SQL Server 2005 Doesn't Allocate Available Memory
Oct 26, 2007
running Sql Server 2005 SP2 on Windows 2003 Server SP1 with 2GB RAM. After start-up, the sqlservr.exe does only take up around 100 MB of RAM, and it stays roughly there even if the DB is used heavily. This leads to very poor performance, even timeouts on simple querys.
In the task manager, I see that of the 2 GB of RAM, more than 1 GB is still available. I don't understand why SQL Server won't take it?
As a test, I configured the min and max amount of RAM SQL Server should used both to 1024 MB and restarted the service - but it is still the same picture. It won't take more than around 100 MB.
The server has just been restarted, but the problem remains.
BTW there is also an instance of SQL 2000 on the same machine. It shows the same behaviour - I even checked the "reserve phyiscal memory" checkbox there, but it stays on a very low number (50 MB) and doesn't adhere to the supposed size.
thanks and best regards,
- Urs
View 3 Replies
ADVERTISEMENT
Jan 9, 2006
Hi,
Sorry for placing it in SQL Server Forum.But I couldn't find a appropiate forum for my question.Can anybody help me?
My question is -
How to allocate expended memory in windows XP?
Thanks!!
Joydeep
View 1 Replies
View Related
Dec 8, 2005
Any help would be appreciated.
This message is received on the client. Client pc has Intel 2Ghz or better processor, 512MB Ram, sufficient hard drive space, connecting to MS SQLServer 2000 thru TCP/IP.
Database server is running Windows 2000 Advanced Server w/ SP3 and MS SQLServer 2000 Enterprise Edition w/ SP3, with 4 way 700Mhz PIII Xeon processors and 4GB Ram (I'm not certain about network connectivity, but it's at least 100MB Ethernet). The database is approximately 87GB, with an average of 250 to 300 connections.
The application is vendor supplied, written in Visual Basic 3.0. Therefore I am using 16 bit SQL drivers, the latest I am aware of, dated 6/15/1997.
This database was previously running on SQLServer 7, and this error did not occur. It started after the upgrade to SQLServer 2000. We discovered this error in testing the upgrade and found that by decreasing the "Network Packet Size" setting on SQLServer w/ sp_configure, we were able to make the message go away. However now that we are in a production environment, the message seems to be coming back randomly. We have the NPS set to 1024 (default is 4096). I'm worried about performance if it is dropped much farther.
Any ideas? Thanks again for any help!
View 8 Replies
View Related
Aug 2, 2006
Hi Gurus,Our system is using SqlServer 2005 on XP.( On my machine,only thisapplication access SQLServer.) The sqlserver memory is configured to128MB (Min)~512 MB(Max)After our system get started, sqlserver takes about 100M memory. Afterthe system runs for a while, the memory used by sqlserver goes up to512MB. Then we exit our application and expect the memory usage ofSqlServer could be dropped down to the min value. Unfortunately, itseems SqlServer never release any memory until we restart it.I thought dynamic memory configuration means that SQLServer can autoshrink memory usage if there is no more database accessing. But basedon my observation, SQLserver just holds all the memory . :( How canwe let the sqlServer shrink the memory usage accordingly to workload?I do appreciate for your help!Best regards,Jennifer
View 2 Replies
View Related
Jul 23, 2007
When I try to add a SQL Server Database as a new item into the App_Data folder of my Web Project, I get this error demanding that SQL Server Express has to be installed. That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of. Is there some setting or something to make VS 2005 Pro work with a standard SS database? I don't want to use the express edition. I can't use SS's management studio with that.
Does Microsoft monitor this forum? I thought they were going to be taking technology forward; not backwards. I'm losing a lot of time having to install and uninstall and reinstall to get the environment into a mode that works lke I want it to work. If they didn't intend for SS standard edition to be used with VS 2005 Pro, then why did they include SS developers edition in the Pro package?
View 2 Replies
View Related
Aug 3, 2006
I'm trying to install the cumulative hot fix (build 2153) on an x86 machine. I'm running the first of the six install EXEs, and I'm not able to select any of the checkboxes on the Feature Selection tab of the wizard.
I see three checkboxes. The first is SQL Server Database Services 2005 and beneath it two child nodes: MSSQLSERVER (RTM 1399 ENU) and SQLEXPRESS (RTM 1399 ENU)
None of the checkboxes allow me to select them and when I click the Next button on the screen I get the following:
"You have not selected any active products or instances. You must select at least one active product or instance to patch in order to proceed."
View 3 Replies
View Related
Sep 22, 2007
Hi,
Can anybody help me with the following problem:
I have Vista Ultimate installed and within Vista .NET Framework 3.0 is installed as a part of the operating system so I can't remove 3.0
Now for MS SQL Server 2005 Express I need .NET Framework 2.0 and the SQL Server 2005 doesn't work with .NET Framework 3.0
Can't install 2.0, get the message that 3.0 is already installed.
Is there another version of SQL Server that works with .NET Framework 3.0 and runs under Vista Ultimate?
Please help me!!
René
View 3 Replies
View Related
Jul 5, 2007
Hi all,
We have a SQL Server 2005 64-bit, and recently I upgrade from build 3042 to 3054 and I try to do a maintenance plan for transaction logs(TL) backup, including cleanup for two days (have full backup every night).
Problem I have is that I want the TL files to dump in a different location(due to disk space), so I put in the UNC path in the "Create a backup file for every database - >Folder:\FileServerTLDBLogs"
NB: if using the local drives, it work
Check List
Security:
- The account that I used to create the plan is an sa account
- The location that I dump the TL files, I have full access to the folder
SQL Statement:
exec xp_cmdshell 'dir FileServerTLDBLogs' (it list all files)
Is this a bug for 64-bit? because I can do this on SQL Server 2005 32-bit and it's work perfectly
View 1 Replies
View Related
Sep 16, 2007
Here'a a break down of what I've done so far.
* Windows 2003 32bit Enterprise with 10gb RAM
* SQL 2005 32bit Enterprise
* boot.ini - have added /3GB /PAE switches
* Confirmed which account SQL Server is running under and added that account to Local Policies/User Rights Assignment/Lock pages in memory
* Enabled AWE in SQL SERVER
* set minimum and maximum server memory to 9gb
* Rebooted.
Task manager says the following:
sqlservr.exe - 95MB usage * I know this is normal when using AWE right?
The actual physical memory used is 3.13GB and never goes higher. So this leads to believe that SQL is utilizing 3GB because of the /3GB switch, but it's not using the rest like it should be. I tried it without the /3GB switch and it only went up to about 2.1GB usage.
I've turned on performance monitor and SQL server target memory says 8.65 GB while the Total Server Memory says 2.45GB.
I've run:
EXEC sp_configure 'show advanced options'
RECONFIGURE
GO
EXEC sp_configure 'awe enabled'
RECONFIGURE
GO
And it confirms that the running value for both is 1
Please help.
View 20 Replies
View Related
Mar 26, 2007
Hi
I would like to know how much of memory is taken by sql server 2005 entprise edition 64 bit during sql server startup in default configuration.....(4GB RAM being used).
i also want to know about montioring the performance of sql server 2005.Should i continue to use performance monitor (perfmon) or is there any new feature in slq server 2005 which provides performance monitoring.
Thanks in advance
View 2 Replies
View Related
Feb 21, 2008
Hello.
I have a db dal containing the following code:
SqlCommand cmd = new SqlCommand();
cmd.Connection = dbc;
cmd.CommandType = CommandType.StoredProcedure;
cmd.CommandText = "SOME STORED PROCEDURE";
.
.
.
declare some SqlParameters
.
.
.
dbc.Open();
cmd.ExecuteNonQuery();
dbc.Close();
This code, when concurrently running via several threads, yields the following exception:
"The connection was not closed. The connection's current state is open."
My questions are:
1. Why don't .Net allocate another connection from the pool (I try to only concurrently run 2 threads while there are 25 connections in the connection pool) ?
2. How can one explicitly allocate a connection?
3. How do you suggest to solve this problem without a mutex/monitor etc' on the 3 bold lines above and without BeginExequteNonQuery()?
Thank you !
View 2 Replies
View Related
Dec 11, 2007
Hi all,
I needed to load some tables in memory on startup because of performance reasons.
I'm using "select * from <table>", but there are few questions:
1. How to pin already selected data in memory ? (DBCC PINTABLE doesn't work for 2005)
2. How to put index data in memory ? (do you read document(s) for advance memory management - index data caching ?)
3. How to pin index data in memory ? (otherwise sound very bad - table data in fast memory, index data - in slow disks)
Thanks in advance:
Siol En
View 6 Replies
View Related
Sep 14, 2007
Hi:
I'm running Windows Small Business Server 2003 Premium R2. I installed SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition on this PC. I'm using Std Edition instead of the Workgroup Edition that comes with SBS since I like the additional features in the Std Edition.
I'm a kind of a newbie to Windows Server administration and SQL Server administration although I've written lots of SQL queries, stored procedures, etc.
I have 2GB of RAM on this PC. When I looked in Task Manager, I saw that SQL Server was using somewhere over 1GB of RAM. So, I opened up SQL Management Studio, right clicked on the server node, clicked to get to the memory configuration page and saw that SQL Server was set to use all 2GB of RAM on the PC. I changed that to 500MB(500000000, or 476MB) and decided to reboot the server. When the server came back up, I forgot to check SQL Server's new RAM usage. The server ran without interruption for over 24 hours. Now, when I checked SQL Server's memory usage in Task Manager, I can see it's using over 750MB of RAM.
How do I fix this?
I have Exchange Server 2003 running on this PC as well.
Thx.
View 9 Replies
View Related
Dec 11, 2007
Hi all,
I needed to load some tables in memory on startup because of performance reasons.
I'm using "select * from <table>", but there are few questions:
1. How to pin already selected data in memory ? (DBCC PINTABLE doesn't work for 2005)
2. How to put index data in memory ? (do you read document(s) for advance memory management - index data caching ?)
3. How to pin index data in memory ? (otherwise sound very bad - table data in fast memory, index data - in slow disks)
Thanks in advance:
Siol En
View 3 Replies
View Related
Sep 18, 2007
We have an application that we currently run on SQL Server 2000 that works by creating a DTS package that it then executes.
Due to performance reasons, we have been considering switching to 2005, for a few reasons. Can anyone confirm clarify the following?
1) SQL Server 2000 caps RAM usage at 2GB, whereas SQL Server 2005 is only limited by the OS - RAM usage is a big current issue for us, so if upgrading to 2005 would solve this it would help a lot. Can anyone confirm my understanding of this?
2) Would using the legacy DTS in SQL Server 2005 take advantage of this RAM difference, or is it running on the old 2000 engine and only able to use the 2GB?
Thanks for any help.
View 4 Replies
View Related
Apr 20, 2007
My server is a dual AMD x64 2.19 GHz with 8 GB RAM running under Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition with service pack 1 installed. We have SQL 2000 32-bit Enterprise installed in the default instance. AWE is enabled using Dynamically configured SQL Server memory with 6215 MB minimum memory and 6656 maximum memory settings.
I have now installed, side-by-side, SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition in a separate named instance. Everything is running fine but I believe SQL Server2005 could run faster and need to ensure I am giving it plenty of resources. I realize AWE is not needed with SQL Server 2005 and I have seen suggestions to grant the SQL Server account the 'lock pages in memory' rights. This box only runs the SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 server databases and I would like to ensure, if possible, that each is splitting the available memory equally, at least until we can retire SQL Server 2000 next year. Any suggestions?
View 8 Replies
View Related
Aug 13, 2007
A query was taking 20 seconds and consuming 70% CPU takes only 1 second after setting Maximum Memory property to 2048 MB - why?
Server:
OS Microsoft(R) Windows(R) Server 2003, Enterprise Edition
Version5.2.3790 Service Pack 1 Build 3790
8 GB memory
Two Dual-core AMD Opteron 285 2.6GHz Processors
Server is not configured for AWE
Fiber channel connection to EMC Clarion - two LUNs - one for MDF, one for LDF
SQL 2005
SQL 2005 32 bit Standard Edition - SP1 (version 9.0.2047)
Three instances installed on server - only one instance in use
Binaries and system databases on local mirrored disk
Database file (MDF) on one EMC LUN - dedicated physical drives
Log file (LDF) on one EMC LUN - dedicated physical drives
Query in question:
SELECT TOP 10 Address.Address1, Address.Address2, Address.City, Address.County, Address.State, Address.ZIPCode, Address.Country, Client.Name,
Quote.Deleted, Client.PrimaryContact, Client.DBA, Client.Type, Quote.Status, Quote.LOB, Client.ClientID, Quote.QuoteID, Quote.PolicyNumber,
Quote.EffectiveDate, Quote.ExpirationDate, Quote.Description, Quote.Description2, Quote.DateModified, Quote.DateAccessed, Quote.CurrentPremium,
Quote.TransactionDate, Quote.CreationDate, Quote.Producer FROM ((Client INNER JOIN Address ON Client.ClientID = Address.ClientID) INNER JOIN Quote ON
Client.ClientID = Quote.ClientID) WHERE (Quote.Deleted = 0) AND ((Address.AddressType)='Mailing') ORDER BY Client.Name
Address table - 161,075 rows
Client table - 161,634 rows
Quote table - 59,145 rows
With default maximum memory setting (2,147,483,647 MB) - query runs in 20 seconds and consumes over 70 % of the CPU.
After changing maximum memory setting to 2048 MB, query runs in less than 1 second.
Question is:
What is the best practice for setting the minimum and maximum memory settings for SQL 2005?
What can be monitored to identify the cause of these type of issues - using profiler, PerfMon, other tool?
Thanks
View 2 Replies
View Related
Jul 23, 2005
I was browsing Microsoft's SQL Server site, looking forsome details about SQL Server 2005. Didn't find whatI was looking for...I'm thinking about moving an existing SQL Server 2000workload to a new box, using SQL Server 2005, andmaybe the 64-bit version.My questions are:1. What is the current target date for release of SQL Server 2005?Will 64-bit ship when 32-bit ships?2. Will 64-bit SQL Server 2005 require a special versionof Windows Server 2003 (e.g. Windows Server 2003 Enterprise x64)?Will it work with both Intel and AMD processors?3. How many CPUs, and how much memory, will be supported bySQL Server 2005, 32-bit and 64-bit, on each OS that can runSQL Server 2005.I'm looking for a chart here, something like the chart onpage 117 of Kalen Delaney's "Inside SQL Server 2000" book.SQL Server 2005 SQL Server 2005Feature Enterprise 32-bit Enterprise 64-bit------------------- ----------------- -----------------CPUs supportedWin Srvr 2003:Win Srvr 2003 Adv:Win Srvr 2003 Ent x64:Physical memorysupportedWin Srvr 2003:Win Srvr 2003 Adv:Win Srvr 2003 Ent x64:Has Microsoft published this info, and I just can find it?
View 1 Replies
View Related
Sep 25, 2006
Hi,
We have recently tested upgrading our web service from sql 2000 to 2005 sp1. The upgrade went smoothly enough, however we now have the problem of the sqlserver.exe process taking 90-100 % of the processors time, but using only 100 MB of memory.
We have 6GB available and we are running the enterprise editions of Windows 2003 and SQL 2005.
Machine specs,
DL380 G2, 2 X 2.8 Ghz Zeon, 6GB ram, Raid 5, database partition of 140 GB, Log partition of 35 GB.
Db is 25 GB, Log is 12 GB. Largest table has 32 million rows.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Rob
View 1 Replies
View Related
Aug 14, 2007
we wonder about the tradeoffs of t-sql vs clr in sql server 2005 especially from a memory perspective. Is there documentation available on this subject?
View 8 Replies
View Related
Apr 2, 2007
I have a Windows 2003 Server running SQL 2005. The server has 32 GB of memory and I have enabled AWE in SQL. I have also configured the min and max SQL memory as 1 GB and 28 GB, respectively. However, this server currently has very low activity so I'm not sure whether my AWE-related changes worked. SQLSERVR.EXE process takes up about 100 MB of memory. Is there any tool or scripts that I can use to memory stress SQL to confirm that AWE is really in effect ?
View 1 Replies
View Related
Nov 9, 2007
Hi,
I'm having trouble finding the optimum memory settings for SQL Server 2005. I have 4 instances running on a macine with 8 dual-core processors and 18GB of RAM. I have tried the following memory settings so far:
No maximum - one instance used about 12GB of RAM so then the others struggled
Maximum of 4GB each (2GB left for Windows) - meant that 3 instances could be using 1GB each and then another at 4GB and needing more whilst 9GB sat unused.
Minimum of 2GB each - one instance would use up 10GB and then never give any back to the other instances.
I also find that setting a maximum then just causes a high amount of paging. What I would like to do is have each instance use a minimum amount, say 1GB, and then have each instance use a maximum of 13GB (3GB for other 3 instances running at a minimum level and 2GB for Windows). This 13GB should then be released and allocated to another instance when necessary, assuming it is no longer all being used. I do not want paging to occur if an instance reaches 13GB.
How do I go about configuring SQL Server to behave like this? Is it possible?
Thanks.
View 1 Replies
View Related
Jan 2, 2007
Hi forum readers,
we are working on a release 2.0 mobile solution right now. In our version 1.0 we did not have to worry about memory issues as our application was the only application running on our target devices (e.g. T-Mobile MDA Compact II Pocket PCs, WM2005).
Now we need to share the available memory with others. As our application relies on its SQL Server 2005 Mobile Edition database we are wondering about memory usage of that server.
We know that a Pocket PC divides its memory into Storage and Program. If our application uses a 5 MB database and 1.5 MB for DLLs and it's exe-file. These files reside in the storage space when not loaded. When the application starts up it is loaded in the program memory. What happens to the 5 MB database file? Is is loaded into Program memory as well? Are only portions of that file loaded? Or is nothing loaded at all?
Does anyone have a deeper insight into that server an can answer my questions.
Best regards,
Tobias
View 3 Replies
View Related
Mar 21, 2015
I like to create an SQL view to divide amount 300,000 between 12 month starting from Month July 2014 to June 2015 as shown below
Amount Month Year
25,000 July 2014
25,000 August 2014
25,000 September 2014
25,000 October 2014
25,000 November 2014
25,000 December 2014
25,000 January 2015
25,000 February 2015
.
.
.
.
25,000 June 2015
View 7 Replies
View Related
Feb 11, 2007
We have only a small busines and haven't got too much experience with servers and now have a proliant server coming in with SBS 2003 R2 Premium with the 4 GB max memory that SBS 2003 can handle according to the specs.
We weren't planning on using the SQL 2005 worlgroup edition up till now, but now we might. According to the specs of SQL server 2005 workgroup edition however, it has a max RAM of 3GB!
Is this going to be a problem and should we keep using our previous DB, or can we migrate toward SQL server with the 4 GB of RAM?
View 2 Replies
View Related
Jun 29, 2015
I have question about tempdb needs to be configured 100GB 64kb block size.its fresh installation.
how to allocate the file sizes.still im not sure how many log files needs to be created with 100GB equals to 64KB block size.
what is 64KB block size and how to divide the logfiles 64KB into the 100gb or 50GB?
what is 64 KB cluster has 128 sectors?
tempdb drives should be formatted with a 64K allocation? how many files needs to created for good performance with 50GB or 100GB? ot 1TB
View 3 Replies
View Related
Aug 2, 2006
Hi
I did a load testing and found the following observations:
1. The Memory:Pages/sec was crossing the limit beyond 20.
2. The Target Server Memory was always greater than Total Server Memory
Seeing the above data it seems to be memory pressure. But I found that AvailableMemory was always above 200 MB. Also Buffer Cache HitRatio was close to 99.99. What could be the reason for the above behavior?
View 1 Replies
View Related
Apr 27, 2006
SSIS doesn`t start after applying SQL Server 2005 SP1
I get an error Message in event log
event id 7000 source: Service Control Manager Type: Error
Message:
The SQL Server Integration Services service failed to start due to the following error:
The service did not respond to the start or control request in a timely fashion.
For more information, see Help and Support Center at http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/events.asp.
regards
Lothar Belle
View 4 Replies
View Related
Aug 3, 2007
Hi,
I am testing SQL 2005 Standard (32 bit) on a Windows 2003 Server 64 bit with 8GB of RAM? Should I enable the AWP Setting or not and should I change the maximum server memory (currently saying 2GB)?
Thanks!
Tom
View 1 Replies
View Related
Nov 9, 2007
We are looking for some guidance with an issue we have picked up with our implementation of Service Broker here on the ABSA Capital project and I am hoping you can help or point us in the direction of someone.
The architecture we have implemented for service broker is to make use of an Activation stored procedure on two queues (1 SP per queue) to process the messages received. What we have found is that the activation stored procedure runs on a background session and its CPU time and memory just grows to the point where it brought one of our UAT servers to a grinding halt.
Is there anyway we can reduce the memory consumption of the activation stored procedure or is this one of those things that still need to be ironed out in Service Broker?
View 6 Replies
View Related
Aug 22, 2007
sql server 2000 is running on windows server 2003 ... 4gb of memory on server .... 2003 was allocated 2.3gb nd sql server was allocated (and using all of it) 1.6gb for total of approx 4gb based on idera monitor software ... all memory allocated betweeen the OS and sql server .... then 4 more gb of memory added for total now of 8g ... now idera monitor shows 1.7gb for OS and 1.0 gb for sql server ..... 'system' info shows 8gb memory with PAE ... so I assume that the full 8gb can now be addressed .... why are less resources being used now with more total memory .... especially sql server ..... i thought about specifying a minimum memmry for sql server but i amnot convinced that would even work since it seems that this 1gb limit is artificial .... it it used 1.6 gb before why would it not use at least that much now ??
thank you
View 4 Replies
View Related
May 19, 2008
Hi, I am trying to edit some data from a SQL2000-datasource in ASP.NET 2.0 and have a problem with a column that has bit-data and is used for selection. SQL2005 works fine when declaring <SelectParameters> <asp:Parameter DefaultValue="TRUE" Name="APL" Type="boolean" /> </SelectParameters>When running this code with SQL2000, there are no error-msgs, but after editing a record the "APL"-column looses its value of 1 and is set to 0. Looks like an issue with type-conversion, we've hit incompatibilities between SQL200 and 2005 with bit/boolean several times before. So, how is this done correctly with SQL2000? (I've tried setting the Type to "int16" -> err. Also setting Defval="1" gave an err) ThanksMichael
View 2 Replies
View Related
Aug 6, 1999
Hi,
I've got a table with 65'000 records and when I do a SELECT * FROM tablename ORDER BY Name I receive this error message:
Msg 1105, Level 17, State 1
Can't allocate space for object '-513' in database 'tempdb' because the 'system' segment is full.
If you ran out of space in Syslogs, dump the transaction log.
Otherwise, use ALTER DATABASE or sp_extendsegment to increase the size of the segment.
Msg 1510, Level 17, State 2
Sort failed: Out of space or locks in database 'tempdb'
So I've dumped the transaction with no_log and also I've extended the segement from the master database (because tempdb is in it bydefault):
sp_extendsegment system, master
But I've still got the error message. Is there anybody who can advice me?
Thank you
View 2 Replies
View Related
