"Eli" <Eli@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5D23EFC5-6240-47E3-AF83-B8B0CB0DC5D7@microsoft.com...
> Ok, it's by design, pretty weird design, by ok.
> Now, how can I handle this, design or not, it is a problem.
>
> Limiting the max memory? Stopping and starring the process of the SQL?
> What is the best practice for it?
>
> Eli.
>
>
>
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> Not leaking, it is by design
>>
>> INF: SQL Server Memory Usage
>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;321363
>>
>> Regards
>> --------------------------------
>> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>> Zurich, Switzerland
>>
>> IM: mike@epprecht.net
>>
>> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
>>
>> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
>>
>> "Eli" <Eli@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:3444B8D1-3E64-4EF3-B457-2EFB5543C0C7@microsoft.com...
>> > Hello.
>> >
>> > Our company is running an application that uses the MSDE 2000 (SP4), to
>> > load
>> > large amount of data using bulk inserts.
>> >
>> > The sqlservr.exe process increases from the 4-10MB that it starts with
>> > to
>> > 80-100MB after all transactions has been completed.
>> > When starting a new transaction session, the process just continue to
>> > grow
>> > causing the OS to perform poorly.
>> >
>> > Ok, I understand that while on an insert transaction, the memory should
>> > grow
>> > but when we are done, why doesn't it release the resources?
>> >
>> > You can see that this is a bad behavior if you just close the process
>> > manually and start it again, the memory will start with 4-10MB, and the
>> > application still works, meaning that the exe have lots of unused
>> > resources.
>> >
>> > What can I do about that (other than limiting the memory size to xMB)?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>