I have a 2003 server with sql 2005 on it and the sqlservr.exe is using 880 meg of memeory and it will climb to 1.4 gig. if i reboot server it will go back to 100 meg and slowly climb back up. any ideas i am not a sql guy.
View 2 RepliesHi,We have a prod server running on SQL server 2000 64 bit. It is a4cpu server with 16GB of RAM. we have a maxmemory setting of 15.5GBfor sql server. Inspite of 15GB being available for sql server, itstill uses paging file space, a lot. When looking thru task maanger wecan see sql server using 15.5GB of Memory usage and 22GB of Virtualmemory usage. I don't understand why it should even be using closer to7GB of Paging space, when it has so much memory. How does SQl serveruse Virtual memeory vs Physical memory?HAs anyone seen this before.ThanksGG
View 2 Replies View RelatedMy database server memory utilisation is growing faster from past 1 week. it remained same for 1 week around 55% and now it is going to 70% and increasing.
Total OS memory is 32GB and I kept cap for sql server memory upto 29GB. Dont know what to do..
I have been having issues with our SQL server for awhile now. It seems to run out of memory every few days and when I look at the memory dump, the MEMORYCLERK_SQLOPTIMIZER seem to take over memory and eventually cause the server to crash.
Here is the SQL verison we are using: Microsoft SQL Server 2012 (SP1) - 11.0.3460.0 (X64) Jul 22 2014 15:22:00 Copyright (c) Microsoft Corporation Enterprise Edition (64-bit) on Windows NT 6.2 (Build 9200: ) (Hypervisor)..It is on a VM on Windows 2012 server. It has 20gb of RAM allocated to it and the MAX Server Memory is set to 16.5gb.
I have seen the MEMORYCLERK_SQLOPTIMIZER grow to about 11gb at the time of the server crash. Why that is happening? What is causing the memoryclerk_sqloptimizer to get so high? I have looked it up and it looks like it has to do with ad hoc requests, but is there something I can do to bring that memory down when it gets so high so that I can prevent a server crash?Do we just need to add more memory or is there a memory leak somewhere?
I have a few in house developed application (VB based) that access the SQL server for adding, appending , creating tables. The application does the changes thru queries dynamically generated at the application level.
My MS SQL Server runs on a PIII / 256 MB Ram / 18 GB HDD
The problem is that the memory utilization of SQL server keeps growing constantly. Out of 512 MB (256 Physical + 256 Virtual) available teh memory utilization reaches a level of 490 MB and statys constant. Though SQL Server shows a utilization of 150 MB.
I suspect that SQL is not releasing memory back to the system. Please help in resolving. The problem may lie at the applications developed.
Jdindian
hi all
I got a small MSSQL server.. total database file size less than 7GB. with 2G rams installed 2 cpus. but for some reason when i check the task manager process mem usage is over 1.7G. the sql server memory setting in on Dynamically not fixed. and maximum 2G i believe is default. anyway. my question is over 1.7 memory usage is too high? because i dont have alot of transaction going. and cpu usage is very low. wondering if this's normal or not. and if is not normal . what cause the memory usage so high...... and how can i adjust back to normal. ? can anyone help me out? or any suggestion? thanks
We have Windows Server 2008R2 installed on VM Server.On that we have three SQL instances running. From few past months we are observing physical memory is going high. Earlier we observed it was at 86-88%, now it is 96-97%.We have 16RAM & 8 CPU cores on VM. what is the best and ideal configuration so that we can rectify the high physical memory issue.
View 13 Replies View RelatedHello,
Question:
How can I keep my thread alive after an out of memory exception? That is, I understand that sometimes a server may be unable to satisfy a memory request, but I'm okay with waiting -- I'm not okay with being terminated (think of the reaction to Oliver asking for some more). I would think that, in general, when any application makes a request for a resource that is currently unavailble, but may be available at another time, that application (process/thread/fiber) would be put in a Wait Queue for that resource. On a high concurrency system, this could obviously lead to deadlocks; however, I think in the situation I describe below, the killing is overkill.
Discussion & Background:
In my project, I have a SqlFunction, we'll call "SqlDecimal BigFunction()" that will allocate a large chunk of memory (~3MB) and can take anywhere from 20ms to 500ms to complete (on my system, assuming no other processor load). There are also Functions that are used to set control points for BigFunction (implying thread/fiber state -- or, if there is a distinction, Transaction state), which we will call "SqlBoolean SetControlPoint(SqlInt32 x, SqlInt32 y)". The 3MB requirement is constant, regardless of the number of control points. (Incidentally, the actual implementations of these functions are in a referenced assembly)
In Code:
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
[ThreadStatic] // UNSAFE
static externalAssembly.MyClass myObj;
[SqlFunction]
SqlDecimal BigFunction()
{
if(myObj == null) return -1;
// DoSomeWork will do something like, byte[] b = new byte[3 * 1024 * 1024];
return externalAssembly.DoSomeWork(myObject)
}
[SqlFunction]
SqlBoolean SetControlPoint(SqlInt32 x, SqlInt32 y)
{
if(myObj == null) myObj = new externalAssembly.MyClass();
myObj.SetPoint(x.Value, y.Value);
return SqlBoolean.True; // because we can't have 'void' return type
}
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
In low to moderate concurrency (single hyperthreaded CPU with 20 sessions banging it in a loop), it *usually* does okay. In a higher concurrency situation (2 hyperthreaded cpus with 10 sessions stressing this code and 10 other sessions doing regular TSQL Selects) It runs for a long time, but will occasionally throw an out-of-memory exception. (Previously, I was managing my thread state manually with a locked dictionary, an Int32 key, and CreateSession/ReleaseSession calls). When an out of memory exception is thrown while the dictionary is locked, I get an AppDomain unload, which is *completely* unacceptable)
So, I know that sometimes, I won't be able to allocate my 3MB (it could be 3kb, it just shows up more readily with a larger allocation request). That doesn't mean my externalAssembly is "misbehaving" or "off-in-the-weeds". It just means the server is loaded right now and can't satisfy my request. One may catch an OutOfMemory Exception (perhaps to add additional info about the point of failure), but the thread is already being aborted.
I tried modifying this implementation to use a buffer pool that is allocated on start-up. That worked pretty well (reduced % Time in GC a bit, also), but it forced my external assembly to be marked as unsafe rather than just external access because of the Synchronization methods used to manage the buffer pool. It also doesn't scale, at least not as it sits. Its just a fixed size buffer pool. With more processors and less peripheral loading, the extra processors would just be waiting for a buffer. Besides that, I thought there was some escalation policy about "waiting too long", but I may be wrong.
I would like to eliminate the "UNSAFE" attribute from the primary assembly -- mainly because it "sounds scary", but more realistically, because it is unsafe! Or at least, experience in the field points to synchronization issues being a primary cause of unreliability in systems. Also, calling the C# lock, Mutex, Monitor etc call into native code to use the OS for locking. When this happens, SQL doesn't really know what you're waiting for and can't take that info into account when scheduling. All it knows is that you're waiting on an OS lock. I thought the hosting API would've allowed the host to optionally implement its own locking primitives, especially a host that runs its own scheduler.
I've looked into constrained execution regions and Chris Brumme's blog entry on hosting. Using them would help ensure some protection, but I think even they do not protect a thread from being unloaded in the face of an OutOfMemoryException (or any asynch exception); rather, they allow you to safely clean up unmanaged references and ensure state integrity for the appdomain.
At any rate, this is getting a little long winded. If anyone has any feedback, I'd be delighted to hear it.
Thank you.
-Troy
System Info:
SELECT @@version
Microsoft SQL Server 2005 - 9.00.2047.00 (Intel X86) Apr 14 2006 01:12:25 Copyright (c) 1988-2005 Microsoft Corporation Developer Edition on Windows NT 5.1 (Build 2600: Service Pack 2)
We have a system(32GB RAM and 2 TB hard disk, Windows7,SQL SERVER 2008R2 enterprise 64 bit). Looks like whenever i run some query(even query result 50 records) on the database, the Memory utilization is very high(30 GB) in task manager. How can i control this over usage? The memory setting is default in server properties(min 0 and max 2147483647).
View 7 Replies View RelatedI know I should probably be posting this in the RS section but I have a Win 2008 R2 server and RS 2012 along with SSIS and Database server installed. I also have SQL 2005 instance with Sql 2005 SSIS running on the server.
I saw that Reporting services was consuming 9gb of ram a few days ago with no published reports. It's just a default install.
So I investigated the settings and the document: [URL]......
I added this section to the reportserver.config file to restrict memory usage
<WorkingSetMaximum>512000</WorkingSetMaximum>
<WorkingSetMinimum>128000</WorkingSetMinimum>
Any example altering the reportserver.config file in your standard build of sql server reporting services?
My Sql express will use up to 1G or more memory and never release.
I had the same problem on SQL 2005 standard, I solved by adding /3G in boot.ini and turn on AWE.
but it seems SQL express doesn;t support AWE. so how could I do here?
thanks
We have two server configured in always on mode .
windows is sql server 2012 64 bit edition and sql server is 2012 64 bit edition.
RAM installed on both server is around 65 gb of which 49 gb is max server memory allocated for sql services on both servers.
database related to reporting services are also in always on group .
We have also configured for reporting services and both are running on their respecting server.
Issue is on primary server reporting service is using almost 7 gb while on secondary it is using 10 gb even when there are 5 reports and its used within offices .
what issue and how to check why ssrs is using high memory..
any query , perfmon counters
reports are randomly used at client side
i have checked memory utilization through task manger..
Hi,
Is there a way to configure mirroring to go from High Availability to High Protection without having to reconfigure Database Mirroring? Using the interface in Management Studio, I can change the configuration option to High Performance, but not High Protection despite both of them being Synchronous.
If not, what are the recommended steps to configure the mirror once it already has been configured? Is just like initially setting up the mirror or would there be any shortcuts I could take? If I stop the mirroring and remove the witness, will the High Protection option be available?
Thanks,
J.
Hi There
I realise this is a stupid quesiton but i cannot really find any confirmation of this in BOL.
If you are running High Safety with automatic failover, when failover occurs does this automatically change to High Performance mode. SInce for failover to occur something has happen with the primary , it will be impossible to commit transactions on the new primary and mirror asyncronously since 1 of them is no longer available.
So am i correct in assuming that automatic failover also automatically changes the mode to High Performacne for that session?
Thanx
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?
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
Hi,
For the last week, our production SQL server is running very slow and causing the CPU usage to go 80-100 % almost all the time. This causes certain queries to time out. Our application has never timed out before ever. Also, we did not do any updates on our production machine or installed anything recently.
Has anyone of you ever experienced this issue? If yes, then what did you do to resolve it? any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks for your help!
We have a live server that has had very high CPU usage in the last few days, therefore the site is extremely slow. There are about 60,000 users per day on the average. It always had high CPU usage, but not as bad as in the last few days, in the 90s, sometimes even reaching a 100.
Any solutions? I've run SQl Profiler to check on queries that have high CPU usage. When I run the same queries on our staging server, they are very quick. For example, the same query can take 1 minute on stage, but 12 minutes on the live site. We do know that this is also related to traffic, during lower traffic times, the same query takes less time, but still never as fast as stage.
Oh yeah, it's SQL Server 2005 and asp code running IIS6 on windows 2003 server.
Please help. I really appreciate any advice. Thank you.
I've been asked to look into the possibility of using SQL Server in a high availability environment. We have a few web based applications that use SQL Server back end DBs. What we are looking into is whether we can use multiple instances (on multiple physical servers) of SQL Server using some type of clustering/load balancing. I haven't worked with SQL Replication before, so I'm not even sure where to start in exploring the possible avenues we can explore.
Can anyone push me in the right direction? Any info would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks,
Bill
To All,I have a SQL2KSP3a database(<1GB) running on a 4x3GB physical CPU with4GB of ram. It is Windows Server 2003 with hyper-threading turn on.There are ~420 .Net users/cxns (fat client, no web/app servers) withconnection pooling and ~1 trx/sec. The database growth is neglegeableand actually is not even relevent which I will explain in a minute.99% of the trxs are from one SP that does a select. The resultsets arerelatively small as well 1~100 rows. Yes I have tuned it with indextuning wizard as well, changed the SQL memory configurations, etc....My problem is this...The first day after a reboot, the server runs 6%CPU during peak hours.During the non-peak hours until the next day something apparentlyhappens. The next day (2nd day after a reboot), it jumps to 40%CPUduring peak hours. The server will continue to run at 40%CPU duringpeak hours until the next reboot. This phenomenon has been occurringfor 6 months or more and the traffic on the server is the same for day1 as it is for day 2,3,4,... This database was on another server with100+ dbs and exibited the same behavior, thus bringing that server toits knees, and thus we had to move it to the server in question with noother dbs.I have googled my eyes out, Microsoft site, white papers, perfmon,SQLDiag, PSSDiag, execution plans, index tuning wizard, and the listgoes on! I currently have a case open with Microsoft that has beenopen for months now. I have been passed around to the 3rd "MS TechSpecialist". I have ran PSSDiag a total of 6 times for them for hourson end. I have changed MAXDOP. I could give more information, but Iwould be here for days. I am running out of patience/ideas andMicrosoft is apparently blowing smoke.Any ideas are greatly appreciated!Thanks in advance!JL
View 10 Replies View RelatedI posted a link to a prior article in here, that one about highperformance hierarchies, and have the first two parts of a new series.Hopefully this is of value to someone.http://www.yafla.com/papers/SQL_Ser..._sql_server.htmThanks.
View 1 Replies View RelatedIf you delete rows in a table and do a full table scan...Is that supposed to read up to the highest block/extent that thetable ever attended.(like in some databases I use)If so what is the best way to take care of such tables in sql server.I appreciate your responsesVince
View 4 Replies View RelatedHi
I would like to know, Is Logshipping is supported on SQL 2005 clustering?
Thanks in Advanceshan
Our company recently combined our DBs into one SQL 2005 Server.
Dell Power Edge 1800 with 3.00 GHz Xeon Processor 800 FSB, 1 GB of RAM
Dell Power Edge 1600 with 2.80 GHz Xeon Processor 533 FSB, 1 GB of RAM
Combined into one:
Dell Power Edge 2950 Dual Core 1.6 GHz Xeon Woodcrest Processor, 4 GB of RAM
However, the CPU utilization on this new server is maintaining at about 90% with 3.82 GB of RAM used as well. It's a Windows Server 2003 R2 x64 edition running SQL Server 2005 SP2 x64. I have searched around Microsoft's website for any information that could be of help to me, but I was unable to locate anything. I was hoping that someone could provide some insight as to why this might be occuring. Or if this is a known issue.
Thanks,
Peter
We are using an IBM Xeon server with 4 GB RAM with windows 2000 server and MS Sql server 2005.
More frequently our server responce time is very slow, although the cpu utilization is between 7 - 10 %. we can not able to run even notepad on the server. we observed that the memory occupaid by the sqlserver prog is high. If we restart the server then it will return to normal level. But we do not want restart the server frequently.
Kindly provide me suitale solution.
Srinath
DBA
Reid & Taylor
Mysore, India
We are using an IBM Xeon server with Sevrer 2000 and sql server 2005 with 4B RAM.
We noticed that the responce time of the server is very slow. During this time the memory occupancy by the sqlserver is very high. Althouh the cpu utilization is very low (7-10%) we are unable to run even notepad on the server. In some other situations the cpu utilization will be 100% (for more than one hour) during this time also the sql server occupaies more memory. If we reatarts the server then the problem will be fixed, but we do not want to restart the server very frequently.
Kindly provide us a suitable solution
Srinath R
DBA
Reid & Taylor
Mysore. India
Hi,
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.
I have about a 447 MB SQL server 2000 database on a desktop PC acting as a QA server. The hardware specs of the QA box are as follows:
CPU: P4 2.4 GHz
Memory: 1GB
Drives: 80 GB IDE
I recently purchased a Dell PowerEdge 2650 server to act as the staging box. The staging box has
CPU: P4 2.4 GHz
Memory: 2GB
Drives: 40GB SCSI, mirrored
I made a backup of the database on the QA box, and restored it on the staging box. Yet when I run something as simple as a select query (select * from <table>), the less powerful QA box is faster.
I figured maybe the statistics are different on the staging box. I ran dbcc showcontig to make sure the statistics were identical. Also ran RedGate's SQL compare and data compare to make sure everything was identical.
I figured maybe the query optimizer needs to be tweaked. I recreated the indexes and updated statistics on the staging box. The queries actually got slower as a result.
I thought maybe SCSI drives are slower. Tried breaking the mirror on the staging box. No luck. Put the mirror back in place, ran a test where I copied a large folder from one directory to another on the staging box. Repeated the same test with the same data on the QA box. The staging box was more than twice as fast than the QA box.
It doesnt appear to be a problem with the query, adjusting memory in SQL server has not effect, both boxes are using SQL server 2000 SP3, why is the bigger machine running queries hundreds of milliseconds slower than the smaller machine? Any help will be appreciated!
I am looking to improve the performance of my sql server databases.
I currently have a dual location system, the database server setup is basically a quad xeon with 4gb at my office and a double xeon with 4gb at a remote webhosting location. There are separate application/web/intranet servers at each site. The two databases servers are replicated with the local server publishing to the remote server.
The relational database holds circa 26 million records, growing by a volume of 10,000 per day, there are approximately 50,000 queries performed per day.
My theory is that the replication of the two databases is causing a slowdown; despite fast network connections (averaging 200ms between servers) the replication seems to place a large load on the local server. Would it be sensible to replicate to a second local server and then replicate to the remote server, placing any burden on the second server?
I am planning to upgrade the local server to a high capacity 4+ cpu 64bit server, my problem is that although I have noticed a slow down in performance over time, I am unsure how to go about measuring and quantifying this in order to diagnose the bottlenecks and ensure that investing in a new server would be worthwhile. Where would one be best advised to start this project?
Hello!
Why SQL Server 2000 Enterprice Edition price is so much higher than Standard Edition. I saw the SQL Server 2000 Editions Comparison and i did't find any good reasons.
Can you help me????
Thanks
James
We are in the process of moving existing clustered SQL server databases to AWS. There is one major database that has intensive reads and writes transactions. I'm wondering what is the best design to optimize the performance for both R/W since we have constant issues historically with the current environment when massive updates are happening. Reads shall have higher priority over writes.
View 2 Replies View RelatedI am trying to create a job that runs against my High Availability listener server.
It is a fairly simple SQL statement in the job - execute tsql.
When I try and run the job I get the error:
Executed as user: NT SERVICESQLAgent$SQL2014A. The target database ('BB_Prod') is in an availability group and is currently accessible for connections when the application intent is set to read only. For more information about application intent, see SQL Server Books Online. [SQLSTATE 42000] (Error 978). The step failed.
I thought there was a way to run a select statement as a job against the listener? The tsql step is only a select.
Is there a way to pass in the application intent = readonly as part of my SQL statement?
I have heard that high numbers of VLF's aren't good. It can impact performance and can delay recovery time, so I wanted to test that.
I created 2 DBs with 100MB datafile and 50MB logfile.
TestDB log file had 100MB autogrowth
TestDB2 log file had 1% growth.
I inserted 1048576 records, took the backup
Ran DBCC loginfo and
TestDB had 40 VLFs and
TestDB2 had 165 VLFs
But when I restored both DBs, this is what I got.
TestDB:
RESTORE DATABASE successfully processed 42258 pages in 4.420 seconds (74.691 MB/sec).
SQL Server Execution times:
CPU Time = 125ms, elapsed time = 8323 ms.
TestDB2:
RESTORE DATABASE successfully processed 42257 pages in 3.943 seconds (83.724 MB/sec).
SQL Server Execution Times:
CPU time = 109 ms, elapsed time = 8314 ms.
Question is: Where is the difference? How TestDB which has 40 VLFs are better than TestDB22 which has 165 VLFs.