Re: JetStress Available Mbytes
- From: DLane <DLane@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 07:34:03 -0700
John,
Thanks for the reply - that doesn't tell me why JetStress causes memory to
go below 2MB - here is the overview of the results - The achieved I/O was 283:
Total test database size Production data size Total number of
databases Expected I/O Achieved I/O
19.49 GB (based on the attached database) (n/a) 6 (1 storage(s) * 6
database(s)) 100.00 (200 mailboxes of 0.50 IOPS) 283.00
JetStress test parameter summary:
Instance threadCount logBufferSize opInsert opReplace opDelete lazyCommit
1 1 9000 26 63 2 89
Disk subsystem performance summary:
Volume Avg. Disk sec/Read Avg. Disk sec/Write Disk Reads/sec Disk
Writes/sec Avg. Disk Bytes/Write
Data (F:) 0.005 0.004 162.19 120.82 (n/a)
Log (G:) 0.000 0.002 0.011 32.39 6693.72
Processor/memory performance summary:
Counter Average Minimum Maximum
% Processor Time 0.912 0.156 2.077
Available MBytes 118.17 2.000 749.00
Free System Page Table Entries 252253.96 252235.00 252254.00
Pages/Sec 60.89 0.000 1836.48
Pool Nonpaged Bytes 27632843.03 27619328.00 27697152.00
Pool Paged Bytes 22262969.38 21921792.00 22315008.00
Database Page Fault Stalls/sec 0.000 0.000 0.000
The disk result seems accurate - I have a 15 spindle, 10k RPM Fibre SAN
using virtualization to use all 15 spindles for each volume - RAID 10 and
RAID 5-5 combined to provide top performance. My main question is the memory
result. That is the only failure I am encountering and cannot find anything
in the perfmon results pointing to anything other than a memory leak in
Jetstress.
I may just call Microsoft, but was hoping others had seen a problem like this.
"John Fullbright [MVP]" wrote:
Jetstress isn't all that granular, so you should be a bit careful when.
interpreting the results. Compare the expected IO (derived form the
iops/mailbox inputs and number of mailboxes) against the achieved IO (based
on the tunings and thread count the IO level that was actually achieved, and
presumably the basis for the rest of the measurements). It looks like your
expected IO would be in the 100 IOPS range while your achieved would - with
one thread - be in the 600 IOPS range; not eactly appropriate relative to
the specific disk subsystem. See jetstress.doc page 33.
"DLane" <DLane@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:517AE5F7-FE2A-41B4-9186-0FA0A66EE734@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hello,
I have the latest version of JetStress - 6/7/2006 - and am using Exchange
2003 SP2's ese.dll and other ese files to perform testing.
The server is a Dell 1425 with 1GB of RAM and local drive with the page
file
configured. I am connecting to a fibre SAN and have set the /3GB swith
along
with the /USERVA=3030 in addition to the registry entries required
according
the optimizing memory article for Exchange 2003.
I am using the default settings for JetStress when running the 2 hour
performance test. I have setup the system with 2 seperate volumes - one
for
the databases and one for the logs - I am using 1 storage group and
configured the test for 100MB mailbox limit, 200 users and .5IOPS per
user.
The storage solution is return disk sec/read and writes in the area of
.005
with a high of .008 - no disk queueing, etc.
The problem is the Available Mbytes ALWAYS drops below 2. I have tried
two
different servers and the only problem I can see in the Jetstress runs is
that Available Mbytes drops below the acceptable level - the behavior
seems
to be the same regardless of the /3GB setting - it looks like a memory
leak.
Anyone else seeing this?
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: JetStress Available Mbytes
- From: John Fullbright [MVP]
- Re: JetStress Available Mbytes
- References:
- Re: JetStress Available Mbytes
- From: John Fullbright [MVP]
- Re: JetStress Available Mbytes
- Prev by Date: Re: Multi Forest Setup
- Next by Date: Re: Migration 5.5 -->2003 MailboxMove Error
- Previous by thread: Re: JetStress Available Mbytes
- Next by thread: Re: JetStress Available Mbytes
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
