NT 4.0 Server very slow after adding memory -- why 2

[roybrew]

I have a PIII 600, 128mb running NT Server 4.0 (sp6). I just added an additional 128MB or RAM to the machine and now it's a toad!!! I've fiddled with the virtual memory settings -- no luck. CPU utilization is abnormally high, but no process in task manager seems to be sucking the life out of the CPU. Would appreciate any insight. Thanks.

Roy

 

[Voyager1]

Your page file needs to be at least 1 to 1.5 times your physical RAM. It also helps of you can relocate the page file to a disk that is separate from your System volume.

Make sure, too, that the additional RAM is the same speed as the original. NT doesn't like having RAM of differing speeds.

Hope this helps Bill
CNE, MCSE, CCNA, CCA, MCT, CCI

"I'd much rather be lucky than good"

 

[snicks2]

Your pagefile needs to increase by the amount of memory you have added. Pagefile should be the amount of physical memory plus 11mb. A pagefile smaller than physical ram could decrease performance.

 

[roybrew]

Thanks all for the replies. I had already bumped up the pagefile size by 1.5-2 times as well as trying to move it to another disk. No luck. I'm in the process of defragging drives (good thing to do anyway). Also, I have mirroring going on, so that is contributing to performance problems as well. I've also got a big partition (13g), and that probably doesn't help. Also, it could be the speed of the RAM. The new stuff is 8ns, and I need to track down the speed of the existing memory. I seemed to have misplaced that info.

Roy

 

[roybrew]

It turned out to be mirroring that was causing the problem. After taking out the new memory, defragging drives, etc. I decided to disable the mirroring I had set up on the boot partition. Once I broke the mirror, life got better. I put the new memory back in and I'm in business. I expect that my boot partition got fairly fragmented over time. That, combined with the mirroring, spelled perfomance problems. Thanks for the replies.

roy

 

[Guest_imported]

Well it could be faulty RAM have you thought about that?

Faulty RAM will cause slowdown like what you're talking about.. Kind of like a car, a 6-cylinder.. The car has 6 cylinders, only 3 of them work, however the car still runs, but at a loss of performance.

Your comp will run on faulty ram, it'll just run slower than before the ram was installed, possibly a slight marginal increase in speed..



Straight Up Gangsta Chillin'

[]\[]e0

 

[NetTech24]

A mis-match in RAM will deffinitely kill you here. If you cannot find the specs on the existing RAM, take it out and see what the response is like. Also parity mis-match will suck the life out of your server.

 

[EricH]

Roy, I was wondering if the slow response you initially observered was due to the fact that the mirrored drives were not in sync. If you are using software mirroring you will notice very slow response and excessive disk activity while the drives are syncd. You can check by using Disk Administrator and making sure that the status of the mirror is healthy

 

[roybrew]

G-DogEastSida,

I don't think the memory was bad. I also took out the original memory, put in the new memory by itself, and it ran as well (as far as I could tell) as the original memory. I think all cylinders were firing. It's running good now. Thanks for your reply..


Roy

 

[roybrew]

EricH,
I had checked the mirroring health before I broke the mirror -- all was fine. Let me ask a question though. If a mirrored drive is fragmented, does the mirroing process also mirror the fragmentation, thus potentially "doubling" any fragmentation performance problem that may exist? Just curious, if you had any insight.

Regards,

Roy

 

[roybrew]

NetTech24,

After I disabled the mirroring, I ran the system with each memory stick by itself. One seemed to run as well as the other. I was able to find the mfr of the existing ram (I believe) and I don' think there are any parity mismatches. I'm still waiting on an email reply from said mfr, though, on getting specs for the memory I have. Thanks for the reply.

Roy