Copying large file to remote server causes it to run out of physical memoryHorrible Windows Server 2003 performance while copying files through NetbiosWhy does copying a large file cause so much memory activity?Windows Server 2008 x64, Large File Transfers, and Memory UsageMemory errors on SQL 2000 with SP4?Windows Server 2003 memory problemCPU Performance on Virtualised Windows 2000 for Oracle 8.0.5Ubuntu server - some one takes 6GB of RAM - how to determine?memtest86+ errors - how are memory locations divided among multiple DIMMs?Windows Server 2008 64-bit RAM going somewhereHow to diagnose Windows hangs - which resource is blocked?Why does downloading a large file with wget seem to consume nearly all available RAM?Varnish 4.1.9 used high memory

Why A=2 and B=1 in the call signs for Spirit and Opportunity?

Why did it take so long for Germany to allow electric scooters / e-rollers on the roads?

Why is 'additive' EQ more difficult to use than 'subtractive'?

Paired t-test means that the variances of the 2 samples are the same?

Align vertices between two edges

Split into three!

What is the limit to a Glyph of Warding's trigger?

What is the use case for non-breathable waterproof pants?

Writing "hahaha" versus describing the laugh

Can diplomats be allowed on the flight deck of a commercial European airline?

Why'd a rational buyer offer to buy with no conditions precedent?

What is to the west of Westeros?

Goldfish unresponsive, what should I do?

Count all vowels in string

ifconfig shows UP while ip link shows DOWN

resolution bandwidth

Moons and messages

How did the Allies achieve air superiority on Sicily?

Are runways booked by airlines to land their planes?

How to create a `range`-like iterable object of floats?

Why do the i8080 I/O instructions take a byte-sized operand to determine the port?

Can attacking players use activated abilities after blockers have been declared?

How does Dreadhorde Arcanist interact with split cards?

Did significant numbers of Japanese officers escape prosecution during the Tokyo Trials?



Copying large file to remote server causes it to run out of physical memory


Horrible Windows Server 2003 performance while copying files through NetbiosWhy does copying a large file cause so much memory activity?Windows Server 2008 x64, Large File Transfers, and Memory UsageMemory errors on SQL 2000 with SP4?Windows Server 2003 memory problemCPU Performance on Virtualised Windows 2000 for Oracle 8.0.5Ubuntu server - some one takes 6GB of RAM - how to determine?memtest86+ errors - how are memory locations divided among multiple DIMMs?Windows Server 2008 64-bit RAM going somewhereHow to diagnose Windows hangs - which resource is blocked?Why does downloading a large file with wget seem to consume nearly all available RAM?Varnish 4.1.9 used high memory






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;








3















I have a strange issue that appears to have started recently.



When I copy a large file (Approx 6GB) from my laptop to one of our older fileservers the server runs out of memory after a few seconds.



This has only started recently, maybe since patch Tuesday although I can't be sure.



This server is a Windows 2000 sp4 machine, its a Dell 2950 with 1GB ram (Note: I am sure this server had more than 1GB!, I can't physically check until the end of the day when I can power it down), 3GHz Xeon proc, 4 x 250Gb 7.5k RPM SATA drives in raid 10 and a 1 Gigabit NIC connected to a 1GB port on an intel managed switch.




(Apparently I can't post images so a link will have to do)



Memory usage graph + info during copy



As soon as I stop the copy the memory instantly frees up:



Memory usage graph + info right after copy stopped




I've removed the antivirus which made had no impact. I've changed the "File and Print Sharing for Microsoft Networks" options to balanced.



We have another server, Windows 2000 SP4 with 2GB Ram, 2.8Ghz Intel Quad Core, 6 x 300Gb 15k SAS in raid 10.



When I copy the same 6GB file here the amount of available memory doesn't change.



Is there anything else I can look at while the server is running? As it's in use and not really affected by small file copies I can't reboot it just yet.



Here is a screen shot of some perfmon counters I had open just as the server runs out of memory.



Perfmon counters during copy



Thanks

Gareth










share|improve this question






























    3















    I have a strange issue that appears to have started recently.



    When I copy a large file (Approx 6GB) from my laptop to one of our older fileservers the server runs out of memory after a few seconds.



    This has only started recently, maybe since patch Tuesday although I can't be sure.



    This server is a Windows 2000 sp4 machine, its a Dell 2950 with 1GB ram (Note: I am sure this server had more than 1GB!, I can't physically check until the end of the day when I can power it down), 3GHz Xeon proc, 4 x 250Gb 7.5k RPM SATA drives in raid 10 and a 1 Gigabit NIC connected to a 1GB port on an intel managed switch.




    (Apparently I can't post images so a link will have to do)



    Memory usage graph + info during copy



    As soon as I stop the copy the memory instantly frees up:



    Memory usage graph + info right after copy stopped




    I've removed the antivirus which made had no impact. I've changed the "File and Print Sharing for Microsoft Networks" options to balanced.



    We have another server, Windows 2000 SP4 with 2GB Ram, 2.8Ghz Intel Quad Core, 6 x 300Gb 15k SAS in raid 10.



    When I copy the same 6GB file here the amount of available memory doesn't change.



    Is there anything else I can look at while the server is running? As it's in use and not really affected by small file copies I can't reboot it just yet.



    Here is a screen shot of some perfmon counters I had open just as the server runs out of memory.



    Perfmon counters during copy



    Thanks

    Gareth










    share|improve this question


























      3












      3








      3








      I have a strange issue that appears to have started recently.



      When I copy a large file (Approx 6GB) from my laptop to one of our older fileservers the server runs out of memory after a few seconds.



      This has only started recently, maybe since patch Tuesday although I can't be sure.



      This server is a Windows 2000 sp4 machine, its a Dell 2950 with 1GB ram (Note: I am sure this server had more than 1GB!, I can't physically check until the end of the day when I can power it down), 3GHz Xeon proc, 4 x 250Gb 7.5k RPM SATA drives in raid 10 and a 1 Gigabit NIC connected to a 1GB port on an intel managed switch.




      (Apparently I can't post images so a link will have to do)



      Memory usage graph + info during copy



      As soon as I stop the copy the memory instantly frees up:



      Memory usage graph + info right after copy stopped




      I've removed the antivirus which made had no impact. I've changed the "File and Print Sharing for Microsoft Networks" options to balanced.



      We have another server, Windows 2000 SP4 with 2GB Ram, 2.8Ghz Intel Quad Core, 6 x 300Gb 15k SAS in raid 10.



      When I copy the same 6GB file here the amount of available memory doesn't change.



      Is there anything else I can look at while the server is running? As it's in use and not really affected by small file copies I can't reboot it just yet.



      Here is a screen shot of some perfmon counters I had open just as the server runs out of memory.



      Perfmon counters during copy



      Thanks

      Gareth










      share|improve this question
















      I have a strange issue that appears to have started recently.



      When I copy a large file (Approx 6GB) from my laptop to one of our older fileservers the server runs out of memory after a few seconds.



      This has only started recently, maybe since patch Tuesday although I can't be sure.



      This server is a Windows 2000 sp4 machine, its a Dell 2950 with 1GB ram (Note: I am sure this server had more than 1GB!, I can't physically check until the end of the day when I can power it down), 3GHz Xeon proc, 4 x 250Gb 7.5k RPM SATA drives in raid 10 and a 1 Gigabit NIC connected to a 1GB port on an intel managed switch.




      (Apparently I can't post images so a link will have to do)



      Memory usage graph + info during copy



      As soon as I stop the copy the memory instantly frees up:



      Memory usage graph + info right after copy stopped




      I've removed the antivirus which made had no impact. I've changed the "File and Print Sharing for Microsoft Networks" options to balanced.



      We have another server, Windows 2000 SP4 with 2GB Ram, 2.8Ghz Intel Quad Core, 6 x 300Gb 15k SAS in raid 10.



      When I copy the same 6GB file here the amount of available memory doesn't change.



      Is there anything else I can look at while the server is running? As it's in use and not really affected by small file copies I can't reboot it just yet.



      Here is a screen shot of some perfmon counters I had open just as the server runs out of memory.



      Perfmon counters during copy



      Thanks

      Gareth







      windows performance memory






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Jul 8 '09 at 12:04









      splattne

      25.8k1892144




      25.8k1892144










      asked Jul 8 '09 at 11:17









      Gareth HastingsGareth Hastings

      161118




      161118




















          8 Answers
          8






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2














          I'm running into the same problem.



          Trying to do a P2V conversion onto a 64-bit server running Windows Server 2008. Any of the normal file transfer methods for the VMDK file (which is 44GB) cause Windows on the destination server to run out of its 14GB RAM after a few minutes due to the file system caching.



          Running the P2V conversion or file copy on a 32-bit server doesn't have this problem and memory usage stays reasonable.



          Then trying to copy the VMDK file to the destination VMWare server has the same problem.



          This page describe exactly what I'm seeing:



          http://blogs.technet.com/askperf/archive/2007/05/08/slow-large-file-copy-issues.aspx



          Based on my work this AM ESEUtil seems to be the way to go. It wasn't as fast as I'd expected, but it didn't freak out Windows either.



          The Windows FTP client uses a Temp file on C: before moving the file to the target destination. Beware! :-)



          This is very frustrating.






          share|improve this answer























          • Thanks for the link, that explained the underlying problem. I've accepted this as the answer as it seems there isn't actually a fix! Rather a workaround (good job we use exchange too and have access to the ESEUtil!)

            – Gareth Hastings
            Sep 2 '09 at 10:21


















          1














          I know this is a bit of a pain but have you tried a 3rd party file copy utility? Windows tends to be kind of dumb/slow about file copies sometimes. Lifehacker did a top 5 list of these utilities, try one of them out and see if you still have the same issue.



          http://lifehacker.com/5280976/five-best-alternative-file-copiers



          Also, like towo said, check your virtual memory settings. Best practice is that your pagefile should be x1.5 your memory (i.e. 1 GB mem = 1024 MB; 1024*1.5 = 1536 MB page file)






          share|improve this answer























          • I shall try a 3rd party tool next. The page file is set to min 1536, max 3072. It's currently at 1536

            – Gareth Hastings
            Jul 8 '09 at 12:50











          • I tried teracopy and robocopy. Teracopy copies around 3mb/s and I can see the server writing to disk as it's copying. The server doesn't run out of memory, the amount available barely changes. Robocopy says it copies around 20% of the 6GB file in about 20 seconds. Nothing is being written on the server and then it promptly runs out of memory!

            – Gareth Hastings
            Jul 8 '09 at 13:17


















          1














          There are known issues with the Network File Copy processes on W2K - if the remote system can't empty the write cache faster than the rate the file data is arriving in over the network then it will steadily consume all physical memory on the server if the file is big enough. Mark Russinovich has some details on the ways this might happen in this article on changes made in Windows Vista's file copy mechanisms. The performance graph you posted looks like this issue and I have seen exactly this sort of behavior in the past where I had a target system with very slow disks and a fast network.



          However even though your target OS is a bit old the hardware isn't all that weak and a RAID 10 setup with 4x7.2K SATA drives should be good for somewhere between 60 and 120Meg/sec write speed which is significantly higher than the 39Meg/sec Vista is reporting for your copy. The odd thing here is that if it is a solid, well-configured GigE link then you could hit network transfer rates reaching 70Meg/sec (and maybe a bit higher) for a sustained copy of a large file like this. That said 38Meg/sec isn't abnormal either if there's any other traffic flowing in or out of either the client or server or (as is more likely) that rate is mostly limited by the speed of your local laptop hard drive.



          In any case I would check that your RAID 10 was actually healthy - the symptoms here would make me suspect it wasn't able to write as fast as it should be.






          share|improve this answer






























            0














            I've just run a copy on the server itself, local disk to local disk and it's fine. The amount of free memory available doesn't change.



            I guess this is more of a networking related issue. I'll check the network card drivers



            UPDATE: The drivers are a few years old. I will update them out of hours tonight. Still not sure why this would affect the server suddenly after all this time though!






            share|improve this answer
































              0














              Maybe you need to beef up your virtual memory on your system hard drive, where low hard drive space could have caused said problem.



              Also, from a logical point of view, the server does not actually need to store a file in memory when copying from file system to file system; it just allocates a buffer in memory the file passes through. Depending on how you copy files, though, some applications will first store the file completely in memory, and then write it to the disk.



              Try to use a protocol like FTP - if it still happens, you should probably look into some networking problems.



              The interesting question here would be how the server actually stores the files - as you can see, the I/O load is just way down, which means it's not actually writing the file anywhere, just buffering it in memory.






              share|improve this answer























              • I tried FTP and got slightly different results. There was a burst of IO until the server ran out of memory, this time the IO tailed off to low value and the memory looked like it was slowly written to disk. When it got back to approx 800mb free mem the IO spiked again and the process was repeated. See graph xastrade.co.uk/gdh/ftpcopy.png

                – Gareth Hastings
                Jul 8 '09 at 12:48


















              0














              Is this copy operation just via a normal network share (i.e. copying via Windows Explorer or similar)? I experienced a bug like this in under Win2K but that was fixed as far back as SP1 if I remember rightly.



              If you are copying via another method then that application/service may be trying to hold the file in RAM until it has it all, in which case you need to upgrade or replace that app/service.






              share|improve this answer























              • The copying is being done from my laptop which is Windows 7 Build 7100 to a Windows 2000 Server SP4 using windows explorer.

                – Gareth Hastings
                Jul 8 '09 at 12:51


















              0














              Are you using Server 2003 64-bit? There is some information on fixing this issue with x64 on Server 2003 here -> http://www.techspot.com/blog/224/slow-system-performance-when-copying-large-files-in-xp-x64-server-2003-x64/



              Seems to happen quite a bit in 2003/XP x64 actually. In fact I just realized one of my servers has been experiencing this same issue for a while now and I haven't had time to troubleshoot it.






              share|improve this answer






























                0














                For anyone experiencing this problem, you may want to try using xcopy on the Windows command line (cmd or PowerShell) and turn off file I/O buffering with the /j switch. It's the recommended way to copy very large files. Type "xcopy /?" for more details. (This parameter was added in Windows Server 2008 R2.)






                share|improve this answer























                  Your Answer








                  StackExchange.ready(function()
                  var channelOptions =
                  tags: "".split(" "),
                  id: "2"
                  ;
                  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: true,
                  noModals: true,
                  showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
                  reputationToPostImages: 10,
                  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
                  );



                  );













                  draft saved

                  draft discarded


















                  StackExchange.ready(
                  function ()
                  StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f37605%2fcopying-large-file-to-remote-server-causes-it-to-run-out-of-physical-memory%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                  );

                  Post as a guest















                  Required, but never shown

























                  8 Answers
                  8






                  active

                  oldest

                  votes








                  8 Answers
                  8






                  active

                  oldest

                  votes









                  active

                  oldest

                  votes






                  active

                  oldest

                  votes









                  2














                  I'm running into the same problem.



                  Trying to do a P2V conversion onto a 64-bit server running Windows Server 2008. Any of the normal file transfer methods for the VMDK file (which is 44GB) cause Windows on the destination server to run out of its 14GB RAM after a few minutes due to the file system caching.



                  Running the P2V conversion or file copy on a 32-bit server doesn't have this problem and memory usage stays reasonable.



                  Then trying to copy the VMDK file to the destination VMWare server has the same problem.



                  This page describe exactly what I'm seeing:



                  http://blogs.technet.com/askperf/archive/2007/05/08/slow-large-file-copy-issues.aspx



                  Based on my work this AM ESEUtil seems to be the way to go. It wasn't as fast as I'd expected, but it didn't freak out Windows either.



                  The Windows FTP client uses a Temp file on C: before moving the file to the target destination. Beware! :-)



                  This is very frustrating.






                  share|improve this answer























                  • Thanks for the link, that explained the underlying problem. I've accepted this as the answer as it seems there isn't actually a fix! Rather a workaround (good job we use exchange too and have access to the ESEUtil!)

                    – Gareth Hastings
                    Sep 2 '09 at 10:21















                  2














                  I'm running into the same problem.



                  Trying to do a P2V conversion onto a 64-bit server running Windows Server 2008. Any of the normal file transfer methods for the VMDK file (which is 44GB) cause Windows on the destination server to run out of its 14GB RAM after a few minutes due to the file system caching.



                  Running the P2V conversion or file copy on a 32-bit server doesn't have this problem and memory usage stays reasonable.



                  Then trying to copy the VMDK file to the destination VMWare server has the same problem.



                  This page describe exactly what I'm seeing:



                  http://blogs.technet.com/askperf/archive/2007/05/08/slow-large-file-copy-issues.aspx



                  Based on my work this AM ESEUtil seems to be the way to go. It wasn't as fast as I'd expected, but it didn't freak out Windows either.



                  The Windows FTP client uses a Temp file on C: before moving the file to the target destination. Beware! :-)



                  This is very frustrating.






                  share|improve this answer























                  • Thanks for the link, that explained the underlying problem. I've accepted this as the answer as it seems there isn't actually a fix! Rather a workaround (good job we use exchange too and have access to the ESEUtil!)

                    – Gareth Hastings
                    Sep 2 '09 at 10:21













                  2












                  2








                  2







                  I'm running into the same problem.



                  Trying to do a P2V conversion onto a 64-bit server running Windows Server 2008. Any of the normal file transfer methods for the VMDK file (which is 44GB) cause Windows on the destination server to run out of its 14GB RAM after a few minutes due to the file system caching.



                  Running the P2V conversion or file copy on a 32-bit server doesn't have this problem and memory usage stays reasonable.



                  Then trying to copy the VMDK file to the destination VMWare server has the same problem.



                  This page describe exactly what I'm seeing:



                  http://blogs.technet.com/askperf/archive/2007/05/08/slow-large-file-copy-issues.aspx



                  Based on my work this AM ESEUtil seems to be the way to go. It wasn't as fast as I'd expected, but it didn't freak out Windows either.



                  The Windows FTP client uses a Temp file on C: before moving the file to the target destination. Beware! :-)



                  This is very frustrating.






                  share|improve this answer













                  I'm running into the same problem.



                  Trying to do a P2V conversion onto a 64-bit server running Windows Server 2008. Any of the normal file transfer methods for the VMDK file (which is 44GB) cause Windows on the destination server to run out of its 14GB RAM after a few minutes due to the file system caching.



                  Running the P2V conversion or file copy on a 32-bit server doesn't have this problem and memory usage stays reasonable.



                  Then trying to copy the VMDK file to the destination VMWare server has the same problem.



                  This page describe exactly what I'm seeing:



                  http://blogs.technet.com/askperf/archive/2007/05/08/slow-large-file-copy-issues.aspx



                  Based on my work this AM ESEUtil seems to be the way to go. It wasn't as fast as I'd expected, but it didn't freak out Windows either.



                  The Windows FTP client uses a Temp file on C: before moving the file to the target destination. Beware! :-)



                  This is very frustrating.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Aug 20 '09 at 16:49









                  Brian SpolarichBrian Spolarich

                  1871312




                  1871312












                  • Thanks for the link, that explained the underlying problem. I've accepted this as the answer as it seems there isn't actually a fix! Rather a workaround (good job we use exchange too and have access to the ESEUtil!)

                    – Gareth Hastings
                    Sep 2 '09 at 10:21

















                  • Thanks for the link, that explained the underlying problem. I've accepted this as the answer as it seems there isn't actually a fix! Rather a workaround (good job we use exchange too and have access to the ESEUtil!)

                    – Gareth Hastings
                    Sep 2 '09 at 10:21
















                  Thanks for the link, that explained the underlying problem. I've accepted this as the answer as it seems there isn't actually a fix! Rather a workaround (good job we use exchange too and have access to the ESEUtil!)

                  – Gareth Hastings
                  Sep 2 '09 at 10:21





                  Thanks for the link, that explained the underlying problem. I've accepted this as the answer as it seems there isn't actually a fix! Rather a workaround (good job we use exchange too and have access to the ESEUtil!)

                  – Gareth Hastings
                  Sep 2 '09 at 10:21













                  1














                  I know this is a bit of a pain but have you tried a 3rd party file copy utility? Windows tends to be kind of dumb/slow about file copies sometimes. Lifehacker did a top 5 list of these utilities, try one of them out and see if you still have the same issue.



                  http://lifehacker.com/5280976/five-best-alternative-file-copiers



                  Also, like towo said, check your virtual memory settings. Best practice is that your pagefile should be x1.5 your memory (i.e. 1 GB mem = 1024 MB; 1024*1.5 = 1536 MB page file)






                  share|improve this answer























                  • I shall try a 3rd party tool next. The page file is set to min 1536, max 3072. It's currently at 1536

                    – Gareth Hastings
                    Jul 8 '09 at 12:50











                  • I tried teracopy and robocopy. Teracopy copies around 3mb/s and I can see the server writing to disk as it's copying. The server doesn't run out of memory, the amount available barely changes. Robocopy says it copies around 20% of the 6GB file in about 20 seconds. Nothing is being written on the server and then it promptly runs out of memory!

                    – Gareth Hastings
                    Jul 8 '09 at 13:17















                  1














                  I know this is a bit of a pain but have you tried a 3rd party file copy utility? Windows tends to be kind of dumb/slow about file copies sometimes. Lifehacker did a top 5 list of these utilities, try one of them out and see if you still have the same issue.



                  http://lifehacker.com/5280976/five-best-alternative-file-copiers



                  Also, like towo said, check your virtual memory settings. Best practice is that your pagefile should be x1.5 your memory (i.e. 1 GB mem = 1024 MB; 1024*1.5 = 1536 MB page file)






                  share|improve this answer























                  • I shall try a 3rd party tool next. The page file is set to min 1536, max 3072. It's currently at 1536

                    – Gareth Hastings
                    Jul 8 '09 at 12:50











                  • I tried teracopy and robocopy. Teracopy copies around 3mb/s and I can see the server writing to disk as it's copying. The server doesn't run out of memory, the amount available barely changes. Robocopy says it copies around 20% of the 6GB file in about 20 seconds. Nothing is being written on the server and then it promptly runs out of memory!

                    – Gareth Hastings
                    Jul 8 '09 at 13:17













                  1












                  1








                  1







                  I know this is a bit of a pain but have you tried a 3rd party file copy utility? Windows tends to be kind of dumb/slow about file copies sometimes. Lifehacker did a top 5 list of these utilities, try one of them out and see if you still have the same issue.



                  http://lifehacker.com/5280976/five-best-alternative-file-copiers



                  Also, like towo said, check your virtual memory settings. Best practice is that your pagefile should be x1.5 your memory (i.e. 1 GB mem = 1024 MB; 1024*1.5 = 1536 MB page file)






                  share|improve this answer













                  I know this is a bit of a pain but have you tried a 3rd party file copy utility? Windows tends to be kind of dumb/slow about file copies sometimes. Lifehacker did a top 5 list of these utilities, try one of them out and see if you still have the same issue.



                  http://lifehacker.com/5280976/five-best-alternative-file-copiers



                  Also, like towo said, check your virtual memory settings. Best practice is that your pagefile should be x1.5 your memory (i.e. 1 GB mem = 1024 MB; 1024*1.5 = 1536 MB page file)







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Jul 8 '09 at 12:16









                  SQLChickenSQLChicken

                  1,307810




                  1,307810












                  • I shall try a 3rd party tool next. The page file is set to min 1536, max 3072. It's currently at 1536

                    – Gareth Hastings
                    Jul 8 '09 at 12:50











                  • I tried teracopy and robocopy. Teracopy copies around 3mb/s and I can see the server writing to disk as it's copying. The server doesn't run out of memory, the amount available barely changes. Robocopy says it copies around 20% of the 6GB file in about 20 seconds. Nothing is being written on the server and then it promptly runs out of memory!

                    – Gareth Hastings
                    Jul 8 '09 at 13:17

















                  • I shall try a 3rd party tool next. The page file is set to min 1536, max 3072. It's currently at 1536

                    – Gareth Hastings
                    Jul 8 '09 at 12:50











                  • I tried teracopy and robocopy. Teracopy copies around 3mb/s and I can see the server writing to disk as it's copying. The server doesn't run out of memory, the amount available barely changes. Robocopy says it copies around 20% of the 6GB file in about 20 seconds. Nothing is being written on the server and then it promptly runs out of memory!

                    – Gareth Hastings
                    Jul 8 '09 at 13:17
















                  I shall try a 3rd party tool next. The page file is set to min 1536, max 3072. It's currently at 1536

                  – Gareth Hastings
                  Jul 8 '09 at 12:50





                  I shall try a 3rd party tool next. The page file is set to min 1536, max 3072. It's currently at 1536

                  – Gareth Hastings
                  Jul 8 '09 at 12:50













                  I tried teracopy and robocopy. Teracopy copies around 3mb/s and I can see the server writing to disk as it's copying. The server doesn't run out of memory, the amount available barely changes. Robocopy says it copies around 20% of the 6GB file in about 20 seconds. Nothing is being written on the server and then it promptly runs out of memory!

                  – Gareth Hastings
                  Jul 8 '09 at 13:17





                  I tried teracopy and robocopy. Teracopy copies around 3mb/s and I can see the server writing to disk as it's copying. The server doesn't run out of memory, the amount available barely changes. Robocopy says it copies around 20% of the 6GB file in about 20 seconds. Nothing is being written on the server and then it promptly runs out of memory!

                  – Gareth Hastings
                  Jul 8 '09 at 13:17











                  1














                  There are known issues with the Network File Copy processes on W2K - if the remote system can't empty the write cache faster than the rate the file data is arriving in over the network then it will steadily consume all physical memory on the server if the file is big enough. Mark Russinovich has some details on the ways this might happen in this article on changes made in Windows Vista's file copy mechanisms. The performance graph you posted looks like this issue and I have seen exactly this sort of behavior in the past where I had a target system with very slow disks and a fast network.



                  However even though your target OS is a bit old the hardware isn't all that weak and a RAID 10 setup with 4x7.2K SATA drives should be good for somewhere between 60 and 120Meg/sec write speed which is significantly higher than the 39Meg/sec Vista is reporting for your copy. The odd thing here is that if it is a solid, well-configured GigE link then you could hit network transfer rates reaching 70Meg/sec (and maybe a bit higher) for a sustained copy of a large file like this. That said 38Meg/sec isn't abnormal either if there's any other traffic flowing in or out of either the client or server or (as is more likely) that rate is mostly limited by the speed of your local laptop hard drive.



                  In any case I would check that your RAID 10 was actually healthy - the symptoms here would make me suspect it wasn't able to write as fast as it should be.






                  share|improve this answer



























                    1














                    There are known issues with the Network File Copy processes on W2K - if the remote system can't empty the write cache faster than the rate the file data is arriving in over the network then it will steadily consume all physical memory on the server if the file is big enough. Mark Russinovich has some details on the ways this might happen in this article on changes made in Windows Vista's file copy mechanisms. The performance graph you posted looks like this issue and I have seen exactly this sort of behavior in the past where I had a target system with very slow disks and a fast network.



                    However even though your target OS is a bit old the hardware isn't all that weak and a RAID 10 setup with 4x7.2K SATA drives should be good for somewhere between 60 and 120Meg/sec write speed which is significantly higher than the 39Meg/sec Vista is reporting for your copy. The odd thing here is that if it is a solid, well-configured GigE link then you could hit network transfer rates reaching 70Meg/sec (and maybe a bit higher) for a sustained copy of a large file like this. That said 38Meg/sec isn't abnormal either if there's any other traffic flowing in or out of either the client or server or (as is more likely) that rate is mostly limited by the speed of your local laptop hard drive.



                    In any case I would check that your RAID 10 was actually healthy - the symptoms here would make me suspect it wasn't able to write as fast as it should be.






                    share|improve this answer

























                      1












                      1








                      1







                      There are known issues with the Network File Copy processes on W2K - if the remote system can't empty the write cache faster than the rate the file data is arriving in over the network then it will steadily consume all physical memory on the server if the file is big enough. Mark Russinovich has some details on the ways this might happen in this article on changes made in Windows Vista's file copy mechanisms. The performance graph you posted looks like this issue and I have seen exactly this sort of behavior in the past where I had a target system with very slow disks and a fast network.



                      However even though your target OS is a bit old the hardware isn't all that weak and a RAID 10 setup with 4x7.2K SATA drives should be good for somewhere between 60 and 120Meg/sec write speed which is significantly higher than the 39Meg/sec Vista is reporting for your copy. The odd thing here is that if it is a solid, well-configured GigE link then you could hit network transfer rates reaching 70Meg/sec (and maybe a bit higher) for a sustained copy of a large file like this. That said 38Meg/sec isn't abnormal either if there's any other traffic flowing in or out of either the client or server or (as is more likely) that rate is mostly limited by the speed of your local laptop hard drive.



                      In any case I would check that your RAID 10 was actually healthy - the symptoms here would make me suspect it wasn't able to write as fast as it should be.






                      share|improve this answer













                      There are known issues with the Network File Copy processes on W2K - if the remote system can't empty the write cache faster than the rate the file data is arriving in over the network then it will steadily consume all physical memory on the server if the file is big enough. Mark Russinovich has some details on the ways this might happen in this article on changes made in Windows Vista's file copy mechanisms. The performance graph you posted looks like this issue and I have seen exactly this sort of behavior in the past where I had a target system with very slow disks and a fast network.



                      However even though your target OS is a bit old the hardware isn't all that weak and a RAID 10 setup with 4x7.2K SATA drives should be good for somewhere between 60 and 120Meg/sec write speed which is significantly higher than the 39Meg/sec Vista is reporting for your copy. The odd thing here is that if it is a solid, well-configured GigE link then you could hit network transfer rates reaching 70Meg/sec (and maybe a bit higher) for a sustained copy of a large file like this. That said 38Meg/sec isn't abnormal either if there's any other traffic flowing in or out of either the client or server or (as is more likely) that rate is mostly limited by the speed of your local laptop hard drive.



                      In any case I would check that your RAID 10 was actually healthy - the symptoms here would make me suspect it wasn't able to write as fast as it should be.







                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered Jul 8 '09 at 18:38









                      HelvickHelvick

                      16.7k33151




                      16.7k33151





















                          0














                          I've just run a copy on the server itself, local disk to local disk and it's fine. The amount of free memory available doesn't change.



                          I guess this is more of a networking related issue. I'll check the network card drivers



                          UPDATE: The drivers are a few years old. I will update them out of hours tonight. Still not sure why this would affect the server suddenly after all this time though!






                          share|improve this answer





























                            0














                            I've just run a copy on the server itself, local disk to local disk and it's fine. The amount of free memory available doesn't change.



                            I guess this is more of a networking related issue. I'll check the network card drivers



                            UPDATE: The drivers are a few years old. I will update them out of hours tonight. Still not sure why this would affect the server suddenly after all this time though!






                            share|improve this answer



























                              0












                              0








                              0







                              I've just run a copy on the server itself, local disk to local disk and it's fine. The amount of free memory available doesn't change.



                              I guess this is more of a networking related issue. I'll check the network card drivers



                              UPDATE: The drivers are a few years old. I will update them out of hours tonight. Still not sure why this would affect the server suddenly after all this time though!






                              share|improve this answer















                              I've just run a copy on the server itself, local disk to local disk and it's fine. The amount of free memory available doesn't change.



                              I guess this is more of a networking related issue. I'll check the network card drivers



                              UPDATE: The drivers are a few years old. I will update them out of hours tonight. Still not sure why this would affect the server suddenly after all this time though!







                              share|improve this answer














                              share|improve this answer



                              share|improve this answer








                              edited Jul 8 '09 at 11:51

























                              answered Jul 8 '09 at 11:19









                              Gareth HastingsGareth Hastings

                              161118




                              161118





















                                  0














                                  Maybe you need to beef up your virtual memory on your system hard drive, where low hard drive space could have caused said problem.



                                  Also, from a logical point of view, the server does not actually need to store a file in memory when copying from file system to file system; it just allocates a buffer in memory the file passes through. Depending on how you copy files, though, some applications will first store the file completely in memory, and then write it to the disk.



                                  Try to use a protocol like FTP - if it still happens, you should probably look into some networking problems.



                                  The interesting question here would be how the server actually stores the files - as you can see, the I/O load is just way down, which means it's not actually writing the file anywhere, just buffering it in memory.






                                  share|improve this answer























                                  • I tried FTP and got slightly different results. There was a burst of IO until the server ran out of memory, this time the IO tailed off to low value and the memory looked like it was slowly written to disk. When it got back to approx 800mb free mem the IO spiked again and the process was repeated. See graph xastrade.co.uk/gdh/ftpcopy.png

                                    – Gareth Hastings
                                    Jul 8 '09 at 12:48















                                  0














                                  Maybe you need to beef up your virtual memory on your system hard drive, where low hard drive space could have caused said problem.



                                  Also, from a logical point of view, the server does not actually need to store a file in memory when copying from file system to file system; it just allocates a buffer in memory the file passes through. Depending on how you copy files, though, some applications will first store the file completely in memory, and then write it to the disk.



                                  Try to use a protocol like FTP - if it still happens, you should probably look into some networking problems.



                                  The interesting question here would be how the server actually stores the files - as you can see, the I/O load is just way down, which means it's not actually writing the file anywhere, just buffering it in memory.






                                  share|improve this answer























                                  • I tried FTP and got slightly different results. There was a burst of IO until the server ran out of memory, this time the IO tailed off to low value and the memory looked like it was slowly written to disk. When it got back to approx 800mb free mem the IO spiked again and the process was repeated. See graph xastrade.co.uk/gdh/ftpcopy.png

                                    – Gareth Hastings
                                    Jul 8 '09 at 12:48













                                  0












                                  0








                                  0







                                  Maybe you need to beef up your virtual memory on your system hard drive, where low hard drive space could have caused said problem.



                                  Also, from a logical point of view, the server does not actually need to store a file in memory when copying from file system to file system; it just allocates a buffer in memory the file passes through. Depending on how you copy files, though, some applications will first store the file completely in memory, and then write it to the disk.



                                  Try to use a protocol like FTP - if it still happens, you should probably look into some networking problems.



                                  The interesting question here would be how the server actually stores the files - as you can see, the I/O load is just way down, which means it's not actually writing the file anywhere, just buffering it in memory.






                                  share|improve this answer













                                  Maybe you need to beef up your virtual memory on your system hard drive, where low hard drive space could have caused said problem.



                                  Also, from a logical point of view, the server does not actually need to store a file in memory when copying from file system to file system; it just allocates a buffer in memory the file passes through. Depending on how you copy files, though, some applications will first store the file completely in memory, and then write it to the disk.



                                  Try to use a protocol like FTP - if it still happens, you should probably look into some networking problems.



                                  The interesting question here would be how the server actually stores the files - as you can see, the I/O load is just way down, which means it's not actually writing the file anywhere, just buffering it in memory.







                                  share|improve this answer












                                  share|improve this answer



                                  share|improve this answer










                                  answered Jul 8 '09 at 12:02









                                  towotowo

                                  1,7031312




                                  1,7031312












                                  • I tried FTP and got slightly different results. There was a burst of IO until the server ran out of memory, this time the IO tailed off to low value and the memory looked like it was slowly written to disk. When it got back to approx 800mb free mem the IO spiked again and the process was repeated. See graph xastrade.co.uk/gdh/ftpcopy.png

                                    – Gareth Hastings
                                    Jul 8 '09 at 12:48

















                                  • I tried FTP and got slightly different results. There was a burst of IO until the server ran out of memory, this time the IO tailed off to low value and the memory looked like it was slowly written to disk. When it got back to approx 800mb free mem the IO spiked again and the process was repeated. See graph xastrade.co.uk/gdh/ftpcopy.png

                                    – Gareth Hastings
                                    Jul 8 '09 at 12:48
















                                  I tried FTP and got slightly different results. There was a burst of IO until the server ran out of memory, this time the IO tailed off to low value and the memory looked like it was slowly written to disk. When it got back to approx 800mb free mem the IO spiked again and the process was repeated. See graph xastrade.co.uk/gdh/ftpcopy.png

                                  – Gareth Hastings
                                  Jul 8 '09 at 12:48





                                  I tried FTP and got slightly different results. There was a burst of IO until the server ran out of memory, this time the IO tailed off to low value and the memory looked like it was slowly written to disk. When it got back to approx 800mb free mem the IO spiked again and the process was repeated. See graph xastrade.co.uk/gdh/ftpcopy.png

                                  – Gareth Hastings
                                  Jul 8 '09 at 12:48











                                  0














                                  Is this copy operation just via a normal network share (i.e. copying via Windows Explorer or similar)? I experienced a bug like this in under Win2K but that was fixed as far back as SP1 if I remember rightly.



                                  If you are copying via another method then that application/service may be trying to hold the file in RAM until it has it all, in which case you need to upgrade or replace that app/service.






                                  share|improve this answer























                                  • The copying is being done from my laptop which is Windows 7 Build 7100 to a Windows 2000 Server SP4 using windows explorer.

                                    – Gareth Hastings
                                    Jul 8 '09 at 12:51















                                  0














                                  Is this copy operation just via a normal network share (i.e. copying via Windows Explorer or similar)? I experienced a bug like this in under Win2K but that was fixed as far back as SP1 if I remember rightly.



                                  If you are copying via another method then that application/service may be trying to hold the file in RAM until it has it all, in which case you need to upgrade or replace that app/service.






                                  share|improve this answer























                                  • The copying is being done from my laptop which is Windows 7 Build 7100 to a Windows 2000 Server SP4 using windows explorer.

                                    – Gareth Hastings
                                    Jul 8 '09 at 12:51













                                  0












                                  0








                                  0







                                  Is this copy operation just via a normal network share (i.e. copying via Windows Explorer or similar)? I experienced a bug like this in under Win2K but that was fixed as far back as SP1 if I remember rightly.



                                  If you are copying via another method then that application/service may be trying to hold the file in RAM until it has it all, in which case you need to upgrade or replace that app/service.






                                  share|improve this answer













                                  Is this copy operation just via a normal network share (i.e. copying via Windows Explorer or similar)? I experienced a bug like this in under Win2K but that was fixed as far back as SP1 if I remember rightly.



                                  If you are copying via another method then that application/service may be trying to hold the file in RAM until it has it all, in which case you need to upgrade or replace that app/service.







                                  share|improve this answer












                                  share|improve this answer



                                  share|improve this answer










                                  answered Jul 8 '09 at 12:19









                                  David SpillettDavid Spillett

                                  21.3k3161




                                  21.3k3161












                                  • The copying is being done from my laptop which is Windows 7 Build 7100 to a Windows 2000 Server SP4 using windows explorer.

                                    – Gareth Hastings
                                    Jul 8 '09 at 12:51

















                                  • The copying is being done from my laptop which is Windows 7 Build 7100 to a Windows 2000 Server SP4 using windows explorer.

                                    – Gareth Hastings
                                    Jul 8 '09 at 12:51
















                                  The copying is being done from my laptop which is Windows 7 Build 7100 to a Windows 2000 Server SP4 using windows explorer.

                                  – Gareth Hastings
                                  Jul 8 '09 at 12:51





                                  The copying is being done from my laptop which is Windows 7 Build 7100 to a Windows 2000 Server SP4 using windows explorer.

                                  – Gareth Hastings
                                  Jul 8 '09 at 12:51











                                  0














                                  Are you using Server 2003 64-bit? There is some information on fixing this issue with x64 on Server 2003 here -> http://www.techspot.com/blog/224/slow-system-performance-when-copying-large-files-in-xp-x64-server-2003-x64/



                                  Seems to happen quite a bit in 2003/XP x64 actually. In fact I just realized one of my servers has been experiencing this same issue for a while now and I haven't had time to troubleshoot it.






                                  share|improve this answer



























                                    0














                                    Are you using Server 2003 64-bit? There is some information on fixing this issue with x64 on Server 2003 here -> http://www.techspot.com/blog/224/slow-system-performance-when-copying-large-files-in-xp-x64-server-2003-x64/



                                    Seems to happen quite a bit in 2003/XP x64 actually. In fact I just realized one of my servers has been experiencing this same issue for a while now and I haven't had time to troubleshoot it.






                                    share|improve this answer

























                                      0












                                      0








                                      0







                                      Are you using Server 2003 64-bit? There is some information on fixing this issue with x64 on Server 2003 here -> http://www.techspot.com/blog/224/slow-system-performance-when-copying-large-files-in-xp-x64-server-2003-x64/



                                      Seems to happen quite a bit in 2003/XP x64 actually. In fact I just realized one of my servers has been experiencing this same issue for a while now and I haven't had time to troubleshoot it.






                                      share|improve this answer













                                      Are you using Server 2003 64-bit? There is some information on fixing this issue with x64 on Server 2003 here -> http://www.techspot.com/blog/224/slow-system-performance-when-copying-large-files-in-xp-x64-server-2003-x64/



                                      Seems to happen quite a bit in 2003/XP x64 actually. In fact I just realized one of my servers has been experiencing this same issue for a while now and I haven't had time to troubleshoot it.







                                      share|improve this answer












                                      share|improve this answer



                                      share|improve this answer










                                      answered Jul 8 '09 at 14:14









                                      drgncabedrgncabe

                                      39516




                                      39516





















                                          0














                                          For anyone experiencing this problem, you may want to try using xcopy on the Windows command line (cmd or PowerShell) and turn off file I/O buffering with the /j switch. It's the recommended way to copy very large files. Type "xcopy /?" for more details. (This parameter was added in Windows Server 2008 R2.)






                                          share|improve this answer



























                                            0














                                            For anyone experiencing this problem, you may want to try using xcopy on the Windows command line (cmd or PowerShell) and turn off file I/O buffering with the /j switch. It's the recommended way to copy very large files. Type "xcopy /?" for more details. (This parameter was added in Windows Server 2008 R2.)






                                            share|improve this answer

























                                              0












                                              0








                                              0







                                              For anyone experiencing this problem, you may want to try using xcopy on the Windows command line (cmd or PowerShell) and turn off file I/O buffering with the /j switch. It's the recommended way to copy very large files. Type "xcopy /?" for more details. (This parameter was added in Windows Server 2008 R2.)






                                              share|improve this answer













                                              For anyone experiencing this problem, you may want to try using xcopy on the Windows command line (cmd or PowerShell) and turn off file I/O buffering with the /j switch. It's the recommended way to copy very large files. Type "xcopy /?" for more details. (This parameter was added in Windows Server 2008 R2.)







                                              share|improve this answer












                                              share|improve this answer



                                              share|improve this answer










                                              answered Aug 31 '18 at 23:49









                                              ColdColdColdCold

                                              1112




                                              1112



























                                                  draft saved

                                                  draft discarded
















































                                                  Thanks for contributing an answer to Server Fault!


                                                  • 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.




                                                  draft saved


                                                  draft discarded














                                                  StackExchange.ready(
                                                  function ()
                                                  StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f37605%2fcopying-large-file-to-remote-server-causes-it-to-run-out-of-physical-memory%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                                                  );

                                                  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







                                                  Popular posts from this blog

                                                  Wikipedia:Vital articles Мазмуну Biography - Өмүр баян Philosophy and psychology - Философия жана психология Religion - Дин Social sciences - Коомдук илимдер Language and literature - Тил жана адабият Science - Илим Technology - Технология Arts and recreation - Искусство жана эс алуу History and geography - Тарых жана география Навигация менюсу

                                                  Bruxelas-Capital Índice Historia | Composición | Situación lingüística | Clima | Cidades irmandadas | Notas | Véxase tamén | Menú de navegacióneO uso das linguas en Bruxelas e a situación do neerlandés"Rexión de Bruxelas Capital"o orixinalSitio da rexiónPáxina de Bruselas no sitio da Oficina de Promoción Turística de Valonia e BruxelasMapa Interactivo da Rexión de Bruxelas-CapitaleeWorldCat332144929079854441105155190212ID28008674080552-90000 0001 0666 3698n94104302ID540940339365017018237

                                                  What should I write in an apology letter, since I have decided not to join a company after accepting an offer letterShould I keep looking after accepting a job offer?What should I do when I've been verbally told I would get an offer letter, but still haven't gotten one after 4 weeks?Do I accept an offer from a company that I am not likely to join?New job hasn't confirmed starting date and I want to give current employer as much notice as possibleHow should I address my manager in my resignation letter?HR delayed background verification, now jobless as resignedNo email communication after accepting a formal written offer. How should I phrase the call?What should I do if after receiving a verbal offer letter I am informed that my written job offer is put on hold due to some internal issues?Should I inform the current employer that I am about to resign within 1-2 weeks since I have signed the offer letter and waiting for visa?What company will do, if I send their offer letter to another company