Re: VM monitoring in Sytem Manager shows possible problem

Hey Ed,
I think you missed my erlier post. the exchange server is a domain
controller with global catalog.

"Ed Crowley [MVP]" wrote:

> In general, you should either use the 3GB switch or run with 1GB or less of
> memory. If being a DC precludes you from running with the 3GB switch, then
> the only option is to remove the memory. The issue is pretty well explained
> in an article the Knowledge Base. However, if you're not having any
> problems, then I suppose you can let it go until you start to see memory
> fragmentation problems in the event logs.
>
> Exchange doesn't respond to LDAP queries because it is not an LDAP server.
> You should point LDAP clients to a domain controller.
> --
> Ed Crowley
> MVP - Exchange
> "Protecting the world from PSTs and brick backups!"
>
> "Tom" <Tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:8073E261-4B91-4FE7-9B07-D227041A4B2B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Ed,
> > We have not seen any problems since the removal of the 3GB switch and the
> > video drivers. When we had the video driver installed and the 3GB, USERVA
> > switches in boot.ini, we ran into problems. Free System PTE went down
> > below
> > 2000. Then the server became unresponsive to the Mac users who run
> > Entourage
> > with WEBDAV. I think it had something to do with the server no responding
> > to
> > LDAP requests fast enough. MS had us do a memory dump and they said the
> > video
> > driver was the cause of the low FSPTE. We removed the driver and took out
> > the
> > 3GB, USERVA switches. I just havn't had the nerve to try those switches
> > again. I got hammered by my boss the days we had those problems. He, of
> > course, is on a Mac. I can't get him to switch.
> >
> > Why do you recommend removing the extra memory? Is it just that it isn't
> > getting used, or is there something else to it?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > "Ed Crowley [MVP]" wrote:
> >
> >> Are you having other problems? Low virtual memory is not necessarily a
> >> problem on Exchange servers.
> >>
> >> If you can't use the 3GB switch, then I'd recommend you take out 3GB of
> >> memory.
> >> --
> >> Ed Crowley
> >> MVP - Exchange
> >> "Protecting the world from PSTs and brick backups!"
> >>
> >> "Tom" <Tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> news:ACC5015F-90A9-427C-AE0B-FEDBC48BD55D@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > Hey guys,
> >> > Thanks for the quick response.
> >> >
> >> > Ed,
> >> > The article that I am refering to is KB823440. There is a line that
> >> > says
> >> > "We
> >> > do not recommend that you use the /#GB switch parameter in the boot.ini
> >> > file
> >> > for Exchange Server computers that are also Active Directory domain
> >> > controllers or global catalog servers.
> >> >
> >> > When we had the switch, Free system PTE was at 2000. After removing it,
> >> > FSPTE is now at 182k.
> >> >
> >> > Ben,
> >> > Here is what performance says:
> >> > Free System PTE= 182180 average
> >> > VM Largest Block Size= 74313728
> >> > VM total 16MB Free Blocks= 6
> >> > VM Total Free Blocks= 270
> >> > VM Total Free Block Bytes= 309391360
> >> >
> >> > The numbers all look good. What do you think could be the cause of the
> >> > declining free VM reported by ESM?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks again,
> >> > Tom
> >> >
> >> > "Ed Crowley [MVP]" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I wasn't aware that you were supposed to remove the 3GB switch when
> >> >> the
> >> >> system is a DC. Do you have a reference for this?
> >> >>
> >> >> Be aware that Exchange will use all available memory for caching mail,
> >> >> and
> >> >> will release it when other applications need it. This is normal
> >> >> behavior
> >> >> and should not be a cause for concern unless you're having other
> >> >> problems.
> >> >> --
> >> >> Ed Crowley
> >> >> MVP - Exchange
> >> >> "Protecting the world from PSTs and brick backups!"
> >> >>
> >> >> "Tom" <Tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> >> news:87134CC0-586D-4F21-92E0-059FA3AA7143@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >> > OK, I have a tough one here. I hope someone can lend a hand on this.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Exchange 2003 SP1 running on Server 2003 SP1. The server is a DC
> >> >> > with
> >> >> > GC.
> >> >> > (I
> >> >> > know it shouldn't be) GFI Mail Security 8.1, GFI Mail Essentials
> >> >> > 11and
> >> >> > Veritas Backup Exec 9.1 are also on the box. The server is dual 3GHZ
> >> >> > Xeon,
> >> >> > 4GB memory.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I have monitoring turned on in Exchange System Manager (ESM) to
> >> >> > notify
> >> >> > me
> >> >> > when there is a problem with Exchange. I notice that after a reboot,
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > free
> >> >> > virtual memory reported by ESM is 35%. This number slowly, but
> >> >> > steadily,
> >> >> > decreases. Over the course of 10 days, the VM has dropped to 14%.
> >> >> > That
> >> >> > seems
> >> >> > like it might be a concern.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > A little background:
> >> >> > I had spoken with MS support about this (paid) a few weeks ago. The
> >> >> > problem
> >> >> > we actually saw was that some MAC users were unable to connect
> >> >> > (WEBDAV).
> >> >> > There were absolutely no errors in any logs. Monitoring in ESM
> >> >> > showed
> >> >> > VM
> >> >> > at
> >> >> > 1%, but there were still no errors generated. I then checked Free
> >> >> > System
> >> >> > PTE.
> >> >> > It was around 2000. We did a memory dump and MS said the problem was
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > ATI
> >> >> > display driver. So, we got rid of it and used the MS standard VGA
> >> >> > driver
> >> >> > instead. At the time, we had the 3GB and USERVA switches in
> >> >> > boot.ini.
> >> >> > Due
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > the server being a DC, we were told to remove the 3GB switch. So,
> >> >> > now
> >> >> > we've
> >> >> > been up and running again for nearly two weeks without a problem,
> >> >> > but I
> >> >> > don't
> >> >> > like to see ESM report that virtual memory is decreasing. It's like
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > same
> >> >> > problem is happening again, just much more slowly. I have not
> >> >> > recieved
> >> >> > any
> >> >> > complaints from users, but I would like to track down the cause if
> >> >> > possible.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I have gone through all the troubleshooting guides "Troubleshooting
> >> >> > MS
> >> >> > Exchange Server Performance". I have checked all the performance
> >> >> > counters
> >> >> > they say to check. We come out fine on all the tests, so I'm
> >> >> > stumped.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The only place that shows a possible problem is in ESM VM
> >> >> > monitoring.
> >> >> > The
> >> >> > application and system logs have no errors of any type. Where else
> >> >> > can
> >> >> > I
> >> >> > look
> >> >> > to track down this possible VM leak in Exchange?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks for the help,
> >> >> > Tom
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Allocated Memory Alerts & Mem Usage vs. VM Size
    ... haven't added the /3GB switch. ... It's now been roughly a week since the change and the memory situation seems ... Although the memory settings I applied to the sql server instance ... Microsoft CSS Online Newsgroup Support ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: HLA malloc problem
    ... but I personally don't run SQL server or something that needs ... doing this in large memory systems. ... switch to 32-bit coding until Win95 appeared. ... Would someone who has decided to pick up assembly language know what ...
    (comp.lang.asm.x86)
  • Re: Alocated Memory Error (SQLSERVR)
    ... what you should throttle the RAM to. ... Server 2000 SP4, ... The memory problem on my ... shared exchange server address book or anything exchange related). ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Server 2003 reports 512Mb less RAM...
    ... No /3GB switch is also mandatory when you have application like Exchange ... running on servers with more then 1 GB of physical memory. ... before on server that had 4GB of physical RAM. ... >> Description of the 4 GB RAM Tuning feature and the Physical Address ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.general)
  • Re: OLAP running on 32Gb Server
    ... Is it safe to use the /3Gb switch on this server? ... > The only comment that I have is that your Memory Conservation threshold is ... This response is irratic. ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.olap)
Loading