Limit max CPU usage SQL SERVER with WSRM
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♦
53.6k14286458
asked Mar 20 at 12:11
ManInMoonManInMoon
1865
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♦
53.6k14286458
asked Mar 20 at 12:11
ManInMoonManInMoon
1865
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♦
53.6k14286458
asked Mar 20 at 12:11
ManInMoonManInMoon
1865
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♦
53.6k14286458
asked Mar 20 at 12:11
ManInMoonManInMoon
1865
edited Mar 21 at 4:53
Paul White♦
53.6k14286458
asked Mar 20 at 12:11
ManInMoonManInMoon
1865
edited Mar 21 at 4:53
Paul White♦
53.6k14286458
edited Mar 21 at 4:53
Paul White♦
53.6k14286458
edited Mar 21 at 4:53
Paul White♦
53.6k14286458
53.6k14286458
asked Mar 20 at 12:11
ManInMoonManInMoon
1865
asked Mar 20 at 12:11
ManInMoonManInMoon
1865
asked Mar 20 at 12:11
ManInMoonManInMoon
1865
1865
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
2,458826
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
7,09022141
add a comment |
Your Answer
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
2,458826
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
2,458826
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
2,458826
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
2,458826
edited Mar 20 at 13:18
answered Mar 20 at 13:11
George.PalaciosGeorge.Palacios
2,458826
answered Mar 20 at 13:11
George.PalaciosGeorge.Palacios
2,458826
answered Mar 20 at 13:11
George.PalaciosGeorge.Palacios
2,458826
2,458826
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
7,09022141
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
7,09022141
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
7,09022141
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
7,09022141
answered Mar 20 at 14:05
Josh DarnellJosh Darnell
7,09022141
answered Mar 20 at 14:05
Josh DarnellJosh Darnell
7,09022141
answered Mar 20 at 14:05
Josh DarnellJosh Darnell
7,09022141
7,09022141
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