BBWin Virtual Memory
Hi.
I am posting this here, since the BBWin project seems (even more) dead.
I have been trying to figure out what the different values in BBWin's memory test are. During this, I noticed that the "Virtual" size is shown as 2047MB for all our Windows clients, regardless of the real size of the virtual memory. Has anyone else noticied this?
Also, it seems like the "Real" memory indicator mentioned in the help file does not work at all.
What alarm levels do you people use for Memory in BBWin? We have previously only been using "Virtual" for alarms, but with the recent discovery that seems like a very bad idea.
/Johan
Physical and Virtual memory reports fine for me, I have 0.12 installed on a number of 2003 and 2008 servers. Do you have static pagefile sizes set? I'm not sure how BBWin looks for virtual memory usage, but if it's just doing a filesize check on your page file that might explain it.
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 6:03 AM, Johan Sjöberg <johan.sjoberg at deltamanagement.se> wrote:
Hi.
I am posting this here, since the BBWin project seems (even more) dead.
I have been trying to figure out what the different values in BBWin’s memory test are. During this, I noticed that the “Virtual” size is shown as 2047MB for all our Windows clients, regardless of the real size of the virtual memory. Has anyone else noticied this?
Also, it seems like the “Real” memory indicator mentioned in the help file does not work at all.
What alarm levels do you people use for Memory in BBWin? We have previously only been using “Virtual” for alarms, but with the recent discovery that seems like a very bad idea.
/Johan
Hi.
I have tried with both static and dynamic virtual memory size. The virtual memory size always shows up as 2047 MB regardless. Physical and Page size and usage seem to be correct though.
Here is an example of how physical and virtual does not add up to the Page value, as it should. This machine has 12 GB of physical memory, and a dynamically sized virtual memory which is currently around 12 GB as well.
Memory Used Total Pctg Physical: 6652M 12277M 54% Virtual: 59M 2047M 2% Page: 6945M 24553M 28%
/Johan
-----Original Message----- From: ben.jessie at gmail.com [mailto:ben.jessie at gmail.com] On Behalf Of John Sent: den 5 mars 2010 15:30 To: hobbit at hswn.dk Subject: Re: [hobbit] BBWin Virtual Memory
Physical and Virtual memory reports fine for me, I have 0.12 installed on a number of 2003 and 2008 servers. Do you have static pagefile sizes set? I'm not sure how BBWin looks for virtual memory usage, but if it's just doing a filesize check on your page file that might explain it.
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 6:03 AM, Johan Sjöberg <johan.sjoberg at deltamanagement.se> wrote:
Hi.
I am posting this here, since the BBWin project seems (even more) dead.
I have been trying to figure out what the different values in BBWin's memory test are. During this, I noticed that the "Virtual" size is shown as 2047MB for all our Windows clients, regardless of the real size of the virtual memory. Has anyone else noticied this?
Also, it seems like the "Real" memory indicator mentioned in the help file does not work at all.
What alarm levels do you people use for Memory in BBWin? We have previously only been using "Virtual" for alarms, but with the recent discovery that seems like a very bad idea.
/Johan
To unsubscribe from the hobbit list, send an e-mail to hobbit-unsubscribe at hswn.dk
Physical and Virtual memory reports fine for me, I have 0.12 installed on a number of 2003 and 2008 servers. Do you have static pagefile sizes set? I'm not sure how BBWin looks for virtual memory usage, but if it's just doing a filesize check on your page file that might explain it.
Really? What mode are you using? Central or Local? I have the same problem in local mode.
For example:
Server: OS = Windows 2003 SP2, RAM = 512MB, Pagefile = 1000MB
BBwin reports: Physical: 511M, Virtual: 2047M, Page: 1489M
Something is obviously amiss. I'm not really surprised having seen some of the code behind the scenes. There are also less severe issues with disk space calculations.
Malcolm
-- Technical copy-editor & proofreader
KDE Proofreading Team KDE British English Translation Team
http://l10n.kde.org/team-infos.php?teamcode=en_GB
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/FriendlyAtheist
Sicherer, schneller und einfacher. Die aktuellen Internet-Browser - jetzt kostenlos herunterladen! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/chbrowser
I run in central mode, and I have not tried local mode. Looking at one of the servers, the virtual memory size is a little bit off, which makes me want to check the rest of my servers. Just glancing at the graphs in hobbit for 24 different windows 03/08 servers, and none are reporting a static Virtual Memory size. Physical RAM is accurate, and Actual RAM is bogus (always a small number (<50MB usually)).
Server: OS = Windows 2003 SP2 RAM = 320MB avail 1024MB total Pagefile = Min 2048 Max 4092 Current 834MB pagefile.sys size 2046MB
BBwin reports: Physical: 706MB used, 1023MB total Virtual: 812MB used, 2980MB total
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Malcolm Hunter <malcolm.hunter at gmx.co.uk> wrote:
Physical and Virtual memory reports fine for me, I have 0.12 installed on a number of 2003 and 2008 servers. Do you have static pagefile sizes set? I'm not sure how BBWin looks for virtual memory usage, but if it's just doing a filesize check on your page file that might explain it.
Really? What mode are you using? Central or Local? I have the same problem in local mode.
For example:
Server: OS = Windows 2003 SP2, RAM = 512MB, Pagefile = 1000MB
BBwin reports: Physical: 511M, Virtual: 2047M, Page: 1489M
Something is obviously amiss. I'm not really surprised having seen some of the code behind the scenes. There are also less severe issues with disk space calculations.
Malcolm
-- Technical copy-editor & proofreader
KDE Proofreading Team KDE British English Translation Team
http://l10n.kde.org/team-infos.php?teamcode=en_GB
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/FriendlyAtheist
Sicherer, schneller und einfacher. Die aktuellen Internet-Browser - jetzt kostenlos herunterladen! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/chbrowser
To unsubscribe from the hobbit list, send an e-mail to hobbit-unsubscribe at hswn.dk
I use Hobbit 4.2 as my production server, and I don't have any Windows clients pointing at Xymon right now. I am currently using BBWin in local configuration mode because it's going to be a sizable time investment to switch. I am waiting until I am ready to replace the production server and upgrade to Xymon before changing to central config mode. I hope that these possible differences don't make my installation so different as to make what I'm saying useless. If so, hopefully someone who knows will speak up.
The virtual (shows up as "actual" on the graph), as you have noticed, is
useless. On all of my systems, it shows 32 used out of 2047. The
physical memory (shows up as "real" in the graph) is actual physical
memory, but it's *mostly* a useless figure as well. The page value
(shows up as swap in the graph) is the one that seems to really matter.
It is the overall usage of both physical memory and the pagefile. Be
aware that if the ratio of real memory to pagefile on your systems
varies widely (as it does in my network), you will end up needing very
different alarm thresholds for each of your systems. Adjusting that
ratio is the only way I've found to bring parity, but the biggest
problems tend to be on the older systems, which usually don't have
enough disk space to accomodate a change.
Shawn
On 3/5/2010 5:03 AM, Johan Sjöberg wrote:
Hi.
I am posting this here, since the BBWin project seems (even more) dead.
I have been trying to figure out what the different values in BBWin's memory test are. During this, I noticed that the "Virtual" size is shown as 2047MB for all our Windows clients, regardless of the real size of the virtual memory. Has anyone else noticied this?
Also, it seems like the "Real" memory indicator mentioned in the help file does not work at all.
What alarm levels do you people use for Memory in BBWin? We have previously only been using "Virtual" for alarms, but with the recent discovery that seems like a very bad idea.
/Johan
participants (4)
-
hobbit＠elyograg.org
-
johan.sjoberg＠deltamanagement.se
-
malcolm.hunter＠gmx.co.uk
-
xymon.user.ml＠gmail.com