caching problem

Hi all gurus
I am using windows 2003 sp2 with SQL Server 2005 SP2. Its a 16 GB
ram , intel xeon 8 processor machine.
We have 2 files file1 with 15,000 query and file2 with 60,000 query.
if run file2 alone it takes first 6 mins and if i run it second time
it takes 2 mins.
so this time it uses caches and returns result in 2 mins
So its taking benefit of cache.
file2 first 5 min
file2 second 2 min
But when i run file1 it takes 2 minutes and file2 takes 6 mins.
After then again if i run file1 again it takes again 2 mins and file2
takes 5 mins.
memory goes to 10 GB from 16 GB.
file1 first 2 min
file2 first 5 min
file1 second 2 min
file2 second 5 min
here second time when i run this files it doesn't take benefit of
cache and take same time
so why when i run both files sequentially 2 times 2nd time its not
taking benefit of caching even 6 GB of memory available.If there is 6
GB memory available then it should keep all data in cache and give
fast results second time.
Is there any limitation for caching or query plan? running 2 different
files will drop cache?What exactly do you mean by files and 15,000 query? And if sql server is
using all 16GB then you have a problem with your configuration. You need to
set a MAX Memory setting of no more than 14GB to leave room for the OS to do
it's job.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
<shahdharti@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e1cf9402-53a0-4cfc-932d-cb98811fe848@.i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Hi all gurus
> I am using windows 2003 sp2 with SQL Server 2005 SP2. Its a 16 GB
> ram , intel xeon 8 processor machine.
> We have 2 files file1 with 15,000 query and file2 with 60,000 query.
>
> if run file2 alone it takes first 6 mins and if i run it second time
> it takes 2 mins.
> so this time it uses caches and returns result in 2 mins
> So its taking benefit of cache.
> file2 first 5 min
> file2 second 2 min
> But when i run file1 it takes 2 minutes and file2 takes 6 mins.
> After then again if i run file1 again it takes again 2 mins and file2
> takes 5 mins.
> memory goes to 10 GB from 16 GB.
> file1 first 2 min
> file2 first 5 min
> file1 second 2 min
> file2 second 5 min
> here second time when i run this files it doesn't take benefit of
> cache and take same time
> so why when i run both files sequentially 2 times 2nd time its not
> taking benefit of caching even 6 GB of memory available.If there is 6
> GB memory available then it should keep all data in cache and give
> fast results second time.
> Is there any limitation for caching or query plan? running 2 different
> files will drop cache?|||On Jan 10, 11:04 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
wrote:
> What exactly do you mean by files and 15,000 query? And if sql server is
> using all 16GB then you have a problem with your configuration. You need to
> set a MAX Memory setting of no more than 14GB to leave room for the OS to do
> it's job.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> Solid Quality Mentors
> <shahdha...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e1cf9402-53a0-4cfc-932d-cb98811fe848@.i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > Hi all gurus
> > I am using windows 2003 sp2 with SQL Server 2005 SP2. Its a 16 GB
> > ram , intel xeon 8 processor machine.
> > We have 2 files file1 with 15,000 query and file2 with 60,000 query.
> > if run file2 alone it takes first 6 mins and if i run it second time
> > it takes 2 mins.
> > so this time it uses caches and returns result in 2 mins
> > So its taking benefit of cache.
> > file2 first 5 min
> > file2 second 2 min
> > But when i run file1 it takes 2 minutes and file2 takes 6 mins.
> > After then again if i run file1 again it takes again 2 mins and file2
> > takes 5 mins.
> > memory goes to 10 GB from 16 GB.
> > file1 first 2 min
> > file2 first 5 min
> > file1 second 2 min
> > file2 second 5 min
> > here second time when i run this files it doesn't take benefit of
> > cache and take same time
> > so why when i run both files sequentially 2 times 2nd time its not
> > taking benefit of caching even 6 GB of memory available.If there is 6
> > GB memory available then it should keep all data in cache and give
> > fast results second time.
> > Is there any limitation for caching or query plan? running 2 different
> > files will drop cache?
Hi Andrew
there are about 15000 select queries in first file and 60000 select
queries in second file. And MS is not using more than 10 GB.
Problem is that if i run only one file 2 times then at second time is
uses cache, but if I run file sequentially 2 time then its not using
cache.
why its doing so?|||60K selects? Wow that is one heck of a report. You said initially that
the memory went from 10GB to 16GB and now you are saying it is not using
more than 10GB. How are you determining this? What I said memory wise is
still true regardless and should be changed if not that way now. The
scenario you use is in no way proof that the cache is not being used. There
are many things that can cause this behavior. Poorly executed parallel plans
or blocking for instance can easily account for these numbers. Did you check
for blocking? Did you look at the file stats to see how much physical I/O
you are doing? And how large is the database itself?
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
<shahdharti@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f38dfcd7-42f4-4875-a6fb-9326c08a55b5@.i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 10, 11:04 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
> wrote:
>> What exactly do you mean by files and 15,000 query? And if sql server
>> is
>> using all 16GB then you have a problem with your configuration. You need
>> to
>> set a MAX Memory setting of no more than 14GB to leave room for the OS to
>> do
>> it's job.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> Solid Quality Mentors
>> <shahdha...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:e1cf9402-53a0-4cfc-932d-cb98811fe848@.i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> > Hi all gurus
>> > I am using windows 2003 sp2 with SQL Server 2005 SP2. Its a 16 GB
>> > ram , intel xeon 8 processor machine.
>> > We have 2 files file1 with 15,000 query and file2 with 60,000 query.
>> > if run file2 alone it takes first 6 mins and if i run it second time
>> > it takes 2 mins.
>> > so this time it uses caches and returns result in 2 mins
>> > So its taking benefit of cache.
>> > file2 first 5 min
>> > file2 second 2 min
>> > But when i run file1 it takes 2 minutes and file2 takes 6 mins.
>> > After then again if i run file1 again it takes again 2 mins and file2
>> > takes 5 mins.
>> > memory goes to 10 GB from 16 GB.
>> > file1 first 2 min
>> > file2 first 5 min
>> > file1 second 2 min
>> > file2 second 5 min
>> > here second time when i run this files it doesn't take benefit of
>> > cache and take same time
>> > so why when i run both files sequentially 2 times 2nd time its not
>> > taking benefit of caching even 6 GB of memory available.If there is 6
>> > GB memory available then it should keep all data in cache and give
>> > fast results second time.
>> > Is there any limitation for caching or query plan? running 2 different
>> > files will drop cache?
> Hi Andrew
> there are about 15000 select queries in first file and 60000 select
> queries in second file. And MS is not using more than 10 GB.
> Problem is that if i run only one file 2 times then at second time is
> uses cache, but if I run file sequentially 2 time then its not using
> cache.
> why its doing so?|||On Jan 11, 12:22 am, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
wrote:
> 60K selects? Wow that is one heck of a report. You said initially that
> the memory went from 10GB to 16GB and now you are saying it is not using
> more than 10GB. How are you determining this? What I said memory wise is
> still true regardless and should be changed if not that way now. The
> scenario you use is in no way proof that the cache is not being used. There
> are many things that can cause this behavior. Poorly executed parallel plans
> or blocking for instance can easily account for these numbers. Did you check
> for blocking? Did you look at the file stats to see how much physical I/O
> you are doing? And how large is the database itself?
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> Solid Quality Mentors
> <shahdha...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f38dfcd7-42f4-4875-a6fb-9326c08a55b5@.i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jan 10, 11:04 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
> > wrote:
> >> What exactly do you mean by files and 15,000 query? And if sql server
> >> is
> >> using all 16GB then you have a problem with your configuration. You need
> >> to
> >> set a MAX Memory setting of no more than 14GB to leave room for the OS to
> >> do
> >> it's job.
> >> --
> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >> Solid Quality Mentors
> >> <shahdha...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:e1cf9402-53a0-4cfc-932d-cb98811fe848@.i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Hi all gurus
> >> > I am using windows 2003 sp2 with SQL Server 2005 SP2. Its a 16 GB
> >> > ram , intel xeon 8 processor machine.
> >> > We have 2 files file1 with 15,000 query and file2 with 60,000 query.
> >> > if run file2 alone it takes first 6 mins and if i run it second time
> >> > it takes 2 mins.
> >> > so this time it uses caches and returns result in 2 mins
> >> > So its taking benefit of cache.
> >> > file2 first 5 min
> >> > file2 second 2 min
> >> > But when i run file1 it takes 2 minutes and file2 takes 6 mins.
> >> > After then again if i run file1 again it takes again 2 mins and file2
> >> > takes 5 mins.
> >> > memory goes to 10 GB from 16 GB.
> >> > file1 first 2 min
> >> > file2 first 5 min
> >> > file1 second 2 min
> >> > file2 second 5 min
> >> > here second time when i run this files it doesn't take benefit of
> >> > cache and take same time
> >> > so why when i run both files sequentially 2 times 2nd time its not
> >> > taking benefit of caching even 6 GB of memory available.If there is 6
> >> > GB memory available then it should keep all data in cache and give
> >> > fast results second time.
> >> > Is there any limitation for caching or query plan? running 2 different
> >> > files will drop cache?
> > Hi Andrew
> > there are about 15000 select queries in first file and 60000 select
> > queries in second file. And MS is not using more than 10 GB.
> > Problem is that if i run only one file 2 times then at second time is
> > uses cache, but if I run file sequentially 2 time then its not using
> > cache.
> > why its doing so?
sorry there is a typo. from 16 gb memory 10 gb is used. so i think if
6 gb is available , I got this info from task manager it showes 10 gb
uses, then in second case when 2 files are sequentially run 2 times
then why its not using cache 2nd times?|||Task manager does not tell you how much memory SQL Server is really using
you should use the Perfmon counters for that. What is the Min and Max
memory set to in SQL Server? And regardless that does not tell you if the
data is cached or not. There are too many other factors that can be
involved. Until you get the actual metrics that I mentioned you are just
guessing and probably barking up the wrong tree.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
<shahdharti@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6b8e2894-1ccf-4b5c-9a3c-e6ed7c3208c7@.j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 11, 12:22 am, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
> wrote:
>> 60K selects? Wow that is one heck of a report. You said initially that
>> the memory went from 10GB to 16GB and now you are saying it is not using
>> more than 10GB. How are you determining this? What I said memory wise
>> is
>> still true regardless and should be changed if not that way now. The
>> scenario you use is in no way proof that the cache is not being used.
>> There
>> are many things that can cause this behavior. Poorly executed parallel
>> plans
>> or blocking for instance can easily account for these numbers. Did you
>> check
>> for blocking? Did you look at the file stats to see how much physical
>> I/O
>> you are doing? And how large is the database itself?
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> Solid Quality Mentors
>> <shahdha...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:f38dfcd7-42f4-4875-a6fb-9326c08a55b5@.i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Jan 10, 11:04 pm, "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooos...@.shadhawk.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> What exactly do you mean by files and 15,000 query? And if sql
>> >> server
>> >> is
>> >> using all 16GB then you have a problem with your configuration. You
>> >> need
>> >> to
>> >> set a MAX Memory setting of no more than 14GB to leave room for the OS
>> >> to
>> >> do
>> >> it's job.
>> >> --
>> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> >> Solid Quality Mentors
>> >> <shahdha...@.gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:e1cf9402-53a0-4cfc-932d-cb98811fe848@.i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > Hi all gurus
>> >> > I am using windows 2003 sp2 with SQL Server 2005 SP2. Its a 16 GB
>> >> > ram , intel xeon 8 processor machine.
>> >> > We have 2 files file1 with 15,000 query and file2 with 60,000 query.
>> >> > if run file2 alone it takes first 6 mins and if i run it second time
>> >> > it takes 2 mins.
>> >> > so this time it uses caches and returns result in 2 mins
>> >> > So its taking benefit of cache.
>> >> > file2 first 5 min
>> >> > file2 second 2 min
>> >> > But when i run file1 it takes 2 minutes and file2 takes 6 mins.
>> >> > After then again if i run file1 again it takes again 2 mins and
>> >> > file2
>> >> > takes 5 mins.
>> >> > memory goes to 10 GB from 16 GB.
>> >> > file1 first 2 min
>> >> > file2 first 5 min
>> >> > file1 second 2 min
>> >> > file2 second 5 min
>> >> > here second time when i run this files it doesn't take benefit of
>> >> > cache and take same time
>> >> > so why when i run both files sequentially 2 times 2nd time its not
>> >> > taking benefit of caching even 6 GB of memory available.If there is
>> >> > 6
>> >> > GB memory available then it should keep all data in cache and give
>> >> > fast results second time.
>> >> > Is there any limitation for caching or query plan? running 2
>> >> > different
>> >> > files will drop cache?
>> > Hi Andrew
>> > there are about 15000 select queries in first file and 60000 select
>> > queries in second file. And MS is not using more than 10 GB.
>> > Problem is that if i run only one file 2 times then at second time is
>> > uses cache, but if I run file sequentially 2 time then its not using
>> > cache.
>> > why its doing so?
> sorry there is a typo. from 16 gb memory 10 gb is used. so i think if
> 6 gb is available , I got this info from task manager it showes 10 gb
> uses, then in second case when 2 files are sequentially run 2 times
> then why its not using cache 2nd times?
>

cacheRemove

I have a stored proc with several input parameters and it runs very efficient
(14 seconds) on my dev server (PII-450 single processor, 512 mb ram), even
when drastically changing the parameters. I run the same stored proc on my
production server (dual Pentium 1 ghz, 1 or 2 gb ram) and it will take up to
15 minutes. The CPU usage on the production server is very low. When we ran a
trace on production we found that it was removing the cache and then of
course the cache would be missing and it would recompile - sometimes up to 10
or 15 times through the execution of the store proc. It doesn't do the
recompiling on the dev server. We feel certain that there must be a
difference in the configuration of either SQL server between the servers or
Windows. We aren't sure where to start looking.
It might be that the connection in which you are running the sp has
different enviorment settings than the dev connection. Run a profile trace
on both with the existing connection and connection Login to see if they are
the same. The sp can be poorly written and force recompilation as well. Do
you have temp tables in it? Have a look here:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=243586
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"James" <James@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:76AECD82-262E-428C-B0D9-E03A9FC49BCD@.microsoft.com...
>I have a stored proc with several input parameters and it runs very
>efficient
> (14 seconds) on my dev server (PII-450 single processor, 512 mb ram), even
> when drastically changing the parameters. I run the same stored proc on my
> production server (dual Pentium 1 ghz, 1 or 2 gb ram) and it will take up
> to
> 15 minutes. The CPU usage on the production server is very low. When we
> ran a
> trace on production we found that it was removing the cache and then of
> course the cache would be missing and it would recompile - sometimes up to
> 10
> or 15 times through the execution of the store proc. It doesn't do the
> recompiling on the dev server. We feel certain that there must be a
> difference in the configuration of either SQL server between the servers
> or
> Windows. We aren't sure where to start looking.

cacheRemove

I have a stored proc with several input parameters and it runs very efficient
(14 seconds) on my dev server (PII-450 single processor, 512 mb ram), even
when drastically changing the parameters. I run the same stored proc on my
production server (dual Pentium 1 ghz, 1 or 2 gb ram) and it will take up to
15 minutes. The CPU usage on the production server is very low. When we ran a
trace on production we found that it was removing the cache and then of
course the cache would be missing and it would recompile - sometimes up to 10
or 15 times through the execution of the store proc. It doesn't do the
recompiling on the dev server. We feel certain that there must be a
difference in the configuration of either SQL server between the servers or
Windows. We aren't sure where to start looking.It might be that the connection in which you are running the sp has
different enviorment settings than the dev connection. Run a profile trace
on both with the existing connection and connection Login to see if they are
the same. The sp can be poorly written and force recompilation as well. Do
you have temp tables in it? Have a look here:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=243586
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"James" <James@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:76AECD82-262E-428C-B0D9-E03A9FC49BCD@.microsoft.com...
>I have a stored proc with several input parameters and it runs very
>efficient
> (14 seconds) on my dev server (PII-450 single processor, 512 mb ram), even
> when drastically changing the parameters. I run the same stored proc on my
> production server (dual Pentium 1 ghz, 1 or 2 gb ram) and it will take up
> to
> 15 minutes. The CPU usage on the production server is very low. When we
> ran a
> trace on production we found that it was removing the cache and then of
> course the cache would be missing and it would recompile - sometimes up to
> 10
> or 15 times through the execution of the store proc. It doesn't do the
> recompiling on the dev server. We feel certain that there must be a
> difference in the configuration of either SQL server between the servers
> or
> Windows. We aren't sure where to start looking.

cacheRemove

I have a stored proc with several input parameters and it runs very efficien
t
(14 seconds) on my dev server (PII-450 single processor, 512 mb ram), even
when drastically changing the parameters. I run the same stored proc on my
production server (dual Pentium 1 ghz, 1 or 2 gb ram) and it will take up to
15 minutes. The CPU usage on the production server is very low. When we ran
a
trace on production we found that it was removing the cache and then of
course the cache would be missing and it would recompile - sometimes up to 1
0
or 15 times through the execution of the store proc. It doesn't do the
recompiling on the dev server. We feel certain that there must be a
difference in the configuration of either SQL server between the servers or
Windows. We aren't sure where to start looking.It might be that the connection in which you are running the sp has
different enviorment settings than the dev connection. Run a profile trace
on both with the existing connection and connection Login to see if they are
the same. The sp can be poorly written and force recompilation as well. Do
you have temp tables in it? Have a look here:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=243586
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"James" <James@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:76AECD82-262E-428C-B0D9-E03A9FC49BCD@.microsoft.com...
>I have a stored proc with several input parameters and it runs very
>efficient
> (14 seconds) on my dev server (PII-450 single processor, 512 mb ram), even
> when drastically changing the parameters. I run the same stored proc on my
> production server (dual Pentium 1 ghz, 1 or 2 gb ram) and it will take up
> to
> 15 minutes. The CPU usage on the production server is very low. When we
> ran a
> trace on production we found that it was removing the cache and then of
> course the cache would be missing and it would recompile - sometimes up to
> 10
> or 15 times through the execution of the store proc. It doesn't do the
> recompiling on the dev server. We feel certain that there must be a
> difference in the configuration of either SQL server between the servers
> or
> Windows. We aren't sure where to start looking.

c0000005 EXCEPTION_ACCESS_VIOLATION

We have SQL Server 2000 with SP3 installed on Windows 2000 Advance Server. Server has 8 GB RAM and 4 CPU. Few days back we have installed multiple named instance on this server .Now we have assign each CPU to individual instance and min server memory to 1024 and max server memory is kept open.

After this we are facing an issue with default instance for exception_access_violation as below ...
Memory
MemoryLoad = 83%
Total Physical = 7679 MB
Available Physical = 1252 MB
Total Page File = 15480 MB
Available Page File = 7756 MB
Total Virtual = 2047 MB
Available Virtual = 344 MB

*Stack Dump being sent to D:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\log\SQLDu
mp0022.txt
* ************************************************** ***************************
**
*
* BEGIN STACK DUMP:
* 07/24/07 00:46:02 spid 16
*
* Exception Address = 008405D8 (DeadlockMonitor::ResolveDeadlock + 00000025 L
ine 0+00000000)
* Exception Code = c0000005 EXCEPTION_ACCESS_VIOLATION
* Access Violation occurred reading address 00000000
*
*
* MODULE BASE END SIZE
* sqlservr 00400000 00B2CFFF 0072d000
* ntdll 77F80000 77FFCFFF 0007d000
* KERNEL32 7C570000 7C627FFF 000b8000
* ADVAPI32 7C2D0000 7C331FFF 00062000
* RPCRT4 77D30000 77D9EFFF 0006f000
* USER32 77E10000 77E74FFF 00065000
* GDI32 77F40000 77F7DFFF 0003e000
* OPENDS60 41060000 41065FFF 00006000
* MSVCRT 78000000 78044FFF 00045000
* UMS 41070000 4107CFFF 0000d000
* SQLSORT 42AE0000 42B6FFFF 00090000
* MSVCIRT 780A0000 780B1FFF 00012000
* sqlevn70 41080000 41086FFF 00007000
* NETAPI32 028D0000 0291FFFF 00050000
* Secur32 02920000 0292EFFF 0000f000
* NTDSAPI 02930000 02940FFF 00011000
* DNSAPI 02950000 02973FFF 00024000
* WSOCK32 02980000 02987FFF 00008000
* WS2_32 02990000 029A3FFF 00014000
* WS2HELP 029B0000 029B7FFF 00008000
* WLDAP32 029C0000 029E9FFF 0002a000
* NETRAP 029F0000 029F5FFF 00006000
* SAMLIB 02A00000 02A0EFFF 0000f000
* ole32 02D70000 02E5EFFF 000ef000
* XOLEHLP 02E60000 02E67FFF 00008000
* MSDTCPRX 02E70000 02F2AFFF 000bb000
* MTXCLU 02F30000 02F3FFFF 00010000
* VERSION 02F40000 02F46FFF 00007000
* LZ32 02F50000 02F55FFF 00006000
* CLUSAPI 02F60000 02F6FFFF 00010000
* RESUTILS 02F70000 02F7CFFF 0000d000
* USERENV 02F80000 02FE0FFF 00061000
* rnr20 02FF0000 02FFBFFF 0000c000
* iphlpapi 03040000 03052FFF 00013000
* ICMP 03060000 03064FFF 00005000
* MPRAPI 03070000 03086FFF 00017000
* OLEAUT32 03090000 0312AFFF 0009b000
* ACTIVEDS 03130000 0315EFFF 0002f000
* ADSLDPC 03160000 03182FFF 00023000
* RTUTILS 03190000 0319DFFF 0000e000
* SETUPAPI 031A0000 0322DFFF 0008e000
* RASAPI32 03230000 03262FFF 00033000
* RASMAN 03270000 03280FFF 00011000
* TAPI32 03290000 032B1FFF 00022000
* COMCTL32 032C0000 03343FFF 00084000
* SHLWAPI 03350000 033B5FFF 00066000
* DHCPCSVC 033C0000 033D8FFF 00019000
* winrnr 03880000 03887FFF 00008000
* rasadhlp 03890000 03894FFF 00005000
* SSNETLIB 04040000 04054FFF 00015000
* SSNMPN70 04090000 04095FFF 00006000
* security 043B0000 043B3FFF 00004000
* msafd 04850000 0486DFFF 0001e000
* wshtcpip 048B0000 048B6FFF 00007000
* SSmsLPCn 04940000 04946FFF 00007000
* mswsock 049D0000 049E1FFF 00012000
* msv1_0 04A30000 04A50FFF 00021000
* CRYPT32 04A60000 04AE6FFF 00087000
* MSASN1 04B10000 04B1FFFF 00010000
* rsabase 04F40000 04F62FFF 00023000
* CLBCATQ 05280000 0530EFFF 0008f000
* SQLOLEDB 05310000 05382FFF 00073000
* MSDART 05390000 053AEFFF 0001f000
* comdlg32 053B0000 053EDFFF 0003e000
* SHELL32 053F0000 05635FFF 00246000
* MSDATL3 05640000 05654FFF 00015000
* oledb32 05CE0000 05D45FFF 00066000
* OLEDB32R 05D50000 05D5FFFF 00010000
* xpstar 05DE0000 05E26FFF 00047000
* SQLRESLD 05E30000 05E36FFF 00007000
* SQLSVC 05E40000 05E56FFF 00017000
* ODBC32 05E60000 05E91FFF 00032000
* odbcbcp 05EA0000 05EA5FFF 00006000
* W95SCM 05EB0000 05EBBFFF 0000c000
* SQLUNIRL 10000000 1002CFFF 0002d000
* WINSPOOL 05EC0000 05EDDFFF 0001e000
* MPR 05EE0000 05EEFFFF 00010000
* SHFOLDER 05EF0000 05EF7FFF 00008000
* odbcint 061C0000 061D5FFF 00016000
* NDDEAPI 061E0000 061E6FFF 00007000
* SQLSVC 061F0000 061F5FFF 00006000
* xpstar 06200000 06208FFF 00009000
* xplog70 06AA0000 06AB1FFF 00012000
* xplog70 06AC0000 06AC3FFF 00004000
* xpsqlbot 06AD0000 06AD5FFF 00006000
* SQLFTQRY 09200000 09231FFF 00032000
* impprov 094E0000 094F8FFF 00019000
* DBNETLIB 09A80000 09A8EFFF 0000f000
* SQLOLEDB 09BD0000 09BDEFFF 0000f000
* sqlvdi 09C20000 09C2BFFF 0000c000
* dbghelp 07BE0000 07C94FFF 000b5000
*

Any idea ?Can you install SP4? this KB seems to indicate this is fixed in SP4: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/821741/en-us?spid=2852&sid=1070

What's in the SQL Server log file just before the dump?|||Is there any workaround other than upgrading to SP4. as SQL Server crashing daily twise and SP4 upgrade testing will take atleast a week time.|||I don't have a workaround for you, sorry. Maybe PSS could suggest one if you call them.|||As suggested only MS PSS can give more idea why the stack dump is created. It is better to proceed that way to resolve this issue and also SP3 for SQL2000 is no more supported, you have to test and upgrade to SP4 for SQL.