Re: Alocated Memory Error (SQLSERVR)

Good info - thanks for the update.


"somebody" <somebody@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ehUCg.4984$f8.2129@xxxxxxxxxxx
i have since reduced mine to 70 which was suggested on several sites...
and it has been fine for a week now. in fact the daily status reports are
sent out more promptly than ever before.

"J_Stoner" <JStoner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:62A2DA08-47DF-47B1-A81B-51017B0E69F7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Greetings,

I had the same problem except, my memory hog was SBSMONITORING.

Does anybody have an opinion on how much max memory I should allocate to
SBSMONITORING?

I just don't want to screw something up with a custom setting. Thanks in
advance and thanks for posting the link to Susan blog!!!

--
I don''t know what I don''t know


"somebody" wrote:

Same here. This has seemed to have fixed my issue too (though the cause
remains a mystery).

I changed it to 256 since three other similarly configured machine have
mssql$sbsmonitoring hovering around 215mb. After i applied the fix the
memory for the process dropped from 990 to 330.

FWIW, the instructions were fine but i did have to make the following
changes to Windows Task Manager which were not noted... had to go into
'view' to add the PID column and had to check off 'show processors for
all
users'. Of course this seems obvious now, but I mention it as I had not
used Task Manger to display the PID before and suspect others with this
problem have not either.

Thank you.





"N. Hughes" <quadrantcomputerNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uTzibFntGHA.5032@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
And as an update from me, after following Susan Bradley's blog and
implementing those changes on my "problem" server, I am pleased to
report
that after 24 hours the sqlserver instances have not increased their
memory share. In fact, the staff reported that ordinary performance
(file
open/close/printing etc.) seems to be quicker! Hmmmmm!

Regards
Norm Hughes


"Dave Nickason [SBS MVP]" <gwdibble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:%23UlKBkktGHA.3684@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I suspect that this starting with an update is coincidental. I'm far
from
a SQL guru, but my understanding is that the MSDE instances are
designed
to grab available RAM for performance reasons, similar to the way
Exchange
does it. The procedures in the KB and Susan's blog are designed to
avoid
this behavior for instances like Monitoring, where performance is not
as
critical and you don't want it grabbing all that RAM.

I just reference that particular KB because I find it concise and
easy to
follow. The procedure works fine for other MSDE instances - I've
actually done it with Monitoring - you just substitute the name of
the
instance in question for "MSFW" in the KB steps.

I can't explain why you're seeing this on just one of several
similarly
configured servers. As Norm says, it seems like this comes up
somewhat
frequently, but it's definitely not a universal problem or we'd see
it a
lot more. Either that or most boxes do it but most users don't
notice.
I know that the only reason I ever looked into it myself was the
allocated memory alerts, and those were actually caused by an
improperly
configured alert threshold rather than an error in MSDE
configuration.


"somebody" <somebody@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:EiSzg.2671$sy2.2220@xxxxxxxxxxx
Thank you both for your suggestions and open discussion.
FWIW I am not using sbs 2003 premium, just the standard edition.
And I have other machines of the same hardware and configuration at
a
couple of other location that seem to also have three sqlsrvr
services
running but non ever going about 200mb of memory usage. This one is
unlike the others. And though I am going to try the suggested fix I
still don't understand what created this issue when other systems
that I
installed in the same (and generic) way do not have this problem.
It
seems to have started after the installation of a critical update
(which
just makes me wonder which is worse, to ignore a critical update
intended to close a security hole or the apply the update that is
suppose to fix it... ugh).
Thanks again.

"N. Hughes" <quadrantcomputerNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:O9EqPbbtGHA.2260@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thanks for your comments Dave. That long link was to an archive in
Yahoo Groups, but yes, your link is to the original doc and is
faster
and simpler!
I'll let you know how I go - just off to the site now (it's Wed.
morning in Melbourne!)
Cheers
Norm Hughes

"Dave Nickason [SBS MVP]" <gwdibble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
in
message news:ug51ZKbtGHA.2020@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I can't get anywhere with the link you posted, but Susan's blog
does
have a procedure that's very similar to the one I use. It might be
this one, or just search her blog for "allocated memory alerts."
http://msmvps.com/blogs/bradley/archive/2005/05/22/48500.aspx

If I remember correctly, Susan has actually done it, so the method
she
blogged is proven to work satisfactorily. I think her procedure
and
the one in the KB I posted are very similar, and the only reason I
refer people to the KB is that it's MS documentation and may be
simpler. I've done the one in the KB twice, so we know they both
work. I think the two procedures are just different ways of using
osql
to get to the same result, and I'm confident that whichever you
use
will work satisfactorily.

The one kicker is that MS is apparently unwilling to give a firm
number on what you should throttle the RAM to. They point to
obvious
reasons - everyone runs differently configured hardware and
software,
so YMMV. From the blog, it looks like Susan chose 100 mb. I chose
128. We're both happy, so I think that's a good neighborhood to
try.
As I said, I think it's important to document anything like this
in
case you get an unpleasant surprise.

On your observation that this is becoming more prevalent, IMO as
people try to limit RAM usage by the MSDE instances, we should all
post what we do and how it works out for us. Maybe we can get a
consensus going as to what specific numbers to recommend. I chose
128
almost from thin air, and it's only because I've been using it for
4
or 5 months that I'm willing to put that number out there as a
possibility for someone else to use.


"N. Hughes" <quadrantcomputerNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uhKb2uatGHA.2020@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I've had this issue on one site which runs SBS 2003 Premium with
SQL
Server 2000 SP4, but ISA is not installed. The memory problem on
my
client's server (2Gb RAM) seems to be due to the
SQLAgent$SBSMonitoring and MSSQL$SBSMonitoring instances. The
gradual
grabbing of RAM by these instances is excessive and not related
to
the Alerts configuration. It seems to be coming more and more
prevalent, at least judging by NG posts. Changing the SQL
Enterprise
Manager memory settings does not work. Susan Bradley posted what
I
hope is a fix, will be onsite to test it today.
http://www.sbsarchive.com/search.php?search=sql+memory&op=1&ts=2&mo=1&srchmonthe=7&srchmonths=4&srchyeare=2006&srchyears=2006&subject=R:%20[sbs%20list]%20High%20mem%20usage%20on%20SBS%202003

Thanks to Daryl Maunder of the Melbourne SBSUG for advising me of
this link.

Dave, you might like to comment further?
Regards
Norm Hughes

"Dave Nickason [SBS MVP]" <gwdibble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
in
message news:eiOrPIatGHA.4748@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I'll give you the short answer and please feel free to post back
if
you have questions.

- See
http://blogs.technet.com/sbs/archive/2006/06/07/433707.aspx.
If you think the alert is misconfigured, fix that and give it a
while to see what happens (ignore the part about this happening
when
adding ram since the same guidelines apply anyway). If you're
not
familiar with this site, I recommend bookmarking it for future
reference - these are the top SBS gurus at MS support.

- If the above isn't your answer, open Task Manager and view the
Processes, with the PID column showing. Get the PID for the SQL
instance in question. Open a command prompt and type "tasklist
/svc"
without the quotes. Find that PID and note which instance of
SQL is
the culprit (for example, SBSMONITORING, MSFW).

- You can throttle the instance to use less RAM following the
procedure in the following KB. If the instance whose ram usage
you
want to throttle back is not MSFW, substitute the correct
instance
name in place of MSFW when following the steps. Use a memory
threshold you consider to be practical - I've used 128 MB for
MSFW
and monitoring. SharePoint and WSUS haven't used an unusual
amount
of RAM so I've left those in their default configurations.
Please
carefully note any changes you make in case of unintended
results.

You may experience high memory usage on an ISA Server 2004-based
computer that logs messages to an MSDE database
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/909636/en-us


"somebody" <somebody@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2wLzg.7636$L31.4664@xxxxxxxxxxx
I have a fully patched SBS 2003 installation that has a problem
with
SQLSERVR demanding more memory the longer the system stays
active.
When I reboot it start out normally (like other SBS 2003 servers
I
help support) but over time it grows to 900mb of total system
memory
and critical errors are reported to me about the same.

I don't use exchange server (we use pop mail provided by our
ISP
and which is collected by outlook directly - not using
pop-connector or shared exchange server address book or
anything
exchange related). However my daily status report is sent out
from
the server and I think that uses exchange server to send the
daily
report.

How can I track down the cause of this error before it becomes
a
problem. I haven't had any problem come of this, but that is
likely
due to the many recent Windows updates that require restarts
about
every other week... if I left this server running for a long
time I
fear it will run out of memory.

Thank you!






















.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Alocated Memory Error (SQLSERVR)
    ... but my understanding is that the MSDE instances are designed to ... and you don't want it grabbing all that RAM. ... running but non ever going about 200mb of memory usage. ... Server 2000 SP4, ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Windows 2000 Server StandardEdition /PAE Question
    ... specifically the SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition on that server. ... His point is that applications can only use up to 2 GB or RAM on ... a process running under Windows 2000 or Windows Server 2003 can ... used) with some of the memory being physical memory and some being virtual ...
    (microsoft.public.win2000.general)
  • Re: Alocated Memory Error (SQLSERVR)
    ... FWIW I am not using sbs 2003 premium, ... non ever going about 200mb of memory usage. ... on what you should throttle the RAM to. ... Server 2000 SP4, ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • 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: High memory usage (*HELP*)
    ... you can use Computer Management MMC to view the server logs. ... a server with 4 GB RAM, I doubt you need the second page file on D. So ... The virtual memory on D: drive is set to: 1550/3075 ... throttled ISA and Monitoring. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)