Performance between Server and PC

Venedict wrote:
> Hi All,
> Recently we have an application running for 9 hours+ on an HP DL760 G2 wit
h
> 8 Processors, 12GB RAM, 4 HDD 15K RPM 142GB running on Raid 1+0. We have
> tested with the same database and application on a normal pc which only ha
ve
> 2GB RAM, Pentium Dual Core 930 3GHz, SATA HDD without running RAID, it onl
y
> took about 5 hours to complete. Both server and PC is using Windows 2003
> Enterprise (32 bit) and SQL 2000 Enterprise (32 bit).
> Any advice is much appreciated. Thanks.
When you say "application", what are you referring to? You make
references to the application "completing", which leads me to believe
this is a report or stored procedure.
Have you looked at sysprocesses while this "application" is running? My
hunch is that query parallelism is causing this. If you look at
sysprocesses, you'll likely see several threads with the same spid, some
with a waittype of CXPACKET. You might want to experiment with
different degrees of parallelism.Hi All,
Recently we have an application running for 9 hours+ on an HP DL760 G2 with
8 Processors, 12GB RAM, 4 HDD 15K RPM 142GB running on Raid 1+0. We have
tested with the same database and application on a normal pc which only have
2GB RAM, Pentium Dual Core 930 3GHz, SATA HDD without running RAID, it only
took about 5 hours to complete. Both server and PC is using Windows 2003
Enterprise (32 bit) and SQL 2000 Enterprise (32 bit).
According to the client, their normal operation is working fine. The issue
only happen on that application. But it is weird that the same application
running on normal PC is faster than the server. We just reformat that server
,
but the result still took 9hours + to complete.
does anyone know what happen? I have checked all the counter, everything
seem works fine. But I found that the process is pretty fast for 1st 4 hours
then the performance will start degrade.
I also enabled AWE on that server with setting the max memory to 9.6GB RAM
(80% of 12GB). did I leave out something?
I have also tested on HP ML530 G2, Dual Processors and 2GB RAM with RAID 5
(3 HDD 10K RPM). The application still take about 9+ hours to complete.
Any advice is much appreciated. Thanks.
--
Regards,
Venedict|||Venedict wrote:
> Hi All,
> Recently we have an application running for 9 hours+ on an HP DL760 G2 wit
h
> 8 Processors, 12GB RAM, 4 HDD 15K RPM 142GB running on Raid 1+0. We have
> tested with the same database and application on a normal pc which only ha
ve
> 2GB RAM, Pentium Dual Core 930 3GHz, SATA HDD without running RAID, it onl
y
> took about 5 hours to complete. Both server and PC is using Windows 2003
> Enterprise (32 bit) and SQL 2000 Enterprise (32 bit).
> Any advice is much appreciated. Thanks.
When you say "application", what are you referring to? You make
references to the application "completing", which leads me to believe
this is a report or stored procedure.
Have you looked at sysprocesses while this "application" is running? My
hunch is that query parallelism is causing this. If you look at
sysprocesses, you'll likely see several threads with the same spid, some
with a waittype of CXPACKET. You might want to experiment with
different degrees of parallelism.

Performace Bug with Sage MMS

Andy Goodwin wrote:
> I'm just about to implement SQL 2005 in my business to run Sage MMS 3.5. I
've
> just been informed that 2005 has a performance bug (making SQL 2005 six ti
mes
> slower than 2000) that will microsoft will not release a fix for until the
> next release of SQL Server. Does anyone know any details?
Care to share your source? I'm sorry, but if you truly believe such a
thing to be true, I have some all-natural male enhancement products you
might be interested in, guaranteed to have no side-effects...I'm just about to implement SQL 2005 in my business to run Sage MMS 3.5. I'v
e
just been informed that 2005 has a performance bug (making SQL 2005 six time
s
slower than 2000) that will microsoft will not release a fix for until the
next release of SQL Server. Does anyone know any details?
--
Andy Goodwin|||Andy Goodwin wrote:
> I'm just about to implement SQL 2005 in my business to run Sage MMS 3.5. I
've
> just been informed that 2005 has a performance bug (making SQL 2005 six ti
mes
> slower than 2000) that will microsoft will not release a fix for until the
> next release of SQL Server. Does anyone know any details?
Care to share your source? I'm sorry, but if you truly believe such a
thing to be true, I have some all-natural male enhancement products you
might be interested in, guaranteed to have no side-effects...

Perfmon SQL Server counters not appearing in list for saveds coun

Hi James
"JimLad" wrote:

> Hi,
> I set up a counter log to record SQL data in perfmon. This included a
> few O/S counters and
> SQL Server:Buffer Manager/Buffer Cache Hit Ratio
> SQL Server:General Statistics/User Connections
> I am now trying to look at the data through Perf Mon on the same
> machine. However I can only add O/S counters to the view. The SQL
> Server counters don't appear in the list.
> Any ideas?
> Cheers,
> James
I assume this is opening the log file? In which case I suspect the counters
weren't collected. Are the counters available if you try to add them to the
system monitor?
If you are on a 64 bit server are you running the correct version of perfmon?
John
Hi James
"JimLad" wrote:

> On Jul 9, 1:28 pm, John Bell <jbellnewspo...@.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi John,
> Yes, I am opening the log file. And yes they are available in Sys Mon.
> It's a virtualised 32bit server I believe (Intel Xeon 3.2GHz).
> As for perfmon version I'm just using the one in Administrative Tools.
> So, I definitely put the counters in the log. Why haven't they been
> recorded? I notice there is something about objects as well. I only
> put the individual counters in. Do I need to put the whole SQL Server
> object in?
> Cheers,
> James
If they are in the file it should be ok or the file is somehow corrupt. You
should not need to include anything other than the specific counters. Try
doing a new one with just one of the counters and see what happens.
You could try importing the file into SQL 2005 profiler it you have a
corresponding profile.
John
|||On Jul 9, 12:52 pm, John Bell <jbellnewspo...@.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi James
>
>
> "JimLad" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> If they are in the file it should be ok or the file is somehow corrupt. You
> should not need to include anything other than the specific counters. Try
> doing a new one with just one of the counters and see what happens.
> You could try importing the file into SQL 2005 profiler it you have a
> corresponding profile.
> John- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
James,
This just happened to me last week. In my case, I could see the all
counters except for SQL Server counters (Availible memory, buffer
etc). It was a permissions issue. You can "run as" and when I changed
to administrator of the box who has sa access, they appeared.
Hope this helps.
Kristina