Hiding a Subreport: cluster

Showing posts with label cluster. Show all posts

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Hoe to setup integration services on a cluster

Does anyone know how to install SQL 2005 integration services on a cluster machine?

I have an a-a cluster machine. Both nodes are using SQL 2005 naming instance. During the SQL installation, I did include integration services option as one of my setup items. The setup process was running fine but I can’t connect to integration services via MS SQL Server management studio. I see below errors:

“Invalid server name "TESTServer\B123". SSIS service does not support multi-instance, use just server name instead of "server name\instance".

Looks like I must use default instance for 2005 integration services. I re-ran the setup program and added a default instance on the same cluster node. (On that node I have one default instance and one naming instance). Now I can connect to the default SQL Server but when I click on “stored packages”, I don’t see file system and MSDB. It shows nothing at all. Any idea how to make integration services running on a cluster machine?

Thanks

I had the same error when I tried to view an SSIS package on my server with 2 instances but I had no default instance, so my case was a little different than yours. The way I resolved my problem was by hard coding both instances into my XML configuration file. I did not have a cluster in this case but the principle should be the same, you'll just have to play around with it a little bit. You may also have to modify the XML file on both nodes of your cluster.

<ServerName>my-server-01\instance1</ServerName>
<ServerName>my-server-01\instance2</ServerName>

If you have a default instance and a named instance you might try something like this:

<ServerName>my-server-01</ServerName>
<ServerName>my-server-01\instance1</ServerName>

Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Integration Services (SSIS) includes a configuration file for configuring the Integration Services service.

By default, the file is located in the folder, Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\DTS\Binn, and the file name is MsDtsSrvr.ini.xml.

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms137789.aspx

|||

Microsoft has a document published on how to install Integration Services on a cluster.

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms345193.aspx

|||

I have the same problem in that I have set up SSIS on the cluster using the microsoft instructions. The SSIS service starts and fails over between nodes just fine. The problem is that I cannot see the MSDB or File System under Stored Packages. I've double (tripple) checked the path to the XML in the registry, the registry path in the cluster service properties, and the XML itself. Everything seems in order.

Any ideas?

|||

I'm in exactly the same situation. Did anyone resolve this problem ?

tia

bryn64

|||Have smae problem. Resolution?sql

Hoe to setup integration services on a cluster

Does anyone know how to install SQL 2005 integration services on a cluster machine?

“Invalid server name "TESTServer\B123". SSIS service does not support multi-instance, use just server name instead of "server name\instance".

Thanks

<ServerName>my-server-01\instance1</ServerName>
<ServerName>my-server-01\instance2</ServerName>

If you have a default instance and a named instance you might try something like this:

<ServerName>my-server-01</ServerName>
<ServerName>my-server-01\instance1</ServerName>

Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Integration Services (SSIS) includes a configuration file for configuring the Integration Services service.

By default, the file is located in the folder, Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\DTS\Binn, and the file name is MsDtsSrvr.ini.xml.

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms137789.aspx

|||

Microsoft has a document published on how to install Integration Services on a cluster.

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms345193.aspx

|||

Any ideas?

|||

I'm in exactly the same situation. Did anyone resolve this problem ?

tia

bryn64

|||Have smae problem. Resolution?

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

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.com
You 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.c om...
> 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 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 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.droptable.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 droptable.com" <forum@.droptable.com> wrote in message
news:61f18ba8c87443539797e121a8dd7f14@.SQ
droptable.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.droptable.comsql

Monday, March 19, 2012

High CPU usage on 64bit (8 Way dual core) machine

Hi
I'm running SQL server 2005 (64 bit) on windows 2003 server (64 bit) in a
clustered environment (both machines in the cluster are identical) and the
machines have 12GB or RAM each and 8 dual core CPU's (3.Ghz) (DL580 G4's) -
presenting 16 cpus to the OS . We moved this instance from an 8 way xeon
cluster with 4GB memory, which pottered along quite happily at 50-70% CPU.
However the new cluster - which would have expected to manage the workload
much better epsecially in terms of CPU is constantly at about 80-90% cpu on
all processors, and frequntly in the high 90's - I've seen a couple of KB
articles relating to problems like this - however none seems to quite fit out
situation.
Anyone got any ideas ?I suspect that the lower CPU usage was due to slower disks and less memory.
In that case, the CPU has to wait for data. If it's not in cache, then it
has to go to disk. During this time, the CPU waits, and CPU usage goes to
0.
In your newer system, you have more cache, which reduces the need to go to
disk as often. Because the data is already available, then the CPU can be
put to work right away to service the query.
Has query performance suffered or are you just concerned that you see higher
CPU usage?
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
"Rabbers" <Rabbers@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:ACEBF5A1-099B-4C13-A0CF-9677E48C2F4C@.microsoft.com...
Hi
I'm running SQL server 2005 (64 bit) on windows 2003 server (64 bit) in a
clustered environment (both machines in the cluster are identical) and the
machines have 12GB or RAM each and 8 dual core CPU's (3.Ghz) (DL580 G4's) -
presenting 16 cpus to the OS . We moved this instance from an 8 way xeon
cluster with 4GB memory, which pottered along quite happily at 50-70% CPU.
However the new cluster - which would have expected to manage the workload
much better epsecially in terms of CPU is constantly at about 80-90% cpu on
all processors, and frequntly in the high 90's - I've seen a couple of KB
articles relating to problems like this - however none seems to quite fit
out
situation.
Anyone got any ideas ?|||Rabbers
Can you tell us what did you check so far? Long running queries? Blocking
/Loking?
select top 50
sum(qs.total_worker_time) as total_cpu_time,
sum(qs.execution_count) as total_execution_count,
count(*) as number_of_statements,
qs.plan_handle
from
sys.dm_exec_query_stats qs
group by qs.plan_handle
order by sum(qs.total_worker_time) desc
"Rabbers" <Rabbers@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:ACEBF5A1-099B-4C13-A0CF-9677E48C2F4C@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I'm running SQL server 2005 (64 bit) on windows 2003 server (64 bit) in a
> clustered environment (both machines in the cluster are identical) and the
> machines have 12GB or RAM each and 8 dual core CPU's (3.Ghz) (DL580
> G4's) -
> presenting 16 cpus to the OS . We moved this instance from an 8 way xeon
> cluster with 4GB memory, which pottered along quite happily at 50-70% CPU.
> However the new cluster - which would have expected to manage the workload
> much better epsecially in terms of CPU is constantly at about 80-90% cpu
> on
> all processors, and frequntly in the high 90's - I've seen a couple of KB
> articles relating to problems like this - however none seems to quite fit
> out
> situation.
> Anyone got any ideas ?
>|||I agree with Tom in that you most likely had other bottlenecks that
prevented your CPU's from being constantly higher in the last system. High
CPU usage usually means you are getting a lot of work done and is not
necessarily a bad thing. But it can also indicate you have poorly optimized
queries and are getting a lot of compiles or recompiles.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Rabbers" <Rabbers@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:ACEBF5A1-099B-4C13-A0CF-9677E48C2F4C@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I'm running SQL server 2005 (64 bit) on windows 2003 server (64 bit) in a
> clustered environment (both machines in the cluster are identical) and the
> machines have 12GB or RAM each and 8 dual core CPU's (3.Ghz) (DL580
> G4's) -
> presenting 16 cpus to the OS . We moved this instance from an 8 way xeon
> cluster with 4GB memory, which pottered along quite happily at 50-70% CPU.
> However the new cluster - which would have expected to manage the workload
> much better epsecially in terms of CPU is constantly at about 80-90% cpu
> on
> all processors, and frequntly in the high 90's - I've seen a couple of KB
> articles relating to problems like this - however none seems to quite fit
> out
> situation.
> Anyone got any ideas ?
>|||Interesting - I had not thought of it in those terms, but my team are also
telling me that query performance has suffered. Incidently the disk sub
system is the same as on the old sub system it is an EMC CX300 SAN dual path
in active/active configuration, There does not appear to be any IO waiting
going on so I'm not sure this is oir was an issue. Workload is unchanged.
No blocking or locking going on. Although some big numbers from Uri's query.
14131421676 9670 32 0x0500050053D8DE7840039DC5000000000000000000000000
8347158363 30999 9 0x050005009014281C40C3ADB5000000000000000000000000
2376266762 1270 7 0x05000B00A39BCF6240C3AEE7000000000000000000000000
2202179405 4480 32 0x050005001AB4EA7740C3EE07010000000000000000000000
1997588436 2379 8 0x05000B00F82EF35F4003F5A9020000000000000000000000
1597112198 30677 3 0x05000500A3463C3F40A307AC000000000000000000000000
1456992451 19956 3 0x05000500541E7401406392BC000000000000000000000000
984281776 43805 13 0x05000500052FD03740A3A1C6000000000000000000000000
962083727 112113 18 0x05000700942C7D3E406339EA000000000000000000000000
843149798 577 7 0x05000B003153E7604023B6E9000000000000000000000000
752809408 5511 1 0x0500050088E47D5740631FC1000000000000000000000000
730983354 594 7 0x050005005AC2F3344083D8D7000000000000000000000000
538219354 3533651 5 0x050005009C23030F400304CF000000000000000000000000
405080101 463791 2 0x050005002ADB1A0D40233ADC000000000000000000000000
404464827 8912 3 0x05000500DAA5E13A406343BC000000000000000000000000
354858971 12888 9 0x050005006B2FB9524083CBDB000000000000000000000000
354788856 20840 2 0x0500070022E4943C40C3B2AF000000000000000000000000
311644988 223882 2 0x05000500D5F2636C40234B8A000000000000000000000000
278456532 1001 2 0x05000500354FCD53406346E1000000000000000000000000
270333901 837513 1 0x05000500286B5F2B4003AFAB000000000000000000000000
219689259 548657 3 0x050007008240FE2340C3F5DE000000000000000000000000
209456887 313 36 0x05000500C520C77A40639DBF010000000000000000000000
203146055 70 6 0x05000B006A77DB614003F289010000000000000000000000
187539837 8882 3 0x05000B0002B2A34140A38900010000000000000000000000
183248652 158 1 0x060005006B51F52940439A48020000000000000000000000
151190159 4904 12 0x050005003EA8575C40437BDD000000000000000000000000
148130918 2873 1 0x05000B0029EA182840A3DFE1020000000000000000000000
129011430 591 10 0x05000500FBC78E0540A3AB0A020000000000000000000000
122411767 9145 38 0x05000500A9B1977E4023BCD7000000000000000000000000
103452720 1947 4 0x05000500FC0D240E40A34CD7000000000000000000000000
99285280 433203 1 0x05000500162A4D6D404339BE000000000000000000000000
97455900 77 1 0x060005003E8B77394063E000030000000000000000000000
96981407 90 1 0x0600050061E19A1B40A3C087000000000000000000000000
94693286 9 9 0x05000600309B09704003E311030000000000000000000000
89323421 74 1 0x060005009BAE130440A3B7D8020000000000000000000000
75662449 1117974 2 0x05000500D547F70F40837AD0000000000000000000000000
74451891 84 4 0x06000B00CFFD2D3840C3FBF9000000000000000000000000
72410847 80 4 0x06000B0047B9FB1940A3FB6F010000000000000000000000
72244371 58 1 0x0600050005018F074083E895020000000000000000000000
70044701 5036752 1 0x05000B00B0B71B6A40A374E7000000000000000000000000
68605351 42 7 0x060005003488F60C4003CEE5020000000000000000000000
65495930 158 1 0x06000500FD821E3240233246020000000000000000000000
65255754 7922 8 0x05000500F9E6D05040C3D2D9000000000000000000000000
62199510 107 1 0x06000500A41D2C1E40E34E1A020000000000000000000000
60560005 34 2 0x06000B00D37CFA2240E3FAA7000000000000000000000000
56735759 127554 9 0x05000500FB72FB614043C1AB000000000000000000000000
54106604 110763 6 0x05000500735F631740E3A1C6000000000000000000000000
53255770 6 6 0x06000500C5224C2640833421020000000000000000000000
50681958 202 8 0x05000500B7F7095F40A337BA000000000000000000000000
50605253 1222 9 0x05000B00C3949C6940C30FC2000000000000000000000000
"Tom Moreau" wrote:
> I suspect that the lower CPU usage was due to slower disks and less memory.
> In that case, the CPU has to wait for data. If it's not in cache, then it
> has to go to disk. During this time, the CPU waits, and CPU usage goes to
> 0.
> In your newer system, you have more cache, which reduces the need to go to
> disk as often. Because the data is already available, then the CPU can be
> put to work right away to service the query.
> Has query performance suffered or are you just concerned that you see higher
> CPU usage?
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
>
> "Rabbers" <Rabbers@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:ACEBF5A1-099B-4C13-A0CF-9677E48C2F4C@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I'm running SQL server 2005 (64 bit) on windows 2003 server (64 bit) in a
> clustered environment (both machines in the cluster are identical) and the
> machines have 12GB or RAM each and 8 dual core CPU's (3.Ghz) (DL580 G4's) -
> presenting 16 cpus to the OS . We moved this instance from an 8 way xeon
> cluster with 4GB memory, which pottered along quite happily at 50-70% CPU.
> However the new cluster - which would have expected to manage the workload
> much better epsecially in terms of CPU is constantly at about 80-90% cpu on
> all processors, and frequntly in the high 90's - I've seen a couple of KB
> articles relating to problems like this - however none seems to quite fit
> out
> situation.
> Anyone got any ideas ?
>
>|||You may want to start profiling for long-running queries and/or those
queries that are using a lot of CPU.
BTW what service pack are you running?
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
"Rabbers" <Rabbers@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:105535AF-20A9-41A4-A320-AD35C4CF28CA@.microsoft.com...
Interesting - I had not thought of it in those terms, but my team are also
telling me that query performance has suffered. Incidently the disk sub
system is the same as on the old sub system it is an EMC CX300 SAN dual path
in active/active configuration, There does not appear to be any IO waiting
going on so I'm not sure this is oir was an issue. Workload is unchanged.
No blocking or locking going on. Although some big numbers from Uri's query.
14131421676 9670 32 0x0500050053D8DE7840039DC5000000000000000000000000
8347158363 30999 9 0x050005009014281C40C3ADB5000000000000000000000000
2376266762 1270 7 0x05000B00A39BCF6240C3AEE7000000000000000000000000
2202179405 4480 32 0x050005001AB4EA7740C3EE07010000000000000000000000
1997588436 2379 8 0x05000B00F82EF35F4003F5A9020000000000000000000000
1597112198 30677 3 0x05000500A3463C3F40A307AC000000000000000000000000
1456992451 19956 3 0x05000500541E7401406392BC000000000000000000000000
984281776 43805 13 0x05000500052FD03740A3A1C6000000000000000000000000
962083727 112113 18 0x05000700942C7D3E406339EA000000000000000000000000
843149798 577 7 0x05000B003153E7604023B6E9000000000000000000000000
752809408 5511 1 0x0500050088E47D5740631FC1000000000000000000000000
730983354 594 7 0x050005005AC2F3344083D8D7000000000000000000000000
538219354 3533651 5 0x050005009C23030F400304CF000000000000000000000000
405080101 463791 2 0x050005002ADB1A0D40233ADC000000000000000000000000
404464827 8912 3 0x05000500DAA5E13A406343BC000000000000000000000000
354858971 12888 9 0x050005006B2FB9524083CBDB000000000000000000000000
354788856 20840 2 0x0500070022E4943C40C3B2AF000000000000000000000000
311644988 223882 2 0x05000500D5F2636C40234B8A000000000000000000000000
278456532 1001 2 0x05000500354FCD53406346E1000000000000000000000000
270333901 837513 1 0x05000500286B5F2B4003AFAB000000000000000000000000
219689259 548657 3 0x050007008240FE2340C3F5DE000000000000000000000000
209456887 313 36 0x05000500C520C77A40639DBF010000000000000000000000
203146055 70 6 0x05000B006A77DB614003F289010000000000000000000000
187539837 8882 3 0x05000B0002B2A34140A38900010000000000000000000000
183248652 158 1 0x060005006B51F52940439A48020000000000000000000000
151190159 4904 12 0x050005003EA8575C40437BDD000000000000000000000000
148130918 2873 1 0x05000B0029EA182840A3DFE1020000000000000000000000
129011430 591 10 0x05000500FBC78E0540A3AB0A020000000000000000000000
122411767 9145 38 0x05000500A9B1977E4023BCD7000000000000000000000000
103452720 1947 4 0x05000500FC0D240E40A34CD7000000000000000000000000
99285280 433203 1 0x05000500162A4D6D404339BE000000000000000000000000
97455900 77 1 0x060005003E8B77394063E000030000000000000000000000
96981407 90 1 0x0600050061E19A1B40A3C087000000000000000000000000
94693286 9 9 0x05000600309B09704003E311030000000000000000000000
89323421 74 1 0x060005009BAE130440A3B7D8020000000000000000000000
75662449 1117974 2 0x05000500D547F70F40837AD0000000000000000000000000
74451891 84 4 0x06000B00CFFD2D3840C3FBF9000000000000000000000000
72410847 80 4 0x06000B0047B9FB1940A3FB6F010000000000000000000000
72244371 58 1 0x0600050005018F074083E895020000000000000000000000
70044701 5036752 1 0x05000B00B0B71B6A40A374E7000000000000000000000000
68605351 42 7 0x060005003488F60C4003CEE5020000000000000000000000
65495930 158 1 0x06000500FD821E3240233246020000000000000000000000
65255754 7922 8 0x05000500F9E6D05040C3D2D9000000000000000000000000
62199510 107 1 0x06000500A41D2C1E40E34E1A020000000000000000000000
60560005 34 2 0x06000B00D37CFA2240E3FAA7000000000000000000000000
56735759 127554 9 0x05000500FB72FB614043C1AB000000000000000000000000
54106604 110763 6 0x05000500735F631740E3A1C6000000000000000000000000
53255770 6 6 0x06000500C5224C2640833421020000000000000000000000
50681958 202 8 0x05000500B7F7095F40A337BA000000000000000000000000
50605253 1222 9 0x05000B00C3949C6940C30FC2000000000000000000000000
"Tom Moreau" wrote:
> I suspect that the lower CPU usage was due to slower disks and less
> memory.
> In that case, the CPU has to wait for data. If it's not in cache, then it
> has to go to disk. During this time, the CPU waits, and CPU usage goes to
> 0.
> In your newer system, you have more cache, which reduces the need to go to
> disk as often. Because the data is already available, then the CPU can be
> put to work right away to service the query.
> Has query performance suffered or are you just concerned that you see
> higher
> CPU usage?
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
>
> "Rabbers" <Rabbers@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:ACEBF5A1-099B-4C13-A0CF-9677E48C2F4C@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I'm running SQL server 2005 (64 bit) on windows 2003 server (64 bit) in a
> clustered environment (both machines in the cluster are identical) and the
> machines have 12GB or RAM each and 8 dual core CPU's (3.Ghz) (DL580
> G4's) -
> presenting 16 cpus to the OS . We moved this instance from an 8 way xeon
> cluster with 4GB memory, which pottered along quite happily at 50-70% CPU.
> However the new cluster - which would have expected to manage the workload
> much better epsecially in terms of CPU is constantly at about 80-90% cpu
> on
> all processors, and frequntly in the high 90's - I've seen a couple of KB
> articles relating to problems like this - however none seems to quite fit
> out
> situation.
> Anyone got any ideas ?
>
>|||Have already looked at the query side of things - what surpirises me is that
CPU usage was much lower on the former server with the same workload..
Version is 9.00.3050.00 which is SP2
"Tom Moreau" wrote:
> You may want to start profiling for long-running queries and/or those
> queries that are using a lot of CPU.
> BTW what service pack are you running?
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
>
> "Rabbers" <Rabbers@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:105535AF-20A9-41A4-A320-AD35C4CF28CA@.microsoft.com...
> Interesting - I had not thought of it in those terms, but my team are also
> telling me that query performance has suffered. Incidently the disk sub
> system is the same as on the old sub system it is an EMC CX300 SAN dual path
> in active/active configuration, There does not appear to be any IO waiting
> going on so I'm not sure this is oir was an issue. Workload is unchanged.
> No blocking or locking going on. Although some big numbers from Uri's query.
> 14131421676 9670 32 0x0500050053D8DE7840039DC5000000000000000000000000
> 8347158363 30999 9 0x050005009014281C40C3ADB5000000000000000000000000
> 2376266762 1270 7 0x05000B00A39BCF6240C3AEE7000000000000000000000000
> 2202179405 4480 32 0x050005001AB4EA7740C3EE07010000000000000000000000
> 1997588436 2379 8 0x05000B00F82EF35F4003F5A9020000000000000000000000
> 1597112198 30677 3 0x05000500A3463C3F40A307AC000000000000000000000000
> 1456992451 19956 3 0x05000500541E7401406392BC000000000000000000000000
> 984281776 43805 13 0x05000500052FD03740A3A1C6000000000000000000000000
> 962083727 112113 18 0x05000700942C7D3E406339EA000000000000000000000000
> 843149798 577 7 0x05000B003153E7604023B6E9000000000000000000000000
> 752809408 5511 1 0x0500050088E47D5740631FC1000000000000000000000000
> 730983354 594 7 0x050005005AC2F3344083D8D7000000000000000000000000
> 538219354 3533651 5 0x050005009C23030F400304CF000000000000000000000000
> 405080101 463791 2 0x050005002ADB1A0D40233ADC000000000000000000000000
> 404464827 8912 3 0x05000500DAA5E13A406343BC000000000000000000000000
> 354858971 12888 9 0x050005006B2FB9524083CBDB000000000000000000000000
> 354788856 20840 2 0x0500070022E4943C40C3B2AF000000000000000000000000
> 311644988 223882 2 0x05000500D5F2636C40234B8A000000000000000000000000
> 278456532 1001 2 0x05000500354FCD53406346E1000000000000000000000000
> 270333901 837513 1 0x05000500286B5F2B4003AFAB000000000000000000000000
> 219689259 548657 3 0x050007008240FE2340C3F5DE000000000000000000000000
> 209456887 313 36 0x05000500C520C77A40639DBF010000000000000000000000
> 203146055 70 6 0x05000B006A77DB614003F289010000000000000000000000
> 187539837 8882 3 0x05000B0002B2A34140A38900010000000000000000000000
> 183248652 158 1 0x060005006B51F52940439A48020000000000000000000000
> 151190159 4904 12 0x050005003EA8575C40437BDD000000000000000000000000
> 148130918 2873 1 0x05000B0029EA182840A3DFE1020000000000000000000000
> 129011430 591 10 0x05000500FBC78E0540A3AB0A020000000000000000000000
> 122411767 9145 38 0x05000500A9B1977E4023BCD7000000000000000000000000
> 103452720 1947 4 0x05000500FC0D240E40A34CD7000000000000000000000000
> 99285280 433203 1 0x05000500162A4D6D404339BE000000000000000000000000
> 97455900 77 1 0x060005003E8B77394063E000030000000000000000000000
> 96981407 90 1 0x0600050061E19A1B40A3C087000000000000000000000000
> 94693286 9 9 0x05000600309B09704003E311030000000000000000000000
> 89323421 74 1 0x060005009BAE130440A3B7D8020000000000000000000000
> 75662449 1117974 2 0x05000500D547F70F40837AD0000000000000000000000000
> 74451891 84 4 0x06000B00CFFD2D3840C3FBF9000000000000000000000000
> 72410847 80 4 0x06000B0047B9FB1940A3FB6F010000000000000000000000
> 72244371 58 1 0x0600050005018F074083E895020000000000000000000000
> 70044701 5036752 1 0x05000B00B0B71B6A40A374E7000000000000000000000000
> 68605351 42 7 0x060005003488F60C4003CEE5020000000000000000000000
> 65495930 158 1 0x06000500FD821E3240233246020000000000000000000000
> 65255754 7922 8 0x05000500F9E6D05040C3D2D9000000000000000000000000
> 62199510 107 1 0x06000500A41D2C1E40E34E1A020000000000000000000000
> 60560005 34 2 0x06000B00D37CFA2240E3FAA7000000000000000000000000
> 56735759 127554 9 0x05000500FB72FB614043C1AB000000000000000000000000
> 54106604 110763 6 0x05000500735F631740E3A1C6000000000000000000000000
> 53255770 6 6 0x06000500C5224C2640833421020000000000000000000000
> 50681958 202 8 0x05000500B7F7095F40A337BA000000000000000000000000
> 50605253 1222 9 0x05000B00C3949C6940C30FC2000000000000000000000000
> "Tom Moreau" wrote:
> > I suspect that the lower CPU usage was due to slower disks and less
> > memory.
> > In that case, the CPU has to wait for data. If it's not in cache, then it
> > has to go to disk. During this time, the CPU waits, and CPU usage goes to
> > 0.
> >
> > In your newer system, you have more cache, which reduces the need to go to
> > disk as often. Because the data is already available, then the CPU can be
> > put to work right away to service the query.
> >
> > Has query performance suffered or are you just concerned that you see
> > higher
> > CPU usage?
> >
> > --
> > Tom
> >
> > ----
> > Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
> > SQL Server MVP
> > Toronto, ON Canada
> > https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau
> >
> >
> > "Rabbers" <Rabbers@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:ACEBF5A1-099B-4C13-A0CF-9677E48C2F4C@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi
> >
> > I'm running SQL server 2005 (64 bit) on windows 2003 server (64 bit) in a
> > clustered environment (both machines in the cluster are identical) and the
> > machines have 12GB or RAM each and 8 dual core CPU's (3.Ghz) (DL580
> > G4's) -
> > presenting 16 cpus to the OS . We moved this instance from an 8 way xeon
> > cluster with 4GB memory, which pottered along quite happily at 50-70% CPU.
> >
> > However the new cluster - which would have expected to manage the workload
> > much better epsecially in terms of CPU is constantly at about 80-90% cpu
> > on
> > all processors, and frequntly in the high 90's - I've seen a couple of KB
> > articles relating to problems like this - however none seems to quite fit
> > out
> > situation.
> >
> > Anyone got any ideas ?
> >
> >
> >
>|||OK - I'll have a look at the query side of things...
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> I agree with Tom in that you most likely had other bottlenecks that
> prevented your CPU's from being constantly higher in the last system. High
> CPU usage usually means you are getting a lot of work done and is not
> necessarily a bad thing. But it can also indicate you have poorly optimized
> queries and are getting a lot of compiles or recompiles.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Rabbers" <Rabbers@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:ACEBF5A1-099B-4C13-A0CF-9677E48C2F4C@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi
> >
> > I'm running SQL server 2005 (64 bit) on windows 2003 server (64 bit) in a
> > clustered environment (both machines in the cluster are identical) and the
> > machines have 12GB or RAM each and 8 dual core CPU's (3.Ghz) (DL580
> > G4's) -
> > presenting 16 cpus to the OS . We moved this instance from an 8 way xeon
> > cluster with 4GB memory, which pottered along quite happily at 50-70% CPU.
> >
> > However the new cluster - which would have expected to manage the workload
> > much better epsecially in terms of CPU is constantly at about 80-90% cpu
> > on
> > all processors, and frequntly in the high 90's - I've seen a couple of KB
> > articles relating to problems like this - however none seems to quite fit
> > out
> > situation.
> >
> > Anyone got any ideas ?
> >
> >
>
>

Monday, March 12, 2012

High availability with existing cluster

I have a active/passive clustered SQL Server 2005 Enterprise. If the
data file becomes corrupt, I've lost my high availability and because
the database is over 200GB, a restore operation will take hours. Does
anyone have any suggestions for creating a warm stand-by in a
clustered environment? Is this even possible, since the stand-by would
need to become the virutal server resource owner?"Curtis" <curtmorrison@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9d55337f-76a2-49f3-b1c8-18b17d09ab16@.b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>I have a active/passive clustered SQL Server 2005 Enterprise. If the
> data file becomes corrupt, I've lost my high availability and because
> the database is over 200GB, a restore operation will take hours. Does
> anyone have any suggestions for creating a warm stand-by in a
> clustered environment? Is this even possible, since the stand-by would
> need to become the virutal server resource owner?
Hi
Database corruption will be an issue that is not covered by hardware
clustering, and may require more time for recovery if that does occur. You
can look at log shipping or database mirroring, but for this to take over
you would need to change the client and possibly an active/active cluster.
You can also look at online restores to possibly make the system available
quicker in the event of having to restore. See
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/technologies/highavailability/default.mspx
John

High Availability over Distance

>
> The mirrorring funktionality is available within SQL Server 2005, so no
> extra expenses is nessecary.
> /Sjang
>
>
|||Thanks Guys. I will look into mirroring for sure.
What about any other options?
Thanks.
"Ben Nevarez" <BenNevarez@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:25119072-74B9-4C84-BE55-042AFF85F735@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Henrik,
> Just be careful at using the high availabilty mode when the servers
> (partners) are not on the same data center and pay special attention to
> network reliability, network throughput and performance.
> Take a look at this paper
> Database Mirroring Best Practices and Performance Considerations
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/technologies/dbm_best_pract.mspx
> Hope this helps,
> Ben Nevarez
> Senior Database Administrator
> AIG SunAmerica
>
> "Henrik Davidsen" wrote:
|||There are technologies available from SAN vendors. Although they probably
have million dollar + price tags. Call up EMC and tell them what you want to
do.
Jason Massie
www: http://statisticsio.com
rss: http://feeds.feedburner.com/statisticsio
"Dragon" <noSpam_baadil@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:unDj%23b4NIHA.4656@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Guys. I will look into mirroring for sure.
> What about any other options?
> Thanks.
>
> "Ben Nevarez" <BenNevarez@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:25119072-74B9-4C84-BE55-042AFF85F735@.microsoft.com...
>
|||Thank you Jason.
"jason" <jason-r3move@.statisticsio.com> wrote in message
news:72BEA593-F945-4A39-B413-E25B118AFA7B@.microsoft.com...
> There are technologies available from SAN vendors. Although they probably
> have million dollar + price tags. Call up EMC and tell them what you want
> to do.
> --
> Jason Massie
> www: http://statisticsio.com
> rss: http://feeds.feedburner.com/statisticsio
>
> "Dragon" <noSpam_baadil@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:unDj%23b4NIHA.4656@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>

High Availability over Distance

> Money is not an object (within reason, No Million $ options please :-) )
The mirrorring funktionality is available within SQL Server 2005, so no
extra expenses is nessecary.
/Sjang|||Hi Henrik,
Just be careful at using the high availabilty mode when the servers
(partners) are not on the same data center and pay special attention to
network reliability, network throughput and performance.
Take a look at this paper
Database Mirroring Best Practices and Performance Considerations
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...ct.
mspx
Hope this helps,
Ben Nevarez
Senior Database Administrator
AIG SunAmerica
"Henrik Davidsen" wrote:

> Try to read up on SQL Server's Mirroring feature.
>
> There are different modes the mirroring can operate in. One is a High
> Availability mode, whichs offers guarantee that the mirror is ALWAYS 100%
> up-to-date. That however produces some performance degrading. But read up
on
> the mirroring

>
> The mirrorring funktionality is available within SQL Server 2005, so no
> extra expenses is nessecary.
> /Sjang
>
>|||Thanks Guys. I will look into mirroring for sure.
What about any other options?
Thanks.
"Ben Nevarez" <BenNevarez@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:25119072-74B9-4C84-BE55-042AFF85F735@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Henrik,
> Just be careful at using the high availabilty mode when the servers
> (partners) are not on the same data center and pay special attention to
> network reliability, network throughput and performance.
> Take a look at this paper
> Database Mirroring Best Practices and Performance Considerations
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...c
t.mspx
> Hope this helps,
> Ben Nevarez
> Senior Database Administrator
> AIG SunAmerica
>
> "Henrik Davidsen" wrote:
>|||There are technologies available from SAN vendors. Although they probably
have million dollar + price tags. Call up EMC and tell them what you want to
do.
Jason Massie
www: http://statisticsio.com
rss: http://feeds.feedburner.com/statisticsio
"Dragon" <noSpam_baadil@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:unDj%23b4NIHA.4656@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Guys. I will look into mirroring for sure.
> What about any other options?
> Thanks.
>
> "Ben Nevarez" <BenNevarez@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:25119072-74B9-4C84-BE55-042AFF85F735@.microsoft.com...
>|||Thank you Jason.
"jason" <jason-r3move@.statisticsio.com> wrote in message
news:72BEA593-F945-4A39-B413-E25B118AFA7B@.microsoft.com...
> There are technologies available from SAN vendors. Although they probably
> have million dollar + price tags. Call up EMC and tell them what you want
> to do.
> --
> Jason Massie
> www: http://statisticsio.com
> rss: http://feeds.feedburner.com/statisticsio
>
> "Dragon" <noSpam_baadil@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:unDj%23b4NIHA.4656@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>

High Availability over Distance

Hi,
I am looking for suggestions on creating a mirror site. Currently we have a
SQL server in a MS Cluster Environment. We will be creating another
clustered environment which will be 5+ miles away from the primary site.
What is the best way to create a mirror of the primary site?
I am looking for the Best option available (MS or third party). Currently I
am looking at Double Take and Replistor. We have sued Replistor in the past
with some good and very bad experiences. Primary goal is to make sure
secondary site is always up to date (within a minute or so). Money is not an
object (within reason, No Million $ options please :-) )
Thank you.> I am looking for suggestions on creating a mirror site.
Try to read up on SQL Server's Mirroring feature.
> Primary goal is to make sure secondary site is always up to date (within a
> minute or so).
There are different modes the mirroring can operate in. One is a High
Availability mode, whichs offers guarantee that the mirror is ALWAYS 100%
up-to-date. That however produces some performance degrading. But read up on
the mirroring :)
> Money is not an object (within reason, No Million $ options please :-) )
The mirrorring funktionality is available within SQL Server 2005, so no
extra expenses is nessecary.
/Sjang|||Hi Henrik,
Just be careful at using the high availabilty mode when the servers
(partners) are not on the same data center and pay special attention to
network reliability, network throughput and performance.
Take a look at this paper
Database Mirroring Best Practices and Performance Considerations
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/technologies/dbm_best_pract.mspx
Hope this helps,
Ben Nevarez
Senior Database Administrator
AIG SunAmerica
"Henrik Davidsen" wrote:
> > I am looking for suggestions on creating a mirror site.
> Try to read up on SQL Server's Mirroring feature.
> > Primary goal is to make sure secondary site is always up to date (within a
> > minute or so).
> There are different modes the mirroring can operate in. One is a High
> Availability mode, whichs offers guarantee that the mirror is ALWAYS 100%
> up-to-date. That however produces some performance degrading. But read up on
> the mirroring :)
> > Money is not an object (within reason, No Million $ options please :-) )
> The mirrorring funktionality is available within SQL Server 2005, so no
> extra expenses is nessecary.
> /Sjang
>
>|||Thanks Guys. I will look into mirroring for sure.
What about any other options?
Thanks.
"Ben Nevarez" <BenNevarez@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:25119072-74B9-4C84-BE55-042AFF85F735@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Henrik,
> Just be careful at using the high availabilty mode when the servers
> (partners) are not on the same data center and pay special attention to
> network reliability, network throughput and performance.
> Take a look at this paper
> Database Mirroring Best Practices and Performance Considerations
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/technologies/dbm_best_pract.mspx
> Hope this helps,
> Ben Nevarez
> Senior Database Administrator
> AIG SunAmerica
>
> "Henrik Davidsen" wrote:
>> > I am looking for suggestions on creating a mirror site.
>> Try to read up on SQL Server's Mirroring feature.
>> > Primary goal is to make sure secondary site is always up to date
>> > (within a
>> > minute or so).
>> There are different modes the mirroring can operate in. One is a High
>> Availability mode, whichs offers guarantee that the mirror is ALWAYS 100%
>> up-to-date. That however produces some performance degrading. But read up
>> on
>> the mirroring :)
>> > Money is not an object (within reason, No Million $ options please
>> > :-) )
>> The mirrorring funktionality is available within SQL Server 2005, so no
>> extra expenses is nessecary.
>> /Sjang
>>|||There are technologies available from SAN vendors. Although they probably
have million dollar + price tags. Call up EMC and tell them what you want to
do.
--
Jason Massie
www: http://statisticsio.com
rss: http://feeds.feedburner.com/statisticsio
"Dragon" <noSpam_baadil@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:unDj%23b4NIHA.4656@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Guys. I will look into mirroring for sure.
> What about any other options?
> Thanks.
>
> "Ben Nevarez" <BenNevarez@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:25119072-74B9-4C84-BE55-042AFF85F735@.microsoft.com...
>> Hi Henrik,
>> Just be careful at using the high availabilty mode when the servers
>> (partners) are not on the same data center and pay special attention to
>> network reliability, network throughput and performance.
>> Take a look at this paper
>> Database Mirroring Best Practices and Performance Considerations
>> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/technologies/dbm_best_pract.mspx
>> Hope this helps,
>> Ben Nevarez
>> Senior Database Administrator
>> AIG SunAmerica
>>
>> "Henrik Davidsen" wrote:
>> > I am looking for suggestions on creating a mirror site.
>> Try to read up on SQL Server's Mirroring feature.
>> > Primary goal is to make sure secondary site is always up to date
>> > (within a
>> > minute or so).
>> There are different modes the mirroring can operate in. One is a High
>> Availability mode, whichs offers guarantee that the mirror is ALWAYS
>> 100%
>> up-to-date. That however produces some performance degrading. But read
>> up on
>> the mirroring :)
>> > Money is not an object (within reason, No Million $ options please
>> > :-) )
>> The mirrorring funktionality is available within SQL Server 2005, so no
>> extra expenses is nessecary.
>> /Sjang
>>
>|||Thank you Jason.
"jason" <jason-r3move@.statisticsio.com> wrote in message
news:72BEA593-F945-4A39-B413-E25B118AFA7B@.microsoft.com...
> There are technologies available from SAN vendors. Although they probably
> have million dollar + price tags. Call up EMC and tell them what you want
> to do.
> --
> Jason Massie
> www: http://statisticsio.com
> rss: http://feeds.feedburner.com/statisticsio
>
> "Dragon" <noSpam_baadil@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:unDj%23b4NIHA.4656@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks Guys. I will look into mirroring for sure.
>> What about any other options?
>> Thanks.
>>
>> "Ben Nevarez" <BenNevarez@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:25119072-74B9-4C84-BE55-042AFF85F735@.microsoft.com...
>> Hi Henrik,
>> Just be careful at using the high availabilty mode when the servers
>> (partners) are not on the same data center and pay special attention to
>> network reliability, network throughput and performance.
>> Take a look at this paper
>> Database Mirroring Best Practices and Performance Considerations
>> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/technologies/dbm_best_pract.mspx
>> Hope this helps,
>> Ben Nevarez
>> Senior Database Administrator
>> AIG SunAmerica
>>
>> "Henrik Davidsen" wrote:
>> > I am looking for suggestions on creating a mirror site.
>> Try to read up on SQL Server's Mirroring feature.
>> > Primary goal is to make sure secondary site is always up to date
>> > (within a
>> > minute or so).
>> There are different modes the mirroring can operate in. One is a High
>> Availability mode, whichs offers guarantee that the mirror is ALWAYS
>> 100%
>> up-to-date. That however produces some performance degrading. But read
>> up on
>> the mirroring :)
>> > Money is not an object (within reason, No Million $ options please
>> > :-) )
>> The mirrorring funktionality is available within SQL Server 2005, so no
>> extra expenses is nessecary.
>> /Sjang
>>
>>
>

Friday, March 9, 2012

high availability on SQL Server 2000

We have a failover cluster that gives our SQL Server environment really great
availability - each upgrade we do on Windows or SQL Server requires a SQL
restart or a Windows reboot which only affects the uptime for a moment. A
couple times we had a problem with a server and with the failover the
customers didn't even notice the interruption in service. Despite this
Manegement is telling us that we are not "high availiability". Other "highly
available" environments (DB2 and Oracle) in our office take long outages on a
regular basis and have about 30-50 hours of downtime a year (planned and
unplanned) but we have less than 5-10. Management hasn't really told us what
we need to do to be considered highly available. What do the other DB
platforms do differently that makes them highly available.
Thanks
Possibly the equivalent of the future "data mirroring" feature that will be available in SQL Server
2005 somewhere H1 2006.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Bobsie" <Bobsie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:665DF2F5-E10B-4AA6-BF85-36AD8392BD65@.microsoft.com...
> We have a failover cluster that gives our SQL Server environment really great
> availability - each upgrade we do on Windows or SQL Server requires a SQL
> restart or a Windows reboot which only affects the uptime for a moment. A
> couple times we had a problem with a server and with the failover the
> customers didn't even notice the interruption in service. Despite this
> Manegement is telling us that we are not "high availiability". Other "highly
> available" environments (DB2 and Oracle) in our office take long outages on a
> regular basis and have about 30-50 hours of downtime a year (planned and
> unplanned) but we have less than 5-10. Management hasn't really told us what
> we need to do to be considered highly available. What do the other DB
> platforms do differently that makes them highly available.
> Thanks
|||IMHO 'High Avalability' is more a marketing term than a specific designation.
That is, it can depend on who you are talking about or what they are talking
about.
From your desciption you are using shared disk in a cluster
(Active/Passive). That is the equivalent, in many ways, to Oracle's RAC (not
quite because only 1 server is active where in Oracle there could be 2,
but......). It is certainly the equivalent to Oracle's Physical Standby
Data Guard configuration. Both are variations on Hight Availability. As
would be replication, which is a third part.
Basically, I believe there are two types of failure 'recovery'. Share
Everything, where there is not data loss (but can be a big performance hit,
depending on the numbe of servers) and Share SomeThings (which is what High
Availability Is.) The timing for things like upgrades, backups, etc. have
more to do with aplication and environmental design, and how often you do
upgrades.
Bottom line: You are in high availability mode. The hour comparison is not
really valid. (And I would not mix planned and unplanned downtime. Only
unplanned downtime counts when discussing High Availability, IMHO, although
with Grid the times may be changing.)
Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
"Bobsie" wrote:

> We have a failover cluster that gives our SQL Server environment really great
> availability - each upgrade we do on Windows or SQL Server requires a SQL
> restart or a Windows reboot which only affects the uptime for a moment. A
> couple times we had a problem with a server and with the failover the
> customers didn't even notice the interruption in service. Despite this
> Manegement is telling us that we are not "high availiability". Other "highly
> available" environments (DB2 and Oracle) in our office take long outages on a
> regular basis and have about 30-50 hours of downtime a year (planned and
> unplanned) but we have less than 5-10. Management hasn't really told us what
> we need to do to be considered highly available. What do the other DB
> platforms do differently that makes them highly available.
> Thanks
|||Failover using shared storage can provide continued service in the case of
server failure but you still go down in the case of storage failure. I have
come across this debate before and managers like the idea of a hot standby
for storage failure. I don't know what SQL Server does to deal with failure
of the storage device?
"Bobsie" wrote:

> We have a failover cluster that gives our SQL Server environment really great
> availability - each upgrade we do on Windows or SQL Server requires a SQL
> restart or a Windows reboot which only affects the uptime for a moment. A
> couple times we had a problem with a server and with the failover the
> customers didn't even notice the interruption in service. Despite this
> Manegement is telling us that we are not "high availiability". Other "highly
> available" environments (DB2 and Oracle) in our office take long outages on a
> regular basis and have about 30-50 hours of downtime a year (planned and
> unplanned) but we have less than 5-10. Management hasn't really told us what
> we need to do to be considered highly available. What do the other DB
> platforms do differently that makes them highly available.
> Thanks
|||Hi
Storage failure is not SQL Server's problem. It is a hardware and OS
problem.SQL server uses what is given to it.
If they are worried about storage failure, are they running multiple EMC's
Symmetrix with SRDF?
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Robert Kinesta" <RobertKinesta@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AB8401B6-D1C8-4E0D-9564-ABB3CB936752@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Failover using shared storage can provide continued service in the case of
> server failure but you still go down in the case of storage failure. I
> have
> come across this debate before and managers like the idea of a hot standby
> for storage failure. I don't know what SQL Server does to deal with
> failure
> of the storage device?
> "Bobsie" wrote:

high availability on SQL Server 2000

We have a failover cluster that gives our SQL Server environment really grea
t
availability - each upgrade we do on Windows or SQL Server requires a SQL
restart or a Windows reboot which only affects the uptime for a moment. A
couple times we had a problem with a server and with the failover the
customers didn't even notice the interruption in service. Despite this
Manegement is telling us that we are not "high availiability". Other "highly
available" environments (DB2 and Oracle) in our office take long outages on
a
regular basis and have about 30-50 hours of downtime a year (planned and
unplanned) but we have less than 5-10. Management hasn't really told us what
we need to do to be considered highly available. What do the other DB
platforms do differently that makes them highly available.
ThanksPossibly the equivalent of the future "data mirroring" feature that will be
available in SQL Server
2005 somewhere H1 2006.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Bobsie" <Bobsie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:665DF2F5-E10B-4AA6-BF85-36AD8392BD65@.microsoft.com...
> We have a failover cluster that gives our SQL Server environment really gr
eat
> availability - each upgrade we do on Windows or SQL Server requires a SQL
> restart or a Windows reboot which only affects the uptime for a moment. A
> couple times we had a problem with a server and with the failover the
> customers didn't even notice the interruption in service. Despite this
> Manegement is telling us that we are not "high availiability". Other "high
ly
> available" environments (DB2 and Oracle) in our office take long outages o
n a
> regular basis and have about 30-50 hours of downtime a year (planned and
> unplanned) but we have less than 5-10. Management hasn't really told us wh
at
> we need to do to be considered highly available. What do the other DB
> platforms do differently that makes them highly available.
> Thanks|||IMHO 'High Avalability' is more a marketing term than a specific designation
.
That is, it can depend on who you are talking about or what they are talking
about.
From your desciption you are using shared disk in a cluster
(Active/Passive). That is the equivalent, in many ways, to Oracle's RAC (not
quite because only 1 server is active where in Oracle there could be 2,
but......). It is certainly the equivalent to Oracle's Physical Standby
Data Guard configuration. Both are variations on Hight Availability. As
would be replication, which is a third part.
Basically, I believe there are two types of failure 'recovery'. Share
Everything, where there is not data loss (but can be a big performance hit,
depending on the numbe of servers) and Share SomeThings (which is what High
Availability Is.) The timing for things like upgrades, backups, etc. have
more to do with aplication and environmental design, and how often you do
upgrades.
Bottom line: You are in high availability mode. The hour comparison is not
really valid. (And I would not mix planned and unplanned downtime. Only
unplanned downtime counts when discussing High Availability, IMHO, although
with Grid the times may be changing.)
--
Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
"Bobsie" wrote:

> We have a failover cluster that gives our SQL Server environment really gr
eat
> availability - each upgrade we do on Windows or SQL Server requires a SQL
> restart or a Windows reboot which only affects the uptime for a moment. A
> couple times we had a problem with a server and with the failover the
> customers didn't even notice the interruption in service. Despite this
> Manegement is telling us that we are not "high availiability". Other "high
ly
> available" environments (DB2 and Oracle) in our office take long outages o
n a
> regular basis and have about 30-50 hours of downtime a year (planned and
> unplanned) but we have less than 5-10. Management hasn't really told us wh
at
> we need to do to be considered highly available. What do the other DB
> platforms do differently that makes them highly available.
> Thanks|||Failover using shared storage can provide continued service in the case of
server failure but you still go down in the case of storage failure. I have
come across this debate before and managers like the idea of a hot standby
for storage failure. I don't know what SQL Server does to deal with failure
of the storage device?
"Bobsie" wrote:

> We have a failover cluster that gives our SQL Server environment really gr
eat
> availability - each upgrade we do on Windows or SQL Server requires a SQL
> restart or a Windows reboot which only affects the uptime for a moment. A
> couple times we had a problem with a server and with the failover the
> customers didn't even notice the interruption in service. Despite this
> Manegement is telling us that we are not "high availiability". Other "high
ly
> available" environments (DB2 and Oracle) in our office take long outages o
n a
> regular basis and have about 30-50 hours of downtime a year (planned and
> unplanned) but we have less than 5-10. Management hasn't really told us wh
at
> we need to do to be considered highly available. What do the other DB
> platforms do differently that makes them highly available.
> Thanks|||Hi
Storage failure is not SQL Server's problem. It is a hardware and OS
problem.SQL server uses what is given to it.
If they are worried about storage failure, are they running multiple EMC's
Symmetrix with SRDF?
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Robert Kinesta" <RobertKinesta@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AB8401B6-D1C8-4E0D-9564-ABB3CB936752@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Failover using shared storage can provide continued service in the case of
> server failure but you still go down in the case of storage failure. I
> have
> come across this debate before and managers like the idea of a hot standby
> for storage failure. I don't know what SQL Server does to deal with
> failure
> of the storage device?
> "Bobsie" wrote:
>

high availability on SQL Server 2000

We have a failover cluster that gives our SQL Server environment really great
availability - each upgrade we do on Windows or SQL Server requires a SQL
restart or a Windows reboot which only affects the uptime for a moment. A
couple times we had a problem with a server and with the failover the
customers didn't even notice the interruption in service. Despite this
Manegement is telling us that we are not "high availiability". Other "highly
available" environments (DB2 and Oracle) in our office take long outages on a
regular basis and have about 30-50 hours of downtime a year (planned and
unplanned) but we have less than 5-10. Management hasn't really told us what
we need to do to be considered highly available. What do the other DB
platforms do differently that makes them highly available.
ThanksPossibly the equivalent of the future "data mirroring" feature that will be available in SQL Server
2005 somewhere H1 2006.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Bobsie" <Bobsie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:665DF2F5-E10B-4AA6-BF85-36AD8392BD65@.microsoft.com...
> We have a failover cluster that gives our SQL Server environment really great
> availability - each upgrade we do on Windows or SQL Server requires a SQL
> restart or a Windows reboot which only affects the uptime for a moment. A
> couple times we had a problem with a server and with the failover the
> customers didn't even notice the interruption in service. Despite this
> Manegement is telling us that we are not "high availiability". Other "highly
> available" environments (DB2 and Oracle) in our office take long outages on a
> regular basis and have about 30-50 hours of downtime a year (planned and
> unplanned) but we have less than 5-10. Management hasn't really told us what
> we need to do to be considered highly available. What do the other DB
> platforms do differently that makes them highly available.
> Thanks|||IMHO 'High Avalability' is more a marketing term than a specific designation.
That is, it can depend on who you are talking about or what they are talking
about.
From your desciption you are using shared disk in a cluster
(Active/Passive). That is the equivalent, in many ways, to Oracle's RAC (not
quite because only 1 server is active where in Oracle there could be 2,
but......). It is certainly the equivalent to Oracle's Physical Standby
Data Guard configuration. Both are variations on Hight Availability. As
would be replication, which is a third part.
Basically, I believe there are two types of failure 'recovery'. Share
Everything, where there is not data loss (but can be a big performance hit,
depending on the numbe of servers) and Share SomeThings (which is what High
Availability Is.) The timing for things like upgrades, backups, etc. have
more to do with aplication and environmental design, and how often you do
upgrades.
Bottom line: You are in high availability mode. The hour comparison is not
really valid. (And I would not mix planned and unplanned downtime. Only
unplanned downtime counts when discussing High Availability, IMHO, although
with Grid the times may be changing.)
--
Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
"Bobsie" wrote:
> We have a failover cluster that gives our SQL Server environment really great
> availability - each upgrade we do on Windows or SQL Server requires a SQL
> restart or a Windows reboot which only affects the uptime for a moment. A
> couple times we had a problem with a server and with the failover the
> customers didn't even notice the interruption in service. Despite this
> Manegement is telling us that we are not "high availiability". Other "highly
> available" environments (DB2 and Oracle) in our office take long outages on a
> regular basis and have about 30-50 hours of downtime a year (planned and
> unplanned) but we have less than 5-10. Management hasn't really told us what
> we need to do to be considered highly available. What do the other DB
> platforms do differently that makes them highly available.
> Thanks|||Failover using shared storage can provide continued service in the case of
server failure but you still go down in the case of storage failure. I have
come across this debate before and managers like the idea of a hot standby
for storage failure. I don't know what SQL Server does to deal with failure
of the storage device?
"Bobsie" wrote:
> We have a failover cluster that gives our SQL Server environment really great
> availability - each upgrade we do on Windows or SQL Server requires a SQL
> restart or a Windows reboot which only affects the uptime for a moment. A
> couple times we had a problem with a server and with the failover the
> customers didn't even notice the interruption in service. Despite this
> Manegement is telling us that we are not "high availiability". Other "highly
> available" environments (DB2 and Oracle) in our office take long outages on a
> regular basis and have about 30-50 hours of downtime a year (planned and
> unplanned) but we have less than 5-10. Management hasn't really told us what
> we need to do to be considered highly available. What do the other DB
> platforms do differently that makes them highly available.
> Thanks|||Hi
Storage failure is not SQL Server's problem. It is a hardware and OS
problem.SQL server uses what is given to it.
If they are worried about storage failure, are they running multiple EMC's
Symmetrix with SRDF?
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Robert Kinesta" <RobertKinesta@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AB8401B6-D1C8-4E0D-9564-ABB3CB936752@.microsoft.com...
> Failover using shared storage can provide continued service in the case of
> server failure but you still go down in the case of storage failure. I
> have
> come across this debate before and managers like the idea of a hot standby
> for storage failure. I don't know what SQL Server does to deal with
> failure
> of the storage device?
> "Bobsie" wrote:
>> We have a failover cluster that gives our SQL Server environment really
>> great
>> availability - each upgrade we do on Windows or SQL Server requires a SQL
>> restart or a Windows reboot which only affects the uptime for a moment. A
>> couple times we had a problem with a server and with the failover the
>> customers didn't even notice the interruption in service. Despite this
>> Manegement is telling us that we are not "high availiability". Other
>> "highly
>> available" environments (DB2 and Oracle) in our office take long outages
>> on a
>> regular basis and have about 30-50 hours of downtime a year (planned and
>> unplanned) but we have less than 5-10. Management hasn't really told us
>> what
>> we need to do to be considered highly available. What do the other DB
>> platforms do differently that makes them highly available.
>> Thanks

High availability for Database Mirroring

Hello,

I would like implementing a database mirroring architecture with SQL server 2005 but i have questions.

If i don't use a cluster architecture, i would like knowing if there's any solution to move the alias SQL server from the primary to the secondary by script.

Anyone got a pb like me? or any solution?...

Thanks for your help...

You mean you'd like to have the two servers have the same name?

|||

Well...

On SQL 2005 the alias SQL server name stay on the server and don't go up in the WINS. With the graphic administration, we can directly add or modify this alias.

The best way for me should be to get an alias being moved by script in order to be used on the primary server.

As we can change this alias by a graphical MMC, so i guess we can change it by script no?

|||I don't see how switching the alias will help you without some other background work being set up first. As luck would have it, I'm contemplating this same issue, so perhaps my reply will provide enough provocation for someone else to come along and answer this to both our satisfactions...

First, as far as the alias goes... Suppose we have a production server, 10.1.2.1 and a 'hot-standby' server, 10.1.2.2. Now further, suppose our alias is 'SQLSRVR' = 10.1.2.1.
Now, assume something bad happens. If one simply goes into the alias and changes the mapping to 10.1.2.2, what does that get you? Answer, nothing you want - unless in the background you have been shipping the logs or in some other way, trickling over the transactions that have been going on for 10.1.2.1.

What I'm contemplating is this - 10.1.2.1 is up and running and attached to a SAN. 10.1.2.2 is up and running and attached to the same SAN. Both servers have their 'own' logical volumes - say - one for mdf/trn; one for ldg/bak; and one for tempdb. Assume the SQL Server software is installed on the servers internal drives. They can both see the other's volumes, but since they are in effect running their own instances, the id's for objects will be unique to each system (I'm not clustering).

Now, through some mechanism, we need to on some time interval, trickle over the transactions that have occurred on 10.1.2.1 to 10.1.2.2. My question is this - what is the best way on 2005 to do this 'trickle'? Log shipping. mirroring, what?

Can someone provide input here? Thanks in advance.

randyvol|||

Actually, I believe that what you are asking for is built into mirroring if you run in synchronous mode.

You can build your application with a connection string that names both mirror instances, and will transparently fail over to the secondary if the primary cannot be reached. In synchronous mode, the failover can be accomplished entirely automatically, with no scripting required, or on command.

Is there something additional that you need which I'm missing?

|||

I can't change connection string because i'm using a software not developped by me.

I'll send a request to the support of this program.

I found on this site the solution to my problem by changing alias in the registry

http://blogs.developpeur.org/christian/archive/2006/11/04/SQL-Server-_3A00_-Alias-de-serveurs.aspx

Thanks you all for your answers...

High availability for Database Mirroring

Hello,

I would like implementing a database mirroring architecture with SQL server 2005 but i have questions.

If i don't use a cluster architecture, i would like knowing if there's any solution to move the alias SQL server from the primary to the secondary by script.

Anyone got a pb like me? or any solution?...

Thanks for your help...

You mean you'd like to have the two servers have the same name?

|||

Well...

On SQL 2005 the alias SQL server name stay on the server and don't go up in the WINS. With the graphic administration, we can directly add or modify this alias.

The best way for me should be to get an alias being moved by script in order to be used on the primary server.

As we can change this alias by a graphical MMC, so i guess we can change it by script no?

Can someone provide input here? Thanks in advance.

randyvol|||

Actually, I believe that what you are asking for is built into mirroring if you run in synchronous mode.

Is there something additional that you need which I'm missing?

|||

I can't change connection string because i'm using a software not developped by me.

I'll send a request to the support of this program.

I found on this site the solution to my problem by changing alias in the registry

http://blogs.developpeur.org/christian/archive/2006/11/04/SQL-Server-_3A00_-Alias-de-serveurs.aspx

Thanks you all for your answers...

High Availability

Hi all,
Our production DB is around 4GB and peaks at around 8000
orders a day. We currently have a active/passive cluster
failover solution. During the holiday season, the quorum
disk for the cluster failed. It unfortunately took a long
time (7-10 hours) to recover. Now, someone is suggesting
that we set up an additional and separate active/passive
cluster, and set up log shipping between the existing
cluster (primary) and the new cluster (secondary).
My concern is that it may take too long to make the
secondary server ready for production. We have
replication running on the server, it could take time to
reconfigure the articles.
What are your concerns over this solution? How did you
set up your server?
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?
url=/TechNet/prodtechnol/sql/reskit/sql2000/part4/c1561.asp
Thanks in advance,
AnnaHi, if you want a high availability solution, you need
spare disk in your storages, even with spare, your Quorum
disk must be in a RAID-1 array.
In your scenario, if your primary server failed, you just
have to change the IP of you secondary server to IP of
your primary server.
And you have to be a nice backup schema.
Cesar Kubo
>--Original Message--
>Hi all,
>Our production DB is around 4GB and peaks at around 8000
>orders a day. We currently have a active/passive cluster
>failover solution. During the holiday season, the quorum
>disk for the cluster failed. It unfortunately took a long
>time (7-10 hours) to recover. Now, someone is suggesting
>that we set up an additional and separate active/passive
>cluster, and set up log shipping between the existing
>cluster (primary) and the new cluster (secondary).
>My concern is that it may take too long to make the
>secondary server ready for production. We have
>replication running on the server, it could take time to
>reconfigure the articles.
>What are your concerns over this solution? How did you
>set up your server?
>
>http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?
>url=/TechNet/prodtechnol/sql/reskit/sql2000/part4/c1561.as
p
>Thanks in advance,
>Anna
>.
>

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
>

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Hoe to setup integration services on a cluster

Hoe to setup integration services on a cluster

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

High Log flush Wait Time

High Log flush Wait Time

High Log flush Wait Time

Monday, March 19, 2012

High CPU usage on 64bit (8 Way dual core) machine

Monday, March 12, 2012

High availability with existing cluster

High Availability over Distance

High Availability over Distance

High Availability over Distance

Friday, March 9, 2012

high availability on SQL Server 2000

high availability on SQL Server 2000

high availability on SQL Server 2000

High availability for Database Mirroring

High availability for Database Mirroring

High Availability

High ASYNC_NETWORK_IO value

High ASYNC_NETWORK_IO value

Hiding a Subreport

Blog Archive

About Me