Forum Discussion
Understanding Memory Thrashing
One symptom, I think: during one of those periods of memory thrashing, I had a scheduled dataset refresh fail, with the following error...
You have reached the maximum allowable memory allocation for your tier.
Consider upgrading to a tier with more available memory.
The command has been canceled..
The exception was raised by the IDbCommand interface.
- Hi there
It looks like it could be happening if your datasets are sitting say at above 12.5GB and then a refresh is happening, which will mean it requires another 12.5GB in order to refresh the data. Which could go over the memory allocation for your P1 node.
Also do you have any Row Level Security Defined in your data models? The reason that I ask is because that will mean more users will consume more memory. And if there are other datasets in use, and a refresh starts to happen you will get the error above.Thanks GilbertQ...
My average memory usage, for the whole capacity, is 6 GB. Looking at the line chart, generally it hovers between 5 to 7 GB.
The two large datasets are refreshed every 2 hours, around the clock. At periods during which one of the large datasets is being refreshed, memory usage for the capacity typically goes up to around 7 GB. Occasionally the dataset refreshes take longer than usual, and the refreshes of the two datasets overlap; even when both datasets are being refreshed simultaneously, memory usage for the capacity typically does not exceed 10 GB.
Looking again at the memory usage data export...which shows memory usage for each three-minute period during the last week...there were only 16 "three-minute periods" (out of 3,360 periods) where memory usage exceeded 10 GB. Maybe those were periods of high report consumption, and/or data refreshes -- I'm not sure.
All of that is just to say that it seems like my datasets are never "sitting at above 12.5 GB" -- right? So again, I can't figure out why there would ever be dataset eviction/thrashing.
- Thanks for the details. It appears that there shouldn't be any memory thrashing.
I would suggest logging a support ticket for on of the engineers to have a look and possibly have more information to better understanding why this is happening
