当box变大时，Cache.EffectivePrivateBytesLimit会缩小吗？ [英] Cache.EffectivePrivateBytesLimit shrinks as box gets bigger?

问题描述

嗨...


我们一直在努力将我们的asp.net应用程序从较旧的，功能不足的

硬件迁移到更新更大的盒子但是当我们这样做时，我们看到我们的数据库开始融化。


当我开始研究它时，我发现旧的盒子都有更大的

EffectivePrivateBytesLimit值比新盒子好，这对我来说非常直接反b $ b。在我看来，一个小得多的缓存会将更多的请求推回到数据库中。


旧的盒子有2GB物理内存和3gb页面文件留出空间。

更新的盒子从3gb物理内存和4gb页面文件空间开始，然后从

那里上去。


我们是没有设置任何machine.config值或IIS管理员设置

会限制任何框上的缓存大小。我们所有人都只有一个

工人流程。所有的盒子都运行Windows 2003 SP2和

ASP.Net 2.0。

在较小的盒子上，EffectivePrivateBytesLimit =物理ram的~60％

（1.2gb）。在更大的盒子上，EffectivePrivateBytesLimit = 800mb。


我找到了这个帖子： http://forums.asp.net/p/962451/1199949.aspx


两个msdn文章都没有提到它已经在那些位置，

但是响应中的经验法则表明更大的盒子*认为*

它们具有< = 2gb的页面文件。


在Windows 2003或ASP.Net中是否存在某种溢出/签名条件

2.0其中添加过多的演出和/或页面文件最终会产生否定

效果，因为系统无法分辨？


谢谢

马克

解决方案

嗨Mark，


至于EffectivePrivateBytes属性，它确实是一个值，表示

虚拟内存可用于缓存使用。这是由

确定的几件事：


** ASP.NET进程的内存限制（对于IIS6 win2k3，它是通过IIS设置的

应用程序池的内存限制）


** ASP.NET web.config中的< cacheelement的privateBytesLimit属性


如果没有设置上述任何一项，运行时将自动计算一个

你。但是，计算算法是内部实现的，并且可能与服务器的硬件条件不同。


这是一篇由高级开发人员撰写的好博客文章其中

介绍了一些关于ASP.NET缓存及其内存限制的历史

配置：


＃ASP上的一些历史记录。 NET缓存内存限制
http://blogs.msdn.com/tmarq/archive/...-the-asp-net-c

ache-memory-limits .aspx


此致，

Steven Cheng


Microsoft MSDN在线支持主管
让客户满意是我们的首要任务。我们欢迎您的意见和

有关我们如何改进我们为您提供的支持的建议。请

随时让我的经理知道您对服务水平的看法

提供。您可以直接向我的经理发送反馈：
ms****@microsoft.com 。


========================================== ========

通过电子邮件收到我的帖子通知？请参阅
http://msdn.microsoft .com / subscripti ... ult.aspx＃notif

ications。


注意：MSDN托管新闻组支持服务是针对非紧急问题

如果社区或微软支持人员在1个工作日内做出初步回复是可以接受的。请注意，每个跟随

的响应可能需要大约2个工作日作为支持

专业人士与您合作可能需要进一步调查才能达到

最有效的分辨率。该产品不适用于需要紧急，实时或基于电话的交互或复杂的b $ b项目分析和转储分析问题的情况。这种性质的问题最好通过联系

Microsoft客户支持服务（CSS）处理
href =http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/support/default.aspx\"target =_ blank> http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscripti...t/default.aspx 。

======================================== ==========

此帖子按原样提供。没有保证，也没有赋予任何权利。

--------------------

>来自：=？Utf-8？B？TWFyaw ==？=< mm ****** @ nospam.nospam>
主题：Cache.EffectivePrivateBytesLimit随着框变大而缩小？
日期：2008年4月29日星期二12:47:02 -0700

>
嗨...

我们一直在努力将我们的asp.net应用程序从旧的，功能不足的硬件迁移到更新，更大的盒子，但是当我们这样做时，我们看到我们的数据库启动

到

>融化。

当我开始研究它时，我发现年龄较大盒子都有

更大

> EffectivePrivateBytesLimit值比新盒子看起来非常

将

>推回更多请求数据库。

旧盒子有2GB的物理内存和3GB的页面文件空间。
较新的盒子从3gb物理ram和4gb页面文件空间开始，从
上涨

>那里。

我们没有设置任何machine.config值或IIS管理设置
会限制任何框上的缓存大小。我们所有人都只有一个工作流程。所有的盒子都运行Windows 2003 SP2和
ASP.Net 2.0。

在较小的盒子上，EffectivePrivateBytesLimit = ~60％的物理ram
（1.2gb）。在更大的盒子上，EffectivePrivateBytesLimit = 800mb。

我找到了这个帖子： http://forums.asp.net/p/962451/1199949.aspx

其中提到的msdn文章都不在这些位置

了，

>但响应中的经验法则表明更大的盒子

* think *

>他们有< = 2gb的页面文件。
在Windows 2003或ASP.Net
2.0中是否存在某种溢出/签名条件，其中添加过多的演出和/或页面文件最终会产生负面影响，因为系统无法分辨？

Mark

嗨史蒂文...

感谢您的链接;它具有我最初发布的其他

链接中的所有相同信息。问题是那些论坛似乎不会在我们的案例中工作。


正如我所说，我们没有设置任何配置参数直接

控制缓存大小和机器有2gb物理ram / 3gb页面文件

获得更多缓存空间而机器起始于3gb phys / 4gb页面

文件的上限要低得多。


更新，更大的机器正在获得的事实

EffectivePrivateBytesLimit即将推出*精确* 800mb意味着

MIN（）公式在他们的情况下被不恰当地应用，因此我的问题

关于计算有一些溢出边界的空间太大获得

解释为太少了。他们至少有4gb的页面文件，应该使用公式MIN（60％物理内存，1800mb）来应用
。相反，它应用了

小案例MIN（60％物理公羊，800mb）。


较小的机器EffectivePrivateBytesLimit出现在物理的60％
ram（1.2gb of 2）这意味着它根据公式将页面文件识别为2gb，

。


谢谢

Mark

Steven Cheng [MSFT]"写道：

嗨Mark，


至于EffectivePrivateBytes属性，它确实是一个值，表示

可用于缓存使用的虚拟内存。这是由

确定的几件事：


** ASP.NET进程的内存限制（对于IIS6 win2k3，它是通过IIS设置的

应用程序池的内存限制）


** ASP.NET web.config中的< cacheelement的privateBytesLimit属性


如果没有设置上述任何一项，运行时将自动计算一个

你。但是，计算算法是内部实现的，并且可能与服务器的硬件条件不同。


这是一篇由高级开发人员撰写的好博客文章其中

介绍了一些关于ASP.NET缓存及其内存限制的历史

配置：


＃ASP上的一些历史记录。 NET缓存内存限制
http://blogs.msdn.com/tmarq/archive/...-the-asp-net-c

ache-memory-limits .aspx


此致，

Steven Cheng


Microsoft MSDN在线支持主管

让客户满意是我们的首要任务。我们欢迎您的意见和

有关我们如何改进我们为您提供的支持的建议。请

随时让我的经理知道您对服务水平的看法

提供。您可以直接向我的经理发送反馈：
ms****@microsoft.com 。


========================================== ========

通过电子邮件收到我的帖子通知？请参阅
http://msdn.microsoft .com / subscripti ... ult.aspx＃notif

ications。


注意：MSDN托管新闻组支持服务是针对非紧急问题

如果社区或微软支持人员在1个工作日内做出初步回复是可以接受的。请注意，每个跟随

的响应可能需要大约2个工作日作为支持

专业人士与您合作可能需要进一步调查才能达到

最有效的分辨率。该产品不适用于需要紧急，实时或基于电话的交互或复杂的b $ b项目分析和转储分析问题的情况。这种性质的问题最好通过联系

Microsoft客户支持服务（CSS）处理
href =http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/support/default.aspx\"target =_ blank> http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscripti...t/default.aspx 。

======================================== ==========

此帖子按原样提供。没有保证，也没有赋予任何权利。


--------------------

来自：=？Utf-8？B？TWFyaw ==？=< mm ****** @ nospam.nospam>

主题：Cache.EffectivePrivateBytesLimit收缩盒子变大了吗？

日期：2008年4月29日星期二12:47:02 -0700

嗨...


我们一直在尝试将我们的asp.net应用程序从更旧，功能不足的b $ b硬件迁移到更新，更大的盒子但是当我们这样做，我们看到我们的数据库开始

到

melt。


当我开始研究它时，我发现旧盒子都有

更大

EffectivePrivateBytesLimit值比新盒子好，这对我来说非常直观。在我看来，一个小得多的Cache

将

将更多请求推回到数据库。


旧盒子有2GB物理内存和3gb页面文件空间。

较新的盒子从3gb物理ram和4gb页面文件空间开始，从
上涨

那里。


我们没有设置任何machine.config值或IIS管理员设置

会阻止缓存任何一个盒子的大小。我们所有人都只有一个

工人流程。所有的盒子都运行Windows 2003 SP2和

ASP.Net 2.0。

在较小的盒子上，EffectivePrivateBytesLimit =物理ram的~60％

（1.2gb）。在更大的盒子上，EffectivePrivateBytesLimit = 800mb。


我找到了这个帖子： http://forums.asp.net/p/962451/1199949.aspx


两个msdn文章都没有提到它是在那些位置

了，

但是响应中的经验法则表明更大的盒子

*想*

他们有< = 2gb的页面文件。


在Windows 2003或ASP.Net中是否存在某种溢出/签名条件

2.0其中添加过多的演出和/或页面文件最终会产生负面影响

效果，因为系统无法分辨？


谢谢

Mark

感谢您的回复Mark，


是的，因为你没有T显式设置的内存限制值，那么

运行时间将有助于caclulated一个给你。到目前为止，我没有任何信息

关于如何计算数字，根据它将依赖的文件

硬件条件。顺便说一句，在具有更多物理内存
内存的服务器上，还有很多其他应用程序在运行吗？也许一些

其他应用程序占用一些特定的内存或者可能比较小的盒子造成更多的内存

片段。


此致


Steven Cheng


Microsoft MSDN在线支持主管

让客户满意是我们的首要任务。我们欢迎您的意见和

有关我们如何改进我们为您提供的支持的建议。请

随时让我的经理知道您对服务水平的看法

提供。您可以直接向我的经理发送反馈：
ms****@microsoft.com 。


========================================== ========

通过电子邮件收到我的帖子通知？请参阅
http://msdn.microsoft .com / subscripti ... ult.aspx＃notif

ications。


============ ======================================

发布该帖子按现状没有保证，也没有赋予任何权利。


--------------------

>来自：=？Utf-8？B？TWFyaw ==？=< mm ****** @ nospam.nospam>
参考文献：< 3B *** *******************************@microsoft.co m>

< hv ************** @ TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl>

>主题：RE：Cache.EffectivePrivateBytesLimit随着框变大而缩小？
日期：2008年4月30日星期三07:13:00 -0700

>
嗨史蒂文......

感谢您的链接;它具有我最初发布的其他链接中的所有相同信息。问题是那些论坛似乎不是

到

>正在我们的工作中案例。

正如我所说的，我们没有设置任何配置参数来直接控制缓存大小和2gb物理ram / 3gb页面的机器

file

>获得更多缓存空间，而机器起始于3gb phys / 4gb

page

>文件的上限要低得多。

更新，更大的机器正在获得
EffectivePrivateBytesLimit以*正好* 800mb出现意味着
MIN（）公式在他们的情况下被不恰当地应用，因此我的问题是关于具有一些溢出边界的计算太多空间

得到

&g t;解释为太少。他们有至少4gb的页面文件，其中

应该

>已应用公式MIN（ 60％体重，1800mb）。相反，它应用

>更小的MIN（60％物理范围，800mb）。

较小的机器EffectivePrivateBytesLimit出现在
的60％

physical

> ram（1.2gb of 2）暗示它根据公式将页面文件识别为2gb，
谢谢
Mark

Steven Cheng [MSFT]"写道：

>嗨Mark，

至于EffectivePrivateBytes属性，它确实是一个值，表示

>可用于缓存使用的虚拟内存。这取决于几个方面：

** ASP.NET进程的内存限制（对于IIS6 win2k3，它是通过IIS设置的应用程序池''的内存限制）

**私有的BlogB的私有属性<缓存元素

web.config

>>
如果没有设置上述任何一项，运行时将自动计算一个

for

> you。但是，计算算法是内部实现的，可能与服务器的硬件条件不同。

这是一篇由高级开发人员撰写的好博客文章，其中介绍了一些历史关于ASP.NET缓存及其内存限制
配置：
关于ASP.NET缓存内存限制的一些历史记录

http：// blogs.msdn.com/tmarq/archive/...-the-asp-net-c

> ache-memory -limits.aspx

真诚的，

Steven Cheng

微软MSDN在线支持主管

让我们的客户满意是我们的＃1优先级。我们欢迎您的评论

和

>关于我们如何改进我们为您提供的支持的建议。

请

>随时待命让我的经理知道您对提供的服务水平的看法。您可以直接向我的经理发送反馈：
ms****@microsoft.com 。

============================================== === =
通过电子邮件收到我的帖子通知？请参阅

http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscripti...ult.aspx#notif

> ications。

注意：MSDN托管新闻组支持服务是非紧急

发行

>其中可以接受社区或Microsoft支持工程师在1个工作日内的初始响应。请注意，每个

跟随

> ;响应可能需要大约2个工作日，因为支持
专业人员可能需要进一步调查才能达到

>最有效的分辨率。此优惠适用于

情况

>需要紧急，实时或基于电话的交互或复杂的项目分析和转储分析问题。这种性质的问题是

best

>通过
处理与专职Microsoft支持工程师合作

联系

> Microsoft客户支持服务（CSS）
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscripti...t/default.aspx 。
================== =============================== =
此帖子是按原样提供的。没有保证，并且不授予

权利。

>>

-------------- ------

> From：=？Utf-8？B？TWFyaw ==？=< mm ****** @ nospam .nospam>
主题：Cache.EffectivePrivateBytesLimit随着框变大而缩小？
日期：2008年4月29日星期二12:47:02 -0700

>
嗨...

我们一直在尝试将我们的asp.net应用程序从更旧，功能不足的硬件迁移到更新，更大但是当我们这样做时，我们看到我们的数据库

start

>到

>融化。

当我开始研究它时，我发现旧盒子都有

更大

> EffectivePrivateBytesLimit值比较新的盒子，似乎是

非常b $ b

>反直觉给我。在我看来，一个小得多的Cache

将

>将更多请求推回到数据库。

旧盒子有2GB物理内存和3gb页面文件空间。

>较新的盒子从3gb物理ram和4gb页面文件空间开始，从
上涨

>那里。

我们没有设置任何machine.config值或IIS Admin

设置

>这将限制任何方框上的缓存大小。我们只有

一个

< blockquote class =post_quotes>
>所有这些工作进程。所有框都运行Windows 2003 SP2

和

> ASP.Net 2.0。

在较小的盒子上，EffectivePrivateBytesLimit =物理ram的~60％
（1.2gb） 。在更大的盒子上，EffectivePrivateBytesLimit = 800mb。

我找到了这个帖子： http://forums.asp.net/p/962451/1199949.aspx

其中提到的msdn文章都不在这些位置

了，

>但响应中的经验法则表明较大的框

*想*

>他们有< = 2gb的页面文件。

是否有某种溢出/ Windows 2003中的签名条件或

ASP.Net

> 2.0其中添加过多的演出和/或页面文件最终有

负

>效果，因为系统无法判断？

谢谢
Mark

Hi...

We''ve been trying to migrate our asp.net apps off older, underpowered
hardware to newer, bigger boxes but when we do, we see our databases start to
melt.

When I started to look into it, I found that the older boxes all had bigger
EffectivePrivateBytesLimit values than the newer boxes, which seems very
counter-intuitive to me. And it seemed to me that a much smaller Cache would
be pushing more requests back to the databases.

The old boxes have 2gb physical ram and 3gb pagefile space set aside. The
newer boxes start at 3gb physical ram and 4gb pagefile space and go up from
there.

We''re not setting any of the machine.config values or IIS Admin settings
that would curb the cache size on any of the boxes. And we have only one
worker process on all of them. All boxes are running Windows 2003 SP2 and
ASP.Net 2.0.

On the smaller boxes, EffectivePrivateBytesLimit = ~60% of physical ram
(1.2gb). On the bigger boxes, EffectivePrivateBytesLimit = 800mb.

I found this thread: http://forums.asp.net/p/962451/1199949.aspx

Neither of the msdn articles mentioned in it are at those locations anymore,
but the rules of thumb in the response indicate that the bigger boxes *think*
they have <= 2gb of page file.

Is there some kind of overflow/signed condition in Windows 2003 or ASP.Net
2.0 where adding too much gig and/or page file ends up having a negative
effect because the system can''t tell?

Thanks
Mark

解决方案

Hi Mark,

As for the EffectivePrivateBytes property, it does be a value indicate the
virtual memory available for cache useage. And this is determined by
several things:

** the ASP.NET process''s memory limit(for IIS6 win2k3, it is set via IIS
application pool''s memory limit)

** the privateBytesLimit attribute of <cacheelement in ASP.NET web.config

If none of the above is set, runtime will automaticalaly calculate one for
you. However, the calculation algorithym is internal implemented and may
vary from server''s hardware condition.

Here is a good blog article written by an senior developer which
introducing some history about ASP.NET cache and its memory limit
configuration:

#Some history on the ASP.NET cache memory limits
http://blogs.msdn.com/tmarq/archive/...-the-asp-net-c
ache-memory-limits.aspx

Sincerely,

Steven Cheng

Microsoft MSDN Online Support Lead
Delighting our customers is our #1 priority. We welcome your comments and
suggestions about how we can improve the support we provide to you. Please
feel free to let my manager know what you think of the level of service
provided. You can send feedback directly to my manager at:
ms****@microsoft.com.

==================================================
Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscripti...ult.aspx#notif
ications.

Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscripti...t/default.aspx.
==================================================
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
--------------------

>From: =?Utf-8?B?TWFyaw==?= <mm******@nospam.nospam>
Subject: Cache.EffectivePrivateBytesLimit shrinks as box gets bigger?
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:47:02 -0700

>
Hi...

We''ve been trying to migrate our asp.net apps off older, underpowered
hardware to newer, bigger boxes but when we do, we see our databases start

to

>melt.

When I started to look into it, I found that the older boxes all had

bigger

>EffectivePrivateBytesLimit values than the newer boxes, which seems very
counter-intuitive to me. And it seemed to me that a much smaller Cache

would

>be pushing more requests back to the databases.

The old boxes have 2gb physical ram and 3gb pagefile space set aside. The
newer boxes start at 3gb physical ram and 4gb pagefile space and go up

from

>there.

We''re not setting any of the machine.config values or IIS Admin settings
that would curb the cache size on any of the boxes. And we have only one
worker process on all of them. All boxes are running Windows 2003 SP2 and
ASP.Net 2.0.

On the smaller boxes, EffectivePrivateBytesLimit = ~60% of physical ram
(1.2gb). On the bigger boxes, EffectivePrivateBytesLimit = 800mb.

I found this thread: http://forums.asp.net/p/962451/1199949.aspx

Neither of the msdn articles mentioned in it are at those locations

anymore,

>but the rules of thumb in the response indicate that the bigger boxes

*think*

>they have <= 2gb of page file.

Is there some kind of overflow/signed condition in Windows 2003 or ASP.Net
2.0 where adding too much gig and/or page file ends up having a negative
effect because the system can''t tell?

Thanks
Mark

Hi Steven...

Thanks for the link; it had all the same information that was in the other
link I posted originally. The problem is that those forumulas don''t seem to
be working in our case.

As I said, we haven''t set any of the configuration parameters to directly
control the cache size and the machine with 2gb of physical ram/3gb page file
is getting more cache space while the machines starting at 3gb phys/4gb page
file are getting a much lower cap.

The fact that the newer, bigger machines are getting
EffectivePrivateBytesLimit coming out at *exactly* 800mb implies that the
MIN() formula was inappropriately applied in their case, hence my question
about the calculation having some overflow boundary where too much space gets
interpreted as too little. They have at least 4gb of pagefile, which should
have applied the formula MIN(60% phys ram, 1800mb). Instead it applied the
smaller case MIN(60% phys ram, 800mb).

The smaller machine EffectivePrivateBytesLimit comes out at 60% of physical
ram (1.2gb of 2) which implies that it recognized the pagefile as 2gb,
according to the formulas.

Thanks
Mark
"Steven Cheng [MSFT]" wrote:

Hi Mark,

As for the EffectivePrivateBytes property, it does be a value indicate the
virtual memory available for cache useage. And this is determined by
several things:

** the ASP.NET process''s memory limit(for IIS6 win2k3, it is set via IIS
application pool''s memory limit)

** the privateBytesLimit attribute of <cacheelement in ASP.NET web.config

If none of the above is set, runtime will automaticalaly calculate one for
you. However, the calculation algorithym is internal implemented and may
vary from server''s hardware condition.

Here is a good blog article written by an senior developer which
introducing some history about ASP.NET cache and its memory limit
configuration:

#Some history on the ASP.NET cache memory limits
http://blogs.msdn.com/tmarq/archive/...-the-asp-net-c
ache-memory-limits.aspx

Sincerely,

Steven Cheng

Microsoft MSDN Online Support Lead
Delighting our customers is our #1 priority. We welcome your comments and
suggestions about how we can improve the support we provide to you. Please
feel free to let my manager know what you think of the level of service
provided. You can send feedback directly to my manager at:
ms****@microsoft.com.

==================================================
Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscripti...ult.aspx#notif
ications.

Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscripti...t/default.aspx.
==================================================
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
--------------------

From: =?Utf-8?B?TWFyaw==?= <mm******@nospam.nospam>
Subject: Cache.EffectivePrivateBytesLimit shrinks as box gets bigger?
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:47:02 -0700

Hi...

We''ve been trying to migrate our asp.net apps off older, underpowered
hardware to newer, bigger boxes but when we do, we see our databases start

to

melt.

When I started to look into it, I found that the older boxes all had

bigger

EffectivePrivateBytesLimit values than the newer boxes, which seems very
counter-intuitive to me. And it seemed to me that a much smaller Cache

would

be pushing more requests back to the databases.

The old boxes have 2gb physical ram and 3gb pagefile space set aside. The
newer boxes start at 3gb physical ram and 4gb pagefile space and go up

from

there.

We''re not setting any of the machine.config values or IIS Admin settings
that would curb the cache size on any of the boxes. And we have only one
worker process on all of them. All boxes are running Windows 2003 SP2 and
ASP.Net 2.0.

On the smaller boxes, EffectivePrivateBytesLimit = ~60% of physical ram
(1.2gb). On the bigger boxes, EffectivePrivateBytesLimit = 800mb.

I found this thread: http://forums.asp.net/p/962451/1199949.aspx

Neither of the msdn articles mentioned in it are at those locations

anymore,

but the rules of thumb in the response indicate that the bigger boxes

*think*

they have <= 2gb of page file.

Is there some kind of overflow/signed condition in Windows 2003 or ASP.Net
2.0 where adding too much gig and/or page file ends up having a negative
effect because the system can''t tell?

Thanks
Mark

Thanks for your reply Mark,

Yes, as you didn''t explicitly set those memory limit value, then the
runtime will help caclulated one for you. So far I haven''t any information
about how to number is calculated, per the document it will rely on
hardware condition also. BTW, on the server machine that has more physical
memory, are there also many other applications running on it? Maybe some
other applications occupy some certain memory or may cause more memory
fragment than the smaller box.

Sincerely,

Steven Cheng

Microsoft MSDN Online Support Lead
Delighting our customers is our #1 priority. We welcome your comments and
suggestions about how we can improve the support we provide to you. Please
feel free to let my manager know what you think of the level of service
provided. You can send feedback directly to my manager at:
ms****@microsoft.com.

==================================================
Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscripti...ult.aspx#notif
ications.

==================================================
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

--------------------

>From: =?Utf-8?B?TWFyaw==?= <mm******@nospam.nospam>
References: <3B**********************************@microsoft.co m>

<hv**************@TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl>

>Subject: RE: Cache.EffectivePrivateBytesLimit shrinks as box gets bigger?
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 07:13:00 -0700

>
Hi Steven...

Thanks for the link; it had all the same information that was in the other
link I posted originally. The problem is that those forumulas don''t seem

to

>be working in our case.

As I said, we haven''t set any of the configuration parameters to directly
control the cache size and the machine with 2gb of physical ram/3gb page

file

>is getting more cache space while the machines starting at 3gb phys/4gb

page

>file are getting a much lower cap.

The fact that the newer, bigger machines are getting
EffectivePrivateBytesLimit coming out at *exactly* 800mb implies that the
MIN() formula was inappropriately applied in their case, hence my question
about the calculation having some overflow boundary where too much space

gets

>interpreted as too little. They have at least 4gb of pagefile, which

should

>have applied the formula MIN(60% phys ram, 1800mb). Instead it applied

the

>smaller case MIN(60% phys ram, 800mb).

The smaller machine EffectivePrivateBytesLimit comes out at 60% of

physical

>ram (1.2gb of 2) which implies that it recognized the pagefile as 2gb,
according to the formulas.

Thanks
Mark
"Steven Cheng [MSFT]" wrote:

>Hi Mark,

As for the EffectivePrivateBytes property, it does be a value indicate

the

>virtual memory available for cache useage. And this is determined by
several things:

** the ASP.NET process''s memory limit(for IIS6 win2k3, it is set via IIS
application pool''s memory limit)

** the privateBytesLimit attribute of <cacheelement in ASP.NET

web.config

>>
If none of the above is set, runtime will automaticalaly calculate one

for

>you. However, the calculation algorithym is internal implemented and may
vary from server''s hardware condition.

Here is a good blog article written by an senior developer which
introducing some history about ASP.NET cache and its memory limit
configuration:

#Some history on the ASP.NET cache memory limits

http://blogs.msdn.com/tmarq/archive/...-the-asp-net-c

>ache-memory-limits.aspx

Sincerely,

Steven Cheng

Microsoft MSDN Online Support Lead
Delighting our customers is our #1 priority. We welcome your comments

and

>suggestions about how we can improve the support we provide to you.

Please

>feel free to let my manager know what you think of the level of service
provided. You can send feedback directly to my manager at:
ms****@microsoft.com.

================================================= =
Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to

http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscripti...ult.aspx#notif

>ications.

Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent

issues

>where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each

follow

>up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
professional working with you may need further investigation to reach

the

>most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for

situations

>that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are

best

>handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by

contacting

>Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscripti...t/default.aspx.
================================================= =
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no

rights.

>>

--------------------

>From: =?Utf-8?B?TWFyaw==?= <mm******@nospam.nospam>
Subject: Cache.EffectivePrivateBytesLimit shrinks as box gets bigger?
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:47:02 -0700

>
Hi...

We''ve been trying to migrate our asp.net apps off older, underpowered
hardware to newer, bigger boxes but when we do, we see our databases

start

>to

>melt.

When I started to look into it, I found that the older boxes all had

bigger

>EffectivePrivateBytesLimit values than the newer boxes, which seems

very

>counter-intuitive to me. And it seemed to me that a much smaller Cache

would

>be pushing more requests back to the databases.

The old boxes have 2gb physical ram and 3gb pagefile space set aside.

The

>newer boxes start at 3gb physical ram and 4gb pagefile space and go up

from

>there.

We''re not setting any of the machine.config values or IIS Admin

settings

>that would curb the cache size on any of the boxes. And we have only

one

>worker process on all of them. All boxes are running Windows 2003 SP2

and

>ASP.Net 2.0.

On the smaller boxes, EffectivePrivateBytesLimit = ~60% of physical ram
(1.2gb). On the bigger boxes, EffectivePrivateBytesLimit = 800mb.

I found this thread: http://forums.asp.net/p/962451/1199949.aspx

Neither of the msdn articles mentioned in it are at those locations

anymore,

>but the rules of thumb in the response indicate that the bigger boxes

*think*

>they have <= 2gb of page file.

Is there some kind of overflow/signed condition in Windows 2003 or

ASP.Net

>2.0 where adding too much gig and/or page file ends up having a

negative

>effect because the system can''t tell?

Thanks
Mark

这篇关于当box变大时，Cache.EffectivePrivateBytesLimit会缩小吗？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！