Performance Tuning Help needed

This is a Sql 2000 server running on Win 2k. This is a 1
CPU box connected to a SAN.
I ran a profiler trace for 3 hours and collected all the
data. Some of the queries show a large amount of reads.
When I run those queries individually the # of reads is
fairly smaller. For example the trace file shows 36503
reads and the individual query plan shows 91 CPU reads.
Whats going on ? Is the profiler tracking all I/O activity
at that time ? I mean, is it tracking all tempdb usage and
any other I/O activity at this time. What would explain
this large drop in I/O ?
THanks"JackA" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:061701c3a972$5d6cc080$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> Whats going on ? Is the profiler tracking all I/O activity
> at that time ? I mean, is it tracking all tempdb usage and
> any other I/O activity at this time. What would explain
> this large drop in I/O ?
I'm new to SQL Server so take what I say with a grain of salt.. But does
the profiler keep track of how many executions for each SQL statement?
Executed once the number of reads may be small but if it was executed 1000
times during that timeframe I would expect the number to be large.|||i assume you ran the query with the same parameters?
if so, then this large a difference in reads might
indicate the trace captured that query with a different
plan. if the choice of parameters can results in large
differences in rows involved, then depending on what
parameters were used when the query was last compiled,
different executes could get different plans.
a smaller difference on the order of several hundred or
even more than 1k might indicate compile or recompile.
>--Original Message--
>This is a Sql 2000 server running on Win 2k. This is a 1
>CPU box connected to a SAN.
>I ran a profiler trace for 3 hours and collected all the
>data. Some of the queries show a large amount of reads.
>When I run those queries individually the # of reads is
>fairly smaller. For example the trace file shows 36503
>reads and the individual query plan shows 91 CPU reads.
>Whats going on ? Is the profiler tracking all I/O
activity
>at that time ? I mean, is it tracking all tempdb usage
and
>any other I/O activity at this time. What would explain
>this large drop in I/O ?
>THanks
>.
>|||Jack,
are you comparing Profiler output to Query Analyzer query plan?
If so... the difference is "normal".
Trust the Profiler, if it shows 36000 reads, that's really happening
in the DB.
peksi
"JackA" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:061701c3a972$5d6cc080$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> This is a Sql 2000 server running on Win 2k. This is a 1
> CPU box connected to a SAN.
> I ran a profiler trace for 3 hours and collected all the
> data. Some of the queries show a large amount of reads.
> When I run those queries individually the # of reads is
> fairly smaller. For example the trace file shows 36503
> reads and the individual query plan shows 91 CPU reads.
> Whats going on ? Is the profiler tracking all I/O activity
> at that time ? I mean, is it tracking all tempdb usage and
> any other I/O activity at this time. What would explain
> this large drop in I/O ?
> THanks|||Hi Jack
The profiler shows what's happening at run time, which can be different from
what happens when you run the query for a few reasons, eg:
(a) The level & type of SQL Server activity is different when you run the
query from when the same query was captured by the profiler.
(b) The security context from which you ran the query may be different from
the query picked up by profiler.
(c) General resource levels on the server may be different.
Capturing the execution plans & comparing them may reveal some explanation
of what accounts for the different levels of reads, but this only takes you
part way to resolving the actual problem.
HTH
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
"JackA" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:061701c3a972$5d6cc080$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> This is a Sql 2000 server running on Win 2k. This is a 1
> CPU box connected to a SAN.
> I ran a profiler trace for 3 hours and collected all the
> data. Some of the queries show a large amount of reads.
> When I run those queries individually the # of reads is
> fairly smaller. For example the trace file shows 36503
> reads and the individual query plan shows 91 CPU reads.
> Whats going on ? Is the profiler tracking all I/O activity
> at that time ? I mean, is it tracking all tempdb usage and
> any other I/O activity at this time. What would explain
> this large drop in I/O ?
> THankssql

Performance of named instance

Hi,
I have an app that ran just fine with the default instance of MSDE. I
changed the connection string in the app to work with a named instance
instead, like this: (local)/MyNamedInstance.
Database performance slowed measurably as soon as I did that, particularly
with DDL commands, like:
CREATE DEFAULT BOOLEAN_DEFAULT AS ''F''
CREATE RULE BOOLEAN_RULE AS @.list IN (''T'', ''F'')
sp_addtype DOM_BOOLEAN, ''VARCHAR(1)'', ''NOT NULL''
sp_bindefault BOOLEAN_DEFAULT, DOM_BOOLEAN
sp_bindrule BOOLEAN_RULE, DOM_BOOLEAN
It literally takes 10-15 seconds to execute about 4 of these lines of code,
where they used to execute pretty much immediately.
Is there anything special I need to do with a named instance of MSDE to
obtain the same performance levels?
Thanks in advance.
-Eric Harmon
If the instances are on the same machine it is possible that the first
instance has taken the majority of the memory and is still using it. If the
first instance needs the memory it will not free it up for the second
instance.
I have never seen a case where the cause of a performance problem was a
default vs. a named instance, so you need to concentrate on the other
differences; resources available, differences in data, schema differences,
disk speed, etc.
Cindy Gross, MCDBA, MCSE
http://cindygross.tripod.com
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Performance of extended stored procedures in SQL Server 2000

What is the overhead of using extended stored procedures?

I created a table with 500,000 rows.
1) I ran a select on two columns and it runs in about 5 seconds.
2) I ran a select on one column and called an UDF (it returns a
constant string) and it takes 10 seconds.
3) I ran a select on one column and called a UDF that calls an extended
stored procedure that returns a string and it takes 65 seconds.
I also tried running test 3 with 4 concurrent clients and each client
takes about 120 seconds.(smauldin@.ingrian.com) writes:
> What is the overhead of using extended stored procedures?
> I created a table with 500,000 rows.
> 1) I ran a select on two columns and it runs in about 5 seconds.
> 2) I ran a select on one column and called an UDF (it returns a
> constant string) and it takes 10 seconds.
> 3) I ran a select on one column and called a UDF that calls an extended
> stored procedure that returns a string and it takes 65 seconds.
> I also tried running test 3 with 4 concurrent clients and each client
> takes about 120 seconds.

The overhead is apparently significant in this case. And it may well be
typical. By calling an extended stored procedure, you are completely
serializing the processing. If you rewrote the query as a cursor and
called the XP in the extednded stored procedure, you would probably
see a higher value than 65, but not that much higher.

Thus the overhead is not so much in the XP itself, as in the way
it affects the query.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp

Performance Monitoring

I ran performance monitoring on one of my server that is
performing slow in order to determine if there is a memory
or hardware bottleneck and came up with the following
statistics. Please help diagnose this and let me know if
we need to increase memory or configure something in sql
server. This is an average of statistics collected
during peak periods 19 times. Thanks for your help. I
already suggested that ram needs to be added to the
server, but I need more assured technical justification
as I am new to this. Thx.
PROCESSOR TIME
max 36.42%
Average 9.53%
System
Processor Queue Length (max) 1
MEMORY
Pages/sec 121
Available Mbytes 156
Page Faults/sec 735
total physical memory 1986302
total sql server memory - mb 1589485
Processes page fault - Sql Server 73
Maximum workspace memory 1081725
DISK
Disk Reads per second 244
Disk Writes per second 99
Average Disk Queue length 4
SQL SERVER GENERAL STATISTICS
# connections 15
SQL Server Buffer Manager cache hit ratio 94
Hardware Info
Hard drive :
C' drive total hd space = 33.9G space
available = 20.2 G
D' drive total hd space = 273G space
available = 272G
E' drive total hd space = 273G space
available = 172 G
F' drive total hd space = 273G space
available = 127 G
F' drive total hd space = 819G space
available = 431 G
CPU = 2.80 GHz
RAM = 2.09G
Operating System = Windows 2000 SP4
Sql Server 2000 sp3aUnfortunatly its a bit hard to determine whether your
server is running slow or not, because there is no point
of reference. Probably the best way would be to run it
once on a weekly basis and get the average.
You may want to monitor network trafic, read writes and
memory (can anyone think of more ?), personally though
7/10 its the network thats slow and not SQL.
Be that as it may there are some options that may speed
you SQL Server up, if you feel its underperforming.
Firstly have a look at the DBCC SHOWCONTIG command. This
will show how dragmented your indexes are, if they are
defragmented then run DBCC DBREINDEX.
Secondly set up a profile trace for performance
enhancement. Allow it to run for at least a couple of days
then run the Index Tuning wizard. This will put in some
indexes for you based upon the queries your users have
been making.
Finally mark you store procedures for re-compulation in
case the execution plan is out of date.
If you would like any further help my email in reverse
order is moc.liamtoh@.em_yrewolf_elttil
J
>--Original Message--
>I ran performance monitoring on one of my server that is
>performing slow in order to determine if there is a
memory
>or hardware bottleneck and came up with the following
>statistics. Please help diagnose this and let me know if
>we need to increase memory or configure something in sql
>server. This is an average of statistics collected
>during peak periods 19 times. Thanks for your help. I
>already suggested that ram needs to be added to the
>server, but I need more assured technical justification
>as I am new to this. Thx.
>PROCESSOR TIME
>max 36.42%
>Average 9.53%
>System
>Processor Queue Length (max) 1
>MEMORY
>Pages/sec 121
>Available Mbytes 156
>Page Faults/sec 735
>total physical memory 1986302
>total sql server memory - mb 1589485
>Processes page fault - Sql Server 73
>Maximum workspace memory 1081725
>DISK
>Disk Reads per second 244
>Disk Writes per second 99
>Average Disk Queue length 4
>SQL SERVER GENERAL STATISTICS
># connections 15
>SQL Server Buffer Manager cache hit ratio 94
>Hardware Info
>Hard drive :
>C' drive total hd space = 33.9G space
>available = 20.2 G
>D' drive total hd space = 273G space
>available = 272G
>E' drive total hd space = 273G space
>available = 172 G
>F' drive total hd space = 273G space
>available = 127 G
>F' drive total hd space = 819G space
>available = 431 G
>CPU = 2.80 GHz
>RAM = 2.09G
>Operating System = Windows 2000 SP4
>Sql Server 2000 sp3a
>.
>|||Julie,
Thank you so much for response you gave to my performance
problems.
The statistics I sent in the Microsoft newsgroup is an
average of every thing I log for 9 days now. Would you
rather I send you what I collected today? The network may
notbe the issue because I have an identical server with
more memory that returns stuff quicker. I will try the
trace profiler also. I reindex the indexes weekly - but I
will still run dbcc showcontig. Finally, how do you
recompile stored procedures? Thank you.
Jasmine
>--Original Message--
>Unfortunatly its a bit hard to determine whether your
>server is running slow or not, because there is no point
>of reference. Probably the best way would be to run it
>once on a weekly basis and get the average.
>You may want to monitor network trafic, read writes and
>memory (can anyone think of more ?), personally though
>7/10 its the network thats slow and not SQL.
>Be that as it may there are some options that may speed
>you SQL Server up, if you feel its underperforming.
>Firstly have a look at the DBCC SHOWCONTIG command. This
>will show how dragmented your indexes are, if they are
>defragmented then run DBCC DBREINDEX.
>Secondly set up a profile trace for performance
>enhancement. Allow it to run for at least a couple of
days
>then run the Index Tuning wizard. This will put in some
>indexes for you based upon the queries your users have
>been making.
>Finally mark you store procedures for re-compulation in
>case the execution plan is out of date.
>If you would like any further help my email in reverse
>order is moc.liamtoh@.em_yrewolf_elttil
>J
>>--Original Message--
>>I ran performance monitoring on one of my server that is
>>performing slow in order to determine if there is a
>memory
>>or hardware bottleneck and came up with the following
>>statistics. Please help diagnose this and let me know
if
>>we need to increase memory or configure something in sql
>>server. This is an average of statistics collected
>>during peak periods 19 times. Thanks for your help. I
>>already suggested that ram needs to be added to the
>>server, but I need more assured technical justification
>>as I am new to this. Thx.
>>PROCESSOR TIME
>>max 36.42%
>>Average 9.53%
>>System
>>Processor Queue Length (max) 1
>>MEMORY
>>Pages/sec 121
>>Available Mbytes 156
>>Page Faults/sec 735
>>total physical memory 1986302
>>total sql server memory - mb 1589485
>>Processes page fault - Sql Server 73
>>Maximum workspace memory 1081725
>>DISK
>>Disk Reads per second 244
>>Disk Writes per second 99
>>Average Disk Queue length 4
>>SQL SERVER GENERAL STATISTICS
>># connections 15
>>SQL Server Buffer Manager cache hit ratio 94
>>Hardware Info
>>Hard drive :
>>C' drive total hd space = 33.9G space
>>available = 20.2 G
>>D' drive total hd space = 273G space
>>available = 272G
>>E' drive total hd space = 273G space
>>available = 172 G
>>F' drive total hd space = 273G space
>>available = 127 G
>>F' drive total hd space = 819G space
>>available = 431 G
>>CPU = 2.80 GHz
>>RAM = 2.09G
>>Operating System = Windows 2000 SP4
>>Sql Server 2000 sp3a
>>.
>.
>|||also check out the kb below for a more general overview of how to
troubleshoot performance issues
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;298475
Andy.
"Jasmine Gwendle" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:173c901c448ab$17949f00$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> I ran performance monitoring on one of my server that is
> performing slow in order to determine if there is a memory
> or hardware bottleneck and came up with the following
> statistics. Please help diagnose this and let me know if
> we need to increase memory or configure something in sql
> server. This is an average of statistics collected
> during peak periods 19 times. Thanks for your help. I
> already suggested that ram needs to be added to the
> server, but I need more assured technical justification
> as I am new to this. Thx.
> PROCESSOR TIME
> max 36.42%
> Average 9.53%
> System
> Processor Queue Length (max) 1
> MEMORY
> Pages/sec 121
> Available Mbytes 156
> Page Faults/sec 735
> total physical memory 1986302
> total sql server memory - mb 1589485
> Processes page fault - Sql Server 73
> Maximum workspace memory 1081725
> DISK
> Disk Reads per second 244
> Disk Writes per second 99
> Average Disk Queue length 4
> SQL SERVER GENERAL STATISTICS
> # connections 15
> SQL Server Buffer Manager cache hit ratio 94
> Hardware Info
> Hard drive :
> C' drive total hd space = 33.9G space
> available = 20.2 G
> D' drive total hd space = 273G space
> available = 272G
> E' drive total hd space = 273G space
> available = 172 G
> F' drive total hd space = 273G space
> available = 127 G
> F' drive total hd space = 819G space
> available = 431 G
> CPU = 2.80 GHz
> RAM = 2.09G
> Operating System = Windows 2000 SP4
> Sql Server 2000 sp3a
>|||Hi Jasmine
Firstly the store procedures
EXEC sp_recompile <store procedure name>
Personally I create a cursor with
select name from sysobjects where xtype = 'P' and status
> 0
That gets out all the sp for your database, then I add
the EXEC sp_recompile
As for the performance could you give me somthing like
Mondays 9am to 5pm Average, Tuesdays average 9am to 5pm
ect.
You can also configure the performance monitor to sent
you pop-ups when for instance network is at 100%.
Other things.
1 Is there anything else running on your server?
2 Is your memory set up the same
3 Do you have autoclose turned off your dbs
4 Is the problem saving, loading or both
J
>--Original Message--
>Julie,
>Thank you so much for response you gave to my
performance
>problems.
>The statistics I sent in the Microsoft newsgroup is an
>average of every thing I log for 9 days now. Would you
>rather I send you what I collected today? The network
may
>notbe the issue because I have an identical server with
>more memory that returns stuff quicker. I will try the
>trace profiler also. I reindex the indexes weekly - but
I
>will still run dbcc showcontig. Finally, how do you
>recompile stored procedures? Thank you.
>Jasmine
>
>>--Original Message--
>>Unfortunatly its a bit hard to determine whether your
>>server is running slow or not, because there is no
point
>>of reference. Probably the best way would be to run it
>>once on a weekly basis and get the average.
>>You may want to monitor network trafic, read writes and
>>memory (can anyone think of more ?), personally though
>>7/10 its the network thats slow and not SQL.
>>Be that as it may there are some options that may speed
>>you SQL Server up, if you feel its underperforming.
>>Firstly have a look at the DBCC SHOWCONTIG command.
This
>>will show how dragmented your indexes are, if they are
>>defragmented then run DBCC DBREINDEX.
>>Secondly set up a profile trace for performance
>>enhancement. Allow it to run for at least a couple of
>days
>>then run the Index Tuning wizard. This will put in some
>>indexes for you based upon the queries your users have
>>been making.
>>Finally mark you store procedures for re-compulation in
>>case the execution plan is out of date.
>>If you would like any further help my email in reverse
>>order is moc.liamtoh@.em_yrewolf_elttil
>>J
>>--Original Message--
>>I ran performance monitoring on one of my server that
is
>>performing slow in order to determine if there is a
>>memory
>>or hardware bottleneck and came up with the following
>>statistics. Please help diagnose this and let me know
>if
>>we need to increase memory or configure something in
sql
>>server. This is an average of statistics collected
>>during peak periods 19 times. Thanks for your help.
I
>>already suggested that ram needs to be added to the
>>server, but I need more assured technical justification
>>as I am new to this. Thx.
>>PROCESSOR TIME
>>max 36.42%
>>Average 9.53%
>>System
>>Processor Queue Length (max) 1
>>MEMORY
>>Pages/sec 121
>>Available Mbytes 156
>>Page Faults/sec 735
>>total physical memory 1986302
>>total sql server memory - mb 1589485
>>Processes page fault - Sql Server 73
>>Maximum workspace memory 1081725
>>DISK
>>Disk Reads per second 244
>>Disk Writes per second 99
>>Average Disk Queue length 4
>>SQL SERVER GENERAL STATISTICS
>># connections 15
>>SQL Server Buffer Manager cache hit ratio 94
>>Hardware Info
>>Hard drive :
>>C' drive total hd space = 33.9G space
>>available = 20.2 G
>>D' drive total hd space = 273G space
>>available = 272G
>>E' drive total hd space = 273G space
>>available = 172 G
>>F' drive total hd space = 273G space
>>available = 127 G
>>F' drive total hd space = 819G space
>>available = 431 G
>>CPU = 2.80 GHz
>>RAM = 2.09G
>>Operating System = Windows 2000 SP4
>>Sql Server 2000 sp3a
>>.
>>.
>.
>

Performance Monitoring

I ran performance monitoring on one of my server that is
performing slow in order to determine if there is a memory
or hardware bottleneck and came up with the following
statistics. Please help diagnose this and let me know if
we need to increase memory or configure something in sql
server. This is an average of statistics collected
during peak periods 19 times. Thanks for your help. I
already suggested that ram needs to be added to the
server, but I need more assured technical justification
as I am new to this. Thx.
PROCESSOR TIME
max36.42%
Average9.53%
System
Processor Queue Length (max)1
MEMORY
Pages/sec121
Available Mbytes 156
Page Faults/sec735
total physical memory1986302
total sql server memory - mb1589485
Processes page fault - Sql Server 73
Maximum workspace memory 1081725
DISK
Disk Reads per second244
Disk Writes per second99
Average Disk Queue length 4
SQL SERVER GENERAL STATISTICS
# connections 15
SQL Server Buffer Manager cache hit ratio 94
Hardware Info
Hard drive :
C' drive total hd space = 33.9G space
available = 20.2 G
D' drive total hd space = 273G space
available = 272G
E' drive total hd space = 273G space
available = 172 G
F' drive total hd space = 273G space
available = 127 G
F' drive total hd space = 819G space
available = 431 G
CPU = 2.80 GHz
RAM = 2.09G
Operating System = Windows 2000 SP4
Sql Server 2000 sp3a
also check out the kb below for a more general overview of how to
troubleshoot performance issues
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;298475
Andy.
"Jasmine Gwendle" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:173c901c448ab$17949f00$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> I ran performance monitoring on one of my server that is
> performing slow in order to determine if there is a memory
> or hardware bottleneck and came up with the following
> statistics. Please help diagnose this and let me know if
> we need to increase memory or configure something in sql
> server. This is an average of statistics collected
> during peak periods 19 times. Thanks for your help. I
> already suggested that ram needs to be added to the
> server, but I need more assured technical justification
> as I am new to this. Thx.
> PROCESSOR TIME
> max 36.42%
> Average 9.53%
> System
> Processor Queue Length (max) 1
> MEMORY
> Pages/sec 121
> Available Mbytes 156
> Page Faults/sec 735
> total physical memory 1986302
> total sql server memory - mb 1589485
> Processes page fault - Sql Server 73
> Maximum workspace memory 1081725
> DISK
> Disk Reads per second 244
> Disk Writes per second 99
> Average Disk Queue length 4
> SQL SERVER GENERAL STATISTICS
> # connections 15
> SQL Server Buffer Manager cache hit ratio 94
> Hardware Info
> Hard drive :
> C' drive total hd space = 33.9G space
> available = 20.2 G
> D' drive total hd space = 273G space
> available = 272G
> E' drive total hd space = 273G space
> available = 172 G
> F' drive total hd space = 273G space
> available = 127 G
> F' drive total hd space = 819G space
> available = 431 G
> CPU = 2.80 GHz
> RAM = 2.09G
> Operating System = Windows 2000 SP4
> Sql Server 2000 sp3a
>

Performance Monitoring

I ran performance monitoring on one of my server that is
performing slow in order to determine if there is a memory
or hardware bottleneck and came up with the following
statistics. Please help diagnose this and let me know if
we need to increase memory or configure something in sql
server. This is an average of statistics collected
during peak periods 19 times. Thanks for your help. I
already suggested that ram needs to be added to the
server, but I need more assured technical justification
as I am new to this. Thx.
PROCESSOR TIME
max 36.42%
Average 9.53%
System
Processor Queue Length (max) 1
MEMORY
Pages/sec 121
Available Mbytes 156
Page Faults/sec 735
total physical memory 1986302
total sql server memory - mb 1589485
Processes page fault - Sql Server 73
Maximum workspace memory 1081725
DISK
Disk Reads per second 244
Disk Writes per second 99
Average Disk Queue length 4
SQL SERVER GENERAL STATISTICS
# connections 15
SQL Server Buffer Manager cache hit ratio 94
Hardware Info
Hard drive :
C' drive total hd space = 33.9G space
available = 20.2 G
D' drive total hd space = 273G space
available = 272G
E' drive total hd space = 273G space
available = 172 G
F' drive total hd space = 273G space
available = 127 G
F' drive total hd space = 819G space
available = 431 G
CPU = 2.80 GHz
RAM = 2.09G
Operating System = Windows 2000 SP4
Sql Server 2000 sp3aalso check out the kb below for a more general overview of how to
troubleshoot performance issues
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;298475
Andy.
"Jasmine Gwendle" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:173c901c448ab$17949f00$a001280a@.phx
.gbl...
> I ran performance monitoring on one of my server that is
> performing slow in order to determine if there is a memory
> or hardware bottleneck and came up with the following
> statistics. Please help diagnose this and let me know if
> we need to increase memory or configure something in sql
> server. This is an average of statistics collected
> during peak periods 19 times. Thanks for your help. I
> already suggested that ram needs to be added to the
> server, but I need more assured technical justification
> as I am new to this. Thx.
> PROCESSOR TIME
> max 36.42%
> Average 9.53%
> System
> Processor Queue Length (max) 1
> MEMORY
> Pages/sec 121
> Available Mbytes 156
> Page Faults/sec 735
> total physical memory 1986302
> total sql server memory - mb 1589485
> Processes page fault - Sql Server 73
> Maximum workspace memory 1081725
> DISK
> Disk Reads per second 244
> Disk Writes per second 99
> Average Disk Queue length 4
> SQL SERVER GENERAL STATISTICS
> # connections 15
> SQL Server Buffer Manager cache hit ratio 94
> hardware Info
> Hard drive :
> C' drive total hd space = 33.9G space
> available = 20.2 G
> D' drive total hd space = 273G space
> available = 272G
> E' drive total hd space = 273G space
> available = 172 G
> F' drive total hd space = 273G space
> available = 127 G
> F' drive total hd space = 819G space
> available = 431 G
> CPU = 2.80 GHz
> RAM = 2.09G
> Operating System = Windows 2000 SP4
> Sql Server 2000 sp3a
>