Home Network w/ 2 SQLServers: 1-way problem

I have a WinXP Pro home network which is behind a firewall. Within
this network I have 2 computers running SQLServer 2000: my desktop and
my laptop. Both instances are configured identically and use Windows
authentication. I use Enterprise Manager.
- My laptop can "see" the desktop's instance; i.e., I'm able to create
a SQLServer Registration entry and browse the desktop's databases
- My desktop can NOT "see" the laptop's instance. When I try to create
a SQLServer Registration, I receive "SQL Server does not exist or
access denied..."
I've tried registering via the laptop's computer name, and I've tried
registering via the laptop's local IP address.
My firewall is not allowing access to port 1433 for either computer.
Both computers can see each other through file/printer sharing.
SQLServer seems to be the only case where there is a "blockage".
Any help is appreciated...
-JeffOne other note -- both machines can ping each other by IP and by name.
Jeff wrote:
> I have a WinXP Pro home network which is behind a firewall. Within
> this network I have 2 computers running SQLServer 2000: my desktop
and
> my laptop. Both instances are configured identically and use Windows
> authentication. I use Enterprise Manager.
> - My laptop can "see" the desktop's instance; i.e., I'm able to
create
> a SQLServer Registration entry and browse the desktop's databases
> - My desktop can NOT "see" the laptop's instance. When I try to
create
> a SQLServer Registration, I receive "SQL Server does not exist or
> access denied..."
> I've tried registering via the laptop's computer name, and I've tried
> registering via the laptop's local IP address.
> My firewall is not allowing access to port 1433 for either computer.
> Both computers can see each other through file/printer sharing.
> SQLServer seems to be the only case where there is a "blockage".
> Any help is appreciated...
> -Jeff|||Jeff wrote:
> I have a WinXP Pro home network which is behind a firewall. Within
> this network I have 2 computers running SQLServer 2000: my desktop
> and my laptop. Both instances are configured identically and use
> Windows authentication. I use Enterprise Manager.
>
If you're blocking 1433 on both PCs, how are you connecting to the
desktop from the laptop? Named Pipes? Try using the same network
protocol to connect the other way around.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||Would the firewall blockage apply internally? I thought the firewall
would only prevent outside access? In other words, I didn't think that
my firewall would prevent internal machines from communicating?
Anyhow, both Named Pipes and TCP/IP are enabled.
The Server Network Utility and Client Network Utility settings are
identical on both machines.

> If you're blocking 1433 on both PCs, how are you connecting to the
> desktop from the laptop? Named Pipes? Try using the same network
> protocol to connect the other way around.
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com|||Jeff wrote:
> Would the firewall blockage apply internally? I thought the firewall
> would only prevent outside access? In other words, I didn't think
> that my firewall would prevent internal machines from communicating?
> Anyhow, both Named Pipes and TCP/IP are enabled.
> The Server Network Utility and Client Network Utility settings are
> identical on both machines.
Turn off any firewalls and see what happens.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||Is your Firewall also acting as your LAN router? If so, it is probably
blocking your internal traffic as well. Consider putting your Firewall in
front of a real LAN router, that's how it is usually configured. If so,
then that configuration would behave as you suspect, blocking only traffic
onto/out of the router, but not packets routed between back end hosts.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
news:%23mN$uleHFHA.3196@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Jeff wrote:
> Would the firewall blockage apply internally? I thought the firewall
> would only prevent outside access? In other words, I didn't think
> that my firewall would prevent internal machines from communicating?
> Anyhow, both Named Pipes and TCP/IP are enabled.
> The Server Network Utility and Client Network Utility settings are
> identical on both machines.
Turn off any firewalls and see what happens.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.comsql

Home Network w/ 2 SQLServers: 1-way problem

I have a WinXP Pro home network which is behind a firewall. Within
this network I have 2 computers running SQLServer 2000: my desktop and
my laptop. Both instances are configured identically and use Windows
authentication. I use Enterprise Manager.
- My laptop can "see" the desktop's instance; i.e., I'm able to create
a SQLServer Registration entry and browse the desktop's databases
- My desktop can NOT "see" the laptop's instance. When I try to create
a SQLServer Registration, I receive "SQL Server does not exist or
access denied..."
I've tried registering via the laptop's computer name, and I've tried
registering via the laptop's local IP address.
My firewall is not allowing access to port 1433 for either computer.
Both computers can see each other through file/printer sharing.
SQLServer seems to be the only case where there is a "blockage".
Any help is appreciated...
-Jeff
One other note -- both machines can ping each other by IP and by name.
Jeff wrote:
> I have a WinXP Pro home network which is behind a firewall. Within
> this network I have 2 computers running SQLServer 2000: my desktop
and
> my laptop. Both instances are configured identically and use Windows
> authentication. I use Enterprise Manager.
> - My laptop can "see" the desktop's instance; i.e., I'm able to
create
> a SQLServer Registration entry and browse the desktop's databases
> - My desktop can NOT "see" the laptop's instance. When I try to
create
> a SQLServer Registration, I receive "SQL Server does not exist or
> access denied..."
> I've tried registering via the laptop's computer name, and I've tried
> registering via the laptop's local IP address.
> My firewall is not allowing access to port 1433 for either computer.
> Both computers can see each other through file/printer sharing.
> SQLServer seems to be the only case where there is a "blockage".
> Any help is appreciated...
> -Jeff
|||Jeff wrote:
> I have a WinXP Pro home network which is behind a firewall. Within
> this network I have 2 computers running SQLServer 2000: my desktop
> and my laptop. Both instances are configured identically and use
> Windows authentication. I use Enterprise Manager.
>
If you're blocking 1433 on both PCs, how are you connecting to the
desktop from the laptop? Named Pipes? Try using the same network
protocol to connect the other way around.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com
|||Would the firewall blockage apply internally? I thought the firewall
would only prevent outside access? In other words, I didn't think that
my firewall would prevent internal machines from communicating?
Anyhow, both Named Pipes and TCP/IP are enabled.
The Server Network Utility and Client Network Utility settings are
identical on both machines.

> If you're blocking 1433 on both PCs, how are you connecting to the
> desktop from the laptop? Named Pipes? Try using the same network
> protocol to connect the other way around.
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com
|||Jeff wrote:
> Would the firewall blockage apply internally? I thought the firewall
> would only prevent outside access? In other words, I didn't think
> that my firewall would prevent internal machines from communicating?
> Anyhow, both Named Pipes and TCP/IP are enabled.
> The Server Network Utility and Client Network Utility settings are
> identical on both machines.
Turn off any firewalls and see what happens.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com
|||Is your Firewall also acting as your LAN router? If so, it is probably
blocking your internal traffic as well. Consider putting your Firewall in
front of a real LAN router, that's how it is usually configured. If so,
then that configuration would behave as you suspect, blocking only traffic
onto/out of the router, but not packets routed between back end hosts.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas

"David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
news:%23mN$uleHFHA.3196@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Jeff wrote:
> Would the firewall blockage apply internally? I thought the firewall
> would only prevent outside access? In other words, I didn't think
> that my firewall would prevent internal machines from communicating?
> Anyhow, both Named Pipes and TCP/IP are enabled.
> The Server Network Utility and Client Network Utility settings are
> identical on both machines.
Turn off any firewalls and see what happens.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com

Home Network w/ 2 SQLServers: 1-way problem

I have a WinXP Pro home network which is behind a firewall. Within
this network I have 2 computers running SQLServer 2000: my desktop and
my laptop. Both instances are configured identically and use Windows
authentication. I use Enterprise Manager.
- My laptop can "see" the desktop's instance; i.e., I'm able to create
a SQLServer Registration entry and browse the desktop's databases
- My desktop can NOT "see" the laptop's instance. When I try to create
a SQLServer Registration, I receive "SQL Server does not exist or
access denied..."
I've tried registering via the laptop's computer name, and I've tried
registering via the laptop's local IP address.
My firewall is not allowing access to port 1433 for either computer.
Both computers can see each other through file/printer sharing.
SQLServer seems to be the only case where there is a "blockage".
Any help is appreciated...
-JeffOne other note -- both machines can ping each other by IP and by name.
Jeff wrote:
> I have a WinXP Pro home network which is behind a firewall. Within
> this network I have 2 computers running SQLServer 2000: my desktop
and
> my laptop. Both instances are configured identically and use Windows
> authentication. I use Enterprise Manager.
> - My laptop can "see" the desktop's instance; i.e., I'm able to
create
> a SQLServer Registration entry and browse the desktop's databases
> - My desktop can NOT "see" the laptop's instance. When I try to
create
> a SQLServer Registration, I receive "SQL Server does not exist or
> access denied..."
> I've tried registering via the laptop's computer name, and I've tried
> registering via the laptop's local IP address.
> My firewall is not allowing access to port 1433 for either computer.
> Both computers can see each other through file/printer sharing.
> SQLServer seems to be the only case where there is a "blockage".
> Any help is appreciated...
> -Jeff|||Jeff wrote:
> I have a WinXP Pro home network which is behind a firewall. Within
> this network I have 2 computers running SQLServer 2000: my desktop
> and my laptop. Both instances are configured identically and use
> Windows authentication. I use Enterprise Manager.
>
If you're blocking 1433 on both PCs, how are you connecting to the
desktop from the laptop? Named Pipes? Try using the same network
protocol to connect the other way around.
--
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||Would the firewall blockage apply internally? I thought the firewall
would only prevent outside access? In other words, I didn't think that
my firewall would prevent internal machines from communicating?
Anyhow, both Named Pipes and TCP/IP are enabled.
The Server Network Utility and Client Network Utility settings are
identical on both machines.
> If you're blocking 1433 on both PCs, how are you connecting to the
> desktop from the laptop? Named Pipes? Try using the same network
> protocol to connect the other way around.
> --
> David Gugick
> Imceda Software
> www.imceda.com|||Jeff wrote:
> Would the firewall blockage apply internally? I thought the firewall
> would only prevent outside access? In other words, I didn't think
> that my firewall would prevent internal machines from communicating?
> Anyhow, both Named Pipes and TCP/IP are enabled.
> The Server Network Utility and Client Network Utility settings are
> identical on both machines.
Turn off any firewalls and see what happens.
--
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com|||Is your Firewall also acting as your LAN router? If so, it is probably
blocking your internal traffic as well. Consider putting your Firewall in
front of a real LAN router, that's how it is usually configured. If so,
then that configuration would behave as you suspect, blocking only traffic
onto/out of the router, but not packets routed between back end hosts.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"David Gugick" <davidg-nospam@.imceda.com> wrote in message
news:%23mN$uleHFHA.3196@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Jeff wrote:
> Would the firewall blockage apply internally? I thought the firewall
> would only prevent outside access? In other words, I didn't think
> that my firewall would prevent internal machines from communicating?
> Anyhow, both Named Pipes and TCP/IP are enabled.
> The Server Network Utility and Client Network Utility settings are
> identical on both machines.
Turn off any firewalls and see what happens.
--
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com

History of all SQL Executed

Is there a way to know in SQLSERVER - the history of all the SQL that has
been executed since the last re-start of the Server.
If Profiler is the only way of doing it - what are the performance impact of
running Profiler ( when Profiler writes to a file ) in a production System
Thanks> If Profiler is the only way of doing it - what are the performance impact
> of
> running Profiler ( when Profiler writes to a file ) in a production System
Profiler can have a negative performance impact if you have a lot of
qualifying events. I suggest that you instead create server-side SQL Trace
to log to a file. You can use Profiler to generate the SQL Trace script.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Sumit Pal" <Sumit Pal@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4C7A8C06-671D-4DE4-AA2F-23B368191A69@.microsoft.com...
> Is there a way to know in SQLSERVER - the history of all the SQL that has
> been executed since the last re-start of the Server.
> If Profiler is the only way of doing it - what are the performance impact
> of
> running Profiler ( when Profiler writes to a file ) in a production System
> Thanks

History of all SQL Executed

Is there a way to know in SQLSERVER - the history of all the SQL that has
been executed since the last re-start of the Server.
If Profiler is the only way of doing it - what are the performance impact of
running Profiler ( when Profiler writes to a file ) in a production System
Thanks> If Profiler is the only way of doing it - what are the performance impact
> of
> running Profiler ( when Profiler writes to a file ) in a production System
Profiler can have a negative performance impact if you have a lot of
qualifying events. I suggest that you instead create server-side SQL Trace
to log to a file. You can use Profiler to generate the SQL Trace script.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Sumit Pal" <Sumit Pal@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4C7A8C06-671D-4DE4-AA2F-23B368191A69@.microsoft.com...
> Is there a way to know in SQLSERVER - the history of all the SQL that has
> been executed since the last re-start of the Server.
> If Profiler is the only way of doing it - what are the performance impact
> of
> running Profiler ( when Profiler writes to a file ) in a production System
> Thanks

History of all SQL Executed

Is there a way to know in SQLSERVER - the history of all the SQL that has
been executed since the last re-start of the Server.
If Profiler is the only way of doing it - what are the performance impact of
running Profiler ( when Profiler writes to a file ) in a production System
Thanks
> If Profiler is the only way of doing it - what are the performance impact
> of
> running Profiler ( when Profiler writes to a file ) in a production System
Profiler can have a negative performance impact if you have a lot of
qualifying events. I suggest that you instead create server-side SQL Trace
to log to a file. You can use Profiler to generate the SQL Trace script.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Sumit Pal" <Sumit Pal@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4C7A8C06-671D-4DE4-AA2F-23B368191A69@.microsoft.com...
> Is there a way to know in SQLSERVER - the history of all the SQL that has
> been executed since the last re-start of the Server.
> If Profiler is the only way of doing it - what are the performance impact
> of
> running Profiler ( when Profiler writes to a file ) in a production System
> Thanks

HIPAA and SQLServer

Hello All,
Is there a document that talks about HIPAA compliance in a SQLServer
Environment.
I'm posting this in the SQLServer.Server newsgroup as well.
Gopiyes just search microsoft web site.
http://www.microsoft.com/Resources/...ment/HIPAA.aspx
"Gopinath Rajee" wrote:

> Hello All,
> Is there a document that talks about HIPAA compliance in a SQLServer
> Environment.
> I'm posting this in the SQLServer.Server newsgroup as well.
> Gopi
>
>

High Log flush Wait Time

Hello,
We have a Cluster in Windows 2000 AS, with HP Proliant DL580 G2 connected
to an HP EVA 3000.
4 CPU with HyperTh enabled. 8 GB of RAM
Sqlserver 2000 (SP3a) with 180 Gb of DB.
Since 2 weeks, we have slow performance but CPU are not stressed.
We have High Log flush Wait time (>2000 ms) and high latch wait time (800
ms)
Anyone as an idea ?
THX
--
Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.comYou probably also have a high disk queue length on the disk(s) where yout
LOG device lives. Make sure yout LOG files are on a RAID 1 or 1+0 device
with no other data files on those disks. This must be a physical disk set,
not just a logical partition of an underlying shared RAID set.
What is happening is that your SQL server cannot write log files to the disk
in a timely manner. SQL will not process a transaction unless the
write-ahead transaction log has the start transaction marker committed to
disk. Thus, your CPUs are stuck waiting on this particular disk function.
Therefore, you make log writes function as fast as possible. Since logs are
written sequentially in relatively small chunks, RAID 1 or1+ 0 is ideal.
RAID 5 will cause performance bottlenecks on log devices.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"John via SQLMonster.com" <forum@.SQLMonster.com> wrote in message
news:61f18ba8c87443539797e121a8dd7f14@.SQLMonster.com...
> Hello,
> We have a Cluster in Windows 2000 AS, with HP Proliant DL580 G2 connected
> to an HP EVA 3000.
> 4 CPU with HyperTh enabled. 8 GB of RAM
> Sqlserver 2000 (SP3a) with 180 Gb of DB.
> Since 2 weeks, we have slow performance but CPU are not stressed.
> We have High Log flush Wait time (>2000 ms) and high latch wait time (800
> ms)
> Anyone as an idea ?
> THX
> --
> Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com

High load SqlServer failes throwing error 3926 - what is that?

It manisfests itself in our SqlClient use (i.e. .NET 2.0) on one client side only...

with dozens of messages like:

ASP.global_asax - System.Data.SqlClient.SqlException : Server failed to resume the transaction, desc: 3500000c5b.

The transaction active in this session has been committed or aborted by another session.

That poins to SQL Server error 3926.

But I have NO clue how that comes. Anyone an idea? The code works flawless under dozens of other systems.

This looks like a exception throwed by SQL engine.

Guess what - it is SQL Error 3926 indicated by SQL Server. I already found that out and I already said so.

From "The transaction active in this session has been committed or aborted by another session.", I think more than one session in your application are accessing one transaction.

No chance. Here is the problem. I have, in the complete application, exactly 8 methods that do SQL processing. EVERY ONE of them:

* Gets a connection
* Establishes a transaction
* does it's job
* Closes the transaction
* Closes the connection

There is no open transaction ever left. All conenctions are properly disposed in a finally clause of a try/catch block in the method.

In fact, all my methods look like this:

Start:

IDbConnection connection = GetConnection ();
IDbTransaction txn = null;
if (System.Transactions.Transaction.Current == null) {
txn = connection.BeginTransaction ();
}
try {

processing

} finally {
if (txn == null) {
txn.Rollback ();
txn.Dispose ();
txn = null;
}
if (connection != null) {
connection.Close ();
connection.Dispose ();
connection = null;
}

If an error would happen in the finally block, I would see it. This is the pattern ALL my methods follow. This is the only location I actually open a connection. And I have a total of 8 methods that actually use the GetConnection method - and all run through the same pattern.

That is why I am ripping my hairs out. We DO close all transactions. I do NOT reuse transactions. This stuff is as simple as it gets. How the heck CAN anything go wrong here?

Normally, you can take a sql profiler trace to find out why.

Did you actually ever try that? I said "under high load". That server is basically like processing 2000 or so sql statements a SECOND for minutes before that thing slowly starts to materialize. The error does NOT appear under low or medium load. As a matter of fact, I have been unsuccessfull in replicating it in the lab. I get it on one customer's system, and I get it occasionally on one of our hosting systems for one customer (who uses a lot of ressources). It is critical for the one customer with his own system, because I sometimes get 10 or so of those a minute. In both scenarios where the error happens I can not turn on tracing for obvious reasons. And again, in the lab I was not successfull replicating it.

But I simply am totally our of ideas on what causes this. It should just not happen.

|||Did anybody solve this problem ?

High load SqlServer failes throwing error 3926 - what is that?

It manisfests itself in our SqlClient use (i.e. .NET 2.0) on one client side only...

with dozens of messages like:

ASP.global_asax - System.Data.SqlClient.SqlException : Server failed to resume the transaction, desc: 3500000c5b.

The transaction active in this session has been committed or aborted by another session.

That poins to SQL Server error 3926.

But I have NO clue how that comes. Anyone an idea? The code works flawless under dozens of other systems.

This looks like a exception throwed by SQL engine.

Guess what - it is SQL Error 3926 indicated by SQL Server. I already found that out and I already said so.

From "The transaction active in this session has been committed or aborted by another session.", I think more than one session in your application are accessing one transaction.

No chance. Here is the problem. I have, in the complete application, exactly 8 methods that do SQL processing. EVERY ONE of them:

* Gets a connection
* Establishes a transaction
* does it's job
* Closes the transaction
* Closes the connection

There is no open transaction ever left. All conenctions are properly disposed in a finally clause of a try/catch block in the method.

In fact, all my methods look like this:

Start:

IDbConnection connection = GetConnection ();
IDbTransaction txn = null;
if (System.Transactions.Transaction.Current == null) {
txn = connection.BeginTransaction ();
}
try {

processing

} finally {
if (txn == null) {
txn.Rollback ();
txn.Dispose ();
txn = null;
}
if (connection != null) {
connection.Close ();
connection.Dispose ();
connection = null;
}

If an error would happen in the finally block, I would see it. This is the pattern ALL my methods follow. This is the only location I actually open a connection. And I have a total of 8 methods that actually use the GetConnection method - and all run through the same pattern.

That is why I am ripping my hairs out. We DO close all transactions. I do NOT reuse transactions. This stuff is as simple as it gets. How the heck CAN anything go wrong here?

Normally, you can take a sql profiler trace to find out why.

Did you actually ever try that? I said "under high load". That server is basically like processing 2000 or so sql statements a SECOND for minutes before that thing slowly starts to materialize. The error does NOT appear under low or medium load. As a matter of fact, I have been unsuccessfull in replicating it in the lab. I get it on one customer's system, and I get it occasionally on one of our hosting systems for one customer (who uses a lot of ressources). It is critical for the one customer with his own system, because I sometimes get 10 or so of those a minute. In both scenarios where the error happens I can not turn on tracing for obvious reasons. And again, in the lab I was not successfull replicating it.

But I simply am totally our of ideas on what causes this. It should just not happen.

|||Did anybody solve this problem ?
sql

High ASYNC_NETWORK_IO value

Hello!
I have been analyzing wait stats using get_waitstats_2005 on ou production S
QLserver (two node Active/Passive SQL Server 2005 64-bit cluster) and notice
d high values of
ASYNC_NETWORK_IO wait type (around 50% of total resource type). From what I
can see, our 1GB Network cards are all right. Has anyone had experience trou
bleshooting this wait type? What could be causing high percentage of this wa
it type?
Thanks,
IgorHi
"imarchenko" wrote:

> Hello!
> I have been analyzing wait stats using get_waitstats_2005 on ou production
SQLserver (two node Active/Passive SQL Server 2005 64-bit cluster) and noti
ced high values of
> ASYNC_NETWORK_IO wait type (around 50% of total resource type). From what
I can see, our 1GB Network cards are all right. Has anyone had experience tr
oubleshooting this wait type? What could be causing high percentage of this
wait type?
> Thanks,
> Igor
50% of not very much is probably not something to worry about! If perfmon
stats such as output queue length show no problems then you are probably ok.
I assume that your 1GB network cards are on a 1GB network that does not have
any bottlenecks? If you can ad an extra card I don't think it would not do
any harm doing that!
John|||Also..
Have you checked for queries that return a large result set? You may want to
use SQL profiler to identify them. If you return an excessive result set the
client may not be able to process this fast enough!
John|||John,
This could well be the case. We have old legacy report application
generating thousands of queries per report.
Thanks,
Igor
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23z%23wpltUHHA.192@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Also..
> Have you checked for queries that return a large result set? You may want
> to use SQL profiler to identify them. If you return an excessive result
> set the client may not be able to process this fast enough!
> John
>|||Hi Igor
"imarchenko" wrote:

> John,
> This could well be the case. We have old legacy report application
> generating thousands of queries per report.
> Thanks,
> Igor
Profiling the system will certainly show high I/O and duration queries. Look
for instances where the result set is too wide or too many rows are being
returned that are not being used.
If you can't tune or re-write the queries, maybe a different method of
delivery would be more approprate such as a scheduled report or DTS/SSIS
export. Use of Analysis Service may allow you to process your data in a more
piecemeal way?
John|||John,
AS is out of question at the moment, but we are working on improving this
app.
Thanks again,
Igor
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:A4E11028-D4C0-4845-A347-03C5FEB1BE5D@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Igor
> "imarchenko" wrote:
>
> Profiling the system will certainly show high I/O and duration queries.
> Look
> for instances where the result set is too wide or too many rows are being
> returned that are not being used.
> If you can't tune or re-write the queries, maybe a different method of
> delivery would be more approprate such as a scheduled report or DTS/SSIS
> export. Use of Analysis Service may allow you to process your data in a
> more
> piecemeal way?
> John
>

High ASYNC_NETWORK_IO value

Hello!
I have been analyzing wait stats using get_waitstats_2005 on ou production SQLserver (two node Active/Passive SQL Server 2005 64-bit cluster) and noticed high values of
ASYNC_NETWORK_IO wait type (around 50% of total resource type). From what I can see, our 1GB Network cards are all right. Has anyone had experience troubleshooting this wait type? What could be causing high percentage of this wait type?
Thanks,
Igor
Hi
"imarchenko" wrote:

> Hello!
> I have been analyzing wait stats using get_waitstats_2005 on ou production SQLserver (two node Active/Passive SQL Server 2005 64-bit cluster) and noticed high values of
> ASYNC_NETWORK_IO wait type (around 50% of total resource type). From what I can see, our 1GB Network cards are all right. Has anyone had experience troubleshooting this wait type? What could be causing high percentage of this wait type?
> Thanks,
> Igor
50% of not very much is probably not something to worry about! If perfmon
stats such as output queue length show no problems then you are probably ok.
I assume that your 1GB network cards are on a 1GB network that does not have
any bottlenecks? If you can ad an extra card I don't think it would not do
any harm doing that!
John
|||Also..
Have you checked for queries that return a large result set? You may want to
use SQL profiler to identify them. If you return an excessive result set the
client may not be able to process this fast enough!
John
|||John,
This could well be the case. We have old legacy report application
generating thousands of queries per report.
Thanks,
Igor
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23z%23wpltUHHA.192@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Also..
> Have you checked for queries that return a large result set? You may want
> to use SQL profiler to identify them. If you return an excessive result
> set the client may not be able to process this fast enough!
> John
>
|||Hi Igor
"imarchenko" wrote:

> John,
> This could well be the case. We have old legacy report application
> generating thousands of queries per report.
> Thanks,
> Igor
Profiling the system will certainly show high I/O and duration queries. Look
for instances where the result set is too wide or too many rows are being
returned that are not being used.
If you can't tune or re-write the queries, maybe a different method of
delivery would be more approprate such as a scheduled report or DTS/SSIS
export. Use of Analysis Service may allow you to process your data in a more
piecemeal way?
John
|||John,
AS is out of question at the moment, but we are working on improving this
app.
Thanks again,
Igor
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:A4E11028-D4C0-4845-A347-03C5FEB1BE5D@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Igor
> "imarchenko" wrote:
>
> Profiling the system will certainly show high I/O and duration queries.
> Look
> for instances where the result set is too wide or too many rows are being
> returned that are not being used.
> If you can't tune or re-write the queries, maybe a different method of
> delivery would be more approprate such as a scheduled report or DTS/SSIS
> export. Use of Analysis Service may allow you to process your data in a
> more
> piecemeal way?
> John
>

Hiding Data

Hi,

I am intetrested to know if there is a way to hide the information in a
specific column in my table. SQLServer 200. Something like a password
protection were you only see *****. I have a DBA but want to hide salary
information from him that is stored in the database.

Any suggestions
Thanks
Elmo"elmo" <elmo@.delphisure.com> wrote in message
news:hvKdnVvTd7D5Dv_cRVn-tg@.is.co.za...
> Hi,
> I am intetrested to know if there is a way to hide the information in a
> specific column in my table. SQLServer 200. Something like a password
> protection were you only see *****. I have a DBA but want to hide salary
> information from him that is stored in the database.
> Any suggestions
> Thanks
> Elmo

This isn't possible - a member of the sysadmin role can access all data in
all databases. You can encrypt/decrypt the sensitive information in your
client application using whatever encryption API is available, then just
store the encrypted value in the database table:

http://www.sqlsecurity.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=22

Simon|||I have exactly the same issue.
Our security person wants an audit on all 'select' on 4 tables
containing sensitive data.

Any idea how we can manage to do this?|||"Praim Sankar" <praimnath.sankar@.cogeco.com> wrote in message
news:329c4589.0410051245.41ad320b@.posting.google.c om...
>I have exactly the same issue.
> Our security person wants an audit on all 'select' on 4 tables
> containing sensitive data.
> Any idea how we can manage to do this?

One way would be to run a trace, filtered on object name and SELECT. Or
there are commercial products for auditing purposes, such as this one (which
I've never used):

http://www.lumigent.com/products/entegra_sql.html

However, it would be extremely difficult to prevent a determined
administrator from viewing the data - he can disable auditing briefly,
restore a backup to another server without auditing etc. So any technical
solution needs a 'human' part too, ie. good staff, and a clear policy on
data access.

Simon