Percentage of total: moved

Showing posts with label moved. Show all posts

Monday, March 26, 2012

Performance degradation on sql server 2005

Moved from sql server 2000 to 2005 .Applied snapshot isolation to
reduce blocking...
>From most indicators return times are not any faster
In 2000 we had awe enabled and in 2005 64 bit on 64 bit os non of that
is
We have 32G of ram on a xeon
4 cpu hyperthreaded
Config
lock pages in memory granted to sql server account ...
max memory 25G
Min memory 1G
Not sure what I am missing here
Your input will be highly appreciatedMass
After upgrading to SQL Server 2005 , did you update statistics as well as
rebuilding indexes on the databases?
"Massa Batheli" <mngong@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159184263.874445.285230@.i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Moved from sql server 2000 to 2005 .Applied snapshot isolation to
> reduce blocking...
>>From most indicators return times are not any faster
> In 2000 we had awe enabled and in 2005 64 bit on 64 bit os non of that
> is
> We have 32G of ram on a xeon
> 4 cpu hyperthreaded
> Config
> lock pages in memory granted to sql server account ...
> max memory 25G
> Min memory 1G
> Not sure what I am missing here
> Your input will be highly appreciated
>|||Thanks for your response Uri
I did not rebuild indexes but for sure update statistics every day or
some analyst will call me on that .Is it necessary to rebuild indexes?
Uri Dimant wrote:
> Mass
> After upgrading to SQL Server 2005 , did you update statistics as well as
> rebuilding indexes on the databases?
>
>
> "Massa Batheli" <mngong@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1159184263.874445.285230@.i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Moved from sql server 2000 to 2005 .Applied snapshot isolation to
> > reduce blocking...
> >>From most indicators return times are not any faster
> >
> > In 2000 we had awe enabled and in 2005 64 bit on 64 bit os non of that
> > is
> >
> > We have 32G of ram on a xeon
> > 4 cpu hyperthreaded
> > Config
> > lock pages in memory granted to sql server account ...
> > max memory 25G
> > Min memory 1G
> >
> > Not sure what I am missing here
> > Your input will be highly appreciated
> >|||Hi
Yes , it is. I'd sugget you rebuild a heavy updated/inserted tables to do
that on weekly period
"Massa Batheli" <mngong@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159187341.666362.282160@.i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks for your response Uri
> I did not rebuild indexes but for sure update statistics every day or
> some analyst will call me on that .Is it necessary to rebuild indexes?
>
> Uri Dimant wrote:
>> Mass
>> After upgrading to SQL Server 2005 , did you update statistics as well
>> as
>> rebuilding indexes on the databases?
>>
>>
>> "Massa Batheli" <mngong@.gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1159184263.874445.285230@.i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> > Moved from sql server 2000 to 2005 .Applied snapshot isolation to
>> > reduce blocking...
>> >>From most indicators return times are not any faster
>> >
>> > In 2000 we had awe enabled and in 2005 64 bit on 64 bit os non of that
>> > is
>> >
>> > We have 32G of ram on a xeon
>> > 4 cpu hyperthreaded
>> > Config
>> > lock pages in memory granted to sql server account ...
>> > max memory 25G
>> > Min memory 1G
>> >
>> > Not sure what I am missing here
>> > Your input will be highly appreciated
>> >
>|||On 25.09.2006 14:36, Uri Dimant wrote:
> Yes , it is. I'd sugget you rebuild a heavy updated/inserted tables to do
> that on weekly period
Is that actually common practice with SQL Server? I have never read
such a suggestion in Oracle land and it seems pretty impractical for
DB's that are large or frequently used (24x7).
Kind regards
robert|||Robert Klemme wrote:
> On 25.09.2006 14:36, Uri Dimant wrote:
>> Yes , it is. I'd sugget you rebuild a heavy updated/inserted tables
>> to do that on weekly period
> Is that actually common practice with SQL Server? I have never read
> such a suggestion in Oracle land and it seems pretty impractical for
> DB's that are large or frequently used (24x7).
> Kind regards
> robert
Yes, it is, depending on the type of index, keys involved, etc. For
instance, an index build on a non-sequential key will fragment as new
key values are inserted into middle portions of the index.
Here's an article explaining it in more detail:
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/sj_detect_fragmentation.asp
I have a script that will check the fragmentation of each index,
rebuilding those that are badly fragmented:
http://realsqlguy.com/serendipity/archives/12-Humpty-Dumpty-Sat-On-A-Wall...html
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com|||I'd beg to differ. A VLDB is a VLDB. Regardless of what platform it is on,
the challenges are the same or similar. In this case, if it is a very large
table with little 'down time' for maintenance, running index rebuilds
regularly (or even occasionally) is just not practical.
Linchi
"Tracy McKibben" wrote:
> Robert Klemme wrote:
> > On 25.09.2006 14:36, Uri Dimant wrote:
> >> Yes , it is. I'd sugget you rebuild a heavy updated/inserted tables
> >> to do that on weekly period
> >
> > Is that actually common practice with SQL Server? I have never read
> > such a suggestion in Oracle land and it seems pretty impractical for
> > DB's that are large or frequently used (24x7).
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> > robert
> Yes, it is, depending on the type of index, keys involved, etc. For
> instance, an index build on a non-sequential key will fragment as new
> key values are inserted into middle portions of the index.
> Here's an article explaining it in more detail:
> http://www.sql-server-performance.com/sj_detect_fragmentation.asp
> I have a script that will check the fragmentation of each index,
> rebuilding those that are badly fragmented:
> http://realsqlguy.com/serendipity/archives/12-Humpty-Dumpty-Sat-On-A-Wall...html
>
> --
> Tracy McKibben
> MCDBA
> http://www.realsqlguy.com
>|||here here.. I totally agree with Linchi. Often, the advice to simply rebuild
indexes is given unnecessarily.
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
http://blogs.sqlserver.org.au/blogs/greg_linwood
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:07A7E217-1824-4FE4-9367-11DAF263DB83@.microsoft.com...
> I'd beg to differ. A VLDB is a VLDB. Regardless of what platform it is on,
> the challenges are the same or similar. In this case, if it is a very
> large
> table with little 'down time' for maintenance, running index rebuilds
> regularly (or even occasionally) is just not practical.
> Linchi
> "Tracy McKibben" wrote:
>> Robert Klemme wrote:
>> > On 25.09.2006 14:36, Uri Dimant wrote:
>> >> Yes , it is. I'd sugget you rebuild a heavy updated/inserted tables
>> >> to do that on weekly period
>> >
>> > Is that actually common practice with SQL Server? I have never read
>> > such a suggestion in Oracle land and it seems pretty impractical for
>> > DB's that are large or frequently used (24x7).
>> >
>> > Kind regards
>> >
>> > robert
>> Yes, it is, depending on the type of index, keys involved, etc. For
>> instance, an index build on a non-sequential key will fragment as new
>> key values are inserted into middle portions of the index.
>> Here's an article explaining it in more detail:
>> http://www.sql-server-performance.com/sj_detect_fragmentation.asp
>> I have a script that will check the fragmentation of each index,
>> rebuilding those that are badly fragmented:
>> http://realsqlguy.com/serendipity/archives/12-Humpty-Dumpty-Sat-On-A-Wall...html
>>
>> --
>> Tracy McKibben
>> MCDBA
>> http://www.realsqlguy.com

Performance degradation on sql server 2005

Friday, March 23, 2012

performance counters on a SAN

Hello,
Recently we moved our database servers onto a emc cx600 san. Since
the move I ran perfmon against the server for a week to try to get a
baseline of the server's performance. I am getting some curious
metrics from perfmon on the avg. disk queue lenth and %disk time for
the data drive for the sql server database. We have the same
dedicated spindle config as we did on our former system with the
difference being the greatly increased throughput of the new system.
Avg. disk queue lenth is reporting an avg. of over 30 for lengthy
periods of time(> 10 minutes) and %disk time is reporting an avg of
over 300 around the same time . The former system was not reporting
any performance bottlenecks. I wonder if the counters are skewed
somehow. Has anyone experienced any oddities with disk related
performance counter metrics on a san or am I suddenly looking at a
disk bottleneck? Is it possible that the increased throughput to the
san is now causing a disk bottleneck?
Let me know if more details are needed.
Thanks,
GregThanks for the reply. The logical drive is a 10 spindle raid 5, so
the avg. disk queue length would be 3. If I'm not mistaken an avg.
disk queue length of 2 or more for any extended period of time would
be considered a bottleneck. Also, a % disk time of 300 seems rather
high to me as well. I am just curious if these disk counters report
accurately on a san as there weren't any bottlenecks reported on the
former system which was much slower than this system all the way
around. To my knowledge there hasn't been a substantial change in
workload to suddenly cause this.
Greg
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 05:26:31 -0400, "Wayne Snyder"
<wsnyder@.computeredservices.com> wrote:
>Remember that disk queue lengths are for the logical drive... and to get
>*real* number you care about divide 30 by the number of physical drives
> which are likely to be a larger number in the SAN)...
>"Greg" <gjackson@.thq.com> wrote in message
>news:gjagjvgsp8ogelufmret27pdddi7vi4sh4@.4ax.com...
>> Hello,
>> Recently we moved our database servers onto a emc cx600 san. Since
>> the move I ran perfmon against the server for a week to try to get a
>> baseline of the server's performance. I am getting some curious
>> metrics from perfmon on the avg. disk queue lenth and %disk time for
>> the data drive for the sql server database. We have the same
>> dedicated spindle config as we did on our former system with the
>> difference being the greatly increased throughput of the new system.
>> Avg. disk queue lenth is reporting an avg. of over 30 for lengthy
>> periods of time(> 10 minutes) and %disk time is reporting an avg of
>> over 300 around the same time . The former system was not reporting
>> any performance bottlenecks. I wonder if the counters are skewed
>> somehow. Has anyone experienced any oddities with disk related
>> performance counter metrics on a san or am I suddenly looking at a
>> disk bottleneck? Is it possible that the increased throughput to the
>> san is now causing a disk bottleneck?
>> Let me know if more details are needed.
>> Thanks,
>> Greg
>sql

Monday, March 26, 2012

Performance degradation on sql server 2005

Performance degradation on sql server 2005

Performance degradation on sql server 2005

Friday, March 23, 2012

performance counters on a SAN

Percentage of total

Blog Archive

About Me