Re: Memory Issues
- From: "Russell Fields" <russellfields@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:34:46 -0400
Sann,
Well, you are running two potentially large database systems, SQL Server and
Exchange, both of which want lots of resources. So, I am inclined to think
that the two servers are battling for access to memory. (And maybe I/O as
well.)
You should limit the amount of memory that both SQL Server and Exchange
Server use to a maximum amount that lets them coexist peacefully. (Denny
Cherry (below) recommends limiting SQL Server to under 1 GB, but I have no
personal experience with the best memory settings for this combination.)
See your SBS instructions as well as the SQL Server and Exchange guidance on
memory settings.
You might find this note interesting:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa997379(EXCHG.80).aspx
Running SQL Server on the same computer as a production Exchange mailbox
server is not recommended. Both SQL Server and Exchange mailbox servers
consume a large amount of memory and disk resources to operate optimally.
Of course, that article also goes on to say that Small Business Server is
optimized to handle this case. However, Denny Cherry disagrees:
http://searchsqlserver.techtarget.com/expert/KnowledgebaseAnswer/0,289625,sid87_gci1304934,00.html
Although you are running SQL Server 2005, you also might find it interesting
to look at the Small Business Server 2008, which specifies a second server
when running SQL Server.
http://www.microsoft.com/sbs/en/us/editions-overview.aspx
So, bottom line: Try to keep the two servers from battling for memory. If
that does not work, look into getting a second server.
RLF
"Sann" <Sann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5DCDF5C3-6665-4798-9A6F-AB69F00DE2BC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hello All!
Recently I've installed SQL 2005 Workgroup edition on SBS 2003 R2 box that
is also running Exchange, configured it - most of the settings I left by
default, except the Server Memory Options settings: I configured the MAX
to
3GB.
And here is the weird behavior: when the user, for example, releases
accrued
receipts (apparently it is a very resource consuming task in our finance
software), the server performance reduces noticeably (imagine yourself
working on windows XP SP3 with 64MB of RAM) and it is because the SQL
server
is starting to utilize the virtual memory instead of RAM. (To figure that
out
I ran Performance Monitor and the Avg.Disk Queue Length counter was close
to
a 100, when the processor remained almost idle and I still have 1 GB of
available RAM)
And here is the thing: While the release operation is in progress, I go to
the Server Memory configuration screen, change the MIN setting from 0 to
2GB,
hit OK and the server speeds up to the level where it is supposed to be.
Next
time the user starts releasing other stuff, it slows down again due to the
same reason. And I go back to the Server Memory configuration screen,
change
again the MIN setting, for example, back to 0 and it triggers the server
to
speed up again and the Avg.Disk Queue Length counter in Performance
Monitor
goes from a 100 to 8-10 - where it's supposed to be.
In other words, whenever the SQL freaks out, I have to "make" it to use
RAM
memory by changing MIN/MAX values in Server Memory configuration screen
which
is "slightly" not convenient for the SQL administrators.
When users input data, run reports the server performance meets
expectations.
Thanks in in advance!
Server hardware configuration:
2 x 4 3GHz processors
4 GB RAM and I it always has about 1GB of available memory.
6 SAS in RAID10
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Memory Issues
- From: Sann
- Re: Memory Issues
- References:
- Memory Issues
- From: Sann
- Memory Issues
- Prev by Date: Re: Question about SQL Server 2000 registration
- Next by Date: Re: Huge MSDB because of logshipping
- Previous by thread: Memory Issues
- Next by thread: Re: Memory Issues
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
