Server 2003 memory performance configuration
Home > IT Answers > Microsoft Windows > Server 2003 memory performance configuration
Labnuke99
26290 pts.
0
Q:
Server 2003 memory performance configuration
Windows Server 2003, SQL, SQL Server, Server Performance, Windows Server Performance
We have a SQL application running in an n-tier environment. Some of the users are complaining about application performance. I am going through the environment looking at all of the elements involved in processing this application. The information below shows all of the server systems involved in the application and the page file and RAM configurations. What issues do you see with this configuration (if any) and what changes would you recommend to enhance performance?

Thanks for your assistance.
ASKED: Feb 19 2009  8:35 PM GMT
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
RELATED QUESTIONS
0
Mrdenny
46795 pts.
0
A:
 RATE THIS ANSWER
0
Click to Vote:
  •   0
  •  0
  • AddThis Social Bookmark Button
The machines which have large page files probably need more RAM.

Have you identified which layer of the application the performance problems are coming from?

Is the database running slow, is the web server running slow, are the term servers running slow?

Without identifying which layer is causing the problem you won't have much luck looking at the entire system.
Last Answered: Feb 19 2009  10:20 PM GMT by Mrdenny   46795 pts.
  •   
0
0
RSS - Discussions Help
Discuss This Answer:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _



_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Troy Tate   0 pts.  |   Feb 19 2009  8:37PM GMT

Forgot the memory configuration in the question. Sorry for any confusion.

Is it an issue when there is a discrepancy between the current allocation and the system recommended page file settings? Should the page file size be “hard set”?

Each server is running Windows Server 2003

Server1 - SQL
Page file: system managed, current allocation: 3.5GB, system recommended: 5GB
installed RAM: 4GB

Server2 - WEB
Page file: system managed, current allocation: 14.3GB, system recommended: 5GB
installed RAM: 4GB

Server3 - terminal server1
Page file: system managed, current allocation: 4GB, system recommended: 3GB
installed RAM: 2GB

Server4 - terminal server2
Page file: system managed, current allocation: 4GB, system recommended: 6GB
installed RAM: 4GB

Server5 - terminal server3
Page file: system managed, current allocation: 10.7GB, system recommended: 5GB
installed RAM: 4GB

Server6 - terminal server4
Page file: system managed, current allocation: 16.1GB, system recommended: 6GB
installed RAM: 4GB

Server7 - data capture server
Page file: system managed, current allocation: 8GB, system recommended: 6GB
installed RAM: 4GB

 

Troy Tate   0 pts.  |   Feb 20 2009  1:14PM GMT

Will adding memory above 4GB to a 32-bit machine really help? We were not planning on moving the servers to 64-bit architecture.

Since it is an n-tier architecture, I am thinking that there could be problems at several points along the path creating the slow performance being reported by users. I am looking along the entire processing path and questioning items that seem out of place to be sure the configuration is as robust as possible.

I am looking at some perfmon stats today that I have captured over the past few days on most of the servers to see if that will shed any light on resource problems. Any tips on looking at memory or processor utilization? I totally understand the network side of things and I am not seeing a network issue here. The traffic volume is low. There are no errors on the interfaces. There are not packet retransmits. I appreciate any guidance on the server side of things.

Thanks for your time!

 
0