Hi all,
I have sql 2005 v 9.0.4053 64-bit running on Windows Server 2003 R2 64-bit. I have 8 gigs ram, and sql Memory settings are
AWE: Not checked.
Minimum: 128 MB
Max: 2,147,483,647 MB, (I think that's 2 exabyte's if I've got my prefixes correct) which I believe is just the max possible value that field can take.
Anyway, my question--and I hope this is the right forum because this also touches on the windows server itself--is:
Why is the Task Manager's performance tab showing PF Usage and Commit Charge with all 8 gigs used up when nothing is hitting the server yet?
In the Processes tab of TM, Mem Usage shows sqlservr.exe with the most used, and it's only 187,504 KB. Not much else going on in Task Manager, but in the Performance tab PF Usage it shows 7.62 GB used.
From another post I'd asked about paged memory, I'd found that the Kernel Paged and NonPaged sections are mis-named, and really mean "Page-able" and NonPage-able", so I'm wondering if the regular PF Usage stat is similar, and it's seeing that since Sql-server *might* decide to exercise it's setting of Max Mem, that Windows Task Manager somehow knows this and is just reporting a full Commit Charge because it *might* happen?
Thanks for any insight on this,
--Jim
I have sql 2005 v 9.0.4053 64-bit running on Windows Server 2003 R2 64-bit. I have 8 gigs ram, and sql Memory settings are
AWE: Not checked.
Minimum: 128 MB
Max: 2,147,483,647 MB, (I think that's 2 exabyte's if I've got my prefixes correct) which I believe is just the max possible value that field can take.
Anyway, my question--and I hope this is the right forum because this also touches on the windows server itself--is:
Why is the Task Manager's performance tab showing PF Usage and Commit Charge with all 8 gigs used up when nothing is hitting the server yet?
In the Processes tab of TM, Mem Usage shows sqlservr.exe with the most used, and it's only 187,504 KB. Not much else going on in Task Manager, but in the Performance tab PF Usage it shows 7.62 GB used.
From another post I'd asked about paged memory, I'd found that the Kernel Paged and NonPaged sections are mis-named, and really mean "Page-able" and NonPage-able", so I'm wondering if the regular PF Usage stat is similar, and it's seeing that since Sql-server *might* decide to exercise it's setting of Max Mem, that Windows Task Manager somehow knows this and is just reporting a full Commit Charge because it *might* happen?
Thanks for any insight on this,
--Jim