Limit max CPU usage SQL SERVER with WSRM The Next CEO of Stack OverflowSQL Server performing slowSQL Server Maximum and Minimum memory configurationLimit CPU usage without Resource GovernorMonitoring sql serverHow to troubleshoot how resource governed query is being throttled in SQL 2012?Resource Governor on 2014 - CPU Not Being ThrottledSql Server 2016 Counter Reporting ZeroSQL Server not using all NUMA memory with 20 core limit and affinity maskWhy low cpu usage on sql server developer edition 2014SQL Server 2016 with high tempdb usage and low RAM usage
Is there a way to save my career from absolute disaster?
Defamation due to breach of confidentiality
Do scriptures give a method to recognize a truly self-realized person/jivanmukta?
Why don't programming languages automatically manage the synchronous/asynchronous problem?
Would a grinding machine be a simple and workable propulsion system for an interplanetary spacecraft?
IC has pull-down resistors on SMBus lines?
Can I calculate next year's exemptions based on this year's refund/amount owed?
Is it okay to majorly distort historical facts while writing a fiction story?
Example of a Mathematician/Physicist whose Other Publications during their PhD eclipsed their PhD Thesis
AB diagonalizable then BA also diagonalizable
0-rank tensor vs vector in 1D
Is there an equivalent of cd - for cp or mv
How to find image of a complex function with given constraints?
Why is the US ranked as #45 in Press Freedom ratings, despite its extremely permissive free speech laws?
My ex-girlfriend uses my Apple ID to login to her iPad, do I have to give her my Apple ID password to reset it?
Help! I cannot understand this game’s notations!
Calculate the Mean mean of two numbers
Iterate through multiline string line by line
Can I use the word “Senior” as part of a job title directly in German?
Why the last AS PATH item always is `I` or `?`?
What day is it again?
Yu-Gi-Oh cards in Python 3
Easy to read palindrome checker
Towers in the ocean; How deep can they be built?
Limit max CPU usage SQL SERVER with WSRM
The Next CEO of Stack OverflowSQL Server performing slowSQL Server Maximum and Minimum memory configurationLimit CPU usage without Resource GovernorMonitoring sql serverHow to troubleshoot how resource governed query is being throttled in SQL 2012?Resource Governor on 2014 - CPU Not Being ThrottledSql Server 2016 Counter Reporting ZeroSQL Server not using all NUMA memory with 20 core limit and affinity maskWhy low cpu usage on sql server developer edition 2014SQL Server 2016 with high tempdb usage and low RAM usage
I have a physical server running one instance of SQL Server.
I notice that quite often this server is running at 100% CPU usage.
My IT team is not happy about this, and suggested we reserve 2 of the 32 cores for the OS.
This works great, now max usage peak just under 90%. Additionally, slow data retrieval from various users is no longer reported.
Is there any reason NOT to use WSRM (Windows System Resource Manager) in this way - instead of SQL Resource Governor?
sql-server configuration windows resource-governor
edited Mar 21 at 4:53
Paul White♦
53.9k14287459
asked Mar 20 at 12:11
ManInMoonManInMoon
1966
add a comment |
I have a physical server running one instance of SQL Server.
I notice that quite often this server is running at 100% CPU usage.
My IT team is not happy about this, and suggested we reserve 2 of the 32 cores for the OS.
This works great, now max usage peak just under 90%. Additionally, slow data retrieval from various users is no longer reported.
Is there any reason NOT to use WSRM (Windows System Resource Manager) in this way - instead of SQL Resource Governor?
sql-server configuration windows resource-governor
edited Mar 21 at 4:53
Paul White♦
53.9k14287459
asked Mar 20 at 12:11
ManInMoonManInMoon
1966
Do you really want to use all the CPU? Saving a couple of cores for the OS seems prudent doesn't it? On my workstation, if I use all cores for some number crunching my machine grinds to a halt. I always keep a few cores free. Would this not be good practice on a machine dedicated to SQL Server too?
– ManInMoon
Mar 20 at 12:22
What kind of load is running on this server? What type of process is using 100% of CPU? Is this OLTP or analytics or graph or ?
– Max Vernon
Mar 20 at 12:40
@Forrest When you say tuning - do you mean the SQL Server itself - or the queries/table structure? If you mean SQL Server, please give me a link to what to look at. If queiries/tables, then I optmise them when I can, but some users are less design conscious!
– ManInMoon
Mar 20 at 12:45
add a comment |
I have a physical server running one instance of SQL Server.
I notice that quite often this server is running at 100% CPU usage.
My IT team is not happy about this, and suggested we reserve 2 of the 32 cores for the OS.
This works great, now max usage peak just under 90%. Additionally, slow data retrieval from various users is no longer reported.
Is there any reason NOT to use WSRM (Windows System Resource Manager) in this way - instead of SQL Resource Governor?
sql-server configuration windows resource-governor
edited Mar 21 at 4:53
Paul White♦
53.9k14287459
asked Mar 20 at 12:11
ManInMoonManInMoon
1966
I have a physical server running one instance of SQL Server.
I notice that quite often this server is running at 100% CPU usage.
My IT team is not happy about this, and suggested we reserve 2 of the 32 cores for the OS.
This works great, now max usage peak just under 90%. Additionally, slow data retrieval from various users is no longer reported.
Is there any reason NOT to use WSRM (Windows System Resource Manager) in this way - instead of SQL Resource Governor?
sql-server configuration windows resource-governor
sql-server configuration windows resource-governor
edited Mar 21 at 4:53
Paul White♦
53.9k14287459
asked Mar 20 at 12:11
ManInMoonManInMoon
1966
edited Mar 21 at 4:53
Paul White♦
53.9k14287459
asked Mar 20 at 12:11
ManInMoonManInMoon
1966
edited Mar 21 at 4:53
Paul White♦
53.9k14287459
edited Mar 21 at 4:53
Paul White♦
53.9k14287459
edited Mar 21 at 4:53
Paul White♦
53.9k14287459
53.9k14287459
asked Mar 20 at 12:11
ManInMoonManInMoon
1966
asked Mar 20 at 12:11
ManInMoonManInMoon
1966
asked Mar 20 at 12:11
ManInMoonManInMoon
1966
1966
Do you really want to use all the CPU? Saving a couple of cores for the OS seems prudent doesn't it? On my workstation, if I use all cores for some number crunching my machine grinds to a halt. I always keep a few cores free. Would this not be good practice on a machine dedicated to SQL Server too?
– ManInMoon
Mar 20 at 12:22
What kind of load is running on this server? What type of process is using 100% of CPU? Is this OLTP or analytics or graph or ?
– Max Vernon
Mar 20 at 12:40
@Forrest When you say tuning - do you mean the SQL Server itself - or the queries/table structure? If you mean SQL Server, please give me a link to what to look at. If queiries/tables, then I optmise them when I can, but some users are less design conscious!
– ManInMoon
Mar 20 at 12:45
add a comment |
Do you really want to use all the CPU? Saving a couple of cores for the OS seems prudent doesn't it? On my workstation, if I use all cores for some number crunching my machine grinds to a halt. I always keep a few cores free. Would this not be good practice on a machine dedicated to SQL Server too?
– ManInMoon
Mar 20 at 12:22
What kind of load is running on this server? What type of process is using 100% of CPU? Is this OLTP or analytics or graph or ?
– Max Vernon
Mar 20 at 12:40
@Forrest When you say tuning - do you mean the SQL Server itself - or the queries/table structure? If you mean SQL Server, please give me a link to what to look at. If queiries/tables, then I optmise them when I can, but some users are less design conscious!
– ManInMoon
Mar 20 at 12:45
Do you really want to use all the CPU? Saving a couple of cores for the OS seems prudent doesn't it? On my workstation, if I use all cores for some number crunching my machine grinds to a halt. I always keep a few cores free. Would this not be good practice on a machine dedicated to SQL Server too?
– ManInMoon
Mar 20 at 12:22
Do you really want to use all the CPU? Saving a couple of cores for the OS seems prudent doesn't it? On my workstation, if I use all cores for some number crunching my machine grinds to a halt. I always keep a few cores free. Would this not be good practice on a machine dedicated to SQL Server too?
– ManInMoon
Mar 20 at 12:22
What kind of load is running on this server? What type of process is using 100% of CPU? Is this OLTP or analytics or graph or ?
– Max Vernon
Mar 20 at 12:40
What kind of load is running on this server? What type of process is using 100% of CPU? Is this OLTP or analytics or graph or ?
– Max Vernon
Mar 20 at 12:40
@Forrest When you say tuning - do you mean the SQL Server itself - or the queries/table structure? If you mean SQL Server, please give me a link to what to look at. If queiries/tables, then I optmise them when I can, but some users are less design conscious!
– ManInMoon
Mar 20 at 12:45
@Forrest When you say tuning - do you mean the SQL Server itself - or the queries/table structure? If you mean SQL Server, please give me a link to what to look at. If queiries/tables, then I optmise them when I can, but some users are less design conscious!
– ManInMoon
Mar 20 at 12:45
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Is there any reason NOT to use the approach you've defined? Absolutely.
Imagine you had bought a car - a car that when you hit 50MPH the engine starts to overheat. Would your reaction to this situation be to artificially limit the car to 49MPH, or to find out what the fault is with the engine?
Why should you limit your car to 49MPH? The manufacturer stated that it could drive as fast as 80MPH - you like to drive your car fast so you want to get it to this speed - if it wasn't for that damn overheating issue.
The car you bought was also really, really expensive. Each engine cylinder needs to be utilised to the max so you aren't wasting that money!
By artificially limiting SQL Servers access to the CPU, you are missing out on performance. You may have temporarily resolved the performance issues by ensuring the CPU is available for the OS to use, but you haven't answered the real question - WHY is SQL Server using 100% of the CPU?
My advice is as follows:
Find out what the real issue is, and fix it. Don't cover the issue up with what is effectively a kludge. The issue WILL reappear and smack you in the face down the line when the workload of the server naturally increases with growth.
As a temporary fix, resource governor can be used to lower the CPU used, UNTIL YOU FIND THE REAL PROBLEM.
answered Mar 20 at 13:11
George.PalaciosGeorge.Palacios
2,467826
add a comment |
Erik Darling mentioned the biggest practical reason for not using WSRM in a comment on your question:
...there's no reciprocal limiting of CPU use in other processes. SQL Server may not use those two cores, but other things may use the other 30 SQL Server is using. It's a crapshoot, really.
If this is working for you, then stick with it - we're all busy, and you can only spend so much time on any given problem. The ideal solution would be to fix the underlying queries / issues that are driving CPU to the point of user-noticeable problems (which George covers in his excellent answer).
Erik goes on to say
Plus, you're paying SQL Server licensing for them.
From a business standpoint, this is probably the worst part of the WSRM deal - you're paying per-core licensing for 2 cores that are explicitly not being used. At the time of this writing, that's $3k or $14k left on the table (depending on Standard vs Enterprise).
answered Mar 20 at 14:05
Josh DarnellJosh Darnell
7,38522241
add a comment |
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "182"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f232605%2flimit-max-cpu-usage-sql-server-with-wsrm%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Is there any reason NOT to use the approach you've defined? Absolutely.
Imagine you had bought a car - a car that when you hit 50MPH the engine starts to overheat. Would your reaction to this situation be to artificially limit the car to 49MPH, or to find out what the fault is with the engine?
Why should you limit your car to 49MPH? The manufacturer stated that it could drive as fast as 80MPH - you like to drive your car fast so you want to get it to this speed - if it wasn't for that damn overheating issue.
The car you bought was also really, really expensive. Each engine cylinder needs to be utilised to the max so you aren't wasting that money!
By artificially limiting SQL Servers access to the CPU, you are missing out on performance. You may have temporarily resolved the performance issues by ensuring the CPU is available for the OS to use, but you haven't answered the real question - WHY is SQL Server using 100% of the CPU?
My advice is as follows:
Find out what the real issue is, and fix it. Don't cover the issue up with what is effectively a kludge. The issue WILL reappear and smack you in the face down the line when the workload of the server naturally increases with growth.
As a temporary fix, resource governor can be used to lower the CPU used, UNTIL YOU FIND THE REAL PROBLEM.
answered Mar 20 at 13:11
George.PalaciosGeorge.Palacios
2,467826
add a comment |
Is there any reason NOT to use the approach you've defined? Absolutely.
Imagine you had bought a car - a car that when you hit 50MPH the engine starts to overheat. Would your reaction to this situation be to artificially limit the car to 49MPH, or to find out what the fault is with the engine?
Why should you limit your car to 49MPH? The manufacturer stated that it could drive as fast as 80MPH - you like to drive your car fast so you want to get it to this speed - if it wasn't for that damn overheating issue.
The car you bought was also really, really expensive. Each engine cylinder needs to be utilised to the max so you aren't wasting that money!
By artificially limiting SQL Servers access to the CPU, you are missing out on performance. You may have temporarily resolved the performance issues by ensuring the CPU is available for the OS to use, but you haven't answered the real question - WHY is SQL Server using 100% of the CPU?
My advice is as follows:
Find out what the real issue is, and fix it. Don't cover the issue up with what is effectively a kludge. The issue WILL reappear and smack you in the face down the line when the workload of the server naturally increases with growth.
As a temporary fix, resource governor can be used to lower the CPU used, UNTIL YOU FIND THE REAL PROBLEM.
answered Mar 20 at 13:11
George.PalaciosGeorge.Palacios
2,467826
add a comment |
Is there any reason NOT to use the approach you've defined? Absolutely.
Imagine you had bought a car - a car that when you hit 50MPH the engine starts to overheat. Would your reaction to this situation be to artificially limit the car to 49MPH, or to find out what the fault is with the engine?
Why should you limit your car to 49MPH? The manufacturer stated that it could drive as fast as 80MPH - you like to drive your car fast so you want to get it to this speed - if it wasn't for that damn overheating issue.
The car you bought was also really, really expensive. Each engine cylinder needs to be utilised to the max so you aren't wasting that money!
By artificially limiting SQL Servers access to the CPU, you are missing out on performance. You may have temporarily resolved the performance issues by ensuring the CPU is available for the OS to use, but you haven't answered the real question - WHY is SQL Server using 100% of the CPU?
My advice is as follows:
Find out what the real issue is, and fix it. Don't cover the issue up with what is effectively a kludge. The issue WILL reappear and smack you in the face down the line when the workload of the server naturally increases with growth.
As a temporary fix, resource governor can be used to lower the CPU used, UNTIL YOU FIND THE REAL PROBLEM.
answered Mar 20 at 13:11
George.PalaciosGeorge.Palacios
2,467826
Is there any reason NOT to use the approach you've defined? Absolutely.
Imagine you had bought a car - a car that when you hit 50MPH the engine starts to overheat. Would your reaction to this situation be to artificially limit the car to 49MPH, or to find out what the fault is with the engine?
Why should you limit your car to 49MPH? The manufacturer stated that it could drive as fast as 80MPH - you like to drive your car fast so you want to get it to this speed - if it wasn't for that damn overheating issue.
The car you bought was also really, really expensive. Each engine cylinder needs to be utilised to the max so you aren't wasting that money!
By artificially limiting SQL Servers access to the CPU, you are missing out on performance. You may have temporarily resolved the performance issues by ensuring the CPU is available for the OS to use, but you haven't answered the real question - WHY is SQL Server using 100% of the CPU?
My advice is as follows:
Find out what the real issue is, and fix it. Don't cover the issue up with what is effectively a kludge. The issue WILL reappear and smack you in the face down the line when the workload of the server naturally increases with growth.
As a temporary fix, resource governor can be used to lower the CPU used, UNTIL YOU FIND THE REAL PROBLEM.
answered Mar 20 at 13:11
George.PalaciosGeorge.Palacios
2,467826
edited Mar 20 at 13:18
answered Mar 20 at 13:11
George.PalaciosGeorge.Palacios
2,467826
answered Mar 20 at 13:11
George.PalaciosGeorge.Palacios
2,467826
answered Mar 20 at 13:11
George.PalaciosGeorge.Palacios
2,467826
2,467826
add a comment |
add a comment |
Erik Darling mentioned the biggest practical reason for not using WSRM in a comment on your question:
...there's no reciprocal limiting of CPU use in other processes. SQL Server may not use those two cores, but other things may use the other 30 SQL Server is using. It's a crapshoot, really.
If this is working for you, then stick with it - we're all busy, and you can only spend so much time on any given problem. The ideal solution would be to fix the underlying queries / issues that are driving CPU to the point of user-noticeable problems (which George covers in his excellent answer).
Erik goes on to say
Plus, you're paying SQL Server licensing for them.
From a business standpoint, this is probably the worst part of the WSRM deal - you're paying per-core licensing for 2 cores that are explicitly not being used. At the time of this writing, that's $3k or $14k left on the table (depending on Standard vs Enterprise).
answered Mar 20 at 14:05
Josh DarnellJosh Darnell
7,38522241
add a comment |
Erik Darling mentioned the biggest practical reason for not using WSRM in a comment on your question:
...there's no reciprocal limiting of CPU use in other processes. SQL Server may not use those two cores, but other things may use the other 30 SQL Server is using. It's a crapshoot, really.
If this is working for you, then stick with it - we're all busy, and you can only spend so much time on any given problem. The ideal solution would be to fix the underlying queries / issues that are driving CPU to the point of user-noticeable problems (which George covers in his excellent answer).
Erik goes on to say
Plus, you're paying SQL Server licensing for them.
From a business standpoint, this is probably the worst part of the WSRM deal - you're paying per-core licensing for 2 cores that are explicitly not being used. At the time of this writing, that's $3k or $14k left on the table (depending on Standard vs Enterprise).
answered Mar 20 at 14:05
Josh DarnellJosh Darnell
7,38522241
add a comment |
Erik Darling mentioned the biggest practical reason for not using WSRM in a comment on your question:
...there's no reciprocal limiting of CPU use in other processes. SQL Server may not use those two cores, but other things may use the other 30 SQL Server is using. It's a crapshoot, really.
If this is working for you, then stick with it - we're all busy, and you can only spend so much time on any given problem. The ideal solution would be to fix the underlying queries / issues that are driving CPU to the point of user-noticeable problems (which George covers in his excellent answer).
Erik goes on to say
Plus, you're paying SQL Server licensing for them.
From a business standpoint, this is probably the worst part of the WSRM deal - you're paying per-core licensing for 2 cores that are explicitly not being used. At the time of this writing, that's $3k or $14k left on the table (depending on Standard vs Enterprise).
answered Mar 20 at 14:05
Josh DarnellJosh Darnell
7,38522241
Erik Darling mentioned the biggest practical reason for not using WSRM in a comment on your question:
...there's no reciprocal limiting of CPU use in other processes. SQL Server may not use those two cores, but other things may use the other 30 SQL Server is using. It's a crapshoot, really.
If this is working for you, then stick with it - we're all busy, and you can only spend so much time on any given problem. The ideal solution would be to fix the underlying queries / issues that are driving CPU to the point of user-noticeable problems (which George covers in his excellent answer).
Erik goes on to say
Plus, you're paying SQL Server licensing for them.
From a business standpoint, this is probably the worst part of the WSRM deal - you're paying per-core licensing for 2 cores that are explicitly not being used. At the time of this writing, that's $3k or $14k left on the table (depending on Standard vs Enterprise).
answered Mar 20 at 14:05
Josh DarnellJosh Darnell
7,38522241
answered Mar 20 at 14:05
Josh DarnellJosh Darnell
7,38522241
answered Mar 20 at 14:05
Josh DarnellJosh Darnell
7,38522241
answered Mar 20 at 14:05
Josh DarnellJosh Darnell
7,38522241
7,38522241
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Database Administrators Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f232605%2flimit-max-cpu-usage-sql-server-with-wsrm%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Do you really want to use all the CPU? Saving a couple of cores for the OS seems prudent doesn't it? On my workstation, if I use all cores for some number crunching my machine grinds to a halt. I always keep a few cores free. Would this not be good practice on a machine dedicated to SQL Server too?
– ManInMoon
Mar 20 at 12:22
What kind of load is running on this server? What type of process is using 100% of CPU? Is this OLTP or analytics or graph or ?
– Max Vernon
Mar 20 at 12:40
@Forrest When you say tuning - do you mean the SQL Server itself - or the queries/table structure? If you mean SQL Server, please give me a link to what to look at. If queiries/tables, then I optmise them when I can, but some users are less design conscious!
– ManInMoon
Mar 20 at 12:45