|
sql
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
300MB DB uses 1.4GB RAM!?SQL Server 2000 running nothing but a 300MB database over the course of a
month of continuous use from a single application winds up grabbing 1.4GB of RAM. Is that normal or excessive? (No performance degradation at all, jut a lot of RAM allocated.) This is clustered, but the problem has occurred separately on each node. Yes, that took over 2 months to test. William Bernat wrote:
> SQL Server 2000 running nothing but a 300MB database over the course of a This is normal behavior. SQL Server likes memory, and will use as much > month of continuous use from a single application winds up grabbing 1.4GB of > RAM. Is that normal or excessive? (No performance degradation at all, jut a > lot of RAM allocated.) > > > > This is clustered, but the problem has occurred separately on each node. > Yes, that took over 2 months to test. > > as it can to cache data pages so that it doesn't have to make repeated trips to disk... If the data is only 300mb...what's taking the extra 900mb?
I've seen this before, but nobody ever wanted to pay me to find the answer :) Short of mem-to-leave being huge, I can't think of a valid reason for what William is seeing... Show quoteHide quote "Tracy McKibben" <tr***@realsqlguy.com> wrote in message news:453FB984.1010509@realsqlguy.com... > William Bernat wrote: >> SQL Server 2000 running nothing but a 300MB database over the course of a >> month of continuous use from a single application winds up grabbing 1.4GB >> of >> RAM. Is that normal or excessive? (No performance degradation at all, jut >> a >> lot of RAM allocated.) >> >> >> >> This is clustered, but the problem has occurred separately on each node. >> Yes, that took over 2 months to test. >> >> > > This is normal behavior. SQL Server likes memory, and will use as much as > it can to cache data pages so that it doesn't have to make repeated trips > to disk... > > > -- > Tracy McKibben > MCDBA > http://www.realsqlguy.com Kevin3NF wrote:
> If the data is only 300mb...what's taking the extra 900mb? Funny how 300mb looks like 300GB when you're reading fast...> > I've seen this before, but nobody ever wanted to pay me to find the answer > :) > > Short of mem-to-leave being huge, I can't think of a valid reason for what > William is seeing... > TempDb, cached plans, open connections, ....
Kevin3NF wrote: Show quoteHide quote > If the data is only 300mb...what's taking the extra 900mb? > > I've seen this before, but nobody ever wanted to pay me to find the answer > :) > > Short of mem-to-leave being huge, I can't think of a valid reason for what > William is seeing... > TempDB (other others).
That's gotta be it :) Someone slap me for being so narrow in my thinking... Show quoteHide quote "Theo Verweij" <tverw***@xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:ePzcxMg%23GHA.4800@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > TempDb, cached plans, open connections, .... > Kevin3NF wrote: >> If the data is only 300mb...what's taking the extra 900mb? >> >> I've seen this before, but nobody ever wanted to pay me to find the >> answer :) >> >> Short of mem-to-leave being huge, I can't think of a valid reason for >> what William is seeing... >> Could be execution plans. A quick way to check is using dbcc memorystatus, Google for articles and
usage of that command. -- Show quoteHide quoteTibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/ "William Bernat" <nospamplease@unavil.com> wrote in message news:Oh7MikG%23GHA.4740@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > SQL Server 2000 running nothing but a 300MB database over the course of a > month of continuous use from a single application winds up grabbing 1.4GB of > RAM. Is that normal or excessive? (No performance degradation at all, jut a > lot of RAM allocated.) > > > > This is clustered, but the problem has occurred separately on each node. > Yes, that took over 2 months to test. > > Could be intermdiate resultsets as well.
Linchi Show quoteHide quote "William Bernat" wrote: > SQL Server 2000 running nothing but a 300MB database over the course of a > month of continuous use from a single application winds up grabbing 1.4GB of > RAM. Is that normal or excessive? (No performance degradation at all, jut a > lot of RAM allocated.) > > > > This is clustered, but the problem has occurred separately on each node. > Yes, that took over 2 months to test. > > > Hi!
Hhm... how to say this. Oracle rdbms is far more better in this point. If you plan to increase load (users/jobs) consider switching to Oracle. Or, is this any issue. RAM Memory is quite cheap. Jack Show quoteHide quote "William Bernat" <nospamplease@unavil.com> wrote in message news:Oh7MikG%23GHA.4740@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > SQL Server 2000 running nothing but a 300MB database over the course of a > month of continuous use from a single application winds up grabbing 1.4GB > of > RAM. Is that normal or excessive? (No performance degradation at all, jut > a > lot of RAM allocated.) > > > > This is clustered, but the problem has occurred separately on each node. > Yes, that took over 2 months to test. > > > If you plan to increase load (users/jobs) consider I don't think anything said here would lend enough support to such a big > switching to Oracle. leap to this conclusion. Linchi Show quoteHide quote "Jack" wrote: > Hi! > > Hhm... how to say this. > Oracle rdbms is far more better in this point. > If you plan to increase load (users/jobs) consider > switching to Oracle. > > Or, is this any issue. RAM Memory is quite cheap. > > Jack > "William Bernat" <nospamplease@unavil.com> wrote in message > news:Oh7MikG%23GHA.4740@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > > SQL Server 2000 running nothing but a 300MB database over the course of a > > month of continuous use from a single application winds up grabbing 1.4GB > > of > > RAM. Is that normal or excessive? (No performance degradation at all, jut > > a > > lot of RAM allocated.) > > > > > > > > This is clustered, but the problem has occurred separately on each node. > > Yes, that took over 2 months to test. > > > > > > > To add to the other responses, SQL Server likes to keep the acquired memory
because memory allocation and deallocation is a relatively expensive operation. Memory will be release when SQL Server detects pressure. Since you have no performance issues, it seems like a good strategy in your case. If you have other applications on the server that use a significant amount of memory and observe paging during memory spikes, you might consider setting the maximum SQL Server memory to reduce contention. -- Show quoteHide quoteHope this helps. Dan Guzman SQL Server MVP "William Bernat" <nospamplease@unavil.com> wrote in message news:Oh7MikG%23GHA.4740@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > SQL Server 2000 running nothing but a 300MB database over the course of a > month of continuous use from a single application winds up grabbing 1.4GB > of > RAM. Is that normal or excessive? (No performance degradation at all, jut > a > lot of RAM allocated.) > > > > This is clustered, but the problem has occurred separately on each node. > Yes, that took over 2 months to test. > >  
Thread options
Other interesting topics
Select Statement -- Last Date
Unwanted truncation on Import - pls help CPU usage by DB filegroup and table Larger (100gig+) SQl database backup time SQL Server 2000 Multiple Intances for performance improvement Index fragmentation issue - SQL2005 Named Pipes problem on Clustered SQL Server Page File Usage Query SMTP Alerts |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
