memory usage - pages or KB?

I have read conflicting reports that the number in the memory usage column under Current Processes is the number of pages and that it is the number of KB of allocated memory. Which one is correct? Thanks
It's (8 KB) pages. See the documentation for sysprocesses (from which the
information in Enterprise Manager is derived) in BOL.
Where did you read the information that it was KB instead of pages btw?
Jacco Schalkwijk
SQL Server MVP
"J Jetson" <JJetson@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:37D533A5-479A-48E6-A12A-7CF2E83883FB@.microsoft.com...
>I have read conflicting reports that the number in the memory usage column
>under Current Processes is the number of pages and that it is the number of
>KB of allocated memory. Which one is correct? Thanks
|||A couple of people had told me that, and one of them referenced this page:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro.../c03ppcsq.mspx
but more sources say it is the number of pages so I will stick with that. Thanks.
"Jacco Schalkwijk" wrote:

> It's (8 KB) pages. See the documentation for sysprocesses (from which the
> information in Enterprise Manager is derived) in BOL.
> Where did you read the information that it was KB instead of pages btw?
> --
> Jacco Schalkwijk
> SQL Server MVP
>
> "J Jetson" <JJetson@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:37D533A5-479A-48E6-A12A-7CF2E83883FB@.microsoft.com...
>
>

memory usage - pages or KB?

I have read conflicting reports that the number in the memory usage column u
nder Current Processes is the number of pages and that it is the number of K
B of allocated memory. Which one is correct? ThanksIt's (8 KB) pages. See the documentation for sysprocesses (from which the
information in Enterprise Manager is derived) in BOL.
Where did you read the information that it was KB instead of pages btw?
Jacco Schalkwijk
SQL Server MVP
"J Jetson" <JJetson@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:37D533A5-479A-48E6-A12A-7CF2E83883FB@.microsoft.com...
>I have read conflicting reports that the number in the memory usage column
>under Current Processes is the number of pages and that it is the number of
>KB of allocated memory. Which one is correct? Thanks|||A couple of people had told me that, and one of them referenced this page:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...s/c03ppcsq.mspx
but more sources say it is the number of pages so I will stick with that. Th
anks.
"Jacco Schalkwijk" wrote:

> It's (8 KB) pages. See the documentation for sysprocesses (from which the
> information in Enterprise Manager is derived) in BOL.
> Where did you read the information that it was KB instead of pages btw?
> --
> Jacco Schalkwijk
> SQL Server MVP
>
> "J Jetson" <JJetson@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:37D533A5-479A-48E6-A12A-7CF2E83883FB@.microsoft.com...
>
>

Memory pressure while running Perfmon?

I ran a perfmon trace with Memory counters (part of periodic monitoring
effort). I noticed that the SQL Server:Buffer Manager, Free pages
counter had dipped to 317, 203, etc (nromal values> 10000). The first
time this happened today coincided with the time I started the Perfmon
trace (run from another server and inserted into a DB on this second
server).
Does Perfmon cause Memory pressure on the server whose counters it is
capturing - even if it isn't running on that server?
Thanks.<smithabreddy@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148050087.274820.88350@.j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I ran a perfmon trace with Memory counters (part of periodic monitoring
> effort). I noticed that the SQL Server:Buffer Manager, Free pages
> counter had dipped to 317, 203, etc (nromal values> 10000). The first
> time this happened today coincided with the time I started the Perfmon
> trace (run from another server and inserted into a DB on this second
> server).
> Does Perfmon cause Memory pressure on the server whose counters it is
> capturing - even if it isn't running on that server?
>
No. It does not.
David

Memory Performance counter?

Can anyone tell me what is considered a bad number for the "Memory:
Pages/sec" counter? Microsoft indicates a number greater than zero by a small
amount is acceptable, but what number is a "small amount"?
Thanks RichDBA wrote:
> Can anyone tell me what is considered a bad number for the "Memory:
> Pages/sec" counter? Microsoft indicates a number greater than zero by a small
> amount is acceptable, but what number is a "small amount"?
> Thanks Rich
It depends - you first need to determine what is "normal" for your
server. A lot of paging activity usually, but not always, indicates
that something other than SQL is demanding memory. For instance, on my
servers, I have no page swapping during the majority of the day. During
the period of time when my tape backup agent is backing up the SQL
backups, then I'll get a flurry of paging activity. When backups
complete, the paging stops.
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com|||The Memory:pages/sec counter indicates hard paging activities. On a box
dedicated to SQL Server, if its value is greater than zero for any sustained
period of time, you should look into it.
Linchi
"DBA" wrote:
> Can anyone tell me what is considered a bad number for the "Memory:
> Pages/sec" counter? Microsoft indicates a number greater than zero by a small
> amount is acceptable, but what number is a "small amount"?
> Thanks Rich|||Those pages are actually the backup files being written. The write
mechanism used by SQL Backup triggers this counter. This happens both for
local file or tape writes and network file writes. It isn't caused by
memory pressure, it is just an artifact of writing backup files. As such,
you have to disregard the non-zero counters when a SQL is running an active
backup. Yet another operating complication with SQL.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Tracy McKibben" <tracy@.realsqlguy.com> wrote in message
news:enjwmcBsGHA.2240@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> DBA wrote:
>> Can anyone tell me what is considered a bad number for the "Memory:
>> Pages/sec" counter? Microsoft indicates a number greater than zero by a
>> small amount is acceptable, but what number is a "small amount"? Thanks
>> Rich
> It depends - you first need to determine what is "normal" for your server.
> A lot of paging activity usually, but not always, indicates that something
> other than SQL is demanding memory. For instance, on my servers, I have
> no page swapping during the majority of the day. During the period of
> time when my tape backup agent is backing up the SQL backups, then I'll
> get a flurry of paging activity. When backups complete, the paging stops.
>
> --
> Tracy McKibben
> MCDBA
> http://www.realsqlguy.com|||Geoff N. Hiten wrote:
> Those pages are actually the backup files being written. The write
> mechanism used by SQL Backup triggers this counter. This happens both for
> local file or tape writes and network file writes. It isn't caused by
> memory pressure, it is just an artifact of writing backup files. As such,
> you have to disregard the non-zero counters when a SQL is running an active
> backup. Yet another operating complication with SQL.
>
That was basically the point I was trying to make. Also, I don't see
excessive paging when *SQL* is running a backup, I see paging when my
tape backup agent is backing up the SQL backups. I dump SQL backups to
disk, then back those dumps up to tape.
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com|||We're running sql 2000 on 64bit itanium server with 12gig ram. We have batch
processes that run all hours of the day as well internet users hitting the db
via a web application. The memory Pages/Sec are consistently between 3000 and
6000. Is this reasonable or excessive?
Thanks Rich
"Linchi Shea" wrote:
> The Memory:pages/sec counter indicates hard paging activities. On a box
> dedicated to SQL Server, if its value is greater than zero for any sustained
> period of time, you should look into it.
> Linchi
> "DBA" wrote:
> > Can anyone tell me what is considered a bad number for the "Memory:
> > Pages/sec" counter? Microsoft indicates a number greater than zero by a small
> > amount is acceptable, but what number is a "small amount"?
> >
> > Thanks Rich