January 15, 2014 at 4:43 am
I wonder if anyone can eyeball the below setup and comment as to whether the below is still optimal we have done a P2V, and left all settings as they were implemented many years ago by an independent consultant.
RAID 10
6 processors
8GB RAM
SQL 2000 standard
Windows 200 Advanced
Dedicated SQL box - only AV is also installed.
Memory is fixed @ 6483
Set to use all 6 processors
Boost SQL Server priority is set
/3GB and /PAE are set in the boot.ini file
SQL server service - set to lock pages in memory
However SQL server appears to be only using 2GB RAM in task manager.
Any advice on making things run any better? I am getting substantially fewer timeouts since the P2V but would like to make things as optimal as I can with this setup.
Thanks for any thoughts
D
January 15, 2014 at 4:45 am
Don't use Task Manager to check SQL's memory, it displays incorrect values.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
January 15, 2014 at 4:49 am
Thanks man, will see what I can find in performance monitor!
January 15, 2014 at 4:50 am
Oh, and turn boost priority OFF. It's a setting that should almost never be enabled
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
January 15, 2014 at 4:56 am
GilaMonster (1/15/2014)
Oh, and turn boost priority OFF. It's a setting that should almost never be enabled
Will do Gail, would you mind explaining this?
Not being argumentative just wanting/trying to understand
Dave
January 15, 2014 at 4:58 am
Will reboot with this setting off and report back.
January 15, 2014 at 5:07 am
Plateau (1/15/2014)
GilaMonster (1/15/2014)
Oh, and turn boost priority OFF. It's a setting that should almost never be enabledWill do Gail, would you mind explaining this?
Not being argumentative just wanting/trying to understand
Books Online
priority boost Option
Use the priority boost option to specify whether Microsoft SQL Server should run at a higher Microsoft Windows 2000 or Windows 2003 scheduling priority than other processes on the same computer. If you set this option to 1, SQL Server runs at a priority base of 13 in the Windows 2000 or Windows Server 2003 scheduler. The default is 0, which is a priority base of 7.
Caution:
Raising the priority too high may drain resources from essential operating system and network functions, resulting in problems shutting down SQL Server or using other operating system tasks on the server.
The setting has no benefit on a dedicated SQL Server machine as there's nothing else to compete for CPU time other than the OS and you don't want SQL taking priority over the OS.
Four dangerous settings that should not be messed with: http://www.brentozar.com/archive/2012/12/dont-touch-that-button-four-dangerous-settings-in-sql-server-video/
From Glenn Berry (http://sqlserverperformance.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/five-things-sql-server-should-drop/)
The “Boost SQL Server Priority” Instance Setting. This setting is like a shiny piece of candy that seems to attract many people. After all, who would not want to boost the priority of SQL Server and hopefully get better performance. Just like the Turbo button on ancient personal computers, right? It turns out that this setting does not help performance, and can actually destabilize the operating system, since the OS can be starved of CPU resources because of the priority given to the SQL Server process.
And, if that's not enough, a kb article (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/319942)
Based on actual support experience, you do not need to use priority boost for good performance. If you do use priority boost, it can interfere with smooth server functioning under some conditions and you should not use it except under very unusual circumstances. For example, Microsoft Product Support Services might use priority boost when they investigate a performance issue.
IMPORTANT Do not use priority boost for clustered servers that are running SQL Server 7.0 and later.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
January 15, 2014 at 5:07 am
Plateau (1/15/2014)
Thanks man, will see what I can find in performance monitor!
Hi,
for total server memory (KB) I am getting the following
Last: 1671008
Average: 1670883
Minimum: 1670856
Maximum: 1671648
I was hoping that at the least I would be utilising 3GB of memory.
January 15, 2014 at 5:09 am
Thanks for the notes above!
D
January 15, 2014 at 5:09 am
Probably means SQL doesn't need more. If you're not running load on it, it won't use more memory than it needs.
That said, that looks like 32-bit without AWE or /3GB. Is AWE enabled in SQL?
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
January 15, 2014 at 5:12 am
GilaMonster (1/15/2014)
Probably means SQL doesn't need more. If you're not running load on it, it won't use more memory than it needs.That said, that looks like 32-bit without AWE or /3GB. Is AWE enabled in SQL?
I didn't think it was an option SQL server 2000 standard, I know it is on my 2005 box.
Let me check!
January 15, 2014 at 5:15 am
Right, standard edition.
Standard is hard-capped at 2GB of memory. It can't use more so the other 4GB of memory you have on that server is wasted. So the 1.6GB looks correct, the rest is the mem-to-leave section of memory (non-buffer memory)
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
January 15, 2014 at 5:17 am
GilaMonster (1/15/2014)
Right, standard edition.Standard is hard-capped at 2GB of memory. It can't use more so the other 4GB of memory you have on that server is wasted. So the 1.6GB looks correct, the rest is the mem-to-leave section of memory (non-buffer memory)
Oh well - may as well move some of that memory to the other VM then.
Will probably decrease the memory down to 4GB. At least the OS won't be low!
Thanks for your help
January 15, 2014 at 5:33 am
I have my test & development environments on this VM too - so figure I'm better moving these to a new box and at least allowing the live environment to keep the whole 2Gb.
D
January 15, 2014 at 5:38 am
I'm not a fan of dev and prod on the same server (mess up dev and you can take prod down), but don't move just on account of memory, each instance of Standard edition can use up to 2GB of memory total.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply