Memory usage

Why the memory usage in task manager shows significant difference before and
after the restart of SQL Server service ? Is that due to the memory leak ?
I am running SQL Server 2000 sp3a
Thanks very much,
natasa
Natasa,
If SQL Server's memory is set to be dynamic (default), it will grow to the
min boundary then up-to the max boundary (if needed) then fluctuate in
between.
HTH
Jerry
"natasa" <natasa@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C0197641-02D7-460F-8346-E3609CD4E15C@.microsoft.com...
> Why the memory usage in task manager shows significant difference before
> and
> after the restart of SQL Server service ? Is that due to the memory leak ?
> I am running SQL Server 2000 sp3a
> Thanks very much,
> natasa
|||also if you have /PAE enabled (> 4GB RAM) , Task Manager will say a silly
amount for SQLServr.exe - around 100mb. In this scenario Perfmon/SQL Server
Memory Manager/Total Server Memory is the correct thing to look at
cheers,
Andy
"natasa" <natasa@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C0197641-02D7-460F-8346-E3609CD4E15C@.microsoft.com...
> Why the memory usage in task manager shows significant difference before
> and
> after the restart of SQL Server service ? Is that due to the memory leak ?
> I am running SQL Server 2000 sp3a
> Thanks very much,
> natasa
|||to regulate SQL memory usage
use WSRM windows system resource manager
for win2k3
thanks,
Jose de Jesus Jr. Mcp,Mcdba
Data Architect
Sykes Asia (Manila philippines)
MCP #2324787
"natasa" wrote:

> Why the memory usage in task manager shows significant difference before and
> after the restart of SQL Server service ? Is that due to the memory leak ?
> I am running SQL Server 2000 sp3a
> Thanks very much,
> natasa

Memory usage

Why the memory usage in task manager shows significant difference before and
after the restart of SQL Server service ? Is that due to the memory leak ?
I am running SQL Server 2000 sp3a
Thanks very much,
natasaNatasa,
If SQL Server's memory is set to be dynamic (default), it will grow to the
min boundary then up-to the max boundary (if needed) then fluctuate in
between.
HTH
Jerry
"natasa" <natasa@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C0197641-02D7-460F-8346-E3609CD4E15C@.microsoft.com...
> Why the memory usage in task manager shows significant difference before
> and
> after the restart of SQL Server service ? Is that due to the memory leak ?
> I am running SQL Server 2000 sp3a
> Thanks very much,
> natasa|||also if you have /PAE enabled (> 4GB RAM) , Task Manager will say a silly
amount for SQLServr.exe - around 100mb. In this scenario Perfmon/SQL Server
Memory Manager/Total Server Memory is the correct thing to look at
cheers,
Andy
"natasa" <natasa@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C0197641-02D7-460F-8346-E3609CD4E15C@.microsoft.com...
> Why the memory usage in task manager shows significant difference before
> and
> after the restart of SQL Server service ? Is that due to the memory leak ?
> I am running SQL Server 2000 sp3a
> Thanks very much,
> natasa|||to regulate SQL memory usage
use WSRM windows system resource manager
for win2k3
thanks,
Jose de Jesus Jr. Mcp,Mcdba
Data Architect
Sykes Asia (Manila philippines)
MCP #2324787
"natasa" wrote:

> Why the memory usage in task manager shows significant difference before a
nd
> after the restart of SQL Server service ? Is that due to the memory leak ?
> I am running SQL Server 2000 sp3a
> Thanks very much,
> natasa

Memory usage

Why the memory usage in task manager shows significant difference before and
after the restart of SQL Server service ? Is that due to the memory leak ?
I am running SQL Server 2000 sp3a
Thanks very much,
natasaNatasa,
If SQL Server's memory is set to be dynamic (default), it will grow to the
min boundary then up-to the max boundary (if needed) then fluctuate in
between.
HTH
Jerry
"natasa" <natasa@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C0197641-02D7-460F-8346-E3609CD4E15C@.microsoft.com...
> Why the memory usage in task manager shows significant difference before
> and
> after the restart of SQL Server service ? Is that due to the memory leak ?
> I am running SQL Server 2000 sp3a
> Thanks very much,
> natasa|||also if you have /PAE enabled (> 4GB RAM) , Task Manager will say a silly
amount for SQLServr.exe - around 100mb. In this scenario Perfmon/SQL Server
Memory Manager/Total Server Memory is the correct thing to look at
cheers,
Andy
"natasa" <natasa@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C0197641-02D7-460F-8346-E3609CD4E15C@.microsoft.com...
> Why the memory usage in task manager shows significant difference before
> and
> after the restart of SQL Server service ? Is that due to the memory leak ?
> I am running SQL Server 2000 sp3a
> Thanks very much,
> natasa|||to regulate SQL memory usage
use WSRM windows system resource manager
for win2k3
--
thanks,
--
Jose de Jesus Jr. Mcp,Mcdba
Data Architect
Sykes Asia (Manila philippines)
MCP #2324787
"natasa" wrote:
> Why the memory usage in task manager shows significant difference before and
> after the restart of SQL Server service ? Is that due to the memory leak ?
> I am running SQL Server 2000 sp3a
> Thanks very much,
> natasa

Memory problem

I have an accounting program that is loaded on a server
and have 7 users. The program seem to have a memory leak.
The has server 1 gig of memory after the program runs for
a few hours the memory usage climes from 150meg used to
870meg, used all of witch is used by the sql instance. I
then have to have eveyone get out of the program stop the
sql server then restart it. Is there any thing out there
that can help me(beside buying a new accounting program
that is writen well),some type of auto resource recycling,
or auto restarting the sql instance with out causing the
users any to be down.
thank
Daniel Barnaby
Network Tech
Belton School District #124
Hi,
I guess that the SQL Server is configured to use Dynamic Memory
Allocations.
SQL Server memory will continue to grow as long as there is no RAM pressure
in
the machine. As long as SQL Server feels some pressure on memory pool, it
will
start to release memory for other applications use or to avoid swapping.
Try
setting the Min Server and Max Server memory to a know value then run the
same
applications. You should see the server memory grow to that limit and then
maintain on that level.
HTH
Ashish
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Memory problem

I have an accounting program that is loaded on a server
and have 7 users. The program seem to have a memory leak.
The has server 1 gig of memory after the program runs for
a few hours the memory usage climes from 150meg used to
870meg, used all of witch is used by the sql instance. I
then have to have eveyone get out of the program stop the
sql server then restart it. Is there any thing out there
that can help me(beside buying a new accounting program
that is writen well),some type of auto resource recycling,
or auto restarting the sql instance with out causing the
users any to be down.
thank
Daniel Barnaby
Network Tech
Belton School District #124
hi Daniel,
"Daniel Barnaby" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> ha scritto nel
messaggio news:57e701c42d34$9e0bcfa0$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have an accounting program that is loaded on a server
> and have 7 users. The program seem to have a memory leak.
> The has server 1 gig of memory after the program runs for
> a few hours the memory usage climes from 150meg used to
> 870meg, used all of witch is used by the sql instance. I
> then have to have eveyone get out of the program stop the
> sql server then restart it. Is there any thing out there
> that can help me(beside buying a new accounting program
> that is writen well),some type of auto resource recycling,
> or auto restarting the sql instance with out causing the
> users any to be down.
you must first understand memory usage by SQL Server...
in few words, SQL Server organize it's memory allocation in two distinct
regions, the "buffer pool" (BPool) and the "memory to leave" (MemToLeave)
regions. (I'm excluding use of AWE in order to provide easy understanding)
so... the BPool is the primary region SQL Server uses for it's internal
matter, while MemToLeave consists of the virtual memory space within the 1gb
user mode address space and the memory not used by the BPool.
when SQL Server starts, it begins calculating the upper limit the BPool can
reach... if no MaxMemory is set, this value will be set to the amount of the
physical memory or the size of the user mode address space (1gb) , minus the
size of the MemToLeave, whichever is less..
by default, MemToLeave is set to 384mb, 128mb of them are for worker thread
stacks and 256mb for allocation outside the BPool, such as memory for OLE-DB
providers, in process COM objects space and memory requirements and so on..
when MaxMemory value is explicitally set, this upper limit will only address
BPool region needs...
so only the address space of BPool pages is limited by this configuration
value, while SQL Server memory requirememts outside BPool allocation are not
limited this way...
but you are not limiting the resource, so SQL Server can reclaim that memory
(up to 1 gb, in our example) for it's uses, and it will perhaps release it
only under pressure by the OS claiming for additional memory, if it's the
case, else it will maintain that memory in order to cache pages and
execution plans...
it's quite a normal behaviour...
hth
Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtmhttp://italy.mvps.org
DbaMgr2k ver 0.7.0 - DbaMgr ver 0.53.0
(my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a visual
interface)
-- remove DMO to reply

Memory Leak?

Hello all,

I have recently encountered what looks like a memory leak within SQL server, but may be a number of other things as well - I'm hoping that some of you may have encountered this problem as well so I may be able to narrow down my list of possible culprits.

I noticed this morning that SQL Server was chewing up about 1.5 GB of memory - obviously way more than it should be. At first, I thought this may be because of a coding error, but I was unable to reproduce the problem on my development machine (running SQL Personal).

After re-starting the SQL service (which cleared up the memory use), I ran task manager on our SQL server machine, and noticed that when queries were executed (especially queries that returned fairly large recordsets), memory consumption used by the sql server process would jump up, but then would not be released (as my development machine was doing).

I'm not a DBA, so I'm hoping this may be happening because of some (unknown to me) option that is not currently enabled/disabled on the SQL Server. My only other thoughts at this time are that maybe it's a bad install of SQL, or perhaps bad RAM? Any supporting/disproving thoughts? Any similar situations?

Any help with this would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you in advance,
AtomicChipSQL Server will use as much memory as is available. Now, it'llrelease it as other processes need it, but remember that it truly is aserver, so it doesn't make sense for it to limit itself to a smallerportion of available RAM than it can use.
You *can* set a maximum amount of RAM that you never want it to exceed,if you so wish. There's a setting in the server properties forthis, but if it's not causing you any problems then I'd chalk it up toSQL Server doing what it's supposed to do and not worry about it.
|||SQL Server Perfmon and Profiler will give you better understanding ofthe processes and SQL statements using up resources. In Win2003you can limit the rams used by Windows but your total ram of 1.5gig israther small to use that configuration. The fixes maybe storedproc rewrites using more SELECT instead of SET statements and limitcursors. Hope this helps.
Kind regards,
Gift Peddie

Memory leak...How to get memory usage for each connections?

Hi Guys,
I find there is memory leak in our SQL 2000+SP3 databass. We have a
client-server system, and the there are Jrun4.0 running JSP and someother
Java application talks to the database.
However, for only less than 40 users, the SQL 2000 memory usage will
increase consistantly until it use all the memory it can get ,about 1.7G
memory. Then eventually the SQL server process will hang in couple days.
I don't know whether JRun JSP stuff or Java application is the culprit, and
I am wondering if there is a way to monitor the memory usage of every
database connection.
I would love to know what you guys think!
Thanks a lot!The number of users has little or nothing to do with how much memory sql
server uses. It's more the amount of data your accessing and how you do it.
A single user can easily take up all the available ram. The process you
describe (except maybe for the hanging portion) is normal and by design.
See here: http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=321363 SQL Server 7 &
2000 memory usage
This is not to say there isn't a memory leak somewhere but it is unlikely
from SQL Server. I would suggest you make sure your queries are properly
tuned and you might want to set an upper limit on the SQL Server memory and
see if that helps.
--
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"Erik Miller" <bopew2000@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7RNMa.46791$T85.5399682@.news1.telusplanet.net...
> Hi Guys,
> I find there is memory leak in our SQL 2000+SP3 databass. We have a
> client-server system, and the there are Jrun4.0 running JSP and someother
> Java application talks to the database.
> However, for only less than 40 users, the SQL 2000 memory usage will
> increase consistantly until it use all the memory it can get ,about 1.7G
> memory. Then eventually the SQL server process will hang in couple days.
> I don't know whether JRun JSP stuff or Java application is the culprit,
and
> I am wondering if there is a way to monitor the memory usage of every
> database connection.
> I would love to know what you guys think!
> Thanks a lot!
>|||Well.One thing is for sure, the SQL server hangs.
The application is quite complicated, so it is very hard for me to push
developers to tune every thing they wrote. I only want to find out if there
is way to find who takes the most memory or makes SQL server grab more
momory.
I did try to limit the max memory to 1.5 G. It hangs too.
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:%23K%23kUzRQDHA.560@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> The number of users has little or nothing to do with how much memory sql
> server uses. It's more the amount of data your accessing and how you do
it.
> A single user can easily take up all the available ram. The process you
> describe (except maybe for the hanging portion) is normal and by design.
> See here: http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=321363 SQL Server 7 &
> 2000 memory usage
> This is not to say there isn't a memory leak somewhere but it is unlikely
> from SQL Server. I would suggest you make sure your queries are properly
> tuned and you might want to set an upper limit on the SQL Server memory
and
> see if that helps.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly
> SQL Server MVP
>
> "Erik Miller" <bopew2000@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:7RNMa.46791$T85.5399682@.news1.telusplanet.net...
> > Hi Guys,
> >
> > I find there is memory leak in our SQL 2000+SP3 databass. We have a
> > client-server system, and the there are Jrun4.0 running JSP and
someother
> > Java application talks to the database.
> >
> > However, for only less than 40 users, the SQL 2000 memory usage will
> > increase consistantly until it use all the memory it can get ,about 1.7G
> > memory. Then eventually the SQL server process will hang in couple days.
> >
> > I don't know whether JRun JSP stuff or Java application is the culprit,
> and
> > I am wondering if there is a way to monitor the memory usage of every
> > database connection.
> >
> > I would love to know what you guys think!
> >
> > Thanks a lot!
> >
> >
>|||Do you have other apps running on the same server as sql server? How about
extended sp's? The only real way to tell what is making it use more memory
is to run profiler and perfmon to see what is running when the buffers start
climbing. But if you run profiler traces you can easily tell what sp's are
taking large amounts of I/O, cpu etc. This will certainly give you a clue
as to what may be gobbling up ram in the buffer.
Maybe this will help:
http://www.mssqlserver.com/faq/troubleshooting-memoryleak.asp
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"Erik Miller" <bopew2000@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mpXMa.52170$Mc4.6537800@.news0.telusplanet.net...
> Well.One thing is for sure, the SQL server hangs.
> The application is quite complicated, so it is very hard for me to push
> developers to tune every thing they wrote. I only want to find out if
there
> is way to find who takes the most memory or makes SQL server grab more
> momory.
> I did try to limit the max memory to 1.5 G. It hangs too.
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:%23K%23kUzRQDHA.560@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > The number of users has little or nothing to do with how much memory sql
> > server uses. It's more the amount of data your accessing and how you do
> it.
> > A single user can easily take up all the available ram. The process you
> > describe (except maybe for the hanging portion) is normal and by design.
> > See here: http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=321363 SQL Server 7
&
> > 2000 memory usage
> > This is not to say there isn't a memory leak somewhere but it is
unlikely
> > from SQL Server. I would suggest you make sure your queries are
properly
> > tuned and you might want to set an upper limit on the SQL Server memory
> and
> > see if that helps.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Andrew J. Kelly
> > SQL Server MVP
> >
> >
> > "Erik Miller" <bopew2000@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:7RNMa.46791$T85.5399682@.news1.telusplanet.net...
> > > Hi Guys,
> > >
> > > I find there is memory leak in our SQL 2000+SP3 databass. We have a
> > > client-server system, and the there are Jrun4.0 running JSP and
> someother
> > > Java application talks to the database.
> > >
> > > However, for only less than 40 users, the SQL 2000 memory usage will
> > > increase consistantly until it use all the memory it can get ,about
1.7G
> > > memory. Then eventually the SQL server process will hang in couple
days.
> > >
> > > I don't know whether JRun JSP stuff or Java application is the
culprit,
> > and
> > > I am wondering if there is a way to monitor the memory usage of every
> > > database connection.
> > >
> > > I would love to know what you guys think!
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot!
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||SQL using 1.7GB of memory is perfectly normal. the hanging is probably NOT
caused by memory usage. Have you checked for blocking?
"Erik Miller" <bopew2000@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mpXMa.52170$Mc4.6537800@.news0.telusplanet.net...
> Well.One thing is for sure, the SQL server hangs.
> The application is quite complicated, so it is very hard for me to push
> developers to tune every thing they wrote. I only want to find out if
there
> is way to find who takes the most memory or makes SQL server grab more
> momory.
> I did try to limit the max memory to 1.5 G. It hangs too.
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:%23K%23kUzRQDHA.560@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > The number of users has little or nothing to do with how much memory sql
> > server uses. It's more the amount of data your accessing and how you do
> it.
> > A single user can easily take up all the available ram. The process you
> > describe (except maybe for the hanging portion) is normal and by design.
> > See here: http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=321363 SQL Server 7
&
> > 2000 memory usage
> > This is not to say there isn't a memory leak somewhere but it is
unlikely
> > from SQL Server. I would suggest you make sure your queries are
properly
> > tuned and you might want to set an upper limit on the SQL Server memory
> and
> > see if that helps.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Andrew J. Kelly
> > SQL Server MVP
> >
> >
> > "Erik Miller" <bopew2000@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:7RNMa.46791$T85.5399682@.news1.telusplanet.net...
> > > Hi Guys,
> > >
> > > I find there is memory leak in our SQL 2000+SP3 databass. We have a
> > > client-server system, and the there are Jrun4.0 running JSP and
> someother
> > > Java application talks to the database.
> > >
> > > However, for only less than 40 users, the SQL 2000 memory usage will
> > > increase consistantly until it use all the memory it can get ,about
1.7G
> > > memory. Then eventually the SQL server process will hang in couple
days.
> > >
> > > I don't know whether JRun JSP stuff or Java application is the
culprit,
> > and
> > > I am wondering if there is a way to monitor the memory usage of every
> > > database connection.
> > >
> > > I would love to know what you guys think!
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot!
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||Thanks for all the hints here, appreciated !
I'll try to check them accordingly.
"Hal Berenson" <haroldb@.truemountainconsulting.com> wrote in message
news:Ou4J3sXQDHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> The hang situation makes this quite different from the usual concerns
about
> SQL Server allocating very large amounts of memory. Likely culprits:
> - Extended Stored Procedures (XP) - If you have any user written XPs then
> they are a very likely cause of problems. For example, they don't use SQL
> Server's internal memory management, and there is nothing to prevent them
> from behaving badly.
> - OLE Automation - If you use this feature then you have some similar
> problems as XPs in that the environment the objects run in is "outside"
the
> SQL Server environment itself. The likeliness of a problem is much lower
> than an XP, but its still present.
> - Distributed Queries - The only OLE DB provider that really has been
tuned
> to run in the SQL Server address space, and stress tested in high
> transaction rate environments by the SQL Server group, is SQLOLEDB. Other
> OLE DB providers aren't concious of running in the SQL Server address
space
> and are more likely to misbehave in that environment. I'd particularly be
> wary of providers that are not supplied by Microsoft. Fortunately, you
can
> just make sure that AllowInProcess=0 for these OLE DB providers. (A more
> general recommendation would be to test with AllowInProcess=0 and then set
> AllowInProcess=1 when you are very confident that the provider is working
> well.)
> - Bug in SQL Server. If you rule out all the external items that could
> behave badly, then you tend to look at the possibility that you are
running
> into a bug in SQL Server. In that case, I'd place a support call with
> Microsoft. Debugging something so general can be very complex, and it
could
> take a very long time to do simply based on suggestions from folks in a
> newsgroup of what you should try.
> --
> Hal Berenson, SQL Server MVP
> True Mountain Group LLC
>
> "Erik Miller" <bopew2000@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:mpXMa.52170$Mc4.6537800@.news0.telusplanet.net...
> > Well.One thing is for sure, the SQL server hangs.
> >
> > The application is quite complicated, so it is very hard for me to push
> > developers to tune every thing they wrote. I only want to find out if
> there
> > is way to find who takes the most memory or makes SQL server grab more
> > momory.
> >
> > I did try to limit the max memory to 1.5 G. It hangs too.
> >
> >
> > "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> > news:%23K%23kUzRQDHA.560@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > The number of users has little or nothing to do with how much memory
sql
> > > server uses. It's more the amount of data your accessing and how you
do
> > it.
> > > A single user can easily take up all the available ram. The process
you
> > > describe (except maybe for the hanging portion) is normal and by
design.
> > > See here: http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=321363 SQL Server
7
> &
> > > 2000 memory usage
> > > This is not to say there isn't a memory leak somewhere but it is
> unlikely
> > > from SQL Server. I would suggest you make sure your queries are
> properly
> > > tuned and you might want to set an upper limit on the SQL Server
memory
> > and
> > > see if that helps.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Andrew J. Kelly
> > > SQL Server MVP
> > >
> > >
> > > "Erik Miller" <bopew2000@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:7RNMa.46791$T85.5399682@.news1.telusplanet.net...
> > > > Hi Guys,
> > > >
> > > > I find there is memory leak in our SQL 2000+SP3 databass. We have a
> > > > client-server system, and the there are Jrun4.0 running JSP and
> > someother
> > > > Java application talks to the database.
> > > >
> > > > However, for only less than 40 users, the SQL 2000 memory usage will
> > > > increase consistantly until it use all the memory it can get ,about
> 1.7G
> > > > memory. Then eventually the SQL server process will hang in couple
> days.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know whether JRun JSP stuff or Java application is the
> culprit,
> > > and
> > > > I am wondering if there is a way to monitor the memory usage of
every
> > > > database connection.
> > > >
> > > > I would love to know what you guys think!
> > > >
> > > > Thanks a lot!
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

Memory Leak.. Performance?

Hi All,
I'm a first time poster in here. Hopefully I'm in the right place for this
type of question. I'm having a problem with one of my SQL Server's and
maybe someone here can shead some light.
I'm running SQL Server version 8.00.760 which I think is SP3a even though
I'm not sure about the "a" part because it doesn't show in the versioning.
The Operating system is Windows 2000 Advance Server running SP4. There are
65 workstations in the company and aproximately 57-59 of them running
applications against the SQL Server at any one time.
There is one major database with about 75 tables in the SQL Server. The
biggest application that is installed on all workstation uses this database
primarily and has direct drivers that connect to the database. It does not
use ODBC. It is written in C but I can't tell you what kind of connections
are being made programatically. There is a smaller application that is
written in FoxPro that also reads this database using ODBC. This
application is programmed with a timer and is never turned off. It runs
every 20 minutes or so. It does a read of the main table however I can't be
sure if it's using an index or doing a table scan. Also there are about 4
employees that use ODBC and Access or Excel to query these database for
custom reporting that they do.
The problem is that the server has to be rebooted every night for it to work
properly the next day. If they go more then one day without rebooting they
start seeing slow downs in the applications. I am leaning towards a memory
leak either in the SQL Server or being caused by one of the applications.
The primary app they are running runs on other SQL Server in other companies
and there are not complaints of memory leaks with that app. The FoxPro app
using ODBC was explained to be a pretty simple program that shouldnt' be
causing this.
I read up on SP3 and how it fixes a memory leak to do with the ODBC drivers.
My question is, does it sound like I have everything installed that is
necessary from Microsoft so I can say that it's probably not SQL Server that
has the memory leak. Also what's the best way to actually determine there
is a true memory leak. I can't use the Total Memory used because according
to Microsoft this is naturally always increasing. Are there newere ODBC
drivers that I should be using other then those that come in Windows 2000?
Any help, suggestions, or commets on this problem is more then welcome.
Thanks for any information.
Best Regards,
Henry Sheldon
South Florida, USif you have a sqlserver memory leak
watch the perfmon counter
Object: process
Counter: virtual bytes
Instance: sqlservr
it should get real close to 2*1024*1024*1024 or 3GB
in /3GB mode for AS/EE
when you start having performance problems
it is also possible the SQL Server: Memory Manager SQL
Cache Memory will start to drop if ODBC is leaking address
space, leaving less address space for the buffer cache
>--Original Message--
>Hi All,
>I'm a first time poster in here. Hopefully I'm in the
right place for this
>type of question. I'm having a problem with one of my
SQL Server's and
>maybe someone here can shead some light.
>I'm running SQL Server version 8.00.760 which I think is
SP3a even though
>I'm not sure about the "a" part because it doesn't show
in the versioning.
>The Operating system is Windows 2000 Advance Server
running SP4. There are
>65 workstations in the company and aproximately 57-59 of
them running
>applications against the SQL Server at any one time.
>There is one major database with about 75 tables in the
SQL Server. The
>biggest application that is installed on all workstation
uses this database
>primarily and has direct drivers that connect to the
database. It does not
>use ODBC. It is written in C but I can't tell you what
kind of connections
>are being made programatically. There is a smaller
application that is
>written in FoxPro that also reads this database using
ODBC. This
>application is programmed with a timer and is never
turned off. It runs
>every 20 minutes or so. It does a read of the main table
however I can't be
>sure if it's using an index or doing a table scan. Also
there are about 4
>employees that use ODBC and Access or Excel to query
these database for
>custom reporting that they do.
>The problem is that the server has to be rebooted every
night for it to work
>properly the next day. If they go more then one day
without rebooting they
>start seeing slow downs in the applications. I am
leaning towards a memory
>leak either in the SQL Server or being caused by one of
the applications.
>The primary app they are running runs on other SQL Server
in other companies
>and there are not complaints of memory leaks with that
app. The FoxPro app
>using ODBC was explained to be a pretty simple program
that shouldnt' be
>causing this.
>I read up on SP3 and how it fixes a memory leak to do
with the ODBC drivers.
>My question is, does it sound like I have everything
installed that is
>necessary from Microsoft so I can say that it's probably
not SQL Server that
>has the memory leak. Also what's the best way to
actually determine there
>is a true memory leak. I can't use the Total Memory used
because according
>to Microsoft this is naturally always increasing. Are
there newere ODBC
>drivers that I should be using other then those that come
in Windows 2000?
>Any help, suggestions, or commets on this problem is more
then welcome.
>Thanks for any information.
>Best Regards,
>Henry Sheldon
>South Florida, US
>
>.
>

Memory Leak. SQL Server sp3a, VB and MDAC 2.8

Can anyone give me some sugguestions here.
Connection is declared at the start of the application
Set rsFZReport.ActiveConnection = conn

Then a function repeatly opens recordsets like this -

rsFZReport.Open sRS, , adOpenStatic, adLockReadOnly, adCmdText
..

..
reporting code etc
...

If rsFZReport.State > 0 Then
rsFZReport.Close
Set rsFZReport= Nothing
endif

Using VB Watch debugger, the close and set nothing do NOT release any
memory. It just keeps increasing. The application connects to multiple
databases and many tables, so its uses about 10Mb/minute.
(I don't think its of relavance but Form.show uses memory but form.unload
doesn't release any back)
I've installed SP3a and MDAC 2.8 to no avail. Anyone have any ideas or know
what I can do?

msado27.tlb 2.80.1022.0
MSSQL Server SP3a (3 has a memory leak apparently)
VB6, SP6
Sqlsrv32.dll caused a leak on NT4 SP6, but upgrading it on my win2k SP4
server/workstation (they are both and the same) to this
Sqlsrv32.dll 2000.85.1022.0
doesn't help.
Provider=SQLOLEDB;Data Source=theServer;Initial Catalog=theDB;User
ID=uid;Password=thepwd;OPTION=3;connect timeout=240;pete (pete@.madpete.freeserve.co.uk) writes:
> Can anyone give me some sugguestions here.
> Connection is declared at the start of the application
> Set rsFZReport.ActiveConnection = conn
> Then a function repeatly opens recordsets like this -
> rsFZReport.Open sRS, , adOpenStatic, adLockReadOnly, adCmdText
> .
> .
> reporting code etc
> ..
> If rsFZReport.State > 0 Then
> rsFZReport.Close
> Set rsFZReport= Nothing
> endif
>
> Using VB Watch debugger, the close and set nothing do NOT release any
> memory. It just keeps increasing. The application connects to multiple
> databases and many tables, so its uses about 10Mb/minute.

I don't have any experience of tracing memory leaks in Visual Basic,
but I suspect that there is a wee bit too little of information to say
anything.

> MSSQL Server SP3a (3 has a memory leak apparently)

Yes, there was a memory leak in ODBC in SP3, but you are using SQLOLEDB,
so that you should not bother you.

> VB6, SP6
> Sqlsrv32.dll caused a leak on NT4 SP6, but upgrading it on my win2k SP4
> server/workstation (they are both and the same) to this
> Sqlsrv32.dll 2000.85.1022.0
> doesn't help.

Sqlsrv32.dll is ODBC, so again it should not bother you.

> Provider=SQLOLEDB;Data Source=theServer;Initial Catalog=theDB;User
> ID=uid;Password=thepwd;OPTION=3;connect timeout=240;

OPTION=3 strikes me as unusual. What does it do?

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp|||">
> OPTION=3 strikes me as unusual. What does it do?
> --
> Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
> Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp

It was recommended by someone to overcome a problem with varchars not
returning variable length fields. The records are large and the were being
cut off., (only the first few thousand characters returned for a field)
fields were not being returned complete. I havn't actually found any
documentation on this, but it seemed to fix the problem|||pete (pete@.madpete.freeserve.co.uk) writes:
>> OPTION=3 strikes me as unusual. What does it do?
>>
> It was recommended by someone to overcome a problem with varchars not
> returning variable length fields. The records are large and the were being
> cut off., (only the first few thousand characters returned for a field)
> fields were not being returned complete. I havn't actually found any
> documentation on this, but it seemed to fix the problem

I can't find this in the docs either. And I have never heard any problems
with varchar(8000) being truncated.

What happens if you take it out with regards to the memory leak?

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp|||"Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@.sommarskog.se> wrote in message
news:Xns95368D79BCD9AYazorman@.127.0.0.1...
> pete (pete@.madpete.freeserve.co.uk) writes:
> >> OPTION=3 strikes me as unusual. What does it do?
> >>
> > It was recommended by someone to overcome a problem with varchars not
> > returning variable length fields. The records are large and the were
being
> > cut off., (only the first few thousand characters returned for a field)
> > fields were not being returned complete. I havn't actually found any
> > documentation on this, but it seemed to fix the problem
> I can't find this in the docs either. And I have never heard any problems
> with varchar(8000) being truncated.
> What happens if you take it out with regards to the memory leak

I didn't make a differnce, but this was the problem

Global rsFZReport as new ADODB.recordset
Which is dumb.
And so is OPTION=3 . I can't find the explanation for it now. I've searched
the MSDN and the web. It might simply be wrong, its used for MySQL though.|||pete (pete@.madpete.freeserve.co.uk) writes:
> I didn't make a differnce, but this was the problem
> Global rsFZReport as new ADODB.recordset
> Which is dumb.

We all do dumb things from time to time.

> And so is OPTION=3 . I can't find the explanation for it now. I've
> searched the MSDN and the web. It might simply be wrong, its used for
> MySQL though.

So I would conclude that Option is specific to the MySQL provider.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp

Memory leak when using ReportViewer control

If you create a form with nothing other than the ReportViewer control on it,
then open that form from another form and close it, about 50K appears to be
used each time. If you run an actual report in the control, then the memory
increases in relation to the size of the report. I have a report that when
run consumes about 130MB of memory. When I close the form, the memory usage
in my app only drops to about 80MB. If I then open the form again and run
the report again, the memory usage jumps up to over 170MB and when the form
is closed it drops back down to about 130MB. These numbers change depending
on the report you run and the amount of data and number of controls on the
report, but there is a definite leak when using the ReportViewer control.
Other people have seen the leak as well:
http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=449474&SiteID=1
I can not find an answer anywhere, someone at Microsoft really needs to
adress this issue.
Thank you!
BrianI wonder if it is a true leak. Memory management under dotnet can be quite
delayed.
I am using the control as well (winform), I'll do some looking into this.
--
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"Brian Adams" <BrianAdams@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1A9A0F7D-5BDF-491F-9851-2B48EEF6C244@.microsoft.com...
> If you create a form with nothing other than the ReportViewer control on
> it,
> then open that form from another form and close it, about 50K appears to
> be
> used each time. If you run an actual report in the control, then the
> memory
> increases in relation to the size of the report. I have a report that
> when
> run consumes about 130MB of memory. When I close the form, the memory
> usage
> in my app only drops to about 80MB. If I then open the form again and run
> the report again, the memory usage jumps up to over 170MB and when the
> form
> is closed it drops back down to about 130MB. These numbers change
> depending
> on the report you run and the amount of data and number of controls on the
> report, but there is a definite leak when using the ReportViewer control.
> Other people have seen the leak as well:
> http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=449474&SiteID=1
> I can not find an answer anywhere, someone at Microsoft really needs to
> adress this issue.
> Thank you!
> Brian
>|||Thanks Bruce. I even went so far as to call System.GC.Collect() and
System.GC.WaitForPendingFinalizers() to ensure the garbage collector ran and
memory was being cleaned up. It didn't have any effect on the results I was
seeing.
I had no references to the form left, and no references to any of the
objects the form referenced, so the calls to Collect should have been able to
clean up all memory because there were no remaining references to any of the
instantiated objects. The reports were all RDLC (client side) based, so
everything was completely disconnected and isolated to the form itself. When
it went away, so should have all the memory that was allocated during its
lifetime. Unless there is some caching going on in the runtime I'm not aware
of. If this were the case, I would have expected the memory usage to level
off at some point, but it seemed to continue climbing each time I created the
form/ran report/closed form. These results were based on initial Task
Manager observations, and then perfmon monitoring.
"Bruce L-C [MVP]" wrote:
> I wonder if it is a true leak. Memory management under dotnet can be quite
> delayed.
> I am using the control as well (winform), I'll do some looking into this.
> --
> Bruce Loehle-Conger
> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
> "Brian Adams" <BrianAdams@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:1A9A0F7D-5BDF-491F-9851-2B48EEF6C244@.microsoft.com...
> > If you create a form with nothing other than the ReportViewer control on
> > it,
> > then open that form from another form and close it, about 50K appears to
> > be
> > used each time. If you run an actual report in the control, then the
> > memory
> > increases in relation to the size of the report. I have a report that
> > when
> > run consumes about 130MB of memory. When I close the form, the memory
> > usage
> > in my app only drops to about 80MB. If I then open the form again and run
> > the report again, the memory usage jumps up to over 170MB and when the
> > form
> > is closed it drops back down to about 130MB. These numbers change
> > depending
> > on the report you run and the amount of data and number of controls on the
> > report, but there is a definite leak when using the ReportViewer control.
> >
> > Other people have seen the leak as well:
> > http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=449474&SiteID=1
> >
> > I can not find an answer anywhere, someone at Microsoft really needs to
> > adress this issue.
> >
> > Thank you!
> > Brian
> >
>
>

Memory Leak Reading Appointment from MS Exchange Mailbox

Hi,

When using the following code to read an appointment from a MS Exchange mailbox the application experiences a memory leak.

I can provide a test application that easily demonstrates the issue.

ADODB.Connection _Conn = new ADODB.Connection();

_Conn.Provider = "exoledb.datasource";

try

{

this.Cursor = Cursors.WaitCursor;

_Conn.Open("http://" + Environment.UserDomainName + "." + Environment.MachineName + "/Exchange/" + this.txtMailbox.Text + "/Calendar", "", "", 0);

CDO.Appointment cdoAppointment = new CDO.Appointment();

try

{

for (int i = 1; i < int.Parse(this.txtNoOfTestReads.Text); i++)

{

cdoAppointment.DataSource.Open("http://" + Environment.UserDomainName + "." + Environment.MachineName + "/Exchange/" + this.txtMailbox.Text + "/Calendar/" + this.txtApptFileName.Text + ".eml", _Conn, ADODB.ConnectModeEnum.adModeReadWrite, ADODB.RecordCreateOptionsEnum.adFailIfNotExists, ADODB.RecordOpenOptionsEnum.adOpenSource, "", "");

}

}

catch (Exception ex)

{

MessageBox.Show(ex.Message);

}

finally

{

cdoAppointment = null;

}

}

catch (Exception ex)

{

MessageBox.Show(ex.Message);

}

finally

{

if (_Conn.State == (int)ADODB.ObjectStateEnum.adStateOpen)

_Conn.Close();

_Conn = null;

this.Cursor = Cursors.Default;

}

Regards,

Craig

I would post this to the exchange dl ->

http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/en-us/default.aspx?dg=microsoft.public.exchange.applications

This could just be a GC issue, try adding a line in the loop like below:

System.Gc.Collect();

System.Gc.WaitForPendingFinalizers();

Matt

Memory Leak problem... in SQL Server 2K

Hello,

I am having trouble with a production db server that likes to gobble
up memory. It seems to be a slow burn (maxing out over about an 18
hour time frame, before pegging both procs on the server and bringing
everything to a standstill). After viewing the trace logs, it appears
that all the SPIDs are being recycled - does this assert that
connections are being properly closed when the need for them has
ended? The code base is huge and quite messy, so it's difficult to
discern where the problem is just by looking at code, and we can't
seem to nail it down by looking at it, and I'm not sure what to look
for in the trace logs or perfmon.

Does anyone have any suggestions about what else might cause such a
problem?

RyanRyan (ryan3677@.excite.com) writes:
> I am having trouble with a production db server that likes to gobble
> up memory. It seems to be a slow burn (maxing out over about an 18
> hour time frame, before pegging both procs on the server and bringing
> everything to a standstill). After viewing the trace logs, it appears
> that all the SPIDs are being recycled - does this assert that
> connections are being properly closed when the need for them has
> ended? The code base is huge and quite messy, so it's difficult to
> discern where the problem is just by looking at code, and we can't
> seem to nail it down by looking at it, and I'm not sure what to look
> for in the trace logs or perfmon.

SQL Server likes to gobble up memory. In fact this is by design. The
more data SQL Server can hold in cache, the more queries it can
respond to without disk access. So normally SQL Server expands to
get all avilable memory. But if there are other processes in need of
memory, SQL Server will yield. It may not yield fast enough, though,
and you can configure SQL Server to use only part of the memory.

So the perceived memory leak is not a problem, but since you talk about
standstill, it seems that you have a problem. And since you talk about
pegging the processors on the server, it seems that you have a query in
need of rewrite somewhere. Or a in need of a better index. So while that
code base may be big and ugly, and you prefer not to look at it, it is
most likely there you find the solution.

The Profiler is a good tool. Filter for Duration greeater than, say,
1000 ms. Then again, if you start tracing when that bad query starts
running, you will not see the query until it is completed. One
alternative is aba_lockinfo, which is on my home page,
http://www.sommarskog.se/sqlutil/aba_lockinfo.html. That procedure
is really intended for lock monitoring, but you get all active processes
and what they are doing. And since "standstill" often includes blocking
as well, it may be interesting. aba_lockinfo gives you a snapshot, but
can still reveal something about what is going on. One word of caution
though: aba_lockinfo can take some time to return on a busy system. I
have identiefied a few weaknesses in terms of performance, but I have
not came around to fix them yet.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, sommar@.algonet.se

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp|||"Erland Sommarskog" <sommar@.algonet.se> wrote in message
news:Xns947AB6167287AYazorman@.127.0.0.1...
> Ryan (ryan3677@.excite.com) writes:

<snip
> SQL Server likes to gobble up memory. In fact this is by design. The
> more data SQL Server can hold in cache, the more queries it can
> respond to without disk access. So normally SQL Server expands to
> get all avilable memory. But if there are other processes in need of
> memory, SQL Server will yield. It may not yield fast enough, though,
> and you can configure SQL Server to use only part of the memory.
> So the perceived memory leak is not a problem, but since you talk about
> standstill, it seems that you have a problem. And since you talk about
> pegging the processors on the server, it seems that you have a query in
> need of rewrite somewhere. Or a in need of a better index. So while that
> code base may be big and ugly, and you prefer not to look at it, it is
> most likely there you find the solution.
> The Profiler is a good tool. Filter for Duration greeater than, say,
> 1000 ms. Then again, if you start tracing when that bad query starts
> running, you will not see the query until it is completed. One
> alternative is aba_lockinfo, which is on my home page,
> http://www.sommarskog.se/sqlutil/aba_lockinfo.html. That procedure
> is really intended for lock monitoring, but you get all active processes
> and what they are doing. And since "standstill" often includes blocking
> as well, it may be interesting. aba_lockinfo gives you a snapshot, but
> can still reveal something about what is going on. One word of caution
> though: aba_lockinfo can take some time to return on a busy system. I
> have identiefied a few weaknesses in terms of performance, but I have
> not came around to fix them yet.
>
> --
> Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, sommar@.algonet.se
> Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp

I agree with every thing above... in the intrim you may want to limit the
amout no memory that MS SQL can have. This helps especially if you are
running other programs on the machine that compete for memory. The downside
is that MSSQL has less to work with and will possibly take longer. Upside is
that MSSQL will not gobble up all the memory bringing everything to a halt.

-p|||Absolutely. You should limit the database memory even if you have no other
applications running on the machine. Strangely enough, SQL Server can choke
the operating system by leaving too little memory for the OS to function at
optimum.
Hope this helps,
Chuck Conover
www.TechnicalVideos.net

>"Pippen" <123@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bw0Rb.152962$na.259030@.attbi_s04...
> I agree with every thing below... in the intrim you may want to limit the
> amout no memory that MS SQL can have. This helps especially if you are
> running other programs on the machine that compete for memory. The
downside
> is that MSSQL has less to work with and will possibly take longer. Upside
is
> that MSSQL will not gobble up all the memory bringing everything to a
halt.
> -p
>
> "Erland Sommarskog" <sommar@.algonet.se> wrote in message
> news:Xns947AB6167287AYazorman@.127.0.0.1...
> > Ryan (ryan3677@.excite.com) writes:
> <snip>
> > SQL Server likes to gobble up memory. In fact this is by design. The
> > more data SQL Server can hold in cache, the more queries it can
> > respond to without disk access. So normally SQL Server expands to
> > get all avilable memory. But if there are other processes in need of
> > memory, SQL Server will yield. It may not yield fast enough, though,
> > and you can configure SQL Server to use only part of the memory.
> > So the perceived memory leak is not a problem, but since you talk about
> > standstill, it seems that you have a problem. And since you talk about
> > pegging the processors on the server, it seems that you have a query in
> > need of rewrite somewhere. Or a in need of a better index. So while that
> > code base may be big and ugly, and you prefer not to look at it, it is
> > most likely there you find the solution.
> > The Profiler is a good tool. Filter for Duration greeater than, say,
> > 1000 ms. Then again, if you start tracing when that bad query starts
> > running, you will not see the query until it is completed. One
> > alternative is aba_lockinfo, which is on my home page,
> > http://www.sommarskog.se/sqlutil/aba_lockinfo.html. That procedure
> > is really intended for lock monitoring, but you get all active processes
> > and what they are doing. And since "standstill" often includes blocking
> > as well, it may be interesting. aba_lockinfo gives you a snapshot, but
> > can still reveal something about what is going on. One word of caution
> > though: aba_lockinfo can take some time to return on a busy system. I
> > have identiefied a few weaknesses in terms of performance, but I have
> > not came around to fix them yet.
> > --
> > Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, sommar@.algonet.se
> > Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
> > http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp|||Chuck Conover (cconover@.commspeed.net) writes:
> Absolutely. You should limit the database memory even if you have no
> other applications running on the machine. Strangely enough, SQL Server
> can choke the operating system by leaving too little memory for the OS
> to function at optimum.

No, for a machine that only runs SQL Server, there is no reason to configure
the memory. The most likely result is that when you buy more memory, you
cannot understand why it does not pay off, because you had forgotten that
you had constrained the memory.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, sommar@.algonet.se

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp|||"Chuck Conover" <cconover@.commspeed.net> wrote in message
news:1075132853.366896@.news.commspeed.net...
> Absolutely. You should limit the database memory even if you have no
other
> applications running on the machine. Strangely enough, SQL Server can
choke
> the operating system by leaving too little memory for the OS to function
at
> optimum.

I'd have to disagree. I've never seen this be an issue.|||Greg,
No problem to disagree. It is possible that I came to the wrong
conclusion. However, I did see a situation just recently whereby there were
several views (written very badly) that required the database to bring back
several million rows. The I/O was astronomical. It appeared that even
after the view had come back, the whole machine was incredibly slow, and our
diagnostics showed that the database had eaten almost all 2GB of memory on
the machine. So our assumption was that the OS did not have enough memory
to function optimally. Rebooting the machine was the short-term fix. Being
a production server, we made 3 fixes simultaneously to get the machine
working properly as quickly as possible. Correcting the views, adding
another 2GB of memory, and limiting the DB memory fixed the problem, but we
aren't sure which one of our fixes corrected the problem.

Thanks for the input. It is possible that the views did not ever finish
completely considering the I/O required. That could have been the reason
for the slowdown of the machine.

Best regards,
Chuck Conover
www.TechnicalVideos.net

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@.greenms.com> wrote in message
news:SgmRb.18$pE.4@.twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> "Chuck Conover" <cconover@.commspeed.net> wrote in message
> news:1075132853.366896@.news.commspeed.net...
> > Absolutely. You should limit the database memory even if you have no
> other
> > applications running on the machine. Strangely enough, SQL Server can
> choke
> > the operating system by leaving too little memory for the OS to function
> at
> > optimum.
> I'd have to disagree. I've never seen this be an issue.

Memory leak or performance issue?

Dear all
My some users are complaining that when they restart their sql server
it works good for some time and then as time pass performance degrades.
Again they resrat and it works fine and as time goes it becomes slow.
Why when I restart it works fine and as time goes it becomes slow?
Is there any memory leak or any other problem for this?
Regards
AmishHi,
What is databaser server configuration hw and sw ?
- Windows version ?
- SQL Server version and SP ?
- How many memory do you want ?
- How many processors do you want ?
** * Esta msg foi útil pra você ? Então marque-a como tal. ***
Regards,
Rodrigo Fernandes
"amish" wrote:
> Dear all
> My some users are complaining that when they restart their sql server
> it works good for some time and then as time pass performance degrades.
> Again they resrat and it works fine and as time goes it becomes slow.
> Why when I restart it works fine and as time goes it becomes slow?
> Is there any memory leak or any other problem for this?
>
> Regards
> Amish
>

Memory leak or performance issue?

Dear all
My some users are complaining that when they restart their sql server
it works good for some time and then as time pass performance degrades.
Again they resrat and it works fine and as time goes it becomes slow.
Why when I restart it works fine and as time goes it becomes slow?
Is there any memory leak or any other problem for this?
Regards
AmishHi,
What is databaser server configuration hw and sw ?
- Windows version ?
- SQL Server version and SP ?
- How many memory do you want ?
- How many processors do you want ?
** * Esta msg foi útil pra você ? Ent?o marque-a como tal. ***
Regards,
Rodrigo Fernandes
"amish" wrote:

> Dear all
> My some users are complaining that when they restart their sql server
> it works good for some time and then as time pass performance degrades.
> Again they resrat and it works fine and as time goes it becomes slow.
> Why when I restart it works fine and as time goes it becomes slow?
> Is there any memory leak or any other problem for this?
>
> Regards
> Amish
>