Performance effect if SQL2000 and SQL2005 on same box

Hi everyone,
I am going to upgrade SQL2000 to SQL2005 because 3rd party application
requires SQL2005. My plan is upgrade my current database on SQL2000 to
SQL2005, but keeping SQL2000 for fall back plan.
Is there any impact on performance if I have SQL2005 and SQL2000 running on
the same machine?
Thanks alot for any help in advance.
Han.
The issues are not different from running two SQL2000 instances or two
SQL2005 instances.
Linchi
"Han" wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> I am going to upgrade SQL2000 to SQL2005 because 3rd party application
> requires SQL2005. My plan is upgrade my current database on SQL2000 to
> SQL2005, but keeping SQL2000 for fall back plan.
> Is there any impact on performance if I have SQL2005 and SQL2000 running on
> the same machine?
> Thanks alot for any help in advance.
> Han.
sql

Performance effect if SQL2000 and SQL2005 on same box

Hi everyone,
I am going to upgrade SQL2000 to SQL2005 because 3rd party application
requires SQL2005. My plan is upgrade my current database on SQL2000 to
SQL2005, but keeping SQL2000 for fall back plan.
Is there any impact on performance if I have SQL2005 and SQL2000 running on
the same machine?
Thanks alot for any help in advance.
Han.You will obviously have resource usage of you have both service started at the same time. But having
2000 installed but not started will not degrade performance of a 2005 install on that machine.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Han" <Han@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FE01070A-7736-47CF-AECA-D9DB9CA5F75E@.microsoft.com...
> Hi everyone,
> I am going to upgrade SQL2000 to SQL2005 because 3rd party application
> requires SQL2005. My plan is upgrade my current database on SQL2000 to
> SQL2005, but keeping SQL2000 for fall back plan.
> Is there any impact on performance if I have SQL2005 and SQL2000 running on
> the same machine?
> Thanks alot for any help in advance.
> Han.|||The issues are not different from running two SQL2000 instances or two
SQL2005 instances.
Linchi
"Han" wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> I am going to upgrade SQL2000 to SQL2005 because 3rd party application
> requires SQL2005. My plan is upgrade my current database on SQL2000 to
> SQL2005, but keeping SQL2000 for fall back plan.
> Is there any impact on performance if I have SQL2005 and SQL2000 running on
> the same machine?
> Thanks alot for any help in advance.
> Han.

Performance comparaison

I'm looking for a chart from Microsoft or 3rd party, showing the difference
of performance of SQL 2005 compared to SQL 2000 using exactly the same
hardware.
Basically, we are trying to show the management that we can have performance
gains if we go from a Windows 2000/SQL 2000, to a Windows 2003/SQL 2005
setup.
Thanks for all the help !!!
--
Why not run some performance benchmarks with SQL2000 adn SQL2005 on the same
hardware using the same workload that approximates your app? The
results--whatever they may be--would be more relevant and convincing than
anything you may find elsewhere.
Linchi
"Thinkpad21" wrote:

> I'm looking for a chart from Microsoft or 3rd party, showing the difference
> of performance of SQL 2005 compared to SQL 2000 using exactly the same
> hardware.
> Basically, we are trying to show the management that we can have performance
> gains if we go from a Windows 2000/SQL 2000, to a Windows 2003/SQL 2005
> setup.
> Thanks for all the help !!!
> --
> --
>
>

Performance comparaison

I'm looking for a chart from Microsoft or 3rd party, showing the difference
of performance of SQL 2005 compared to SQL 2000 using exactly the same
hardware.
Basically, we are trying to show the management that we can have performance
gains if we go from a Windows 2000/SQL 2000, to a Windows 2003/SQL 2005
setup.
Thanks for all the help !!!
--
--On 13.12.2006 12:34, Thinkpad21 wrote:
> I'm looking for a chart from Microsoft or 3rd party, showing the difference
> of performance of SQL 2005 compared to SQL 2000 using exactly the same
> hardware.
> Basically, we are trying to show the management that we can have performance
> gains if we go from a Windows 2000/SQL 2000, to a Windows 2003/SQL 2005
> setup.
I guess you will have a hard time searching for this. A simple
comparison that tells you SQL 2005 is 7.34% faster on the same hardware
is unrealistic. Performance highly depends on the workload and the
data. There might be cases where SQL 2005 is slower - IIRC there was a
recent thread about this phenomenon.
If your SQL 2k performs well and you do not urgently need features from
SQL 2005 then just stick with 2k. My 0.02EUR.
Kind regards
robert|||http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/compare/benchmarks.mspx
http://www.devx.com/dbzone/Article/21539/1954?pf=true

Performance comparaison

I'm looking for a chart from Microsoft or 3rd party, showing the difference
of performance of SQL 2005 compared to SQL 2000 using exactly the same
hardware.
Basically, we are trying to show the management that we can have performance
gains if we go from a Windows 2000/SQL 2000, to a Windows 2003/SQL 2005
setup.
Thanks for all the help !!!
--
--On 13.12.2006 12:34, Thinkpad21 wrote:
> I'm looking for a chart from Microsoft or 3rd party, showing the differenc
e
> of performance of SQL 2005 compared to SQL 2000 using exactly the same
> hardware.
> Basically, we are trying to show the management that we can have performan
ce
> gains if we go from a Windows 2000/SQL 2000, to a Windows 2003/SQL 2005
> setup.
I guess you will have a hard time searching for this. A simple
comparison that tells you SQL 2005 is 7.34% faster on the same hardware
is unrealistic. Performance highly depends on the workload and the
data. There might be cases where SQL 2005 is slower - IIRC there was a
recent thread about this phenomenon.
If your SQL 2k performs well and you do not urgently need features from
SQL 2005 then just stick with 2k. My 0.02EUR.
Kind regards
robert|||http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...benchmarks.mspx
http://www.devx.com/dbzone/Article/21539/1954?pf=true|||Why not run some performance benchmarks with SQL2000 adn SQL2005 on the same
hardware using the same workload that approximates your app? The
results--whatever they may be--would be more relevant and convincing than
anything you may find elsewhere.
Linchi
"Thinkpad21" wrote:

> I'm looking for a chart from Microsoft or 3rd party, showing the differenc
e
> of performance of SQL 2005 compared to SQL 2000 using exactly the same
> hardware.
> Basically, we are trying to show the management that we can have performan
ce
> gains if we go from a Windows 2000/SQL 2000, to a Windows 2003/SQL 2005
> setup.
> Thanks for all the help !!!
> --
> --
>
>

Perfomance Question

I look after a database which is part of a third party CRM product. The
users of the product complain of intermittant poor performance, the
suspicion is that some more senior users are running their own queries
(the product allows users to do this). I've been asked by the
development team to try to capture the details of long running queries.

I've looked at the events listed in profiler and can't see one that
would be useful. Ideally I want to know who is running which query that
is taking longer than x seconds.

Any suggestions

TIA

LaurencePersonally, I would say 4-6 seconds is to long for a query. You may have a
different expectation.
Run the Profiler for a period of time _ i aim for at least 3 hrs - depnds on
server traffic etc

Events to capture : Stored Procedures--RPC:Completed &&
TSQL--SQL:BatchCompleted
(all sps and t-sql statement)

The critical columns to capture are: Duration and textdata . Others as well
for whatever other analysis you may need

Use the "duration" filter , do it by db id.

Jack Vamvas
___________________________________
Receive free SQL tips - www.ciquery.com/sqlserver.htm
___________________________________

"Laurence Breeze" <i.l.breeze@.open.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:448ED88F.1000104@.open.ac.uk...
> I look after a database which is part of a third party CRM product. The
> users of the product complain of intermittant poor performance, the
> suspicion is that some more senior users are running their own queries
> (the product allows users to do this). I've been asked by the
> development team to try to capture the details of long running queries.
> I've looked at the events listed in profiler and can't see one that
> would be useful. Ideally I want to know who is running which query that
> is taking longer than x seconds.
> Any suggestions
> TIA
> Laurence|||Thanks Jack,

I'll give that a go.

Laurence

Jack Vamvas wrote:
> Personally, I would say 4-6 seconds is to long for a query. You may have a
> different expectation.
> Run the Profiler for a period of time _ i aim for at least 3 hrs - depnds on
> server traffic etc
> Events to capture : Stored Procedures--RPC:Completed &&
> TSQL--SQL:BatchCompleted
> (all sps and t-sql statement)
> The critical columns to capture are: Duration and textdata . Others as well
> for whatever other analysis you may need
> Use the "duration" filter , do it by db id.
>
> Jack Vamvas
> ___________________________________
> Receive free SQL tips - www.ciquery.com/sqlserver.htm
> ___________________________________
>
>
> "Laurence Breeze" <i.l.breeze@.open.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:448ED88F.1000104@.open.ac.uk...
>>I look after a database which is part of a third party CRM product. The
>>users of the product complain of intermittant poor performance, the
>>suspicion is that some more senior users are running their own queries
>>(the product allows users to do this). I've been asked by the
>>development team to try to capture the details of long running queries.
>>
>>I've looked at the events listed in profiler and can't see one that
>>would be useful. Ideally I want to know who is running which query that
>>is taking longer than x seconds.
>>
>>Any suggestions
>>
>>TIA
>>
>>Laurence
>>