Hello..

First of all I must say I'm a Windows user and Power user, and have no intentions of working with Linux or MAC OS, when at work it's needed I'll work with Linux and MAC but I'm no fan boy of them..

So don't think this just another hate topic on Vista and Server 2008.. Far from that.. This is my own experience and that's all..

I have a Server machine at home, where I have my own shared files for my home network and work on VPN's from my clients using it..

Also, I have legit Windows Server 2003 and Windows Server 2008 licenses, for enterprise versions..

Yes very expensive licenses, but I had and have the money so why not and it's not like I have to buy it each year or two

Also it's good to have a nice real Test Lab ( I use sometimes server virtualization software, but prefer the real deal ) when I need to test configurations to apply to my clients servers..

I had Windows Server 2003 32bit, installed until 3 months ago, when I made the decision to migrate for Windows Server 2008 32bit, so I could learn the new features and changes made since 2003.. Always best to know what your costumers may need and how to do it..

My hardware is not a High-end Luxury System or last or current generation, but for a file server and VPN connections I think it's very good..

P4 3.0 HT Prescott - Nvidia 6200 256MB, 2 Sata disks 320GB and 500GB, Gigabit LAN, 2 GB of DDR 400 Kingston..

So after I installed Windows Server 2008, I noted a very big decrease on performance, comparing to 2003, on daily use..

But I thought well, maybe the drivers aren't really Windows Server 2008 optimized, I guess I should just wait a few months to see what the Manufactures release..

Also, I understand that every new OS uses more System resources and I don't have a problem with that, I mean XP was released on 2001, Vista on 2006, more new features usually mean more Hardware power needed to run it and Hardware Manufactures need to earn more money for there shareholders

And now after installing a Torrent client, Azureus 3.1.0.0 ( yes it's not the more light one, but it works like I want ), it uses 100MB - 150MB and Windows Server 2008 has 0 free RAM available.. And no other 3rd party software is running..

So how the hell ( apology for the expression ) does Windows Server 2008 needs 2 GB of Ram to run a Torrent client?
And yes, this is after a fresh restart..

Sure Windows Vista has the feature of using all RAM available to load the applications faster, but Windows Server 2008 has that off by default..

My pagefile.sys is being heavily used on a machine with 2 GB of RAM..

My last retry will be with VLite, I'll try to remove some components that I don't need and check if is one of them that's causing such a bloated OS.. It's bad for me since I may need to test one of them, but well...

Is this acceptable, 2 GB of RAM wasted by Windows Server 2008 on a Torrent client?

Sure RAM is cheap this days, but please do I need 3 GB or even migrating to 64 bit and have 8GB of RAM to run a Torrent client on Windows Server 2008???

Thank you for reading my Topic

I don't even know what this Windows 2008 you speak of is!

I'm guessing windows server 2008 ?

Windows Server 2008, successor to Windows Server 2003.

Here you go

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_2008

A better question would by why are you running a Torrent client on a server?

I have recently setup server 200 on my dev box. an old dell dimension 2800 with 1GB RAM and a celeron 2.8 processor. And it runs fine. No slowdowns with the usual roles installed: AD, DNS, DHCP, etc

It's simple, my desktop MB has broken on Friday, and I have to wait 2 weeks for a replacement..
So I need the Server to run the torrent client..

Also what's the problem on that? I mean, is there a reason for a Windows Server OS not to run a torrent client application?
I don't think so..

But back on topic, the only thing I can think of, are the drivers..
But drivers for Vista should run fine on Windows Server 2008, after all they share the same core

Well, servers are just that, servers. They should be configured and left alone.

I have not used Azureus in a while but last time i did it was Java based. Could be that Java is creating your high usage? Have you tried other torrent clients?

Seems to me you installed Azureus and then spat your dummy out because it used too much CPU.
Did you even look at what was eating up your cpu usage?

Why don't you check Task manager and the Reliability and Performance monitor to see what's hogging your processor, harddrive and memory then?

Checked your processes in task manager? Whats the most RAM consuming process?

i think your biggest problem here is running 2008 on an old platform. that machine is considered ancient these days. i bet most of those issues would completely disappear w/ modern hardware. i beta tested 2008 on an older Pentium 4 server and it ran really well. i havent used it since RC1 though.

Fist of all anyone that can afford to pay for a REAL version of Server 2008 for a desktop machine MUST have the money to shove some NEW hardware to it. Also, server 2008 LOVES memory. I wouldn't even attempt to run it with less then 4GB.

+1

Did you switch the Advanced memory options from System Cache to Programs... That could possibly be why it is using more resources...and also under the Processor Scheduling from Background Services to programs.

Those two options are the main difference in how Windows uses Memory and Processor between a Server OS and a Desktop OS.

I told in topic post that this a Lab machine..

I have no problems with CPU usage, It's RAM I'm concerned..

Also I've been a Neowin member since 2001, with almost 8 years around and only 500 posts, why?

Because I don't come here posting stuff at the first minute of a problem, I do my research first and only after no real clues found, I came here posting in the forums asking for help on people who might had that problem before and may present a solution..



Ofcourse I did, how would I know other way on what RAM I had available and what RAM Azureus was using..

Theres like 20 or 30 services/processes running from the OS itself, all using 15, 16, 17 MB etc.. But that's normal..
Windows needs those services and processes started and running





Like I said Azureus using 100 - 150 MB of RAM






I agree it isn't the best and newest hardware around, but I think it's not that bad right?

I thought 2 GB should run Windows Server 2008 and Azureus just fine, but I was wrong





I didn't say I wouldn't if needed, buy new Hardware, I was just not expecting a so much heavy OS on RAM..

And because Windows Server 2003 run so well on it, I didn't think a upgrade was needed..

Please I gave in 2005, 4000€ for my MCSE certification on Windows Server 2003, even if I didn't want to buy Windows Server licenses I have at home 6 Server 2003 CD's with 6 Test serials for 6 months each..

But I did the right thing and bought a 2008 license, what's wrong with that?

The 2003 license was bought to me, by me ex boss, for me to learn stuff on company's we worked on that the time..

Also I have just renew my TechNet subscription.. So please stop the nonsense that it's a lie my licenses..

I work for my own and earn well, Networks is a well paid job here in Portugal..

Right Click on your My Computer ... Choose properties.... advanced tab... then under performance... click settings...then the advanced tab again...

That is where you find the Processor Scheduling and the Memory usage options I was talking about.

In XP it is both set form Programs. On servers it is set for Background Services and also System Cache.

Probably the one you want to change is the one from System Cache to Programs. But try both and see if it Makes any improvement.

Sorry I didn't reply to your first post, I've missed it

I'm not around the server right now, but I remember when I installed the OS to have done that

First off you do not have only 0 MB of RAM left, you might want to look up how memory is managed now... its just just holding stuff in use, its holding predictive loaded items also... second off... no way in heck do you only have 0 MB left... at work on a REAL server we have SQL Server which uses massive amounts of caching in memory on a 4GB 64bit system (this is a test system our live system has 64GB of RAM) and it NEVER ran out of memory, ever... and this is on W2K8 Server x64 Standard edition...

Are you sure that your server actually has a problem and that the ram has not been consumed just for caching just like vista. it may be that there's no problem at all...

If you use it like an a "real" server do the server functions perform slowly? eg: file and print, web, db etc

I agree i am doing the same thing with Windows 2008 Server x64 + SQL Server 2005 x64 + Virtual Server 2005 SP1 x64. It's mainly used for testing in which i have a few 13-20GB Databases.

The machine is a P4 3.60GHZ 4GB RAM 1TB SATA Machine and it runs quicker than Windows 2003.

First i was sceptical, however after running some file sharing and database tasks on it, i was impressed with it's improved memory management and very fast file sharing.

The server idles on about 700-800MB usage in task manager, however you do have to reprogram yourself to read the task manager in a different way. Windows 2003 would show about 200MB usage however Windows 2008 is reporting a more correct view of your memory usage. It separates the physical ram (in graph display) from the pagefile.

When performing some complex sql queries on the 13GB databases the memory usage went straight up to the full 4GB usage with the pagefile coming into play a lot more. However after a few minutes of inactivity the usage went back down to 700-800MB mark.

I would really recommend trying windows 2008 again, perhaps trying the x64 edition. I think it would help you in the future as Microsoft is pushing their server technologies hard over to x64 so it would make an excellent learning environment for your lab.

I'm running 2008 with 2gb and 100 people hitting it as a fileserver, no problems whatsoever. In fact I'm finding my 2003 secondary DC server on that particular domain runs shittier than the 2008.

Server 2008 functions exactly like Vista when it comes to memory allocation, it'll preload as much as it can in cache, hence the "0" Ram available
should you look more closely at your task manager, you'll see something like
Physical Memory :
Total : 2048
Cached : 1300+
Free : 0

As soon as you'll load applicatons not in the cache you'll see the cache value decreasing, which is absolutely normal

On the performance issues... my personal home server is a Dual Core AMD Opteron 185 (socket 939..not exactly brand new...) with 2Gb of DDR400 runing on a pair of raided raptors (Raid1) and with 4 1Tb drives in Raid 5 for storage, I have 4 websites, 2 FTPs, 6 teamspeak server instances and it also serves as a HD Streamer for my HTPC setup... Windows Server 2008 Std just flies on that setup, I don't see how it wouldn't on a similarly powerful setup like yours.

so you got windows server 2008 so you know how to service your "clients," but your problem is with torrent which I am sure you are only using for legal file sharing. Do all your "clients" also use torrents? Usually "clients" who use torrents do their own thing and do not hire someone else to do work on their servers.

Also uTorrent doesn't eat system resources as much as others do.

I thought SuperFetch was disabled by default on Server 2008? That is the caching service you are referring to in Vista, so if you turned on the service on your server, yes that will happen, otherwise I have rebooted my Server 2008 just now and the cache is very small even though having several apps open frequenelty.

The resource handling can't be compared between Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 1:1 but they are alike. Windows 6.0 and up allocates your memory even if you don't use it.
This has nothing to with SuperFetch. It's been proven chached memory (reserved by the OS) works faster then allocating free memory.

So .. like the posts above me said .. you're reading the numbers wrong.

Also .. you say you're an MCSE .. then you should know better then to just jump in and run 2008 without looking into the core.
I highly recommend reading trough TechNet Server 2008 at least to get to know it better.
Invest in some books .. they are hardly 50$ a piece. You only need about 3 to get your MCTS/MCITP for 2008. Less if you upgrade from MCSE / MCSA.

Try the new performance monitor and let it log your usage numbers for a while. You can then generate reports on nearly every aspect of your system.
I've used this week in the field for a Windows Server 2008 deployment project... had it log every aspect of the system for the duration of a LAN deployment. Gave me precise figures on what one concurrent deploy ate up on resources and helps me plan my architecture as a whole.

Also as a side note: Your 2008 should not run slow. I run server 2008 on a daily basis on comparable servers and in virtualized scenarios. My virtual pc's / vmwares never have more then 900MB each and they all run sailing smooth.

Windows 2008 server runs waaaaaaaaaay better than Vista dude. I hate Vista. I was using XP until a few days ago when I started reading articles about Server 2008 performing better than Vista. After reading all the reports and tests, I figured I try it myself. I got a copy of the Trial version and I installed it. Enabled Aero and everything else needed to play games, etc and I must say I am quite impressed. Its not a memory hog like Vista. Only 32 processes running. I even installed Unreal Tournament 3 on it and plays so smooth its not funny. I like it. Its the way Vista should have been.

Uh Scorbing? Vista SP1 and Win Server 2008 both have the same code base. It's nothing different.

Shhh.... don't feed the Mojave trolls. He's obviously a placebo subject.

Obviously so, lol. I haven't had any problems on my 4-yr-old Dell (blue font in my sig) - and I have had Vista *since* Beta 2. I then got a 64-bit laptop (green font in sig) on Monday, 8/4/08 and Vista Home Premium 64-bit works like a beauty.

Dudes, one thing that annoyed me about Vista was that I could see a YouTube video full screen. On server 2008 I can see it just fine. But this is nothing. There are other annoying things that Vista did that server 2008 does not do. For example, I was always getting an error when I installed and used my Canon printer. On server 2008 I get no errors. Works like a charm. Server 2008 is not bloated with useless garbage like Vista is so don't try to come and tell me that Vista and server 2008 are the same. They may have the same core, but they are totally different operating systems. Server is much more secure than Vista is so please don't even try to tell me they are the same. Read the test results.

so you have counted up all your running processes (including Azureus) and determined that it is using less than the 2GB of RAM, but because Windows 2008 is allocating memory somewhere else, which is bringing the total to 2GB, you have determined that the OS is faulty. I think that instead of thowing in the towel just because task manager is telling you that you have used up all your RAM, maybe you should be investigating deeper to find where this RAM has gone so you can learn this new OS that you are going to end up using sooner or later (wasn't this the point of this lab you have set up).

My theory is that the memory is being used by the Kernel for some pre-fetching like Vista does (I have not heard of this feature being able to be disabled, or off by default. If anything, I would think that it's on by default to improve performance). Try selecting the View option in Task Manager to "Show kernel times".

Server 2008 does not have Superfetch active. It is turned off by default so he must be having a problem somewhere else.

Works fine for me so most likely driver issue



Erm, Canon printer, Canon driver, Canon problem...



Sure it is, keep the tin foil hat pulled on nice and tight...

"Erm, Canon printer, Canon driver, Canon problem"

How come it doesn't happen on Server 2008 then? I used the exact same driver on Vista.

"Works fine for me so most likely driver issue"

Again, I used the exact same Nvidia driver I used on Vista yet on Server 2008 everything worked fine.

"Sure it is, keep the tin foil hat pulled on nice and tight... "

Server 2008 security is much tighter than Vista's and anyone with half a brain knows that.

I'm not sure i understand. You're complaining that 2008 can't even run azureus without slowing the pc down, and yet you also said that it's only using ~100mb - that's less than 10% of your ram. I'd say your problem lies somewhere else.

You also mentioned intensive hard disk i/o, most likely the pagefile; have you tried showing the pagefile usage, and check which app/service is using most of it?

Well for those who have a whole brain:

Maybe some believe Windows 2008 is more secure because it has the following:

UAC
DEP
EFS
Privilege level restriction
Memory obfuscation
IE Protected mode

Oh wait, Vista's got all of those, so Windows 2008 exclusively has:

Support for 128- and 256-bit AES encryption for the Kerberos authentication protocol.
New cryptography (CNG) API which supports elliptic curve cryptography and improved certificate management.
Secure Socket Tunneling Protocol, a new Microsoft proprietary VPN protocol.
AuthIP, a Microsoft proprietary extension of the IKE cryptographic protocol used in IPsec VPN networks.

All very useful in a home environment...

dont forget dude that your running a server OS on a non server hardware, im just saying that i forgot what the type of ram they use, but theres special hardware needed to get the full potiental from the OS server, and the hardware are mega expensive, like 1 Gb of that special ram is over the roof, i dont know the name of it, im sure someone will help me out with that. but especially running on DDR1 ram and P4, i doubt you will be able to speed things up if you upgraded to a minor set up... think about the year WS2008 came out lol .. not 2000...

Special hardware and special memory you say? LOL

Dude if you see how fast this thing is running right now on my rig...you'll be amazed.

People people settle down .. I have been working with both Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 since they hit post-Beta's and I can tell you, just like others in this thread, they are IDENTICAL.

The only difference in out of the box is configuration of presentation (input services, themes, audio, etc) and the different configuration of resource management (more service centric vs application centric).

That's it. 2008 = Vista. Vista = 2008. 2008 has certain new encryption features and improved management options for enterprise level control. Further more 2008 brings new features natively to the scene (stuff like Gateway TS server, TS broker, native WDS).

The desktop, as you see it (as a workstation), are the same. They should perform the same. Perhaps your 2008 have newer/better/other drivers making it seem 2008 is better or faster.

It's Azureus. I was a long time Azureus user and loved it, but it's just too much of a java based resource hog. Running Windows Server 2008 w/ 3GB of memory, core 2 duo. Moved to uTorrent and not only has the OS been less laggy, but the download speeds have improved. I ran utorrent in server 2008 for a few weeks after the change, and now actuallly have setup Vista in a hyper-v and have all my downloads going there and it runs really well, allocated a gig to Vista (so I can remote in and have aero running -not through the hyper-v manager, but through an actual rdp from non-server boxes -laptop/workstation).

I installed Win 2008 Server Std as a second os as a dual boot.
Specs:
X3210 Quad@3.6ghz/AC Freezer Pro
P5K Premium/4x1Gb GSkill F2-6400CL5-1GBNQ
8800GTX 768mb/ ASUS DRW-1814BLT DVD
2x36Gb WD Raptors Raid0/WD 80gb sata
Creative SoundBlaster X-Fi Fatality Extreme Gamer
Lian Li Pc-7B plusII/PC Power and Cooling 850 SSI Turbo
Logitech Z-5500 5.1 speaker system

I have to say it fly's. It is much more responsive than XP. This is after being properly configured. It is just like Vista with the crap turned off by default and naturally the overhead of being a server os. Took a few hours of turning off some services, enabling others so it runs as a proper desktop os.

It runs crysis better than on the xp rig and most apps if not all. Biggest issue was finding a Antivirus that works because most will not install unless purchasing a server antivirus at greater expense.

Personally I love it, unfortunately its only for 60 days.