Re: Virtual memory fragmentation in Windows 2000 Server
- From: CFSD <CFSD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 09:18:02 -0700
How do I know if Trend is installed as a filter driver of an event sink? I
just ran setup and let it do what it wanted.
It is plain Windows 2000 Server, not Advanced. It would cost me $20,000 in
CALS to move to 2003. Boss does not want to spend the money.
[boot loader]
timeout=30
default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\WINNT
[operating systems]
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\WINNT="Microsoft Windows 2000 Server"
/fastdetect
SystemPages is set to 31000 decimal.
I was just stating that isinteg said that database was clean to eliminate
that as a possible problem.
So are you saying I should have the databases on RAID 1? I went with RAID 5
because there was no way to get the space I needed with RAID 1. The books say
to have at least 2x the space for doing defrags and stuff. The disk drives
hardly do anything except when doing maintenance. This is K12 education so
money is always an issue.
--
Brett
"John Fullbright [MVP]" wrote:
1. A call to Trend is in order. If implemented as a filter driver, then you.
would need to uninstall. If implemented as an event sink, then disabling
should work.
2. Server or Advanced Server? What's in the boot.ini?
3. What have you set the system pages value to?
4. Taking into consideration that you probably have the worst disk
configuration possible from a performance perspective, you're lucky it
completes in 3 hours.
5. Virtual memory will temporarially be used during isinteg. as long as it
is released when isinteg finishes, no problem.
"CFSD" <CFSD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4BA828F6-7A88-4ED9-9B36-C3E95A608CE0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I am running Exchange 2003 on Windows 2000 Server. The following happens
with
Trend Micro Scanmail services disabled. When I start the Information Store
service I have a 376 meg VM Largest Block Size. Throughout the day the VM
Largest Block Size decreases to about 170 meg. About an hour after the
online
defrag starts on the mailbox store the VM Largest Block Size instantly
dives
to 70 meg. This happens every day. I receive no errors in the event log
and
the virtual memory does not decrease below 70 meg. I have run isinteg on
the
private store until there are no errors and this still happens. The server
runs normally.
If Trend Micro Scanmail services are enabled, I have even less virtual
memory and start to receive errors about fragmented virtual memory and
that I
need to restart the Information Store. Which, when I do it is fine until
the
next online defrag.
Most of the documentation about virtual memory is directed to Windows
Server
2003. From what I can tell it looks like I should have about 170 meg of VM
Largest Block Size at any given time.
I would like to get my virtual memory issues solved before I look at the
virus scanner.
Here are my questions.
To eliminate Trend Micro as a possible source of the problem, do I have to
uninstall it or can I just disable the services?
How much virtual memory should I have if I am running Windows 2000 Server
and all is working well?
Why does the virtual memory plummet during online defrag. Remember,
Isinteg
say the database is ok.
Is it normal for the online defrag to take 3 hours? The edb and stm files
are about 12 gig each.
Details.
Windows 2000 Server SP4 plus all patches
Trend Micro MailScan latest version
No major issues with Best Practices Analyzer
Dell Poweredge 2800 with dual Xeon processors at 3.2GHZ
4 GIG RAM
C drive (2 X 73 GIG Ultra 320 SCSI RAID 1) System partition and
transaction
logs
C drive is never busy
D Drive (4 X 300 GIG RAID 5) Ultra 320 SCSI, Message stores
D drive is only busy during backup and online maintenance
632 mailboxes, 500 probably used daily
msExchESEParamLogBuffers set to 9000 as per BPA
Online defrag and backup do not overlap, defrag completes successfully
HeapDeCommitFreeBlockThreshold 0x00040000
About 3000 messages delivered a day
--
Brett
- References:
- Re: Virtual memory fragmentation in Windows 2000 Server
- From: John Fullbright [MVP]
- Re: Virtual memory fragmentation in Windows 2000 Server
- Prev by Date: Re: offline defrag
- Next by Date: Auto Reply and Forward
- Previous by thread: Re: Virtual memory fragmentation in Windows 2000 Server
- Next by thread: Users Can't login?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
