured identically and use
> Windows authentication. I use Enterprise Manager.
>
If you're blocking 1433 on both PCs, how are you connecting to the
desktop from the laptop? Named Pipes? Try using the same network
protocol to connect the other way around.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com
|||Would the firewall blockage apply internally? I thought the firewall
would only prevent outside access? In other words, I didn't think that
my firewall would prevent internal machines from communicating?
Anyhow, both Named Pipes and TCP/IP are enabled.
The Server Network Utility and Client Network Utility settings are
identical on both machines.
> If you're blocking 1433 on both PCs, how are you connecting to the
> desktop from the laptop? Named Pipes? Try using the same network
> protocol to connect the other way around.
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com
|||Jeff wrote:
> Would the firewall blockage apply internally? I thought the firewall
> would only prevent outside access? In other words, I didn't think
> that my firewall would prevent internal machines from communicating?
> Anyhow, both Named Pipes and TCP/IP are enabled.
> The Server Network Utility and Client Network Utility settings are
> identical on both machines.
Turn off any firewalls and see what happens.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com
|||Is your Firewall also acting as your LAN router? If so, it is probably
blocking your internal traffic as well. Consider putting your Firewall in
front of a real LAN router, that's how it is usually configured. If so,
then that configuration would behave as you suspect, blocking only traffic
onto/out of the router, but not packets routed between back end hosts.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
news:%23mN$uleHFHA.3196@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Jeff wrote:
> Would the firewall blockage apply internally? I thought the firewall
> would only prevent outside access? In other words, I didn't think
> that my firewall would prevent internal machines from communicating?
> Anyhow, both Named Pipes and TCP/IP are enabled.
> The Server Network Utility and Client Network Utility settings are
> identical on both machines.
Turn off any firewalls and see what happens.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com
Home Network w/ 2 SQLServers: 1-way problem
I have a WinXP Pro home network which is behind a firewall. Within
this network I have 2 computers running SQLServer 2000: my desktop and
my laptop. Both instances are configured identically and use Windows
authentication. I use Enterprise Manager.
- My laptop can "see" the desktop's instance; i.e., I'm able to create
a SQLServer Registration entry and browse the desktop's databases
- My desktop can NOT "see" the laptop's instance. When I try to create
a SQLServer Registration, I receive "SQL Server does not exist or
access denied..."
I've tried registering via the laptop's computer name, and I've tried
registering via the laptop's local IP address.
My firewall is not allowing access to port 1433 for either computer.
Both computers can see each other through file/printer sharing.
SQLServer seems to be the only case where there is a "blockage".
Any help is appreciated...
-JeffOne other note -- both machines can ping each other by IP and by name.
Jeff wrote:
> I have a WinXP Pro home network which is behind a firewall. Within
> this network I have 2 computers running SQLServer 2000: my desktop
and
> my laptop. Both instances are configured identically and use Windows
> authentication. I use Enterprise Manager.
> - My laptop can "see" the desktop's instance; i.e., I'm able to
create
> a SQLServer Registration entry and browse the desktop's databases
> - My desktop can NOT "see" the laptop's instance. When I try to
create
> a SQLServer Registration, I receive "SQL Server does not exist or
> access denied..."
> I've tried registering via the laptop's computer name, and I've tried
> registering via the laptop's local IP address.
> My firewall is not allowing access to port 1433 for either computer.
> Both computers can see each other through file/printer sharing.
> SQLServer seems to be the only case where there is a "blockage".
> Any help is appreciated...
> -Jeff|||Jeff wrote:
> I have a WinXP Pro home network which is behind a firewall. Within
> this network I have 2 computers running SQLServer 2000: my desktop
> and my laptop. Both instances are configured identically and use
> Windows authentication. I use Enterprise Manager.
>
If you're blocking 1433 on both PCs, how are you connecting to the
desktop from the laptop? Named Pipes? Try using the same network
protocol to connect the other way around.
--
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||Would the firewall blockage apply internally? I thought the firewall
would only prevent outside access? In other words, I didn't think that
my firewall would prevent internal machines from communicating?
Anyhow, both Named Pipes and TCP/IP are enabled.
The Server Network Utility and Client Network Utility settings are
identical on both machines.
> If you're blocking 1433 on both PCs, how are you connecting to the
> desktop from the laptop? Named Pipes? Try using the same network
> protocol to connect the other way around.
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com|||Jeff wrote:
> Would the firewall blockage apply internally? I thought the firewall
> would only prevent outside access? In other words, I didn't think
> that my firewall would prevent internal machines from communicating?
> Anyhow, both Named Pipes and TCP/IP are enabled.
> The Server Network Utility and Client Network Utility settings are
> identical on both machines.
Turn off any firewalls and see what happens.
--
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||Is your Firewall also acting as your LAN router? If so, it is probably
blocking your internal traffic as well. Consider putting your Firewall in
front of a real LAN router, that's how it is usually configured. If so,
then that configuration would behave as you suspect, blocking only traffic
onto/out of the router, but not packets routed between back end hosts.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
news:%23mN$uleHFHA.3196@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Jeff wrote:
> Would the firewall blockage apply internally? I thought the firewall
> would only prevent outside access? In other words, I didn't think
> that my firewall would prevent internal machines from communicating?
> Anyhow, both Named Pipes and TCP/IP are enabled.
> The Server Network Utility and Client Network Utility settings are
> identical on both machines.
Turn off any firewalls and see what happens.
--
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com
this network I have 2 computers running SQLServer 2000: my desktop and
my laptop. Both instances are configured identically and use Windows
authentication. I use Enterprise Manager.
- My laptop can "see" the desktop's instance; i.e., I'm able to create
a SQLServer Registration entry and browse the desktop's databases
- My desktop can NOT "see" the laptop's instance. When I try to create
a SQLServer Registration, I receive "SQL Server does not exist or
access denied..."
I've tried registering via the laptop's computer name, and I've tried
registering via the laptop's local IP address.
My firewall is not allowing access to port 1433 for either computer.
Both computers can see each other through file/printer sharing.
SQLServer seems to be the only case where there is a "blockage".
Any help is appreciated...
-JeffOne other note -- both machines can ping each other by IP and by name.
Jeff wrote:
> I have a WinXP Pro home network which is behind a firewall. Within
> this network I have 2 computers running SQLServer 2000: my desktop
and
> my laptop. Both instances are configured identically and use Windows
> authentication. I use Enterprise Manager.
> - My laptop can "see" the desktop's instance; i.e., I'm able to
create
> a SQLServer Registration entry and browse the desktop's databases
> - My desktop can NOT "see" the laptop's instance. When I try to
create
> a SQLServer Registration, I receive "SQL Server does not exist or
> access denied..."
> I've tried registering via the laptop's computer name, and I've tried
> registering via the laptop's local IP address.
> My firewall is not allowing access to port 1433 for either computer.
> Both computers can see each other through file/printer sharing.
> SQLServer seems to be the only case where there is a "blockage".
> Any help is appreciated...
> -Jeff|||Jeff wrote:
> I have a WinXP Pro home network which is behind a firewall. Within
> this network I have 2 computers running SQLServer 2000: my desktop
> and my laptop. Both instances are configured identically and use
> Windows authentication. I use Enterprise Manager.
>
If you're blocking 1433 on both PCs, how are you connecting to the
desktop from the laptop? Named Pipes? Try using the same network
protocol to connect the other way around.
--
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||Would the firewall blockage apply internally? I thought the firewall
would only prevent outside access? In other words, I didn't think that
my firewall would prevent internal machines from communicating?
Anyhow, both Named Pipes and TCP/IP are enabled.
The Server Network Utility and Client Network Utility settings are
identical on both machines.
> If you're blocking 1433 on both PCs, how are you connecting to the
> desktop from the laptop? Named Pipes? Try using the same network
> protocol to connect the other way around.
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com|||Jeff wrote:
> Would the firewall blockage apply internally? I thought the firewall
> would only prevent outside access? In other words, I didn't think
> that my firewall would prevent internal machines from communicating?
> Anyhow, both Named Pipes and TCP/IP are enabled.
> The Server Network Utility and Client Network Utility settings are
> identical on both machines.
Turn off any firewalls and see what happens.
--
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||Is your Firewall also acting as your LAN router? If so, it is probably
blocking your internal traffic as well. Consider putting your Firewall in
front of a real LAN router, that's how it is usually configured. If so,
then that configuration would behave as you suspect, blocking only traffic
onto/out of the router, but not packets routed between back end hosts.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
news:%23mN$uleHFHA.3196@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Jeff wrote:
> Would the firewall blockage apply internally? I thought the firewall
> would only prevent outside access? In other words, I didn't think
> that my firewall would prevent internal machines from communicating?
> Anyhow, both Named Pipes and TCP/IP are enabled.
> The Server Network Utility and Client Network Utility settings are
> identical on both machines.
Turn off any firewalls and see what happens.
--
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com
Friday, March 23, 2012
High paging but plenty of memory available
I have a Win2003/SQL2000 SP4 development server with 4GB of memory. It has
been built with two instances of SQL Server and is also running Virtual
Server. The two SQL instances have been configured to take as much memory as
they want.
I've restored a database from our live system which is also Win2003/SQL2000
SP4 but only has 3GB of memor. The problem is that a query which takes less
than 5 mins on the live system takes over 1 hour on the dev box.
I've checked various counters while this query is running and the one
counter which stands out is "Memory: Page Reads/Sec" which is consistently
above 100 on the dev box but remains at 0 on the live server. However, on the
dev server, the "Memory: Available MBytes" = 2842 and the
"MSSQL$INST01:Target SQL Memory (KB)" and "MSSQL$INST01:Total Server memory
(KB)" are both 2724520 which would make me think there is plenty of memory
and no need for excesive paging.
On the live server, "Memory: Available MBytes" = 104 and the
"MSSQL$INST01:Target SQL Memory (KB)" =874128 while "MSSQL$INST01:Total
Server memory (KB)" = 865384.
DBA72 wrote:
> I have a Win2003/SQL2000 SP4 development server with 4GB of memory.
> It has been built with two instances of SQL Server and is also
> running Virtual Server. The two SQL instances have been configured to
> take as much memory as they want.
> I've restored a database from our live system which is also
> Win2003/SQL2000 SP4 but only has 3GB of memor. The problem is that a
> query which takes less than 5 mins on the live system takes over 1
> hour on the dev box.
> I've checked various counters while this query is running and the one
> counter which stands out is "Memory: Page Reads/Sec" which is
> consistently above 100 on the dev box but remains at 0 on the live
> server. However, on the dev server, the "Memory: Available MBytes" =
> 2842 and the "MSSQL$INST01:Target SQL Memory (KB)" and
> "MSSQL$INST01:Total Server memory (KB)" are both 2724520 which would
> make me think there is plenty of memory and no need for excesive
> paging.
> On the live server, "Memory: Available MBytes" = 104 and the
> "MSSQL$INST01:Target SQL Memory (KB)" =874128 while
> "MSSQL$INST01:Total Server memory (KB)" = 865384.
When running multiple instances it is recommended to specify a maximum
amount of memory for each instance so they don't consume too much. You
didn't mention what edition of SQL Server and the OS you are running on
the dev box. Assuming standard edition, you have 4GB for the OS, two
instances, and virtual server. I don't know how much memory Virtual
Server is using. Once you figure out how much it needs and how much the
OS needs (1GB would be a good start), you can split the remainder
between the two SQL instances.
It's very possible you have a lot of contention for memory on the box.
David Gugick
Quest Software
www.imceda.com
www.quest.com
been built with two instances of SQL Server and is also running Virtual
Server. The two SQL instances have been configured to take as much memory as
they want.
I've restored a database from our live system which is also Win2003/SQL2000
SP4 but only has 3GB of memor. The problem is that a query which takes less
than 5 mins on the live system takes over 1 hour on the dev box.
I've checked various counters while this query is running and the one
counter which stands out is "Memory: Page Reads/Sec" which is consistently
above 100 on the dev box but remains at 0 on the live server. However, on the
dev server, the "Memory: Available MBytes" = 2842 and the
"MSSQL$INST01:Target SQL Memory (KB)" and "MSSQL$INST01:Total Server memory
(KB)" are both 2724520 which would make me think there is plenty of memory
and no need for excesive paging.
On the live server, "Memory: Available MBytes" = 104 and the
"MSSQL$INST01:Target SQL Memory (KB)" =874128 while "MSSQL$INST01:Total
Server memory (KB)" = 865384.
DBA72 wrote:
> I have a Win2003/SQL2000 SP4 development server with 4GB of memory.
> It has been built with two instances of SQL Server and is also
> running Virtual Server. The two SQL instances have been configured to
> take as much memory as they want.
> I've restored a database from our live system which is also
> Win2003/SQL2000 SP4 but only has 3GB of memor. The problem is that a
> query which takes less than 5 mins on the live system takes over 1
> hour on the dev box.
> I've checked various counters while this query is running and the one
> counter which stands out is "Memory: Page Reads/Sec" which is
> consistently above 100 on the dev box but remains at 0 on the live
> server. However, on the dev server, the "Memory: Available MBytes" =
> 2842 and the "MSSQL$INST01:Target SQL Memory (KB)" and
> "MSSQL$INST01:Total Server memory (KB)" are both 2724520 which would
> make me think there is plenty of memory and no need for excesive
> paging.
> On the live server, "Memory: Available MBytes" = 104 and the
> "MSSQL$INST01:Target SQL Memory (KB)" =874128 while
> "MSSQL$INST01:Total Server memory (KB)" = 865384.
When running multiple instances it is recommended to specify a maximum
amount of memory for each instance so they don't consume too much. You
didn't mention what edition of SQL Server and the OS you are running on
the dev box. Assuming standard edition, you have 4GB for the OS, two
instances, and virtual server. I don't know how much memory Virtual
Server is using. Once you figure out how much it needs and how much the
OS needs (1GB would be a good start), you can split the remainder
between the two SQL instances.
It's very possible you have a lot of contention for memory on the box.
David Gugick
Quest Software
www.imceda.com
www.quest.com
High paging but plenty of memory available
I have a Win2003/SQL2000 SP4 development server with 4GB of memory. It has
been built with two instances of SQL Server and is also running Virtual
Server. The two SQL instances have been configured to take as much memory as
they want.
I've restored a database from our live system which is also Win2003/SQL2000
SP4 but only has 3GB of memor. The problem is that a query which takes less
than 5 mins on the live system takes over 1 hour on the dev box.
I've checked various counters while this query is running and the one
counter which stands out is "Memory: Page Reads/Sec" which is consistently
above 100 on the dev box but remains at 0 on the live server. However, on the
dev server, the "Memory: Available MBytes" = 2842 and the
"MSSQL$INST01:Target SQL Memory (KB)" and "MSSQL$INST01:Total Server memory
(KB)" are both 2724520 which would make me think there is plenty of memory
and no need for excesive paging.
On the live server, "Memory: Available MBytes" = 104 and the
"MSSQL$INST01:Target SQL Memory (KB)" =874128 while "MSSQL$INST01:Total
Server memory (KB)" = 865384.DBA72 wrote:
> I have a Win2003/SQL2000 SP4 development server with 4GB of memory.
> It has been built with two instances of SQL Server and is also
> running Virtual Server. The two SQL instances have been configured to
> take as much memory as they want.
> I've restored a database from our live system which is also
> Win2003/SQL2000 SP4 but only has 3GB of memor. The problem is that a
> query which takes less than 5 mins on the live system takes over 1
> hour on the dev box.
> I've checked various counters while this query is running and the one
> counter which stands out is "Memory: Page Reads/Sec" which is
> consistently above 100 on the dev box but remains at 0 on the live
> server. However, on the dev server, the "Memory: Available MBytes" => 2842 and the "MSSQL$INST01:Target SQL Memory (KB)" and
> "MSSQL$INST01:Total Server memory (KB)" are both 2724520 which would
> make me think there is plenty of memory and no need for excesive
> paging.
> On the live server, "Memory: Available MBytes" = 104 and the
> "MSSQL$INST01:Target SQL Memory (KB)" =874128 while
> "MSSQL$INST01:Total Server memory (KB)" = 865384.
When running multiple instances it is recommended to specify a maximum
amount of memory for each instance so they don't consume too much. You
didn't mention what edition of SQL Server and the OS you are running on
the dev box. Assuming standard edition, you have 4GB for the OS, two
instances, and virtual server. I don't know how much memory Virtual
Server is using. Once you figure out how much it needs and how much the
OS needs (1GB would be a good start), you can split the remainder
between the two SQL instances.
It's very possible you have a lot of contention for memory on the box.
David Gugick
Quest Software
www.imceda.com
www.quest.com
been built with two instances of SQL Server and is also running Virtual
Server. The two SQL instances have been configured to take as much memory as
they want.
I've restored a database from our live system which is also Win2003/SQL2000
SP4 but only has 3GB of memor. The problem is that a query which takes less
than 5 mins on the live system takes over 1 hour on the dev box.
I've checked various counters while this query is running and the one
counter which stands out is "Memory: Page Reads/Sec" which is consistently
above 100 on the dev box but remains at 0 on the live server. However, on the
dev server, the "Memory: Available MBytes" = 2842 and the
"MSSQL$INST01:Target SQL Memory (KB)" and "MSSQL$INST01:Total Server memory
(KB)" are both 2724520 which would make me think there is plenty of memory
and no need for excesive paging.
On the live server, "Memory: Available MBytes" = 104 and the
"MSSQL$INST01:Target SQL Memory (KB)" =874128 while "MSSQL$INST01:Total
Server memory (KB)" = 865384.DBA72 wrote:
> I have a Win2003/SQL2000 SP4 development server with 4GB of memory.
> It has been built with two instances of SQL Server and is also
> running Virtual Server. The two SQL instances have been configured to
> take as much memory as they want.
> I've restored a database from our live system which is also
> Win2003/SQL2000 SP4 but only has 3GB of memor. The problem is that a
> query which takes less than 5 mins on the live system takes over 1
> hour on the dev box.
> I've checked various counters while this query is running and the one
> counter which stands out is "Memory: Page Reads/Sec" which is
> consistently above 100 on the dev box but remains at 0 on the live
> server. However, on the dev server, the "Memory: Available MBytes" => 2842 and the "MSSQL$INST01:Target SQL Memory (KB)" and
> "MSSQL$INST01:Total Server memory (KB)" are both 2724520 which would
> make me think there is plenty of memory and no need for excesive
> paging.
> On the live server, "Memory: Available MBytes" = 104 and the
> "MSSQL$INST01:Target SQL Memory (KB)" =874128 while
> "MSSQL$INST01:Total Server memory (KB)" = 865384.
When running multiple instances it is recommended to specify a maximum
amount of memory for each instance so they don't consume too much. You
didn't mention what edition of SQL Server and the OS you are running on
the dev box. Assuming standard edition, you have 4GB for the OS, two
instances, and virtual server. I don't know how much memory Virtual
Server is using. Once you figure out how much it needs and how much the
OS needs (1GB would be a good start), you can split the remainder
between the two SQL instances.
It's very possible you have a lot of contention for memory on the box.
David Gugick
Quest Software
www.imceda.com
www.quest.com
High paging but plenty of memory available
I have a Win2003/SQL2000 SP4 development server with 4GB of memory. It has
been built with two instances of SQL Server and is also running Virtual
Server. The two SQL instances have been configured to take as much memory as
they want.
I've restored a database from our live system which is also Win2003/SQL2000
SP4 but only has 3GB of memor. The problem is that a query which takes less
than 5 mins on the live system takes over 1 hour on the dev box.
I've checked various counters while this query is running and the one
counter which stands out is "Memory: Page Reads/Sec" which is consistently
above 100 on the dev box but remains at 0 on the live server. However, on th
e
dev server, the "Memory: Available MBytes" = 2842 and the
"MSSQL$INST01:Target SQL Memory (KB)" and "MSSQL$INST01:Total Server memory
(KB)" are both 2724520 which would make me think there is plenty of memory
and no need for excesive paging.
On the live server, "Memory: Available MBytes" = 104 and the
"MSSQL$INST01:Target SQL Memory (KB)" =874128 while "MSSQL$INST01:Total
Server memory (KB)" = 865384.DBA72 wrote:
> I have a Win2003/SQL2000 SP4 development server with 4GB of memory.
> It has been built with two instances of SQL Server and is also
> running Virtual Server. The two SQL instances have been configured to
> take as much memory as they want.
> I've restored a database from our live system which is also
> Win2003/SQL2000 SP4 but only has 3GB of memor. The problem is that a
> query which takes less than 5 mins on the live system takes over 1
> hour on the dev box.
> I've checked various counters while this query is running and the one
> counter which stands out is "Memory: Page Reads/Sec" which is
> consistently above 100 on the dev box but remains at 0 on the live
> server. However, on the dev server, the "Memory: Available MBytes" =
> 2842 and the "MSSQL$INST01:Target SQL Memory (KB)" and
> "MSSQL$INST01:Total Server memory (KB)" are both 2724520 which would
> make me think there is plenty of memory and no need for excesive
> paging.
> On the live server, "Memory: Available MBytes" = 104 and the
> "MSSQL$INST01:Target SQL Memory (KB)" =874128 while
> "MSSQL$INST01:Total Server memory (KB)" = 865384.
When running multiple instances it is recommended to specify a maximum
amount of memory for each instance so they don't consume too much. You
didn't mention what edition of SQL Server and the OS you are running on
the dev box. Assuming standard edition, you have 4GB for the OS, two
instances, and virtual server. I don't know how much memory Virtual
Server is using. Once you figure out how much it needs and how much the
OS needs (1GB would be a good start), you can split the remainder
between the two SQL instances.
It's very possible you have a lot of contention for memory on the box.
David Gugick
Quest Software
www.imceda.com
www.quest.com
been built with two instances of SQL Server and is also running Virtual
Server. The two SQL instances have been configured to take as much memory as
they want.
I've restored a database from our live system which is also Win2003/SQL2000
SP4 but only has 3GB of memor. The problem is that a query which takes less
than 5 mins on the live system takes over 1 hour on the dev box.
I've checked various counters while this query is running and the one
counter which stands out is "Memory: Page Reads/Sec" which is consistently
above 100 on the dev box but remains at 0 on the live server. However, on th
e
dev server, the "Memory: Available MBytes" = 2842 and the
"MSSQL$INST01:Target SQL Memory (KB)" and "MSSQL$INST01:Total Server memory
(KB)" are both 2724520 which would make me think there is plenty of memory
and no need for excesive paging.
On the live server, "Memory: Available MBytes" = 104 and the
"MSSQL$INST01:Target SQL Memory (KB)" =874128 while "MSSQL$INST01:Total
Server memory (KB)" = 865384.DBA72 wrote:
> I have a Win2003/SQL2000 SP4 development server with 4GB of memory.
> It has been built with two instances of SQL Server and is also
> running Virtual Server. The two SQL instances have been configured to
> take as much memory as they want.
> I've restored a database from our live system which is also
> Win2003/SQL2000 SP4 but only has 3GB of memor. The problem is that a
> query which takes less than 5 mins on the live system takes over 1
> hour on the dev box.
> I've checked various counters while this query is running and the one
> counter which stands out is "Memory: Page Reads/Sec" which is
> consistently above 100 on the dev box but remains at 0 on the live
> server. However, on the dev server, the "Memory: Available MBytes" =
> 2842 and the "MSSQL$INST01:Target SQL Memory (KB)" and
> "MSSQL$INST01:Total Server memory (KB)" are both 2724520 which would
> make me think there is plenty of memory and no need for excesive
> paging.
> On the live server, "Memory: Available MBytes" = 104 and the
> "MSSQL$INST01:Target SQL Memory (KB)" =874128 while
> "MSSQL$INST01:Total Server memory (KB)" = 865384.
When running multiple instances it is recommended to specify a maximum
amount of memory for each instance so they don't consume too much. You
didn't mention what edition of SQL Server and the OS you are running on
the dev box. Assuming standard edition, you have 4GB for the OS, two
instances, and virtual server. I don't know how much memory Virtual
Server is using. Once you figure out how much it needs and how much the
OS needs (1GB would be a good start), you can split the remainder
between the two SQL instances.
It's very possible you have a lot of contention for memory on the box.
David Gugick
Quest Software
www.imceda.com
www.quest.com
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
High Number of lock requests
We're running SQL2K over 2K server, there server just has one main database
besides the system' ones for our administration system
Recently we got a tool for monitoring the server and it's registered up to
5.500.000 lock requests/min, my point is, is that normal?It really depends on what you are doing but it sounds like you have a lot of
scans happening. Basically sounds like you are missing proper indexes and
reading too many rows when you select or modify.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"FJC" <FJC@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0F0E10B5-9D70-4EB1-AD64-0CA9480910DB@.microsoft.com...
> We're running SQL2K over 2K server, there server just has one main
> database
> besides the system' ones for our administration system
> Recently we got a tool for monitoring the server and it's registered up to
> 5.500.000 lock requests/min, my point is, is that normal?|||Thanks Andrew
I had a look at some of the tables and as you said it seems the developers
did not index the tables properly; I just set a couple of indexes and the
reads went down straight away.
Thanks
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> It really depends on what you are doing but it sounds like you have a lot of
> scans happening. Basically sounds like you are missing proper indexes and
> reading too many rows when you select or modify.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "FJC" <FJC@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0F0E10B5-9D70-4EB1-AD64-0CA9480910DB@.microsoft.com...
> > We're running SQL2K over 2K server, there server just has one main
> > database
> > besides the system' ones for our administration system
> > Recently we got a tool for monitoring the server and it's registered up to
> > 5.500.000 lock requests/min, my point is, is that normal?
>
>
besides the system' ones for our administration system
Recently we got a tool for monitoring the server and it's registered up to
5.500.000 lock requests/min, my point is, is that normal?It really depends on what you are doing but it sounds like you have a lot of
scans happening. Basically sounds like you are missing proper indexes and
reading too many rows when you select or modify.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"FJC" <FJC@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0F0E10B5-9D70-4EB1-AD64-0CA9480910DB@.microsoft.com...
> We're running SQL2K over 2K server, there server just has one main
> database
> besides the system' ones for our administration system
> Recently we got a tool for monitoring the server and it's registered up to
> 5.500.000 lock requests/min, my point is, is that normal?|||Thanks Andrew
I had a look at some of the tables and as you said it seems the developers
did not index the tables properly; I just set a couple of indexes and the
reads went down straight away.
Thanks
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> It really depends on what you are doing but it sounds like you have a lot of
> scans happening. Basically sounds like you are missing proper indexes and
> reading too many rows when you select or modify.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "FJC" <FJC@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0F0E10B5-9D70-4EB1-AD64-0CA9480910DB@.microsoft.com...
> > We're running SQL2K over 2K server, there server just has one main
> > database
> > besides the system' ones for our administration system
> > Recently we got a tool for monitoring the server and it's registered up to
> > 5.500.000 lock requests/min, my point is, is that normal?
>
>
High Number of lock requests
We're running SQL2K over 2K server, there server just has one main database
besides the system' ones for our administration system
Recently we got a tool for monitoring the server and it's registered up to
5.500.000 lock requests/min, my point is, is that normal?It really depends on what you are doing but it sounds like you have a lot of
scans happening. Basically sounds like you are missing proper indexes and
reading too many rows when you select or modify.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"FJC" <FJC@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0F0E10B5-9D70-4EB1-AD64-0CA9480910DB@.microsoft.com...
> We're running SQL2K over 2K server, there server just has one main
> database
> besides the system' ones for our administration system
> Recently we got a tool for monitoring the server and it's registered up to
> 5.500.000 lock requests/min, my point is, is that normal?|||Thanks Andrew
I had a look at some of the tables and as you said it seems the developers
did not index the tables properly; I just set a couple of indexes and the
reads went down straight away.
Thanks
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> It really depends on what you are doing but it sounds like you have a lot
of
> scans happening. Basically sounds like you are missing proper indexes and
> reading too many rows when you select or modify.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "FJC" <FJC@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0F0E10B5-9D70-4EB1-AD64-0CA9480910DB@.microsoft.com...
>
>sql
besides the system' ones for our administration system
Recently we got a tool for monitoring the server and it's registered up to
5.500.000 lock requests/min, my point is, is that normal?It really depends on what you are doing but it sounds like you have a lot of
scans happening. Basically sounds like you are missing proper indexes and
reading too many rows when you select or modify.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"FJC" <FJC@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0F0E10B5-9D70-4EB1-AD64-0CA9480910DB@.microsoft.com...
> We're running SQL2K over 2K server, there server just has one main
> database
> besides the system' ones for our administration system
> Recently we got a tool for monitoring the server and it's registered up to
> 5.500.000 lock requests/min, my point is, is that normal?|||Thanks Andrew
I had a look at some of the tables and as you said it seems the developers
did not index the tables properly; I just set a couple of indexes and the
reads went down straight away.
Thanks
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> It really depends on what you are doing but it sounds like you have a lot
of
> scans happening. Basically sounds like you are missing proper indexes and
> reading too many rows when you select or modify.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "FJC" <FJC@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0F0E10B5-9D70-4EB1-AD64-0CA9480910DB@.microsoft.com...
>
>sql
High Number of lock requests
We're running SQL2K over 2K server, there server just has one main database
besides the system' ones for our administration system
Recently we got a tool for monitoring the server and it's registered up to
5.500.000 lock requests/min, my point is, is that normal?
It really depends on what you are doing but it sounds like you have a lot of
scans happening. Basically sounds like you are missing proper indexes and
reading too many rows when you select or modify.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"FJC" <FJC@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0F0E10B5-9D70-4EB1-AD64-0CA9480910DB@.microsoft.com...
> We're running SQL2K over 2K server, there server just has one main
> database
> besides the system' ones for our administration system
> Recently we got a tool for monitoring the server and it's registered up to
> 5.500.000 lock requests/min, my point is, is that normal?
|||Thanks Andrew
I had a look at some of the tables and as you said it seems the developers
did not index the tables properly; I just set a couple of indexes and the
reads went down straight away.
Thanks
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> It really depends on what you are doing but it sounds like you have a lot of
> scans happening. Basically sounds like you are missing proper indexes and
> reading too many rows when you select or modify.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "FJC" <FJC@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0F0E10B5-9D70-4EB1-AD64-0CA9480910DB@.microsoft.com...
>
>
besides the system' ones for our administration system
Recently we got a tool for monitoring the server and it's registered up to
5.500.000 lock requests/min, my point is, is that normal?
It really depends on what you are doing but it sounds like you have a lot of
scans happening. Basically sounds like you are missing proper indexes and
reading too many rows when you select or modify.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"FJC" <FJC@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0F0E10B5-9D70-4EB1-AD64-0CA9480910DB@.microsoft.com...
> We're running SQL2K over 2K server, there server just has one main
> database
> besides the system' ones for our administration system
> Recently we got a tool for monitoring the server and it's registered up to
> 5.500.000 lock requests/min, my point is, is that normal?
|||Thanks Andrew
I had a look at some of the tables and as you said it seems the developers
did not index the tables properly; I just set a couple of indexes and the
reads went down straight away.
Thanks
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> It really depends on what you are doing but it sounds like you have a lot of
> scans happening. Basically sounds like you are missing proper indexes and
> reading too many rows when you select or modify.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "FJC" <FJC@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0F0E10B5-9D70-4EB1-AD64-0CA9480910DB@.microsoft.com...
>
>
High memory Utilization
The SQL Process was using 80% of the memory. I configured
it to use half of the memory so now its using about 55% of
it. SQL is running on a duel xeon 1200 ghz box and really
isnt getting hit that much. I dont know where to start
looking so any ideas would be helpful.If you have it configured at 50%, it makes "sense" that it is at 55% =consumption because there is some additional overhead that is not =included in the 50% cap. I know, it is a bit strange.
High memory usage does not necessarily indicate a problem or a memory =leak. SQL Serveris designed to grab memory and use it. It is only supposed to =relese
memory if other applications on the same box need it.
You may find this information helpful:
INF: SQL Server Memory Usage
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=3Dkb;en-us;q321363
Does SQL Server have memory leaks? How can I tell? Why is SQL Server =using so much memory?
http://www.mssqlserver.com/faq/troubleshooting-memoryleak.asp
-- Keith
"Eddie" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message =news:0f0d01c3aa07$bef276c0$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> The SQL Process was using 80% of the memory. I configured > it to use half of the memory so now its using about 55% of > it. SQL is running on a duel xeon 1200 ghz box and really > isnt getting hit that much. I dont know where to start > looking so any ideas would be helpful.|||Keith
With regards to memory usage, I have 4GB of RAM and sqlservr.exe is using about 1.8GB or so Taskmgr shows it using. My server is NOT a heavy transaction SQL server, but I need the RAM for IIS
Can't I force throttle it back via Ent. Mgr to say like 1GB of RAM?
SQL is supposed to release RAM when not used, but I don't think it releases immediately which might cause the memory hits on my IIS service running? What do you think? Thanks
Steve|||You cam limit the amount of RAM that SQL Server uses. Probably the =easiest method would be to use the Enterprise Manager GUI. You could =also use sp_configure if you are comfortable with that method.
SQL Server will release memory ONLY if it needs to. It does not release =memory when SQL Server is not being used. The database server caches =data and query plans to memory and will only release it if other apps on =the box need it.
-- Keith
"steve schroeder" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message =news:1F515B86-6AC2-49C8-B36D-FCF15CBE4FF5@.microsoft.com...
> Keith;
> > With regards to memory usage, I have 4GB of RAM and sqlservr.exe is =using about 1.8GB or so Taskmgr shows it using. My server is NOT a =heavy transaction SQL server, but I need the RAM for IIS.
> Can't I force throttle it back via Ent. Mgr to say like 1GB of RAM? > SQL is supposed to release RAM when not used, but I don't think it =releases immediately which might cause the memory hits on my IIS service =running? What do you think? Thanks.
> > Stevesql
it to use half of the memory so now its using about 55% of
it. SQL is running on a duel xeon 1200 ghz box and really
isnt getting hit that much. I dont know where to start
looking so any ideas would be helpful.If you have it configured at 50%, it makes "sense" that it is at 55% =consumption because there is some additional overhead that is not =included in the 50% cap. I know, it is a bit strange.
High memory usage does not necessarily indicate a problem or a memory =leak. SQL Serveris designed to grab memory and use it. It is only supposed to =relese
memory if other applications on the same box need it.
You may find this information helpful:
INF: SQL Server Memory Usage
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=3Dkb;en-us;q321363
Does SQL Server have memory leaks? How can I tell? Why is SQL Server =using so much memory?
http://www.mssqlserver.com/faq/troubleshooting-memoryleak.asp
-- Keith
"Eddie" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message =news:0f0d01c3aa07$bef276c0$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> The SQL Process was using 80% of the memory. I configured > it to use half of the memory so now its using about 55% of > it. SQL is running on a duel xeon 1200 ghz box and really > isnt getting hit that much. I dont know where to start > looking so any ideas would be helpful.|||Keith
With regards to memory usage, I have 4GB of RAM and sqlservr.exe is using about 1.8GB or so Taskmgr shows it using. My server is NOT a heavy transaction SQL server, but I need the RAM for IIS
Can't I force throttle it back via Ent. Mgr to say like 1GB of RAM?
SQL is supposed to release RAM when not used, but I don't think it releases immediately which might cause the memory hits on my IIS service running? What do you think? Thanks
Steve|||You cam limit the amount of RAM that SQL Server uses. Probably the =easiest method would be to use the Enterprise Manager GUI. You could =also use sp_configure if you are comfortable with that method.
SQL Server will release memory ONLY if it needs to. It does not release =memory when SQL Server is not being used. The database server caches =data and query plans to memory and will only release it if other apps on =the box need it.
-- Keith
"steve schroeder" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message =news:1F515B86-6AC2-49C8-B36D-FCF15CBE4FF5@.microsoft.com...
> Keith;
> > With regards to memory usage, I have 4GB of RAM and sqlservr.exe is =using about 1.8GB or so Taskmgr shows it using. My server is NOT a =heavy transaction SQL server, but I need the RAM for IIS.
> Can't I force throttle it back via Ent. Mgr to say like 1GB of RAM? > SQL is supposed to release RAM when not used, but I don't think it =releases immediately which might cause the memory hits on my IIS service =running? What do you think? Thanks.
> > Stevesql
High file i/o
SQL Server 2000 SP4 running on Windows Server 2003 with two RAID 5 disk
groups, A and B.
I've done some monitoring using fn_virtualfilestats() and determined
that of the five databases on my SQL Server, the "Fred" database's data
file is getting a great majority of the reads and writes of all the
data files on disk group A. During peak periods, disk group A's average
disk queue length is 14 compared with disk group B's average of 2. As
you can see, disk group A, where Fred's data file resides, is getting
hammered!
Now that I know this, I'd like to spread disk group A's i/o out over
these two disks groups by creating another filegroup for the Fred
database on disk group B and moving certain high i/o tables and/or
indexes to it. How can I determine which table(s) and/or index(es)
would be good candidates for this? The best I've determined so far is
to take an educated guess, but I would prefer to see some real i/o
numbers at the table level. Is this possible?
Thanks,
AaronMy first question for you is where are your transaction log files? In my
experience, moving the transaction logs to their own device offers the
biggest performance improvement. Next would be moving your nonclustered
indexes to their own filegroup on a separate device.
"Aaron S" <gcsdba1@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154308389.902467.305860@.i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> SQL Server 2000 SP4 running on Windows Server 2003 with two RAID 5 disk
> groups, A and B.
> I've done some monitoring using fn_virtualfilestats() and determined
> that of the five databases on my SQL Server, the "Fred" database's data
> file is getting a great majority of the reads and writes of all the
> data files on disk group A. During peak periods, disk group A's average
> disk queue length is 14 compared with disk group B's average of 2. As
> you can see, disk group A, where Fred's data file resides, is getting
> hammered!
> Now that I know this, I'd like to spread disk group A's i/o out over
> these two disks groups by creating another filegroup for the Fred
> database on disk group B and moving certain high i/o tables and/or
> indexes to it. How can I determine which table(s) and/or index(es)
> would be good candidates for this? The best I've determined so far is
> to take an educated guess, but I would prefer to see some real i/o
> numbers at the table level. Is this possible?
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>|||"Aaron S" <gcsdba1@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154308389.902467.305860@.i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> SQL Server 2000 SP4 running on Windows Server 2003 with two RAID 5 disk
> groups, A and B.
> I've done some monitoring using fn_virtualfilestats() and determined
> that of the five databases on my SQL Server, the "Fred" database's data
> file is getting a great majority of the reads and writes of all the
> data files on disk group A. During peak periods, disk group A's average
> disk queue length is 14 compared with disk group B's average of 2. As
> you can see, disk group A, where Fred's data file resides, is getting
> hammered!
> Now that I know this, I'd like to spread disk group A's i/o out over
> these two disks groups by creating another filegroup for the Fred
> database on disk group B and moving certain high i/o tables and/or
> indexes to it. How can I determine which table(s) and/or index(es)
> would be good candidates for this? The best I've determined so far is
> to take an educated guess, but I would prefer to see some real i/o
> numbers at the table level. Is this possible?
>
In 2000 I'm not sure. But it's a bad deal anyway. You'll forever be
tweaking the placement of objects on filegroups. If you place the object on
a file group having one file on each volume, SQL Server will automatically
balance space (and traffic) between the files and thus the volumes.
David|||Aaron
Be aware , that you 'll be benefit from the perfomance issue only if you
move the file to the filegropup that located on another physical disk.
> indexes to it. How can I determine which table(s) and/or index(es)
> would be good candidates for this?
Run SQL Server Profiler to see what is going on.
"Aaron S" <gcsdba1@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154308389.902467.305860@.i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> SQL Server 2000 SP4 running on Windows Server 2003 with two RAID 5 disk
> groups, A and B.
> I've done some monitoring using fn_virtualfilestats() and determined
> that of the five databases on my SQL Server, the "Fred" database's data
> file is getting a great majority of the reads and writes of all the
> data files on disk group A. During peak periods, disk group A's average
> disk queue length is 14 compared with disk group B's average of 2. As
> you can see, disk group A, where Fred's data file resides, is getting
> hammered!
> Now that I know this, I'd like to spread disk group A's i/o out over
> these two disks groups by creating another filegroup for the Fred
> database on disk group B and moving certain high i/o tables and/or
> indexes to it. How can I determine which table(s) and/or index(es)
> would be good candidates for this? The best I've determined so far is
> to take an educated guess, but I would prefer to see some real i/o
> numbers at the table level. Is this possible?
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>|||Aaron S wrote:
> SQL Server 2000 SP4 running on Windows Server 2003 with two RAID 5 disk
> groups, A and B.
> I've done some monitoring using fn_virtualfilestats() and determined
> that of the five databases on my SQL Server, the "Fred" database's data
> file is getting a great majority of the reads and writes of all the
> data files on disk group A. During peak periods, disk group A's average
> disk queue length is 14 compared with disk group B's average of 2. As
> you can see, disk group A, where Fred's data file resides, is getting
> hammered!
> Now that I know this, I'd like to spread disk group A's i/o out over
> these two disks groups by creating another filegroup for the Fred
> database on disk group B and moving certain high i/o tables and/or
> indexes to it. How can I determine which table(s) and/or index(es)
> would be good candidates for this? The best I've determined so far is
> to take an educated guess, but I would prefer to see some real i/o
> numbers at the table level. Is this possible?
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
More than likely, you're seeing the result of missing or inadequate
indexes. Monitor the SQL Server:Access Methods -> Full Scans/sec
counter, and then use Profiler to determine which queries are producing
the most Reads. Pick the worst offender, focus on optimizing that query
(through indexing, rewrites, etc). Rinse, repeat...
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.comsql
groups, A and B.
I've done some monitoring using fn_virtualfilestats() and determined
that of the five databases on my SQL Server, the "Fred" database's data
file is getting a great majority of the reads and writes of all the
data files on disk group A. During peak periods, disk group A's average
disk queue length is 14 compared with disk group B's average of 2. As
you can see, disk group A, where Fred's data file resides, is getting
hammered!
Now that I know this, I'd like to spread disk group A's i/o out over
these two disks groups by creating another filegroup for the Fred
database on disk group B and moving certain high i/o tables and/or
indexes to it. How can I determine which table(s) and/or index(es)
would be good candidates for this? The best I've determined so far is
to take an educated guess, but I would prefer to see some real i/o
numbers at the table level. Is this possible?
Thanks,
AaronMy first question for you is where are your transaction log files? In my
experience, moving the transaction logs to their own device offers the
biggest performance improvement. Next would be moving your nonclustered
indexes to their own filegroup on a separate device.
"Aaron S" <gcsdba1@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154308389.902467.305860@.i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> SQL Server 2000 SP4 running on Windows Server 2003 with two RAID 5 disk
> groups, A and B.
> I've done some monitoring using fn_virtualfilestats() and determined
> that of the five databases on my SQL Server, the "Fred" database's data
> file is getting a great majority of the reads and writes of all the
> data files on disk group A. During peak periods, disk group A's average
> disk queue length is 14 compared with disk group B's average of 2. As
> you can see, disk group A, where Fred's data file resides, is getting
> hammered!
> Now that I know this, I'd like to spread disk group A's i/o out over
> these two disks groups by creating another filegroup for the Fred
> database on disk group B and moving certain high i/o tables and/or
> indexes to it. How can I determine which table(s) and/or index(es)
> would be good candidates for this? The best I've determined so far is
> to take an educated guess, but I would prefer to see some real i/o
> numbers at the table level. Is this possible?
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>|||"Aaron S" <gcsdba1@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154308389.902467.305860@.i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> SQL Server 2000 SP4 running on Windows Server 2003 with two RAID 5 disk
> groups, A and B.
> I've done some monitoring using fn_virtualfilestats() and determined
> that of the five databases on my SQL Server, the "Fred" database's data
> file is getting a great majority of the reads and writes of all the
> data files on disk group A. During peak periods, disk group A's average
> disk queue length is 14 compared with disk group B's average of 2. As
> you can see, disk group A, where Fred's data file resides, is getting
> hammered!
> Now that I know this, I'd like to spread disk group A's i/o out over
> these two disks groups by creating another filegroup for the Fred
> database on disk group B and moving certain high i/o tables and/or
> indexes to it. How can I determine which table(s) and/or index(es)
> would be good candidates for this? The best I've determined so far is
> to take an educated guess, but I would prefer to see some real i/o
> numbers at the table level. Is this possible?
>
In 2000 I'm not sure. But it's a bad deal anyway. You'll forever be
tweaking the placement of objects on filegroups. If you place the object on
a file group having one file on each volume, SQL Server will automatically
balance space (and traffic) between the files and thus the volumes.
David|||Aaron
Be aware , that you 'll be benefit from the perfomance issue only if you
move the file to the filegropup that located on another physical disk.
> indexes to it. How can I determine which table(s) and/or index(es)
> would be good candidates for this?
Run SQL Server Profiler to see what is going on.
"Aaron S" <gcsdba1@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154308389.902467.305860@.i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> SQL Server 2000 SP4 running on Windows Server 2003 with two RAID 5 disk
> groups, A and B.
> I've done some monitoring using fn_virtualfilestats() and determined
> that of the five databases on my SQL Server, the "Fred" database's data
> file is getting a great majority of the reads and writes of all the
> data files on disk group A. During peak periods, disk group A's average
> disk queue length is 14 compared with disk group B's average of 2. As
> you can see, disk group A, where Fred's data file resides, is getting
> hammered!
> Now that I know this, I'd like to spread disk group A's i/o out over
> these two disks groups by creating another filegroup for the Fred
> database on disk group B and moving certain high i/o tables and/or
> indexes to it. How can I determine which table(s) and/or index(es)
> would be good candidates for this? The best I've determined so far is
> to take an educated guess, but I would prefer to see some real i/o
> numbers at the table level. Is this possible?
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>|||Aaron S wrote:
> SQL Server 2000 SP4 running on Windows Server 2003 with two RAID 5 disk
> groups, A and B.
> I've done some monitoring using fn_virtualfilestats() and determined
> that of the five databases on my SQL Server, the "Fred" database's data
> file is getting a great majority of the reads and writes of all the
> data files on disk group A. During peak periods, disk group A's average
> disk queue length is 14 compared with disk group B's average of 2. As
> you can see, disk group A, where Fred's data file resides, is getting
> hammered!
> Now that I know this, I'd like to spread disk group A's i/o out over
> these two disks groups by creating another filegroup for the Fred
> database on disk group B and moving certain high i/o tables and/or
> indexes to it. How can I determine which table(s) and/or index(es)
> would be good candidates for this? The best I've determined so far is
> to take an educated guess, but I would prefer to see some real i/o
> numbers at the table level. Is this possible?
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
More than likely, you're seeing the result of missing or inadequate
indexes. Monitor the SQL Server:Access Methods -> Full Scans/sec
counter, and then use Profiler to determine which queries are producing
the most Reads. Pick the worst offender, focus on optimizing that query
(through indexing, rewrites, etc). Rinse, repeat...
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.comsql
High file i/o
SQL Server 2000 SP4 running on Windows Server 2003 with two RAID 5 disk
groups, A and B.
I've done some monitoring using fn_virtualfilestats() and determined
that of the five databases on my SQL Server, the "Fred" database's data
file is getting a great majority of the reads and writes of all the
data files on disk group A. During peak periods, disk group A's average
disk queue length is 14 compared with disk group B's average of 2. As
you can see, disk group A, where Fred's data file resides, is getting
hammered!
Now that I know this, I'd like to spread disk group A's i/o out over
these two disks groups by creating another filegroup for the Fred
database on disk group B and moving certain high i/o tables and/or
indexes to it. How can I determine which table(s) and/or index(es)
would be good candidates for this? The best I've determined so far is
to take an educated guess, but I would prefer to see some real i/o
numbers at the table level. Is this possible?
Thanks,
AaronMy first question for you is where are your transaction log files? In my
experience, moving the transaction logs to their own device offers the
biggest performance improvement. Next would be moving your nonclustered
indexes to their own filegroup on a separate device.
"Aaron S" <gcsdba1@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154308389.902467.305860@.i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> SQL Server 2000 SP4 running on Windows Server 2003 with two RAID 5 disk
> groups, A and B.
> I've done some monitoring using fn_virtualfilestats() and determined
> that of the five databases on my SQL Server, the "Fred" database's data
> file is getting a great majority of the reads and writes of all the
> data files on disk group A. During peak periods, disk group A's average
> disk queue length is 14 compared with disk group B's average of 2. As
> you can see, disk group A, where Fred's data file resides, is getting
> hammered!
> Now that I know this, I'd like to spread disk group A's i/o out over
> these two disks groups by creating another filegroup for the Fred
> database on disk group B and moving certain high i/o tables and/or
> indexes to it. How can I determine which table(s) and/or index(es)
> would be good candidates for this? The best I've determined so far is
> to take an educated guess, but I would prefer to see some real i/o
> numbers at the table level. Is this possible?
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>|||"Aaron S" <gcsdba1@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154308389.902467.305860@.i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> SQL Server 2000 SP4 running on Windows Server 2003 with two RAID 5 disk
> groups, A and B.
> I've done some monitoring using fn_virtualfilestats() and determined
> that of the five databases on my SQL Server, the "Fred" database's data
> file is getting a great majority of the reads and writes of all the
> data files on disk group A. During peak periods, disk group A's average
> disk queue length is 14 compared with disk group B's average of 2. As
> you can see, disk group A, where Fred's data file resides, is getting
> hammered!
> Now that I know this, I'd like to spread disk group A's i/o out over
> these two disks groups by creating another filegroup for the Fred
> database on disk group B and moving certain high i/o tables and/or
> indexes to it. How can I determine which table(s) and/or index(es)
> would be good candidates for this? The best I've determined so far is
> to take an educated guess, but I would prefer to see some real i/o
> numbers at the table level. Is this possible?
>
In 2000 I'm not sure. But it's a bad deal anyway. You'll forever be
tweaking the placement of objects on filegroups. If you place the object on
a file group having one file on each volume, SQL Server will automatically
balance space (and traffic) between the files and thus the volumes.
David|||Aaron
Be aware , that you 'll be benefit from the perfomance issue only if you
move the file to the filegropup that located on another physical disk.
> indexes to it. How can I determine which table(s) and/or index(es)
> would be good candidates for this?
Run SQL Server Profiler to see what is going on.
"Aaron S" <gcsdba1@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154308389.902467.305860@.i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> SQL Server 2000 SP4 running on Windows Server 2003 with two RAID 5 disk
> groups, A and B.
> I've done some monitoring using fn_virtualfilestats() and determined
> that of the five databases on my SQL Server, the "Fred" database's data
> file is getting a great majority of the reads and writes of all the
> data files on disk group A. During peak periods, disk group A's average
> disk queue length is 14 compared with disk group B's average of 2. As
> you can see, disk group A, where Fred's data file resides, is getting
> hammered!
> Now that I know this, I'd like to spread disk group A's i/o out over
> these two disks groups by creating another filegroup for the Fred
> database on disk group B and moving certain high i/o tables and/or
> indexes to it. How can I determine which table(s) and/or index(es)
> would be good candidates for this? The best I've determined so far is
> to take an educated guess, but I would prefer to see some real i/o
> numbers at the table level. Is this possible?
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>|||Aaron S wrote:
> SQL Server 2000 SP4 running on Windows Server 2003 with two RAID 5 disk
> groups, A and B.
> I've done some monitoring using fn_virtualfilestats() and determined
> that of the five databases on my SQL Server, the "Fred" database's data
> file is getting a great majority of the reads and writes of all the
> data files on disk group A. During peak periods, disk group A's average
> disk queue length is 14 compared with disk group B's average of 2. As
> you can see, disk group A, where Fred's data file resides, is getting
> hammered!
> Now that I know this, I'd like to spread disk group A's i/o out over
> these two disks groups by creating another filegroup for the Fred
> database on disk group B and moving certain high i/o tables and/or
> indexes to it. How can I determine which table(s) and/or index(es)
> would be good candidates for this? The best I've determined so far is
> to take an educated guess, but I would prefer to see some real i/o
> numbers at the table level. Is this possible?
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
More than likely, you're seeing the result of missing or inadequate
indexes. Monitor the SQL Server:Access Methods -> Full Scans/sec
counter, and then use Profiler to determine which queries are producing
the most Reads. Pick the worst offender, focus on optimizing that query
(through indexing, rewrites, etc). Rinse, repeat...
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com
groups, A and B.
I've done some monitoring using fn_virtualfilestats() and determined
that of the five databases on my SQL Server, the "Fred" database's data
file is getting a great majority of the reads and writes of all the
data files on disk group A. During peak periods, disk group A's average
disk queue length is 14 compared with disk group B's average of 2. As
you can see, disk group A, where Fred's data file resides, is getting
hammered!
Now that I know this, I'd like to spread disk group A's i/o out over
these two disks groups by creating another filegroup for the Fred
database on disk group B and moving certain high i/o tables and/or
indexes to it. How can I determine which table(s) and/or index(es)
would be good candidates for this? The best I've determined so far is
to take an educated guess, but I would prefer to see some real i/o
numbers at the table level. Is this possible?
Thanks,
AaronMy first question for you is where are your transaction log files? In my
experience, moving the transaction logs to their own device offers the
biggest performance improvement. Next would be moving your nonclustered
indexes to their own filegroup on a separate device.
"Aaron S" <gcsdba1@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154308389.902467.305860@.i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> SQL Server 2000 SP4 running on Windows Server 2003 with two RAID 5 disk
> groups, A and B.
> I've done some monitoring using fn_virtualfilestats() and determined
> that of the five databases on my SQL Server, the "Fred" database's data
> file is getting a great majority of the reads and writes of all the
> data files on disk group A. During peak periods, disk group A's average
> disk queue length is 14 compared with disk group B's average of 2. As
> you can see, disk group A, where Fred's data file resides, is getting
> hammered!
> Now that I know this, I'd like to spread disk group A's i/o out over
> these two disks groups by creating another filegroup for the Fred
> database on disk group B and moving certain high i/o tables and/or
> indexes to it. How can I determine which table(s) and/or index(es)
> would be good candidates for this? The best I've determined so far is
> to take an educated guess, but I would prefer to see some real i/o
> numbers at the table level. Is this possible?
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>|||"Aaron S" <gcsdba1@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154308389.902467.305860@.i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> SQL Server 2000 SP4 running on Windows Server 2003 with two RAID 5 disk
> groups, A and B.
> I've done some monitoring using fn_virtualfilestats() and determined
> that of the five databases on my SQL Server, the "Fred" database's data
> file is getting a great majority of the reads and writes of all the
> data files on disk group A. During peak periods, disk group A's average
> disk queue length is 14 compared with disk group B's average of 2. As
> you can see, disk group A, where Fred's data file resides, is getting
> hammered!
> Now that I know this, I'd like to spread disk group A's i/o out over
> these two disks groups by creating another filegroup for the Fred
> database on disk group B and moving certain high i/o tables and/or
> indexes to it. How can I determine which table(s) and/or index(es)
> would be good candidates for this? The best I've determined so far is
> to take an educated guess, but I would prefer to see some real i/o
> numbers at the table level. Is this possible?
>
In 2000 I'm not sure. But it's a bad deal anyway. You'll forever be
tweaking the placement of objects on filegroups. If you place the object on
a file group having one file on each volume, SQL Server will automatically
balance space (and traffic) between the files and thus the volumes.
David|||Aaron
Be aware , that you 'll be benefit from the perfomance issue only if you
move the file to the filegropup that located on another physical disk.
> indexes to it. How can I determine which table(s) and/or index(es)
> would be good candidates for this?
Run SQL Server Profiler to see what is going on.
"Aaron S" <gcsdba1@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154308389.902467.305860@.i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> SQL Server 2000 SP4 running on Windows Server 2003 with two RAID 5 disk
> groups, A and B.
> I've done some monitoring using fn_virtualfilestats() and determined
> that of the five databases on my SQL Server, the "Fred" database's data
> file is getting a great majority of the reads and writes of all the
> data files on disk group A. During peak periods, disk group A's average
> disk queue length is 14 compared with disk group B's average of 2. As
> you can see, disk group A, where Fred's data file resides, is getting
> hammered!
> Now that I know this, I'd like to spread disk group A's i/o out over
> these two disks groups by creating another filegroup for the Fred
> database on disk group B and moving certain high i/o tables and/or
> indexes to it. How can I determine which table(s) and/or index(es)
> would be good candidates for this? The best I've determined so far is
> to take an educated guess, but I would prefer to see some real i/o
> numbers at the table level. Is this possible?
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>|||Aaron S wrote:
> SQL Server 2000 SP4 running on Windows Server 2003 with two RAID 5 disk
> groups, A and B.
> I've done some monitoring using fn_virtualfilestats() and determined
> that of the five databases on my SQL Server, the "Fred" database's data
> file is getting a great majority of the reads and writes of all the
> data files on disk group A. During peak periods, disk group A's average
> disk queue length is 14 compared with disk group B's average of 2. As
> you can see, disk group A, where Fred's data file resides, is getting
> hammered!
> Now that I know this, I'd like to spread disk group A's i/o out over
> these two disks groups by creating another filegroup for the Fred
> database on disk group B and moving certain high i/o tables and/or
> indexes to it. How can I determine which table(s) and/or index(es)
> would be good candidates for this? The best I've determined so far is
> to take an educated guess, but I would prefer to see some real i/o
> numbers at the table level. Is this possible?
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
More than likely, you're seeing the result of missing or inadequate
indexes. Monitor the SQL Server:Access Methods -> Full Scans/sec
counter, and then use Profiler to determine which queries are producing
the most Reads. Pick the worst offender, focus on optimizing that query
(through indexing, rewrites, etc). Rinse, repeat...
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com
Monday, March 19, 2012
High disk I/O with long running queries surprising?
> Based on this little information, would you
> be surprised to find out that during the execution of this stored
> procedure, SQL Server uses the disk to 100 % (or at least want to)?
Unless all data can fit in the memory allocated to SQL Server, I would
expect significant disk activity during the process. Even then, modified
still data needs to be written to disk.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
<sl@.invativa.se> wrote in message
news:1151406632.094352.37510@.u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Hello,
> I am interested in opinions about a case that I recently ran into. We
> have a server with SQL Server 2000 Standard where a 50 GB database is
> run. A stored procedure is run every night that performs data updates
> and perform several aggregations and calculations of the data for about
> 4 hours in this database. Based on this little information, would you
> be surprised to find out that during the execution of this stored
> procedure, SQL Server uses the disk to 100 % (or at least want to)?
> /Stefan
><sl@.invativa.se> wrote in message
news:1151406632.094352.37510@.u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Hello,
> I am interested in opinions about a case that I recently ran into. We
> have a server with SQL Server 2000 Standard where a 50 GB database is
> run. A stored procedure is run every night that performs data updates
> and perform several aggregations and calculations of the data for about
> 4 hours in this database. Based on this little information, would you
> be surprised to find out that during the execution of this stored
> procedure, SQL Server uses the disk to 100 % (or at least want to)?
>
Assuming that SQL Server is using a buffer cache of significantly less than
50GB, and these queries need to read a large percentage of the 50GB of data,
then SQL Server will need to read the data from disk.
So no, I would not be surprised.
David|||Hello,
I am interested in opinions about a case that I recently ran into. We
have a server with SQL Server 2000 Standard where a 50 GB database is
run. A stored procedure is run every night that performs data updates
and perform several aggregations and calculations of the data for about
4 hours in this database. Based on this little information, would you
be surprised to find out that during the execution of this stored
procedure, SQL Server uses the disk to 100 % (or at least want to)?
/Stefan|||> Based on this little information, would you
> be surprised to find out that during the execution of this stored
> procedure, SQL Server uses the disk to 100 % (or at least want to)?
Unless all data can fit in the memory allocated to SQL Server, I would
expect significant disk activity during the process. Even then, modified
still data needs to be written to disk.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
<sl@.invativa.se> wrote in message
news:1151406632.094352.37510@.u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Hello,
> I am interested in opinions about a case that I recently ran into. We
> have a server with SQL Server 2000 Standard where a 50 GB database is
> run. A stored procedure is run every night that performs data updates
> and perform several aggregations and calculations of the data for about
> 4 hours in this database. Based on this little information, would you
> be surprised to find out that during the execution of this stored
> procedure, SQL Server uses the disk to 100 % (or at least want to)?
> /Stefan
>|||<sl@.invativa.se> wrote in message
news:1151406632.094352.37510@.u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Hello,
> I am interested in opinions about a case that I recently ran into. We
> have a server with SQL Server 2000 Standard where a 50 GB database is
> run. A stored procedure is run every night that performs data updates
> and perform several aggregations and calculations of the data for about
> 4 hours in this database. Based on this little information, would you
> be surprised to find out that during the execution of this stored
> procedure, SQL Server uses the disk to 100 % (or at least want to)?
>
Assuming that SQL Server is using a buffer cache of significantly less than
50GB, and these queries need to read a large percentage of the 50GB of data,
then SQL Server will need to read the data from disk.
So no, I would not be surprised.
David|||In addition to what the others have said, if this is based on the readings
from the % Disk Time counter, you may want to check a few more disk counters
to be sure. This counter can be funky. It's more reliable to check I/O
latency counters such as Avg Disk Sec/Read and Avg Disk Sec/Write.
Linchi
"sl@.invativa.se" wrote:
> Hello,
> I am interested in opinions about a case that I recently ran into. We
> have a server with SQL Server 2000 Standard where a 50 GB database is
> run. A stored procedure is run every night that performs data updates
> and perform several aggregations and calculations of the data for about
> 4 hours in this database. Based on this little information, would you
> be surprised to find out that during the execution of this stored
> procedure, SQL Server uses the disk to 100 % (or at least want to)?
> /Stefan
>|||And, of course, WRITE the updates back to disk.
No, I wouldn't be at all surprised.
The next question 'should be', based upon the following DDL and stored
procedure code, is there a more efficient way to accomplish the task?
(include table DDL and stored procedure code.)
Arnie Rowland, YACE*
"To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
*Yet Another certification Exam
"David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted meat@.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:eacg56dmGHA.660@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> <sl@.invativa.se> wrote in message
> news:1151406632.094352.37510@.u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Assuming that SQL Server is using a buffer cache of significantly less
> than 50GB, and these queries need to read a large percentage of the 50GB
> of data, then SQL Server will need to read the data from disk.
> So no, I would not be surprised.
> David|||In addition to what the others have said, if this is based on the readings
from the % Disk Time counter, you may want to check a few more disk counters
to be sure. This counter can be funky. It's more reliable to check I/O
latency counters such as Avg Disk Sec/Read and Avg Disk Sec/Write.
Linchi
"sl@.invativa.se" wrote:
> Hello,
> I am interested in opinions about a case that I recently ran into. We
> have a server with SQL Server 2000 Standard where a 50 GB database is
> run. A stored procedure is run every night that performs data updates
> and perform several aggregations and calculations of the data for about
> 4 hours in this database. Based on this little information, would you
> be surprised to find out that during the execution of this stored
> procedure, SQL Server uses the disk to 100 % (or at least want to)?
> /Stefan
>|||And, of course, WRITE the updates back to disk.
No, I wouldn't be at all surprised.
The next question 'should be', based upon the following DDL and stored
procedure code, is there a more efficient way to accomplish the task?
(include table DDL and stored procedure code.)
Arnie Rowland, YACE*
"To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
*Yet Another certification Exam
"David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted meat@.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:eacg56dmGHA.660@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> <sl@.invativa.se> wrote in message
> news:1151406632.094352.37510@.u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Assuming that SQL Server is using a buffer cache of significantly less
> than 50GB, and these queries need to read a large percentage of the 50GB
> of data, then SQL Server will need to read the data from disk.
> So no, I would not be surprised.
> David|||Thanks for all answers.
Great that you all confirmed that lots of disk I/O is no surprise in
this scenario.
/Stefan
> be surprised to find out that during the execution of this stored
> procedure, SQL Server uses the disk to 100 % (or at least want to)?
Unless all data can fit in the memory allocated to SQL Server, I would
expect significant disk activity during the process. Even then, modified
still data needs to be written to disk.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
<sl@.invativa.se> wrote in message
news:1151406632.094352.37510@.u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Hello,
> I am interested in opinions about a case that I recently ran into. We
> have a server with SQL Server 2000 Standard where a 50 GB database is
> run. A stored procedure is run every night that performs data updates
> and perform several aggregations and calculations of the data for about
> 4 hours in this database. Based on this little information, would you
> be surprised to find out that during the execution of this stored
> procedure, SQL Server uses the disk to 100 % (or at least want to)?
> /Stefan
><sl@.invativa.se> wrote in message
news:1151406632.094352.37510@.u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Hello,
> I am interested in opinions about a case that I recently ran into. We
> have a server with SQL Server 2000 Standard where a 50 GB database is
> run. A stored procedure is run every night that performs data updates
> and perform several aggregations and calculations of the data for about
> 4 hours in this database. Based on this little information, would you
> be surprised to find out that during the execution of this stored
> procedure, SQL Server uses the disk to 100 % (or at least want to)?
>
Assuming that SQL Server is using a buffer cache of significantly less than
50GB, and these queries need to read a large percentage of the 50GB of data,
then SQL Server will need to read the data from disk.
So no, I would not be surprised.
David|||Hello,
I am interested in opinions about a case that I recently ran into. We
have a server with SQL Server 2000 Standard where a 50 GB database is
run. A stored procedure is run every night that performs data updates
and perform several aggregations and calculations of the data for about
4 hours in this database. Based on this little information, would you
be surprised to find out that during the execution of this stored
procedure, SQL Server uses the disk to 100 % (or at least want to)?
/Stefan|||> Based on this little information, would you
> be surprised to find out that during the execution of this stored
> procedure, SQL Server uses the disk to 100 % (or at least want to)?
Unless all data can fit in the memory allocated to SQL Server, I would
expect significant disk activity during the process. Even then, modified
still data needs to be written to disk.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
<sl@.invativa.se> wrote in message
news:1151406632.094352.37510@.u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Hello,
> I am interested in opinions about a case that I recently ran into. We
> have a server with SQL Server 2000 Standard where a 50 GB database is
> run. A stored procedure is run every night that performs data updates
> and perform several aggregations and calculations of the data for about
> 4 hours in this database. Based on this little information, would you
> be surprised to find out that during the execution of this stored
> procedure, SQL Server uses the disk to 100 % (or at least want to)?
> /Stefan
>|||<sl@.invativa.se> wrote in message
news:1151406632.094352.37510@.u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Hello,
> I am interested in opinions about a case that I recently ran into. We
> have a server with SQL Server 2000 Standard where a 50 GB database is
> run. A stored procedure is run every night that performs data updates
> and perform several aggregations and calculations of the data for about
> 4 hours in this database. Based on this little information, would you
> be surprised to find out that during the execution of this stored
> procedure, SQL Server uses the disk to 100 % (or at least want to)?
>
Assuming that SQL Server is using a buffer cache of significantly less than
50GB, and these queries need to read a large percentage of the 50GB of data,
then SQL Server will need to read the data from disk.
So no, I would not be surprised.
David|||In addition to what the others have said, if this is based on the readings
from the % Disk Time counter, you may want to check a few more disk counters
to be sure. This counter can be funky. It's more reliable to check I/O
latency counters such as Avg Disk Sec/Read and Avg Disk Sec/Write.
Linchi
"sl@.invativa.se" wrote:
> Hello,
> I am interested in opinions about a case that I recently ran into. We
> have a server with SQL Server 2000 Standard where a 50 GB database is
> run. A stored procedure is run every night that performs data updates
> and perform several aggregations and calculations of the data for about
> 4 hours in this database. Based on this little information, would you
> be surprised to find out that during the execution of this stored
> procedure, SQL Server uses the disk to 100 % (or at least want to)?
> /Stefan
>|||And, of course, WRITE the updates back to disk.
No, I wouldn't be at all surprised.
The next question 'should be', based upon the following DDL and stored
procedure code, is there a more efficient way to accomplish the task?
(include table DDL and stored procedure code.)
Arnie Rowland, YACE*
"To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
*Yet Another certification Exam
"David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted meat@.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:eacg56dmGHA.660@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> <sl@.invativa.se> wrote in message
> news:1151406632.094352.37510@.u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Assuming that SQL Server is using a buffer cache of significantly less
> than 50GB, and these queries need to read a large percentage of the 50GB
> of data, then SQL Server will need to read the data from disk.
> So no, I would not be surprised.
> David|||In addition to what the others have said, if this is based on the readings
from the % Disk Time counter, you may want to check a few more disk counters
to be sure. This counter can be funky. It's more reliable to check I/O
latency counters such as Avg Disk Sec/Read and Avg Disk Sec/Write.
Linchi
"sl@.invativa.se" wrote:
> Hello,
> I am interested in opinions about a case that I recently ran into. We
> have a server with SQL Server 2000 Standard where a 50 GB database is
> run. A stored procedure is run every night that performs data updates
> and perform several aggregations and calculations of the data for about
> 4 hours in this database. Based on this little information, would you
> be surprised to find out that during the execution of this stored
> procedure, SQL Server uses the disk to 100 % (or at least want to)?
> /Stefan
>|||And, of course, WRITE the updates back to disk.
No, I wouldn't be at all surprised.
The next question 'should be', based upon the following DDL and stored
procedure code, is there a more efficient way to accomplish the task?
(include table DDL and stored procedure code.)
Arnie Rowland, YACE*
"To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
*Yet Another certification Exam
"David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted meat@.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:eacg56dmGHA.660@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> <sl@.invativa.se> wrote in message
> news:1151406632.094352.37510@.u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Assuming that SQL Server is using a buffer cache of significantly less
> than 50GB, and these queries need to read a large percentage of the 50GB
> of data, then SQL Server will need to read the data from disk.
> So no, I would not be surprised.
> David|||Thanks for all answers.
Great that you all confirmed that lots of disk I/O is no surprise in
this scenario.
/Stefan
High disk I/O with long running queries surprising?
Hello,
I am interested in opinions about a case that I recently ran into. We
have a server with SQL Server 2000 Standard where a 50 GB database is
run. A stored procedure is run every night that performs data updates
and perform several aggregations and calculations of the data for about
4 hours in this database. Based on this little information, would you
be surprised to find out that during the execution of this stored
procedure, SQL Server uses the disk to 100 % (or at least want to)?
/Stefan> Based on this little information, would you
> be surprised to find out that during the execution of this stored
> procedure, SQL Server uses the disk to 100 % (or at least want to)?
Unless all data can fit in the memory allocated to SQL Server, I would
expect significant disk activity during the process. Even then, modified
still data needs to be written to disk.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
<sl@.invativa.se> wrote in message
news:1151406632.094352.37510@.u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Hello,
> I am interested in opinions about a case that I recently ran into. We
> have a server with SQL Server 2000 Standard where a 50 GB database is
> run. A stored procedure is run every night that performs data updates
> and perform several aggregations and calculations of the data for about
> 4 hours in this database. Based on this little information, would you
> be surprised to find out that during the execution of this stored
> procedure, SQL Server uses the disk to 100 % (or at least want to)?
> /Stefan
>|||<sl@.invativa.se> wrote in message
news:1151406632.094352.37510@.u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Hello,
> I am interested in opinions about a case that I recently ran into. We
> have a server with SQL Server 2000 Standard where a 50 GB database is
> run. A stored procedure is run every night that performs data updates
> and perform several aggregations and calculations of the data for about
> 4 hours in this database. Based on this little information, would you
> be surprised to find out that during the execution of this stored
> procedure, SQL Server uses the disk to 100 % (or at least want to)?
>
Assuming that SQL Server is using a buffer cache of significantly less than
50GB, and these queries need to read a large percentage of the 50GB of data,
then SQL Server will need to read the data from disk.
So no, I would not be surprised.
David|||In addition to what the others have said, if this is based on the readings
from the % Disk Time counter, you may want to check a few more disk counters
to be sure. This counter can be funky. It's more reliable to check I/O
latency counters such as Avg Disk Sec/Read and Avg Disk Sec/Write.
Linchi
"sl@.invativa.se" wrote:
> Hello,
> I am interested in opinions about a case that I recently ran into. We
> have a server with SQL Server 2000 Standard where a 50 GB database is
> run. A stored procedure is run every night that performs data updates
> and perform several aggregations and calculations of the data for about
> 4 hours in this database. Based on this little information, would you
> be surprised to find out that during the execution of this stored
> procedure, SQL Server uses the disk to 100 % (or at least want to)?
> /Stefan
>|||And, of course, WRITE the updates back to disk.
No, I wouldn't be at all surprised.
The next question 'should be', based upon the following DDL and stored
procedure code, is there a more efficient way to accomplish the task?
(include table DDL and stored procedure code.)
--
Arnie Rowland, YACE*
"To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
*Yet Another Certification Exam
"David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted meat@.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:eacg56dmGHA.660@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> <sl@.invativa.se> wrote in message
> news:1151406632.094352.37510@.u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>> Hello,
>> I am interested in opinions about a case that I recently ran into. We
>> have a server with SQL Server 2000 Standard where a 50 GB database is
>> run. A stored procedure is run every night that performs data updates
>> and perform several aggregations and calculations of the data for about
>> 4 hours in this database. Based on this little information, would you
>> be surprised to find out that during the execution of this stored
>> procedure, SQL Server uses the disk to 100 % (or at least want to)?
> Assuming that SQL Server is using a buffer cache of significantly less
> than 50GB, and these queries need to read a large percentage of the 50GB
> of data, then SQL Server will need to read the data from disk.
> So no, I would not be surprised.
> David|||Thanks for all answers.
Great that you all confirmed that lots of disk I/O is no surprise in
this scenario.
/Stefan
I am interested in opinions about a case that I recently ran into. We
have a server with SQL Server 2000 Standard where a 50 GB database is
run. A stored procedure is run every night that performs data updates
and perform several aggregations and calculations of the data for about
4 hours in this database. Based on this little information, would you
be surprised to find out that during the execution of this stored
procedure, SQL Server uses the disk to 100 % (or at least want to)?
/Stefan> Based on this little information, would you
> be surprised to find out that during the execution of this stored
> procedure, SQL Server uses the disk to 100 % (or at least want to)?
Unless all data can fit in the memory allocated to SQL Server, I would
expect significant disk activity during the process. Even then, modified
still data needs to be written to disk.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
<sl@.invativa.se> wrote in message
news:1151406632.094352.37510@.u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Hello,
> I am interested in opinions about a case that I recently ran into. We
> have a server with SQL Server 2000 Standard where a 50 GB database is
> run. A stored procedure is run every night that performs data updates
> and perform several aggregations and calculations of the data for about
> 4 hours in this database. Based on this little information, would you
> be surprised to find out that during the execution of this stored
> procedure, SQL Server uses the disk to 100 % (or at least want to)?
> /Stefan
>|||<sl@.invativa.se> wrote in message
news:1151406632.094352.37510@.u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Hello,
> I am interested in opinions about a case that I recently ran into. We
> have a server with SQL Server 2000 Standard where a 50 GB database is
> run. A stored procedure is run every night that performs data updates
> and perform several aggregations and calculations of the data for about
> 4 hours in this database. Based on this little information, would you
> be surprised to find out that during the execution of this stored
> procedure, SQL Server uses the disk to 100 % (or at least want to)?
>
Assuming that SQL Server is using a buffer cache of significantly less than
50GB, and these queries need to read a large percentage of the 50GB of data,
then SQL Server will need to read the data from disk.
So no, I would not be surprised.
David|||In addition to what the others have said, if this is based on the readings
from the % Disk Time counter, you may want to check a few more disk counters
to be sure. This counter can be funky. It's more reliable to check I/O
latency counters such as Avg Disk Sec/Read and Avg Disk Sec/Write.
Linchi
"sl@.invativa.se" wrote:
> Hello,
> I am interested in opinions about a case that I recently ran into. We
> have a server with SQL Server 2000 Standard where a 50 GB database is
> run. A stored procedure is run every night that performs data updates
> and perform several aggregations and calculations of the data for about
> 4 hours in this database. Based on this little information, would you
> be surprised to find out that during the execution of this stored
> procedure, SQL Server uses the disk to 100 % (or at least want to)?
> /Stefan
>|||And, of course, WRITE the updates back to disk.
No, I wouldn't be at all surprised.
The next question 'should be', based upon the following DDL and stored
procedure code, is there a more efficient way to accomplish the task?
(include table DDL and stored procedure code.)
--
Arnie Rowland, YACE*
"To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
*Yet Another Certification Exam
"David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted meat@.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:eacg56dmGHA.660@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> <sl@.invativa.se> wrote in message
> news:1151406632.094352.37510@.u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>> Hello,
>> I am interested in opinions about a case that I recently ran into. We
>> have a server with SQL Server 2000 Standard where a 50 GB database is
>> run. A stored procedure is run every night that performs data updates
>> and perform several aggregations and calculations of the data for about
>> 4 hours in this database. Based on this little information, would you
>> be surprised to find out that during the execution of this stored
>> procedure, SQL Server uses the disk to 100 % (or at least want to)?
> Assuming that SQL Server is using a buffer cache of significantly less
> than 50GB, and these queries need to read a large percentage of the 50GB
> of data, then SQL Server will need to read the data from disk.
> So no, I would not be surprised.
> David|||Thanks for all answers.
Great that you all confirmed that lots of disk I/O is no surprise in
this scenario.
/Stefan
High CPU utilization on Merge Replication with SQL 2005 Mobile
I have a question for anyone who mas some tips/pointers for optimizing SQL merge replication publications.
The front end web server is running IIS 6.0 on Windows 2003 x86 Server Standard (Server A). The back end database server is running SQL 2000 Standard on Windows 2003 x86 Standard (Server B). The merge replication clients connect via HTTPS over the Internet from a custom C#.NET 2005 application using SQL 2005 Mobile running on Windows Mobile 5.0 (Client).
The publication itself has several filters on it. The entry point uses the user's Windows username to start the filter. Based on the user, it then filters the records in multiple tables. There are 68 articles and 44 filter statements. The filters extend multiple layers deep, in other words they are not all filtering off the HOST_NAME() variable, some tables filter from records in tables that filter from the HOST_NAME() variable. The publication is set to minimize data sent to the clients, and considers a subscription out of date if it has not synced in the last 4 days. All the rowguids are indexed as well.
There are approximately 35 clients actively using the application at any given time. On average, a client will initiate a merge replication 3-4 times per hour from 8am-5pm. Generally, a sync will take between 10 seconds and 2 minutes to complete, with most of them being around 30 seconds on average.
When a client starts a sync, there is a spike to about 50% on the server's CPU graph. If multiple clients attempt to sync at the same time the CPU utilization can be pushed to 100% for extended periods (more than 30 seconds).
I recently completed a project to increase the bandwidth available to the clients, and plan to reduce the number of filters significantly (although this will obviously increase the amount of data going to the clients and the storage needs on the individual devices). I also plan on changing the setting to not minimize the amount of data sent to the clients.
Having said all that, does anyone have any information about how to further optimize merge publications to mobile clients? The next publication will be on SQL 2005 x64 Standard if I can solve the issues in the text environment. I would like to enhance the publication as much as possible to make the end user experience better than it currently is.
Thanks!
You're talking about CPU usage at the publisher, correct?
Can you double check that all columns involved in the merge join filters are indexed as well? If the columns are not indexed, this leads to table scans during syncs which can result in high CPU usage.
Are you also getting conflicts? There's a performance issue (which will be fixed in SP1) that can slow things down due to missing indexes on some conflict tables, but this shouldn't be an issue unless you're getting hundreds and hundreds of conflicts.
ALso, how "deep" are your filters? Do the merge join filters have 1 to many relationships, or many to many (see the @.join_unique_key parameter). The more levels deep you are, or any level that contains a @.join_unique_key = 0, can negatively affect performance.
Regardless, you can always run profiler at the publisher and trace a single subscriber to see which procs are consuming the most time. You can start with RPC:completed or SP:completed, and just grab the duration. You'll quickly see which procs are the problematic one. From there, you can then enable SP:StatmentEnded and enable ExecutionPlan to see exactly what statement and why it's slow.
|||
Indexes were definetly a piece of the puzzle. The @.join_unique_key was also in play, so thanks for putting me on to that one. For anyone else who is using Merge Replication with SQL Mobile, there are 2 very useful articles:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnsql2k/html/sql_replmergepartitioned.asp
High CPU utilization on Merge Replication with SQL 2005 Mobile
I have a question for anyone who mas some tips/pointers for optimizing SQL merge replication publications.
The front end web server is running IIS 6.0 on Windows 2003 x86 Server Standard (Server A). The back end database server is running SQL 2000 Standard on Windows 2003 x86 Standard (Server B). The merge replication clients connect via HTTPS over the Internet from a custom C#.NET 2005 application using SQL 2005 Mobile running on Windows Mobile 5.0 (Client).
The publication itself has several filters on it. The entry point uses the user's Windows username to start the filter. Based on the user, it then filters the records in multiple tables. There are 68 articles and 44 filter statements. The filters extend multiple layers deep, in other words they are not all filtering off the HOST_NAME() variable, some tables filter from records in tables that filter from the HOST_NAME() variable. The publication is set to minimize data sent to the clients, and considers a subscription out of date if it has not synced in the last 4 days. All the rowguids are indexed as well.
There are approximately 35 clients actively using the application at any given time. On average, a client will initiate a merge replication 3-4 times per hour from 8am-5pm. Generally, a sync will take between 10 seconds and 2 minutes to complete, with most of them being around 30 seconds on average.
When a client starts a sync, there is a spike to about 50% on the server's CPU graph. If multiple clients attempt to sync at the same time the CPU utilization can be pushed to 100% for extended periods (more than 30 seconds).
I recently completed a project to increase the bandwidth available to the clients, and plan to reduce the number of filters significantly (although this will obviously increase the amount of data going to the clients and the storage needs on the individual devices). I also plan on changing the setting to not minimize the amount of data sent to the clients.
Having said all that, does anyone have any information about how to further optimize merge publications to mobile clients? The next publication will be on SQL 2005 x64 Standard if I can solve the issues in the text environment. I would like to enhance the publication as much as possible to make the end user experience better than it currently is.
Thanks!
You're talking about CPU usage at the publisher, correct?
Can you double check that all columns involved in the merge join filters are indexed as well? If the columns are not indexed, this leads to table scans during syncs which can result in high CPU usage.
Are you also getting conflicts? There's a performance issue (which will be fixed in SP1) that can slow things down due to missing indexes on some conflict tables, but this shouldn't be an issue unless you're getting hundreds and hundreds of conflicts.
ALso, how "deep" are your filters? Do the merge join filters have 1 to many relationships, or many to many (see the @.join_unique_key parameter). The more levels deep you are, or any level that contains a @.join_unique_key = 0, can negatively affect performance.
Regardless, you can always run profiler at the publisher and trace a single subscriber to see which procs are consuming the most time. You can start with RPC:completed or SP:completed, and just grab the duration. You'll quickly see which procs are the problematic one. From there, you can then enable SP:StatmentEnded and enable ExecutionPlan to see exactly what statement and why it's slow.
|||
Indexes were definetly a piece of the puzzle. The @.join_unique_key was also in play, so thanks for putting me on to that one. For anyone else who is using Merge Replication with SQL Mobile, there are 2 very useful articles:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnsql2k/html/sql_replmergepartitioned.asp
High CPU utilization in SQL Server 2005 SP2 (CTP)
Hi,SpinLockName Collisions Spins Spins/Collison Sleep Time (ms) Backoffs MUTEX 1395 82922 59.4423 0 0 DES_HASH 434 3288 7.576037 0 0 BUF_HASH 4 32 8 0 0 RESOURCE 27 630 23.33333 0 0 LOCK_HASH 177941 1816302 10.20733 0 6 BUF_FREE_LIST 323 30158 93.36842 0 2 DBTABLE 11 315 28.63636 0 0 BACKUP_CTX 869 1480 1.703107 0 0 XDESMGR 935 11842 12.66524 0 0 RESQUEUE 4344 11084 2.551565 0 0 LOGFLUSHQ 4 61 15.25 0 0 SQL_MGR 225 4116 18.29333 0 0 HOBT_HASH 963 9721 10.0945 0 0 XTS_MGR 3 6 2 0 0 XVB_LIST 36 91 2.527778 0 0 LOCK_RESOURCE_ID 217 20 0.0921659 0 0 SESSION_MANAGER 10 683 68.3 0 0 SOS_SCHEDULER 1798 197 0.1095662 0 0 SOS_TLIST 18 40 2.222222 0 0 SOS_CACHESTORE 387 23265 60.11628 0 0 SOS_RW 2 0 0 0 0 SOS_TASK 343 218 0.6355685 0 0 SOS_SYSTHREAD_DISPATCHER 66 5126 77.66666 0 0 SOS_OBJECT_STORE 1939 4304 2.219701 0 0 SOS_SUSPEND_QUEUE 9251 45717 4.941844 0 1 SOS_LARGEPAGE_ALLOCATOR 2 20 10 0 0 CONNECTION_MANAGER 1 0 0 0 0 BASE_XACT_HASH 1 0 0 0 0 XDES_HASH 7 0 0 0 0
We are having a big performance issue at our site. Here is the configuration of the box running SQL Server 2005:
64 bit Windows Enterprise Edition + SP1
Dual CPU, 16GB RAM
RAID 1 and RAID 5 - internal
SQL Server 2005 64-bit Enterprise Edition
With SP2 (CTP from December)
The "Lock Pages in Memory" is set and is being run under the same account that is being used to run SQL Server Services.
We are noticing that under load, the CPU utilization becomes nearly
100%. I have researched this and have come across a couple of
posts that indicate that this issue was fixed in SP2 - example: One
post talked about the hotfix #716 which is also a part of SP2 but even
after the application of that service pack, we are still having this
issue. I haven't tried setting the parameterization option to
forced for the database yet.
Is this a known issue with SP2? If not, what can we look for and
fix in our environment? Please let me know if I can provide more
information.Some more information:
This can be easily reproduced using the ostress utility by simulating
100 simultaneous concurrent connections...the SQL file that is being
used is a single procedure call. The wait event is "RESOURCE_SEMAPHORE_QUERY_COMPILE"
- we have removed the "SET" options from within the stored
procedure. We have also made sure that all queries are
parameterized queries and that there are no constants involved.
The procedure uses 3 table variables and depending upon the input
parameters, different set of queries are used to populate those table
variables. End result that is returned to the client application
is via a join of 2 out of these 3 table variables.
So, from the wait event it definitely looks like we are hitting a query
recompilation issue (part of it seems to have been fixed in SP2 but we
are not seeing those issues). We have also gone through the
whitepaper:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/recomp.mspx#ETD
and have followed the instructions and made sure we are doing the right things.
|||
More information:
We made the forced parameterization change and now in addition to the above wait event, the SOS_SCHEDULER_YIELD is the another prominent wait event that shows up. Nothing else is going on this machine other than that ostress execution which looks like this:
ostress -S xyz -E -d tzxyz -mstress -r1 -iC:\stress.sql -oC:\Stress_Out.txt -eC:\Stress_Err.txt -q -T30 -n100
And the Stress.sql just has a stored procedure call in it. Even if we take the call out and replace it with something as simple as :
declare @.i int
set @.i = 1
select * from table_x where col1 = @.i
we still see the same high CPU issues. The @.i value qualifies for less than 5% of the records in the table. Please advise how to resolve this issue or if this is a known issue in SP2 that will get fixed by release time-frame. This should be very easily reproducible in any environment - all our three environments (32-bit as well as 2 64-bit) exhibit the same behavior.
|||And here is the output from these commands (using DAC) when we ran into this issue:
dbcc memorystatus
select * from sys.dm_os_schedulers
select * from sys.dm_os_ring_buffers where ring_buffer_type like '%RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR%'
Memory Manager KB
--
VM Reserved 16934872
VM Committed 140496
AWE Allocated 3505168
Reserved Memory 1024
Reserved Memory In Use 0
(5 row(s) affected)
Memory node Id = 0 KB
--
VM Reserved 16929112
VM Committed 134824
AWE Allocated 3505168
MultiPage Allocator 43728
SinglePage Allocator 508608
(5 row(s) affected)
MEMORYCLERK_SQLGENERAL (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 2920
MultiPage Allocator 3784
(7 row(s) affected)
MEMORYCLERK_SQLBUFFERPOOL (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 16809984
VM Committed 16384
AWE Allocated 3505168
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 0
MultiPage Allocator 1160
(7 row(s) affected)
MEMORYCLERK_SQLQUERYEXEC (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 29896
MultiPage Allocator 0
(7 row(s) affected)
MEMORYCLERK_SQLOPTIMIZER (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 248
MultiPage Allocator 96
(7 row(s) affected)
MEMORYCLERK_SQLUTILITIES (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 600
VM Committed 600
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 128
MultiPage Allocator 0
(7 row(s) affected)
MEMORYCLERK_SQLSTORENG (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 1728
VM Committed 1728
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 5912
MultiPage Allocator 560
(7 row(s) affected)
MEMORYCLERK_SQLCONNECTIONPOOL (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 8224
MultiPage Allocator 0
(7 row(s) affected)
MEMORYCLERK_SQLCLR (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 8
MultiPage Allocator 0
(7 row(s) affected)
MEMORYCLERK_SQLSERVICEBROKER (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 96
MultiPage Allocator 304
(7 row(s) affected)
MEMORYCLERK_SQLHTTP (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 8
MultiPage Allocator 0
(7 row(s) affected)
MEMORYCLERK_SNI (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 1080
MultiPage Allocator 16
(7 row(s) affected)
MEMORYCLERK_FULLTEXT (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 16
MultiPage Allocator 0
(7 row(s) affected)
MEMORYCLERK_SQLXP (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 16
MultiPage Allocator 0
(7 row(s) affected)
MEMORYCLERK_QSRANGEPREFETCH (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 159528
MultiPage Allocator 0
(7 row(s) affected)
MEMORYCLERK_SQLQERESERVATIONS (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 583680
MultiPage Allocator 0
(7 row(s) affected)
MEMORYCLERK_HOST (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 16
MultiPage Allocator 0
(7 row(s) affected)
MEMORYCLERK_SOSNODE (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 16856
MultiPage Allocator 11432
(7 row(s) affected)
MEMORYCLERK_SQLSERVICEBROKERTRANSPORT (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 48
MultiPage Allocator 0
(7 row(s) affected)
CACHESTORE_OBJCP (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 189264
MultiPage Allocator 22128
(7 row(s) affected)
CACHESTORE_SQLCP (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 10992
MultiPage Allocator 136
(7 row(s) affected)
CACHESTORE_PHDR (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 4008
MultiPage Allocator 0
(7 row(s) affected)
CACHESTORE_XPROC (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 72
MultiPage Allocator 0
(7 row(s) affected)
CACHESTORE_TEMPTABLES (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 880
MultiPage Allocator 0
(7 row(s) affected)
CACHESTORE_NOTIF (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 16
MultiPage Allocator 0
(7 row(s) affected)
CACHESTORE_VIEWDEFINITIONS (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 16
MultiPage Allocator 0
(7 row(s) affected)
CACHESTORE_XMLDBTYPE (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 8
MultiPage Allocator 0
(7 row(s) affected)
CACHESTORE_XMLDBELEMENT (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 8
MultiPage Allocator 0
(7 row(s) affected)
CACHESTORE_XMLDBATTRIBUTE (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 8
MultiPage Allocator 0
(7 row(s) affected)
CACHESTORE_STACKFRAMES (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 0
MultiPage Allocator 8
(7 row(s) affected)
CACHESTORE_BROKERTBLACS (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 264
MultiPage Allocator 0
(7 row(s) affected)
CACHESTORE_BROKERKEK (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 8
MultiPage Allocator 0
(7 row(s) affected)
CACHESTORE_BROKERDSH (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 8
MultiPage Allocator 0
(7 row(s) affected)
CACHESTORE_BROKERUSERCERTLOOKUP (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 8
MultiPage Allocator 0
(7 row(s) affected)
CACHESTORE_BROKERRSB (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 8
MultiPage Allocator 0
(7 row(s) affected)
CACHESTORE_BROKERREADONLY (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 72
MultiPage Allocator 0
(7 row(s) affected)
CACHESTORE_BROKERTO (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 8
MultiPage Allocator 0
(7 row(s) affected)
CACHESTORE_EVENTS (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 16
MultiPage Allocator 0
(7 row(s) affected)
CACHESTORE_SYSTEMROWSET (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 6560
MultiPage Allocator 0
(7 row(s) affected)
USERSTORE_SCHEMAMGR (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 8952
MultiPage Allocator 0
(7 row(s) affected)
USERSTORE_DBMETADATA (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 7656
MultiPage Allocator 0
(7 row(s) affected)
USERSTORE_TOKENPERM (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 784
MultiPage Allocator 0
(7 row(s) affected)
USERSTORE_OBJPERM (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 176
MultiPage Allocator 0
(7 row(s) affected)
USERSTORE_SXC (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 72
MultiPage Allocator 0
(7 row(s) affected)
OBJECTSTORE_LBSS (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 96
MultiPage Allocator 3872
(7 row(s) affected)
OBJECTSTORE_SNI_PACKET (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 18936
MultiPage Allocator 48
(7 row(s) affected)
OBJECTSTORE_SERVICE_BROKER (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 0
VM Committed 0
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 272
MultiPage Allocator 0
(7 row(s) affected)
OBJECTSTORE_LOCK_MANAGER (Total) KB
- --
VM Reserved 32768
VM Committed 32768
AWE Allocated 0
SM Reserved 0
SM Commited 0
SinglePage Allocator 67096
MultiPage Allocator 0
(7 row(s) affected)
Buffer Distribution Buffers
--
Stolen 32328
Free 5979
Cached 37052
Database (clean) 343055
Database (dirty) 12222
I/O 0
Latched 52
(7 row(s) affected)
Buffer Counts Buffers
--
Committed 430688
Target 1572864
Hashed 355329
Stolen Potential 1357684
External Reservation 67147
Min Free 64
Visible 1572864
Available Paging File 1600273
(8 row(s) affected)
Procedure Cache Value
--
TotalProcs 127
TotalPages 28325
InUsePages 9418
(3 row(s) affected)
Global Memory Objects Buffers
--
Resource 392
Locks 8390
XDES 424
SETLS 2
SE Dataset Allocators 4
SubpDesc Allocators 2
SE SchemaManager 1118
SQLCache 214
Replication 2
ServerGlobal 48
XP Global 2
SortTables 2
(12 row(s) affected)
Query Memory Objects Value
--
Grants 228
Waiting 0
Available (Buffers) 1096180
Maximum (Buffers) 1169140
Limit 1169140
Next Request 0
Waiting For 0
Cost 0
Timeout 0
Wait Time 0
Last Target 1181940
(11 row(s) affected)
Small Query Memory Objects Value
--
Grants 0
Waiting 0
Available (Buffers) 12800
Maximum (Buffers) 12800
Limit 12800
(5 row(s) affected)
Optimization Queue Value
--
Overall Memory 10327965696
Target Memory 9516032000
Last Notification 1
Timeout 6
Early Termination Factor 5
(5 row(s) affected)
Small Gateway Value
--
Configured Units 8
Available Units 8
Acquires 0
Waiters 0
Threshold Factor 380000
Threshold 380000
(6 row(s) affected)
Medium Gateway Value
--
Configured Units 2
Available Units 2
Acquires 0
Waiters 0
Threshold Factor 12
(5 row(s) affected)
Big Gateway Value
--
Configured Units 1
Available Units 1
Acquires 0
Waiters 0
Threshold Factor 8
(5 row(s) affected)
MEMORYBROKER_FOR_CACHE Value
-- --
Allocations 33612
Rate 6698
Target Allocations 1168790
Future Allocations 0
Last Notification 1
(5 row(s) affected)
MEMORYBROKER_FOR_STEAL Value
-- --
Allocations 20514
Rate 12631
Target Allocations 1161625
Future Allocations 0
Last Notification 1
(5 row(s) affected)
MEMORYBROKER_FOR_RESERVE Value
-- --
Allocations 55680
Rate 35900
Target Allocations 1260738
Future Allocations 292285
Last Notification 1
(5 row(s) affected)
DBCC execution completed. If DBCC printed error messages, contact your system administrator.
scheduler_address parent_node_id scheduler_id cpu_id status is_online is_idle preemptive_switches_count context_switches_count idle_switches_count current_tasks_count runnable_tasks_count current_workers_count active_workers_count work_queue_count pending_disk_io_count load_factor yield_count last_timer_activity failed_to_create_worker active_worker_address memory_object_address task_memory_object_address
-- - - - - - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
0x0000000000C2A080 0 0 255 VISIBLE ONLINE 1 0 24264 680297 23197 258 120 127 127 131 0 509 733601 85174671 0 0x0000000003B901C0 0x0000000003806080 0x0000000003808050
0x0000000000EA6080 0 1 255 VISIBLE ONLINE 1 0 23938 639343 21522 260 118 128 125 132 0 508 665244 85174671 0 0x0000000003A461C0 0x0000000003810080 0x0000000003812050
0x0000000000FC0080 0 257 255 HIDDEN ONLINE 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 4 78393296 0 0x000000000382C1C0 0x0000000003824080 0x0000000003826050
0x0000000003720080 64 255 255 VISIBLE ONLINE (DAC) 1 1 12 25 27 2 0 3 1 0 0 1 51 85053937 0 0x00000000800001C0 0x0000000000FF6080 0x0000000000FF8050
(4 row(s) affected)
ring_buffer_address ring_buffer_type timestamp record
- -- --
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 85120120 <Record id = "143" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="85120120"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><DeadlockedSchedulersEnd><Node>0</Node><ProcessUtilization>93</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>4</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>17968750</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>3531093750</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>268</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>315392</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></DeadlockedSchedulersEnd></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 85110131 <Record id = "142" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="85110131"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>96</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>1</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>6875000</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>1147656250</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 85050114 <Record id = "141" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="85050114"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>93</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>3</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>5000000</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>1122968750</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>66</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>24576</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 84990106 <Record id = "140" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="84990106"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>89</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>7</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>4843750</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>1075937500</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>79</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>69632</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 84930065 <Record id = "139" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="84930065"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>28</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>68</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>5781250</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>332812500</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>9514</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>31944704</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 84925078 <Record id = "138" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="84925078"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><DeadlockedSchedulersBegin><Node>0</Node><ProcessUtilization>100</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>0</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>-9467</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>16384</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></DeadlockedSchedulersBegin></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 84870072 <Record id = "137" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="84870072"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>95</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>1</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>5312500</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>1143750000</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>66</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>-31739904</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 84870072 <Record id = "136" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="84870072"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><DeadlockedSchedulersEnd><Node>0</Node><ProcessUtilization>95</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>2</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>45312500</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>8540781250</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>449</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></DeadlockedSchedulersEnd></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 84809942 <Record id = "135" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="84809942"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>97</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>0</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>5468750</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>1163125000</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 84749920 <Record id = "134" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="84749920"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>97</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>0</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>6718750</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>1163750000</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 84689902 <Record id = "133" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="84689902"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>96</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>0</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>6250000</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>1155781250</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 84629878 <Record id = "132" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="84629878"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>96</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>1</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>8281250</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>1150312500</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 84569766 <Record id = "131" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="84569766"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>94</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>3</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>5156250</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>1127968750</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 84509738 <Record id = "130" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="84509738"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>90</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>6</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>5625000</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>1084687500</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>59</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 84449704 <Record id = "129" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="84449704"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>90</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>7</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>5937500</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>1077812500</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>771</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>2912256</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 84414707 <Record id = "128" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="84414707"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><DeadlockedSchedulersBegin><Node>0</Node><ProcessUtilization>100</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>0</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>-46</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>-147456</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></DeadlockedSchedulersBegin></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 84409696 <Record id = "127" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="84409696"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><DeadlockedSchedulersEnd><Node>0</Node><ProcessUtilization>90</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>6</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>1093750</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>271406250</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>690</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>2764800</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></DeadlockedSchedulersEnd></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 84389684 <Record id = "126" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="84389684"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>16</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>79</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>5468750</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>194062500</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>8760</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>28860416</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 84389684 <Record id = "125" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="84389684"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><DeadlockedSchedulersBegin><Node>0</Node><ProcessUtilization>100</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>0</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>-11040</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>-28852224</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></DeadlockedSchedulersBegin></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 84329685 <Record id = "124" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="84329685"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>97</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 84269692 <Record id = "123" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="84269692"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>97</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 84209700 <Record id = "122" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="84209700"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>97</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 84149708 <Record id = "121" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="84149708"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>97</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 84089715 <Record id = "120" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="84089715"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>60</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>36</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>2656250</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>722343750</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>-28672</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 84029711 <Record id = "119" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="84029711"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>51</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>43</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>7187500</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>611718750</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>1739</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>20480</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 84009711 <Record id = "118" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="84009711"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><DeadlockedSchedulersEnd><Node>0</Node><ProcessUtilization>100</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>0</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>-1955</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>-20480</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></DeadlockedSchedulersEnd></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 84004713 <Record id = "117" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="84004713"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><DeadlockedSchedulersBegin><Node>0</Node><ProcessUtilization>100</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>0</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>-1955</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>-20480</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></DeadlockedSchedulersBegin></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 83969698 <Record id = "116" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="83969698"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>97</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 83909706 <Record id = "115" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="83909706"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>97</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 83849713 <Record id = "114" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="83849713"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>98</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 83789720 <Record id = "113" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="83789720"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>43</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>54</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>4062500</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>514062500</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>61</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 83744714 <Record id = "112" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="83744714"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><DeadlockedSchedulersEnd><Node>0</Node><ProcessUtilization>100</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>0</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>-11</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>-4096</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></DeadlockedSchedulersEnd></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 83739712 <Record id = "111" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="83739712"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><DeadlockedSchedulersBegin><Node>0</Node><ProcessUtilization>100</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>0</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>-11</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>-4096</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></DeadlockedSchedulersBegin></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 83734711 <Record id = "110" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="83734711"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><DeadlockedSchedulersEnd><Node>0</Node><ProcessUtilization>87</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>8</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>468750</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>87500000</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>5</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></DeadlockedSchedulersEnd></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 83729713 <Record id = "109" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="83729713"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>17</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>79</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>3281250</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>204375000</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>739</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>258048</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 83724713 <Record id = "108" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="83724713"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><DeadlockedSchedulersBegin><Node>0</Node><ProcessUtilization>100</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>0</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>-1029</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>32493568</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></DeadlockedSchedulersBegin></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 83669719 <Record id = "107" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="83669719"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>97</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 83609726 <Record id = "106" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="83609726"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>33</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>63</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>5156250</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>392656250</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>262</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>-32751616</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 83569737 <Record id = "105" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="83569737"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><DeadlockedSchedulersEnd><Node>0</Node><ProcessUtilization>96</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>0</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>1093750</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>95312500</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>17</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>49152</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></DeadlockedSchedulersEnd></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 83559744 <Record id = "104" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="83559744"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><DeadlockedSchedulersBegin><Node>0</Node><ProcessUtilization>100</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>0</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>-35</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>192512</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></DeadlockedSchedulersBegin></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 83549737 <Record id = "103" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="83549737"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>97</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>0</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>6093750</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>1169218750</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>178</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>-155648</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 83544718 <Record id = "102" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="83544718"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><DeadlockedSchedulersEnd><Node>0</Node><ProcessUtilization>97</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>0</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>781250</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>195468750</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>10</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></DeadlockedSchedulersEnd></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 83529662 <Record id = "101" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="83529662"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><DeadlockedSchedulersBegin><Node>0</Node><ProcessUtilization>100</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>0</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>-138</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>12288</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></DeadlockedSchedulersBegin></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 83519615 <Record id = "100" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="83519615"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><DeadlockedSchedulersEnd><Node>0</Node><ProcessUtilization>100</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>0</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>-97</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>57344</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></DeadlockedSchedulersEnd></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 83514624 <Record id = "99" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="83514624"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><DeadlockedSchedulersBegin><Node>0</Node><ProcessUtilization>100</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>0</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>-97</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>57344</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></DeadlockedSchedulersBegin></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 83499628 <Record id = "98" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="83499628"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><DeadlockedSchedulersEnd><Node>0</Node><ProcessUtilization>93</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>3</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>59687500</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>12989687500</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>705</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>49152</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></DeadlockedSchedulersEnd></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 83489571 <Record id = "97" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="83489571"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>97</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>0</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>5156250</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>1168906250</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 83429485 <Record id = "96" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="83429485"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>97</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>0</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>5468750</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>1163750000</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 83369459 <Record id = "95" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="83369459"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>97</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>0</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>5468750</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>1164531250</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 83309426 <Record id = "94" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="83309426"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>97</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>0</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>5781250</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>1163593750</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>59</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 83249416 <Record id = "93" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="83249416"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>96</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>0</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>5312500</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>1154843750</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 83189376 <Record id = "92" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="83189376"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>95</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>2</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>5000000</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>1146250000</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 83129193 <Record id = "91" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="83129193"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>94</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>3</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>4843750</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>1132031250</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 83069126 <Record id = "90" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="83069126"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>93</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>4</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>3906250</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>1114062500</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 83009112 <Record id = "89" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="83009112"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>90</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>7</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>4062500</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>1077812500</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>59</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 82949130 <Record id = "88" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="82949130"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>87</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>9</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>6093750</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>1046718750</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 82889131 <Record id = "87" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="82889131"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>86</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>10</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>5468750</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>1035781250</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 82829140 <Record id = "86" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="82829140"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>87</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>9</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>5781250</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>1042812500</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>7333</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>27795456</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 82799139 <Record id = "85" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="82799139"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><DeadlockedSchedulersBegin><Node>0</Node><ProcessUtilization>100</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>0</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>-34</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>-102400</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></DeadlockedSchedulersBegin></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 82794137 <Record id = "84" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="82794137"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><DeadlockedSchedulersEnd><Node>0</Node><ProcessUtilization>88</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>8</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>1093750</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>175312500</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>367</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>1462272</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></DeadlockedSchedulersEnd></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 82779139 <Record id = "83" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="82779139"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><DeadlockedSchedulersBegin><Node>0</Node><ProcessUtilization>100</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>0</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>-26240</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>-40124416</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></DeadlockedSchedulersBegin></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 82769022 <Record id = "82" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="82769022"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>6</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>85</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>17968750</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>55781250</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>8949</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>18870272</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 82708960 <Record id = "81" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="82708960"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>1</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>95</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>8281250</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>6718750</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>5511</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>19394560</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 82648968 <Record id = "80" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="82648968"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>97</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 82588975 <Record id = "79" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="82588975"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>97</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 82528982 <Record id = "78" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="82528982"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>97</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 82468990 <Record id = "77" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="82468990"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>97</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>64</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>12288</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 82408997 <Record id = "76" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="82408997"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>98</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 82349005 <Record id = "75" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="82349005"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>97</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>64</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>-385024</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 82289012 <Record id = "74" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="82289012"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>97</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 82229020 <Record id = "73" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="82229020"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>98</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>63</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>-11390976</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 82169027 <Record id = "72" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="82169027"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>97</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>-16384</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 82109035 <Record id = "71" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="82109035"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>97</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 82049042 <Record id = "70" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="82049042"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>98</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 81989050 <Record id = "69" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="81989050"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>98</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 81929057 <Record id = "68" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="81929057"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>97</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 81869065 <Record id = "67" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="81869065"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>97</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 81809072 <Record id = "66" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="81809072"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>97</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 81749079 <Record id = "65" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="81749079"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>97</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>62</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>4096</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 81689087 <Record id = "64" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="81689087"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>98</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 81629094 <Record id = "63" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="81629094"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>97</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 81569102 <Record id = "62" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="81569102"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>97</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 81509109 <Record id = "61" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="81509109"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>97</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 81449117 <Record id = "60" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="81449117"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>97</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>156250</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>-10162176</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 81389124 <Record id = "59" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="81389124"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>97</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 81329131 <Record id = "58" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="81329131"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>98</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 81269139 <Record id = "57" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="81269139"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>97</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 81209146 <Record id = "56" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="81209146"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>97</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 81149154 <Record id = "55" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="81149154"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>98</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 81089162 <Record id = "54" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="81089162"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>97</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 81029169 <Record id = "53" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="81029169"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>97</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 80969176 <Record id = "52" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="80969176"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>97</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 80909184 <Record id = "51" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="80909184"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>97</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 80849191 <Record id = "50" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="80849191"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>97</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 80789199 <Record id = "49" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="80789199"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>97</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 80729206 <Record id = "48" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="80729206"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>97</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 80669214 <Record id = "47" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="80669214"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>97</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 80609221 <Record id = "46" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="80609221"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>98</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 80549228 <Record id = "45" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="80549228"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>98</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 80489236 <Record id = "44" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="80489236"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>97</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>61</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>4096</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 80429243 <Record id = "43" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="80429243"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>98</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 80369251 <Record id = "42" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="80369251"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>98</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 80309258 <Record id = "41" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="80309258"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>97</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 80249266 <Record id = "40" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="80249266"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>94</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>156250</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 80189273 <Record id = "39" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="80189273"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>98</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 80129280 <Record id = "38" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="80129280"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>97</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 80069288 <Record id = "37" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="80069288"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>97</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 80009295 <Record id = "36" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="80009295"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>97</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 79949303 <Record id = "35" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="79949303"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>97</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 79889310 <Record id = "34" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="79889310"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>97</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 79829318 <Record id = "33" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="79829318"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>98</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 79769325 <Record id = "32" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="79769325"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>43</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>54</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>2187500</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>520781250</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>-4730880</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 79709332 <Record id = "31" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="79709332"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>65</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>31</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>4687500</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>798906250</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>71</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>-401408</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 79648355 <Record id = "30" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="79648355"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>88</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>9</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>4687500</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>1058593750</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>116</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>-1662976</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 79588359 <Record id = "29" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="79588359"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>92</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>5</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>7500000</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>1097343750</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>1889</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>4694016</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 79543364 <Record id = "28" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="79543364"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><DeadlockedSchedulersEnd><Node>0</Node><ProcessUtilization>90</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>7</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>28750000</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>6288281250</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>3361</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>6144000</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></DeadlockedSchedulersEnd></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 79528340 <Record id = "27" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="79528340"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>90</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>7</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>5468750</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>1081250000</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>331</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>-937984</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 79468346 <Record id = "26" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="79468346"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>92</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>5</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>5156250</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>1106875000</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>403</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>-835584</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 79408339 <Record id = "25" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="79408339"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>92</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>5</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>5000000</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>1107343750</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>386</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>921600</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 79348230 <Record id = "24" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="79348230"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>92</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>5</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>4375000</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>1105312500</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>703</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>2633728</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 79288209 <Record id = "23" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="79288209"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>89</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>8</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>5312500</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>1070937500</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>890</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>2715648</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 79228124 <Record id = "22" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="79228124"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>66</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>29</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>7187500</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>788906250</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>3422</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>9412608</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 79188134 <Record id = "21" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="79188134"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><DeadlockedSchedulersBegin><Node>0</Node><ProcessUtilization>100</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>0</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>-5643</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>-11755520</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></DeadlockedSchedulersBegin></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 79168131 <Record id = "20" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="79168131"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>32</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>64</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>7812500</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>387343750</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>270</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>143360</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 79108139 <Record id = "19" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="79108139"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>18</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>78</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>19843750</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>206406250</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>291</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>102400</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 79048146 <Record id = "18" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="79048146"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>29</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>67</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>14218750</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>345312500</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>282</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>348160</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 78988153 <Record id = "17" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="78988153"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>33</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>63</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>5000000</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>401250000</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>475</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>1691648</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 78928161 <Record id = "16" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="78928161"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>95</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>312500</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>167</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>405504</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 78868168 <Record id = "15" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="78868168"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>0</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>96</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>312500</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>105</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>176128</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 78808175 <Record id = "14" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="78808175"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>25</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>72</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>1562500</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>303125000</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>60</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>-8192</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 78753185 <Record id = "13" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="78753185"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><DeadlockedSchedulersEnd><Node>0</Node><ProcessUtilization>90</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>7</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>4062500</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>987968750</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>55</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></DeadlockedSchedulersEnd></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 78748193 <Record id = "12" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="78748193"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>83</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>10</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>5156250</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>1082187500</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>1140</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>831488</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 78688081 <Record id = "11" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="78688081"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><DeadlockedSchedulersBegin><Node>0</Node><ProcessUtilization>100</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>0</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>-957</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>-61440</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></DeadlockedSchedulersBegin></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 78683090 <Record id = "10" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="78683090"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>53</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>42</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>4218750</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>637343750</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>961</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>73728</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 78638099 <Record id = "9" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="78638099"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><DeadlockedSchedulersEnd><Node>0</Node><ProcessUtilization>89</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>7</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>3437500</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>894375000</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>50</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></DeadlockedSchedulersEnd></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 78623098 <Record id = "8" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="78623098"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>79</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>16</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>6406250</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>950937500</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>1018</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>397312</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 78583072 <Record id = "7" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="78583072"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><DeadlockedSchedulersBegin><Node>0</Node><ProcessUtilization>100</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>0</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>-1168</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>-757760</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></DeadlockedSchedulersBegin></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 78563064 <Record id = "6" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="78563064"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>39</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>58</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>1875000</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>469375000</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>176</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>323584</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 78513072 <Record id = "5" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="78513072"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><DeadlockedSchedulersEnd><Node>0</Node><ProcessUtilization>100</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>0</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>-19</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>-36864</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></DeadlockedSchedulersEnd></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 78508074 <Record id = "4" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="78508074"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><DeadlockedSchedulersBegin><Node>0</Node><ProcessUtilization>100</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>0</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>-19</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>-36864</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></DeadlockedSchedulersBegin></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 78503075 <Record id = "3" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="78503075"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>87</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>7</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>8437500</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>1045000000</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>5867</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>19615744</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 78503075 <Record id = "2" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="78503075"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><DeadlockedSchedulersEnd><Node>0</Node><ProcessUtilization>93</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>3</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>2343750</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>838281250</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>45</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>0</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></DeadlockedSchedulersEnd></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 78453078 <Record id = "1" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="78453078"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><DeadlockedSchedulersBegin><Node>0</Node><ProcessUtilization>100</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>0</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>0</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>0</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>-28064</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>-107360256</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></DeadlockedSchedulersBegin></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
0x0000000000C249A0 RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR 78443079 <Record id = "0" type ="RING_BUFFER_SCHEDULER_MONITOR" time ="78443079"><SchedulerMonitorEvent><SystemHealth><ProcessUtilization>1</ProcessUtilization><SystemIdle>95</SystemIdle><UserModeTime>3437500</UserModeTime><KernelModeTime>8593750</KernelModeTime><PageFaults>6029</PageFaults><WorkingSetDelta>22028288</WorkingSetDelta><MemoryUtilization>100</MemoryUtilization></SystemHealth></SchedulerMonitorEvent></Record>
(144 row(s) affected)
|||There does not seem to be a memory problem -- less than 5GB of the said 16 is being used. Server is definitely hogging the CPU.
Can you also please attach the output of dbcc sqlperf (spinlockstats)?
Thanks ,Ron D.
|||Here is the information (only those records are shown that had any value in it):
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)