Sqlservr.exe shows little memory in task manager

This is a Windows 2003 X64 Enterprise with 32GB of memory running SQL 2000 SP4 32bit with hotfix SQL2000-KB899761-v8.00.2040-x86x64-ENU.exe to solve the AWE issue with using only half of the memory allocated.
The issue I'm having is that at first when AWE was not enabled task manager would show the process sqlservr.exe at about 3,800,000 and the PF usage at about the same.
After enabling AWE but before the patch the sqlservr.exe would show about 180,000 and the PF usage about 16GB; after applying the hot fix the results are sqlservr.exe at about 300,000 see and the PF usage about 30.8GB. I have the max memory set up at 30720.
While everything seems to be working just fine and the performance counter seems to confirm that the SQL is using all of the allocated memory (3.0151e+012), it bugs me that the task manager process is not showing that. Is this a confirmed bug from Microsoft or is the server not using what is supposed to use.
Any comments?
Below is the documentation.

Microsoft SQL Server 2000 - 8.00.2040 (Intel X86)
May 13 2005 18:33:17
Copyright (c) 1988-2003 Microsoft Corporation
Enterprise Edition on Windows NT 5.2 (Build 3790: Service Pack 1)

name,minimum,maximum,config_value,run_value
affinity mask,-2147483648,2147483647,0,0
allow updates,0,1,0,0
awe enabled,0,1,1,1
c2 audit mode,0,1,0,0
cost threshold for parallelism,0,32767,5,5
Cross DB Ownership Chaining,0,1,0,0
cursor threshold,-1,2147483647,-1,-1
default full-text language,0,2147483647,1033,1033
default language,0,9999,0,0
fill factor (%),0,100,0,0
index create memory (KB),704,2147483647,0,0
lightweight pooling,0,1,0,0
locks,5000,2147483647,0,0
max degree of parallelism,0,32,0,0
max server memory (MB),4,2147483647,30720,30720
max text repl size (B),0,2147483647,65536,65536
max worker threads,32,32767,255,255
media retention,0,365,0,0
min memory per query (KB),512,2147483647,1024,1024
min server memory (MB),0,2147483647,0,0
nested triggers,0,1,1,1
network packet size (B),512,32767,4096,4096
open objects,0,2147483647,0,0
priority boost,0,1,0,0
query governor cost limit,0,2147483647,0,0
query wait (s),-1,2147483647,-1,-1
recovery interval (min),0,32767,0,0
remote access,0,1,1,1
remote login timeout (s),0,2147483647,20,20
remote proc trans,0,1,0,0
remote query timeout (s),0,2147483647,600,600
scan for startup procs,0,1,1,1
set working set size,0,1,0,0
show advanced options,0,1,1,1
two digit year cutoff,1753,9999,2049,2049
user connections,0,32767,0,0
user options,0,32767,0,0

Luis, I agree not to look at the Task Manager but that is my question.
In the reserved memory I have 3.0151e+012 which makes no sense, does it to you? I thought that number was expressing KB.
This is the wai I set it up using sp_configure advanced option 1
name,minimum,maximum,config_value,run_value
awe enabled,0,1,1,1
max server memory (MB),4,2147483647,30720,30720
The rest I posted earlier.
One more notice is that from the SQL startup log I see:
8 CPU detected
4096MB Allocated
AWE Enabled
The 4096 is disconcerning...

Ok, so we all agree that Task manager is unreliable and buggy. Let's forget that issue.
Now, I'd like to address two other issues:
1) SQL log saying" 8 processor(s) and 4096 MB RAM Detected"
It should really say 30720 MB RAM Detected, shouldn'it?

2) Performance Monitor shows this amount for Total Allocated Memory of SQL Server instance
(3.0151e+012) which in "e" notation should equal to 3,015,100,000,000
This number makes no sense to me as even if it expresses bits the number of GB would be 351
See this table:
GB GB GB
Source if KB if B if bits
3.0151E+12 2,875,423 2,808 351

Am I reading the wrong indicator or am I just converting wrong?

Thanks for your insight.
Andrea

Microsoft SQL Server 2000 - 8.00.818 (Intel X86)
May 31 2003 16:08:15 Copyright (c) 1988-2003
Microsoft Corporation Enterprise Edition on Windows NT 5.2 (Build 3790: Service Pack 1)

Dear all,
We also face the same problem , on the task manager physical memory usage 20GB , but on the performance monitor process/working set/sqlsvr only 235 MB ( exactly same with task manager process memory usage by sqlsvr.exe) , unfortunelty page faults/sec on process and memory average 30 , is it indicate we should add more ram ?
the box is dedicated for sql server .
thx
Sas

pay attention to counters that matter,
ie, do you have high disk IO, is high IO causing problems

ignore silly errors, like the fact that task manager shows too low a value for sqlservr memory

do you know what a 32-bit signed/unsigned integer is?
do you know the range of values a 32-bit integer can represent?
if some wrote a program that stores the memory used as a 32-bit int,
what happens when the actual value is > 4G

Hi Joe, nice talking to you again.<br /><br />It's hard for me to ignore silly errors but I'll do my best <img src='/community/emoticons/emotion-1.gif' alt='' /><br />I don't have disk io problems, especially after all the work we did on the configuration.<br /><br />I like the quiz...let's see<br /><br />do you know what a 32-bit signed/unsigned integer is?<br />Signed has the MSB set to 1 for negative and 0 for positive (Most Significant Bit)<br />Unsigned does not<br />do you know the range of values a 32-bit integer can represent?<br />-2,147,483,648 and a maximum value of 2,147,483,647 (inclusive)<br />if some wrote a program that stores the memory used as a 32-bit int,<br />what happens when the actual value is &gt; 4G<br />It would overflow as 4G = 34,359,738,368 bits<br /><br />So are you going to tell me what (3.0151e+012) really means for total memory?<br />Even if I take off the last 0 and make it (3.0151e+011) I still get 35G which is more than there is in the server.<br /><br />Andrea

well apparently it does not cause an overflow error but rather just takes the lower 32/31-bits of the actual 64-bit value

When AWE is enabled on the server, I believe they use different set of API to allocate memory and task manager is not counting those memory allocations.

If AWE is enabled, in perfmon look for

Target server memory and total server memory.

In sql server 2000 these values should be same with awe is enabled. Since in sql server 2005 AWE is dynamic there are chances that Target and Total may vary. Along with that if we look at Available MBYTES on box it should tell us whether sql srever is using memory or not.

The other option would be to run dbcc memorystatus and check Target and total there and they should be equal to Max server memory set.


As regards to logs in Errorlog aroung 4 GB allocated, can you please provide entire log message as I have never seen sql server log that sort of message indicating that it had allocated 4 GB of memory.

Joe, so you're saing that performance monitor is buggy also...

Gurucb, the entire log is posted on the first post. You'll see the memory allocation there.
I think you may have a point in the way task manager counts the memroy under AWE.
Here is the result of DBCC memorystatus:

Buffer Distribution,Buffers
Stolen,2360
Free,1876
Procedures,20574
Inram,0
Dirty,12114
Kept,0
I/O,0
Latched,834
Other,3860512

(9 row(s) affected)

Buffer Counts,Buffers
Commited,3898270
Target,3898270
Hashed,3873460
InternalReservation,158
ExternalReservation,0
Min Free,256
Visible,433168

(7 row(s) affected)

Procedure Cache,Value
TotalProcs,7145
TotalPages,20574
InUsePages,8836

(3 row(s) affected)

Dynamic Memory Manager,Buffers
Stolen,22934
OS Reserved,1048
OS Committed,1026
OS In Use,1000
General,2930
QueryPlan,20412
Optimizer,0
Utilities,11
Connection,229

(9 row(s) affected)


Global Memory Objects,Buffers
Resource,2134
Locks,118
XDES,46
SQLCache,508
Replication,2
LockBytes,2
ServerGlobal,31

(7 row(s) affected)


Query Memory Objects,Value
Grants,0
Waiting,0
Available (Buffers),316482
Maximum (Buffers),316482

(4 row(s) affected)

Optimization Queue,Value
Optimizing,0
Waiting,0
Available,32
Maximum,32

(4 row(s) affected)

DBCC execution completed. If DBCC printed error messages, contact your system administrator.

Looking at memory status sql server max server memory and committed are 30 Gigs. so sql server should be using 30 Gigs.

I think when AWe is enabled since sql server locks pages (and can not be paged) windows internally maintains all that memory and does not show that in task manager under sql server.