MSSQLWIKI

Karthick P.K on SQL Server

SQL Server performance degraded in 32-Bit SQL Server after adding additional RAM.

Posted by Karthick P.K on May 18, 2012

 

Do you know that adding additional RAM can affect the performance of SQL Server Sometimes?

I am not going to write how Optimizer can some times choose suboptimal plans when we have large amount of memory on the system but We will see how the memory which can be used by other memory clerks (aks: stolen memory) can shrink when we have large physical memory and AWE enabled.

 

If you notice  performance of 32-Bit SQL Server degraded after you added additional RAM or if you see SQL Server memory errors like ones below after adding RAM then it could be because of Large BUF structures which reduced the size of Bpool.

 

Errors:

SQL Server 2005/2008

 

Buffer Pool errors:

    BPool::Map: no remappable address found.

 

Either BPool or MemToLeave errors:

    Error: 17803 “Insufficient memory available..”

    Buffer Distribution:  Stolen=7901 Free=0 Procedures=1 Inram=201842 Dirty=0 Kept=572…

 

Extract from SQL Server memory design

{

SQL Server "User address space" is broken into two regions: MemToLeave and Buffer Pool

 

Size of MemToLeave (MTL) and Buffer Pool (BPool) is determined by SQL Server during start up as below.

 

MTL (Memory to Leave)= (Stack size * max worker threads) + Additional space to load Dll’s.

 

Stack size =512 KB per thread for 32 Bit SQL Server (904K under WOW)

 

I.e. = (256 *512 KB) + 256MB =384MB

 

Additional space to load Dll’s= 256 MB from SQLServer2000. This space is used to store COM objects, Extended stored procedure, Linked server in SQL Server process

 

Note: Additional space to load Dll’s can be modified using -g startup parameter.

 

on any machine with less than 4 processors the Maximum worker Thread’s is always 256 by default (unless we change the value using SP_configure)

 

SQL Server Buffer Pool is minimum of “Physical RAM “ or “user mode memory(2GB or 3GB) – MTL-  BUF structures”

 

BPool = Minimum (Physical memory, User address space – MTL) – BUF structures

 

}

 

 

When AWE is enabled in 32-Bit SQL Server M_pbuf (part of BUF structures) which is mentioned earlier is calculated and allocated for entire physical memory on the system . Regardless of “MAX Server Memory”   This is to adjust Max server memory without restarting SQL Server.

 

SQL Server requires 8MB to create M_pbuf for every 1GB of RAM available on the server.

 

Machine with 64 GB RAM can consume 64 (RAM) *8MB (M_pbuf for each GB) =512 MB just for the BUF array alone.

 

So the amount of BPOOL available for SQL Server is adversely affected.

 

Going back to the previous formula for BPOOL. Size of Bpool for 32-Bit SQL Server with AWE enabled and 64 GB of RAM would be.

 

BPool = Minimum (Physical memory, User address space – MTL) – BUF structures

 

BPool= Minimum (64GB, (2GB-384MB)) – BUF structures (512+ MB)

 

Bpool would approximately become 1GB.  Since size BPOOL become very small we might end up with memory errors.

 

Note:  In 32-Bit SQL Server Only data pages an index pages can be placed in AWE memory. So the memory available for other SQL Server memory objects is still limited to BPOOL and MTL.  

 

How to resolve this issue?

Remove few GB of RAM from server J if you can convince your management that removing RAM will improve performance.

(Or)

There is a startup trace flag TF 836 which you can use to indicate that BUF’s need to be allocated only for the configured max server memory setting. Enable this Trace Flag (836) and Reduce the “MAX Server Memory” of SQL Server.

(Or)

Enable /3GB. This will increase the Size of SQL Server BPOOL by 1GB providing relief to SQL Server BPOOL pressure.

Note: When the physical RAM in the system exceeds 16 GB and the /3GB switch is used, the operating system will ignore the additional RAM until the /3GB switch is removed.

 

 

 

Related posts

Troubleshooting steps for all SQL Server Memory errors

Trouble shooting working set trim “A significant part of SQL Server process memory has been paged out”

SQL Server lock pages in memory should I use it?

SQL Server memory leak

What is new in SQL Server 2012 Memory

How to set max server memory and min server memory

 

If you liked this post do like us on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/mssqlwiki and join our Facebook group MSSQLWIKI

Thank you,

Karthick P.K |My Facebook Page |My Site| Blog space| Twitter

Disclaimer
The views expressed on this website/blog are mine alone and do not reflect the views of my company. All postings on this blog are provided “AS IS” with no warranties, and confers no rights.
About these ads

5 Responses to “SQL Server performance degraded in 32-Bit SQL Server after adding additional RAM.”

  1. kranthi said

    Very useful info karthik. Thanks for the info.

  2. ERIC said

    Hi Karthick .
    “Failed Virtual Allocate Bytes: FAIL_VIRTUAL_RESERVE 122880 ” ,
    the 122880 Bytes is 120k, and the 120k>8k (single page Allocater) ,so it should be a MTL issue, why you said it is a bpool issue from the error message?
    Thank you.

  3. ERIC said

    and also based on your following article ,the “Failed Virtual Allocate Bytes: FAIL_VIRTUAL_RESERVE 122880 ” is a MemToLeave errors ,so if the “Large BUF structures reduced the size of Bpool. “, why it caused a MemToLeave error? it doesn’t make sense.

    http://mssqlwiki.com/sqlwiki/sql-performance/troubleshooting-sql-server-memory/

  4. […] SQL Server performance degraded in 32-Bit SQL Server after adding additional RAM. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,281 other followers

%d bloggers like this: