Currently have Win2000 Enterprise, 4 Xeon CPU, 4 GB memory.
Spec for Win2003 mentions better use of hyperthreading for SQL Server and IO
performance.
Do you leave hyperthreading on at BIOS level for OS to use but prevent SQL
Server from using it by unchecking the last few set of the processors in EM?
Can I expect a 5% to 10% perf. increase by upgrading from Win2000 to
Win2003?
Also thinking about upgrading 4GB to 8GB using /PAE is there a heavy perf.
hit by the /PAE addressing?
The cache stat on Prepared is at 60%.
Thanks.
It is impossible to say how much improvement you will get as it depends on
so many things. But in general if you are using any of the resources
moderate to heavily you should see some improvements. Basically the Memory
utilization is much better, the I/O and Networking has greatly improved and
scheduling is much better as well. Win2003 is HT aware and will better
support it over Win2K but you should start by setting the MAXDOP to the
number of physical processors and see how that goes. PAE does not add that
much overhead and if you actually need more memory it is the way to go. To
let SQL Server use more than 4GB you will also need to enable AWE.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Peter Yao" <peteryao@.NoSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O4Sovm9ZFHA.1940@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Currently have Win2000 Enterprise, 4 Xeon CPU, 4 GB memory.
> Spec for Win2003 mentions better use of hyperthreading for SQL Server and
> IO
> performance.
> Do you leave hyperthreading on at BIOS level for OS to use but prevent SQL
> Server from using it by unchecking the last few set of the processors in
> EM?
> Can I expect a 5% to 10% perf. increase by upgrading from Win2000 to
> Win2003?
> Also thinking about upgrading 4GB to 8GB using /PAE is there a heavy perf.
> hit by the /PAE addressing?
> The cache stat on Prepared is at 60%.
> Thanks.
>
|||Unfortunately, there is no Win2K EE, only AS.
Also, AWE will help with offloading lower 2 GB memory for data pages, but
not much else. This could releave some pressure you are experiencing on
your PROC CACHE, which is limited to the 4 GB region regardless of AWE or
PAE.
Are you currently using the /3GB boot.ini switch. I would try this first to
see if your PROC CACHE situation improves first before going through the
time and effort of an upgrade and/or adding additional memory. AWE adds
functionality but it also adds new headaches.
If this doesn't help, I doubt going to AWE will either. The best long term
solution, then, would be to start checking out the 64-bit platforms, IA64,
not that x64, EMT64 garbage.
Run DBCC PROCCACHE to see if you are being starved or not, both before and
after setting the /3GB switch.
I'm not so sure why there is so much negativity surrounding the use of HTT.
I've never had a problem with it even though I know there is a lot of
articles out there. I wonder if the same sentiment exists over the new
multi-core chips?
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:OO3aO$CaFHA.4040@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
It is impossible to say how much improvement you will get as it depends on
so many things. But in general if you are using any of the resources
moderate to heavily you should see some improvements. Basically the Memory
utilization is much better, the I/O and Networking has greatly improved and
scheduling is much better as well. Win2003 is HT aware and will better
support it over Win2K but you should start by setting the MAXDOP to the
number of physical processors and see how that goes. PAE does not add that
much overhead and if you actually need more memory it is the way to go. To
let SQL Server use more than 4GB you will also need to enable AWE.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Peter Yao" <peteryao@.NoSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O4Sovm9ZFHA.1940@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Currently have Win2000 Enterprise, 4 Xeon CPU, 4 GB memory.
> Spec for Win2003 mentions better use of hyperthreading for SQL Server and
> IO
> performance.
> Do you leave hyperthreading on at BIOS level for OS to use but prevent SQL
> Server from using it by unchecking the last few set of the processors in
> EM?
> Can I expect a 5% to 10% perf. increase by upgrading from Win2000 to
> Win2003?
> Also thinking about upgrading 4GB to 8GB using /PAE is there a heavy perf.
> hit by the /PAE addressing?
> The cache stat on Prepared is at 60%.
> Thanks.
>
Showing posts with label xeon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label xeon. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Performance gain by switching from Win2000 to Win2003?
Currently have Win2000 Enterprise, 4 Xeon CPU, 4 GB memory.
Spec for Win2003 mentions better use of hyperthreading for SQL Server and IO
performance.
Do you leave hyperthreading on at BIOS level for OS to use but prevent SQL
Server from using it by unchecking the last few set of the processors in EM?
Can I expect a 5% to 10% perf. increase by upgrading from Win2000 to
Win2003?
Also thinking about upgrading 4GB to 8GB using /PAE is there a heavy perf.
hit by the /PAE addressing?
The cache stat on Prepared is at 60%.
Thanks.It is impossible to say how much improvement you will get as it depends on
so many things. But in general if you are using any of the resources
moderate to heavily you should see some improvements. Basically the Memory
utilization is much better, the I/O and Networking has greatly improved and
scheduling is much better as well. Win2003 is HT aware and will better
support it over Win2K but you should start by setting the MAXDOP to the
number of physical processors and see how that goes. PAE does not add that
much overhead and if you actually need more memory it is the way to go. To
let SQL Server use more than 4GB you will also need to enable AWE.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Peter Yao" <peteryao@.NoSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O4Sovm9ZFHA.1940@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Currently have Win2000 Enterprise, 4 Xeon CPU, 4 GB memory.
> Spec for Win2003 mentions better use of hyperthreading for SQL Server and
> IO
> performance.
> Do you leave hyperthreading on at BIOS level for OS to use but prevent SQL
> Server from using it by unchecking the last few set of the processors in
> EM?
> Can I expect a 5% to 10% perf. increase by upgrading from Win2000 to
> Win2003?
> Also thinking about upgrading 4GB to 8GB using /PAE is there a heavy perf.
> hit by the /PAE addressing?
> The cache stat on Prepared is at 60%.
> Thanks.
>|||Unfortunately, there is no Win2K EE, only AS.
Also, AWE will help with offloading lower 2 GB memory for data pages, but
not much else. This could releave some pressure you are experiencing on
your PROC CACHE, which is limited to the 4 GB region regardless of AWE or
PAE.
Are you currently using the /3GB boot.ini switch. I would try this first to
see if your PROC CACHE situation improves first before going through the
time and effort of an upgrade and/or adding additional memory. AWE adds
functionality but it also adds new headaches.
If this doesn't help, I doubt going to AWE will either. The best long term
solution, then, would be to start checking out the 64-bit platforms, IA64,
not that x64, EMT64 garbage.
Run DBCC PROCCACHE to see if you are being starved or not, both before and
after setting the /3GB switch.
I'm not so sure why there is so much negativity surrounding the use of HTT.
I've never had a problem with it even though I know there is a lot of
articles out there. I wonder if the same sentiment exists over the new
multi-core chips?
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:OO3aO$CaFHA.4040@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
It is impossible to say how much improvement you will get as it depends on
so many things. But in general if you are using any of the resources
moderate to heavily you should see some improvements. Basically the Memory
utilization is much better, the I/O and Networking has greatly improved and
scheduling is much better as well. Win2003 is HT aware and will better
support it over Win2K but you should start by setting the MAXDOP to the
number of physical processors and see how that goes. PAE does not add that
much overhead and if you actually need more memory it is the way to go. To
let SQL Server use more than 4GB you will also need to enable AWE.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Peter Yao" <peteryao@.NoSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O4Sovm9ZFHA.1940@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Currently have Win2000 Enterprise, 4 Xeon CPU, 4 GB memory.
> Spec for Win2003 mentions better use of hyperthreading for SQL Server and
> IO
> performance.
> Do you leave hyperthreading on at BIOS level for OS to use but prevent SQL
> Server from using it by unchecking the last few set of the processors in
> EM?
> Can I expect a 5% to 10% perf. increase by upgrading from Win2000 to
> Win2003?
> Also thinking about upgrading 4GB to 8GB using /PAE is there a heavy perf.
> hit by the /PAE addressing?
> The cache stat on Prepared is at 60%.
> Thanks.
>
Spec for Win2003 mentions better use of hyperthreading for SQL Server and IO
performance.
Do you leave hyperthreading on at BIOS level for OS to use but prevent SQL
Server from using it by unchecking the last few set of the processors in EM?
Can I expect a 5% to 10% perf. increase by upgrading from Win2000 to
Win2003?
Also thinking about upgrading 4GB to 8GB using /PAE is there a heavy perf.
hit by the /PAE addressing?
The cache stat on Prepared is at 60%.
Thanks.It is impossible to say how much improvement you will get as it depends on
so many things. But in general if you are using any of the resources
moderate to heavily you should see some improvements. Basically the Memory
utilization is much better, the I/O and Networking has greatly improved and
scheduling is much better as well. Win2003 is HT aware and will better
support it over Win2K but you should start by setting the MAXDOP to the
number of physical processors and see how that goes. PAE does not add that
much overhead and if you actually need more memory it is the way to go. To
let SQL Server use more than 4GB you will also need to enable AWE.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Peter Yao" <peteryao@.NoSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O4Sovm9ZFHA.1940@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Currently have Win2000 Enterprise, 4 Xeon CPU, 4 GB memory.
> Spec for Win2003 mentions better use of hyperthreading for SQL Server and
> IO
> performance.
> Do you leave hyperthreading on at BIOS level for OS to use but prevent SQL
> Server from using it by unchecking the last few set of the processors in
> EM?
> Can I expect a 5% to 10% perf. increase by upgrading from Win2000 to
> Win2003?
> Also thinking about upgrading 4GB to 8GB using /PAE is there a heavy perf.
> hit by the /PAE addressing?
> The cache stat on Prepared is at 60%.
> Thanks.
>|||Unfortunately, there is no Win2K EE, only AS.
Also, AWE will help with offloading lower 2 GB memory for data pages, but
not much else. This could releave some pressure you are experiencing on
your PROC CACHE, which is limited to the 4 GB region regardless of AWE or
PAE.
Are you currently using the /3GB boot.ini switch. I would try this first to
see if your PROC CACHE situation improves first before going through the
time and effort of an upgrade and/or adding additional memory. AWE adds
functionality but it also adds new headaches.
If this doesn't help, I doubt going to AWE will either. The best long term
solution, then, would be to start checking out the 64-bit platforms, IA64,
not that x64, EMT64 garbage.
Run DBCC PROCCACHE to see if you are being starved or not, both before and
after setting the /3GB switch.
I'm not so sure why there is so much negativity surrounding the use of HTT.
I've never had a problem with it even though I know there is a lot of
articles out there. I wonder if the same sentiment exists over the new
multi-core chips?
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:OO3aO$CaFHA.4040@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
It is impossible to say how much improvement you will get as it depends on
so many things. But in general if you are using any of the resources
moderate to heavily you should see some improvements. Basically the Memory
utilization is much better, the I/O and Networking has greatly improved and
scheduling is much better as well. Win2003 is HT aware and will better
support it over Win2K but you should start by setting the MAXDOP to the
number of physical processors and see how that goes. PAE does not add that
much overhead and if you actually need more memory it is the way to go. To
let SQL Server use more than 4GB you will also need to enable AWE.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Peter Yao" <peteryao@.NoSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O4Sovm9ZFHA.1940@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Currently have Win2000 Enterprise, 4 Xeon CPU, 4 GB memory.
> Spec for Win2003 mentions better use of hyperthreading for SQL Server and
> IO
> performance.
> Do you leave hyperthreading on at BIOS level for OS to use but prevent SQL
> Server from using it by unchecking the last few set of the processors in
> EM?
> Can I expect a 5% to 10% perf. increase by upgrading from Win2000 to
> Win2003?
> Also thinking about upgrading 4GB to 8GB using /PAE is there a heavy perf.
> hit by the /PAE addressing?
> The cache stat on Prepared is at 60%.
> Thanks.
>
Performance gain by switching from Win2000 to Win2003?
Currently have Win2000 Enterprise, 4 Xeon CPU, 4 GB memory.
Spec for Win2003 mentions better use of hyperthreading for SQL Server and IO
performance.
Do you leave hyperthreading on at BIOS level for OS to use but prevent SQL
Server from using it by unchecking the last few set of the processors in EM?
Can I expect a 5% to 10% perf. increase by upgrading from Win2000 to
Win2003?
Also thinking about upgrading 4GB to 8GB using /PAE is there a heavy perf.
hit by the /PAE addressing?
The cache stat on Prepared is at 60%.
Thanks.It is impossible to say how much improvement you will get as it depends on
so many things. But in general if you are using any of the resources
moderate to heavily you should see some improvements. Basically the Memory
utilization is much better, the I/O and Networking has greatly improved and
scheduling is much better as well. Win2003 is HT aware and will better
support it over Win2K but you should start by setting the MAXDOP to the
number of physical processors and see how that goes. PAE does not add that
much overhead and if you actually need more memory it is the way to go. To
let SQL Server use more than 4GB you will also need to enable AWE.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Peter Yao" <peteryao@.NoSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O4Sovm9ZFHA.1940@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Currently have Win2000 Enterprise, 4 Xeon CPU, 4 GB memory.
> Spec for Win2003 mentions better use of hyperthreading for SQL Server and
> IO
> performance.
> Do you leave hyperthreading on at BIOS level for OS to use but prevent SQL
> Server from using it by unchecking the last few set of the processors in
> EM?
> Can I expect a 5% to 10% perf. increase by upgrading from Win2000 to
> Win2003?
> Also thinking about upgrading 4GB to 8GB using /PAE is there a heavy perf.
> hit by the /PAE addressing?
> The cache stat on Prepared is at 60%.
> Thanks.
>|||Unfortunately, there is no Win2K EE, only AS.
Also, AWE will help with offloading lower 2 GB memory for data pages, but
not much else. This could releave some pressure you are experiencing on
your PROC CACHE, which is limited to the 4 GB region regardless of AWE or
PAE.
Are you currently using the /3GB boot.ini switch. I would try this first to
see if your PROC CACHE situation improves first before going through the
time and effort of an upgrade and/or adding additional memory. AWE adds
functionality but it also adds new headaches.
If this doesn't help, I doubt going to AWE will either. The best long term
solution, then, would be to start checking out the 64-bit platforms, IA64,
not that x64, EMT64 garbage.
Run DBCC PROCCACHE to see if you are being starved or not, both before and
after setting the /3GB switch.
I'm not so sure why there is so much negativity surrounding the use of HTT.
I've never had a problem with it even though I know there is a lot of
articles out there. I wonder if the same sentiment exists over the new
multi-core chips?
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:OO3aO$CaFHA.4040@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
It is impossible to say how much improvement you will get as it depends on
so many things. But in general if you are using any of the resources
moderate to heavily you should see some improvements. Basically the Memory
utilization is much better, the I/O and Networking has greatly improved and
scheduling is much better as well. Win2003 is HT aware and will better
support it over Win2K but you should start by setting the MAXDOP to the
number of physical processors and see how that goes. PAE does not add that
much overhead and if you actually need more memory it is the way to go. To
let SQL Server use more than 4GB you will also need to enable AWE.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Peter Yao" <peteryao@.NoSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O4Sovm9ZFHA.1940@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Currently have Win2000 Enterprise, 4 Xeon CPU, 4 GB memory.
> Spec for Win2003 mentions better use of hyperthreading for SQL Server and
> IO
> performance.
> Do you leave hyperthreading on at BIOS level for OS to use but prevent SQL
> Server from using it by unchecking the last few set of the processors in
> EM?
> Can I expect a 5% to 10% perf. increase by upgrading from Win2000 to
> Win2003?
> Also thinking about upgrading 4GB to 8GB using /PAE is there a heavy perf.
> hit by the /PAE addressing?
> The cache stat on Prepared is at 60%.
> Thanks.
>sql
Spec for Win2003 mentions better use of hyperthreading for SQL Server and IO
performance.
Do you leave hyperthreading on at BIOS level for OS to use but prevent SQL
Server from using it by unchecking the last few set of the processors in EM?
Can I expect a 5% to 10% perf. increase by upgrading from Win2000 to
Win2003?
Also thinking about upgrading 4GB to 8GB using /PAE is there a heavy perf.
hit by the /PAE addressing?
The cache stat on Prepared is at 60%.
Thanks.It is impossible to say how much improvement you will get as it depends on
so many things. But in general if you are using any of the resources
moderate to heavily you should see some improvements. Basically the Memory
utilization is much better, the I/O and Networking has greatly improved and
scheduling is much better as well. Win2003 is HT aware and will better
support it over Win2K but you should start by setting the MAXDOP to the
number of physical processors and see how that goes. PAE does not add that
much overhead and if you actually need more memory it is the way to go. To
let SQL Server use more than 4GB you will also need to enable AWE.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Peter Yao" <peteryao@.NoSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O4Sovm9ZFHA.1940@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Currently have Win2000 Enterprise, 4 Xeon CPU, 4 GB memory.
> Spec for Win2003 mentions better use of hyperthreading for SQL Server and
> IO
> performance.
> Do you leave hyperthreading on at BIOS level for OS to use but prevent SQL
> Server from using it by unchecking the last few set of the processors in
> EM?
> Can I expect a 5% to 10% perf. increase by upgrading from Win2000 to
> Win2003?
> Also thinking about upgrading 4GB to 8GB using /PAE is there a heavy perf.
> hit by the /PAE addressing?
> The cache stat on Prepared is at 60%.
> Thanks.
>|||Unfortunately, there is no Win2K EE, only AS.
Also, AWE will help with offloading lower 2 GB memory for data pages, but
not much else. This could releave some pressure you are experiencing on
your PROC CACHE, which is limited to the 4 GB region regardless of AWE or
PAE.
Are you currently using the /3GB boot.ini switch. I would try this first to
see if your PROC CACHE situation improves first before going through the
time and effort of an upgrade and/or adding additional memory. AWE adds
functionality but it also adds new headaches.
If this doesn't help, I doubt going to AWE will either. The best long term
solution, then, would be to start checking out the 64-bit platforms, IA64,
not that x64, EMT64 garbage.
Run DBCC PROCCACHE to see if you are being starved or not, both before and
after setting the /3GB switch.
I'm not so sure why there is so much negativity surrounding the use of HTT.
I've never had a problem with it even though I know there is a lot of
articles out there. I wonder if the same sentiment exists over the new
multi-core chips?
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:OO3aO$CaFHA.4040@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
It is impossible to say how much improvement you will get as it depends on
so many things. But in general if you are using any of the resources
moderate to heavily you should see some improvements. Basically the Memory
utilization is much better, the I/O and Networking has greatly improved and
scheduling is much better as well. Win2003 is HT aware and will better
support it over Win2K but you should start by setting the MAXDOP to the
number of physical processors and see how that goes. PAE does not add that
much overhead and if you actually need more memory it is the way to go. To
let SQL Server use more than 4GB you will also need to enable AWE.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Peter Yao" <peteryao@.NoSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O4Sovm9ZFHA.1940@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Currently have Win2000 Enterprise, 4 Xeon CPU, 4 GB memory.
> Spec for Win2003 mentions better use of hyperthreading for SQL Server and
> IO
> performance.
> Do you leave hyperthreading on at BIOS level for OS to use but prevent SQL
> Server from using it by unchecking the last few set of the processors in
> EM?
> Can I expect a 5% to 10% perf. increase by upgrading from Win2000 to
> Win2003?
> Also thinking about upgrading 4GB to 8GB using /PAE is there a heavy perf.
> hit by the /PAE addressing?
> The cache stat on Prepared is at 60%.
> Thanks.
>sql
Friday, March 9, 2012
Performance
New PE2800 3.2gb Xeon, 2gb ram, sql 2005 workgroup ed.
I have a db that has been imported from access. One of the tables has a 1.8 million records. It takes a couple of minutes to pull this data up from the sql manager whereas in access it only took a couple of seconds. Other tables take longer to pull-up in sql as well. If I use access to connect to the sql server and and pull up this long table, it doesnt take as long as the sql manager but it still takes a lot longer than the access db does to pull up the same info.
Why does this very basic query take so long?
It also utlizes 50-70% of processor time while it trying to return these records.
I cant seem to find a good explaination for this behavior?
Thanks,
How is the table indexed in SQL Server? Is it the same as in Access?
Saturday, February 25, 2012
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
>
>.
>
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
>
>.
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)