We are running Dynamics GP 2010 on 2 load balanced citrix servers. For the past 3 weeks we have had severe performance hits when users are running Fixed Assets reporting.
The database is large in size, but when I run the reports locally on the SQL server, they run great. The SQL server seems to be performing adequately even when users are seeing slow performance.
Any ideas?
Just because your DB seems un-stressed, it does not mean that it is fine. It could contain other bottlenecks. Typically, if a DB server is not maxing-out its CPUs occasionally, it means there is a much bigger problem.
Standard process for troubleshooting performance problems on a data driven app go like this:
Tune DB indexes. The Tuning Wizard in SSMS is a great starting point. If you haven't tried this yet, it is a great starting point.
Check resource utilization: CPU, RAM. If your CPU is maxed-out, then consider adding/upgrading CPU or optimize code or split your tiers. If your RAM is maxed-out, then consider adding RAM or split your tiers.
Check HDD usage: if your queue length goes above 1 very often (more than once per 10 seconds), upgrade disk bandwidth or scale-out your disk (RAID, multiple MDF/LDFs, DB partitioning).
Check network bandwidth
Check for problems on your app (Dynamics) server
Shared report dictionaries are the bane of reporting in GP. they do tend to slow things down. also, modifying reports becomes impossible as somebody has it open all the time.
use local report dictionaries and have a system to keep them synced with a "master" reports.dic
I've read quite a bit about SQL Servers using SSDs performing much better than traditional hard drives. In load tests with my app in a test environment, though, I'm able to keep my test DB server (SQL 2005) pegged between 75% and 100% CPU usage without much of a strain on disk access (as far as I can tell). My data set is still pretty small; database backups are under 100 MB. The test server I'm using is not new, but is also no slouch.
So, my questions:
Is the CPU the bottleneck (as opposed to the storage) because the dataset is small and therefore fits in memory?
Will this change once the dataset grows so paging is necessary?
Approximately how big (as a percentage of system memory) does the dataset have to get before SQL Server starts paging? Or does that depend on a lot of other factors?
As the app and its dataset grows, are there other bottlenecks that will tend to crop up besides CPU, storage, and lack of proper indexes?
Yes
Yes
If you have SQL Server configured to use as much memory as it can get, probably when it exceeds the max system memory. But it's very setup dependant on what causes paging (the query that is being executed is the most prevalent cause).
I/O between the request machine and server is the only one that I can think of, and that only matters if you are retrieving large datasets. I also would not group a lack of indexes as a bottleneck, rather indexes enable better performance with regard to searching.
As long as the CPU is the bottleneck on your dedicated SQL-Server machine, you don't have to worry about disk speed (assuming nothing's wrong with the machine). SQL-Server WILL use heavy memory caching. SQL-Server has built-in strategies to perform best under a given load and available resources. Just don't worry about it!
This is going to be my first attempt at fine tuning our SQL Server 2008R2, and I'd like a starting point based on the following.
When I view the resource monitor, I see (in KB):
Commit: 843,948
Working Set: 718,648
Shareable: 26,276
Private: 692,372
Out of 2 gigs available on our virtual server, 1.6 is getting used up, and I suspect it is due SQL Server, and the memory gets chewed up when I initiate a service that does a bunch of TVP inserts and checks. I already added some GC.collect() in my c# service, however I'm not really seeing much of a change, which leads me back to the SQL Server.
Where would be a good starting point for me to learn more about optimizing based on this information, and some quick pointers?
Thanks.
Here is a quick pointer: buy more memory. 2GB is nothing today.
For the long answer: you need to understand how SQL Server allocates and uses memory. 1.6Gb on a 2Gb box is perfectly normal. See Dynamic Memory Management:
When SQL Server starts, it computes the size of virtual address space
for the buffer pool based on a number of parameters such as amount of
physical memory on the system, number of server threads and various
startup parameters. SQL Server reserves the computed amount of its
process virtual address space for the buffer pool, but it acquires
(commits) only the required amount of physical memory for the current
load.
The instance then continues to acquire memory as needed to support the
workload. As more users connect and run queries, SQL Server acquires
the additional physical memory on demand. A SQL Server instance
continues to acquire physical memory until it either reaches its max
server memory allocation target or Windows indicates there is no
longer an excess of free memory; it frees memory when it has more than
the min server memory setting, and Windows indicates that there is a
shortage of free memory.
In other words, SQL Server will not release the 1.6Gb unless there is memory pressure notification from Windows.
And finally, about your question on where to look for info on optimizations: Waits and Queues is an excellent resource. It is a methodology that allows you to identify the bottlenecks and recommends the appropriate action for all common bottleneck cases.
SQL Server is designed to pre-allocate and "eat up" all the memory you let it use. There really is no way to see any improvement except to reduce the SQL footprint in the configuration.
If it's the default configuration, sql server will analyse usage and then grab as much memory as it can to optimise itself. If other apps then start asking for memory it gives it back.
There are a couple of values you can play with in terms of memory, a minimum which is the amount sql server will keep to itself, and a maximum which it will never grab more than. You can also play around with the number of threads it will run. You'll need some good stats for this. Depends on your usage patterns, and what else needs memory and how well it plays with others. Mess about and you can starve sql server, which is never a brill idea. I've always been a big fan of dedicated machines for dbms for any non trivial use.
As much art as science this, unless you find something horrible in there, slowing down your sql server will give your applications lots of memory to do nothing with because they are waiting for the Db....
More stuff to have a look at.
MSDN - Sql Server Performance and Memory
You need to get performamnce monitoring going and a have a good idea what sort of things are going on during the run. And you want an 'average' run. Peak hits, Out of office hours processing, holidays etc, no use at all.
PS don't forget performance monitoring is a significant hit on the machine.
I'm managing a co-located winserver08 box running both IIS and SQL 08 express. I just happened to glance at the task manager's performance tab and find the 'mem usage history graph is close to topped out reading 1.8 gig (i have 2 gig physical ram). Processes shows sqlserver is running at 940,000K - by far the largest consumer.
I'm a low volume site - cpu utilization barely registers. Haven't had any stability issues with the server at all. Is this just how SQL treats available mem or should I be digging deeper?
thx
SQL Server manages it's own memory pool. It will release memory back to the OS under memory pressure.
So, yes, this is normal behaviour and nothing to be concerned about.
Note: I should mention an exception to this: If TSQL scripts are using sp_OACreate to create COM objects and not releasing the object with a corresponding sp_OSDestroy (say, for instance an error occurs and the script terminates prematurely), then memory can leak. Use of these stored procedures is not that common (many DBAs won't allow this feature to be turned on, for good reason) I believe this is also the case for CURSORS that are not deallocated.
Unless you have configured this is normal behavior. Read this article for a clear understanding of memory configuration and recommendations.
In your case, I assume you have the default settings and what you see is normal and there is no cause for concern.
Raj
Keep into account SqlExpress probably manages memory in a different way compared to any standard edition (that is, any non-express edition).
I can't provide specific links but from personal experience things change a lot when you move to a proper distribution of SQLServer (speed, memory-manamgement, responsiveness in extreme conditions, etc).
If anybody knows something more please integrate my answer.
SQL Server will use something in the area of 90% of a machine's memory if it isn't capped. This is completely normal as SQL Server is managing memory for itself and will release memory as necessary.
If you are worried about it than you can cap the amount of memory SQL Server can use, by going to the properties of the sqlexpress instance, selecting the memory page and then reducing the maximum server memory.
Listening to Scott Hanselman's interview with the Stack Overflow team (part 1 and 2), he was adamant that the SQL server and application server should be on separate machines. Is this just to make sure that if one server is compromised, both systems aren't accessible? Do the security concerns outweigh the complexity of two servers (extra cost, dedicated network connection between the two, more maintenance, etc.), especially for a small application, where neither piece is using too much CPU or memory? Even with two servers, with one server compromised, an attacker could still do serious damage, either by deleting the database, or messing with the application code.
Why would this be such a big deal if performance isn't an issue?
Security. Your web server lives in a DMZ, accessible to the public internet and taking untrusted input from anonymous users. If your web server gets compromised, and you've followed least privilege rules in connecting to your DB, the maximum exposure is what your app can do through the database API. If you have a business tier in between, you have one more step between your attacker and your data. If, on the other hand, your database is on the same server, the attacker now has root access to your data and server.
Scalability. Keeping your web server stateless allows you to scale your web servers horizontally pretty much effortlessly. It is very difficult to horizontally scale a database server.
Performance. 2 boxes = 2 times the CPU, 2 times the RAM, and 2 times the spindles for disk access.
All that being said, I can certainly see reasonable cases that none of those points really matter.
It doesn't really matter (you can quite happily run your site with web/database on the same machine), it's just the easiest step in scaling..
It's exactly what StackOverflow did - starting with single machine running IIS/SQL Server, then when it started getting heavily loaded, a second server was bought and the SQL server was moved onto that.
If performance is not an issue, do not waste money buying/maintaining two servers.
On the other hand, referring to a different blogging Scott (Watermasyck, of Telligent) - they found that most users could speed up the websites (using Telligent's Community Server), by putting the database on the same machine as the web site. However, in their customer's case, usually the db & web server are the only applications on that machine, and the website isn't straining the machine that much. Then, the efficiency of not having to send data across the network more that made up for the increased strain.
Tom is correct on this. Some other reasons are that it isn't cost effective and that there are additional security risks.
Webservers have different hardware requirements than database servers. Database servers fare better with a lot of memory and a really fast disk array while web servers only require enough memory to cache files and frequent DB requests (depending on your setup). Regarding cost effectiveness, the two servers won't necessarily be less expensive, however performance/cost ratio should be higher since you don't have to different applications competing for resources. For this reason, you're probably going to have to spend a lot more for one server which caters to both and offers equivalent performance to 2 specialized ones.
The security concern is that if the single machine is compromised, both webserver and database are vulnerable. With two servers, you have some breathing room as the 2nd server will still be secure (for a while at least).
Also, there are some scalability benefits since you may only have to maintain a few database servers that are used by a bunch of different web applications. This way you have less work to do applying upgrades or patches and doing performance tuning. I believe that there are server management tools for making these tasks easier though (in the single machine case).
I would think the big factor would be performance. Both the web server/app code and SQL Server would cache commonly requested data in memory and you're killing your cache performance by running them in the same memory space.
Security is a major concern. Ideally your database server should be sitting behind a firewall with only the ports required to perform data access opened. Your web application should be connecting to the database server with a SQL account that has just enough rights for the application to function and no more. For example you should remove rights that permit dropping of objects and most certainly you shouldn't be connecting using accounts such as 'sa'.
In the event that you lose the web server to a hijack (i.e. a full blown privilege escalation to administrator rights), the worst case scenario is that your application's database may be compromised but not the whole database server (as would be the case if the database server and web server were the same machine). If you've encrypted your database connection strings and the hacker isn't savvy enough to decrypt them then all you've lost is the web server.
One factor that hasn't been mentioned yet is load balancing. If you start off thinking of the web server and the database as separate machines, you optimize for fewer network round trips and also it gets easier to add a second web server or a second database engine as needs increase.
I agree with Daniel Earwicker - the security question is pretty much flawed.
If you have a single box setup with a webserver and only the database for that webserver on it, if that webserver is compromised you lose both the webserver and only the database for that specific application.
This is exactly the same as what happens if you lose the webserver on a 2-server setup. You lose the web server, and just the database for that specific application.
The argument that 'the rest of the DB server's integrity is maintained' where you have a 2-server setup is irrelevant, because in the first scenario, every other database server relating to every other application (if there are any) remain unaffected as well - being, as they are, hosted elsewhere.
Similarly, to the question posed by Kev 'what about all the other databases residing on the DB server? All you've lost is one database.'
if you were hosting an application and database on one server, you would only host databases on that server which related to that application. Therefore, you would not lose any additional databases in a single server setup when compared to a multiple server setup.
By contrast, in a 2 server setup, where the attacker had access to the Web Server, and by proxy, limited rights (in the best case scenario) to the database server, they could put the databases of every other application at risk by carrying out slow, memory intensive queries or maximising the available storage space on the database server. By separating the applications out into their own concerns, very much like virtualisation, you also isolate them for security purposes in a positive way.
I can speak from first hand experience that it is often a good idea to place the web server and database on different machines. If you have an application that is resource intensive, it can easily cause the CPU cycles on the machine to peak, essentially bringing the machine to a halt. However, if your application has limited use of the database, it would probably be no big deal to have them share a server.
Wow, No one brings up the fact that if you actually buy SQL server at 5k bucks, you might want to use it for more than your web application. If your using express, maybe you don't care. I see SQL servers run Databases for 20 to 30 applicaitions, so putting it on the webserver would not be smart.
Secondly, depends on whom the server is for. I do work for financial companies and the govt. So we use a crazy pain in the arse approach of using only sprocs and limiting ports from webserver to SQL. So if the web app gets hacked. The only thing the hacker can do is call sprocs as the user account on the webserver is locked down to only see/call sprocs on the DB. So now the hacker has to figure out how to get into the DB. If its on the web server well its kind of easy to get to.
It depends on the application and the purpose. When high availability and performance is not critical, it's not bad to not to separate the DB and web server. Especially considering the performance gains - if the appliation makes a large amount of database queries, a considerable amount of network load can be removed by keeping it all on the same system, keeping the response times low.
I listened to that podcast, and it was amusing, but the security argument made no sense to me. If you've compromised server A, and that server can access data on server B, then you instantly have access to the data on server B.
I think its because the two machines usually would need to be optimized in different ways. Other than that I have no idea, we run all our applications with the server-database on the same machine - granted we're not public facing - but we've had no problems.
I can't imagine that too many people care about one machine being compromised over both since the web application will usually have nearly unrestricted access to at the very least the data if not the schema inside the database.
Interested in what others might say.
Database licences are not cheep and are often charged per CPU, therefore by separating out your web-servers you can reduce the cost of your database licences.
E.g if you have 1 server doing both web and database that contains 8 CPUs you will have to pay for an 8 cpu licence. However if you have two servers each with 4 CPUs and runs the database on one server you will only have to pay for a 4 cpu licences
An additional concern is that databases like to take up all the available memory and hold it in reserve for when it wants to use it. You can force it to limit the memory but this can considerably slow data access.
Something not mentioned here, and the reason I am facing, is 0 downtime deployments. Currently I have DB/webserver on same machine and that makes updates a pain. If you they are on a seprate machine, you can perform A/B releases.
I.e.:
The DNS currently points to WebServerA
Apply sofware updates to WebServerB
Change DNS to point to WebServerB
Work on WebServerA at leisure for the next round of updates.
This works before the state is stored in the DB, on a separate server.
Arguing that there is a real performance gain to be had by running a database server on a web server is a flawed argument.
Since Database servers take query strings and return result sets, the data actually flowing from data server to web server is relatively small, but the horsepower required to process the query and generate the result set is relatively large. Optimizing performance around the data transfer time therefore is optimizing around the wrong thing.
Regarding security, there are advantages to having the data server on a different box than the web server. Having such a setup is not the be all and end all of security, but it is a step in the right direction.
Regarding scalability, it is easy and relatively cheap to add web servers and put them into cluster to handle increased traffic. It is not so easy and cheap to add data servers and cluster them. Also, web servers and data servers have different hardware needs, so multiple boxes help out with scalability.
If you are starting small and have only one box, then a good way would go would be to use virtual machines. Running the web server and data server in different VMs on one host gives you all the gains of separate boxes at the cost of one large box price.
Operating system is another consideration. While your database may require larger memory spaces and therefore UNIX, your web server - or more specifically your app server since you mention only two tiers - may be a .Net-based, and therefore require Windows.
Ok! Here is the thing, it is more Secure to have your DB Server installed on another Machine and your Application on the Web Server. You then connect your application to the DB with a Web Link. Thanks it.