I have a Windows Server 2003 with SQL server 2000
installed. Whenever I view the Task Manager/Processes I
see three entires for the sqlservr.exe process. I am
thinking this is not normal and must be causing certain
performance issues I am facing. Whenever the server has
been up for a few hours the server starts getting slower.
If I reboot the server everything stays fine for a few
hours but then it starts slowing down. I have 2GB of RAM
on the server, about 20 Gigs free space on the C: drive
and about 120 Gigs free space on the data drive. All the
database files are stored on the data drive. Any help or
pointers in the right direction would be greatly
appreciated.
LakshmanHow many services whose name starts "MSSQL" do you see when you look in
Services ?
--
HTH
Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
I support PASS - the definitive, global
community for SQL Server professionals -
http://www.sqlpass.org
"Lakshman" <hlokku@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2a3801c3fc98$efbaef60$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have a Windows Server 2003 with SQL server 2000
> installed. Whenever I view the Task Manager/Processes I
> see three entires for the sqlservr.exe process. I am
> thinking this is not normal and must be causing certain
> performance issues I am facing. Whenever the server has
> been up for a few hours the server starts getting slower.
> If I reboot the server everything stays fine for a few
> hours but then it starts slowing down. I have 2GB of RAM
> on the server, about 20 Gigs free space on the C: drive
> and about 120 Gigs free space on the data drive. All the
> database files are stored on the data drive. Any help or
> pointers in the right direction would be greatly
> appreciated.
> Lakshman|||Hello Lakshman,
Please monitor the following.
Memory\Available Bytes (Threshold<4MB)
Memory\Pages/sec (Threshold>20)
PageFile\ % Usage (Threshold>70%)
Physical Disk\Avg. Disk Queue Length ( Threshold: > 1.5 x # of spindles )
Physical Disk\% Disk Time (Threshold: >90% )
SQLServer:Memory Manager/Total Server Memory (per instance)
Also make sure your patch level is up to date on the SQL server and the OS.
Did you install any extended stored procs?
"Lakshman" <hlokku@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2a3801c3fc98$efbaef60$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have a Windows Server 2003 with SQL server 2000
> installed. Whenever I view the Task Manager/Processes I
> see three entires for the sqlservr.exe process. I am
> thinking this is not normal and must be causing certain
> performance issues I am facing. Whenever the server has
> been up for a few hours the server starts getting slower.
> If I reboot the server everything stays fine for a few
> hours but then it starts slowing down. I have 2GB of RAM
> on the server, about 20 Gigs free space on the C: drive
> and about 120 Gigs free space on the data drive. All the
> database files are stored on the data drive. Any help or
> pointers in the right direction would be greatly
> appreciated.
> Lakshman|||I do not see any processes with "MSSQL" but there are 2
processes that say "sqlmangr.exe"
Lakshman.
>--Original Message--
>How many services whose name starts "MSSQL" do you see
when you look in
>Services ?
>--
>HTH
>Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
>I support PASS - the definitive, global
>community for SQL Server professionals -
>http://www.sqlpass.org
>
>"Lakshman" <hlokku@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:2a3801c3fc98$efbaef60$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
>> I have a Windows Server 2003 with SQL server 2000
>> installed. Whenever I view the Task Manager/Processes I
>> see three entires for the sqlservr.exe process. I am
>> thinking this is not normal and must be causing certain
>> performance issues I am facing. Whenever the server has
>> been up for a few hours the server starts getting
slower.
>> If I reboot the server everything stays fine for a few
>> hours but then it starts slowing down. I have 2GB of RAM
>> on the server, about 20 Gigs free space on the C: drive
>> and about 120 Gigs free space on the data drive. All the
>> database files are stored on the data drive. Any help or
>> pointers in the right direction would be greatly
>> appreciated.
>> Lakshman
>
>.
>|||He was referring to Services:
Start -> Settings -> Control Panel -> Administrative Tools -> Services
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:294a01c3fca6$83b713d0$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> I do not see any processes with "MSSQL" but there are 2
> processes that say "sqlmangr.exe"
> Lakshman.
> >--Original Message--
> >How many services whose name starts "MSSQL" do you see
> when you look in
> >Services ?
> >
> >--
> >HTH
> >
> >Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
> >
> >I support PASS - the definitive, global
> >community for SQL Server professionals -
> >http://www.sqlpass.org
> >
> >
> >"Lakshman" <hlokku@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:2a3801c3fc98$efbaef60$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> >> I have a Windows Server 2003 with SQL server 2000
> >> installed. Whenever I view the Task Manager/Processes I
> >> see three entires for the sqlservr.exe process. I am
> >> thinking this is not normal and must be causing certain
> >> performance issues I am facing. Whenever the server has
> >> been up for a few hours the server starts getting
> slower.
> >> If I reboot the server everything stays fine for a few
> >> hours but then it starts slowing down. I have 2GB of RAM
> >> on the server, about 20 Gigs free space on the C: drive
> >> and about 120 Gigs free space on the data drive. All the
> >> database files are stored on the data drive. Any help or
> >> pointers in the right direction would be greatly
> >> appreciated.
> >> Lakshman
> >
> >
> >.
> >|||If you have multiple sqlservr.exe process showing up then you have multiple
instances of SQL Server running on this server. There are a multitude of
applications that install a copy of MSDE 2000 and use it as a data store.
If you did not purposely install the instances of SQL Server then more than
like other applications did. BackUp Exec uses MSDE, so if you have it
installed on this server that would explain one of the instances.
As Adam said, check:
Start -> Settings -> Control Panel -> Administrative Tools -> Services
You should see multiple services that start with MSSQL.
Rand
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.
Showing posts with label installed. Show all posts
Showing posts with label installed. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Multiple instances : WSUS and ProtectionPilot
Hi,
I first installed sucessfully WSUS on my Win2000 Adv Server (SP4).
Then, I would like to install McAfee ProtectionPilot which
also uses MSDE.
It seems that I cannot install multiple DB instances on MSDE.
Is that true ?
TIA.
Eric
hi Eric,
user@.domain.invalid wrote:
> Hi,
> I first installed sucessfully WSUS on my Win2000 Adv Server (SP4).
> Then, I would like to install McAfee ProtectionPilot which
> also uses MSDE.
> It seems that I cannot install multiple DB instances on MSDE.
> Is that true ?
you can (actually could, never tried my self) to register up to 32767
databases per each SQL Server/MSDE 2000 instance...
and each server can host up to 16 different instances of SQL Server/MSDE
2000, where 1 can be the default instance and the other have to be named
instances..
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...setup_2xmb.asp
Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtmhttp://italy.mvps.org
DbaMgr2k ver 0.15.0 - DbaMgr ver 0.60.0
(my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a visual
interface)
-- remove DMO to reply
I first installed sucessfully WSUS on my Win2000 Adv Server (SP4).
Then, I would like to install McAfee ProtectionPilot which
also uses MSDE.
It seems that I cannot install multiple DB instances on MSDE.
Is that true ?
TIA.
Eric
hi Eric,
user@.domain.invalid wrote:
> Hi,
> I first installed sucessfully WSUS on my Win2000 Adv Server (SP4).
> Then, I would like to install McAfee ProtectionPilot which
> also uses MSDE.
> It seems that I cannot install multiple DB instances on MSDE.
> Is that true ?
you can (actually could, never tried my self) to register up to 32767
databases per each SQL Server/MSDE 2000 instance...
and each server can host up to 16 different instances of SQL Server/MSDE
2000, where 1 can be the default instance and the other have to be named
instances..
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...setup_2xmb.asp
Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtmhttp://italy.mvps.org
DbaMgr2k ver 0.15.0 - DbaMgr ver 0.60.0
(my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a visual
interface)
-- remove DMO to reply
Monday, March 26, 2012
Multiple Instance & Licensing
Can multiple instances of SQL Server be installed on the same machine under the same license?For example, a named instanced called WAREHOUSE and another called CHGMGMTSYS.
Yes, you can run multiple instances under the same license. For more detailed license info, check out this link:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/default.mspx
Thanks,
Sam Lester (MSFT)
Multiple installions of SQL Server
We have previously installed 2 applications on our server that automatically installed there own instances of MSDE.
We have also subsequently installed a further application that automatically installed its own instance of SQL Server 2005 Express.
We have now installed for our own use SQL Server 2005 Workgroup edition.
Hence we have now ended up with many versions/editions/instances of SQL Server installed and running.
I am concerened this is effecting the overall performance of the server.
Is there any way to consolidate all this to one installation (ideally the SQL Server 2005 Workgroup edition)?
Thanks
of course , it may create chaos.When you have many instances running(i assume that on single physical machine) it may create a memory contention. You can keep a instance and you can use detach /attach or Backup/restore method to transfer database from other instance database to this instance and later remove the unwanted instances.
Madhu
|||
Thank you for the reply.
Yes I thought it may cause problems.
Two further questions:
If I uninstall the applications that have installed their own instances of MSDE and SQL Server 2005 Express and then reinstall them now we have SQL Server 2005 Workgroup edition installed, would they automatically attach themselves to this instance rather than creating their own?
Is it possible to do what you suggest above and have all using one instance even for the MSDE applications?
Thanks
|||no it will not attach automatically, you need to attach the database using sp_attach_db. Once it is attached its permanent. I guess , you uses User instance of sql server express. In that case , you need to change the connection string once you have attached that database to workgroup edtion.
Madhu
|||OK thank you.
What about the MSDE instances? Can they be attached too? I notice we have instances for SBS 2003 services such as WSUS as well as for our two applications that use MSDE.
sqlMonday, March 12, 2012
multiple databases per instance
Hello All,
Anyone know how many seperate databases can be installed
on an instance of SQL Server?
thanks32,767 per instance...theoretically anyway.
-Sue
On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 10:53:24 -0800, "Jason"
<jafinck@.pplweb.com> wrote:
>Hello All,
>Anyone know how many seperate databases can be installed
>on an instance of SQL Server?
>thanks|||Thanks Sue
>--Original Message--
>32,767 per instance...theoretically anyway.
>-Sue
>On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 10:53:24 -0800, "Jason"
><jafinck@.pplweb.com> wrote:
>>Hello All,
>>Anyone know how many seperate databases can be installed
>>on an instance of SQL Server?
>>thanks
>.
>
Anyone know how many seperate databases can be installed
on an instance of SQL Server?
thanks32,767 per instance...theoretically anyway.
-Sue
On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 10:53:24 -0800, "Jason"
<jafinck@.pplweb.com> wrote:
>Hello All,
>Anyone know how many seperate databases can be installed
>on an instance of SQL Server?
>thanks|||Thanks Sue
>--Original Message--
>32,767 per instance...theoretically anyway.
>-Sue
>On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 10:53:24 -0800, "Jason"
><jafinck@.pplweb.com> wrote:
>>Hello All,
>>Anyone know how many seperate databases can be installed
>>on an instance of SQL Server?
>>thanks
>.
>
Multiple Databases on SQL
I'm a SQL newbie, so please be kind. I have just recently installed SQL as a
part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very Important to
the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email archiving
solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1 Xeon
3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load can SQL
stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on the
server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for running
the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own Exchange
server.
Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.
> even a single query can be paralized over several processors.
Paralized (paralyzed) means the opposite of what you're trying to say, I
think.
;-)
How about parallelized?
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.InsideSQLServer.com
http://blog.kalendelaney.com
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:5E7AC07B-52B5-4354-9066-1AF25AB6023E@.microsoft.com...
> No, that is not true. SQL Server has many threads, and even a single query
> can be paralized over several processors.
> It is impossible to say how much machine you need for "two applications",
> since each application is different. You can look at resource usage for
> your current app (memory, disk, network, processor) and try to determine
> whether you have resources left for the other app. You would of course
> need to know about resource usage for that other app in order to know
> whether it will fit.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>
> "maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
>
|||> It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1
> Xeon
> 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is
To add on the other responses, SQL Server can also use multiple processors
to process multiple queries concurrently. This is especially important in
an environment with many concurrent users and/or long- running queries.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/dang/
"maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
> I'm a SQL newbie, so please be kind. I have just recently installed SQL as
> a
> part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very Important
> to
> the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email
> archiving
> solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
> performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
> It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1
> Xeon
> 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load can
> SQL
> stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on
> the
> server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for
> running
> the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own Exchange
> server.
> Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.
|||I even wrote a blog post about getting this word wrong, whether is
misspelling or misspeaking...
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/kalen_delaney/archive/2007/07/29/geek-city-total-paralysis.aspx
:-)
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.InsideSQLServer.com
http://blog.kalendelaney.com
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:6702E3AB-59D3-46A0-9A31-A0C509659B66@.microsoft.com...
> Yep, that was the one I was thinking of. Thanks.
> This is one of those I never seem to get the right spelling for. My spell
> check found this type, but my finger pressed "Ignore" and it got sent
> before it reached my brain-cells. :-)
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>
> "Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
> news:u0hQEVHcIHA.5712@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
|||"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote
in news:5E7AC07B-52B5-4354-9066-1AF25AB6023E@.microsoft.com:
> No, that is not true. SQL Server has many threads, and even a single
> query can be paralized over several processors.
I agree with Tibor. My servers are often paralized.
Thanks for all your input over the years Tibor, but I couldn't resist.
|||Thanks to all of you who responded. Obviously, I got some bad info. Thanks
for clearing that up.
"Dan Guzman" wrote:
> To add on the other responses, SQL Server can also use multiple processors
> to process multiple queries concurrently. This is especially important in
> an environment with many concurrent users and/or long- running queries.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/dang/
> "maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
>
part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very Important to
the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email archiving
solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1 Xeon
3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load can SQL
stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on the
server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for running
the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own Exchange
server.
Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.
> even a single query can be paralized over several processors.
Paralized (paralyzed) means the opposite of what you're trying to say, I
think.
;-)
How about parallelized?
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.InsideSQLServer.com
http://blog.kalendelaney.com
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:5E7AC07B-52B5-4354-9066-1AF25AB6023E@.microsoft.com...
> No, that is not true. SQL Server has many threads, and even a single query
> can be paralized over several processors.
> It is impossible to say how much machine you need for "two applications",
> since each application is different. You can look at resource usage for
> your current app (memory, disk, network, processor) and try to determine
> whether you have resources left for the other app. You would of course
> need to know about resource usage for that other app in order to know
> whether it will fit.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>
> "maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
>
|||> It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1
> Xeon
> 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is
To add on the other responses, SQL Server can also use multiple processors
to process multiple queries concurrently. This is especially important in
an environment with many concurrent users and/or long- running queries.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/dang/
"maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
> I'm a SQL newbie, so please be kind. I have just recently installed SQL as
> a
> part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very Important
> to
> the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email
> archiving
> solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
> performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
> It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1
> Xeon
> 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load can
> SQL
> stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on
> the
> server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for
> running
> the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own Exchange
> server.
> Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.
|||I even wrote a blog post about getting this word wrong, whether is
misspelling or misspeaking...
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/kalen_delaney/archive/2007/07/29/geek-city-total-paralysis.aspx
:-)
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.InsideSQLServer.com
http://blog.kalendelaney.com
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:6702E3AB-59D3-46A0-9A31-A0C509659B66@.microsoft.com...
> Yep, that was the one I was thinking of. Thanks.
> This is one of those I never seem to get the right spelling for. My spell
> check found this type, but my finger pressed "Ignore" and it got sent
> before it reached my brain-cells. :-)
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>
> "Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
> news:u0hQEVHcIHA.5712@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
|||"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote
in news:5E7AC07B-52B5-4354-9066-1AF25AB6023E@.microsoft.com:
> No, that is not true. SQL Server has many threads, and even a single
> query can be paralized over several processors.
I agree with Tibor. My servers are often paralized.
Thanks for all your input over the years Tibor, but I couldn't resist.
|||Thanks to all of you who responded. Obviously, I got some bad info. Thanks
for clearing that up.
"Dan Guzman" wrote:
> To add on the other responses, SQL Server can also use multiple processors
> to process multiple queries concurrently. This is especially important in
> an environment with many concurrent users and/or long- running queries.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/dang/
> "maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
>
Multiple Databases on SQL
I'm a SQL newbie, so please be kind. I have just recently installed SQL as a
part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very Important to
the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email archiving
solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1 Xeon
3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load can SQL
stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on the
server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for running
the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own Exchange
server.
Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.> I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true?
No, that is not true. SQL Server has many threads, and even a single query can be paralized over
several processors.
It is impossible to say how much machine you need for "two applications", since each application is
different. You can look at resource usage for your current app (memory, disk, network, processor)
and try to determine whether you have resources left for the other app. You would of course need to
know about resource usage for that other app in order to know whether it will fit.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
> I'm a SQL newbie, so please be kind. I have just recently installed SQL as a
> part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very Important to
> the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email archiving
> solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
> performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
> It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1 Xeon
> 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load can SQL
> stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on the
> server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for running
> the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own Exchange
> server.
> Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.|||> even a single query can be paralized over several processors.
Paralized (paralyzed) means the opposite of what you're trying to say, I
think.
;-)
How about parallelized?
--
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.InsideSQLServer.com
http://blog.kalendelaney.com
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:5E7AC07B-52B5-4354-9066-1AF25AB6023E@.microsoft.com...
>> I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
>> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true?
> No, that is not true. SQL Server has many threads, and even a single query
> can be paralized over several processors.
> It is impossible to say how much machine you need for "two applications",
> since each application is different. You can look at resource usage for
> your current app (memory, disk, network, processor) and try to determine
> whether you have resources left for the other app. You would of course
> need to know about resource usage for that other app in order to know
> whether it will fit.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>
> "maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
>> I'm a SQL newbie, so please be kind. I have just recently installed SQL
>> as a
>> part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very
>> Important to
>> the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email
>> archiving
>> solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
>> performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
>> It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1
>> Xeon
>> 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
>> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load can
>> SQL
>> stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on
>> the
>> server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for
>> running
>> the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own
>> Exchange
>> server.
>> Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.
>|||> It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1
> Xeon
> 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is
To add on the other responses, SQL Server can also use multiple processors
to process multiple queries concurrently. This is especially important in
an environment with many concurrent users and/or long- running queries.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/dang/
"maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
> I'm a SQL newbie, so please be kind. I have just recently installed SQL as
> a
> part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very Important
> to
> the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email
> archiving
> solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
> performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
> It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1
> Xeon
> 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load can
> SQL
> stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on
> the
> server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for
> running
> the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own Exchange
> server.
> Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.|||> How about parallelized?
Yep, that was the one I was thinking of. Thanks.
This is one of those I never seem to get the right spelling for. My spell check found this type, but
my finger pressed "Ignore" and it got sent before it reached my brain-cells. :-)
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:u0hQEVHcIHA.5712@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> even a single query can be paralized over several processors.
> Paralized (paralyzed) means the opposite of what you're trying to say, I think.
> ;-)
> How about parallelized?
> --
> HTH
> Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
> www.InsideSQLServer.com
> http://blog.kalendelaney.com
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:5E7AC07B-52B5-4354-9066-1AF25AB6023E@.microsoft.com...
>> I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
>> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true?
>> No, that is not true. SQL Server has many threads, and even a single query can be paralized over
>> several processors.
>> It is impossible to say how much machine you need for "two applications", since each application
>> is different. You can look at resource usage for your current app (memory, disk, network,
>> processor) and try to determine whether you have resources left for the other app. You would of
>> course need to know about resource usage for that other app in order to know whether it will fit.
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>>
>> "maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
>> I'm a SQL newbie, so please be kind. I have just recently installed SQL as a
>> part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very Important to
>> the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email archiving
>> solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
>> performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
>> It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1 Xeon
>> 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
>> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load can SQL
>> stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on the
>> server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for running
>> the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own Exchange
>> server.
>> Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.
>|||I even wrote a blog post about getting this word wrong, whether is
misspelling or misspeaking...
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/kalen_delaney/archive/2007/07/29/geek-city-total-paralysis.aspx
:-)
--
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.InsideSQLServer.com
http://blog.kalendelaney.com
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:6702E3AB-59D3-46A0-9A31-A0C509659B66@.microsoft.com...
>> How about parallelized?
> Yep, that was the one I was thinking of. Thanks.
> This is one of those I never seem to get the right spelling for. My spell
> check found this type, but my finger pressed "Ignore" and it got sent
> before it reached my brain-cells. :-)
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>
> "Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
> news:u0hQEVHcIHA.5712@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> even a single query can be paralized over several processors.
>> Paralized (paralyzed) means the opposite of what you're trying to say, I
>> think.
>> ;-)
>> How about parallelized?
>> --
>> HTH
>> Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
>> www.InsideSQLServer.com
>> http://blog.kalendelaney.com
>>
>> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote
>> in message news:5E7AC07B-52B5-4354-9066-1AF25AB6023E@.microsoft.com...
>> I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
>> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true?
>> No, that is not true. SQL Server has many threads, and even a single
>> query can be paralized over several processors.
>> It is impossible to say how much machine you need for "two
>> applications", since each application is different. You can look at
>> resource usage for your current app (memory, disk, network, processor)
>> and try to determine whether you have resources left for the other app.
>> You would of course need to know about resource usage for that other app
>> in order to know whether it will fit.
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>>
>> "maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
>> I'm a SQL newbie, so please be kind. I have just recently installed SQL
>> as a
>> part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very
>> Important to
>> the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email
>> archiving
>> solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
>> performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
>> It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1
>> Xeon
>> 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so
>> adding
>> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load
>> can SQL
>> stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on
>> the
>> server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for
>> running
>> the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own
>> Exchange
>> server.
>> Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.
>>
>|||"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote
in news:5E7AC07B-52B5-4354-9066-1AF25AB6023E@.microsoft.com:
> No, that is not true. SQL Server has many threads, and even a single
> query can be paralized over several processors.
I agree with Tibor. My servers are often paralized.
Thanks for all your input over the years Tibor, but I couldn't resist.|||> Thanks for all your input over the years Tibor, but I couldn't resist.
I don't mind. Glad I've been of some help.
:-)
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"David Henson" <dhenson@.certifiednetworks.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A465E020FBBCdhensoncertifiednetw@.64.74.227.2...
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote
> in news:5E7AC07B-52B5-4354-9066-1AF25AB6023E@.microsoft.com:
>> No, that is not true. SQL Server has many threads, and even a single
>> query can be paralized over several processors.
> I agree with Tibor. My servers are often paralized.
>
> Thanks for all your input over the years Tibor, but I couldn't resist.|||Thanks to all of you who responded. Obviously, I got some bad info. Thanks
for clearing that up.
"Dan Guzman" wrote:
> > It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1
> > Xeon
> > 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
> > processors wouldn't improve performance. Is
> To add on the other responses, SQL Server can also use multiple processors
> to process multiple queries concurrently. This is especially important in
> an environment with many concurrent users and/or long- running queries.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/dang/
> "maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
> > I'm a SQL newbie, so please be kind. I have just recently installed SQL as
> > a
> > part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very Important
> > to
> > the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email
> > archiving
> > solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
> > performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
> > It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1
> > Xeon
> > 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
> > processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load can
> > SQL
> > stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on
> > the
> > server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for
> > running
> > the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own Exchange
> > server.
> > Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.
>
part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very Important to
the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email archiving
solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1 Xeon
3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load can SQL
stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on the
server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for running
the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own Exchange
server.
Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.> I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true?
No, that is not true. SQL Server has many threads, and even a single query can be paralized over
several processors.
It is impossible to say how much machine you need for "two applications", since each application is
different. You can look at resource usage for your current app (memory, disk, network, processor)
and try to determine whether you have resources left for the other app. You would of course need to
know about resource usage for that other app in order to know whether it will fit.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
> I'm a SQL newbie, so please be kind. I have just recently installed SQL as a
> part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very Important to
> the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email archiving
> solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
> performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
> It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1 Xeon
> 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load can SQL
> stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on the
> server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for running
> the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own Exchange
> server.
> Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.|||> even a single query can be paralized over several processors.
Paralized (paralyzed) means the opposite of what you're trying to say, I
think.
;-)
How about parallelized?
--
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.InsideSQLServer.com
http://blog.kalendelaney.com
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:5E7AC07B-52B5-4354-9066-1AF25AB6023E@.microsoft.com...
>> I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
>> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true?
> No, that is not true. SQL Server has many threads, and even a single query
> can be paralized over several processors.
> It is impossible to say how much machine you need for "two applications",
> since each application is different. You can look at resource usage for
> your current app (memory, disk, network, processor) and try to determine
> whether you have resources left for the other app. You would of course
> need to know about resource usage for that other app in order to know
> whether it will fit.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>
> "maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
>> I'm a SQL newbie, so please be kind. I have just recently installed SQL
>> as a
>> part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very
>> Important to
>> the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email
>> archiving
>> solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
>> performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
>> It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1
>> Xeon
>> 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
>> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load can
>> SQL
>> stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on
>> the
>> server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for
>> running
>> the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own
>> Exchange
>> server.
>> Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.
>|||> It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1
> Xeon
> 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is
To add on the other responses, SQL Server can also use multiple processors
to process multiple queries concurrently. This is especially important in
an environment with many concurrent users and/or long- running queries.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/dang/
"maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
> I'm a SQL newbie, so please be kind. I have just recently installed SQL as
> a
> part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very Important
> to
> the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email
> archiving
> solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
> performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
> It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1
> Xeon
> 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load can
> SQL
> stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on
> the
> server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for
> running
> the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own Exchange
> server.
> Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.|||> How about parallelized?
Yep, that was the one I was thinking of. Thanks.
This is one of those I never seem to get the right spelling for. My spell check found this type, but
my finger pressed "Ignore" and it got sent before it reached my brain-cells. :-)
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:u0hQEVHcIHA.5712@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> even a single query can be paralized over several processors.
> Paralized (paralyzed) means the opposite of what you're trying to say, I think.
> ;-)
> How about parallelized?
> --
> HTH
> Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
> www.InsideSQLServer.com
> http://blog.kalendelaney.com
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:5E7AC07B-52B5-4354-9066-1AF25AB6023E@.microsoft.com...
>> I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
>> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true?
>> No, that is not true. SQL Server has many threads, and even a single query can be paralized over
>> several processors.
>> It is impossible to say how much machine you need for "two applications", since each application
>> is different. You can look at resource usage for your current app (memory, disk, network,
>> processor) and try to determine whether you have resources left for the other app. You would of
>> course need to know about resource usage for that other app in order to know whether it will fit.
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>>
>> "maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
>> I'm a SQL newbie, so please be kind. I have just recently installed SQL as a
>> part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very Important to
>> the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email archiving
>> solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
>> performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
>> It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1 Xeon
>> 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
>> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load can SQL
>> stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on the
>> server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for running
>> the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own Exchange
>> server.
>> Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.
>|||I even wrote a blog post about getting this word wrong, whether is
misspelling or misspeaking...
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/kalen_delaney/archive/2007/07/29/geek-city-total-paralysis.aspx
:-)
--
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.InsideSQLServer.com
http://blog.kalendelaney.com
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:6702E3AB-59D3-46A0-9A31-A0C509659B66@.microsoft.com...
>> How about parallelized?
> Yep, that was the one I was thinking of. Thanks.
> This is one of those I never seem to get the right spelling for. My spell
> check found this type, but my finger pressed "Ignore" and it got sent
> before it reached my brain-cells. :-)
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>
> "Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
> news:u0hQEVHcIHA.5712@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> even a single query can be paralized over several processors.
>> Paralized (paralyzed) means the opposite of what you're trying to say, I
>> think.
>> ;-)
>> How about parallelized?
>> --
>> HTH
>> Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
>> www.InsideSQLServer.com
>> http://blog.kalendelaney.com
>>
>> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote
>> in message news:5E7AC07B-52B5-4354-9066-1AF25AB6023E@.microsoft.com...
>> I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
>> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true?
>> No, that is not true. SQL Server has many threads, and even a single
>> query can be paralized over several processors.
>> It is impossible to say how much machine you need for "two
>> applications", since each application is different. You can look at
>> resource usage for your current app (memory, disk, network, processor)
>> and try to determine whether you have resources left for the other app.
>> You would of course need to know about resource usage for that other app
>> in order to know whether it will fit.
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>>
>> "maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
>> I'm a SQL newbie, so please be kind. I have just recently installed SQL
>> as a
>> part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very
>> Important to
>> the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email
>> archiving
>> solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
>> performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
>> It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1
>> Xeon
>> 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so
>> adding
>> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load
>> can SQL
>> stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on
>> the
>> server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for
>> running
>> the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own
>> Exchange
>> server.
>> Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.
>>
>|||"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote
in news:5E7AC07B-52B5-4354-9066-1AF25AB6023E@.microsoft.com:
> No, that is not true. SQL Server has many threads, and even a single
> query can be paralized over several processors.
I agree with Tibor. My servers are often paralized.
Thanks for all your input over the years Tibor, but I couldn't resist.|||> Thanks for all your input over the years Tibor, but I couldn't resist.
I don't mind. Glad I've been of some help.
:-)
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"David Henson" <dhenson@.certifiednetworks.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A465E020FBBCdhensoncertifiednetw@.64.74.227.2...
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote
> in news:5E7AC07B-52B5-4354-9066-1AF25AB6023E@.microsoft.com:
>> No, that is not true. SQL Server has many threads, and even a single
>> query can be paralized over several processors.
> I agree with Tibor. My servers are often paralized.
>
> Thanks for all your input over the years Tibor, but I couldn't resist.|||Thanks to all of you who responded. Obviously, I got some bad info. Thanks
for clearing that up.
"Dan Guzman" wrote:
> > It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1
> > Xeon
> > 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
> > processors wouldn't improve performance. Is
> To add on the other responses, SQL Server can also use multiple processors
> to process multiple queries concurrently. This is especially important in
> an environment with many concurrent users and/or long- running queries.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/dang/
> "maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
> > I'm a SQL newbie, so please be kind. I have just recently installed SQL as
> > a
> > part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very Important
> > to
> > the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email
> > archiving
> > solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
> > performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
> > It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1
> > Xeon
> > 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
> > processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load can
> > SQL
> > stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on
> > the
> > server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for
> > running
> > the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own Exchange
> > server.
> > Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.
>
Friday, March 9, 2012
multiple customers on the same reporting server.
Hi,
I think this is a question for the specialists among us.
Can I use one general reporting server (installed on instance
MAINREPORTING)
for multiple customers who all have their own sql instance (CUST1,
CUST2, CUST3, ..)
I would user UserAuthenciation on the reportserver url to display the
reports specific customers
can use.
Is this possible, and what do i have to take care off concerning
installation and/or configuration (especially on
the reporting side).
Greetings
VinnieWhat you want to do is have your data source based on an expression. The
problem with this is that you have to design all your reports this way and
the data source cannot be a shared data source.
But, if you do design your reports this way you can have the expression be
based on the user (global variable User!UserID).
You would need a table somewhere mapping a user to a database, query that
table and use the result for the expression that the data source is based
on.
This all works only for RS 2005 (not RS 2000).
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"Vinnie" <vsempoux@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7b3fec53-bb60-4ad9-b8d3-81d9021f1831@.e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
> I think this is a question for the specialists among us.
> Can I use one general reporting server (installed on instance
> MAINREPORTING)
> for multiple customers who all have their own sql instance (CUST1,
> CUST2, CUST3, ..)
> I would user UserAuthenciation on the reportserver url to display the
> reports specific customers
> can use.
> Is this possible, and what do i have to take care off concerning
> installation and/or configuration (especially on
> the reporting side).
> Greetings
> Vinnie
I think this is a question for the specialists among us.
Can I use one general reporting server (installed on instance
MAINREPORTING)
for multiple customers who all have their own sql instance (CUST1,
CUST2, CUST3, ..)
I would user UserAuthenciation on the reportserver url to display the
reports specific customers
can use.
Is this possible, and what do i have to take care off concerning
installation and/or configuration (especially on
the reporting side).
Greetings
VinnieWhat you want to do is have your data source based on an expression. The
problem with this is that you have to design all your reports this way and
the data source cannot be a shared data source.
But, if you do design your reports this way you can have the expression be
based on the user (global variable User!UserID).
You would need a table somewhere mapping a user to a database, query that
table and use the result for the expression that the data source is based
on.
This all works only for RS 2005 (not RS 2000).
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"Vinnie" <vsempoux@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7b3fec53-bb60-4ad9-b8d3-81d9021f1831@.e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
> I think this is a question for the specialists among us.
> Can I use one general reporting server (installed on instance
> MAINREPORTING)
> for multiple customers who all have their own sql instance (CUST1,
> CUST2, CUST3, ..)
> I would user UserAuthenciation on the reportserver url to display the
> reports specific customers
> can use.
> Is this possible, and what do i have to take care off concerning
> installation and/or configuration (especially on
> the reporting side).
> Greetings
> Vinnie
Monday, February 20, 2012
Multipile Instance in MSDE
I have installed 2 MSDE 2000 engines in to the PC. one is no instance name, another one's instance name is 'TEST'.
I could use a GUI MSSQL manager to connect both with local machine.
But when I tried to connect both with other machine, I found that I only could connect either one which is start in service earlier.
My case is normal?
Are they conflict by the same network port? If yes, could I change the portnumber of the MSDE??
Thanks for your support!!Hi Walama,
I haven't used MSDE a whole lot, but it does sound like changing the port number might be the trick.
The SVRNETCN.EXE program can do that for you. SVRNETCN.EXE configures the remote protocol for your MSDE instances - but maybe you already know that because it sounds like you got at least one instance hooked up.
You can select which instance to configure, what protocol and the "Properties..." button for TCP/IP has a place to set a port number.
The program is located in your "C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\80\Tools\Bin" folder.
I posted some screen-shots of how to connect to MSDE from Enterprise Manager recently - although I haven't done the write up yet.
http://kb.xmlx.ca/article.aspx?id=10065
Hope this helps...|||Hi Scott,
Thx for you suggestion. I am changing the port number now, but I want to know that if I use the 3rd party tool to manage the database. So do you know how do I enter the portnumber for those tools??
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)