Re: Performance on XP
From: Sleepless in Seattle (jonah_at_guest.com)
Date: 02/25/05
- Next message: Will Denny: "Re: Modifying the Registry"
- Previous message: BBUNNY: "Re: HYPERTHREADING"
- In reply to: Wayne Bjorken: "Re: Performance on XP"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 12:34:26 +1300
Toss Registry Mechanic - a piece of worthless crap for morons. Next you'll
be driving a Lada.
-- Jonah "Wayne Bjorken" <Wayne Bjorken@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:37BD8DE1-3880-40D4-ABAD-E5A5EE42A794@microsoft.com... > > > "StringFellow Hawk" wrote: > >> In SQL Server Enterprise Manager, how did you configure memory on both - >> dynamic or fixed - what did you allow min/max to be if dynamic or what >> did >> you allow memory to be if fixed? >> >> -- >> >> StringFellow Hawk >> >> "Dom, Give me Turbos" >> "David Mohandas" <david_mohandas@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:uEat8px2EHA.3376@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... >> > I am running our application on Windows XP SP1 and Windows 2000 and i >> > see >> a >> > lot slower performance on XP than on 2000. XP machine has 1GB RAM and >> > 2000 >> > machine has 768MB RAM. Our application uses SQL server 2000 SP3A. Our >> > application on XP to run a process takes 3.5hrs and on 2000 the same >> process >> > runs in 1.5hrs. >> > >> > Looking at the task manager on XP the sqlservr.exe Mem usage is around >> 0.5GB >> > and our application mem usage is 7MB. Wheareas on 2000 sqlservr.exe Mem >> > usage is around 0.5GB and our application mem usage is around 50MB. >> > >> > I don't understand why in XP my application is not getting enough RAM, >> > because i don't see all of the RAM being used (i.e) i don't see any >> > other >> > application in the process list that uses a lot of RAM other the >> > sqlservr. >> > But whereas the available physical memory is 4MB, i wondering where it >> > all >> > went away. Also i notice heavy page faults in XP and that is leading to >> > under utilization of CPU which is causing the performance degradation. >> > >> > Has anyone seen such a behaviour on XP? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > David >> > >> > >> >> >> > My performance problem started when I upgraded from HOME to PRO. NO > hardware change and no application. MS support lead me up the wrong tree > so > after examining the Manage created I discovered several problems created > by > the upgrade process. I always check my logs. I found a stubbed DCOM CLID > and > Registry Menchanic found errors too numerous to mention. If there was a > downgrade procedure other than a reload, PRO would GO.
- Next message: Will Denny: "Re: Modifying the Registry"
- Previous message: BBUNNY: "Re: HYPERTHREADING"
- In reply to: Wayne Bjorken: "Re: Performance on XP"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
