What do people think is normal for memory utilization? I know that's too
broad, so here are some basics.
MS SQL Server 2000, Windows 2000 Server, 2GB RAM
Db 1, size = 2.0 GB
Db 2, size = 300MB
Db 3, size = 50MB
Db 4, size = 30MB
Db 5, size = 30MB
Typically 4-6 users, moderate usage 8-hrs/day. Performance has not slowed.
Reboot on Sunday. sqlservr.exe in the Task Manager reports the following
Sun 61MB
Mon 200MB
Tues 800MB
Wed 1,124MB
Thu 1,424MB
Fri 1,303MB
I was getting srv 2020 errors when I had just 1 GB RAM: "The server was
unable to allocate from the system paged pool because the pool was empty."
Then I did several updates to address this and got more RAM. I haven't seen
the errors since, but I haven't waited for them to happen: I'm rebooting
every week now. The memory numbers make me suspect SQL Server.
Scratching my head. Not sure if my problem is gone, and this is normal SQL
Server 2000 behavior, or if my problem is still lurking and I've only muted
it a bit.
I installed 4GB of memory and I have never seen SQL memory utilization go beyond 2GB. I have SQL server set up to use as much memory as it needs. Does anyone no if SQL server can make use of more than 2GB.
Ours is a SQL 7.0 Enterprise edition with NT 4.0 Enterprise Edition. SQL Server has been configured with the default, 'Dynamic memory Allocation'. The system has 4GB of RAM. This is a dedicated SQL Server machine. But SQL Server seems to use only 1.8GB RAM(Counter: Total Server Memory) The page faults seem to be a max. of 600 and an avg. of 100. The processor utilization has suddenly increased to 90%. Is there anything wrong with the way SQL server is using memory? Is is not true that SQL Server 7.0 Enterprise edition can use upto 3GB RAM in a 4GB system?
Are there any links that can help troubleshoot this problem?
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.
My server has 16GB RM but it is using only 3GB. And I see my server is using 3GB of Virtual Memory, too. Why my physical memory is not being utilized? How can I increase Physical Memory usage and decrease VM usage?
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).
Can someone point me to some good articles or perhaps directly supply some words of wisdom with regard to wise utilization of variables within a T-SQL script from and standpoint of conserving memory usage and improved execution cost?
For example:
(1) Is it better to use varchars, nvarchars, etc. defined with minimal lengths to support the needs of the script or is it just as efficient to declare all with a length of say 4,000?
(2) I've seen behavior that leads me to believe that when passing a variable as a parameter in a nested procedure call, if the declared types of the parameter and the variable being passed in don't match (i.e. one is numeric(38,10) and the other is int), then implicit type conversions hurt performance. Is this true and how broadly does it apply?
(3) Does the number of variables declared in a script materially impact the performance and / or resource utlization?
(4) Is it more efficient to have a series of variable value assignments in a single SELECT statement versus a series of SET statements? Should I always perfer one to the other? Only within a looping construct?
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 All, We have two production boxes running different ERP Apps on each boxes, We just added 2 more cpu's to one box and 1 cpu to other. The Currect CPUS config as stands is
Box 1 = 4 CPU's Box 2 = 2 CPU's
My boss whats some stats to see if performace was any better and if yes how much !!
Hi all, I have a problem in trying to find out why only one CPU in a 2 CPU H-T utilized. Using task manager, I can see 4 processors windows but only 1 actually utilized. I select +boost sql server and select all CPU for use. Queries and all other command ie dbcheck.. appear to use only single cpu. Any help would be nice. thanks Andrew
I want to keep track of the CPU utilization & number of users connected for each database on our production box. I chose to get the data from sysprocesses table from master database.
But I realised that for some reason the master..sysprocesses.CPU column stays static or just keeps on adding to existing values.
Is there any ways thru which I can clear this data ( cpu column in sysprocesses table) after I have captured it in a table ?
We have a SQL 7.0 Standard Server running on a Windows 2000 Servermachine with 2 800mhz Pentium III with 2GB memory. Our front end isAccess 97 and 2000 with most ADO connections for the scripts but someDAO for forms and reports. We recently "released" a new version ofthe "database" that caused a catastrophic event to start happeningwith our SQL server.Using PerfMon we monitored the CPU utilization on the server andnoticed that the CPU load would drop to 0 for approx 5-10 seconds andthen jump back up to our average 60-70% utilization. During thisdrop, there is NO disk activity no new connections being made, etc.We then took the process a step further and loaded a "stress" programthat put about 30% load on the server to start with. Then wemonitored each processes load. SQL Server process would drop to 0%while the stress process continued at 30%.The problem is that the SQL does absolutely NOTHING for 5-10 seconds.You cannot connect, any querys that are running stop, their is no diskactivity (logs, data drives), and you cannot even get sp_who2 to runfrom Query Analyser. We thought maybe blocking (we have built an"app" that monitors this), but we don't see any blocking before itlocks and nothing after it locks.Out of despiration we "rolled back" to our previous version to getpeople working again. After business hours, we have tried toduplicate the problem on machines (2 or 3 at a time) but cannot get itto duplicate the problem.The only experience we had previous to this was using DNS to resolvethe server name which caused a problem EXTREMELY familar to thisproblem. However, we have double checked every machine we have, andnone of them are using DNS to resolve.Any idea's would be most appreciated.Patrick Moore
1. A table has a PK of EmployeeID (non-clustered). The sql statement where clause uses something like "WHERE E.Action > 1 AND E.User = 1001 AND E.EmployeeID = 12345 Question: Will the PK index be used in determining the result set ?
2. A table has an index of EmployeeID + Company + State (clustered). The sql statement where clause is "Where EmployeeID = 1001". Question: Will the index be used in determining the result set ?
After a fresh install of SQL 6.5 with SP5a(or without), the cpu is running at anywhere from 50%-80%. It is loaded on a PDC, but when I stop the sql service cpu utilization drops to 0-2%. When I start the sql service it's right back up there, does anyone have a suggestion as to how to fix this or why the service would be doing this?
I am getting high CPU utilization on the SQL Server process (>90%). However the overall utilization (NT -- entire box) always seems to be under 50%.
Can someone explain why this is happening. The server is a quad; the SQL server process seems to be using only two CPUs at a time (not the same ones all the time).
Lightweitht pooling has been turned on and the maximum worker thread size has been left at the default value (255).
How can I configure SQL options to spread the load across all four CPUs ??????
I have windows 2003 server with SQL Server installed on it for live calls billing but the CPU utilization is reaching the maximam and it's average above 60% which is causing lot of problems specially for the live environment. I have enough memory and free hard disk space is more than 40GB,
I have windows 2003 server with SQL Server installed on it for live calls billing but the CPU utilization is reaching the maximam and it's average above 60% which is causing lot of problems specially for the live environment. I have enough memory and free hard disk space is more than 40GB,
Could anyone help me in finding out why the cpu utilization is very high??
I have two servers say, Server A , server B. There is a transactional replication going on from server A to B
There is a table say Table A on server A, which is being replicated to server B.
I created a trigger insert and update trigger on Table A on server B (i.e. on subscriber). Since then, the CPU utilization for server B is very high 80-90%
when i used profiler, i could see .whenever replication stored proc for insert or update executes..cpu utilization goes up..
trigger just insert the updated/inserted rows into some other table.
Could anyone tell me why the cpu utilization has gone up so much?? i am using sql server 2005
I created an indexed view in SQL 2000, and I expected to see the index created on the view referenced in the execution plan when I query the view. Instead, I see the index for the base table referenced in the execution plan. Why?
There are 6,000,000+ records in the base table, and the view only references 256 of these rows.
Here is some of the DDL if you need it:
CREATE TABLE [alarm_t] ( [ct_dtm] [datetime] NOT NULL , [dst_flg] [char] (3) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NOT NULL , [stn_nm] [varchar] (10) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NOT NULL , [alarm_txt] [varchar] (255) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NOT NULL , [utc_dtm] [datetime] NOT NULL , [create_utc_dtm] [datetime] NOT NULL ) ON [PRIMARY] GO
CREATE CLUSTERED INDEX [alarm_idx2] ON [dbo].[alarm_t]([ct_dtm], [stn_nm], [dst_flg]) ON [PRIMARY] GO
create view dbo.alarm_Mapbd_v with schemabinding as SELECT [ct_dtm], [dst_flg], [stn_nm], [alarm_txt], [utc_dtm], [create_utc_dtm] FROM [dbo].[alarm_t] WHERE[stn_nm]= 'Mapbd' GO
create unique clustered index alarm_Mapbd_idx1 on dbo.alarm_Mapbd_v ( stn_nm, ct_dtm, dst_flg ) go
update statistics alarm_t go update statistics alarm_Mapbd_v go
The following 2 queries have the exact same execution plan, both showing a cost of 50%. I expected to see the index created on the view referenced in the execution plan for the first query. Is the index created on the view being used?
selectstn_nm, ct_dtm, dst_flg fromalarm_Mapbd_v go SELECT [ct_dtm], [dst_flg], [stn_nm], [alarm_txt], [utc_dtm], [create_utc_dtm] FROM [dbo].[alarm_t] WHERE[stn_nm]= 'Mapbd' go
I have noticed that when using SQL Query Analyzer some of my queries will use 100% CPU on my PC and next to nothing on the SQL server, while other Queries require 100% CPU on SQL server and do next to nothing on my PC. Does anyone know what determines this??
Right now I can produce this by executing two very similar T-SQL selects. The one that runs on the server only has one additional join - a very simply join at that. If I can change my SQL to make it run client side in some situations, that would be VERY HELPFUL!
I have a data mining app that does a series of select statements (no inserts). I'm noticing an odd occurance where if I start up 4 copies of the app on a quad core machine - sql takes full advantage of the 4 cores for a few minutes and then drops to 75% utilization - the other 25% is on the idle process. Two of the apps appear to be sharing a single proc of sql as each of their throughputs is cut by 50%. If I then start a 5th copy of the app, the machine is brought to full 100% utilization - two of the apps continue to appear to share a proc. SQL is set up to use all procs and I have even tried select the priority boost to no effect.
Any ideas how to ensure full sql utilization with the same number of apps as cores?
Happy New Year everyone!I would like to capture CPU Utilization % using TSQL. I know this canbe done using PerfMon but I would like to run TSQL command (maybe onceevery 5 minutes) and see what is the CPU Utilization at that instant sothat I can insert the value in a table and run reports based on thedata.I have spent a good amount of time scouring google groups but this isall I have found:SELECT(CAST(@@CPU_BUSY AS float)* @@TIMETICKS/ 10000.00/ CAST(DATEDIFF (s, SP2.Login_Time, GETDATE()) AS float)) ASCPUBusyPctFROMmaster..SysProcesses AS SP2WHERESP2.Cmd = 'LAZY WRITER'Problem is this gives me total amount of time CPU in %) has been busysince the server last started. What I want is the % for the instant -the same number we see in Task Manager and PerfMon.Any help would be appreciated.Thanks
I created a table with column name "description" as varchar(8000). My doubt is if I am not storing 8000 characters in this column, will SQL Server use memory space needed for 8000 characters ? or will it use only the space that needs for my text. ?
I'm having a problem with one of my SQL servers (2000 Build 8.00.2140) where it is always reading CPU utilization of 70-100% (more often pegged at 100%).
I have an exact same SQL server running at a different location on a much less powerful (hardware wise) server that gets more traffic but only shows 7-21% CPU utilization.
Taskmgr shows Process sqlservr.exe as consuming all the resources. This is a dual 2 core 3.66Ghz (4 real CPUs) with 4GB RAM and 5 x 146 15K SCSI drives hooked up to a $1200 SCSI contoller (Dell server). RAM usage is pretty low, most I've seen is 1GB.
Is there any way to determine what specific connection/thread is causing this? Any diagnostic tools or anything that can show me specifically what is consuming this SQL server? Connection thread or anything that points back to a specific IP?
I have multiple instances of SQL 2012 Std Edition on a 40 physical core server.What I have done is the use the Process - SQLServr -% Processor time Stat and divided by 16 ( the max number of Cores Std ed. can use) as a instance level measure. I also use processor object stats to show how busy the server is. How to represent the servers CPU utilization?
HI I am facing a strange problem with SQL Server 2005 . The CPU utilization with SQL Server 2005 is higer by about 70% comapared to SQL 2000.
In the same kind of Hardware and with the DB server up , I performed the following tests Declare @i int Set @i = 10 While @i < 100000 Begin Insert into arup_emp values(@i,'M',0)
Set @i = @i + 1 end
The CPU utilization average on SQL 2005 was 45% and on SQL 2K it was just 25% , I am seeing a lot of people who seems to be facing this problem but unfortunately not seeing any solution to this.
Can anyone through some light . Please note that I have tried to also see the MAXDOP options, but get the same results.
I was tuning a query testing out SARG with these two queries:
select col1 from table1 (nolock) where col1 like '#,%ABC%' or col1 like 'BC,%ABC%' select col1 from table1 (nolock) where col1 like '%ABC%'
I flushed out the cache, added an index to col1, then ran those two together. Provided below are the actual query plan and stat time:
Query 1: Query cost (relative to the batch): 0% select col1 from table1 (nolock) where col1 like '#,%ABC%' or col1 like 'BC,%ABC%' ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SELECT Index Seek Cost:0% <------- [DB1].[dbo].[table1].[Idx..]
Cost: 100%
Query 2: Query cost (relative to the batch): 100% select col1 from table1 (nolock) where col1 like '%ABC%' ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SELECT Index Scan Cost:0% <------- [DB1].[dbo].[table1].[Idx..]
Cost: 100%
------------------------------------------------STAT TIME----------------------------------------------------------- SQL Server parse and compile time: CPU time = 0 ms, elapsed time = 1 ms.
SQL Server Execution Times: CPU time = 0 ms, elapsed time = 1 ms. SQL Server parse and compile time: CPU time = 0 ms, elapsed time = 7 ms.
As expected, SARGable Query 1 did a nonclustered index seek and nonSARGable Query 2 did an index scan instead. According to the query plan, Query 1 consumed 0% relative to the batch whereas Query 2 is 100%. When I checked the CPU time, I was a bit confused because Query 1 showed CPU time of 938ms whereas Query 2 showed 515ms. I triple checked and every time I got similar results. I am sure I'm missing something, could someone please tell me what I'm missing? Thanks a bunch!
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.
