Hi all,
We experienced some deadlocks in our servers and to resolve those we used
nolock query hints in some of our select statements.
Afterwards we are experiencing "There is insufficient system memory to run
this query." errors for queries which previously ran well. These queries
also does not contain any nolock clause. The queries are relatively ones
which take a large time to execute but the problem is they ran well before.
No machine configuration change was done. SQL Server version is 2000 SP4.
The server administrators tell that in task manager that SQL Server did not
dislpay an unual hike in memory resources as well.
The sql statements are executed via a VFP com+ component via sqlexec.
A quick response in this regard will be appreciated as our application is
crashing due to this.
RJ
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/deadlocks.asp
"Roshan N.A. Jayalath" <roshannaj@.sltnet.lk> wrote in message
news:%23XVOMtkAHHA.3928@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> We experienced some deadlocks in our servers and to resolve those we used
> nolock query hints in some of our select statements.
> Afterwards we are experiencing "There is insufficient system memory to run
> this query." errors for queries which previously ran well. These queries
> also does not contain any nolock clause. The queries are relatively ones
> which take a large time to execute but the problem is they ran well
> before.
> No machine configuration change was done. SQL Server version is 2000 SP4.
> The server administrators tell that in task manager that SQL Server did
> not
> dislpay an unual hike in memory resources as well.
> The sql statements are executed via a VFP com+ component via sqlexec.
> A quick response in this regard will be appreciated as our application is
> crashing due to this.
> RJ
>
>
|||Also these details were in the error log
2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 WARNING: Failed to reserve contiguous
memory of Size= 65536.
2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Buffer Distribution: Stolen=21606 Free=352
Procedures=5972
Inram=0 Dirty=3177 Kept=0
I/O=2, Latched=1880, Other=173883
2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Buffer Counts: Commited=206872
Target=206872 Hashed=178942
InternalReservation=2396 ExternalReservation=388 Min Free=236 Visible=
206872
2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Procedure Cache: TotalProcs=2955
TotalPages=5972 InUsePages=2399
2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Dynamic Memory Manager: Stolen=27527 OS
Reserved=928
OS Committed=906
OS In Use=903
Query Plan=5739 Optimizer=0
General=6664
Utilities=280 Connection=15510
2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Global Memory Objects: Resource=6056
Locks=188
SQLCache=159 Replication=2
LockBytes=2 ServerGlobal=26
Xact=63
2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Query Memory Manager: Grants=2 Waiting=0
Maximum=91457 Available=91018
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:#3DXj2kAHHA.1780@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> http://www.sql-server-performance.com/deadlocks.asp
>
> "Roshan N.A. Jayalath" <roshannaj@.sltnet.lk> wrote in message
> news:%23XVOMtkAHHA.3928@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
used[vbcol=seagreen]
run[vbcol=seagreen]
SP4.[vbcol=seagreen]
is
>
|||is this relevant?
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/818095
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Roshan N.A. Jayalath" <roshannaj@.sltnet.lk> wrote in message
news:unzqKFmAHHA.4808@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Also these details were in the error log
> 2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 WARNING: Failed to reserve contiguous
> memory of Size= 65536.
> 2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Buffer Distribution: Stolen=21606
> Free=352
> Procedures=5972
> Inram=0 Dirty=3177 Kept=0
> I/O=2, Latched=1880, Other=173883
> 2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Buffer Counts: Commited=206872
> Target=206872 Hashed=178942
> InternalReservation=2396 ExternalReservation=388 Min Free=236 Visible=
> 206872
> 2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Procedure Cache: TotalProcs=2955
> TotalPages=5972 InUsePages=2399
> 2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Dynamic Memory Manager: Stolen=27527 OS
> Reserved=928
> OS Committed=906
> OS In Use=903
> Query Plan=5739 Optimizer=0
> General=6664
> Utilities=280 Connection=15510
> 2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Global Memory Objects: Resource=6056
> Locks=188
> SQLCache=159 Replication=2
> LockBytes=2 ServerGlobal=26
> Xact=63
> 2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Query Memory Manager: Grants=2 Waiting=0
> Maximum=91457 Available=91018
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
> news:#3DXj2kAHHA.1780@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> used
> run
> SP4.
> is
>
Showing posts with label degrade. Show all posts
Showing posts with label degrade. Show all posts
Monday, March 26, 2012
Performance degrade after using NOLOCK?
Hi all,
We experienced some deadlocks in our servers and to resolve those we used
nolock query hints in some of our select statements.
Afterwards we are experiencing "There is insufficient system memory to run
this query." errors for queries which previously ran well. These queries
also does not contain any nolock clause. The queries are relatively ones
which take a large time to execute but the problem is they ran well before.
No machine configuration change was done. SQL Server version is 2000 SP4.
The server administrators tell that in task manager that SQL Server did not
dislpay an unual hike in memory resources as well.
The sql statements are executed via a VFP com+ component via sqlexec.
A quick response in this regard will be appreciated as our application is
crashing due to this.
RJhttp://www.sql-server-performance.com/deadlocks.asp
"Roshan N.A. Jayalath" <roshannaj@.sltnet.lk> wrote in message
news:%23XVOMtkAHHA.3928@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> We experienced some deadlocks in our servers and to resolve those we used
> nolock query hints in some of our select statements.
> Afterwards we are experiencing "There is insufficient system memory to run
> this query." errors for queries which previously ran well. These queries
> also does not contain any nolock clause. The queries are relatively ones
> which take a large time to execute but the problem is they ran well
> before.
> No machine configuration change was done. SQL Server version is 2000 SP4.
> The server administrators tell that in task manager that SQL Server did
> not
> dislpay an unual hike in memory resources as well.
> The sql statements are executed via a VFP com+ component via sqlexec.
> A quick response in this regard will be appreciated as our application is
> crashing due to this.
> RJ
>
>|||Also these details were in the error log
2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 WARNING: Failed to reserve contiguous
memory of Size= 65536.
2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Buffer Distribution: Stolen=21606 Free=352
Procedures=5972
Inram=0 Dirty=3177 Kept=0
I/O=2, Latched=1880, Other=173883
2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Buffer Counts: Commited=206872
Target=206872 Hashed=178942
InternalReservation=2396 ExternalReservation=388 Min Free=236 Visible=
206872
2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Procedure Cache: TotalProcs=2955
TotalPages=5972 InUsePages=2399
2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Dynamic Memory Manager: Stolen=27527 OS
Reserved=928
OS Committed=906
OS In Use=903
Query Plan=5739 Optimizer=0
General=6664
Utilities=280 Connection=15510
2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Global Memory Objects: Resource=6056
Locks=188
SQLCache=159 Replication=2
LockBytes=2 ServerGlobal=26
Xact=63
2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Query Memory Manager: Grants=2 Waiting=0
Maximum=91457 Available=91018
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:#3DXj2kAHHA.1780@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> http://www.sql-server-performance.com/deadlocks.asp
>
> "Roshan N.A. Jayalath" <roshannaj@.sltnet.lk> wrote in message
> news:%23XVOMtkAHHA.3928@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
used[vbcol=seagreen]
run[vbcol=seagreen]
SP4.[vbcol=seagreen]
is[vbcol=seagreen]
>|||is this relevant?
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/818095
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Roshan N.A. Jayalath" <roshannaj@.sltnet.lk> wrote in message
news:unzqKFmAHHA.4808@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Also these details were in the error log
> 2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 WARNING: Failed to reserve contiguous
> memory of Size= 65536.
> 2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Buffer Distribution: Stolen=21606
> Free=352
> Procedures=5972
> Inram=0 Dirty=3177 Kept=0
> I/O=2, Latched=1880, Other=173883
> 2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Buffer Counts: Commited=206872
> Target=206872 Hashed=178942
> InternalReservation=2396 ExternalReservation=388 Min Free=236 Visible=
> 206872
> 2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Procedure Cache: TotalProcs=2955
> TotalPages=5972 InUsePages=2399
> 2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Dynamic Memory Manager: Stolen=27527 OS
> Reserved=928
> OS Committed=906
> OS In Use=903
> Query Plan=5739 Optimizer=0
> General=6664
> Utilities=280 Connection=15510
> 2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Global Memory Objects: Resource=6056
> Locks=188
> SQLCache=159 Replication=2
> LockBytes=2 ServerGlobal=26
> Xact=63
> 2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Query Memory Manager: Grants=2 Waiting=0
> Maximum=91457 Available=91018
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
> news:#3DXj2kAHHA.1780@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> used
> run
> SP4.
> is
>
We experienced some deadlocks in our servers and to resolve those we used
nolock query hints in some of our select statements.
Afterwards we are experiencing "There is insufficient system memory to run
this query." errors for queries which previously ran well. These queries
also does not contain any nolock clause. The queries are relatively ones
which take a large time to execute but the problem is they ran well before.
No machine configuration change was done. SQL Server version is 2000 SP4.
The server administrators tell that in task manager that SQL Server did not
dislpay an unual hike in memory resources as well.
The sql statements are executed via a VFP com+ component via sqlexec.
A quick response in this regard will be appreciated as our application is
crashing due to this.
RJhttp://www.sql-server-performance.com/deadlocks.asp
"Roshan N.A. Jayalath" <roshannaj@.sltnet.lk> wrote in message
news:%23XVOMtkAHHA.3928@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> We experienced some deadlocks in our servers and to resolve those we used
> nolock query hints in some of our select statements.
> Afterwards we are experiencing "There is insufficient system memory to run
> this query." errors for queries which previously ran well. These queries
> also does not contain any nolock clause. The queries are relatively ones
> which take a large time to execute but the problem is they ran well
> before.
> No machine configuration change was done. SQL Server version is 2000 SP4.
> The server administrators tell that in task manager that SQL Server did
> not
> dislpay an unual hike in memory resources as well.
> The sql statements are executed via a VFP com+ component via sqlexec.
> A quick response in this regard will be appreciated as our application is
> crashing due to this.
> RJ
>
>|||Also these details were in the error log
2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 WARNING: Failed to reserve contiguous
memory of Size= 65536.
2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Buffer Distribution: Stolen=21606 Free=352
Procedures=5972
Inram=0 Dirty=3177 Kept=0
I/O=2, Latched=1880, Other=173883
2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Buffer Counts: Commited=206872
Target=206872 Hashed=178942
InternalReservation=2396 ExternalReservation=388 Min Free=236 Visible=
206872
2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Procedure Cache: TotalProcs=2955
TotalPages=5972 InUsePages=2399
2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Dynamic Memory Manager: Stolen=27527 OS
Reserved=928
OS Committed=906
OS In Use=903
Query Plan=5739 Optimizer=0
General=6664
Utilities=280 Connection=15510
2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Global Memory Objects: Resource=6056
Locks=188
SQLCache=159 Replication=2
LockBytes=2 ServerGlobal=26
Xact=63
2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Query Memory Manager: Grants=2 Waiting=0
Maximum=91457 Available=91018
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:#3DXj2kAHHA.1780@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> http://www.sql-server-performance.com/deadlocks.asp
>
> "Roshan N.A. Jayalath" <roshannaj@.sltnet.lk> wrote in message
> news:%23XVOMtkAHHA.3928@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
used[vbcol=seagreen]
run[vbcol=seagreen]
SP4.[vbcol=seagreen]
is[vbcol=seagreen]
>|||is this relevant?
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/818095
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Roshan N.A. Jayalath" <roshannaj@.sltnet.lk> wrote in message
news:unzqKFmAHHA.4808@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Also these details were in the error log
> 2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 WARNING: Failed to reserve contiguous
> memory of Size= 65536.
> 2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Buffer Distribution: Stolen=21606
> Free=352
> Procedures=5972
> Inram=0 Dirty=3177 Kept=0
> I/O=2, Latched=1880, Other=173883
> 2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Buffer Counts: Commited=206872
> Target=206872 Hashed=178942
> InternalReservation=2396 ExternalReservation=388 Min Free=236 Visible=
> 206872
> 2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Procedure Cache: TotalProcs=2955
> TotalPages=5972 InUsePages=2399
> 2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Dynamic Memory Manager: Stolen=27527 OS
> Reserved=928
> OS Committed=906
> OS In Use=903
> Query Plan=5739 Optimizer=0
> General=6664
> Utilities=280 Connection=15510
> 2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Global Memory Objects: Resource=6056
> Locks=188
> SQLCache=159 Replication=2
> LockBytes=2 ServerGlobal=26
> Xact=63
> 2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Query Memory Manager: Grants=2 Waiting=0
> Maximum=91457 Available=91018
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
> news:#3DXj2kAHHA.1780@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> used
> run
> SP4.
> is
>
Performance degrade after using NOLOCK?
Hi all,
We experienced some deadlocks in our servers and to resolve those we used
nolock query hints in some of our select statements.
Afterwards we are experiencing "There is insufficient system memory to run
this query." errors for queries which previously ran well. These queries
also does not contain any nolock clause. The queries are relatively ones
which take a large time to execute but the problem is they ran well before.
No machine configuration change was done. SQL Server version is 2000 SP4.
The server administrators tell that in task manager that SQL Server did not
dislpay an unual hike in memory resources as well.
The sql statements are executed via a VFP com+ component via sqlexec.
A quick response in this regard will be appreciated as our application is
crashing due to this.
RJhttp://www.sql-server-performance.com/deadlocks.asp
"Roshan N.A. Jayalath" <roshannaj@.sltnet.lk> wrote in message
news:%23XVOMtkAHHA.3928@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> We experienced some deadlocks in our servers and to resolve those we used
> nolock query hints in some of our select statements.
> Afterwards we are experiencing "There is insufficient system memory to run
> this query." errors for queries which previously ran well. These queries
> also does not contain any nolock clause. The queries are relatively ones
> which take a large time to execute but the problem is they ran well
> before.
> No machine configuration change was done. SQL Server version is 2000 SP4.
> The server administrators tell that in task manager that SQL Server did
> not
> dislpay an unual hike in memory resources as well.
> The sql statements are executed via a VFP com+ component via sqlexec.
> A quick response in this regard will be appreciated as our application is
> crashing due to this.
> RJ
>
>|||Also these details were in the error log
2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 WARNING: Failed to reserve contiguous
memory of Size= 65536.
2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Buffer Distribution: Stolen=21606 Free=352
Procedures=5972
Inram=0 Dirty=3177 Kept=0
I/O=2, Latched=1880, Other=173883
2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Buffer Counts: Commited=206872
Target=206872 Hashed=178942
InternalReservation=2396 ExternalReservation=388 Min Free=236 Visible=206872
2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Procedure Cache: TotalProcs=2955
TotalPages=5972 InUsePages=2399
2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Dynamic Memory Manager: Stolen=27527 OS
Reserved=928
OS Committed=906
OS In Use=903
Query Plan=5739 Optimizer=0
General=6664
Utilities=280 Connection=15510
2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Global Memory Objects: Resource=6056
Locks=188
SQLCache=159 Replication=2
LockBytes=2 ServerGlobal=26
Xact=63
2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Query Memory Manager: Grants=2 Waiting=0
Maximum=91457 Available=91018
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:#3DXj2kAHHA.1780@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> http://www.sql-server-performance.com/deadlocks.asp
>
> "Roshan N.A. Jayalath" <roshannaj@.sltnet.lk> wrote in message
> news:%23XVOMtkAHHA.3928@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> > Hi all,
> >
> > We experienced some deadlocks in our servers and to resolve those we
used
> > nolock query hints in some of our select statements.
> >
> > Afterwards we are experiencing "There is insufficient system memory to
run
> > this query." errors for queries which previously ran well. These queries
> > also does not contain any nolock clause. The queries are relatively ones
> > which take a large time to execute but the problem is they ran well
> > before.
> >
> > No machine configuration change was done. SQL Server version is 2000
SP4.
> >
> > The server administrators tell that in task manager that SQL Server did
> > not
> > dislpay an unual hike in memory resources as well.
> >
> > The sql statements are executed via a VFP com+ component via sqlexec.
> >
> > A quick response in this regard will be appreciated as our application
is
> > crashing due to this.
> >
> > RJ
> >
> >
> >
>|||is this relevant?
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/818095
--
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Roshan N.A. Jayalath" <roshannaj@.sltnet.lk> wrote in message
news:unzqKFmAHHA.4808@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Also these details were in the error log
> 2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 WARNING: Failed to reserve contiguous
> memory of Size= 65536.
> 2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Buffer Distribution: Stolen=21606
> Free=352
> Procedures=5972
> Inram=0 Dirty=3177 Kept=0
> I/O=2, Latched=1880, Other=173883
> 2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Buffer Counts: Commited=206872
> Target=206872 Hashed=178942
> InternalReservation=2396 ExternalReservation=388 Min Free=236 Visible=> 206872
> 2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Procedure Cache: TotalProcs=2955
> TotalPages=5972 InUsePages=2399
> 2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Dynamic Memory Manager: Stolen=27527 OS
> Reserved=928
> OS Committed=906
> OS In Use=903
> Query Plan=5739 Optimizer=0
> General=6664
> Utilities=280 Connection=15510
> 2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Global Memory Objects: Resource=6056
> Locks=188
> SQLCache=159 Replication=2
> LockBytes=2 ServerGlobal=26
> Xact=63
> 2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Query Memory Manager: Grants=2 Waiting=0
> Maximum=91457 Available=91018
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
> news:#3DXj2kAHHA.1780@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> http://www.sql-server-performance.com/deadlocks.asp
>>
>> "Roshan N.A. Jayalath" <roshannaj@.sltnet.lk> wrote in message
>> news:%23XVOMtkAHHA.3928@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > We experienced some deadlocks in our servers and to resolve those we
> used
>> > nolock query hints in some of our select statements.
>> >
>> > Afterwards we are experiencing "There is insufficient system memory to
> run
>> > this query." errors for queries which previously ran well. These
>> > queries
>> > also does not contain any nolock clause. The queries are relatively
>> > ones
>> > which take a large time to execute but the problem is they ran well
>> > before.
>> >
>> > No machine configuration change was done. SQL Server version is 2000
> SP4.
>> >
>> > The server administrators tell that in task manager that SQL Server did
>> > not
>> > dislpay an unual hike in memory resources as well.
>> >
>> > The sql statements are executed via a VFP com+ component via sqlexec.
>> >
>> > A quick response in this regard will be appreciated as our application
> is
>> > crashing due to this.
>> >
>> > RJ
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>sql
We experienced some deadlocks in our servers and to resolve those we used
nolock query hints in some of our select statements.
Afterwards we are experiencing "There is insufficient system memory to run
this query." errors for queries which previously ran well. These queries
also does not contain any nolock clause. The queries are relatively ones
which take a large time to execute but the problem is they ran well before.
No machine configuration change was done. SQL Server version is 2000 SP4.
The server administrators tell that in task manager that SQL Server did not
dislpay an unual hike in memory resources as well.
The sql statements are executed via a VFP com+ component via sqlexec.
A quick response in this regard will be appreciated as our application is
crashing due to this.
RJhttp://www.sql-server-performance.com/deadlocks.asp
"Roshan N.A. Jayalath" <roshannaj@.sltnet.lk> wrote in message
news:%23XVOMtkAHHA.3928@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> We experienced some deadlocks in our servers and to resolve those we used
> nolock query hints in some of our select statements.
> Afterwards we are experiencing "There is insufficient system memory to run
> this query." errors for queries which previously ran well. These queries
> also does not contain any nolock clause. The queries are relatively ones
> which take a large time to execute but the problem is they ran well
> before.
> No machine configuration change was done. SQL Server version is 2000 SP4.
> The server administrators tell that in task manager that SQL Server did
> not
> dislpay an unual hike in memory resources as well.
> The sql statements are executed via a VFP com+ component via sqlexec.
> A quick response in this regard will be appreciated as our application is
> crashing due to this.
> RJ
>
>|||Also these details were in the error log
2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 WARNING: Failed to reserve contiguous
memory of Size= 65536.
2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Buffer Distribution: Stolen=21606 Free=352
Procedures=5972
Inram=0 Dirty=3177 Kept=0
I/O=2, Latched=1880, Other=173883
2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Buffer Counts: Commited=206872
Target=206872 Hashed=178942
InternalReservation=2396 ExternalReservation=388 Min Free=236 Visible=206872
2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Procedure Cache: TotalProcs=2955
TotalPages=5972 InUsePages=2399
2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Dynamic Memory Manager: Stolen=27527 OS
Reserved=928
OS Committed=906
OS In Use=903
Query Plan=5739 Optimizer=0
General=6664
Utilities=280 Connection=15510
2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Global Memory Objects: Resource=6056
Locks=188
SQLCache=159 Replication=2
LockBytes=2 ServerGlobal=26
Xact=63
2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Query Memory Manager: Grants=2 Waiting=0
Maximum=91457 Available=91018
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:#3DXj2kAHHA.1780@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> http://www.sql-server-performance.com/deadlocks.asp
>
> "Roshan N.A. Jayalath" <roshannaj@.sltnet.lk> wrote in message
> news:%23XVOMtkAHHA.3928@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> > Hi all,
> >
> > We experienced some deadlocks in our servers and to resolve those we
used
> > nolock query hints in some of our select statements.
> >
> > Afterwards we are experiencing "There is insufficient system memory to
run
> > this query." errors for queries which previously ran well. These queries
> > also does not contain any nolock clause. The queries are relatively ones
> > which take a large time to execute but the problem is they ran well
> > before.
> >
> > No machine configuration change was done. SQL Server version is 2000
SP4.
> >
> > The server administrators tell that in task manager that SQL Server did
> > not
> > dislpay an unual hike in memory resources as well.
> >
> > The sql statements are executed via a VFP com+ component via sqlexec.
> >
> > A quick response in this regard will be appreciated as our application
is
> > crashing due to this.
> >
> > RJ
> >
> >
> >
>|||is this relevant?
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/818095
--
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Roshan N.A. Jayalath" <roshannaj@.sltnet.lk> wrote in message
news:unzqKFmAHHA.4808@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Also these details were in the error log
> 2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 WARNING: Failed to reserve contiguous
> memory of Size= 65536.
> 2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Buffer Distribution: Stolen=21606
> Free=352
> Procedures=5972
> Inram=0 Dirty=3177 Kept=0
> I/O=2, Latched=1880, Other=173883
> 2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Buffer Counts: Commited=206872
> Target=206872 Hashed=178942
> InternalReservation=2396 ExternalReservation=388 Min Free=236 Visible=> 206872
> 2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Procedure Cache: TotalProcs=2955
> TotalPages=5972 InUsePages=2399
> 2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Dynamic Memory Manager: Stolen=27527 OS
> Reserved=928
> OS Committed=906
> OS In Use=903
> Query Plan=5739 Optimizer=0
> General=6664
> Utilities=280 Connection=15510
> 2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Global Memory Objects: Resource=6056
> Locks=188
> SQLCache=159 Replication=2
> LockBytes=2 ServerGlobal=26
> Xact=63
> 2006-11-02 10:47:14.32 spid5154 Query Memory Manager: Grants=2 Waiting=0
> Maximum=91457 Available=91018
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
> news:#3DXj2kAHHA.1780@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> http://www.sql-server-performance.com/deadlocks.asp
>>
>> "Roshan N.A. Jayalath" <roshannaj@.sltnet.lk> wrote in message
>> news:%23XVOMtkAHHA.3928@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > We experienced some deadlocks in our servers and to resolve those we
> used
>> > nolock query hints in some of our select statements.
>> >
>> > Afterwards we are experiencing "There is insufficient system memory to
> run
>> > this query." errors for queries which previously ran well. These
>> > queries
>> > also does not contain any nolock clause. The queries are relatively
>> > ones
>> > which take a large time to execute but the problem is they ran well
>> > before.
>> >
>> > No machine configuration change was done. SQL Server version is 2000
> SP4.
>> >
>> > The server administrators tell that in task manager that SQL Server did
>> > not
>> > dislpay an unual hike in memory resources as well.
>> >
>> > The sql statements are executed via a VFP com+ component via sqlexec.
>> >
>> > A quick response in this regard will be appreciated as our application
> is
>> > crashing due to this.
>> >
>> > RJ
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>sql
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
PErformance and SQL Server Error Log
I am using SQL 2K.
Size of the SQL Server error log file will degrade the performance of SQL
Server.
I am talking about log file which I cleared using SP_CYCLE_ERRORLOG.
Thanks,
JJ
Recycle more often then. How did you determine that it "degraded"
performance?
bert
|||Sorry,
It was my quetion as whether it will degrade the performance or not?
Thanks,
JJ
"bert" <bertcord@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107297013.482698.267950@.l41g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
> Recycle more often then. How did you determine that it "degraded"
> performance?
> bert
>
|||Hi
Not that I have ever found. Output to the log file is appended and is not
read by SQL Server itself.
The bigger issue is how do you view it. A 10Mb log file does take a while to
open in EM (or notepad).
We cycle our error logs on our 400 servers every night. This helps us to
keep the Error log entries by day.
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/
"John Smith" <JJSmith45@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:#bkfy5KCFHA.3524@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Sorry,
> It was my quetion as whether it will degrade the performance or not?
> Thanks,
> JJ
> "bert" <bertcord@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1107297013.482698.267950@.l41g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
>
|||"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:euXu08KCFHA.1936@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> Not that I have ever found. Output to the log file is appended and is not
> read by SQL Server itself.
> The bigger issue is how do you view it. A 10Mb log file does take a while
to
> open in EM (or notepad).
> We cycle our error logs on our 400 servers every night. This helps us to
> keep the Error log entries by day.
>
We do it on the first of the month. But same idea.. keep it somewhat
reasonable and have enough "old" ones to troubleshoot problems.
|||Another helpful hint: either by registry key or by using SQLEM, you can
modify the properties of the SQL Error logs to increase the number retained.
We set ours to 32 and recycle at 11:59 PM every night.
Another thing to consider, most of what is output to the SQL Server Error
logs also ends up in the server's Application Event log; so, you might want
to increase the size of that log too.
Finally, if you have your security settings to Audit all logins, both the
SQL Server Error logs and the system's Application Event logs can be
enourmous. We currently only set for failed login attempts.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@.greenms.com> wrote in message
news:EthMd.26166$ZD1.5393@.twister.nyroc.rr.com...
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:euXu08KCFHA.1936@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> Not that I have ever found. Output to the log file is appended and is not
> read by SQL Server itself.
> The bigger issue is how do you view it. A 10Mb log file does take a while
to
> open in EM (or notepad).
> We cycle our error logs on our 400 servers every night. This helps us to
> keep the Error log entries by day.
>
We do it on the first of the month. But same idea.. keep it somewhat
reasonable and have enough "old" ones to troubleshoot problems.
Size of the SQL Server error log file will degrade the performance of SQL
Server.
I am talking about log file which I cleared using SP_CYCLE_ERRORLOG.
Thanks,
JJ
Recycle more often then. How did you determine that it "degraded"
performance?
bert
|||Sorry,
It was my quetion as whether it will degrade the performance or not?
Thanks,
JJ
"bert" <bertcord@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107297013.482698.267950@.l41g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
> Recycle more often then. How did you determine that it "degraded"
> performance?
> bert
>
|||Hi
Not that I have ever found. Output to the log file is appended and is not
read by SQL Server itself.
The bigger issue is how do you view it. A 10Mb log file does take a while to
open in EM (or notepad).
We cycle our error logs on our 400 servers every night. This helps us to
keep the Error log entries by day.
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/
"John Smith" <JJSmith45@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:#bkfy5KCFHA.3524@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Sorry,
> It was my quetion as whether it will degrade the performance or not?
> Thanks,
> JJ
> "bert" <bertcord@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1107297013.482698.267950@.l41g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
>
|||"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:euXu08KCFHA.1936@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> Not that I have ever found. Output to the log file is appended and is not
> read by SQL Server itself.
> The bigger issue is how do you view it. A 10Mb log file does take a while
to
> open in EM (or notepad).
> We cycle our error logs on our 400 servers every night. This helps us to
> keep the Error log entries by day.
>
We do it on the first of the month. But same idea.. keep it somewhat
reasonable and have enough "old" ones to troubleshoot problems.
|||Another helpful hint: either by registry key or by using SQLEM, you can
modify the properties of the SQL Error logs to increase the number retained.
We set ours to 32 and recycle at 11:59 PM every night.
Another thing to consider, most of what is output to the SQL Server Error
logs also ends up in the server's Application Event log; so, you might want
to increase the size of that log too.
Finally, if you have your security settings to Audit all logins, both the
SQL Server Error logs and the system's Application Event logs can be
enourmous. We currently only set for failed login attempts.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@.greenms.com> wrote in message
news:EthMd.26166$ZD1.5393@.twister.nyroc.rr.com...
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:euXu08KCFHA.1936@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> Not that I have ever found. Output to the log file is appended and is not
> read by SQL Server itself.
> The bigger issue is how do you view it. A 10Mb log file does take a while
to
> open in EM (or notepad).
> We cycle our error logs on our 400 servers every night. This helps us to
> keep the Error log entries by day.
>
We do it on the first of the month. But same idea.. keep it somewhat
reasonable and have enough "old" ones to troubleshoot problems.
PErformance and SQL Server Error Log
I am using SQL 2K.
Size of the SQL Server error log file will degrade the performance of SQL
Server.
I am talking about log file which I cleared using SP_CYCLE_ERRORLOG.
Thanks,
JJRecycle more often then. How did you determine that it "degraded"
performance?
bert|||Sorry,
It was my quetion as whether it will degrade the performance or not?
Thanks,
JJ
"bert" <bertcord@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107297013.482698.267950@.l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Recycle more often then. How did you determine that it "degraded"
> performance?
> bert
>|||Hi
Not that I have ever found. Output to the log file is appended and is not
read by SQL Server itself.
The bigger issue is how do you view it. A 10Mb log file does take a while to
open in EM (or notepad).
We cycle our error logs on our 400 servers every night. This helps us to
keep the Error log entries by day.
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/
"John Smith" <JJSmith45@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:#bkfy5KCFHA.3524@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Sorry,
> It was my quetion as whether it will degrade the performance or not?
> Thanks,
> JJ
> "bert" <bertcord@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1107297013.482698.267950@.l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Recycle more often then. How did you determine that it "degraded"
> > performance?
> >
> > bert
> >
>|||"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:euXu08KCFHA.1936@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> Not that I have ever found. Output to the log file is appended and is not
> read by SQL Server itself.
> The bigger issue is how do you view it. A 10Mb log file does take a while
to
> open in EM (or notepad).
> We cycle our error logs on our 400 servers every night. This helps us to
> keep the Error log entries by day.
>
We do it on the first of the month. But same idea.. keep it somewhat
reasonable and have enough "old" ones to troubleshoot problems.|||Another helpful hint: either by registry key or by using SQLEM, you can
modify the properties of the SQL Error logs to increase the number retained.
We set ours to 32 and recycle at 11:59 PM every night.
Another thing to consider, most of what is output to the SQL Server Error
logs also ends up in the server's Application Event log; so, you might want
to increase the size of that log too.
Finally, if you have your security settings to Audit all logins, both the
SQL Server Error logs and the system's Application Event logs can be
enourmous. We currently only set for failed login attempts.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@.greenms.com> wrote in message
news:EthMd.26166$ZD1.5393@.twister.nyroc.rr.com...
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:euXu08KCFHA.1936@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> Not that I have ever found. Output to the log file is appended and is not
> read by SQL Server itself.
> The bigger issue is how do you view it. A 10Mb log file does take a while
to
> open in EM (or notepad).
> We cycle our error logs on our 400 servers every night. This helps us to
> keep the Error log entries by day.
>
We do it on the first of the month. But same idea.. keep it somewhat
reasonable and have enough "old" ones to troubleshoot problems.
Size of the SQL Server error log file will degrade the performance of SQL
Server.
I am talking about log file which I cleared using SP_CYCLE_ERRORLOG.
Thanks,
JJRecycle more often then. How did you determine that it "degraded"
performance?
bert|||Sorry,
It was my quetion as whether it will degrade the performance or not?
Thanks,
JJ
"bert" <bertcord@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107297013.482698.267950@.l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Recycle more often then. How did you determine that it "degraded"
> performance?
> bert
>|||Hi
Not that I have ever found. Output to the log file is appended and is not
read by SQL Server itself.
The bigger issue is how do you view it. A 10Mb log file does take a while to
open in EM (or notepad).
We cycle our error logs on our 400 servers every night. This helps us to
keep the Error log entries by day.
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/
"John Smith" <JJSmith45@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:#bkfy5KCFHA.3524@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Sorry,
> It was my quetion as whether it will degrade the performance or not?
> Thanks,
> JJ
> "bert" <bertcord@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1107297013.482698.267950@.l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Recycle more often then. How did you determine that it "degraded"
> > performance?
> >
> > bert
> >
>|||"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:euXu08KCFHA.1936@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> Not that I have ever found. Output to the log file is appended and is not
> read by SQL Server itself.
> The bigger issue is how do you view it. A 10Mb log file does take a while
to
> open in EM (or notepad).
> We cycle our error logs on our 400 servers every night. This helps us to
> keep the Error log entries by day.
>
We do it on the first of the month. But same idea.. keep it somewhat
reasonable and have enough "old" ones to troubleshoot problems.|||Another helpful hint: either by registry key or by using SQLEM, you can
modify the properties of the SQL Error logs to increase the number retained.
We set ours to 32 and recycle at 11:59 PM every night.
Another thing to consider, most of what is output to the SQL Server Error
logs also ends up in the server's Application Event log; so, you might want
to increase the size of that log too.
Finally, if you have your security settings to Audit all logins, both the
SQL Server Error logs and the system's Application Event logs can be
enourmous. We currently only set for failed login attempts.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@.greenms.com> wrote in message
news:EthMd.26166$ZD1.5393@.twister.nyroc.rr.com...
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:euXu08KCFHA.1936@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> Not that I have ever found. Output to the log file is appended and is not
> read by SQL Server itself.
> The bigger issue is how do you view it. A 10Mb log file does take a while
to
> open in EM (or notepad).
> We cycle our error logs on our 400 servers every night. This helps us to
> keep the Error log entries by day.
>
We do it on the first of the month. But same idea.. keep it somewhat
reasonable and have enough "old" ones to troubleshoot problems.
PErformance and SQL Server Error Log
I am using SQL 2K.
Size of the SQL Server error log file will degrade the performance of SQL
Server.
I am talking about log file which I cleared using SP_CYCLE_ERRORLOG.
Thanks,
JJRecycle more often then. How did you determine that it "degraded"
performance?
bert|||Sorry,
It was my quetion as whether it will degrade the performance or not?
Thanks,
JJ
"bert" <bertcord@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107297013.482698.267950@.l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Recycle more often then. How did you determine that it "degraded"
> performance?
> bert
>|||Hi
Not that I have ever found. Output to the log file is appended and is not
read by SQL Server itself.
The bigger issue is how do you view it. A 10Mb log file does take a while to
open in EM (or notepad).
We cycle our error logs on our 400 servers every night. This helps us to
keep the Error log entries by day.
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/
"John Smith" <JJSmith45@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:#bkfy5KCFHA.3524@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Sorry,
> It was my quetion as whether it will degrade the performance or not?
> Thanks,
> JJ
> "bert" <bertcord@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1107297013.482698.267950@.l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>|||"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:euXu08KCFHA.1936@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> Not that I have ever found. Output to the log file is appended and is not
> read by SQL Server itself.
> The bigger issue is how do you view it. A 10Mb log file does take a while
to
> open in EM (or notepad).
> We cycle our error logs on our 400 servers every night. This helps us to
> keep the Error log entries by day.
>
We do it on the first of the month. But same idea.. keep it somewhat
reasonable and have enough "old" ones to troubleshoot problems.|||Another helpful hint: either by registry key or by using SQLEM, you can
modify the properties of the SQL Error logs to increase the number retained.
We set ours to 32 and recycle at 11:59 PM every night.
Another thing to consider, most of what is output to the SQL Server Error
logs also ends up in the server's Application Event log; so, you might want
to increase the size of that log too.
Finally, if you have your security settings to Audit all logins, both the
SQL Server Error logs and the system's Application Event logs can be
enourmous. We currently only set for failed login attempts.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@.greenms.com> wrote in message
news:EthMd.26166$ZD1.5393@.twister.nyroc.rr.com...
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:euXu08KCFHA.1936@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> Not that I have ever found. Output to the log file is appended and is not
> read by SQL Server itself.
> The bigger issue is how do you view it. A 10Mb log file does take a while
to
> open in EM (or notepad).
> We cycle our error logs on our 400 servers every night. This helps us to
> keep the Error log entries by day.
>
We do it on the first of the month. But same idea.. keep it somewhat
reasonable and have enough "old" ones to troubleshoot problems.
Size of the SQL Server error log file will degrade the performance of SQL
Server.
I am talking about log file which I cleared using SP_CYCLE_ERRORLOG.
Thanks,
JJRecycle more often then. How did you determine that it "degraded"
performance?
bert|||Sorry,
It was my quetion as whether it will degrade the performance or not?
Thanks,
JJ
"bert" <bertcord@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107297013.482698.267950@.l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Recycle more often then. How did you determine that it "degraded"
> performance?
> bert
>|||Hi
Not that I have ever found. Output to the log file is appended and is not
read by SQL Server itself.
The bigger issue is how do you view it. A 10Mb log file does take a while to
open in EM (or notepad).
We cycle our error logs on our 400 servers every night. This helps us to
keep the Error log entries by day.
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/
"John Smith" <JJSmith45@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:#bkfy5KCFHA.3524@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Sorry,
> It was my quetion as whether it will degrade the performance or not?
> Thanks,
> JJ
> "bert" <bertcord@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1107297013.482698.267950@.l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>|||"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:euXu08KCFHA.1936@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> Not that I have ever found. Output to the log file is appended and is not
> read by SQL Server itself.
> The bigger issue is how do you view it. A 10Mb log file does take a while
to
> open in EM (or notepad).
> We cycle our error logs on our 400 servers every night. This helps us to
> keep the Error log entries by day.
>
We do it on the first of the month. But same idea.. keep it somewhat
reasonable and have enough "old" ones to troubleshoot problems.|||Another helpful hint: either by registry key or by using SQLEM, you can
modify the properties of the SQL Error logs to increase the number retained.
We set ours to 32 and recycle at 11:59 PM every night.
Another thing to consider, most of what is output to the SQL Server Error
logs also ends up in the server's Application Event log; so, you might want
to increase the size of that log too.
Finally, if you have your security settings to Audit all logins, both the
SQL Server Error logs and the system's Application Event logs can be
enourmous. We currently only set for failed login attempts.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@.greenms.com> wrote in message
news:EthMd.26166$ZD1.5393@.twister.nyroc.rr.com...
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:euXu08KCFHA.1936@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> Not that I have ever found. Output to the log file is appended and is not
> read by SQL Server itself.
> The bigger issue is how do you view it. A 10Mb log file does take a while
to
> open in EM (or notepad).
> We cycle our error logs on our 400 servers every night. This helps us to
> keep the Error log entries by day.
>
We do it on the first of the month. But same idea.. keep it somewhat
reasonable and have enough "old" ones to troubleshoot problems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)