- #Cbt nuggets offline viewing drivers
- #Cbt nuggets offline viewing manual
- #Cbt nuggets offline viewing upgrade
One of these is the balloon driver, which under normal conditions is used by the host to create an artificial RAM constraint at the guest level.
#Cbt nuggets offline viewing drivers
VMware Tools load some drivers that are designed to help the hypervisor shuffle resources between VMs. RAMMap showed that drivers were consuming 5.5GB of RAM! On a VM, this is very unusual.
#Cbt nuggets offline viewing manual
In short, automated and manual analysis of the performance logs did not show what was consuming this system’s memory.
![cbt nuggets offline viewing cbt nuggets offline viewing](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/qWHy5iruEQY/maxresdefault.jpg)
Why this particular number was chosen is unknown to me, but in the context of the current problem, it did not appear to be a contributor – we would’ve seen SQL consuming more than 2GB of RAM. Someone has imposed a limit of 6.7GB of RAM usage on this SQL Server instance. I checked to see if SQL had been “held back” by a non-standard configuration: SQL appeared to be consuming up to approximately 1.8GB of RAM.īy default, SQL is configured at the SQL Server level to consume up to 2PB of RAM. Since this server is a SQL box, I investigated SQL’s memory usage (Counter: SQLServer: Memory Manager\Target Server Memory (KB): bandwidth consumption limits on WAN traffic, imposed by network shaping). My experience has been that flat lines are usually the result of an artificial constraint (e.g. How can a system using only 2GB of 8GB be memory-bound? The flat-line nature of the graphs bothered me. Neither automated analysis nor the manual analysis made sense. The VM has been configured with 8GB of RAM. All counters suggested that the sum total of memory used by processes was in the order of approximately 2GB. Manual analysis of the performance log files did not reveal the source of the RAM constraints. This conclusion was supported by casual observation in Task Manager: PAL found that this VM was severely memory-bound.
![cbt nuggets offline viewing cbt nuggets offline viewing](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/08fbcd06-ec40-47f2-b11a-24a80fc9ed58-160624035702/95/document-1-638.jpg)
The performance log files were parsed by an automated tool called PAL ( ). As part of this prep work, performance baselines were taken.
#Cbt nuggets offline viewing upgrade
A rebuild of the machine would never have fixed that.īackground: I have been asked to prepare one of our servers for a SQL version upgrade (from 2008 to 2008 R2). CPU usage fell to approximately 3% average. I thought this sounded like bollocks, and with a bit of googling, learning, reading BOL and testing, discovered that one of the databases had a table that needed an index applied. One of my former colleagues (the one with DBA aspirations) decided that the problem was a corrupt SQL installation, and had intended to rebuild the machine from scratch.
![cbt nuggets offline viewing cbt nuggets offline viewing](https://powerfulwar.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/4/3/124363647/880479165.png)
A good example (which I wish I'd documented as well as my story below): A SQL server (this very same one, as it happens), averaging 99% CPU consumption, 24/7. One of the greatest frustrations in this new job is finding things my former colleagues either a) completely fucked up, or b) never noticed were a problem. Note that I have removed server names and other identifying material from screenshots. I spent a lot of time chasing my tail, trying to figure out why one of our SQL servers was frequently memory-bound.