I just became in charge of a server running SQL Server 2000 Enterprise on a
Dell server with 8 Xeon CPUs running 3 Ghz and 32 GB RAM. It is running on
Windows 2003 Enterprise. Memory utilization is fairly steady with 17.8 GB RAM
of the 32 GB RAM in use. The database on the server is 120GB. Approximately
60GB is actual data, 49GB of indexes and the rest is empty space. For
reference, this database is for our ClarifyCRM application.
I am starting to do performance monitoring and I am seeing a high amount of
system paging - 1,000-2000 or more pages/sec.
Even though RAM utilization is low with plenty to spare, I see that the
paging file on the server is only 2GB in size (40.8 MB of it is actually in
use). Other than increasing the size of the paging file (which I will be
doing soon) while is extremely small, are there any other recommendations to
decrease the amount of system paging that is occurring?What are the memory settings set to, especially the MAX Memory one? It
sounds odd that only 17.8 out of 32GB is being used. I assume this is 32 bit
so with AWE the memory should not be dynamic and I would expect it to be
much higher. What other apps are running on this server?
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"KnightFall1" <KnightFall1@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0B03B003-FB37-4586-A379-0F14DF5A8586@.microsoft.com...
>I just became in charge of a server running SQL Server 2000 Enterprise on a
> Dell server with 8 Xeon CPUs running 3 Ghz and 32 GB RAM. It is running on
> Windows 2003 Enterprise. Memory utilization is fairly steady with 17.8 GB
> RAM
> of the 32 GB RAM in use. The database on the server is 120GB.
> Approximately
> 60GB is actual data, 49GB of indexes and the rest is empty space. For
> reference, this database is for our ClarifyCRM application.
> I am starting to do performance monitoring and I am seeing a high amount
> of
> system paging - 1,000-2000 or more pages/sec.
> Even though RAM utilization is low with plenty to spare, I see that the
> paging file on the server is only 2GB in size (40.8 MB of it is actually
> in
> use). Other than increasing the size of the paging file (which I will be
> doing soon) while is extremely small, are there any other recommendations
> to
> decrease the amount of system paging that is occurring?|||I don't recall the hotfix, but - SP4 rtm they broke AWE, you only see half
of the actual memory you can get at.
Tony.
--
Tony Rogerson, SQL Server MVP
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson
[Ramblings from the field from a SQL consultant]
http://sqlserverfaq.com
[UK SQL User Community]
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:OvGjlPQDIHA.5328@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> What are the memory settings set to, especially the MAX Memory one? It
> sounds odd that only 17.8 out of 32GB is being used. I assume this is 32
> bit so with AWE the memory should not be dynamic and I would expect it to
> be much higher. What other apps are running on this server?
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> Solid Quality Mentors
>
> "KnightFall1" <KnightFall1@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0B03B003-FB37-4586-A379-0F14DF5A8586@.microsoft.com...
>>I just became in charge of a server running SQL Server 2000 Enterprise on
>>a
>> Dell server with 8 Xeon CPUs running 3 Ghz and 32 GB RAM. It is running
>> on
>> Windows 2003 Enterprise. Memory utilization is fairly steady with 17.8 GB
>> RAM
>> of the 32 GB RAM in use. The database on the server is 120GB.
>> Approximately
>> 60GB is actual data, 49GB of indexes and the rest is empty space. For
>> reference, this database is for our ClarifyCRM application.
>> I am starting to do performance monitoring and I am seeing a high amount
>> of
>> system paging - 1,000-2000 or more pages/sec.
>> Even though RAM utilization is low with plenty to spare, I see that the
>> paging file on the server is only 2GB in size (40.8 MB of it is actually
>> in
>> use). Other than increasing the size of the paging file (which I will be
>> doing soon) while is extremely small, are there any other recommendations
>> to
>> decrease the amount of system paging that is occurring?
>|||You may not actually have a problem.
Microsoft has an excellent (and short) article on paging and monitorint it,
I suggect you spend a few minutes reading it.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555223
Good luck,
Jay
"KnightFall1" <KnightFall1@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0B03B003-FB37-4586-A379-0F14DF5A8586@.microsoft.com...
>I just became in charge of a server running SQL Server 2000 Enterprise on a
> Dell server with 8 Xeon CPUs running 3 Ghz and 32 GB RAM. It is running on
> Windows 2003 Enterprise. Memory utilization is fairly steady with 17.8 GB
> RAM
> of the 32 GB RAM in use. The database on the server is 120GB.
> Approximately
> 60GB is actual data, 49GB of indexes and the rest is empty space. For
> reference, this database is for our ClarifyCRM application.
> I am starting to do performance monitoring and I am seeing a high amount
> of
> system paging - 1,000-2000 or more pages/sec.
> Even though RAM utilization is low with plenty to spare, I see that the
> paging file on the server is only 2GB in size (40.8 MB of it is actually
> in
> use). Other than increasing the size of the paging file (which I will be
> doing soon) while is extremely small, are there any other recommendations
> to
> decrease the amount of system paging that is occurring?|||Yes Tony probably hit the nail on the head here. You are using SQL2000 so
you most likely have SP4 without the Hotfix and it will only use approx half
the memory.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Tony Rogerson" <tonyrogerson@.torver.net> wrote in message
news:64222C7B-A187-4BE8-AB4D-AA309F75377A@.microsoft.com...
>I don't recall the hotfix, but - SP4 rtm they broke AWE, you only see half
>of the actual memory you can get at.
> Tony.
> --
> Tony Rogerson, SQL Server MVP
> http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson
> [Ramblings from the field from a SQL consultant]
> http://sqlserverfaq.com
> [UK SQL User Community]
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:OvGjlPQDIHA.5328@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> What are the memory settings set to, especially the MAX Memory one? It
>> sounds odd that only 17.8 out of 32GB is being used. I assume this is 32
>> bit so with AWE the memory should not be dynamic and I would expect it to
>> be much higher. What other apps are running on this server?
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> Solid Quality Mentors
>>
>> "KnightFall1" <KnightFall1@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:0B03B003-FB37-4586-A379-0F14DF5A8586@.microsoft.com...
>>I just became in charge of a server running SQL Server 2000 Enterprise on
>>a
>> Dell server with 8 Xeon CPUs running 3 Ghz and 32 GB RAM. It is running
>> on
>> Windows 2003 Enterprise. Memory utilization is fairly steady with 17.8
>> GB RAM
>> of the 32 GB RAM in use. The database on the server is 120GB.
>> Approximately
>> 60GB is actual data, 49GB of indexes and the rest is empty space. For
>> reference, this database is for our ClarifyCRM application.
>> I am starting to do performance monitoring and I am seeing a high amount
>> of
>> system paging - 1,000-2000 or more pages/sec.
>> Even though RAM utilization is low with plenty to spare, I see that the
>> paging file on the server is only 2GB in size (40.8 MB of it is actually
>> in
>> use). Other than increasing the size of the paging file (which I will be
>> doing soon) while is extremely small, are there any other
>> recommendations to
>> decrease the amount of system paging that is occurring?
>|||Thats the one.
Thanks Andrew - I was being lazy, well, time constrained :(
--
Tony Rogerson, SQL Server MVP
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson
[Ramblings from the field from a SQL consultant]
http://sqlserverfaq.com
[UK SQL User Community]
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:OhLBUbbDIHA.5976@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Yes Tony probably hit the nail on the head here. You are using SQL2000 so
> you most likely have SP4 without the Hotfix and it will only use approx
> half the memory.
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> Solid Quality Mentors
>
> "Tony Rogerson" <tonyrogerson@.torver.net> wrote in message
> news:64222C7B-A187-4BE8-AB4D-AA309F75377A@.microsoft.com...
>>I don't recall the hotfix, but - SP4 rtm they broke AWE, you only see half
>>of the actual memory you can get at.
>> Tony.
>> --
>> Tony Rogerson, SQL Server MVP
>> http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson
>> [Ramblings from the field from a SQL consultant]
>> http://sqlserverfaq.com
>> [UK SQL User Community]
>>
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> news:OvGjlPQDIHA.5328@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> What are the memory settings set to, especially the MAX Memory one? It
>> sounds odd that only 17.8 out of 32GB is being used. I assume this is 32
>> bit so with AWE the memory should not be dynamic and I would expect it
>> to be much higher. What other apps are running on this server?
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> Solid Quality Mentors
>>
>> "KnightFall1" <KnightFall1@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:0B03B003-FB37-4586-A379-0F14DF5A8586@.microsoft.com...
>>I just became in charge of a server running SQL Server 2000 Enterprise
>>on a
>> Dell server with 8 Xeon CPUs running 3 Ghz and 32 GB RAM. It is running
>> on
>> Windows 2003 Enterprise. Memory utilization is fairly steady with 17.8
>> GB RAM
>> of the 32 GB RAM in use. The database on the server is 120GB.
>> Approximately
>> 60GB is actual data, 49GB of indexes and the rest is empty space. For
>> reference, this database is for our ClarifyCRM application.
>> I am starting to do performance monitoring and I am seeing a high
>> amount of
>> system paging - 1,000-2000 or more pages/sec.
>> Even though RAM utilization is low with plenty to spare, I see that the
>> paging file on the server is only 2GB in size (40.8 MB of it is
>> actually in
>> use). Other than increasing the size of the paging file (which I will
>> be
>> doing soon) while is extremely small, are there any other
>> recommendations to
>> decrease the amount of system paging that is occurring?
>>
>
Showing posts with label ghz. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ghz. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Friday, March 23, 2012
Performance puzzle
We have a new Compaq Proliant DL760 server running
Windows 2003 that we bought to replace a Dell 8450
running Windows 2000
The new machine has 4 2.5 Ghz processors with hyper-
threading (when you open Task Mgr it looks like it
has 8 processors)
The old machine has 8 P3 700 Mhz processors.
Both machines have direct attached fiber channel
arrays configured identically except the new one uses
72 Gig hard drives and the old one has 36 Gig drives.
I am using 9 drives in Raid5 for data and 4 drives in Raid
1+0 for logs on both machines. Both arrays have 15000 RPM
drives.
Both machines have SQL Server 2000. My test database is
about 4 Gig and it is identical on both servers.
I have a stress test script with a variety of operations
such as bulk insert, create clustered index, calculations,
etc.
As you would expect, the new machine runs processor
intensive operations much faster. But the old machine runs
disk intensive operations faster than the new one. We had
expected at least comparable performance.
Overall, the test runs in 39 minutes on the old machine
and 40 minutes on the new one (pretty close, I know, but
the new one should win by a larger margin).
Is there anything special about running SQL Server 2000 on
Windows 2003 that we need to know?
Does the Compaq drive array have some limitation that the
Dell does not?
Thanks
Dave GDave,
don't know whether you have considered the following two variants:
1. seek time. it is a specification of the hard drive, and though not much,
different drives can have different seek times. With the rotation speed on
the higher end, the seek times' difference plays a larger role
2. sorting mechanism of the RAID controllers: some controllers support
elevator sorting that is clearly at advantage than without.
hth
Quentin
"DaveG" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:02c701c3dae2$a256fde0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
DG
variants:
and though not much,
rotation speed on
role
controllers support
without.
message
Compaq RA8000's there is more to the configuration than just the RAID level.
So it might still be something between the way the arrays are configured. If
you're familiar with IOMeter from Intel you might want to use that to test
the disk systems performance.
Also, from the tests I've seen hyperthreading isn't the same as having more
full processors, so maybe the difference in processor count plays a larger
part than expected. It may be possible that hyperthreading is actually
causing worse performance, you might want to test disabling it.
Mike Kruchten
"DaveG" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:02c701c3dae2$a256fde0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
more
Absolutely right.
Windows 2003 that we bought to replace a Dell 8450
running Windows 2000
The new machine has 4 2.5 Ghz processors with hyper-
threading (when you open Task Mgr it looks like it
has 8 processors)
The old machine has 8 P3 700 Mhz processors.
Both machines have direct attached fiber channel
arrays configured identically except the new one uses
72 Gig hard drives and the old one has 36 Gig drives.
I am using 9 drives in Raid5 for data and 4 drives in Raid
1+0 for logs on both machines. Both arrays have 15000 RPM
drives.
Both machines have SQL Server 2000. My test database is
about 4 Gig and it is identical on both servers.
I have a stress test script with a variety of operations
such as bulk insert, create clustered index, calculations,
etc.
As you would expect, the new machine runs processor
intensive operations much faster. But the old machine runs
disk intensive operations faster than the new one. We had
expected at least comparable performance.
Overall, the test runs in 39 minutes on the old machine
and 40 minutes on the new one (pretty close, I know, but
the new one should win by a larger margin).
Is there anything special about running SQL Server 2000 on
Windows 2003 that we need to know?
Does the Compaq drive array have some limitation that the
Dell does not?
Thanks
Dave GDave,
don't know whether you have considered the following two variants:
1. seek time. it is a specification of the hard drive, and though not much,
different drives can have different seek times. With the rotation speed on
the higher end, the seek times' difference plays a larger role
2. sorting mechanism of the RAID controllers: some controllers support
elevator sorting that is clearly at advantage than without.
hth
Quentin
"DaveG" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:02c701c3dae2$a256fde0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
quote:|||Thanks, I'll see if I can find the specs.
> We have a new Compaq Proliant DL760 server running
> Windows 2003 that we bought to replace a Dell 8450
> running Windows 2000
> The new machine has 4 2.5 Ghz processors with hyper-
> threading (when you open Task Mgr it looks like it
> has 8 processors)
> The old machine has 8 P3 700 Mhz processors.
> Both machines have direct attached fiber channel
> arrays configured identically except the new one uses
> 72 Gig hard drives and the old one has 36 Gig drives.
> I am using 9 drives in Raid5 for data and 4 drives in Raid
> 1+0 for logs on both machines. Both arrays have 15000 RPM
> drives.
> Both machines have SQL Server 2000. My test database is
> about 4 Gig and it is identical on both servers.
> I have a stress test script with a variety of operations
> such as bulk insert, create clustered index, calculations,
> etc.
> As you would expect, the new machine runs processor
> intensive operations much faster. But the old machine runs
> disk intensive operations faster than the new one. We had
> expected at least comparable performance.
> Overall, the test runs in 39 minutes on the old machine
> and 40 minutes on the new one (pretty close, I know, but
> the new one should win by a larger margin).
> Is there anything special about running SQL Server 2000 on
> Windows 2003 that we need to know?
> Does the Compaq drive array have some limitation that the
> Dell does not?
> Thanks
> Dave G
>
DG
quote:
>--Original Message--
>Dave,
>don't know whether you have considered the following two
variants:
quote:
>1. seek time. it is a specification of the hard drive,
and though not much,
quote:
>different drives can have different seek times. With the
rotation speed on
quote:
>the higher end, the seek times' difference plays a larger
role
quote:
>2. sorting mechanism of the RAID controllers: some
controllers support
quote:
>elevator sorting that is clearly at advantage than
without.
quote:
>hth
>Quentin
>
>"DaveG" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
quote:|||You don't mention which drive arrays you have but from what I've seen of our
>news:02c701c3dae2$a256fde0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
Raid[QUOTE]
RPM[QUOTE]
calculations,[QUOTE]
runs[QUOTE]
had[QUOTE]
on[QUOTE]
the[QUOTE]
>
>.
>
Compaq RA8000's there is more to the configuration than just the RAID level.
So it might still be something between the way the arrays are configured. If
you're familiar with IOMeter from Intel you might want to use that to test
the disk systems performance.
Also, from the tests I've seen hyperthreading isn't the same as having more
full processors, so maybe the difference in processor count plays a larger
part than expected. It may be possible that hyperthreading is actually
causing worse performance, you might want to test disabling it.
Mike Kruchten
"DaveG" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:02c701c3dae2$a256fde0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
quote:|||> Also, from the tests I've seen hyperthreading isn't the same as having
> We have a new Compaq Proliant DL760 server running
> Windows 2003 that we bought to replace a Dell 8450
> running Windows 2000
> The new machine has 4 2.5 Ghz processors with hyper-
> threading (when you open Task Mgr it looks like it
> has 8 processors)
> The old machine has 8 P3 700 Mhz processors.
> Both machines have direct attached fiber channel
> arrays configured identically except the new one uses
> 72 Gig hard drives and the old one has 36 Gig drives.
> I am using 9 drives in Raid5 for data and 4 drives in Raid
> 1+0 for logs on both machines. Both arrays have 15000 RPM
> drives.
> Both machines have SQL Server 2000. My test database is
> about 4 Gig and it is identical on both servers.
> I have a stress test script with a variety of operations
> such as bulk insert, create clustered index, calculations,
> etc.
> As you would expect, the new machine runs processor
> intensive operations much faster. But the old machine runs
> disk intensive operations faster than the new one. We had
> expected at least comparable performance.
> Overall, the test runs in 39 minutes on the old machine
> and 40 minutes on the new one (pretty close, I know, but
> the new one should win by a larger margin).
> Is there anything special about running SQL Server 2000 on
> Windows 2003 that we need to know?
> Does the Compaq drive array have some limitation that the
> Dell does not?
> Thanks
> Dave G
>
more
quote:
> full processors, so maybe the difference in processor count plays a larger
> part than expected. It may be possible that hyperthreading is actually
> causing worse performance, you might want to test disabling it.
Absolutely right.
quote:
> "DaveG" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:02c701c3dae2$a256fde0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)