none
Allocated Memory Alert not going away... RRS feed

  • Question

  • I'm running Windows SBS 2003 R2 with 4GB of RAM.
     
    I have also made my Page File 1.5 times greater than my physical ram.
    I am constantly receiving Allocated Memory Alert e-mails (almost every hour).
    Here are the top 3 processes that are using the most memory given by the daily Server Performance Report:

    sqlservr - 865 MB
    store - 594 MB
    w3wp - 298 MB
    Are constantly receiving these Allocated Memory Alerts a problem?  How can I stop these alerts?

    Monday, May 2, 2011 4:19 AM

Answers

  • on a system with 4GB RAM I'd probably limit the standard SBS instances to 256MB each.
    • Marked as answer by E.Zero Thursday, May 12, 2011 1:04 AM
    Monday, May 9, 2011 9:20 PM

All replies

  • Hi,

    It is probably sqlserver that is given these alerts, read here http://msmvps.com/blogs/bradley/archive/2005/02/04/34984.aspx how to troubleshoot and fix this


    Regards Ronny
    -------------
    Visit my Blog or follow me on Twitter
    Monday, May 2, 2011 6:29 AM
  • Thanks for the link.  Before I start any memory reconfiguration I want to discuss which sqlserver.exe process is sucking the most memory.  For me it is "MSSQL$MICROSOFT##SSEE�" and not "MSSQL$SBSMONITORING�" like the article states.

    Should I reconfigure the memory allocation for this specific process?  If so, what should it be?

    Monday, May 2, 2011 4:44 PM
  • Hi,

    If in your case it is a other SQL process, follow the link and replace MSSQL$SBSMONITORING for MSSQL$MICROSOFT##SSEE.

    Ofcourse before you go change anything make sure you have a good backup of your server incase something went wrong.


    Regards Ronny
    -------------
    Visit my Blog or follow me on Twitter
    Monday, May 2, 2011 6:20 PM
  • yes, but is it a good idea to reconfigure the memory for MSSQL$MICROSOFT##SSEE?  what does this instance of sqlserver do??
    Monday, May 2, 2011 6:51 PM
  • It is the so called Windows Internal Database, it is used by WSUS and WSS
    Regards Ronny
    -------------
    Visit my Blog or follow me on Twitter
    Monday, May 2, 2011 7:06 PM
  • Right now this process is using 894,348 K.

    What should I set it too?

    Monday, May 2, 2011 8:35 PM
  • whereas I believe that a server with 4GB RAM _should_ be using it. I didn't buy that RAM to sit there unused.

    After the server has been operational for some time, what are the min/max/average values as per http://msmvps.com/blogs/bradley/archive/2005/01/31/34552.aspx (Susan's original alerts post).

    You probably _DO_ want the server to alert you if nearly all RAM is in use but if your system 'normally' uses 80% of RAM I see no reason to be concerned that it is telling you 50% is in use (and no benefit to such an alert either). The default alert is 2GB, and in my mind I'd rather be alerted to the fact I had overspecced the server and RAM usage was regularly going under 2GB.

    Tuesday, May 3, 2011 3:48 AM
  • so are you saying that I should not reconfigure the memory for the MSSQL$MICROSOFT##SSEE process?
    Tuesday, May 3, 2011 2:47 PM
  • Most smaller SQL instances will not suffer performance problems by having the maximum use limit reduced. The SSEE instance is not a very demanding database.

    More importantly the default setting for monitoring is telling you 'more than 2GB of memory is in use', on a system with 4GB RAM. I'd adjust the alert level.

    Thursday, May 5, 2011 6:31 AM
  • I do want to reconfigure the proceses MSSQL$MICROSOFT##SSEE.  What should I set it to?  Right now it's at 894,348 K.
    Sunday, May 8, 2011 12:12 AM
  • on a system with 4GB RAM I'd probably limit the standard SBS instances to 256MB each.
    • Marked as answer by E.Zero Thursday, May 12, 2011 1:04 AM
    Monday, May 9, 2011 9:20 PM
  • Thanks.  I should also note that we are running a web site that is using an SQL database.  Should that be a concern?
    Monday, May 9, 2011 9:36 PM
  • Running a public website on SBS should not be a concern, it is SHEER LUNACY and anyone doing so should have no concern over getting silly darn 'alerts'.
    Wednesday, May 11, 2011 11:36 PM