Performance difference between Std & Enterprise Editions

Our main server is a Compaq Quad 700Mhz server with 4GB RAM and one instance
of SQLServer that was standard edition. We upgraded the SQLServer to
Enterprise edition and set the max memory to 3584MB. Performance is worse
now. Is this coincidental or should we expect it? Is there some other
setting that we need to do?
BTW, we implemented log shipping and found that the msdb DB did not contain
the tables and stored procedures we needed. Apparently the upgrade from Std
to Enterprise edition did not upgrade the msdb DB. We backed up an msdb DB
on another Enterprise SQLServer system and restored it on our main server.
The resored msdb DB has the tables and stored procedures we needed and we
were able to fire up the log shipping. Is this situation normal?
Picine Karppehd
Look at the topics "UPDATE STATISTICS" and "Reading Pages" in Books Online.
The former will show you how to update the statistics on your database,
which may not be optimal after the upgrade. The latter describes "advanced
scan," a type of read-ahead I/O which Ent uses but Std doesn't, and may
account for some of the differences.
Might also see http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=243589
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"Picine Karppehd" <PicineKarppehd@.hotmail.com.(donotspam)> wrote in message
news:E1126808-7BF5-4802-A4FD-DACE5E8965A9@.microsoft.com...
> Our main server is a Compaq Quad 700Mhz server with 4GB RAM and one
instance
> of SQLServer that was standard edition. We upgraded the SQLServer to
> Enterprise edition and set the max memory to 3584MB. Performance is worse
> now. Is this coincidental or should we expect it? Is there some other
> setting that we need to do?
> BTW, we implemented log shipping and found that the msdb DB did not
contain
> the tables and stored procedures we needed. Apparently the upgrade from
Std
> to Enterprise edition did not upgrade the msdb DB. We backed up an msdb
DB
> on another Enterprise SQLServer system and restored it on our main server.
> The resored msdb DB has the tables and stored procedures we needed and we
> were able to fire up the log shipping. Is this situation normal?
> --
> Picine Karppehd
>

Performance difference between Std & Enterprise Editions

Our main server is a Compaq Quad 700Mhz server with 4GB RAM and one instance
of SQLServer that was standard edition. We upgraded the SQLServer to
Enterprise edition and set the max memory to 3584MB. Performance is worse
now. Is this coincidental or should we expect it? Is there some other
setting that we need to do?
BTW, we implemented log shipping and found that the msdb DB did not contain
the tables and stored procedures we needed. Apparently the upgrade from Std
to Enterprise edition did not upgrade the msdb DB. We backed up an msdb DB
on another Enterprise SQLServer system and restored it on our main server.
The resored msdb DB has the tables and stored procedures we needed and we
were able to fire up the log shipping. Is this situation normal?
Picine KarppehdLook at the topics "UPDATE STATISTICS" and "Reading Pages" in Books Online.
The former will show you how to update the statistics on your database,
which may not be optimal after the upgrade. The latter describes "advanced
scan," a type of read-ahead I/O which Ent uses but Std doesn't, and may
account for some of the differences.
Might also see http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=243589
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"Picine Karppehd" <PicineKarppehd@.hotmail.com.(donotspam)> wrote in message
news:E1126808-7BF5-4802-A4FD-DACE5E8965A9@.microsoft.com...
> Our main server is a Compaq Quad 700Mhz server with 4GB RAM and one
instance
> of SQLServer that was standard edition. We upgraded the SQLServer to
> Enterprise edition and set the max memory to 3584MB. Performance is worse
> now. Is this coincidental or should we expect it? Is there some other
> setting that we need to do?
> BTW, we implemented log shipping and found that the msdb DB did not
contain
> the tables and stored procedures we needed. Apparently the upgrade from
Std
> to Enterprise edition did not upgrade the msdb DB. We backed up an msdb
DB
> on another Enterprise SQLServer system and restored it on our main server.
> The resored msdb DB has the tables and stored procedures we needed and we
> were able to fire up the log shipping. Is this situation normal?
> --
> Picine Karppehd
>

Performance difference between Std & Enterprise Editions

Our main server is a Compaq Quad 700Mhz server with 4GB RAM and one instance
of SQLServer that was standard edition. We upgraded the SQLServer to
Enterprise edition and set the max memory to 3584MB. Performance is worse
now. Is this coincidental or should we expect it? Is there some other
setting that we need to do?
BTW, we implemented log shipping and found that the msdb DB did not contain
the tables and stored procedures we needed. Apparently the upgrade from Std
to Enterprise edition did not upgrade the msdb DB. We backed up an msdb DB
on another Enterprise SQLServer system and restored it on our main server.
The resored msdb DB has the tables and stored procedures we needed and we
were able to fire up the log shipping. Is this situation normal?
--
Picine KarppehdLook at the topics "UPDATE STATISTICS" and "Reading Pages" in Books Online.
The former will show you how to update the statistics on your database,
which may not be optimal after the upgrade. The latter describes "advanced
scan," a type of read-ahead I/O which Ent uses but Std doesn't, and may
account for some of the differences.
Might also see http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=243589
--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"Picine Karppehd" <PicineKarppehd@.hotmail.com.(donotspam)> wrote in message
news:E1126808-7BF5-4802-A4FD-DACE5E8965A9@.microsoft.com...
> Our main server is a Compaq Quad 700Mhz server with 4GB RAM and one
instance
> of SQLServer that was standard edition. We upgraded the SQLServer to
> Enterprise edition and set the max memory to 3584MB. Performance is worse
> now. Is this coincidental or should we expect it? Is there some other
> setting that we need to do?
> BTW, we implemented log shipping and found that the msdb DB did not
contain
> the tables and stored procedures we needed. Apparently the upgrade from
Std
> to Enterprise edition did not upgrade the msdb DB. We backed up an msdb
DB
> on another Enterprise SQLServer system and restored it on our main server.
> The resored msdb DB has the tables and stored procedures we needed and we
> were able to fire up the log shipping. Is this situation normal?
> --
> Picine Karppehd
>

Perfomance Questions

I have a few questions.
First: We have a quad Xeon 500MHz server running SQL2K
and Win2K. All SPs are applied. Sometimes the
performance becomes an issue. My boss wants me to go
through and kill some processes when that happens. Are
there any adverse reactions to that?
Second: We also have a Terminal Server with Win2k3
running. Does anyone know of any performance issues with
this?
Thanks.
DonDon,
If the solution is to kill processes, you need a better solution.
Killing a process naturally affects the user of that process. Depending on
how the client and T-SQL code is written this can range from harmless but
annoying to leaving data in a logically incomplete state. (It will not
physically corrupt the database, but logical corruption is just as
troublesome.)
The thing to do is investigate the processes that are candidates for
killing, figure out what is wrong, and help the developer/user to correct
the problems. (Famous bad query: multi-table cartesian product to get just
a few rows. Done by people who do not understand joining.)
Russell Fields
"Don" <donolwert@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0d3301c35c30$a7ecb780$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have a few questions.
> First: We have a quad Xeon 500MHz server running SQL2K
> and Win2K. All SPs are applied. Sometimes the
> performance becomes an issue. My boss wants me to go
> through and kill some processes when that happens. Are
> there any adverse reactions to that?
> Second: We also have a Terminal Server with Win2k3
> running. Does anyone know of any performance issues with
> this?
> Thanks.
> Don|||One time I puked because a process was killed.. I couldn't stand it.
MS
"chris" <chrisr@.fingps.com> wrote in message
news:057901c35c45$0c1de350$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> My boss wants me to go
> >through and kill some processes when that happens. Are
> >there any adverse reactions to that?
> Other than users losing the work they were doing, no.
>
> >--Original Message--
> >I have a few questions.
> >
> >First: We have a quad Xeon 500MHz server running SQL2K
> >and Win2K. All SPs are applied. Sometimes the
> >performance becomes an issue. My boss wants me to go
> >through and kill some processes when that happens. Are
> >there any adverse reactions to that?
> >
> >Second: We also have a Terminal Server with Win2k3
> >running. Does anyone know of any performance issues with
> >this?
> >
> >Thanks.
> >Don
> >.
> >|||Russell,
Thanks for the good detailed information.
Don
>--Original Message--
>Don,
>If the solution is to kill processes, you need a better
solution.
>Killing a process naturally affects the user of that
process. Depending on
>how the client and T-SQL code is written this can range
from harmless but
>annoying to leaving data in a logically incomplete
state. (It will not
>physically corrupt the database, but logical corruption
is just as
>troublesome.)
>The thing to do is investigate the processes that are
candidates for
>killing, figure out what is wrong, and help the
developer/user to correct
>the problems. (Famous bad query: multi-table cartesian
product to get just
>a few rows. Done by people who do not understand
joining.)
>Russell Fields
>"Don" <donolwert@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:0d3301c35c30$a7ecb780$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
>> I have a few questions.
>> First: We have a quad Xeon 500MHz server running SQL2K
>> and Win2K. All SPs are applied. Sometimes the
>> performance becomes an issue. My boss wants me to go
>> through and kill some processes when that happens. Are
>> there any adverse reactions to that?
>> Second: We also have a Terminal Server with Win2k3
>> running. Does anyone know of any performance issues
with
>> this?
>> Thanks.
>> Don
>
>.
>