I have a new Windows 2003 64-bit server on which I'm running a 32-bit SQL
Server 2000. I backed up the database on the old (Windows 2000 SQL Server
7) server, copied the backup file across the network, and restored it on the
new server. I'm finding in some cases that I'm getting very, very poor
performance; taking some of the queries and doing an Estimated Execution
Plan in Query Analyzer shows that I'm getting almost no index usage--the
optimizer seems to be choosing to do table scans instead.
I didn't see this problem when we were copying these backup files onto a
32-bit Windows 2000 server running SQL Server 2000. Is there something
wrong with running 32-bit SQL Server 2000 on 64-bit Windows Server 2003?
What can I do to make it perform like it used to?
Thanks very much.Run UPDATE STATISTICS (see also sp_updatestats) and see if there is
any improvement.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:37:09 -0400, "Alexander J. Oss"
<alex@.alexoss.net> wrote:
>I have a new Windows 2003 64-bit server on which I'm running a 32-bit SQL
>Server 2000. I backed up the database on the old (Windows 2000 SQL Server
>7) server, copied the backup file across the network, and restored it on the
>new server. I'm finding in some cases that I'm getting very, very poor
>performance; taking some of the queries and doing an Estimated Execution
>Plan in Query Analyzer shows that I'm getting almost no index usage--the
>optimizer seems to be choosing to do table scans instead.
>I didn't see this problem when we were copying these backup files onto a
>32-bit Windows 2000 server running SQL Server 2000. Is there something
>wrong with running 32-bit SQL Server 2000 on 64-bit Windows Server 2003?
>What can I do to make it perform like it used to?
>Thanks very much.
>|||Alex
SQL Server 7 is not supported on Windows 2003. Although you are restoring
your SQL 7 backup into SQL 2000 it may be that the database is not upgrading
correctly due to this. Can you upgrade the SQL 7 backup to SQL 2000 on a
server running Windows 2000 before trying to restore it? This may help.
Regards
John
"Roy Harvey" wrote:
> Run UPDATE STATISTICS (see also sp_updatestats) and see if there is
> any improvement.
> Roy Harvey
> Beacon Falls, CT
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:37:09 -0400, "Alexander J. Oss"
> <alex@.alexoss.net> wrote:
> >I have a new Windows 2003 64-bit server on which I'm running a 32-bit SQL
> >Server 2000. I backed up the database on the old (Windows 2000 SQL Server
> >7) server, copied the backup file across the network, and restored it on the
> >new server. I'm finding in some cases that I'm getting very, very poor
> >performance; taking some of the queries and doing an Estimated Execution
> >Plan in Query Analyzer shows that I'm getting almost no index usage--the
> >optimizer seems to be choosing to do table scans instead.
> >
> >I didn't see this problem when we were copying these backup files onto a
> >32-bit Windows 2000 server running SQL Server 2000. Is there something
> >wrong with running 32-bit SQL Server 2000 on 64-bit Windows Server 2003?
> >What can I do to make it perform like it used to?
> >
> >Thanks very much.
> >
>|||It is true that Microsoft does not give any support if you try to run
SQL Server 7 on Windows 2003, probably because of the policy to support
only the current (2005) and previous (2000) version. But I have seen
many posts claiming that it works just fine.
Besides, I don't see why it would affect the performance after the
database has been converted to SQL Server 2000.
Gert-Jan
John Bandettini wrote:
> Alex
> SQL Server 7 is not supported on Windows 2003. Although you are restoring
> your SQL 7 backup into SQL 2000 it may be that the database is not upgrading
> correctly due to this. Can you upgrade the SQL 7 backup to SQL 2000 on a
> server running Windows 2000 before trying to restore it? This may help.
> Regards
> John
> "Roy Harvey" wrote:
> > Run UPDATE STATISTICS (see also sp_updatestats) and see if there is
> > any improvement.
> >
> > Roy Harvey
> > Beacon Falls, CT
> >
> > On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:37:09 -0400, "Alexander J. Oss"
> > <alex@.alexoss.net> wrote:
> >
> > >I have a new Windows 2003 64-bit server on which I'm running a 32-bit SQL
> > >Server 2000. I backed up the database on the old (Windows 2000 SQL Server
> > >7) server, copied the backup file across the network, and restored it on the
> > >new server. I'm finding in some cases that I'm getting very, very poor
> > >performance; taking some of the queries and doing an Estimated Execution
> > >Plan in Query Analyzer shows that I'm getting almost no index usage--the
> > >optimizer seems to be choosing to do table scans instead.
> > >
> > >I didn't see this problem when we were copying these backup files onto a
> > >32-bit Windows 2000 server running SQL Server 2000. Is there something
> > >wrong with running 32-bit SQL Server 2000 on 64-bit Windows Server 2003?
> > >What can I do to make it perform like it used to?
> > >
> > >Thanks very much.
> > >
> >sql
Showing posts with label win2000. Show all posts
Showing posts with label win2000. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Performance Problems Restoring SQL 7 Win2000 DB To SQL 2000 Win2003 x64
I have a new Windows 2003 64-bit server on which I'm running a 32-bit SQL
Server 2000. I backed up the database on the old (Windows 2000 SQL Server
7) server, copied the backup file across the network, and restored it on the
new server. I'm finding in some cases that I'm getting very, very poor
performance; taking some of the queries and doing an Estimated Execution
Plan in Query Analyzer shows that I'm getting almost no index usage--the
optimizer seems to be choosing to do table scans instead.
I didn't see this problem when we were copying these backup files onto a
32-bit Windows 2000 server running SQL Server 2000. Is there something
wrong with running 32-bit SQL Server 2000 on 64-bit Windows Server 2003?
What can I do to make it perform like it used to?
Thanks very much.Run UPDATE STATISTICS (see also sp_updatestats) and see if there is
any improvement.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:37:09 -0400, "Alexander J. Oss"
<alex@.alexoss.net> wrote:
>I have a new Windows 2003 64-bit server on which I'm running a 32-bit SQL
>Server 2000. I backed up the database on the old (Windows 2000 SQL Server
>7) server, copied the backup file across the network, and restored it on th
e
>new server. I'm finding in some cases that I'm getting very, very poor
>performance; taking some of the queries and doing an Estimated Execution
>Plan in Query Analyzer shows that I'm getting almost no index usage--the
>optimizer seems to be choosing to do table scans instead.
>I didn't see this problem when we were copying these backup files onto a
>32-bit Windows 2000 server running SQL Server 2000. Is there something
>wrong with running 32-bit SQL Server 2000 on 64-bit Windows Server 2003?
>What can I do to make it perform like it used to?
>Thanks very much.
>
Server 2000. I backed up the database on the old (Windows 2000 SQL Server
7) server, copied the backup file across the network, and restored it on the
new server. I'm finding in some cases that I'm getting very, very poor
performance; taking some of the queries and doing an Estimated Execution
Plan in Query Analyzer shows that I'm getting almost no index usage--the
optimizer seems to be choosing to do table scans instead.
I didn't see this problem when we were copying these backup files onto a
32-bit Windows 2000 server running SQL Server 2000. Is there something
wrong with running 32-bit SQL Server 2000 on 64-bit Windows Server 2003?
What can I do to make it perform like it used to?
Thanks very much.Run UPDATE STATISTICS (see also sp_updatestats) and see if there is
any improvement.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:37:09 -0400, "Alexander J. Oss"
<alex@.alexoss.net> wrote:
>I have a new Windows 2003 64-bit server on which I'm running a 32-bit SQL
>Server 2000. I backed up the database on the old (Windows 2000 SQL Server
>7) server, copied the backup file across the network, and restored it on th
e
>new server. I'm finding in some cases that I'm getting very, very poor
>performance; taking some of the queries and doing an Estimated Execution
>Plan in Query Analyzer shows that I'm getting almost no index usage--the
>optimizer seems to be choosing to do table scans instead.
>I didn't see this problem when we were copying these backup files onto a
>32-bit Windows 2000 server running SQL Server 2000. Is there something
>wrong with running 32-bit SQL Server 2000 on 64-bit Windows Server 2003?
>What can I do to make it perform like it used to?
>Thanks very much.
>
Performance Problems Restoring SQL 7 Win2000 DB To SQL 2000 Wi
Alex
SQL Server 7 is not supported on Windows 2003. Although you are restoring
your SQL 7 backup into SQL 2000 it may be that the database is not upgrading
correctly due to this. Can you upgrade the SQL 7 backup to SQL 2000 on a
server running Windows 2000 before trying to restore it? This may help.
Regards
John
"Roy Harvey" wrote:
> Run UPDATE STATISTICS (see also sp_updatestats) and see if there is
> any improvement.
> Roy Harvey
> Beacon Falls, CT
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:37:09 -0400, "Alexander J. Oss"
> <alex@.alexoss.net> wrote:
>
>It is true that Microsoft does not give any support if you try to run
SQL Server 7 on Windows 2003, probably because of the policy to support
only the current (2005) and previous (2000) version. But I have seen
many posts claiming that it works just fine.
Besides, I don't see why it would affect the performance after the
database has been converted to SQL Server 2000.
Gert-Jan
John Bandettini wrote:
> Alex
> SQL Server 7 is not supported on Windows 2003. Although you are restoring
> your SQL 7 backup into SQL 2000 it may be that the database is not upgradi
ng
> correctly due to this. Can you upgrade the SQL 7 backup to SQL 2000 on a
> server running Windows 2000 before trying to restore it? This may help.
> Regards
> John
> "Roy Harvey" wrote:
>
SQL Server 7 is not supported on Windows 2003. Although you are restoring
your SQL 7 backup into SQL 2000 it may be that the database is not upgrading
correctly due to this. Can you upgrade the SQL 7 backup to SQL 2000 on a
server running Windows 2000 before trying to restore it? This may help.
Regards
John
"Roy Harvey" wrote:
> Run UPDATE STATISTICS (see also sp_updatestats) and see if there is
> any improvement.
> Roy Harvey
> Beacon Falls, CT
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:37:09 -0400, "Alexander J. Oss"
> <alex@.alexoss.net> wrote:
>
>It is true that Microsoft does not give any support if you try to run
SQL Server 7 on Windows 2003, probably because of the policy to support
only the current (2005) and previous (2000) version. But I have seen
many posts claiming that it works just fine.
Besides, I don't see why it would affect the performance after the
database has been converted to SQL Server 2000.
Gert-Jan
John Bandettini wrote:
> Alex
> SQL Server 7 is not supported on Windows 2003. Although you are restoring
> your SQL 7 backup into SQL 2000 it may be that the database is not upgradi
ng
> correctly due to this. Can you upgrade the SQL 7 backup to SQL 2000 on a
> server running Windows 2000 before trying to restore it? This may help.
> Regards
> John
> "Roy Harvey" wrote:
>
Performance Problems - HELP, PLEASE
One of my SQL2000 sp3 servers has seems to be responding slower.
Server is Win2000 SP4 running on IBM eServer xSeries 360, dual processors.
There are 58 DBs on the E Drive, and 2 DBs on the C drive, 1 of those
on the C drive is the MASTER, there are no master files on the E drive.
One of the prime functions for this server is Report services.
I began looking around after one of the report writers mentioned that things
were responding slower then in the past, I run this query >
use master
select * From sysdatabases
I get this line for Master>
master 1 0x01 0 24 1090519040 2000-08-06 01:29:12.250 1900-01-01
00:00:00.000 0 80
e:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\data\master.mdf 539
If I use EM and look at Properties for the Master DB it shows the data file
where it should be>
C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\data\master.mdf
I then ran
use master
dbcc checkdb ('master')
and there were no errors , the final line read like this>
"CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 0 consistency errors in database
'master'.
DBCC execution completed. If DBCC printed error messages, contact your
system administrator."
Any and ALL recommendations and suggestions would be most appreciated!!!"msnews.microsoft.com" <breichenbach@.istate.com> wrote in message
news:u1JmUo4eGHA.2076@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> One of my SQL2000 sp3 servers has seems to be responding slower.
> Server is Win2000 SP4 running on IBM eServer xSeries 360, dual processors.
> There are 58 DBs on the E Drive, and 2 DBs on the C drive, 1 of those
> on the C drive is the MASTER, there are no master files on the E drive.
> One of the prime functions for this server is Report services.
> I began looking around after one of the report writers mentioned that
> things were responding slower then in the past, I run this query >
> use master
> select * From sysdatabases
> I get this line for Master>
> master 1 0x01 0 24 1090519040 2000-08-06 01:29:12.250 1900-01-01
> 00:00:00.000 0 80
> e:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\data\master.mdf 539
> If I use EM and look at Properties for the Master DB it shows the data
> file where it should be>
> C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\data\master.mdf
> I then ran
> use master
> dbcc checkdb ('master')
> and there were no errors , the final line read like this>
> "CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 0 consistency errors in database
> 'master'.
> DBCC execution completed. If DBCC printed error messages, contact your
> system administrator."
> Any and ALL recommendations and suggestions would be most appreciated!!!
>
The location of the master database, as recorded in a table in the master
database is not necessarily correct. The location of the master database is
specified in the registry on the command line when starting SQL. Master, in
turn, stores the locations of all the other databses.
This is not your problem.
Davud|||> One of the prime functions for this server is Report services.
To expand on David's response, be aware that Reporting Services and SQL
Server will compete for the same resources when both are on the same server.
Large Reports can consume significant CPU and memory resources, contributing
to slowness of both SQL Server and RS.
You need to identify the immediate reason for the slowness (e.g. high CPU,
excessive paging) so that you can more easily identify and correct the
cause. Simply poking around for misconfigured items is like throwing darts
blindfolded.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"msnews.microsoft.com" <breichenbach@.istate.com> wrote in message
news:u1JmUo4eGHA.2076@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> One of my SQL2000 sp3 servers has seems to be responding slower.
> Server is Win2000 SP4 running on IBM eServer xSeries 360, dual processors.
> There are 58 DBs on the E Drive, and 2 DBs on the C drive, 1 of those
> on the C drive is the MASTER, there are no master files on the E drive.
> One of the prime functions for this server is Report services.
> I began looking around after one of the report writers mentioned that
> things were responding slower then in the past, I run this query >
> use master
> select * From sysdatabases
> I get this line for Master>
> master 1 0x01 0 24 1090519040 2000-08-06 01:29:12.250 1900-01-01
> 00:00:00.000 0 80
> e:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\data\master.mdf 539
> If I use EM and look at Properties for the Master DB it shows the data
> file where it should be>
> C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\data\master.mdf
> I then ran
> use master
> dbcc checkdb ('master')
> and there were no errors , the final line read like this>
> "CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 0 consistency errors in database
> 'master'.
> DBCC execution completed. If DBCC printed error messages, contact your
> system administrator."
> Any and ALL recommendations and suggestions would be most appreciated!!!
>|||Thank you both, very much....
You are absolutle right about throwing darts... I have started researching
how to use performance monitor and SQL profiler to better pin point the
source of the problem. I will post a new request for best resources to
understand these 2 tools..
Thanks again
"Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:eG2vRWAfGHA.4976@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> To expand on David's response, be aware that Reporting Services and SQL
> Server will compete for the same resources when both are on the same
> server. Large Reports can consume significant CPU and memory resources,
> contributing to slowness of both SQL Server and RS.
> You need to identify the immediate reason for the slowness (e.g. high CPU,
> excessive paging) so that you can more easily identify and correct the
> cause. Simply poking around for misconfigured items is like throwing
> darts blindfolded.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "msnews.microsoft.com" <breichenbach@.istate.com> wrote in message
> news:u1JmUo4eGHA.2076@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>sql
Server is Win2000 SP4 running on IBM eServer xSeries 360, dual processors.
There are 58 DBs on the E Drive, and 2 DBs on the C drive, 1 of those
on the C drive is the MASTER, there are no master files on the E drive.
One of the prime functions for this server is Report services.
I began looking around after one of the report writers mentioned that things
were responding slower then in the past, I run this query >
use master
select * From sysdatabases
I get this line for Master>
master 1 0x01 0 24 1090519040 2000-08-06 01:29:12.250 1900-01-01
00:00:00.000 0 80
e:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\data\master.mdf 539
If I use EM and look at Properties for the Master DB it shows the data file
where it should be>
C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\data\master.mdf
I then ran
use master
dbcc checkdb ('master')
and there were no errors , the final line read like this>
"CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 0 consistency errors in database
'master'.
DBCC execution completed. If DBCC printed error messages, contact your
system administrator."
Any and ALL recommendations and suggestions would be most appreciated!!!"msnews.microsoft.com" <breichenbach@.istate.com> wrote in message
news:u1JmUo4eGHA.2076@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> One of my SQL2000 sp3 servers has seems to be responding slower.
> Server is Win2000 SP4 running on IBM eServer xSeries 360, dual processors.
> There are 58 DBs on the E Drive, and 2 DBs on the C drive, 1 of those
> on the C drive is the MASTER, there are no master files on the E drive.
> One of the prime functions for this server is Report services.
> I began looking around after one of the report writers mentioned that
> things were responding slower then in the past, I run this query >
> use master
> select * From sysdatabases
> I get this line for Master>
> master 1 0x01 0 24 1090519040 2000-08-06 01:29:12.250 1900-01-01
> 00:00:00.000 0 80
> e:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\data\master.mdf 539
> If I use EM and look at Properties for the Master DB it shows the data
> file where it should be>
> C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\data\master.mdf
> I then ran
> use master
> dbcc checkdb ('master')
> and there were no errors , the final line read like this>
> "CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 0 consistency errors in database
> 'master'.
> DBCC execution completed. If DBCC printed error messages, contact your
> system administrator."
> Any and ALL recommendations and suggestions would be most appreciated!!!
>
The location of the master database, as recorded in a table in the master
database is not necessarily correct. The location of the master database is
specified in the registry on the command line when starting SQL. Master, in
turn, stores the locations of all the other databses.
This is not your problem.
Davud|||> One of the prime functions for this server is Report services.
To expand on David's response, be aware that Reporting Services and SQL
Server will compete for the same resources when both are on the same server.
Large Reports can consume significant CPU and memory resources, contributing
to slowness of both SQL Server and RS.
You need to identify the immediate reason for the slowness (e.g. high CPU,
excessive paging) so that you can more easily identify and correct the
cause. Simply poking around for misconfigured items is like throwing darts
blindfolded.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"msnews.microsoft.com" <breichenbach@.istate.com> wrote in message
news:u1JmUo4eGHA.2076@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> One of my SQL2000 sp3 servers has seems to be responding slower.
> Server is Win2000 SP4 running on IBM eServer xSeries 360, dual processors.
> There are 58 DBs on the E Drive, and 2 DBs on the C drive, 1 of those
> on the C drive is the MASTER, there are no master files on the E drive.
> One of the prime functions for this server is Report services.
> I began looking around after one of the report writers mentioned that
> things were responding slower then in the past, I run this query >
> use master
> select * From sysdatabases
> I get this line for Master>
> master 1 0x01 0 24 1090519040 2000-08-06 01:29:12.250 1900-01-01
> 00:00:00.000 0 80
> e:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\data\master.mdf 539
> If I use EM and look at Properties for the Master DB it shows the data
> file where it should be>
> C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\data\master.mdf
> I then ran
> use master
> dbcc checkdb ('master')
> and there were no errors , the final line read like this>
> "CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 0 consistency errors in database
> 'master'.
> DBCC execution completed. If DBCC printed error messages, contact your
> system administrator."
> Any and ALL recommendations and suggestions would be most appreciated!!!
>|||Thank you both, very much....
You are absolutle right about throwing darts... I have started researching
how to use performance monitor and SQL profiler to better pin point the
source of the problem. I will post a new request for best resources to
understand these 2 tools..
Thanks again
"Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:eG2vRWAfGHA.4976@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> To expand on David's response, be aware that Reporting Services and SQL
> Server will compete for the same resources when both are on the same
> server. Large Reports can consume significant CPU and memory resources,
> contributing to slowness of both SQL Server and RS.
> You need to identify the immediate reason for the slowness (e.g. high CPU,
> excessive paging) so that you can more easily identify and correct the
> cause. Simply poking around for misconfigured items is like throwing
> darts blindfolded.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "msnews.microsoft.com" <breichenbach@.istate.com> wrote in message
> news:u1JmUo4eGHA.2076@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>sql
Performance Problems - HELP, PLEASE
One of my SQL2000 sp3 servers has seems to be responding slower.
Server is Win2000 SP4 running on IBM eServer xSeries 360, dual processors.
There are 58 DBs on the E Drive, and 2 DBs on the C drive, 1 of those
on the C drive is the MASTER, there are no master files on the E drive.
One of the prime functions for this server is Report services.
I began looking around after one of the report writers mentioned that things
were responding slower then in the past, I run this query >
use master
select * From sysdatabases
I get this line for Master>
master 1 0x01 0 24 1090519040 2000-08-06 01:29:12.250 1900-01-01
00:00:00.000 0 80
e:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\data\master.mdf 539
If I use EM and look at Properties for the Master DB it shows the data file
where it should be>
C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\data\master.mdf
I then ran
use master
dbcc checkdb ('master')
and there were no errors , the final line read like this>
"CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 0 consistency errors in database
'master'.
DBCC execution completed. If DBCC printed error messages, contact your
system administrator."
Any and ALL recommendations and suggestions would be most appreciated!!!"msnews.microsoft.com" <breichenbach@.istate.com> wrote in message
news:u1JmUo4eGHA.2076@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> One of my SQL2000 sp3 servers has seems to be responding slower.
> Server is Win2000 SP4 running on IBM eServer xSeries 360, dual processors.
> There are 58 DBs on the E Drive, and 2 DBs on the C drive, 1 of those
> on the C drive is the MASTER, there are no master files on the E drive.
> One of the prime functions for this server is Report services.
> I began looking around after one of the report writers mentioned that
> things were responding slower then in the past, I run this query >
> use master
> select * From sysdatabases
> I get this line for Master>
> master 1 0x01 0 24 1090519040 2000-08-06 01:29:12.250 1900-01-01
> 00:00:00.000 0 80
> e:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\data\master.mdf 539
> If I use EM and look at Properties for the Master DB it shows the data
> file where it should be>
> C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\data\master.mdf
> I then ran
> use master
> dbcc checkdb ('master')
> and there were no errors , the final line read like this>
> "CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 0 consistency errors in database
> 'master'.
> DBCC execution completed. If DBCC printed error messages, contact your
> system administrator."
> Any and ALL recommendations and suggestions would be most appreciated!!!
>
The location of the master database, as recorded in a table in the master
database is not necessarily correct. The location of the master database is
specified in the registry on the command line when starting SQL. Master, in
turn, stores the locations of all the other databses.
This is not your problem.
Davud|||> One of the prime functions for this server is Report services.
To expand on David's response, be aware that Reporting Services and SQL
Server will compete for the same resources when both are on the same server.
Large Reports can consume significant CPU and memory resources, contributing
to slowness of both SQL Server and RS.
You need to identify the immediate reason for the slowness (e.g. high CPU,
excessive paging) so that you can more easily identify and correct the
cause. Simply poking around for misconfigured items is like throwing darts
blindfolded.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"msnews.microsoft.com" <breichenbach@.istate.com> wrote in message
news:u1JmUo4eGHA.2076@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> One of my SQL2000 sp3 servers has seems to be responding slower.
> Server is Win2000 SP4 running on IBM eServer xSeries 360, dual processors.
> There are 58 DBs on the E Drive, and 2 DBs on the C drive, 1 of those
> on the C drive is the MASTER, there are no master files on the E drive.
> One of the prime functions for this server is Report services.
> I began looking around after one of the report writers mentioned that
> things were responding slower then in the past, I run this query >
> use master
> select * From sysdatabases
> I get this line for Master>
> master 1 0x01 0 24 1090519040 2000-08-06 01:29:12.250 1900-01-01
> 00:00:00.000 0 80
> e:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\data\master.mdf 539
> If I use EM and look at Properties for the Master DB it shows the data
> file where it should be>
> C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\data\master.mdf
> I then ran
> use master
> dbcc checkdb ('master')
> and there were no errors , the final line read like this>
> "CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 0 consistency errors in database
> 'master'.
> DBCC execution completed. If DBCC printed error messages, contact your
> system administrator."
> Any and ALL recommendations and suggestions would be most appreciated!!!
>|||Thank you both, very much....
You are absolutle right about throwing darts... I have started researching
how to use performance monitor and SQL profiler to better pin point the
source of the problem. I will post a new request for best resources to
understand these 2 tools..
Thanks again
"Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:eG2vRWAfGHA.4976@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> One of the prime functions for this server is Report services.
> To expand on David's response, be aware that Reporting Services and SQL
> Server will compete for the same resources when both are on the same
> server. Large Reports can consume significant CPU and memory resources,
> contributing to slowness of both SQL Server and RS.
> You need to identify the immediate reason for the slowness (e.g. high CPU,
> excessive paging) so that you can more easily identify and correct the
> cause. Simply poking around for misconfigured items is like throwing
> darts blindfolded.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "msnews.microsoft.com" <breichenbach@.istate.com> wrote in message
> news:u1JmUo4eGHA.2076@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> One of my SQL2000 sp3 servers has seems to be responding slower.
>> Server is Win2000 SP4 running on IBM eServer xSeries 360, dual
>> processors.
>> There are 58 DBs on the E Drive, and 2 DBs on the C drive, 1 of those
>> on the C drive is the MASTER, there are no master files on the E drive.
>> One of the prime functions for this server is Report services.
>> I began looking around after one of the report writers mentioned that
>> things were responding slower then in the past, I run this query >
>> use master
>> select * From sysdatabases
>> I get this line for Master>
>> master 1 0x01 0 24 1090519040 2000-08-06 01:29:12.250 1900-01-01
>> 00:00:00.000 0 80
>> e:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\data\master.mdf 539
>> If I use EM and look at Properties for the Master DB it shows the data
>> file where it should be>
>> C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\data\master.mdf
>> I then ran
>> use master
>> dbcc checkdb ('master')
>> and there were no errors , the final line read like this>
>> "CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 0 consistency errors in database
>> 'master'.
>> DBCC execution completed. If DBCC printed error messages, contact your
>> system administrator."
>> Any and ALL recommendations and suggestions would be most appreciated!!!
>>
>
Server is Win2000 SP4 running on IBM eServer xSeries 360, dual processors.
There are 58 DBs on the E Drive, and 2 DBs on the C drive, 1 of those
on the C drive is the MASTER, there are no master files on the E drive.
One of the prime functions for this server is Report services.
I began looking around after one of the report writers mentioned that things
were responding slower then in the past, I run this query >
use master
select * From sysdatabases
I get this line for Master>
master 1 0x01 0 24 1090519040 2000-08-06 01:29:12.250 1900-01-01
00:00:00.000 0 80
e:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\data\master.mdf 539
If I use EM and look at Properties for the Master DB it shows the data file
where it should be>
C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\data\master.mdf
I then ran
use master
dbcc checkdb ('master')
and there were no errors , the final line read like this>
"CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 0 consistency errors in database
'master'.
DBCC execution completed. If DBCC printed error messages, contact your
system administrator."
Any and ALL recommendations and suggestions would be most appreciated!!!"msnews.microsoft.com" <breichenbach@.istate.com> wrote in message
news:u1JmUo4eGHA.2076@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> One of my SQL2000 sp3 servers has seems to be responding slower.
> Server is Win2000 SP4 running on IBM eServer xSeries 360, dual processors.
> There are 58 DBs on the E Drive, and 2 DBs on the C drive, 1 of those
> on the C drive is the MASTER, there are no master files on the E drive.
> One of the prime functions for this server is Report services.
> I began looking around after one of the report writers mentioned that
> things were responding slower then in the past, I run this query >
> use master
> select * From sysdatabases
> I get this line for Master>
> master 1 0x01 0 24 1090519040 2000-08-06 01:29:12.250 1900-01-01
> 00:00:00.000 0 80
> e:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\data\master.mdf 539
> If I use EM and look at Properties for the Master DB it shows the data
> file where it should be>
> C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\data\master.mdf
> I then ran
> use master
> dbcc checkdb ('master')
> and there were no errors , the final line read like this>
> "CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 0 consistency errors in database
> 'master'.
> DBCC execution completed. If DBCC printed error messages, contact your
> system administrator."
> Any and ALL recommendations and suggestions would be most appreciated!!!
>
The location of the master database, as recorded in a table in the master
database is not necessarily correct. The location of the master database is
specified in the registry on the command line when starting SQL. Master, in
turn, stores the locations of all the other databses.
This is not your problem.
Davud|||> One of the prime functions for this server is Report services.
To expand on David's response, be aware that Reporting Services and SQL
Server will compete for the same resources when both are on the same server.
Large Reports can consume significant CPU and memory resources, contributing
to slowness of both SQL Server and RS.
You need to identify the immediate reason for the slowness (e.g. high CPU,
excessive paging) so that you can more easily identify and correct the
cause. Simply poking around for misconfigured items is like throwing darts
blindfolded.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"msnews.microsoft.com" <breichenbach@.istate.com> wrote in message
news:u1JmUo4eGHA.2076@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> One of my SQL2000 sp3 servers has seems to be responding slower.
> Server is Win2000 SP4 running on IBM eServer xSeries 360, dual processors.
> There are 58 DBs on the E Drive, and 2 DBs on the C drive, 1 of those
> on the C drive is the MASTER, there are no master files on the E drive.
> One of the prime functions for this server is Report services.
> I began looking around after one of the report writers mentioned that
> things were responding slower then in the past, I run this query >
> use master
> select * From sysdatabases
> I get this line for Master>
> master 1 0x01 0 24 1090519040 2000-08-06 01:29:12.250 1900-01-01
> 00:00:00.000 0 80
> e:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\data\master.mdf 539
> If I use EM and look at Properties for the Master DB it shows the data
> file where it should be>
> C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\data\master.mdf
> I then ran
> use master
> dbcc checkdb ('master')
> and there were no errors , the final line read like this>
> "CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 0 consistency errors in database
> 'master'.
> DBCC execution completed. If DBCC printed error messages, contact your
> system administrator."
> Any and ALL recommendations and suggestions would be most appreciated!!!
>|||Thank you both, very much....
You are absolutle right about throwing darts... I have started researching
how to use performance monitor and SQL profiler to better pin point the
source of the problem. I will post a new request for best resources to
understand these 2 tools..
Thanks again
"Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:eG2vRWAfGHA.4976@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> One of the prime functions for this server is Report services.
> To expand on David's response, be aware that Reporting Services and SQL
> Server will compete for the same resources when both are on the same
> server. Large Reports can consume significant CPU and memory resources,
> contributing to slowness of both SQL Server and RS.
> You need to identify the immediate reason for the slowness (e.g. high CPU,
> excessive paging) so that you can more easily identify and correct the
> cause. Simply poking around for misconfigured items is like throwing
> darts blindfolded.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "msnews.microsoft.com" <breichenbach@.istate.com> wrote in message
> news:u1JmUo4eGHA.2076@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> One of my SQL2000 sp3 servers has seems to be responding slower.
>> Server is Win2000 SP4 running on IBM eServer xSeries 360, dual
>> processors.
>> There are 58 DBs on the E Drive, and 2 DBs on the C drive, 1 of those
>> on the C drive is the MASTER, there are no master files on the E drive.
>> One of the prime functions for this server is Report services.
>> I began looking around after one of the report writers mentioned that
>> things were responding slower then in the past, I run this query >
>> use master
>> select * From sysdatabases
>> I get this line for Master>
>> master 1 0x01 0 24 1090519040 2000-08-06 01:29:12.250 1900-01-01
>> 00:00:00.000 0 80
>> e:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\data\master.mdf 539
>> If I use EM and look at Properties for the Master DB it shows the data
>> file where it should be>
>> C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\data\master.mdf
>> I then ran
>> use master
>> dbcc checkdb ('master')
>> and there were no errors , the final line read like this>
>> "CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 0 consistency errors in database
>> 'master'.
>> DBCC execution completed. If DBCC printed error messages, contact your
>> system administrator."
>> Any and ALL recommendations and suggestions would be most appreciated!!!
>>
>
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)