Showing posts with label servers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label servers. Show all posts

Friday, March 30, 2012

IBM SDK

When connecting to an INFORMIX database with SQL Servers Linked Server tool, the ifxoledbc.dll (which is part of IBM's SDK) is used. Which version of IBM's SDK and the ifxoledbc.dll work with SQL Server 2005 and Informix Dynamic Server 7.3? I'm getting an the following error (confidential is the artificial name of my linked server):

Msg 7302, Level 16, State 1, Procedure sp_tables_ex, Line 41

Cannot create an instance of OLE DB provider "Ifxoledbc" for linked server "CONFIDENTIAL".

I'm using SQL SERVER 2005 and I'm trying to connect to a INFORMIX Dynamic Server 7.3 through a linked server.

Do I need an update with IBM's SDK or am I not set-up properly?

Thanks,

Matt

http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=379008&SiteID=1

Thanks

sql

IBM SDK

When connecting to an INFORMIX database with SQL Servers Linked Server tool, the ifxoledbc.dll (which is part of IBM's SDK) is used. Which version of IBM's SDK and the ifxoledbc.dll work with SQL Server 2005 and Informix Dynamic Server 7.3? I'm getting an the following error (confidential is the artificial name of my linked server):

Msg 7302, Level 16, State 1, Procedure sp_tables_ex, Line 41

Cannot create an instance of OLE DB provider "Ifxoledbc" for linked server "CONFIDENTIAL".

I'm using SQL SERVER 2005 and I'm trying to connect to a INFORMIX Dynamic Server 7.3 through a linked server.

Do I need an update with IBM's SDK or am I not set-up properly?

Thanks,

Matt

http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=379008&SiteID=1

Thanks

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

I/O requests taking longer than 15 seconds to complete

We get below error in MS SQL 2005 server which is fail over virtual server on
windows 2000 advanced servers clusterring.
SQL Server has encountered 16 occurrence(s) of I/O requests taking longer
than 15 seconds to complete on file [Y:\Microsoft SQL
Server\MSSQL.1\MSSQL\DATA\tempdb.mdf] in database [tempdb] (2). The OS file
handle is 0x00000768. The offset of the latest long I/O is: 0x00000000652000
..
what is the cause and solution ?
NOTE:- 1- there are no sql 2005 service packs installed.
2- all HP Servers hardwares and HP SAN Storage drivers and firmwares are
updated upto date .
3- this error is generated on application peak hours .
This blog entry explains the error and offers suggestions
for addressing the issue:
http://blogs.msdn.com/sqlserverstorageengine/archive/2006/06/21/642314.aspx
-Sue
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 03:02:11 -0700, maslooki
<maslooki@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>We get below error in MS SQL 2005 server which is fail over virtual server on
>windows 2000 advanced servers clusterring.
>SQL Server has encountered 16 occurrence(s) of I/O requests taking longer
>than 15 seconds to complete on file [Y:\Microsoft SQL
>Server\MSSQL.1\MSSQL\DATA\tempdb.mdf] in database [tempdb] (2). The OS file
>handle is 0x00000768. The offset of the latest long I/O is: 0x00000000652000
>.
>what is the cause and solution ?
>NOTE:- 1- there are no sql 2005 service packs installed.
>2- all HP Servers hardwares and HP SAN Storage drivers and firmwares are
>updated upto date .
>3- this error is generated on application peak hours .
>
|||Thank you MR.Sue Hoegemeier for reply
We also get the below error on the application side :-
" Transaction (Process ID 57) was deadlocked on lock resources with another
process and has been chosen as the deadlock victim. Return the transaction. "
Please again what is the cause and solution for this error ?
Note :- This happens on peak hours when they generate Reports and upload
transactions .
Thanks for cooperation
"Sue Hoegemeier" wrote:

> This blog entry explains the error and offers suggestions
> for addressing the issue:
> http://blogs.msdn.com/sqlserverstorageengine/archive/2006/06/21/642314.aspx
> -Sue
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 03:02:11 -0700, maslooki
> <maslooki@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>
|||You may consider ensuring that your reporting queries (I assume SELECT only)
use snapshot isolation level. Better still would be to replicate or mirror
to a reporting server which will handle the queries independent of the true
OLTP activity.
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqlblog.com/
http://www.aspfaq.com/5006
"maslooki" <maslooki@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1D25A567-53FF-4667-9D3D-39F50D1F7FD7@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thank you MR.Sue Hoegemeier for reply
> We also get the below error on the application side :-
> " Transaction (Process ID 57) was deadlocked on lock resources with
> another
> process and has been chosen as the deadlock victim. Return the
> transaction. "
> Please again what is the cause and solution for this error ?
> Note :- This happens on peak hours when they generate Reports and upload
> transactions .
> Thanks for cooperation
> "Sue Hoegemeier" wrote:
|||Thank you all,
Our programmers are working on it.
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:

> You may consider ensuring that your reporting queries (I assume SELECT only)
> use snapshot isolation level. Better still would be to replicate or mirror
> to a reporting server which will handle the queries independent of the true
> OLTP activity.
> --
> Aaron Bertrand
> SQL Server MVP
> http://www.sqlblog.com/
> http://www.aspfaq.com/5006
>
>
> "maslooki" <maslooki@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:1D25A567-53FF-4667-9D3D-39F50D1F7FD7@.microsoft.com...
>
>

I/O requests taking longer than 15 seconds to complete

We get below error in MS SQL 2005 server which is fail over virtual server o
n
windows 2000 advanced servers clusterring.
SQL Server has encountered 16 occurrence(s) of I/O requests taking longer
than 15 seconds to complete on file [Y:\Microsoft SQL
Server\MSSQL.1\MSSQL\DATA\tempdb.mdf] in database [tempdb] (2). The OS
file
handle is 0x00000768. The offset of the latest long I/O is: 0x0000000065200
0
.
what is the cause and solution ?
NOTE:- 1- there are no sql 2005 service packs installed.
2- all HP Servers hardwares and HP SAN Storage drivers and firmwares are
updated upto date .
3- this error is generated on application peak hours .This blog entry explains the error and offers suggestions
for addressing the issue:
http://blogs.msdn.com/sqlserverstor.../21/642314.aspx
-Sue
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 03:02:11 -0700, maslooki
<maslooki@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>We get below error in MS SQL 2005 server which is fail over virtual server
on
>windows 2000 advanced servers clusterring.
>SQL Server has encountered 16 occurrence(s) of I/O requests taking longer
>than 15 seconds to complete on file [Y:\Microsoft SQL
>Server\MSSQL.1\MSSQL\DATA\tempdb.mdf] in database [tempdb] (2). The OS
file
>handle is 0x00000768. The offset of the latest long I/O is: 0x000000006520
00
>.
>what is the cause and solution ?
>NOTE:- 1- there are no sql 2005 service packs installed.
>2- all HP Servers hardwares and HP SAN Storage drivers and firmwares are
>updated upto date .
>3- this error is generated on application peak hours .
>|||Thank you MR.Sue Hoegemeier for reply
We also get the below error on the application side :-
" Transaction (Process ID 57) was deadlocked on lock resources with another
process and has been chosen as the deadlock victim. Return the transaction.
"
Please again what is the cause and solution for this error ?
Note :- This happens on peak hours when they generate Reports and upload
transactions .
Thanks for cooperation
"Sue Hoegemeier" wrote:

> This blog entry explains the error and offers suggestions
> for addressing the issue:
> [url]http://blogs.msdn.com/sqlserverstorageengine/archive/2006/06/21/642314.aspx[/url
]
> -Sue
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 03:02:11 -0700, maslooki
> <maslooki@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>|||You may consider ensuring that your reporting queries (I assume SELECT only)
use snapshot isolation level. Better still would be to replicate or mirror
to a reporting server which will handle the queries independent of the true
OLTP activity.
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqlblog.com/
http://www.aspfaq.com/5006
"maslooki" <maslooki@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1D25A567-53FF-4667-9D3D-39F50D1F7FD7@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thank you MR.Sue Hoegemeier for reply
> We also get the below error on the application side :-
> " Transaction (Process ID 57) was deadlocked on lock resources with
> another
> process and has been chosen as the deadlock victim. Return the
> transaction. "
> Please again what is the cause and solution for this error ?
> Note :- This happens on peak hours when they generate Reports and upload
> transactions .
> Thanks for cooperation
> "Sue Hoegemeier" wrote:
>|||Thank you all,
Our programmers are working on it.
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:

> You may consider ensuring that your reporting queries (I assume SELECT onl
y)
> use snapshot isolation level. Better still would be to replicate or mirro
r
> to a reporting server which will handle the queries independent of the tru
e
> OLTP activity.
> --
> Aaron Bertrand
> SQL Server MVP
> http://www.sqlblog.com/
> http://www.aspfaq.com/5006
>
>
> "maslooki" <maslooki@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:1D25A567-53FF-4667-9D3D-39F50D1F7FD7@.microsoft.com...
>
>sql

I/O requests taking longer than 15 seconds to complete

We get below error in MS SQL 2005 server which is fail over virtual server on
windows 2000 advanced servers clusterring.
SQL Server has encountered 16 occurrence(s) of I/O requests taking longer
than 15 seconds to complete on file [Y:\Microsoft SQL
Server\MSSQL.1\MSSQL\DATA\tempdb.mdf] in database [tempdb] (2). The OS file
handle is 0x00000768. The offset of the latest long I/O is: 0x00000000652000
.
what is the cause and solution ?
NOTE:- 1- there are no sql 2005 service packs installed.
2- all HP Servers hardwares and HP SAN Storage drivers and firmwares are
updated upto date .
3- this error is generated on application peak hours .This blog entry explains the error and offers suggestions
for addressing the issue:
http://blogs.msdn.com/sqlserverstorageengine/archive/2006/06/21/642314.aspx
-Sue
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 03:02:11 -0700, maslooki
<maslooki@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>We get below error in MS SQL 2005 server which is fail over virtual server on
>windows 2000 advanced servers clusterring.
>SQL Server has encountered 16 occurrence(s) of I/O requests taking longer
>than 15 seconds to complete on file [Y:\Microsoft SQL
>Server\MSSQL.1\MSSQL\DATA\tempdb.mdf] in database [tempdb] (2). The OS file
>handle is 0x00000768. The offset of the latest long I/O is: 0x00000000652000
>.
>what is the cause and solution ?
>NOTE:- 1- there are no sql 2005 service packs installed.
>2- all HP Servers hardwares and HP SAN Storage drivers and firmwares are
>updated upto date .
>3- this error is generated on application peak hours .
>|||Thank you MR.Sue Hoegemeier for reply
We also get the below error on the application side :-
" Transaction (Process ID 57) was deadlocked on lock resources with another
process and has been chosen as the deadlock victim. Return the transaction. "
Please again what is the cause and solution for this error ?
Note :- This happens on peak hours when they generate Reports and upload
transactions .
Thanks for cooperation
"Sue Hoegemeier" wrote:
> This blog entry explains the error and offers suggestions
> for addressing the issue:
> http://blogs.msdn.com/sqlserverstorageengine/archive/2006/06/21/642314.aspx
> -Sue
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 03:02:11 -0700, maslooki
> <maslooki@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> >We get below error in MS SQL 2005 server which is fail over virtual server on
> >windows 2000 advanced servers clusterring.
> >
> >SQL Server has encountered 16 occurrence(s) of I/O requests taking longer
> >than 15 seconds to complete on file [Y:\Microsoft SQL
> >Server\MSSQL.1\MSSQL\DATA\tempdb.mdf] in database [tempdb] (2). The OS file
> >handle is 0x00000768. The offset of the latest long I/O is: 0x00000000652000
> >.
> >
> >what is the cause and solution ?
> >
> >NOTE:- 1- there are no sql 2005 service packs installed.
> >2- all HP Servers hardwares and HP SAN Storage drivers and firmwares are
> >updated upto date .
> >3- this error is generated on application peak hours .
> >
>|||You may consider ensuring that your reporting queries (I assume SELECT only)
use snapshot isolation level. Better still would be to replicate or mirror
to a reporting server which will handle the queries independent of the true
OLTP activity.
--
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqlblog.com/
http://www.aspfaq.com/5006
"maslooki" <maslooki@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1D25A567-53FF-4667-9D3D-39F50D1F7FD7@.microsoft.com...
> Thank you MR.Sue Hoegemeier for reply
> We also get the below error on the application side :-
> " Transaction (Process ID 57) was deadlocked on lock resources with
> another
> process and has been chosen as the deadlock victim. Return the
> transaction. "
> Please again what is the cause and solution for this error ?
> Note :- This happens on peak hours when they generate Reports and upload
> transactions .
> Thanks for cooperation
> "Sue Hoegemeier" wrote:
>> This blog entry explains the error and offers suggestions
>> for addressing the issue:
>> http://blogs.msdn.com/sqlserverstorageengine/archive/2006/06/21/642314.aspx
>> -Sue
>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 03:02:11 -0700, maslooki
>> <maslooki@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>> >We get below error in MS SQL 2005 server which is fail over virtual
>> >server on
>> >windows 2000 advanced servers clusterring.
>> >
>> >SQL Server has encountered 16 occurrence(s) of I/O requests taking
>> >longer
>> >than 15 seconds to complete on file [Y:\Microsoft SQL
>> >Server\MSSQL.1\MSSQL\DATA\tempdb.mdf] in database [tempdb] (2). The OS
>> >file
>> >handle is 0x00000768. The offset of the latest long I/O is:
>> >0x00000000652000
>> >.
>> >
>> >what is the cause and solution ?
>> >
>> >NOTE:- 1- there are no sql 2005 service packs installed.
>> >2- all HP Servers hardwares and HP SAN Storage drivers and firmwares are
>> >updated upto date .
>> >3- this error is generated on application peak hours .
>> >
>>|||Thank you all,
Our programmers are working on it.
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> You may consider ensuring that your reporting queries (I assume SELECT only)
> use snapshot isolation level. Better still would be to replicate or mirror
> to a reporting server which will handle the queries independent of the true
> OLTP activity.
> --
> Aaron Bertrand
> SQL Server MVP
> http://www.sqlblog.com/
> http://www.aspfaq.com/5006
>
>
> "maslooki" <maslooki@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:1D25A567-53FF-4667-9D3D-39F50D1F7FD7@.microsoft.com...
> > Thank you MR.Sue Hoegemeier for reply
> >
> > We also get the below error on the application side :-
> > " Transaction (Process ID 57) was deadlocked on lock resources with
> > another
> > process and has been chosen as the deadlock victim. Return the
> > transaction. "
> >
> > Please again what is the cause and solution for this error ?
> >
> > Note :- This happens on peak hours when they generate Reports and upload
> > transactions .
> >
> > Thanks for cooperation
> >
> > "Sue Hoegemeier" wrote:
> >
> >> This blog entry explains the error and offers suggestions
> >> for addressing the issue:
> >> http://blogs.msdn.com/sqlserverstorageengine/archive/2006/06/21/642314.aspx
> >>
> >> -Sue
> >>
> >> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 03:02:11 -0700, maslooki
> >> <maslooki@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >We get below error in MS SQL 2005 server which is fail over virtual
> >> >server on
> >> >windows 2000 advanced servers clusterring.
> >> >
> >> >SQL Server has encountered 16 occurrence(s) of I/O requests taking
> >> >longer
> >> >than 15 seconds to complete on file [Y:\Microsoft SQL
> >> >Server\MSSQL.1\MSSQL\DATA\tempdb.mdf] in database [tempdb] (2). The OS
> >> >file
> >> >handle is 0x00000768. The offset of the latest long I/O is:
> >> >0x00000000652000
> >> >.
> >> >
> >> >what is the cause and solution ?
> >> >
> >> >NOTE:- 1- there are no sql 2005 service packs installed.
> >> >2- all HP Servers hardwares and HP SAN Storage drivers and firmwares are
> >> >updated upto date .
> >> >3- this error is generated on application peak hours .
> >> >
> >>
> >>
>
>

I/O issues after SP4 upgrade

Hi,
We have upgraded 3 of our SQL Servers to SP4 in the past 2 weeks. We
monitor these servers with Veritas, and we have noticed that all 3 servers
have shown a marked increase (around 4x) in Disk Sec/Transfer, Disk
Sec/Write, and Disk Queue Length.
For example, on one server, Disk Writes and Disk Transfers were taking on
average 7 ms to complete (with SP3a). Post-SP4, they are taking
approximately 30 ms on average. The queue length has jumped from around 3
to about 15. [I know the avg disk queue length was a bit high to start
with - we are working with our SAN vendor to get this figured out]
Queries are still executing in about the same time, CPU utilization is about
the same, and we see no other negative effects. But we're wondering why the
I/O is so much worse than when we were running SP3a. We changed nothing
besides moving to SP4. And we did install the post-SP4 AWE patch as well.
Has anyone run into this before or know of any articles that touch on
possible causes?
--
Regards,
Jake Marx
www.longhead.com
[please keep replies in the newsgroup - email address unmonitored]Have the query plans changed? Is the increased I/O due to more table scans?
Did you run sp_updatestats?
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Jake Marx" <msnews@.longhead.com> wrote in message
news:OM%23R2MCVGHA.4348@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> We have upgraded 3 of our SQL Servers to SP4 in the past 2 weeks. We
> monitor these servers with Veritas, and we have noticed that all 3 servers
> have shown a marked increase (around 4x) in Disk Sec/Transfer, Disk
> Sec/Write, and Disk Queue Length.
> For example, on one server, Disk Writes and Disk Transfers were taking on
> average 7 ms to complete (with SP3a). Post-SP4, they are taking
> approximately 30 ms on average. The queue length has jumped from around 3
> to about 15. [I know the avg disk queue length was a bit high to start
> with - we are working with our SAN vendor to get this figured out]
> Queries are still executing in about the same time, CPU utilization is
> about the same, and we see no other negative effects. But we're wondering
> why the I/O is so much worse than when we were running SP3a. We changed
> nothing besides moving to SP4. And we did install the post-SP4 AWE patch
> as well. Has anyone run into this before or know of any articles that
> touch on possible causes?
> --
> Regards,
> Jake Marx
> www.longhead.com
>
> [please keep replies in the newsgroup - email address unmonitored]
>|||Hi Andrew,
Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
> Have the query plans changed? Is the increased I/O due to more table
> scans? Did you run sp_updatestats?
Thanks for the suggestions. I did not run sp_updatestats - I just did it on
one of the less-busy servers to see if it makes a difference. The query
plans are not different from what I have seen so far, but I will keep
looking. Table scans have come down a bit since upgrading to SP4.
The strange thing (to me) is that overall I/O activity is about the same;
reads/writes per sec is pretty constant. It's just the duration of each I/O
operation and the disk queue length that went up. And this happened only on
the data drive - the trans log and local (tempdb) drives' queue lengths
actually decreased.
--
Regards,
Jake Marx
www.longhead.com
[please keep replies in the newsgroup - email address unmonitored]
>> We have upgraded 3 of our SQL Servers to SP4 in the past 2 weeks. We
>> monitor these servers with Veritas, and we have noticed that all 3
>> servers have shown a marked increase (around 4x) in Disk
>> Sec/Transfer, Disk Sec/Write, and Disk Queue Length.
>> For example, on one server, Disk Writes and Disk Transfers were
>> taking on average 7 ms to complete (with SP3a). Post-SP4, they are
>> taking approximately 30 ms on average. The queue length has jumped
>> from around 3 to about 15. [I know the avg disk queue length was a
>> bit high to start with - we are working with our SAN vendor to get
>> this figured out] Queries are still executing in about the same time, CPU
>> utilization
>> is about the same, and we see no other negative effects. But we're
>> wondering why the I/O is so much worse than when we were running
>> SP3a. We changed nothing besides moving to SP4. And we did install
>> the post-SP4 AWE patch as well. Has anyone run into this before or
>> know of any articles that touch on possible causes?|||There should be very few table scans if they are optimized properly
regardless of the SP. I haven't seen anything yet that indicates SP4 itself
caused increased I/O times but anything is possible. Any chance you were
monitoring fn_virtualfilestats() before and after? If so do you notice
increased bytes read or written or just increased IOStallms?
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Jake Marx" <msnews@.longhead.com> wrote in message
news:%23KCJtvNVGHA.4764@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi Andrew,
> Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
>> Have the query plans changed? Is the increased I/O due to more table
>> scans? Did you run sp_updatestats?
> Thanks for the suggestions. I did not run sp_updatestats - I just did it
> on one of the less-busy servers to see if it makes a difference. The
> query plans are not different from what I have seen so far, but I will
> keep looking. Table scans have come down a bit since upgrading to SP4.
> The strange thing (to me) is that overall I/O activity is about the same;
> reads/writes per sec is pretty constant. It's just the duration of each
> I/O operation and the disk queue length that went up. And this happened
> only on the data drive - the trans log and local (tempdb) drives' queue
> lengths actually decreased.
> --
> Regards,
> Jake Marx
> www.longhead.com
>
> [please keep replies in the newsgroup - email address unmonitored]
>
>> We have upgraded 3 of our SQL Servers to SP4 in the past 2 weeks. We
>> monitor these servers with Veritas, and we have noticed that all 3
>> servers have shown a marked increase (around 4x) in Disk
>> Sec/Transfer, Disk Sec/Write, and Disk Queue Length.
>> For example, on one server, Disk Writes and Disk Transfers were
>> taking on average 7 ms to complete (with SP3a). Post-SP4, they are
>> taking approximately 30 ms on average. The queue length has jumped
>> from around 3 to about 15. [I know the avg disk queue length was a
>> bit high to start with - we are working with our SAN vendor to get
>> this figured out] Queries are still executing in about the same time,
>> CPU utilization
>> is about the same, and we see no other negative effects. But we're
>> wondering why the I/O is so much worse than when we were running
>> SP3a. We changed nothing besides moving to SP4. And we did install
>> the post-SP4 AWE patch as well. Has anyone run into this before or
>> know of any articles that touch on possible causes?
>|||Hi Andrew,
Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
> There should be very few table scans if they are optimized properly
> regardless of the SP. I haven't seen anything yet that indicates SP4
> itself caused increased I/O times but anything is possible. Any
> chance you were monitoring fn_virtualfilestats() before and after? If so
> do you notice increased bytes read or written or just increased
> IOStallms?
Most of the table/index scans are on very small tables (some of which are
heaps). There aren't any table scans on larger tables, and there are very
few index scans on larger tables (we're working on removing those as we
can). Full scans/sec seem to hover around 3. We have several hundred
concurrent users on this db.
No, I haven't used fn_virtualfilestats() before. Just ran it, and it seems
useful - thanks for the tip. IoStallMS / NumberReads + NumberWrites) is
less than 6 for all files, so that seems OK based on the documentation I've
seen.
--
Regards,
Jake Marx
www.longhead.com
[please keep replies in the newsgroup - email address unmonitored]
>> Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
>> Have the query plans changed? Is the increased I/O due to more
>> table scans? Did you run sp_updatestats?
>> Thanks for the suggestions. I did not run sp_updatestats - I just
>> did it on one of the less-busy servers to see if it makes a
>> difference. The query plans are not different from what I have seen
>> so far, but I will keep looking. Table scans have come down a bit
>> since upgrading to SP4. The strange thing (to me) is that overall I/O
>> activity is about the
>> same; reads/writes per sec is pretty constant. It's just the
>> duration of each I/O operation and the disk queue length that went
>> up. And this happened only on the data drive - the trans log and
>> local (tempdb) drives' queue lengths actually decreased.
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Jake Marx
>> www.longhead.com
>>
>> [please keep replies in the newsgroup - email address unmonitored]
>>
>> We have upgraded 3 of our SQL Servers to SP4 in the past 2 weeks. We
>> monitor these servers with Veritas, and we have noticed that
>> all 3 servers have shown a marked increase (around 4x) in Disk
>> Sec/Transfer, Disk Sec/Write, and Disk Queue Length.
>> For example, on one server, Disk Writes and Disk Transfers were
>> taking on average 7 ms to complete (with SP3a). Post-SP4, they are
>> taking approximately 30 ms on average. The queue length has jumped
>> from around 3 to about 15. [I know the avg disk queue length was a
>> bit high to start with - we are working with our SAN vendor to get
>> this figured out] Queries are still executing in about the same
>> time, CPU utilization
>> is about the same, and we see no other negative effects. But we're
>> wondering why the I/O is so much worse than when we were running
>> SP3a. We changed nothing besides moving to SP4. And we did
>> install the post-SP4 AWE patch as well. Has anyone run into this
>> before or know of any articles that touch on possible causes?|||The filestats will let you know if you are actually reading / writing more
data or simply getting increased access times with the same data.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Jake Marx" <msnews@.longhead.com> wrote in message
news:eTDfwOOVGHA.4864@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi Andrew,
> Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
>> There should be very few table scans if they are optimized properly
>> regardless of the SP. I haven't seen anything yet that indicates SP4
>> itself caused increased I/O times but anything is possible. Any
>> chance you were monitoring fn_virtualfilestats() before and after? If so
>> do you notice increased bytes read or written or just increased
>> IOStallms?
> Most of the table/index scans are on very small tables (some of which are
> heaps). There aren't any table scans on larger tables, and there are very
> few index scans on larger tables (we're working on removing those as we
> can). Full scans/sec seem to hover around 3. We have several hundred
> concurrent users on this db.
> No, I haven't used fn_virtualfilestats() before. Just ran it, and it
> seems useful - thanks for the tip. IoStallMS / NumberReads +
> NumberWrites) is less than 6 for all files, so that seems OK based on the
> documentation I've seen.
> --
> Regards,
> Jake Marx
> www.longhead.com
>
> [please keep replies in the newsgroup - email address unmonitored]
>> Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
>> Have the query plans changed? Is the increased I/O due to more
>> table scans? Did you run sp_updatestats?
>> Thanks for the suggestions. I did not run sp_updatestats - I just
>> did it on one of the less-busy servers to see if it makes a
>> difference. The query plans are not different from what I have seen
>> so far, but I will keep looking. Table scans have come down a bit
>> since upgrading to SP4. The strange thing (to me) is that overall I/O
>> activity is about the
>> same; reads/writes per sec is pretty constant. It's just the
>> duration of each I/O operation and the disk queue length that went
>> up. And this happened only on the data drive - the trans log and
>> local (tempdb) drives' queue lengths actually decreased.
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Jake Marx
>> www.longhead.com
>>
>> [please keep replies in the newsgroup - email address unmonitored]
>>
>> We have upgraded 3 of our SQL Servers to SP4 in the past 2 weeks. We
>> monitor these servers with Veritas, and we have noticed that
>> all 3 servers have shown a marked increase (around 4x) in Disk
>> Sec/Transfer, Disk Sec/Write, and Disk Queue Length.
>> For example, on one server, Disk Writes and Disk Transfers were
>> taking on average 7 ms to complete (with SP3a). Post-SP4, they are
>> taking approximately 30 ms on average. The queue length has jumped
>> from around 3 to about 15. [I know the avg disk queue length was a
>> bit high to start with - we are working with our SAN vendor to get
>> this figured out] Queries are still executing in about the same
>> time, CPU utilization
>> is about the same, and we see no other negative effects. But we're
>> wondering why the I/O is so much worse than when we were running
>> SP3a. We changed nothing besides moving to SP4. And we did
>> install the post-SP4 AWE patch as well. Has anyone run into this
>> before or know of any articles that touch on possible causes?
>|||Hi Andrew,
Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
> The filestats will let you know if you are actually reading / writing
> more data or simply getting increased access times with the same data.
Thanks. According to perfmon before and after SP4 installation, the I/O
load is about the same now as it was then (approx the same # of writes/sec
and reads/sec) - it's just the sec/write and sec/transfer (along with the
disk queue length) that are higher.
I'm not sure what else to look at. I know that SP4 reports I/O
latching/locking differently than SP3a, but that shouldn't affect perfmon OS
stats, right? I'd imagine those are collected directly by the disk
subsystem and that SQL would have nothing to do with that collection...
Thanks again for your help. I'm going through all the query plans now to
make sure nothing has changed.
--
Regards,
Jake Marx
www.longhead.com
[please keep replies in the newsgroup - email address unmonitored]
>> Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
>> There should be very few table scans if they are optimized properly
>> regardless of the SP. I haven't seen anything yet that indicates
>> SP4 itself caused increased I/O times but anything is possible. Any
>> chance you were monitoring fn_virtualfilestats() before and after?
>> If so do you notice increased bytes read or written or just
>> increased IOStallms?
>> Most of the table/index scans are on very small tables (some of
>> which are heaps). There aren't any table scans on larger tables,
>> and there are very few index scans on larger tables (we're working
>> on removing those as we can). Full scans/sec seem to hover around
>> 3. We have several hundred concurrent users on this db.
>> No, I haven't used fn_virtualfilestats() before. Just ran it, and it
>> seems useful - thanks for the tip. IoStallMS / NumberReads +
>> NumberWrites) is less than 6 for all files, so that seems OK based
>> on the documentation I've seen.
>>
>> Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
>> Have the query plans changed? Is the increased I/O due to more
>> table scans? Did you run sp_updatestats?
>> Thanks for the suggestions. I did not run sp_updatestats - I just
>> did it on one of the less-busy servers to see if it makes a
>> difference. The query plans are not different from what I have
>> seen so far, but I will keep looking. Table scans have come down
>> a bit since upgrading to SP4. The strange thing (to me) is that
>> overall I/O activity is about the
>> same; reads/writes per sec is pretty constant. It's just the
>> duration of each I/O operation and the disk queue length that went
>> up. And this happened only on the data drive - the trans log and
>> local (tempdb) drives' queue lengths actually decreased.
>> We have upgraded 3 of our SQL Servers to SP4 in the past 2
>> weeks. We monitor these servers with Veritas, and we have
>> noticed that all 3 servers have shown a marked increase (around 4x)
>> in Disk
>> Sec/Transfer, Disk Sec/Write, and Disk Queue Length.
>> For example, on one server, Disk Writes and Disk Transfers were
>> taking on average 7 ms to complete (with SP3a). Post-SP4, they
>> are taking approximately 30 ms on average. The queue length has
>> jumped from around 3 to about 15. [I know the avg disk queue
>> length was a bit high to start with - we are working with our
>> SAN vendor to get this figured out] Queries are still executing
>> in about the same time, CPU utilization
>> is about the same, and we see no other negative effects. But
>> we're wondering why the I/O is so much worse than when we were
>> running SP3a. We changed nothing besides moving to SP4. And we
>> did install the post-SP4 AWE patch as well. Has anyone run into
>> this before or know of any articles that touch on possible
>> causes?|||The sp should not affect perfmon stats for I/O. Are you sure there wasn't
anything else done around that same timeframe that may have affected this?
Any changes to the SAN or the OS? I wish I could offer something better
than that but this is not something I have heard happening to others upon
adding SP4 (or any service pack for that matter).
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Jake Marx" <msnews@.longhead.com> wrote in message
news:u7lZo02VGHA.4724@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi Andrew,
> Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
>> The filestats will let you know if you are actually reading / writing
>> more data or simply getting increased access times with the same data.
> Thanks. According to perfmon before and after SP4 installation, the I/O
> load is about the same now as it was then (approx the same # of writes/sec
> and reads/sec) - it's just the sec/write and sec/transfer (along with the
> disk queue length) that are higher.
> I'm not sure what else to look at. I know that SP4 reports I/O
> latching/locking differently than SP3a, but that shouldn't affect perfmon
> OS stats, right? I'd imagine those are collected directly by the disk
> subsystem and that SQL would have nothing to do with that collection...
> Thanks again for your help. I'm going through all the query plans now to
> make sure nothing has changed.
> --
> Regards,
> Jake Marx
> www.longhead.com
>
> [please keep replies in the newsgroup - email address unmonitored]
>> Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
>> There should be very few table scans if they are optimized properly
>> regardless of the SP. I haven't seen anything yet that indicates
>> SP4 itself caused increased I/O times but anything is possible. Any
>> chance you were monitoring fn_virtualfilestats() before and after?
>> If so do you notice increased bytes read or written or just
>> increased IOStallms?
>> Most of the table/index scans are on very small tables (some of
>> which are heaps). There aren't any table scans on larger tables,
>> and there are very few index scans on larger tables (we're working
>> on removing those as we can). Full scans/sec seem to hover around
>> 3. We have several hundred concurrent users on this db.
>> No, I haven't used fn_virtualfilestats() before. Just ran it, and it
>> seems useful - thanks for the tip. IoStallMS / NumberReads +
>> NumberWrites) is less than 6 for all files, so that seems OK based
>> on the documentation I've seen.
>>
>> Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
>> Have the query plans changed? Is the increased I/O due to more
>> table scans? Did you run sp_updatestats?
>> Thanks for the suggestions. I did not run sp_updatestats - I just
>> did it on one of the less-busy servers to see if it makes a
>> difference. The query plans are not different from what I have
>> seen so far, but I will keep looking. Table scans have come down
>> a bit since upgrading to SP4. The strange thing (to me) is that
>> overall I/O activity is about the
>> same; reads/writes per sec is pretty constant. It's just the
>> duration of each I/O operation and the disk queue length that went
>> up. And this happened only on the data drive - the trans log and
>> local (tempdb) drives' queue lengths actually decreased.
>>> We have upgraded 3 of our SQL Servers to SP4 in the past 2
>>> weeks. We monitor these servers with Veritas, and we have
>>> noticed that all 3 servers have shown a marked increase (around 4x)
>>> in Disk
>>> Sec/Transfer, Disk Sec/Write, and Disk Queue Length.
>>>
>>> For example, on one server, Disk Writes and Disk Transfers were
>>> taking on average 7 ms to complete (with SP3a). Post-SP4, they
>>> are taking approximately 30 ms on average. The queue length has
>>> jumped from around 3 to about 15. [I know the avg disk queue
>>> length was a bit high to start with - we are working with our
>>> SAN vendor to get this figured out] Queries are still executing
>>> in about the same time, CPU utilization
>>> is about the same, and we see no other negative effects. But
>>> we're wondering why the I/O is so much worse than when we were
>>> running SP3a. We changed nothing besides moving to SP4. And we
>>> did install the post-SP4 AWE patch as well. Has anyone run into
>>> this before or know of any articles that touch on possible
>>> causes?
>|||Hi Andrew,
Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
> The sp should not affect perfmon stats for I/O. Are you sure there
> wasn't anything else done around that same timeframe that may have
> affected this? Any changes to the SAN or the OS? I wish I could
> offer something better than that but this is not something I have
> heard happening to others upon adding SP4 (or any service pack for
> that matter).
I know - that's why I find this so strange. I would think that maybe we had
done something else at the same time, but we have done the SP4 upgrade on
three separate servers at three separate times, and we see the increase in
perfmon I/O stats on each server beginning with the time we upgraded each
one. We are using an EMC Celerra over iSCSI for the data and log files on
all three servers, so maybe SP4 changed something in that respect? I
wouldn't think so. (?)
Thanks again for all of your help!
--
Regards,
Jake
>> Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
>> The filestats will let you know if you are actually reading /
>> writing more data or simply getting increased access times with the
>> same data.
>> Thanks. According to perfmon before and after SP4 installation, the
>> I/O load is about the same now as it was then (approx the same # of
>> writes/sec and reads/sec) - it's just the sec/write and sec/transfer
>> (along with the disk queue length) that are higher.
>> I'm not sure what else to look at. I know that SP4 reports I/O
>> latching/locking differently than SP3a, but that shouldn't affect
>> perfmon OS stats, right? I'd imagine those are collected directly
>> by the disk subsystem and that SQL would have nothing to do with
>> that collection... Thanks again for your help. I'm going through all
>> the query plans
>> now to make sure nothing has changed.
>> Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
>> There should be very few table scans if they are optimized
>> properly regardless of the SP. I haven't seen anything yet that
>> indicates SP4 itself caused increased I/O times but anything is
>> possible. Any chance you were monitoring fn_virtualfilestats()
>> before and after? If so do you notice increased bytes read or
>> written or just increased IOStallms?
>> Most of the table/index scans are on very small tables (some of
>> which are heaps). There aren't any table scans on larger tables,
>> and there are very few index scans on larger tables (we're working
>> on removing those as we can). Full scans/sec seem to hover around
>> 3. We have several hundred concurrent users on this db.
>> No, I haven't used fn_virtualfilestats() before. Just ran it, and
>> it seems useful - thanks for the tip. IoStallMS / NumberReads +
>> NumberWrites) is less than 6 for all files, so that seems OK based
>> on the documentation I've seen.
>>
>> Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
>>> Have the query plans changed? Is the increased I/O due to more
>>> table scans? Did you run sp_updatestats?
>> Thanks for the suggestions. I did not run sp_updatestats - I
>> just did it on one of the less-busy servers to see if it makes a
>> difference. The query plans are not different from what I have
>> seen so far, but I will keep looking. Table scans have come down
>> a bit since upgrading to SP4. The strange thing (to me) is that
>> overall I/O activity is about the
>> same; reads/writes per sec is pretty constant. It's just the
>> duration of each I/O operation and the disk queue length that
>> went up. And this happened only on the data drive - the trans
>> log and local (tempdb) drives' queue lengths actually decreased.
>>> We have upgraded 3 of our SQL Servers to SP4 in the past 2
>>> weeks. We monitor these servers with Veritas, and we have
>>> noticed that all 3 servers have shown a marked increase
>>> (around 4x) in Disk
>>> Sec/Transfer, Disk Sec/Write, and Disk Queue Length.
>>>
>>> For example, on one server, Disk Writes and Disk Transfers were
>>> taking on average 7 ms to complete (with SP3a). Post-SP4, they
>>> are taking approximately 30 ms on average. The queue length
>>> has jumped from around 3 to about 15. [I know the avg disk
>>> queue length was a bit high to start with - we are working
>>> with our SAN vendor to get this figured out] Queries are still
>>> executing
>>> in about the same time, CPU utilization
>>> is about the same, and we see no other negative effects. But
>>> we're wondering why the I/O is so much worse than when we were
>>> running SP3a. We changed nothing besides moving to SP4. And
>>> we did install the post-SP4 AWE patch as well. Has anyone run
>>> into this before or know of any articles that touch on possible
>>> causes?sql

I/O issues after SP4 upgrade

Hi,
We have upgraded 3 of our SQL Servers to SP4 in the past 2 weeks. We
monitor these servers with Veritas, and we have noticed that all 3 servers
have shown a marked increase (around 4x) in Disk Sec/Transfer, Disk
Sec/Write, and Disk Queue Length.
For example, on one server, Disk Writes and Disk Transfers were taking on
average 7 ms to complete (with SP3a). Post-SP4, they are taking
approximately 30 ms on average. The queue length has jumped from around 3
to about 15. [I know the avg disk queue length was a bit high to start
with - we are working with our SAN vendor to get this figured out]
Queries are still executing in about the same time, CPU utilization is about
the same, and we see no other negative effects. But we're wondering why the
I/O is so much worse than when we were running SP3a. We changed nothing
besides moving to SP4. And we did install the post-SP4 AWE patch as well.
Has anyone run into this before or know of any articles that touch on
possible causes?
Regards,
Jake Marx
www.longhead.com
[please keep replies in the newsgroup - email address unmonitored]
Have the query plans changed? Is the increased I/O due to more table scans?
Did you run sp_updatestats?
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Jake Marx" <msnews@.longhead.com> wrote in message
news:OM%23R2MCVGHA.4348@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> We have upgraded 3 of our SQL Servers to SP4 in the past 2 weeks. We
> monitor these servers with Veritas, and we have noticed that all 3 servers
> have shown a marked increase (around 4x) in Disk Sec/Transfer, Disk
> Sec/Write, and Disk Queue Length.
> For example, on one server, Disk Writes and Disk Transfers were taking on
> average 7 ms to complete (with SP3a). Post-SP4, they are taking
> approximately 30 ms on average. The queue length has jumped from around 3
> to about 15. [I know the avg disk queue length was a bit high to start
> with - we are working with our SAN vendor to get this figured out]
> Queries are still executing in about the same time, CPU utilization is
> about the same, and we see no other negative effects. But we're wondering
> why the I/O is so much worse than when we were running SP3a. We changed
> nothing besides moving to SP4. And we did install the post-SP4 AWE patch
> as well. Has anyone run into this before or know of any articles that
> touch on possible causes?
> --
> Regards,
> Jake Marx
> www.longhead.com
>
> [please keep replies in the newsgroup - email address unmonitored]
>
|||Hi Andrew,
Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
> Have the query plans changed? Is the increased I/O due to more table
> scans? Did you run sp_updatestats?
Thanks for the suggestions. I did not run sp_updatestats - I just did it on
one of the less-busy servers to see if it makes a difference. The query
plans are not different from what I have seen so far, but I will keep
looking. Table scans have come down a bit since upgrading to SP4.
The strange thing (to me) is that overall I/O activity is about the same;
reads/writes per sec is pretty constant. It's just the duration of each I/O
operation and the disk queue length that went up. And this happened only on
the data drive - the trans log and local (tempdb) drives' queue lengths
actually decreased.
Regards,
Jake Marx
www.longhead.com
[please keep replies in the newsgroup - email address unmonitored]
[vbcol=seagreen]
|||There should be very few table scans if they are optimized properly
regardless of the SP. I haven't seen anything yet that indicates SP4 itself
caused increased I/O times but anything is possible. Any chance you were
monitoring fn_virtualfilestats() before and after? If so do you notice
increased bytes read or written or just increased IOStallms?
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Jake Marx" <msnews@.longhead.com> wrote in message
news:%23KCJtvNVGHA.4764@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi Andrew,
> Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestions. I did not run sp_updatestats - I just did it
> on one of the less-busy servers to see if it makes a difference. The
> query plans are not different from what I have seen so far, but I will
> keep looking. Table scans have come down a bit since upgrading to SP4.
> The strange thing (to me) is that overall I/O activity is about the same;
> reads/writes per sec is pretty constant. It's just the duration of each
> I/O operation and the disk queue length that went up. And this happened
> only on the data drive - the trans log and local (tempdb) drives' queue
> lengths actually decreased.
> --
> Regards,
> Jake Marx
> www.longhead.com
>
> [please keep replies in the newsgroup - email address unmonitored]
>
>
|||Hi Andrew,
Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
> There should be very few table scans if they are optimized properly
> regardless of the SP. I haven't seen anything yet that indicates SP4
> itself caused increased I/O times but anything is possible. Any
> chance you were monitoring fn_virtualfilestats() before and after? If so
> do you notice increased bytes read or written or just increased
> IOStallms?
Most of the table/index scans are on very small tables (some of which are
heaps). There aren't any table scans on larger tables, and there are very
few index scans on larger tables (we're working on removing those as we
can). Full scans/sec seem to hover around 3. We have several hundred
concurrent users on this db.
No, I haven't used fn_virtualfilestats() before. Just ran it, and it seems
useful - thanks for the tip. IoStallMS / NumberReads + NumberWrites) is
less than 6 for all files, so that seems OK based on the documentation I've
seen.
Regards,
Jake Marx
www.longhead.com
[please keep replies in the newsgroup - email address unmonitored]
[vbcol=seagreen]
|||The filestats will let you know if you are actually reading / writing more
data or simply getting increased access times with the same data.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Jake Marx" <msnews@.longhead.com> wrote in message
news:eTDfwOOVGHA.4864@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi Andrew,
> Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
> Most of the table/index scans are on very small tables (some of which are
> heaps). There aren't any table scans on larger tables, and there are very
> few index scans on larger tables (we're working on removing those as we
> can). Full scans/sec seem to hover around 3. We have several hundred
> concurrent users on this db.
> No, I haven't used fn_virtualfilestats() before. Just ran it, and it
> seems useful - thanks for the tip. IoStallMS / NumberReads +
> NumberWrites) is less than 6 for all files, so that seems OK based on the
> documentation I've seen.
> --
> Regards,
> Jake Marx
> www.longhead.com
>
> [please keep replies in the newsgroup - email address unmonitored]
>
>
|||Hi Andrew,
Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
> The filestats will let you know if you are actually reading / writing
> more data or simply getting increased access times with the same data.
Thanks. According to perfmon before and after SP4 installation, the I/O
load is about the same now as it was then (approx the same # of writes/sec
and reads/sec) - it's just the sec/write and sec/transfer (along with the
disk queue length) that are higher.
I'm not sure what else to look at. I know that SP4 reports I/O
latching/locking differently than SP3a, but that shouldn't affect perfmon OS
stats, right? I'd imagine those are collected directly by the disk
subsystem and that SQL would have nothing to do with that collection...
Thanks again for your help. I'm going through all the query plans now to
make sure nothing has changed.
Regards,
Jake Marx
www.longhead.com
[please keep replies in the newsgroup - email address unmonitored]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
|||The sp should not affect perfmon stats for I/O. Are you sure there wasn't
anything else done around that same timeframe that may have affected this?
Any changes to the SAN or the OS? I wish I could offer something better
than that but this is not something I have heard happening to others upon
adding SP4 (or any service pack for that matter).
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Jake Marx" <msnews@.longhead.com> wrote in message
news:u7lZo02VGHA.4724@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi Andrew,
> Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
> Thanks. According to perfmon before and after SP4 installation, the I/O
> load is about the same now as it was then (approx the same # of writes/sec
> and reads/sec) - it's just the sec/write and sec/transfer (along with the
> disk queue length) that are higher.
> I'm not sure what else to look at. I know that SP4 reports I/O
> latching/locking differently than SP3a, but that shouldn't affect perfmon
> OS stats, right? I'd imagine those are collected directly by the disk
> subsystem and that SQL would have nothing to do with that collection...
> Thanks again for your help. I'm going through all the query plans now to
> make sure nothing has changed.
> --
> Regards,
> Jake Marx
> www.longhead.com
>
> [please keep replies in the newsgroup - email address unmonitored]
>
>

I/O issues after SP4 upgrade

Hi,
We have upgraded 3 of our SQL Servers to SP4 in the past 2 weeks. We
monitor these servers with Veritas, and we have noticed that all 3 servers
have shown a marked increase (around 4x) in Disk Sec/Transfer, Disk
Sec/Write, and Disk Queue Length.
For example, on one server, Disk Writes and Disk Transfers were taking on
average 7 ms to complete (with SP3a). Post-SP4, they are taking
approximately 30 ms on average. The queue length has jumped from around 3
to about 15. [I know the avg disk queue length was a bit high to start
with - we are working with our SAN vendor to get this figured out]
Queries are still executing in about the same time, CPU utilization is about
the same, and we see no other negative effects. But we're wondering why the
I/O is so much worse than when we were running SP3a. We changed nothing
besides moving to SP4. And we did install the post-SP4 AWE patch as well.
Has anyone run into this before or know of any articles that touch on
possible causes?
Regards,
Jake Marx
www.longhead.com
[please keep replies in the newsgroup - email address unmonitored]Have the query plans changed? Is the increased I/O due to more table scans?
Did you run sp_updatestats?
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Jake Marx" <msnews@.longhead.com> wrote in message
news:OM%23R2MCVGHA.4348@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> We have upgraded 3 of our SQL Servers to SP4 in the past 2 weeks. We
> monitor these servers with Veritas, and we have noticed that all 3 servers
> have shown a marked increase (around 4x) in Disk Sec/Transfer, Disk
> Sec/Write, and Disk Queue Length.
> For example, on one server, Disk Writes and Disk Transfers were taking on
> average 7 ms to complete (with SP3a). Post-SP4, they are taking
> approximately 30 ms on average. The queue length has jumped from around 3
> to about 15. [I know the avg disk queue length was a bit high to star
t
> with - we are working with our SAN vendor to get this figured out]
> Queries are still executing in about the same time, CPU utilization is
> about the same, and we see no other negative effects. But we're wondering
> why the I/O is so much worse than when we were running SP3a. We changed
> nothing besides moving to SP4. And we did install the post-SP4 AWE patch
> as well. Has anyone run into this before or know of any articles that
> touch on possible causes?
> --
> Regards,
> Jake Marx
> www.longhead.com
>
> [please keep replies in the newsgroup - email address unmonitored]
>|||Hi Andrew,
Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
> Have the query plans changed? Is the increased I/O due to more table
> scans? Did you run sp_updatestats?
Thanks for the suggestions. I did not run sp_updatestats - I just did it on
one of the less-busy servers to see if it makes a difference. The query
plans are not different from what I have seen so far, but I will keep
looking. Table scans have come down a bit since upgrading to SP4.
The strange thing (to me) is that overall I/O activity is about the same;
reads/writes per sec is pretty constant. It's just the duration of each I/O
operation and the disk queue length that went up. And this happened only on
the data drive - the trans log and local (tempdb) drives' queue lengths
actually decreased.
Regards,
Jake Marx
www.longhead.com
[please keep replies in the newsgroup - email address unmonitored]
[vbcol=seagreen]|||There should be very few table scans if they are optimized properly
regardless of the SP. I haven't seen anything yet that indicates SP4 itself
caused increased I/O times but anything is possible. Any chance you were
monitoring fn_virtualfilestats() before and after? If so do you notice
increased bytes read or written or just increased IOStallms?
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Jake Marx" <msnews@.longhead.com> wrote in message
news:%23KCJtvNVGHA.4764@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi Andrew,
> Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestions. I did not run sp_updatestats - I just did it
> on one of the less-busy servers to see if it makes a difference. The
> query plans are not different from what I have seen so far, but I will
> keep looking. Table scans have come down a bit since upgrading to SP4.
> The strange thing (to me) is that overall I/O activity is about the same;
> reads/writes per sec is pretty constant. It's just the duration of each
> I/O operation and the disk queue length that went up. And this happened
> only on the data drive - the trans log and local (tempdb) drives' queue
> lengths actually decreased.
> --
> Regards,
> Jake Marx
> www.longhead.com
>
> [please keep replies in the newsgroup - email address unmonitored]
>
>|||Hi Andrew,
Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
> There should be very few table scans if they are optimized properly
> regardless of the SP. I haven't seen anything yet that indicates SP4
> itself caused increased I/O times but anything is possible. Any
> chance you were monitoring fn_virtualfilestats() before and after? If so
> do you notice increased bytes read or written or just increased
> IOStallms?
Most of the table/index scans are on very small tables (some of which are
heaps). There aren't any table scans on larger tables, and there are very
few index scans on larger tables (we're working on removing those as we
can). Full scans/sec seem to hover around 3. We have several hundred
concurrent users on this db.
No, I haven't used fn_virtualfilestats() before. Just ran it, and it seems
useful - thanks for the tip. IoStallMS / NumberReads + NumberWrites) is
less than 6 for all files, so that seems OK based on the documentation I've
seen.
Regards,
Jake Marx
www.longhead.com
[please keep replies in the newsgroup - email address unmonitored]
[vbcol=seagreen]|||The filestats will let you know if you are actually reading / writing more
data or simply getting increased access times with the same data.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Jake Marx" <msnews@.longhead.com> wrote in message
news:eTDfwOOVGHA.4864@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi Andrew,
> Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
> Most of the table/index scans are on very small tables (some of which are
> heaps). There aren't any table scans on larger tables, and there are very
> few index scans on larger tables (we're working on removing those as we
> can). Full scans/sec seem to hover around 3. We have several hundred
> concurrent users on this db.
> No, I haven't used fn_virtualfilestats() before. Just ran it, and it
> seems useful - thanks for the tip. IoStallMS / NumberReads +
> NumberWrites) is less than 6 for all files, so that seems OK based on the
> documentation I've seen.
> --
> Regards,
> Jake Marx
> www.longhead.com
>
> [please keep replies in the newsgroup - email address unmonitored]
>
>|||Hi Andrew,
Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
> The filestats will let you know if you are actually reading / writing
> more data or simply getting increased access times with the same data.
Thanks. According to perfmon before and after SP4 installation, the I/O
load is about the same now as it was then (approx the same # of writes/sec
and reads/sec) - it's just the sec/write and sec/transfer (along with the
disk queue length) that are higher.
I'm not sure what else to look at. I know that SP4 reports I/O
latching/locking differently than SP3a, but that shouldn't affect perfmon OS
stats, right? I'd imagine those are collected directly by the disk
subsystem and that SQL would have nothing to do with that collection...
Thanks again for your help. I'm going through all the query plans now to
make sure nothing has changed.
Regards,
Jake Marx
www.longhead.com
[please keep replies in the newsgroup - email address unmonitored]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]|||The sp should not affect perfmon stats for I/O. Are you sure there wasn't
anything else done around that same timeframe that may have affected this?
Any changes to the SAN or the OS? I wish I could offer something better
than that but this is not something I have heard happening to others upon
adding SP4 (or any service pack for that matter).
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Jake Marx" <msnews@.longhead.com> wrote in message
news:u7lZo02VGHA.4724@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi Andrew,
> Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
> Thanks. According to perfmon before and after SP4 installation, the I/O
> load is about the same now as it was then (approx the same # of writes/sec
> and reads/sec) - it's just the sec/write and sec/transfer (along with the
> disk queue length) that are higher.
> I'm not sure what else to look at. I know that SP4 reports I/O
> latching/locking differently than SP3a, but that shouldn't affect perfmon
> OS stats, right? I'd imagine those are collected directly by the disk
> subsystem and that SQL would have nothing to do with that collection...
> Thanks again for your help. I'm going through all the query plans now to
> make sure nothing has changed.
> --
> Regards,
> Jake Marx
> www.longhead.com
>
> [please keep replies in the newsgroup - email address unmonitored]
>
>
>

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

I want to create link with 2 servers

I want to create link with 2 servers is that possible to do that. for example is like this,

-

SELECT Products.ProductID,

Products.ProductName,

Products.CategoryID,

Categories.CategoryName

FROM [SERVER1].[Northwind].[dbo].[Products]

INNER JOIN

[SERVER2].[Northwind].[dbo].[Categories]

ON [Products].[CategoryID] = [Categories].[CategoryID]

--

Products table has SERVER1 and Categories table has SERVER2

Yes, this is possible but not very performant, because you have to retrieve all the data on the local server / query engine for doing your query stuff like joining, this can be vry expensive.

HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de
|||Thank you for your post. Any better ways 2 do that I want create view using 3 tables in 2 servers.|||

You can Create a Linked Server and Use it like the way u have written the Query.

-Sivaraman Latchapathi

|||But that SQL query doesn’t work. Please can u post sample code?|||OK, why not using one server as therefore there would be one server with local data then. From that server you could pull out your joined data. The query would work if you prior would have setup the linked server. Either do that inthe graphical use interface, or use the procedure sp_addlinkedserver. For more information and examples, have a look in the BOL.

HTH, Jens Suessmeyer-

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

i need to create a report by using 5 databases

let me put it little more deatail,
i'm using crystal report XI,
I have 5 database servers and i need to make a report on the table which is common among all 5 DB's.
sample.
employ,
empnum, empname,.......
pls some one help me out hereIf all databases exist on the same server, then you can reference the tables directly and do joins on them like this:

select ....
from DB1.dbo.Table1 AS d1t1
inner join DB2.dbo.Table2 as d2t1 ON d1t1.ID = d2t1.ID
...

What you need to do is create a view, to be used as a table for Crystal Reports. Then when you "select * from" the view, it will query each of the databases as defined in the view.

If the databases exist on a different server, u should consult your administrator about setting up a link. Not all database systems support linked databases. When you query a table from a linked database, expect it to be very very slow, since it has to copy the tabledata across the network before the join can begin.. so depending on the query, u may end up copying the whole table from each database, as temporary data, every time the report executes.

To speed this up, you could replicate the necessary data into the report database, either with some kind of replicator or by scheduling a daily process to get the new data to be used. Then its a local table you are querying or joining against.

Does this answer your question?

Sunday, February 19, 2012

I need help about two server configuration

Hello I have one sql server 2000 and one MSDE , I need a database replicated
in two servers, but I can't modify table structures.
I need to make data modifications in SQL Server and in MSDE, what type of
replication can I use ?
Thank you .
Guillermo
Guillermo,
there are several choices, depending on your setup:
If you are expecting conflicts then the (out of the box) choice is between
queued updating and merge replication. Queued updating won't work if you are
replicating BLOBs but it is generally much faster than merge, especially as
you only have one subscriber.
If the data is completely partitioned, you could use bidirectional
transactional replication (not out of the box though).
If there is continual connectivity (unlikely as you are using MSDE as the
subscriber) then immediate updating subscribers could be relevant.
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com .
|||Thank you Paul, but I can not use Merge because that type of replication
make changes in my table structures.
And transactional replication from sql server to MSDE is ok but what can I
do for MSDE to Sql Server?
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> escribi en el mensaje
news:%23ynvRF95GHA.3592@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Guillermo,
> there are several choices, depending on your setup:
> If you are expecting conflicts then the (out of the box) choice is between
> queued updating and merge replication. Queued updating won't work if you
are
> replicating BLOBs but it is generally much faster than merge, especially
as
> you only have one subscriber.
> If the data is completely partitioned, you could use bidirectional
> transactional replication (not out of the box though).
> If there is continual connectivity (unlikely as you are using MSDE as the
> subscriber) then immediate updating subscribers could be relevant.
> Cheers,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com .
>
|||Guillermo,
if you go down the transactional route, you'll still have schema changes for
updating subscribers. You're quite right that bidirectional transactional
replication isn't an option as you have MSDE and hence can't publish from
it. So, for merge or transactional you'll have another column added. If you
want a solution that doesn't alter the schema at all, then for your
requirements you could consider Redgate DataCompare which just uses Primary
Keys as identifiers. BTW, what is the problem with the schema being altered
to add the extra column?
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com .
|||"what is the problem with the schema being altered to add the extra
column?"
I fear that it causes errors in my applications
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> escribi en el mensaje
news:uFjTFnF6GHA.1256@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Guillermo,
> if you go down the transactional route, you'll still have schema changes
for
> updating subscribers. You're quite right that bidirectional transactional
> replication isn't an option as you have MSDE and hence can't publish from
> it. So, for merge or transactional you'll have another column added. If
you
> want a solution that doesn't alter the schema at all, then for your
> requirements you could consider Redgate DataCompare which just uses
Primary
> Keys as identifiers. BTW, what is the problem with the schema being
altered
> to add the extra column?
> Cheers,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com .
>
>
|||I would only think so if these applications use "select * from ...", which
is pretty unusual. In other cases you'll be OK.
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com .