SQL Server Forums
Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | Forum FAQ
 
Register Now and get your question answered!
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 General SQL Server Forums
 New to SQL Server Programming
 Perfmon: Target versus Total memory
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

ColinD
Starting Member

United Kingdom
40 Posts

Posted - 05/21/2007 :  03:35:09  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi,
Can anybody explain to me what's going on with my Target memory and Total memory in Perfmon?
Last week, before I upgraded my servers memory, they were both almost the same, at around 24 on the graph. Target was just fractionally above total, but there was almost no space between the two.
Then I doubled my servers memory to 4GB and expected to see total go way up and target stay the same. However, target went up to 72, and total came down to 16. When I looked this morning, target is now around 47 and total is 25.
I guess I expected these numbers to fluctuate, but not as much as this, and also why is there now such a big difference between target and total?

Thanks

Colin

rmiao
Flowing Fount of Yak Knowledge

USA
7266 Posts

Posted - 05/21/2007 :  10:24:05  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Target memory is amount of memory sql server can use while Total memory is amount of memory sql server is using. What's your sql edition? Did you add '/3gb' in boot.ini file?
Go to Top of Page

ColinD
Starting Member

United Kingdom
40 Posts

Posted - 05/21/2007 :  10:41:42  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by rmiao

Target memory is amount of memory sql server can use while Total memory is amount of memory sql server is using. What's your sql edition? Did you add '/3gb' in boot.ini file?



So I've got it the wrong way round? I thought that target was what SQL was looking to use, whilst total was the total amount available. We are using SQL 2000 as part of SBS 2003. No I didn't add anything to the boot.ini file.

Colin
Go to Top of Page

rmiao
Flowing Fount of Yak Knowledge

USA
7266 Posts

Posted - 05/21/2007 :  10:46:34  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Then your sql server can't use more than 2gb memory, only enterprise edition can.
Go to Top of Page

Kristen
Test

United Kingdom
22191 Posts

Posted - 05/21/2007 :  11:14:59  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
... but FWIW Windows can use a fair bit of the 4GB ...

SQL2005 Standard edition memory only limited by what the O/S can support.

Kristen
Go to Top of Page

rmiao
Flowing Fount of Yak Knowledge

USA
7266 Posts

Posted - 05/21/2007 :  14:26:21  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
But this is SQL 2000 as part of SBS 2003.
Go to Top of Page

Kristen
Test

United Kingdom
22191 Posts

Posted - 05/21/2007 :  14:36:08  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Indeed, sorry wasn't clear. What I as meaning was:

Installing 4GB of memory with "bog standard windows and SQL Server" will result in:

SQL Server using up to 2 GB of memory.

2GB of memory left over, of which Windows will use a fair bit - perhaps 500MB at a guess.

So it is probably NOT a false economy to install 4GB of RAM for "Standard" SQL 2000.

And if & hen you upgrade to SQL 2005 then all the RAM available from the 4GB RAM installed will be used by SQL Server.

Kristen
Go to Top of Page

tkizer
Almighty SQL Goddess

USA
35020 Posts

Posted - 05/21/2007 :  14:38:22  Show Profile  Visit tkizer's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Target is what SQL Server would like to use and Total is what it currently is using.

What edition are you using?

Tara Kizer
http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/tarad/
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
SQL Server Forums © 2000-2009 SQLTeam Publishing, LLC Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.06 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000