<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blogs.msdn.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Slava Oks's WebLog</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/</link><description /><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>Telligent Evolution Platform Developer Build (Build: 5.6.50428.7875)</generator><item><title>Changing gears</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/2007/03/07/changing-gears.aspx</link><pubDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2007 19:15:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:1829045</guid><dc:creator>slavao</dc:creator><slash:comments>1</slash:comments><wfw:commentRss xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/rsscomments.aspx?WeblogPostID=1829045</wfw:commentRss><comments>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/2007/03/07/changing-gears.aspx#comments</comments><description>You haven't heard from me in while and there is a reason. I moved from SQL Server's Storage Engine team to a new incubation team that is involved in exploring new directions in operating systems. This subject area has been always very fascinating for...(&lt;a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/2007/03/07/changing-gears.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=1829045" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/tags/Q_2600_amp_3B00_A/">Q&amp;amp;A</category></item><item><title>Q and A: Ratio between AWE Allocated and VM Committed/Reserved in DBCC MEMORYSTATUS output</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/2007/01/02/q-and-a-ratio-between-awe-allocated-and-vm-committed-reserved-in-dbcc-memorystatus-output.aspx</link><pubDate>Wed, 03 Jan 2007 04:02:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:1401167</guid><dc:creator>slavao</dc:creator><slash:comments>1</slash:comments><wfw:commentRss xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/rsscomments.aspx?WeblogPostID=1401167</wfw:commentRss><comments>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/2007/01/02/q-and-a-ratio-between-awe-allocated-and-vm-committed-reserved-in-dbcc-memorystatus-output.aspx#comments</comments><description>Q: What kind of ratio should you expect to see between AWE Allocated and VM Committed/Reserved? We are running 8GB with a cap of 7GB in the max server memory and yet the VM Committed is around 100MB. I was first shocked to see that the sqlservice in task...(&lt;a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/2007/01/02/q-and-a-ratio-between-awe-allocated-and-vm-committed-reserved-in-dbcc-memorystatus-output.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=1401167" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/tags/SQL+Server+Memory+Management/">SQL Server Memory Management</category><category domain="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/tags/Memory+Management/">Memory Management</category><category domain="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/tags/Q_2600_amp_3B00_A/">Q&amp;amp;A</category></item><item><title>Q &amp; A: I am running on 64 bit and all of my tasks are waiting on SOS_RESERVEDMEMBLOCKLIST, What is going on?</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/2006/11/14/q-a-i-am-running-on-64-bit-and-all-of-my-tasks-are-waiting-on-sos-reservedmemblocklist-what-is-going-on.aspx</link><pubDate>Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:29:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:1076414</guid><dc:creator>slavao</dc:creator><slash:comments>3</slash:comments><wfw:commentRss xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/rsscomments.aspx?WeblogPostID=1076414</wfw:commentRss><comments>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/2006/11/14/q-a-i-am-running-on-64-bit-and-all-of-my-tasks-are-waiting-on-sos-reservedmemblocklist-what-is-going-on.aspx#comments</comments><description>This wait type represents waiting on multi page allocations inside of SQLOS's memory manager. As you remember from my description of memory manager's working internals, it has two major allocators single page allocator, SPA and multi page allocator, MPA...(&lt;a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/2006/11/14/q-a-i-am-running-on-64-bit-and-all-of-my-tasks-are-waiting-on-sos-reservedmemblocklist-what-is-going-on.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=1076414" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/tags/Memory+Management/">Memory Management</category><category domain="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/tags/Q_2600_amp_3B00_A/">Q&amp;amp;A</category></item><item><title>SQLOSDMV's Continue</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/2006/11/14/sqlosdmv-s-continue.aspx</link><pubDate>Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:26:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:1076371</guid><dc:creator>slavao</dc:creator><slash:comments>1</slash:comments><wfw:commentRss xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/rsscomments.aspx?WeblogPostID=1076371</wfw:commentRss><comments>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/2006/11/14/sqlosdmv-s-continue.aspx#comments</comments><description>sys.dm_os_waiting_tasks 
 One can run lots of interesting queries using this view. You can even use this view to perform deadlock detection that is not resolvable by deadlock monitor, DM. For example if you have tasks waiting on external resources such...(&lt;a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/2006/11/14/sqlosdmv-s-continue.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=1076371" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/tags/SQL+Server+Scheduling/">SQL Server Scheduling</category><category domain="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/tags/SQLOS_2700_s+DMVs/">SQLOS's DMVs</category></item><item><title>Q &amp; A: Does SQL Server always respond to memory pressure?</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/2006/11/13/q-a-does-sql-server-always-respond-to-memory-pressure.aspx</link><pubDate>Mon, 13 Nov 2006 23:39:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:1071488</guid><dc:creator>slavao</dc:creator><slash:comments>8</slash:comments><wfw:commentRss xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/rsscomments.aspx?WeblogPostID=1071488</wfw:commentRss><comments>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/2006/11/13/q-a-does-sql-server-always-respond-to-memory-pressure.aspx#comments</comments><description>Q: I thought I've seen reference recently to problems with SQL2005 not releasing memory when under pressure, and this was possibly due to the Lock Pages In Memory option. We have a server where this seems to be happening, i.e. SQL2005 uses all available...(&lt;a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/2006/11/13/q-a-does-sql-server-always-respond-to-memory-pressure.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=1071488" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/tags/SQL+Server+Memory+Management/">SQL Server Memory Management</category><category domain="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/tags/Q_2600_amp_3B00_A/">Q&amp;amp;A</category></item><item><title>SQLOS's DMVs Continue</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/2006/09/28/776437.aspx</link><pubDate>Fri, 29 Sep 2006 05:22:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:776437</guid><dc:creator>slavao</dc:creator><slash:comments>6</slash:comments><wfw:commentRss xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/rsscomments.aspx?WeblogPostID=776437</wfw:commentRss><comments>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/2006/09/28/776437.aspx#comments</comments><description>sys.dm_os_schedulers 
 
 Q. Do I need to by more CPUs? 
 In order to answer this question you have to find out if your load is really CPU bounded. Your load is really CPU bounded if a number of runnable tasks per each scheduler always greater than...(&lt;a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/2006/09/28/776437.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=776437" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/tags/SQL+Server+Scheduling/">SQL Server Scheduling</category><category domain="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/tags/SQLOS/">SQLOS</category><category domain="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/tags/SQLOS_2700_s+DMVs/">SQLOS's DMVs</category></item><item><title>SQLOS's DMVs</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/2006/08/22/713357.aspx</link><pubDate>Wed, 23 Aug 2006 02:54:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:713357</guid><dc:creator>slavao</dc:creator><slash:comments>8</slash:comments><wfw:commentRss xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/rsscomments.aspx?WeblogPostID=713357</wfw:commentRss><comments>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/2006/08/22/713357.aspx#comments</comments><description>SQL Server 2005 has a large number of DMVs that you can take advantage of especially when you try to understand behavioral characteristics of your SQL Server 2005 installation. DMVs expose enormous amount of information but how can you make use of it...(&lt;a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/2006/08/22/713357.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=713357" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/tags/SQLOS/">SQLOS</category><category domain="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/tags/SQLOS_2700_s+DMVs/">SQLOS's DMVs</category></item><item><title>Talking points around SQL Server 2005 scalability </title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/2006/08/03/687625.aspx</link><pubDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:09:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:687625</guid><dc:creator>slavao</dc:creator><slash:comments>10</slash:comments><wfw:commentRss xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/rsscomments.aspx?WeblogPostID=687625</wfw:commentRss><comments>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/2006/08/03/687625.aspx#comments</comments><description>Couple of weeks ago I did a talk on SQL Server 2005 scalability. The actual talk was not about the enormous amount of features that you can leverage in SQL Serve 2005 to make your application scale but rather how SQL 2005 achieves its scalability. In...(&lt;a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/2006/08/03/687625.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=687625" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/tags/SQL+Server+Memory+Management/">SQL Server Memory Management</category><category domain="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/tags/SQL+Server+Scheduling/">SQL Server Scheduling</category></item><item><title>Q &amp; A: I can't make SQL Server 2005 32 bit version to use all memory on the machine </title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/2006/08/03/687573.aspx</link><pubDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:41:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:687573</guid><dc:creator>slavao</dc:creator><slash:comments>6</slash:comments><wfw:commentRss xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/rsscomments.aspx?WeblogPostID=687573</wfw:commentRss><comments>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/2006/08/03/687573.aspx#comments</comments><description>I’m currently using the RTM+SP1 x86-SQL2005 build on a server which has 32GB of physical memory. I notice that during ramp-up the memory usage (as seen under task manager) increases to about 28GB (i.e. “Available memory” reduces to 4GB) and stays there...(&lt;a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/2006/08/03/687573.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=687573" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/tags/SQL+Server+Memory+Management/">SQL Server Memory Management</category><category domain="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/tags/Q_2600_A/">Q&amp;A</category></item><item><title>Set of new features in SQL Server 2005 enabled by SQLOS</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/2006/04/12/575185.aspx</link><pubDate>Wed, 12 Apr 2006 21:57:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:575185</guid><dc:creator>slavao</dc:creator><slash:comments>4</slash:comments><wfw:commentRss xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/rsscomments.aspx?WeblogPostID=575185</wfw:commentRss><comments>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/2006/04/12/575185.aspx#comments</comments><description>Couple of weeks ago I had a chance to visit set of our customers and talk to them directly. It was an unforgettable experience. As a part of the visit I made set of presentations related to SQLOS and new features it enables in SQL Server 2005. I thought...(&lt;a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/2006/04/12/575185.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=575185" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/tags/SQL+Server+Memory+Management/">SQL Server Memory Management</category><category domain="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/tags/SQL+Server+Scheduling/">SQL Server Scheduling</category><category domain="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/slavao/archive/tags/SQLOS/">SQLOS</category></item></channel></rss>