Performance Recommendations for SQL Server - Paging Related

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?
>>
>

Performance question: Opteron Dual core vs Xeon

I can't find any reference off hand. But a 2.2GHz Opteron is about at par
with a 3.0GHZ Xeon because of the architectural differences. Operton has its
memory and L2 cache right 'on the processor' whereas Xeon has some overhead
with its southbridge/northbridge etc. So in your case, DL585 can give you
more processing room because you can go dual cores.
Also, you can actually get faster processors on DL585, approximately 2.4GHz
for dual cores and 2.8GHz for single cores.
But whether or not you choose DL585 or DL580 depends on the requirements and
growth forecast of your application. It's possible that DL580 may be
sufficient for your particular app.
Linchi
"Bastian" wrote:

> Hello,
> we are looking for new systems to run SQL20005 on Windows 2003 64-bit.. Ou
r
> supplier made a proposal of two machines.
> Number one:
> HP Proliant DL585 (R01) with 4x Opteron - 2.2 Ghz - 1 MB cache and 8 GB
> memory
> Number two:
> HP Proliant DL580 (G3) with 4x Xeon - 3 Ghz - 2 MB cache and 8 GB memory
>
> The advantage of box one is that it can hold up to eight cpu's, but my
> question is about the CPU power. What are the relative performance
> statistics between a slower (2.2 Ghz) dual core machine and a faster (3.0
> Ghz) single core Xeon machine and especially when running SQL2005.
> tia,
> Bastian
>
>Hello,
we are looking for new systems to run SQL20005 on Windows 2003 64-bit.. Our
supplier made a proposal of two machines.
Number one:
HP Proliant DL585 (R01) with 4x Opteron - 2.2 Ghz - 1 MB cache and 8 GB
memory
Number two:
HP Proliant DL580 (G3) with 4x Xeon - 3 Ghz - 2 MB cache and 8 GB memory
The advantage of box one is that it can hold up to eight cpu's, but my
question is about the CPU power. What are the relative performance
statistics between a slower (2.2 Ghz) dual core machine and a faster (3.0
Ghz) single core Xeon machine and especially when running SQL2005.
tia,
Bastian|||I can't find any reference off hand. But a 2.2GHz Opteron is about at par
with a 3.0GHZ Xeon because of the architectural differences. Operton has its
memory and L2 cache right 'on the processor' whereas Xeon has some overhead
with its southbridge/northbridge etc. So in your case, DL585 can give you
more processing room because you can go dual cores.
Also, you can actually get faster processors on DL585, approximately 2.4GHz
for dual cores and 2.8GHz for single cores.
But whether or not you choose DL585 or DL580 depends on the requirements and
growth forecast of your application. It's possible that DL580 may be
sufficient for your particular app.
Linchi
"Bastian" wrote:

> Hello,
> we are looking for new systems to run SQL20005 on Windows 2003 64-bit.. Ou
r
> supplier made a proposal of two machines.
> Number one:
> HP Proliant DL585 (R01) with 4x Opteron - 2.2 Ghz - 1 MB cache and 8 GB
> memory
> Number two:
> HP Proliant DL580 (G3) with 4x Xeon - 3 Ghz - 2 MB cache and 8 GB memory
>
> The advantage of box one is that it can hold up to eight cpu's, but my
> question is about the CPU power. What are the relative performance
> statistics between a slower (2.2 Ghz) dual core machine and a faster (3.0
> Ghz) single core Xeon machine and especially when running SQL2005.
> tia,
> Bastian
>
>|||FYI - (my $.02 )
My experience has been that a DL585 at 2.0Ghz performs slighter better
than a DL580 running 3.0Ghz processors(on Win2k adv & SQL2000 Ent). I
am a little surprised that the supplier is limiting your config to 8GB
as memory would have equal (or more) impact as processor speed to SQL
performance. (What size DB's?)
I think with X64/SQL2005 the AMD architecture will widen the
performance gap. For myself I would go with 2.2 dual-core (now at
2.6Ghz if you have the $$$) and 16GB in PC3200 RAM in 2GB modules
upgradeable to 32GB total.
You will pay the same licensing as the single core and you can disable
them at the SQL level if you want to see four processor performance
(slightly inflated as OS will use all cores).
-Kismif
Linchi Shea wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> I can't find any reference off hand. But a 2.2GHz Opteron is about at par
> with a 3.0GHZ Xeon because of the architectural differences. Operton has i
ts
> memory and L2 cache right 'on the processor' whereas Xeon has some overhea
d
> with its southbridge/northbridge etc. So in your case, DL585 can give you
> more processing room because you can go dual cores.
> Also, you can actually get faster processors on DL585, approximately 2.4GH
z
> for dual cores and 2.8GHz for single cores.
> But whether or not you choose DL585 or DL580 depends on the requirements a
nd
> growth forecast of your application. It's possible that DL580 may be
> sufficient for your particular app.
> Linchi
> "Bastian" wrote:
>|||Oh, forgot.
One correction both the DL585 & DL580 are 4-way servers.
Both can be purchased with dual core processors (e.g. 8 cores) neither
is a true 8-way server.
-Kismif
Kismif wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> FYI - (my $.02 )
> My experience has been that a DL585 at 2.0Ghz performs slighter better
> than a DL580 running 3.0Ghz processors(on Win2k adv & SQL2000 Ent). I
> am a little surprised that the supplier is limiting your config to 8GB
> as memory would have equal (or more) impact as processor speed to SQL
> performance. (What size DB's?)
> I think with X64/SQL2005 the AMD architecture will widen the
> performance gap. For myself I would go with 2.2 dual-core (now at
> 2.6Ghz if you have the $$$) and 16GB in PC3200 RAM in 2GB modules
> upgradeable to 32GB total.
> You will pay the same licensing as the single core and you can disable
> them at the SQL level if you want to see four processor performance
> (slightly inflated as OS will use all cores).
> -Kismif
> Linchi Shea wrote:|||FYI - (my $.02 )
My experience has been that a DL585 at 2.0Ghz performs slighter better
than a DL580 running 3.0Ghz processors(on Win2k adv & SQL2000 Ent). I
am a little surprised that the supplier is limiting your config to 8GB
as memory would have equal (or more) impact as processor speed to SQL
performance. (What size DB's?)
I think with X64/SQL2005 the AMD architecture will widen the
performance gap. For myself I would go with 2.2 dual-core (now at
2.6Ghz if you have the $$$) and 16GB in PC3200 RAM in 2GB modules
upgradeable to 32GB total.
You will pay the same licensing as the single core and you can disable
them at the SQL level if you want to see four processor performance
(slightly inflated as OS will use all cores).
-Kismif
Linchi Shea wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> I can't find any reference off hand. But a 2.2GHz Opteron is about at par
> with a 3.0GHZ Xeon because of the architectural differences. Operton has i
ts
> memory and L2 cache right 'on the processor' whereas Xeon has some overhea
d
> with its southbridge/northbridge etc. So in your case, DL585 can give you
> more processing room because you can go dual cores.
> Also, you can actually get faster processors on DL585, approximately 2.4GH
z
> for dual cores and 2.8GHz for single cores.
> But whether or not you choose DL585 or DL580 depends on the requirements a
nd
> growth forecast of your application. It's possible that DL580 may be
> sufficient for your particular app.
> Linchi
> "Bastian" wrote:
>|||Oh, forgot.
One correction both the DL585 & DL580 are 4-way servers.
Both can be purchased with dual core processors (e.g. 8 cores) neither
is a true 8-way server.
-Kismif
Kismif wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> FYI - (my $.02 )
> My experience has been that a DL585 at 2.0Ghz performs slighter better
> than a DL580 running 3.0Ghz processors(on Win2k adv & SQL2000 Ent). I
> am a little surprised that the supplier is limiting your config to 8GB
> as memory would have equal (or more) impact as processor speed to SQL
> performance. (What size DB's?)
> I think with X64/SQL2005 the AMD architecture will widen the
> performance gap. For myself I would go with 2.2 dual-core (now at
> 2.6Ghz if you have the $$$) and 16GB in PC3200 RAM in 2GB modules
> upgradeable to 32GB total.
> You will pay the same licensing as the single core and you can disable
> them at the SQL level if you want to see four processor performance
> (slightly inflated as OS will use all cores).
> -Kismif
> Linchi Shea wrote:

Performance Question

I currently have SQL 2000 Standard on a box with a Single 2.4GHz Xeon HT
processor. Would my performance be better served by adding the 2nd CPU or
upgrading the current CPU to a 3.2GHz?
Any thoughts are welcome,
ScottGenerally I would go with a multi proc environment as you could
simultaneously serve mulitple requests faster although individual request ma
y
be served faster by increasing the clock speed of the single processor.
Licensing would also be a factor in my decision.
regards,
Mark Baekdal
http://www.dbghost.com
http://www.innovartis.co.uk
+44 (0)208 241 1762
Database change management for SQL Server
"Scott Cadreau" wrote:

> I currently have SQL 2000 Standard on a box with a Single 2.4GHz Xeon HT
> processor. Would my performance be better served by adding the 2nd CPU or
> upgrading the current CPU to a 3.2GHz?
> Any thoughts are welcome,
> Scott
>
>

Performance problem on copy of db

I have a performance problem here I could really do with some help on.
I am running SQL Server 7 on Win2k on a Dual Xeon box.
I moved the database from a much older machine and had some initial problems
running a particular complex query because of parallelism. Essentially,
doing an sp_updatestats and using only 1 of the 2 CPUs for parallel
execution of queries solved these problems. Clearly, this was an issue with
the more powerful processors on the new box.
Anyhow, once the performance problem was solved I made a copy of the
database using Backup/Restore and then changes were made to the data in the
new database copy (essentially, the application that uses the db was rolled
out to a different group of users).
All was well when I was last involved in this project back in October.
Recently, however, the same performance problems reappeared following a
reboot. I managed today to solve the performance problems on the original
database by running sp_updatestats.
However, running sp_updatestats on the second database did not solve the
performance problems. I've tried making another copy of the well-performing
database and the copy performs fine. Not sure what I was trying to prove by
doing this, but I was running out of ideas!
I also did a copy of the badly performing db using backup and restore and,
surprise, surprise, this made no difference.
Now that several months have passed, the copy I made contains different data
to the original so I can't simply overwrite it.
Apart from running sp_updatestats, I'm at a bit of a loss in terms of what
else to try. To give you some idea of the magnitude of the problem, the
query in question takes 30 seconds to run on the "good" database and 30
minutes to run on the "bad" one.
Looking at the execution plan, SQL Server does it completely differently.
The good db involves lots of "nested loops/inner join" processes. The bad
db involves lots of "has match/inner join" processes and these, I think, are
what slow things down. The good db has a "subtree cost" of 3.43 whereas the
bad one has something like 250.
Any ideas appreciated.Paul Welsh wrote:

quote:

---

> Looking at the execution plan, SQL Server does it completely differently.
> The good db involves lots of "nested loops/inner join" processes. The bad
> db involves lots of "has match/inner join" processes and these, I think, a
re
> what slow things down. The good db has a "subtree cost" of 3.43 whereas t
he
> bad one has something like 250.

---

sounds like you could have different indexes on the two databases.
you should also read up on fragmentation (dbcc showcontig, dbreindex,
dbindexdefrag, and defragging heaps).

Performance problem on copy of db

I have a performance problem here I could really do with some help on.
I am running SQL Server 7 on Win2k on a Dual Xeon box.
I moved the database from a much older machine and had some initial problems
running a particular complex query because of parallelism. Essentially,
doing an sp_updatestats and using only 1 of the 2 CPUs for parallel
execution of queries solved these problems. Clearly, this was an issue with
the more powerful processors on the new box.
Anyhow, once the performance problem was solved I made a copy of the
database using Backup/Restore and then changes were made to the data in the
new database copy (essentially, the application that uses the db was rolled
out to a different group of users).
All was well when I was last involved in this project back in October.
Recently, however, the same performance problems reappeared following a
reboot. I managed today to solve the performance problems on the original
database by running sp_updatestats.
However, running sp_updatestats on the second database did not solve the
performance problems. I've tried making another copy of the well-performing
database and the copy performs fine. Not sure what I was trying to prove by
doing this, but I was running out of ideas!
I also did a copy of the badly performing db using backup and restore and,
surprise, surprise, this made no difference.
Now that several months have passed, the copy I made contains different data
to the original so I can't simply overwrite it.
Apart from running sp_updatestats, I'm at a bit of a loss in terms of what
else to try. To give you some idea of the magnitude of the problem, the
query in question takes 30 seconds to run on the "good" database and 30
minutes to run on the "bad" one.
Looking at the execution plan, SQL Server does it completely differently.
The good db involves lots of "nested loops/inner join" processes. The bad
db involves lots of "has match/inner join" processes and these, I think, are
what slow things down. The good db has a "subtree cost" of 3.43 whereas the
bad one has something like 250.
Any ideas appreciated.Paul Welsh wrote:
> Looking at the execution plan, SQL Server does it completely differently.
> The good db involves lots of "nested loops/inner join" processes. The bad
> db involves lots of "has match/inner join" processes and these, I think, are
> what slow things down. The good db has a "subtree cost" of 3.43 whereas the
> bad one has something like 250.
sounds like you could have different indexes on the two databases.
you should also read up on fragmentation (dbcc showcontig, dbreindex,
dbindexdefrag, and defragging heaps).

Performance on Windows 2003 Standard w/ SQL SERVER 2000 Enterprise

I have SQL SERVER 2K Enterprise SP4 installed on a Windows 2003 standard box
with 4G of memory and 2 XEON CPUs with hyperthreading. All the SQL SERVER
configuration is set to use all available resource on the box. But no matter
what we throw at it. It's using only 25% of CPU resource and the memory
usuage is never over 1.7G. The installation is definately Enterprise and not
standard. What am I missing?
Thanks!WD wrote:
> I have SQL SERVER 2K Enterprise SP4 installed on a Windows 2003 standard box
> with 4G of memory and 2 XEON CPUs with hyperthreading. All the SQL SERVER
> configuration is set to use all available resource on the box. But no matter
> what we throw at it. It's using only 25% of CPU resource and the memory
> usuage is never over 1.7G. The installation is definately Enterprise and not
> standard. What am I missing?
> Thanks!
The CPU utilization may mean nothing. Did you set the BOOT.INI switches
for the additional memory?
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750/
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com|||Yes, I read the support article before, but because my installation is on a
windows 2003 server. The article indicates that it already supports up to 4
GB for Windows 2003 server and only need to modify the boot.ini to use more
than 4GB. Am I wrong in reading it that way. Thanks.
"Tracy McKibben" wrote:
> WD wrote:
> > I have SQL SERVER 2K Enterprise SP4 installed on a Windows 2003 standard box
> > with 4G of memory and 2 XEON CPUs with hyperthreading. All the SQL SERVER
> > configuration is set to use all available resource on the box. But no matter
> > what we throw at it. It's using only 25% of CPU resource and the memory
> > usuage is never over 1.7G. The installation is definately Enterprise and not
> > standard. What am I missing?
> >
> > Thanks!
> The CPU utilization may mean nothing. Did you set the BOOT.INI switches
> for the additional memory?
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750/
>
> --
> Tracy McKibben
> MCDBA
> http://www.realsqlguy.com
>

Performance on Windows 2003 Standard w/ SQL SERVER 2000 Enterprise

I have SQL SERVER 2K Enterprise SP4 installed on a Windows 2003 standard box
with 4G of memory and 2 XEON CPUs with hyperthreading. All the SQL SERVER
configuration is set to use all available resource on the box. But no matter
what we throw at it. It's using only 25% of CPU resource and the memory
usuage is never over 1.7G. The installation is definately Enterprise and not
standard. What am I missing?
Thanks!WD wrote:
> I have SQL SERVER 2K Enterprise SP4 installed on a Windows 2003 standard b
ox
> with 4G of memory and 2 XEON CPUs with hyperthreading. All the SQL SERVER
> configuration is set to use all available resource on the box. But no matt
er
> what we throw at it. It's using only 25% of CPU resource and the memory
> usuage is never over 1.7G. The installation is definately Enterprise and n
ot
> standard. What am I missing?
> Thanks!
The CPU utilization may mean nothing. Did you set the BOOT.INI switches
for the additional memory?
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750/
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com