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;
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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
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
windows performance memory
edited Jul 8 '09 at 12:04
splattne
25.8k1892144
25.8k1892144
asked Jul 8 '09 at 11:17
Gareth HastingsGareth Hastings
161118
161118
add a comment |
add a comment |
8 Answers
8
active
oldest
votes
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.
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
add a comment |
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)
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
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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!
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.)
add a comment |
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
);
);
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%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
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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)
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
add a comment |
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)
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
add a comment |
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)
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)
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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.
answered Jul 8 '09 at 18:38
HelvickHelvick
16.7k33151
16.7k33151
add a comment |
add a comment |
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!
add a comment |
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!
add a comment |
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!
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!
edited Jul 8 '09 at 11:51
answered Jul 8 '09 at 11:19
Gareth HastingsGareth Hastings
161118
161118
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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.
answered Jul 8 '09 at 14:14
drgncabedrgncabe
39516
39516
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.)
add a comment |
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.)
add a comment |
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.)
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.)
answered Aug 31 '18 at 23:49
ColdColdColdCold
1112
1112
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
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%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
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