Performance Related Question

I am doing a performance counter for the CPU usage and
recording the output to a log file.
What i want to know is a way where I can say that the max
CPU usage say 80% occured for x amount of time, the
perfmon does not tell me how long was the maximum time
was for.
so i want something like CPU usage max value 80% was for
9 seconds.
Any ideasapok
In the Performance Monitor you can set up a range of intervals , i mean from
9am to 11am and see how CPU behaved since.
Also, If I rememeber well there are some classes in .NET framework you can
use to get the info from PM.
"apok" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:15aa01c535b7$e327f0a0$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> I am doing a performance counter for the CPU usage and
> recording the output to a log file.
> What i want to know is a way where I can say that the max
> CPU usage say 80% occured for x amount of time, the
> perfmon does not tell me how long was the maximum time
> was for.
> so i want something like CPU usage max value 80% was for
> 9 seconds.
> Any ideas

Performance Related Question

I am doing a performance counter for the CPU usage and
recording the output to a log file.
What i want to know is a way where I can say that the max
CPU usage say 80% occured for x amount of time, the
perfmon does not tell me how long was the maximum time
was for.
so i want something like CPU usage max value 80% was for
9 seconds.
Any ideasapok
In the Performance Monitor you can set up a range of intervals , i mean from
9am to 11am and see how CPU behaved since.
Also, If I rememeber well there are some classes in .NET framework you can
use to get the info from PM.
"apok" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:15aa01c535b7$e327f0a0$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> I am doing a performance counter for the CPU usage and
> recording the output to a log file.
> What i want to know is a way where I can say that the max
> CPU usage say 80% occured for x amount of time, the
> perfmon does not tell me how long was the maximum time
> was for.
> so i want something like CPU usage max value 80% was for
> 9 seconds.
> Any ideassql

Performance Related Question

I am doing a performance counter for the CPU usage and
recording the output to a log file.
What i want to know is a way where I can say that the max
CPU usage say 80% occured for x amount of time, the
perfmon does not tell me how long was the maximum time
was for.
so i want something like CPU usage max value 80% was for
9 seconds.
Any ideas
apok
In the Performance Monitor you can set up a range of intervals , i mean from
9am to 11am and see how CPU behaved since.
Also, If I rememeber well there are some classes in .NET framework you can
use to get the info from PM.
"apok" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:15aa01c535b7$e327f0a0$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> I am doing a performance counter for the CPU usage and
> recording the output to a log file.
> What i want to know is a way where I can say that the max
> CPU usage say 80% occured for x amount of time, the
> perfmon does not tell me how long was the maximum time
> was for.
> so i want something like CPU usage max value 80% was for
> 9 seconds.
> Any ideas

Performance question: Indexes on separate file group or dimension table on separate file?

Hi,
I have a set of disks available on my server (but 1 controller only). I want
to use it to improove queries performance...
I want to know what is better to improove the performance:
* moving all (non clustered) indexes on a separate file group on this set of
disk
* moving some tables on this file group (like dimension tables)
I'll monitor the queries to indentify if clustered indexes are more used
then standard indexes.
But I want to know what scenario, generally, helps the performance.
Thanks
Jerome.
Hi Jerome,
This is a difficult question to answer without knowing what kinds of tables
and indexes you're working with. For instance, if you find that you have a
lot of covering indexes for certain common queries, you might find that
moving those off to a different disk will improve performance -- that way
the other disk can satisfy those common queries and the disk with the
clustered index can satisfy other queries. Another consideration you
mentioned is dimension tables -- if you have a lot of large dimension
tables that get scanned during JOINs, you may find that moving them off to a
different disk than the fact tables will improve performance, as the disks
will be able to read the data in tandem. This is definitely something
you're going to have to experiment with on your end, I think.
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqljunkies.com/weblog/amachanic
"Jj" <willgart@.BBBhotmailAAA.com> wrote in message
news:uuAKXt%23JFHA.1948@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I have a set of disks available on my server (but 1 controller only). I
want
> to use it to improove queries performance...
> I want to know what is better to improove the performance:
> * moving all (non clustered) indexes on a separate file group on this set
of
> disk
> * moving some tables on this file group (like dimension tables)
> I'll monitor the queries to indentify if clustered indexes are more used
> then standard indexes.
> But I want to know what scenario, generally, helps the performance.
> Thanks
> Jerome.
>
|||ok...
in my case I have some small dimensions and only 1 "big" (100 000 rows)
my fact tables could have between 1 000 rows to 20 000 000 rows!
Generally the clustered index of each fact table contain all foreign keys
columns.
from your comments, there is no "default" recommandation.
So I'll done some tests I think...
thanks for your comments.
"Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
news:%23bjLBTZKFHA.3184@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi Jerome,
> This is a difficult question to answer without knowing what kinds of
> tables
> and indexes you're working with. For instance, if you find that you have
> a
> lot of covering indexes for certain common queries, you might find that
> moving those off to a different disk will improve performance -- that way
> the other disk can satisfy those common queries and the disk with the
> clustered index can satisfy other queries. Another consideration you
> mentioned is dimension tables -- if you have a lot of large dimension
> tables that get scanned during JOINs, you may find that moving them off to
> a
> different disk than the fact tables will improve performance, as the disks
> will be able to read the data in tandem. This is definitely something
> you're going to have to experiment with on your end, I think.
>
> --
> Adam Machanic
> SQL Server MVP
> http://www.sqljunkies.com/weblog/amachanic
> --
>
> "Jj" <willgart@.BBBhotmailAAA.com> wrote in message
> news:uuAKXt%23JFHA.1948@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> want
> of
>
|||"Jj" <willgart_A_@.hotmail_A_.com> wrote in message
news:eVltbdbKFHA.2132@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> ok...
> in my case I have some small dimensions and only 1 "big" (100 000 rows)
> my fact tables could have between 1 000 rows to 20 000 000 rows!
> Generally the clustered index of each fact table contain all foreign keys
> columns.
In my experience those small dimensions don't matter too much -- those pages
will end up in cache pretty quickly and usually won't go out of cache. It's
the big huge tables that cause the issues... Good luck tuning it!
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqljunkies.com/weblog/amachanic

Performance question: Indexes on separate file group or dimension table on separate fi

Hi,
I have a set of disks available on my server (but 1 controller only). I want
to use it to improove queries performance...
I want to know what is better to improove the performance:
* moving all (non clustered) indexes on a separate file group on this set of
disk
* moving some tables on this file group (like dimension tables)
I'll monitor the queries to indentify if clustered indexes are more used
then standard indexes.
But I want to know what scenario, generally, helps the performance.
Thanks
Jerome.Hi Jerome,
This is a difficult question to answer without knowing what kinds of tables
and indexes you're working with. For instance, if you find that you have a
lot of covering indexes for certain common queries, you might find that
moving those off to a different disk will improve performance -- that way
the other disk can satisfy those common queries and the disk with the
clustered index can satisfy other queries. Another consideration you
mentioned is dimension tables -- if you have a lot of large dimension
tables that get scanned during JOINs, you may find that moving them off to a
different disk than the fact tables will improve performance, as the disks
will be able to read the data in tandem. This is definitely something
you're going to have to experiment with on your end, I think.
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqljunkies.com/weblog/amachanic
--
"Jj" <willgart@.BBBhotmailAAA.com> wrote in message
news:uuAKXt%23JFHA.1948@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I have a set of disks available on my server (but 1 controller only). I
want
> to use it to improove queries performance...
> I want to know what is better to improove the performance:
> * moving all (non clustered) indexes on a separate file group on this set
of
> disk
> * moving some tables on this file group (like dimension tables)
> I'll monitor the queries to indentify if clustered indexes are more used
> then standard indexes.
> But I want to know what scenario, generally, helps the performance.
> Thanks
> Jerome.
>|||ok...
in my case I have some small dimensions and only 1 "big" (100 000 rows)
my fact tables could have between 1 000 rows to 20 000 000 rows!
Generally the clustered index of each fact table contain all foreign keys
columns.
from your comments, there is no "default" recommandation.
So I'll done some tests I think...
thanks for your comments.
"Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
news:%23bjLBTZKFHA.3184@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi Jerome,
> This is a difficult question to answer without knowing what kinds of
> tables
> and indexes you're working with. For instance, if you find that you have
> a
> lot of covering indexes for certain common queries, you might find that
> moving those off to a different disk will improve performance -- that way
> the other disk can satisfy those common queries and the disk with the
> clustered index can satisfy other queries. Another consideration you
> mentioned is dimension tables -- if you have a lot of large dimension
> tables that get scanned during JOINs, you may find that moving them off to
> a
> different disk than the fact tables will improve performance, as the disks
> will be able to read the data in tandem. This is definitely something
> you're going to have to experiment with on your end, I think.
>
> --
> Adam Machanic
> SQL Server MVP
> http://www.sqljunkies.com/weblog/amachanic
> --
>
> "Jj" <willgart@.BBBhotmailAAA.com> wrote in message
> news:uuAKXt%23JFHA.1948@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> want
> of
>|||"Jj" <willgart_A_@.hotmail_A_.com> wrote in message
news:eVltbdbKFHA.2132@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> ok...
> in my case I have some small dimensions and only 1 "big" (100 000 rows)
> my fact tables could have between 1 000 rows to 20 000 000 rows!
> Generally the clustered index of each fact table contain all foreign keys
> columns.
In my experience those small dimensions don't matter too much -- those pages
will end up in cache pretty quickly and usually won't go out of cache. It's
the big huge tables that cause the issues... Good luck tuning it!
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqljunkies.com/weblog/amachanic
--sql

Performance question : One single MDF file ? Or multiple MDF file ?

Dear,
My friend told me : using multiple MDF files is much better than use one
single MDF file even within the same hard disk as SQL Server's multi thread
feature can handle multiple files concurrently.
My argument : Within the same hard disk, we should use one single MDF file,
but we can split the MDF file into small files if there are different
physical hard disks.
How do you feel ?
In order to have better performance, we should use 1 or multiple MDF files
(I mean within the same hard disk) ?
Any Microsoft documents supported ?
> My friend told me : using multiple MDF files is much better than use one
> single MDF file even within the same hard disk as SQL Server's multi
> thread
> feature can handle multiple files concurrently.
This is an urban legend:
http://blogs.msdn.com/psssql/archive/2007/02/21/sql-server-urban-legends-discussed.aspx.
Also, there should only be one MDF per database, which is the primary data
file. The file extention NDF should be used for the secondary

> My argument : Within the same hard disk, we should use one single MDF
> file,
> but we can split the MDF file into small files if there are different
> physical hard disks.
Yes, it's best to distribute the workload over as many disks as possible.
For large data files, you might want to create multiple files even if on a
single physical disk for manageability.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"cpchan" <cpchaney@.netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:4732f819$1@.127.0.0.1...
> Dear,
> My friend told me : using multiple MDF files is much better than use one
> single MDF file even within the same hard disk as SQL Server's multi
> thread
> feature can handle multiple files concurrently.
> My argument : Within the same hard disk, we should use one single MDF
> file,
> but we can split the MDF file into small files if there are different
> physical hard disks.
> How do you feel ?
> In order to have better performance, we should use 1 or multiple MDF files
> (I mean within the same hard disk) ?
> Any Microsoft documents supported ?
>
>
|||I would say that if you aren't seeing I/O issues (disk queue length, avg ms
per read/write, etc) with a single file then you can increase to more than
one file. Be aware however that when you do hit that break-over point and
have too many files, performance can decrease dramatically and quickly due
to disk head thrashing.
Assuming you have well-indexed structures, I would recommend first simply
moving all non-clustered indexes off to a separate file and see how that
works. You could also consider moving a very large table off to it's own
filegroup. But if you have that you really should be on multiple disks.
Also, what is your tempdb and transaction log file placement? If everything
is one same drive, separating those is job number 1.
BTW, you do have a baseline for your performance to compare to, right? :-))
Kevin G. Boles
TheSQLGuru
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"cpchan" <cpchaney@.netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:4732f819$1@.127.0.0.1...
> Dear,
> My friend told me : using multiple MDF files is much better than use one
> single MDF file even within the same hard disk as SQL Server's multi
> thread
> feature can handle multiple files concurrently.
> My argument : Within the same hard disk, we should use one single MDF
> file,
> but we can split the MDF file into small files if there are different
> physical hard disks.
> How do you feel ?
> In order to have better performance, we should use 1 or multiple MDF files
> (I mean within the same hard disk) ?
> Any Microsoft documents supported ?
>
>
|||See also
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea/archive/2007/01/29/how-many-data-files-should-i-create-for-a-user-database.aspx
Linchi
"cpchan" wrote:

> Dear,
> My friend told me : using multiple MDF files is much better than use one
> single MDF file even within the same hard disk as SQL Server's multi thread
> feature can handle multiple files concurrently.
> My argument : Within the same hard disk, we should use one single MDF file,
> but we can split the MDF file into small files if there are different
> physical hard disks.
> How do you feel ?
> In order to have better performance, we should use 1 or multiple MDF files
> (I mean within the same hard disk) ?
> Any Microsoft documents supported ?
>
>
|||noted and thanks.
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:45ECE387-9152-4E2A-8B07-31572C29152B@.microsoft.com...
> See also
>
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea/archive/2007/01/29/how-many-data-files-
should-i-create-for-a-user-database.aspx[vbcol=seagreen]
> Linchi
> "cpchan" wrote:
thread[vbcol=seagreen]
file,[vbcol=seagreen]
files[vbcol=seagreen]
|||noted and thanks.
"TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13j64cso0q4stec@.corp.supernews.com...
> I would say that if you aren't seeing I/O issues (disk queue length, avg
ms
> per read/write, etc) with a single file then you can increase to more than
> one file. Be aware however that when you do hit that break-over point and
> have too many files, performance can decrease dramatically and quickly due
> to disk head thrashing.
> Assuming you have well-indexed structures, I would recommend first simply
> moving all non-clustered indexes off to a separate file and see how that
> works. You could also consider moving a very large table off to it's own
> filegroup. But if you have that you really should be on multiple disks.
> Also, what is your tempdb and transaction log file placement? If
everything
> is one same drive, separating those is job number 1.
> BTW, you do have a baseline for your performance to compare to, right?
:-))[vbcol=seagreen]
> --
> Kevin G. Boles
> TheSQLGuru
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
>
> "cpchan" <cpchaney@.netvigator.com> wrote in message
> news:4732f819$1@.127.0.0.1...
files
>
|||noted and thanks.
"Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:5764EB3B-20BA-4663-8ADF-F7BDE6757654@.microsoft.com...
> This is an urban legend:
>
http://blogs.msdn.com/psssql/archive/2007/02/21/sql-server-urban-legends-dis
cussed.aspx.[vbcol=seagreen]
> Also, there should only be one MDF per database, which is the primary data
> file. The file extention NDF should be used for the secondary
>
> Yes, it's best to distribute the workload over as many disks as possible.
> For large data files, you might want to create multiple files even if on a
> single physical disk for manageability.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "cpchan" <cpchaney@.netvigator.com> wrote in message
> news:4732f819$1@.127.0.0.1...
files
>

Performance question : One single MDF file ? Or multiple MDF file ?

Dear,
My friend told me : using multiple MDF files is much better than use one
single MDF file even within the same hard disk as SQL Server's multi thread
feature can handle multiple files concurrently.
My argument : Within the same hard disk, we should use one single MDF file,
but we can split the MDF file into small files if there are different
physical hard disks.
How do you feel ?
In order to have better performance, we should use 1 or multiple MDF files
(I mean within the same hard disk) ?
Any Microsoft documents supported ?> My friend told me : using multiple MDF files is much better than use one
> single MDF file even within the same hard disk as SQL Server's multi
> thread
> feature can handle multiple files concurrently.
This is an urban legend:
http://blogs.msdn.com/psssql/archive/2007/02/21/sql-server-urban-legends-discussed.aspx.
Also, there should only be one MDF per database, which is the primary data
file. The file extention NDF should be used for the secondary
> My argument : Within the same hard disk, we should use one single MDF
> file,
> but we can split the MDF file into small files if there are different
> physical hard disks.
Yes, it's best to distribute the workload over as many disks as possible.
For large data files, you might want to create multiple files even if on a
single physical disk for manageability.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"cpchan" <cpchaney@.netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:4732f819$1@.127.0.0.1...
> Dear,
> My friend told me : using multiple MDF files is much better than use one
> single MDF file even within the same hard disk as SQL Server's multi
> thread
> feature can handle multiple files concurrently.
> My argument : Within the same hard disk, we should use one single MDF
> file,
> but we can split the MDF file into small files if there are different
> physical hard disks.
> How do you feel ?
> In order to have better performance, we should use 1 or multiple MDF files
> (I mean within the same hard disk) ?
> Any Microsoft documents supported ?
>
>|||I would say that if you aren't seeing I/O issues (disk queue length, avg ms
per read/write, etc) with a single file then you can increase to more than
one file. Be aware however that when you do hit that break-over point and
have too many files, performance can decrease dramatically and quickly due
to disk head thrashing.
Assuming you have well-indexed structures, I would recommend first simply
moving all non-clustered indexes off to a separate file and see how that
works. You could also consider moving a very large table off to it's own
filegroup. But if you have that you really should be on multiple disks.
Also, what is your tempdb and transaction log file placement? If everything
is one same drive, separating those is job number 1.
BTW, you do have a baseline for your performance to compare to, right' :-))
--
Kevin G. Boles
TheSQLGuru
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"cpchan" <cpchaney@.netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:4732f819$1@.127.0.0.1...
> Dear,
> My friend told me : using multiple MDF files is much better than use one
> single MDF file even within the same hard disk as SQL Server's multi
> thread
> feature can handle multiple files concurrently.
> My argument : Within the same hard disk, we should use one single MDF
> file,
> but we can split the MDF file into small files if there are different
> physical hard disks.
> How do you feel ?
> In order to have better performance, we should use 1 or multiple MDF files
> (I mean within the same hard disk) ?
> Any Microsoft documents supported ?
>
>|||See also
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea/archive/2007/01/29/how-many-data-files-should-i-create-for-a-user-database.aspx
Linchi
"cpchan" wrote:
> Dear,
> My friend told me : using multiple MDF files is much better than use one
> single MDF file even within the same hard disk as SQL Server's multi thread
> feature can handle multiple files concurrently.
> My argument : Within the same hard disk, we should use one single MDF file,
> but we can split the MDF file into small files if there are different
> physical hard disks.
> How do you feel ?
> In order to have better performance, we should use 1 or multiple MDF files
> (I mean within the same hard disk) ?
> Any Microsoft documents supported ?
>
>|||noted and thanks.
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:45ECE387-9152-4E2A-8B07-31572C29152B@.microsoft.com...
> See also
>
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/linchi_shea/archive/2007/01/29/how-many-data-files-
should-i-create-for-a-user-database.aspx
> Linchi
> "cpchan" wrote:
> > Dear,
> >
> > My friend told me : using multiple MDF files is much better than use one
> > single MDF file even within the same hard disk as SQL Server's multi
thread
> > feature can handle multiple files concurrently.
> >
> > My argument : Within the same hard disk, we should use one single MDF
file,
> > but we can split the MDF file into small files if there are different
> > physical hard disks.
> >
> > How do you feel ?
> >
> > In order to have better performance, we should use 1 or multiple MDF
files
> > (I mean within the same hard disk) ?
> >
> > Any Microsoft documents supported ?
> >
> >
> >
> >|||noted and thanks.
"Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:5764EB3B-20BA-4663-8ADF-F7BDE6757654@.microsoft.com...
> > My friend told me : using multiple MDF files is much better than use one
> > single MDF file even within the same hard disk as SQL Server's multi
> > thread
> > feature can handle multiple files concurrently.
> This is an urban legend:
>
http://blogs.msdn.com/psssql/archive/2007/02/21/sql-server-urban-legends-dis
cussed.aspx.
> Also, there should only be one MDF per database, which is the primary data
> file. The file extention NDF should be used for the secondary
> > My argument : Within the same hard disk, we should use one single MDF
> > file,
> > but we can split the MDF file into small files if there are different
> > physical hard disks.
> Yes, it's best to distribute the workload over as many disks as possible.
> For large data files, you might want to create multiple files even if on a
> single physical disk for manageability.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "cpchan" <cpchaney@.netvigator.com> wrote in message
> news:4732f819$1@.127.0.0.1...
> > Dear,
> >
> > My friend told me : using multiple MDF files is much better than use one
> > single MDF file even within the same hard disk as SQL Server's multi
> > thread
> > feature can handle multiple files concurrently.
> >
> > My argument : Within the same hard disk, we should use one single MDF
> > file,
> > but we can split the MDF file into small files if there are different
> > physical hard disks.
> >
> > How do you feel ?
> >
> > In order to have better performance, we should use 1 or multiple MDF
files
> > (I mean within the same hard disk) ?
> >
> > Any Microsoft documents supported ?
> >
> >
> >
>|||noted and thanks.
"TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13j64cso0q4stec@.corp.supernews.com...
> I would say that if you aren't seeing I/O issues (disk queue length, avg
ms
> per read/write, etc) with a single file then you can increase to more than
> one file. Be aware however that when you do hit that break-over point and
> have too many files, performance can decrease dramatically and quickly due
> to disk head thrashing.
> Assuming you have well-indexed structures, I would recommend first simply
> moving all non-clustered indexes off to a separate file and see how that
> works. You could also consider moving a very large table off to it's own
> filegroup. But if you have that you really should be on multiple disks.
> Also, what is your tempdb and transaction log file placement? If
everything
> is one same drive, separating those is job number 1.
> BTW, you do have a baseline for your performance to compare to, right'
:-))
> --
> Kevin G. Boles
> TheSQLGuru
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
>
> "cpchan" <cpchaney@.netvigator.com> wrote in message
> news:4732f819$1@.127.0.0.1...
> > Dear,
> >
> > My friend told me : using multiple MDF files is much better than use one
> > single MDF file even within the same hard disk as SQL Server's multi
> > thread
> > feature can handle multiple files concurrently.
> >
> > My argument : Within the same hard disk, we should use one single MDF
> > file,
> > but we can split the MDF file into small files if there are different
> > physical hard disks.
> >
> > How do you feel ?
> >
> > In order to have better performance, we should use 1 or multiple MDF
files
> > (I mean within the same hard disk) ?
> >
> > Any Microsoft documents supported ?
> >
> >
> >
>sql

Performance question : One single MDF file ? Or multiple MDF file ?

Dear,
My friend told me : using multiple MDF files is much better than use one
single MDF file even within the same hard disk as SQL Server's multi thread
feature can handle multiple files concurrently.
My argument : Within the same hard disk, we should use one single MDF file,
but we can split the MDF file into small files if there are different
physical hard disks.
How do you feel ?
In order to have better performance, we should use 1 or multiple MDF files
(I mean within the same hard disk) ?
Any Microsoft documents supported ?> My friend told me : using multiple MDF files is much better than use one
> single MDF file even within the same hard disk as SQL Server's multi
> thread
> feature can handle multiple files concurrently.
This is an urban legend:
http://blogs.msdn.com/psssql/archiv...d
.aspx.
Also, there should only be one MDF per database, which is the primary data
file. The file extention NDF should be used for the secondary

> My argument : Within the same hard disk, we should use one single MDF
> file,
> but we can split the MDF file into small files if there are different
> physical hard disks.
Yes, it's best to distribute the workload over as many disks as possible.
For large data files, you might want to create multiple files even if on a
single physical disk for manageability.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"cpchan" <cpchaney@.netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:4732f819$1@.127.0.0.1...
> Dear,
> My friend told me : using multiple MDF files is much better than use one
> single MDF file even within the same hard disk as SQL Server's multi
> thread
> feature can handle multiple files concurrently.
> My argument : Within the same hard disk, we should use one single MDF
> file,
> but we can split the MDF file into small files if there are different
> physical hard disks.
> How do you feel ?
> In order to have better performance, we should use 1 or multiple MDF files
> (I mean within the same hard disk) ?
> Any Microsoft documents supported ?
>
>|||I would say that if you aren't seeing I/O issues (disk queue length, avg ms
per read/write, etc) with a single file then you can increase to more than
one file. Be aware however that when you do hit that break-over point and
have too many files, performance can decrease dramatically and quickly due
to disk head thrashing.
Assuming you have well-indexed structures, I would recommend first simply
moving all non-clustered indexes off to a separate file and see how that
works. You could also consider moving a very large table off to it's own
filegroup. But if you have that you really should be on multiple disks.
Also, what is your tempdb and transaction log file placement? If everything
is one same drive, separating those is job number 1.
BTW, you do have a baseline for your performance to compare to, right' :-))
Kevin G. Boles
TheSQLGuru
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"cpchan" <cpchaney@.netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:4732f819$1@.127.0.0.1...
> Dear,
> My friend told me : using multiple MDF files is much better than use one
> single MDF file even within the same hard disk as SQL Server's multi
> thread
> feature can handle multiple files concurrently.
> My argument : Within the same hard disk, we should use one single MDF
> file,
> but we can split the MDF file into small files if there are different
> physical hard disks.
> How do you feel ?
> In order to have better performance, we should use 1 or multiple MDF files
> (I mean within the same hard disk) ?
> Any Microsoft documents supported ?
>
>|||noted and thanks.
"TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13j64cso0q4stec@.corp.supernews.com...
> I would say that if you aren't seeing I/O issues (disk queue length, avg
ms
> per read/write, etc) with a single file then you can increase to more than
> one file. Be aware however that when you do hit that break-over point and
> have too many files, performance can decrease dramatically and quickly due
> to disk head thrashing.
> Assuming you have well-indexed structures, I would recommend first simply
> moving all non-clustered indexes off to a separate file and see how that
> works. You could also consider moving a very large table off to it's own
> filegroup. But if you have that you really should be on multiple disks.
> Also, what is your tempdb and transaction log file placement? If
everything
> is one same drive, separating those is job number 1.
> BTW, you do have a baseline for your performance to compare to, right'
:-))
> --
> Kevin G. Boles
> TheSQLGuru
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
>
> "cpchan" <cpchaney@.netvigator.com> wrote in message
> news:4732f819$1@.127.0.0.1...
files[vbcol=seagreen]
>|||noted and thanks.
"Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:5764EB3B-20BA-4663-8ADF-F7BDE6757654@.microsoft.com...
> This is an urban legend:
>
http://blogs.msdn.com/psssql/archiv...ban-legends-dis
cussed.aspx.
> Also, there should only be one MDF per database, which is the primary data
> file. The file extention NDF should be used for the secondary
>
> Yes, it's best to distribute the workload over as many disks as possible.
> For large data files, you might want to create multiple files even if on a
> single physical disk for manageability.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "cpchan" <cpchaney@.netvigator.com> wrote in message
> news:4732f819$1@.127.0.0.1...
files[vbcol=seagreen]
>

Performance question

I have just upsized a FoxPro DB to MSDE.
I use a VB 6 program with ADO to access the DB.
I put the .EXE file on the server with a shortcut to it on each of the
workstations.
Performance is much worse then the FoxPro in some of the tasks.
In my investigations I found that if I put the .EXE on each workstation
performance improved 10 fold.
Can anyone explain why this happened? I would like to only have to have one
version of the .EXE floating around.
Thanks,
Darwin C. Weyh
swdev at superiorheattreat dot com
And for the spammers: dweyh@.weyh.net
The first question I would pose is:
Are you using a client side or server side cursor in your calls to the
database? Also, is your database on a network server? If so, why are you
using MSDE, why not a full blown version of SQL Server? I would guess it
would be possible to place individual instances of MSDE on local machines
which were in essence copies of each other, but it sounds convoluted.
Jamie
"Darwin Weyh" wrote:

> I have just upsized a FoxPro DB to MSDE.
> I use a VB 6 program with ADO to access the DB.
> I put the .EXE file on the server with a shortcut to it on each of the
> workstations.
> Performance is much worse then the FoxPro in some of the tasks.
> In my investigations I found that if I put the .EXE on each workstation
> performance improved 10 fold.
> Can anyone explain why this happened? I would like to only have to have one
> version of the .EXE floating around.
> Thanks,
> --
> Darwin C. Weyh
> swdev at superiorheattreat dot com
> And for the spammers: dweyh@.weyh.net
>
>
|||hi Darwin,
Darwin Weyh wrote:
> I have just upsized a FoxPro DB to MSDE.
> I use a VB 6 program with ADO to access the DB.
> I put the .EXE file on the server with a shortcut to it on each of the
> workstations.
> Performance is much worse then the FoxPro in some of the tasks.
> In my investigations I found that if I put the .EXE on each
> workstation performance improved 10 fold.
> Can anyone explain why this happened? I would like to only have to
> have one version of the .EXE floating around.
> Thanks,
you are actually killing your lan with a lot of unnecessary traffic
(application and data) and using the OSs as a terminal server...
Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtmhttp://italy.mvps.org
DbaMgr2k ver 0.11.1 - DbaMgr ver 0.57.0
(my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a visual
interface)
-- remove DMO to reply
|||The MSDE resides on a SBS 2003 machine as did the file served .exe
I'm using server side cursors.
SQL Server cost more.
My original configuration used VFP files on the SBS 2003 server as did the
file served .exe.
And I used client side cursors.
"thejamie" <thejamie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:EF072B21-7200-4D6E-B0A1-430EF776F661@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> The first question I would pose is:
> Are you using a client side or server side cursor in your calls to the
> database? Also, is your database on a network server? If so, why are you
> using MSDE, why not a full blown version of SQL Server? I would guess it
> would be possible to place individual instances of MSDE on local machines
> which were in essence copies of each other, but it sounds convoluted.
> Jamie
> "Darwin Weyh" wrote:

performance Problems

I am setting counters for performance monitor and have
about 12 different counters. I have 13 production
servers. How can i create a .msc file and use the same
file for all the servers. Now I think i need to create
each on the server manually.
is there any better way of doing this.
Thanks
AjaOne tool you may want to review is PSSDIAG. It can capture PerfMon, Profiler
and blocking traces.
PSSDIAG data collection utility
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;830232
Internal SQL Server Diagnostics Tools, Part 1: PSSDiag
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...ev_12072004.asp
Adrian
"aja" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:08cc01c52e64$3c526fd0$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
>I am setting counters for performance monitor and have
> about 12 different counters. I have 13 production
> servers. How can i create a .msc file and use the same
> file for all the servers. Now I think i need to create
> each on the server manually.
> is there any better way of doing this.
> Thanks
> Aja

performance Problems

I am setting counters for performance monitor and have
about 12 different counters. I have 13 production
servers. How can i create a .msc file and use the same
file for all the servers. Now I think i need to create
each on the server manually.
is there any better way of doing this.
Thanks
Aja
One tool you may want to review is PSSDIAG. It can capture PerfMon, Profiler
and blocking traces.
PSSDIAG data collection utility
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;830232
Internal SQL Server Diagnostics Tools, Part 1: PSSDiag
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...v_12072004.asp
Adrian
"aja" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:08cc01c52e64$3c526fd0$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
>I am setting counters for performance monitor and have
> about 12 different counters. I have 13 production
> servers. How can i create a .msc file and use the same
> file for all the servers. Now I think i need to create
> each on the server manually.
> is there any better way of doing this.
> Thanks
> Aja

performance Problems

I am setting counters for performance monitor and have
about 12 different counters. I have 13 production
servers. How can i create a .msc file and use the same
file for all the servers. Now I think i need to create
each on the server manually.
is there any better way of doing this.
Thanks
AjaOne tool you may want to review is PSSDIAG. It can capture PerfMon, Profiler
and blocking traces.
PSSDIAG data collection utility
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;830232
Internal SQL Server Diagnostics Tools, Part 1: PSSDiag
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnsqldev/html/sqldev_12072004.asp
Adrian
"aja" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:08cc01c52e64$3c526fd0$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
>I am setting counters for performance monitor and have
> about 12 different counters. I have 13 production
> servers. How can i create a .msc file and use the same
> file for all the servers. Now I think i need to create
> each on the server manually.
> is there any better way of doing this.
> Thanks
> Aja

Performance on SQL 2000

I have a SQL server with one file group that's about 600GB and two files
residing on a clariion array. Index jobs, etc. appear to run faster if I
create more files. I looked at some of microsoft's tpc server benchmarks and
see that they often break up the database into a number of files with 200GB
as the max file size I've seen.
Does anyone out there know of any articles, web sites or whatever that
specifically address this? Are users out there creating large numbers of
files and I'm in the dark? Articles by reputable sources (K. Delaney among
just a few) are what I'm looking for.
--
burt_king@.yahoo.comOK, since no one answered I'll beg for conjecture, random thoughts or
otherwise...
--
burt_king@.yahoo.com
"burt_king" wrote:
> I have a SQL server with one file group that's about 600GB and two files
> residing on a clariion array. Index jobs, etc. appear to run faster if I
> create more files. I looked at some of microsoft's tpc server benchmarks and
> see that they often break up the database into a number of files with 200GB
> as the max file size I've seen.
> Does anyone out there know of any articles, web sites or whatever that
> specifically address this? Are users out there creating large numbers of
> files and I'm in the dark? Articles by reputable sources (K. Delaney among
> just a few) are what I'm looking for.
> --
> burt_king@.yahoo.com|||It's generally not about more file but more disk spindles. When parts of
the database reside on different disk drives, seeks can be done in parallel
so the overall performance is improved. There are a few cases where
multiple files allow parallel operations which may help performance but this
generally is not as big a factor as splitting logs, indexes and data into
different disks.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"burt_king" <burt_king@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6040A038-EB9E-4D03-8023-BA5A79A8F469@.microsoft.com...
> OK, since no one answered I'll beg for conjecture, random thoughts or
> otherwise...
> --
> burt_king@.yahoo.com
>
> "burt_king" wrote:
>> I have a SQL server with one file group that's about 600GB and two files
>> residing on a clariion array. Index jobs, etc. appear to run faster if
>> I
>> create more files. I looked at some of microsoft's tpc server benchmarks
>> and
>> see that they often break up the database into a number of files with
>> 200GB
>> as the max file size I've seen.
>> Does anyone out there know of any articles, web sites or whatever that
>> specifically address this? Are users out there creating large numbers
>> of
>> files and I'm in the dark? Articles by reputable sources (K. Delaney
>> among
>> just a few) are what I'm looking for.
>> --
>> burt_king@.yahoo.com

Performance on SQL 2000

I have a SQL server with one file group that's about 600GB and two files
residing on a clariion array. Index jobs, etc. appear to run faster if I
create more files. I looked at some of microsoft's tpc server benchmarks an
d
see that they often break up the database into a number of files with 200GB
as the max file size I've seen.
Does anyone out there know of any articles, web sites or whatever that
specifically address this? Are users out there creating large numbers of
files and I'm in the dark? Articles by reputable sources (K. Delaney among
just a few) are what I'm looking for.
--
burt_king@.yahoo.comOK, since no one answered I'll beg for conjecture, random thoughts or
otherwise...
--
burt_king@.yahoo.com
"burt_king" wrote:

> I have a SQL server with one file group that's about 600GB and two files
> residing on a clariion array. Index jobs, etc. appear to run faster if I
> create more files. I looked at some of microsoft's tpc server benchmarks
and
> see that they often break up the database into a number of files with 200G
B
> as the max file size I've seen.
> Does anyone out there know of any articles, web sites or whatever that
> specifically address this? Are users out there creating large numbers of
> files and I'm in the dark? Articles by reputable sources (K. Delaney amo
ng
> just a few) are what I'm looking for.
> --
> burt_king@.yahoo.com|||It's generally not about more file but more disk spindles. When parts of
the database reside on different disk drives, seeks can be done in parallel
so the overall performance is improved. There are a few cases where
multiple files allow parallel operations which may help performance but this
generally is not as big a factor as splitting logs, indexes and data into
different disks.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"burt_king" <burt_king@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6040A038-EB9E-4D03-8023-BA5A79A8F469@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> OK, since no one answered I'll beg for conjecture, random thoughts or
> otherwise...
> --
> burt_king@.yahoo.com
>
> "burt_king" wrote:
>

Performance of XML vs Database

What is the performance comparison for XML and database?

Using system.IO to read the XML file will be slower than reading data from database , if only read data and not sorting?

The RAM/CPU memory usange will be higher for get data from XML compare to get data from database?

Hi,

You cant say that database is better than XML, its upto the scope of your need,the size of your XML and of much operations you are doing on XML file..

you can use DOM to read and if it is small file just load it at the start and maintain that till the end of the application..

Cheers

|||

happychai:

What is the performance comparison for XML and database?

It depends on the structure of the data. If it is a small file with something like a parent node and a child node with some attributes, and nothing that is relational then XML can be faster.

You will load the XML document once into the DOM and can you XPath to query the data very efficiently.

If you are going to edit data or the data structure is relational that always go for a data base.

|||

thanks for the reply, beside this i want to know is the performance on resouces use.

Is it using system.IO to read the XML using more CPU/Ram resouces than database?

|||

happychai:

Is it using system.IO to read the XML using more CPU/Ram resouces than database?

It all depends on the stucture of the XML and the query involved.

If the file is small and you are only doing a simple parse/xsl then the XML file should be faster but only neglible once the document is loaded into the DOM. Though you should not be basing on performance as a indicator for using XML or a database. With connection pooling and light weight data providers/objects, databases are also very quick.

|||

ok...

thanks for your reply

Performance of dataflow too slow

I was transfering more that 100,000 records from flat file to sql table

It took about 1 hour.Is this the way it is?i used oledb command.

As the data passes by i got to insert to several table.Like i insert some of incoming data to one table then get the key from that table and insert rest of the data with the key field from previous table to another table.

In this case i felt OLedb would be best as we can use query.

I cannot use oledb destination as it has only error output(to insert some of incoming data and i want to have a look up to get the key but oledb des has only error output)

i cannot use sql destination as the database is sql server 2000.It dosent let me.

How can i increase the performance?Please let me know

So if I understand correctly, you are using an OLE DB Command to insert your new records into Table A, then a Lookup in non-cached mode to get the key you just inserted, so you can load the rows (with the key) into Table B with an OLE DB Destination. So you're doing 100K inserts, 100K selects, and then a fast load of 100K rows. I'm not surprised that's slow.

I think you would get much better performance to break this up into two data flows. The first data flow reads the file and populates Table A using an OLE DB Destination in fast load mode. The second Data Flow reads the file again, uses a full-cache lookup from Table A to get your new keys, and then fast loads into Table B.

If you want to get fancy (I like to get fancy), you can read the file only once, assign the Table A key in script, fast load both tables at the same time, and not have to do any lookups.
|||

That's sound advice from Jay. To re-iterate something he said, do what you can to eliminate the OLE DB Commnd. its a very unperformant component.

|||

The best way to improve performance is to get rid of the OLE DB command. If you need to update multiple tables, maybe you should use multiple data flows.

Updated: Jay and Jamie beat me to the punch. You'll notice a common thread in everyone's comments, though...

|||Does it normally take around an hour to insert or update 100,000 records in ssis?|||

sureshv wrote:

Does it normally take around an hour to insert or update 100,000 records in ssis?

If you aren't using the "fast load" option, yes, I can see how that might be the case.|||

sureshv wrote:

Does it normally take around an hour to insert or update 100,000 records in ssis?

Well it really isn't a matter of SSIS performance, the primary factor in your scenario is the relational engine having to process 100,000 commands. Indexes would play a large role in that; if you have too many indexes your inserts will suffer, if you don't have the right one your selects will suffer. Put a WHERE 1=0 at the end of your statements and the performance should improve significantly.

So, yes, it's certainly possible that it could take an hour to insert 100,000 rows. It could also probably be done in 10 minutes with no changes to SSIS. The difference would be in the database itself. But regardless of the database, I think you can improve your SSIS design.

|||

JayH wrote:

Put a WHERE 1=0 at the end of your statements and the performance should improve significantly. .

Really? By not selecting any data?|||

Phil Brammer wrote:

JayH wrote:

Put a WHERE 1=0 at the end of your statements and the performance should improve significantly. .

Really? By not selecting any data?

I said it would be fast, not that it would work.

(It was a joke)
|||

sureshv wrote:

Does it normally take around an hour to insert or update 100,000 records in ssis?

Its impossible to answer this question with a simple yes or no because there are so many variables. Record width, physical location, network latency, CPU, memory, indexes at the destination, insertion method, driver/provider, destination type, .... I could go on and on.

What I CAN tell you is that under the right circumstances it is possible to insert 100000 into a SQL Server table using SSIS withn a few seconds. As I hope you appreciate though, there are many factors.

-Jamie

Performance Monitor SQL Counters question

I'm a bit confused, so I hope someone can help.
Under the MSSQL$AAP1:Databases Object are two counters. Data File(s) Size
(KB) and Log File(s) Size (KB). If I understand these correctly, they are to
monitor spikes within the growth of the data & log files. However, when I
run them against my Production Server, they are both consistantly at 100%.
HUH?
The disk drive has more than enough space and both files for my database (I
chose to monitor a single DB, not all of them) are set to AutoGrow. So, why
do the counters register at the top of the charts?
If anyone could explain this for me, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks,
Catadmin
MCDBA, MCSA
Random Thoughts: If a person is Microsoft Certified, does that mean that
Microsoft pays the bills for the funny white jackets that tie in the back?
@.=)
Hi
I am not sure you are interpreting the counter correctly, with all
performance monitor counters you need to look at the scale to get the size.
Being 100% of the size all the time would indicate that there has been no
growth during that period.
If you do a period sp_helpfile and store the results into a table you should
be able to monitor store the current size over time.
John
"Catadmin" wrote:

> I'm a bit confused, so I hope someone can help.
> Under the MSSQL$AAP1:Databases Object are two counters. Data File(s) Size
> (KB) and Log File(s) Size (KB). If I understand these correctly, they are to
> monitor spikes within the growth of the data & log files. However, when I
> run them against my Production Server, they are both consistantly at 100%.
> HUH?
> The disk drive has more than enough space and both files for my database (I
> chose to monitor a single DB, not all of them) are set to AutoGrow. So, why
> do the counters register at the top of the charts?
> If anyone could explain this for me, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks,
> Catadmin
> --
> MCDBA, MCSA
> Random Thoughts: If a person is Microsoft Certified, does that mean that
> Microsoft pays the bills for the funny white jackets that tie in the back?
> @.=)
|||So how does one know when the files do change in size? Does the percentage
go down? Or is there a number higher than 100 that it shoots up to during a
"growth spurt"?
Thanks,
Catadmin
"John Bell" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> I am not sure you are interpreting the counter correctly, with all
> performance monitor counters you need to look at the scale to get the size.
> Being 100% of the size all the time would indicate that there has been no
> growth during that period.
> If you do a period sp_helpfile and store the results into a table you should
> be able to monitor store the current size over time.
> John
> "Catadmin" wrote:
|||Hi
If open the performance data file in perfmon you will see a step when the
file grows.
John
"Catadmin" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> So how does one know when the files do change in size? Does the percentage
> go down? Or is there a number higher than 100 that it shoots up to during a
> "growth spurt"?
> Thanks,
> Catadmin
>
> "John Bell" wrote:

Performance Monitor SQL Counters question

I'm a bit confused, so I hope someone can help.
Under the MSSQL$AAP1:Databases Object are two counters. Data File(s) Size
(KB) and Log File(s) Size (KB). If I understand these correctly, they are t
o
monitor spikes within the growth of the data & log files. However, when I
run them against my Production Server, they are both consistantly at 100%.
HUH?
The disk drive has more than enough space and both files for my database (I
chose to monitor a single DB, not all of them) are set to AutoGrow. So, why
do the counters register at the top of the charts?
If anyone could explain this for me, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks,
Catadmin
--
MCDBA, MCSA
Random Thoughts: If a person is Microsoft Certified, does that mean that
Microsoft pays the bills for the funny white jackets that tie in the back?
@.=)Hi
I am not sure you are interpreting the counter correctly, with all
performance monitor counters you need to look at the scale to get the size.
Being 100% of the size all the time would indicate that there has been no
growth during that period.
If you do a period sp_helpfile and store the results into a table you should
be able to monitor store the current size over time.
John
"Catadmin" wrote:

> I'm a bit confused, so I hope someone can help.
> Under the MSSQL$AAP1:Databases Object are two counters. Data File(s) Size
> (KB) and Log File(s) Size (KB). If I understand these correctly, they are
to
> monitor spikes within the growth of the data & log files. However, when I
> run them against my Production Server, they are both consistantly at 100%.
> HUH?
> The disk drive has more than enough space and both files for my database (
I
> chose to monitor a single DB, not all of them) are set to AutoGrow. So, w
hy
> do the counters register at the top of the charts?
> If anyone could explain this for me, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks,
> Catadmin
> --
> MCDBA, MCSA
> Random Thoughts: If a person is Microsoft Certified, does that mean that
> Microsoft pays the bills for the funny white jackets that tie in the back?
'
> @.=)|||So how does one know when the files do change in size? Does the percentage
go down? Or is there a number higher than 100 that it shoots up to during a
"growth spurt"?
Thanks,
Catadmin
"John Bell" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> I am not sure you are interpreting the counter correctly, with all
> performance monitor counters you need to look at the scale to get the size
.
> Being 100% of the size all the time would indicate that there has been no
> growth during that period.
> If you do a period sp_helpfile and store the results into a table you shou
ld
> be able to monitor store the current size over time.
> John
> "Catadmin" wrote:
>|||Hi
If open the performance data file in perfmon you will see a step when the
file grows.
John
"Catadmin" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> So how does one know when the files do change in size? Does the percentag
e
> go down? Or is there a number higher than 100 that it shoots up to during
a
> "growth spurt"?
> Thanks,
> Catadmin
>
> "John Bell" wrote:
>

Performance Monitor log files

For the SQL Server running here we have setup a log file that monitors all the activities while the server is running, such as processor percentage being used over the day, CPU percentage taken by SQL Server etc. The problem I'm facing is that the log files (which are in PERFMON format) are recorded over a period of a business day for 30 days. Now I want to get the measurements for all the 30 days combined into one file where i can analyze all the measurement over 30 days.

Thanks in advance.HI

I dont know of any way to combine log files. The best you can do is establish numeric values then manually put these into a spreadsheet if you want a graph.

In future, just run the perfmon monitoring for 30 days......

Hope this helps,

SG