memory - ASP.NET not seeing RAM Upgrade?

For several years we've hosted an ASP.NET 4.5 application on the same VM as a SQL Server 2008R2 database in 4GB of RAM. Performance was good.

Our application is a catalog and we use .NET memory cache heavily to build up a 'working set' of parts and related data. 80,000-90,000 cache entries is typical.

Over the past weekend we upgraded to 8GB of RAM and we're seeing odd memory behavior with the ASP.NET application.

After the upgrade, Task Manager tells us that we're only using 60% of the RAM. SQL is very responsive. But cache entries grow to 15,000 and then get trimmed back to 7-8,000 range. There is lots of GC activity. It's as if the ASP.NET application is under memory pressure, and yet there's another 3+ GB of unused RAM out there.

Why would this be? Everything is 64bit. Nothing else has changed. There are no memory limits set on SQL or the Application Pool. The application is not recycling, just trimming cache very aggressively. Any ideas?

Answer

It turns out SQL was hogging a lot more memory than I thought it was. Before when the machine had just 4GB I let SQL run with the default min- and max-memory settings. It ran just fine for two+ years. After upgrading to 8GB RAM it gobbled it all up and ASP.NET WAS starved. I set max-memory to 5GB last night and things are nice and quiet this morning. I don't want to jinx it, but i think task manager's memory reporting lies like a friggin' rug! I am going to diddle with the 5GB over the next few days looking for the sweet spot.

Comments

linux - iDRAC6 Virtual Media native library cannot be loaded

When attempting to mount Virtual Media on a iDRAC6 IP KVM session I get the following error: I'm using Ubuntu 9.04 and: $ javaws -version Java(TM) Web Start 1.6.0_16 $ uname -a Linux aud22419-linux 2.6.28-15-generic #51-Ubuntu SMP Mon Aug 31 13:39:06 UTC 2009 x86_64 GNU/Linux $ firefox -version Mozilla Firefox 3.0.14, Copyright (c) 1998 - 2009 mozilla.org On Windows + IE it (unsurprisingly) works. I've just gotten off the phone with the Dell tech support and I was told it is known to work on Linux + Firefox, albeit Ubuntu is not supported (by Dell, that is). Has anyone out there managed to mount virtual media in the same scenario?

hp proliant - Smart Array P822 with HBA Mode?

We get an HP DL360 G8 with an Smart Array P822 controller. On that controller will come a HP StorageWorks D2700 . Does anybody know, that it is possible to run the Smart Array P822 in HBA mode? I found only information about the P410i, who can run HBA. If this is not supported, what you think about the LSI 9207-8e controller? Will this fit good in that setup? The Hardware we get is used but all original from HP. The StorageWorks has 25 x 900 GB SAS 10K disks. Because the disks are not new I would like to use only 22 for raid6, and the rest for spare (I need to see if the disk count is optimal or not for zfs). It would be nice if I'm not stick to SAS in future. As OS I would like to install debian stretch with zfs 0.71 as file system and software raid. I have see that hp has an page for debian to. I would like to use hba mode because it is recommend, that zfs know at most as possible about the disk, and I'm independent from the raid controller. For us zfs have many benefits,

apache 2.2 - Server Potentially Compromised -- c99madshell

So, low and behold, a legacy site we've been hosting for a client had a version of FCKEditor that allowed someone to upload the dreaded c99madshell exploit onto our web host. I'm not a big security buff -- frankly I'm just a dev currently responsible for S/A duties due to a loss of personnel. Accordingly, I'd love any help you server-faulters could provide in assessing the damage from the exploit. To give you a bit of information: The file was uploaded into a directory within the webroot, "/_img/fck_uploads/File/". The Apache user and group are restricted such that they can't log in and don't have permissions outside of the directory from which we serve sites. All the files had 770 permissions (user rwx, group rwx, other none) -- something I wanted to fix but was told to hold off on as it wasn't "high priority" (hopefully this changes that). So it seems the hackers could've easily executed the script. Now I wasn't able

Blog

Search This Blog