I have a query that performs strangely under different conditions as
follows:
When ran normally, it uses a clustered index scan. From the Profiler and
the IO statistics, this makes ~250,000 reads. This takes about 4 minutes to
run.
When ran with an index hint, it uses a clusted index seek and makes a
bookmark lookup of about 180,000 rows. Reads are ~1,000,000. However, this
takes only 1 minute to run.
Why is it like that? I have tried defragging the clustered index, but to no
avail. Running another query that also makes a clustered index scan makes
~250,000 reads, and takes ~ 4 minutes too.
What else can I check? Why does a query that makes less reads takes longer
to run than another that makes 4 times as many reads? I would like to avoid
having to force the hint, if I can help it.
Thx in advance.
Regards
Ray MondRay,
Do the 250K reads from the clustered index involve wide rows, so they
would access many data pages (maybe even 250,000)? With the hint, maybe
most of the million reads are from a relatively small number of pages in
the nonclustered index, and therefore from memory, not disk.
There are lots of factors involved, and sometimes there just isn't
enough information for the optimizer to choose the best plan. If you
provide some more information about your query (such as create table
statements, indexes, the actual queries and maybe even the good and bad
plans you're seeing), maybe we can give more specific help.
SK
Ray Mond wrote:
>I have a query that performs strangely under different conditions as
>follows:
>When ran normally, it uses a clustered index scan. From the Profiler and
>the IO statistics, this makes ~250,000 reads. This takes about 4 minutes t
o
>run.
>When ran with an index hint, it uses a clusted index seek and makes a
>bookmark lookup of about 180,000 rows. Reads are ~1,000,000. However, thi
s
>takes only 1 minute to run.
>Why is it like that? I have tried defragging the clustered index, but to n
o
>avail. Running another query that also makes a clustered index scan makes
>~250,000 reads, and takes ~ 4 minutes too.
>What else can I check? Why does a query that makes less reads takes longer
>to run than another that makes 4 times as many reads? I would like to avoi
d
>having to force the hint, if I can help it.
>Thx in advance.
>Regards
>Ray Mond
>
>|||Steve,
Average row size is 1,248 bytes. You are probably right, in that the
execution plan using the non-clustered index is reading data from pages
already in memory, because the data rows requested by the query are bunched
up together and not randomly distributed. Is there a way to know the actual
number of unique pages actually looked up by a query, short of peeking into
the contents of each page?
Thanks.
Regards
Ray Mond
"Steve Kass" <skass@.drew.edu> wrote in message
news:OBrtou$BEHA.2620@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Ray,
> Do the 250K reads from the clustered index involve wide rows, so they
> would access many data pages (maybe even 250,000)? With the hint, maybe
> most of the million reads are from a relatively small number of pages in
> the nonclustered index, and therefore from memory, not disk.
> There are lots of factors involved, and sometimes there just isn't
> enough information for the optimizer to choose the best plan. If you
> provide some more information about your query (such as create table
> statements, indexes, the actual queries and maybe even the good and bad
> plans you're seeing), maybe we can give more specific help.
> SK
> Ray Mond wrote:
>
to
this
no
makes
longer
avoid
>|||I don't know of a way, though maybe there's something in profiler that
I've never seen. I don't recall the details now, but I think the beta 1
release of SQL Server 2005 had some extra show statistics io column -
maybe the situation will improve in future versions of SQL Server.
SK
Ray Mond wrote:
>Steve,
>Average row size is 1,248 bytes. You are probably right, in that the
>execution plan using the non-clustered index is reading data from pages
>already in memory, because the data rows requested by the query are bunched
>up together and not randomly distributed. Is there a way to know the actua
l
>number of unique pages actually looked up by a query, short of peeking into
>the contents of each page?
>Thanks.
>
>|||Steve,
Thx. I'm using the SET STATISTICS IO output to get a ballpark figure of the
number of unique pages read.
Regards
Ray Mond
"Steve Kass" <skass@.drew.edu> wrote in message
news:%23RMkgJFCEHA.3064@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> I don't know of a way, though maybe there's something in profiler that
> I've never seen. I don't recall the details now, but I think the beta 1
> release of SQL Server 2005 had some extra show statistics io column -
> maybe the situation will improve in future versions of SQL Server.
> SK
> Ray Mond wrote:
>
bunched
actual
into
>sql
Showing posts with label clustered. Show all posts
Showing posts with label clustered. Show all posts
Monday, March 26, 2012
Monday, March 12, 2012
reindexing slow after installing SQL 2K SP4?
I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from SP3
to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The amount
of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I checked
the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes also.
Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4 hot
fix:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from SP3
to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The amount
of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I checked
the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes also.
Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?|||Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it is
running normally.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4
> hot
> fix:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
>
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from
> SP3
> to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The amount
> of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
> running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I checked
> the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes also.
> Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?
>|||That's odd. How much RAM do you have on each node and let us know whether
the /3GB switch is/isn't used.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OZ4SudcqGHA.2256@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it is
running normally.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4
> hot
> fix:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
>
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from
> SP3
> to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The amount
> of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
> running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I checked
> the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes also.
> Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?
>|||Thanks,
There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this was
actually PER Microsoft.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> That's odd. How much RAM do you have on each node and let us know whether
> the /3GB switch is/isn't used.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:OZ4SudcqGHA.2256@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
> Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
> However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
> physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it is
> running normally.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4
>> hot
>> fix:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
>>
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from
>> SP3
>> to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The
>> amount
>> of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
>> running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I
>> checked
>> the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes
>> also.
>> Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?
>>
>|||Just wanted to sure. What's odd is that it appears to run differently on
each node. Also, of the 8 GB, how much did you tell it to use for SQL
Server? Could you give us the sp_configure output for max server memory and
AWE?
Are there other processes running on one node and not the other?
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23$5lw3oqGHA.2108@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Thanks,
There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this was
actually PER Microsoft.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> That's odd. How much RAM do you have on each node and let us know whether
> the /3GB switch is/isn't used.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:OZ4SudcqGHA.2256@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
> Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
> However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
> physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it is
> running normally.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4
>> hot
>> fix:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
>>
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from
>> SP3
>> to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The
>> amount
>> of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
>> running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I
>> checked
>> the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes
>> also.
>> Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?
>>
>|||Thanks so much for your help Tom.
There are no processes running on one node that's not running on the other.
SQL Server is configured to use 6 GB - again, this was suggested by
microsoft when we were troubleshooting another problem several months back.
Here's the sp_configure output
max server memory (MB) 4 2147483647 6008
6008
awe enabled 0 1 1 1
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:%23Jp05DpqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Just wanted to sure. What's odd is that it appears to run differently on
> each node. Also, of the 8 GB, how much did you tell it to use for SQL
> Server? Could you give us the sp_configure output for max server memory
> and
> AWE?
> Are there other processes running on one node and not the other?
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%23$5lw3oqGHA.2108@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks,
> There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this
> was
> actually PER Microsoft.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> That's odd. How much RAM do you have on each node and let us know
>> whether
>> the /3GB switch is/isn't used.
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OZ4SudcqGHA.2256@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
>> Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
>> However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
>> physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it
>> is
>> running normally.
>>
>> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
>> news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4
>> hot
>> fix:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
>>
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from
>> SP3
>> to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The
>> amount
>> of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
>> running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I
>> checked
>> the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes
>> also.
>> Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?
>>
>>
>|||If I were to increase the Max Memory, would I need to restart SQL service
for it to take effect?
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:%23Jp05DpqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Just wanted to sure. What's odd is that it appears to run differently on
> each node. Also, of the 8 GB, how much did you tell it to use for SQL
> Server? Could you give us the sp_configure output for max server memory
> and
> AWE?
> Are there other processes running on one node and not the other?
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%23$5lw3oqGHA.2108@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks,
> There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this
> was
> actually PER Microsoft.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> That's odd. How much RAM do you have on each node and let us know
>> whether
>> the /3GB switch is/isn't used.
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OZ4SudcqGHA.2256@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
>> Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
>> However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
>> physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it
>> is
>> running normally.
>>
>> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
>> news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4
>> hot
>> fix:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
>>
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from
>> SP3
>> to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The
>> amount
>> of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
>> running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I
>> checked
>> the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes
>> also.
>> Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?
>>
>>
>|||I just ran a perfmon and measured SQLServer:Memory Manager - Target Server
Memory and Total Server Memory. It's at a steady 5 GB. My Max memory is
set to 6 GB. Is this normal?
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:%23Jp05DpqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Just wanted to sure. What's odd is that it appears to run differently on
> each node. Also, of the 8 GB, how much did you tell it to use for SQL
> Server? Could you give us the sp_configure output for max server memory
> and
> AWE?
> Are there other processes running on one node and not the other?
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%23$5lw3oqGHA.2108@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks,
> There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this
> was
> actually PER Microsoft.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> That's odd. How much RAM do you have on each node and let us know
>> whether
>> the /3GB switch is/isn't used.
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OZ4SudcqGHA.2256@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
>> Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
>> However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
>> physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it
>> is
>> running normally.
>>
>> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
>> news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4
>> hot
>> fix:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
>>
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from
>> SP3
>> to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The
>> amount
>> of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
>> running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I
>> checked
>> the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes
>> also.
>> Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?
>>
>>
>|||6GB = 6,144MB, so you're just a little short of using the 6GB. Leaving the
remaining 2GB to the OS is plenty.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OxSToz2qGHA.3564@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Thanks so much for your help Tom.
There are no processes running on one node that's not running on the other.
SQL Server is configured to use 6 GB - again, this was suggested by
microsoft when we were troubleshooting another problem several months back.
Here's the sp_configure output
max server memory (MB) 4 2147483647 6008
6008
awe enabled 0 1 1 1
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:%23Jp05DpqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Just wanted to sure. What's odd is that it appears to run differently on
> each node. Also, of the 8 GB, how much did you tell it to use for SQL
> Server? Could you give us the sp_configure output for max server memory
> and
> AWE?
> Are there other processes running on one node and not the other?
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%23$5lw3oqGHA.2108@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks,
> There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this
> was
> actually PER Microsoft.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> That's odd. How much RAM do you have on each node and let us know
>> whether
>> the /3GB switch is/isn't used.
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OZ4SudcqGHA.2256@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
>> Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
>> However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
>> physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it
>> is
>> running normally.
>>
>> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
>> news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4
>> hot
>> fix:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
>>
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from
>> SP3
>> to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The
>> amount
>> of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
>> running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I
>> checked
>> the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes
>> also.
>> Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?
>>
>>
>|||If you were using AWE, yes.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:enizG02qGHA.2180@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
If I were to increase the Max Memory, would I need to restart SQL service
for it to take effect?
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:%23Jp05DpqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Just wanted to sure. What's odd is that it appears to run differently on
> each node. Also, of the 8 GB, how much did you tell it to use for SQL
> Server? Could you give us the sp_configure output for max server memory
> and
> AWE?
> Are there other processes running on one node and not the other?
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%23$5lw3oqGHA.2108@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks,
> There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this
> was
> actually PER Microsoft.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> That's odd. How much RAM do you have on each node and let us know
>> whether
>> the /3GB switch is/isn't used.
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OZ4SudcqGHA.2256@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
>> Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
>> However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
>> physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it
>> is
>> running normally.
>>
>> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
>> news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4
>> hot
>> fix:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
>>
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from
>> SP3
>> to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The
>> amount
>> of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
>> running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I
>> checked
>> the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes
>> also.
>> Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?
>>
>>
>|||Your max server memory should be at 6 GB = 6,144 MB. Not sure why it's
below that. The only other thing I can think of is that you may have a
Windows hotfix that was applied to one box and not the other.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ea$m452qGHA.4864@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
I just ran a perfmon and measured SQLServer:Memory Manager - Target Server
Memory and Total Server Memory. It's at a steady 5 GB. My Max memory is
set to 6 GB. Is this normal?
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:%23Jp05DpqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Just wanted to sure. What's odd is that it appears to run differently on
> each node. Also, of the 8 GB, how much did you tell it to use for SQL
> Server? Could you give us the sp_configure output for max server memory
> and
> AWE?
> Are there other processes running on one node and not the other?
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%23$5lw3oqGHA.2108@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks,
> There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this
> was
> actually PER Microsoft.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> That's odd. How much RAM do you have on each node and let us know
>> whether
>> the /3GB switch is/isn't used.
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OZ4SudcqGHA.2256@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
>> Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
>> However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
>> physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it
>> is
>> running normally.
>>
>> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
>> news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4
>> hot
>> fix:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
>>
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from
>> SP3
>> to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The
>> amount
>> of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
>> running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I
>> checked
>> the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes
>> also.
>> Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?
>>
>>
>
to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The amount
of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I checked
the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes also.
Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4 hot
fix:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from SP3
to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The amount
of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I checked
the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes also.
Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?|||Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it is
running normally.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4
> hot
> fix:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
>
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from
> SP3
> to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The amount
> of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
> running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I checked
> the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes also.
> Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?
>|||That's odd. How much RAM do you have on each node and let us know whether
the /3GB switch is/isn't used.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OZ4SudcqGHA.2256@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it is
running normally.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4
> hot
> fix:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
>
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from
> SP3
> to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The amount
> of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
> running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I checked
> the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes also.
> Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?
>|||Thanks,
There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this was
actually PER Microsoft.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> That's odd. How much RAM do you have on each node and let us know whether
> the /3GB switch is/isn't used.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:OZ4SudcqGHA.2256@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
> Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
> However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
> physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it is
> running normally.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4
>> hot
>> fix:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
>>
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from
>> SP3
>> to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The
>> amount
>> of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
>> running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I
>> checked
>> the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes
>> also.
>> Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?
>>
>|||Just wanted to sure. What's odd is that it appears to run differently on
each node. Also, of the 8 GB, how much did you tell it to use for SQL
Server? Could you give us the sp_configure output for max server memory and
AWE?
Are there other processes running on one node and not the other?
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23$5lw3oqGHA.2108@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Thanks,
There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this was
actually PER Microsoft.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> That's odd. How much RAM do you have on each node and let us know whether
> the /3GB switch is/isn't used.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:OZ4SudcqGHA.2256@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
> Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
> However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
> physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it is
> running normally.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4
>> hot
>> fix:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
>>
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from
>> SP3
>> to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The
>> amount
>> of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
>> running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I
>> checked
>> the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes
>> also.
>> Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?
>>
>|||Thanks so much for your help Tom.
There are no processes running on one node that's not running on the other.
SQL Server is configured to use 6 GB - again, this was suggested by
microsoft when we were troubleshooting another problem several months back.
Here's the sp_configure output
max server memory (MB) 4 2147483647 6008
6008
awe enabled 0 1 1 1
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:%23Jp05DpqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Just wanted to sure. What's odd is that it appears to run differently on
> each node. Also, of the 8 GB, how much did you tell it to use for SQL
> Server? Could you give us the sp_configure output for max server memory
> and
> AWE?
> Are there other processes running on one node and not the other?
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%23$5lw3oqGHA.2108@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks,
> There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this
> was
> actually PER Microsoft.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> That's odd. How much RAM do you have on each node and let us know
>> whether
>> the /3GB switch is/isn't used.
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OZ4SudcqGHA.2256@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
>> Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
>> However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
>> physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it
>> is
>> running normally.
>>
>> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
>> news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4
>> hot
>> fix:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
>>
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from
>> SP3
>> to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The
>> amount
>> of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
>> running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I
>> checked
>> the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes
>> also.
>> Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?
>>
>>
>|||If I were to increase the Max Memory, would I need to restart SQL service
for it to take effect?
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:%23Jp05DpqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Just wanted to sure. What's odd is that it appears to run differently on
> each node. Also, of the 8 GB, how much did you tell it to use for SQL
> Server? Could you give us the sp_configure output for max server memory
> and
> AWE?
> Are there other processes running on one node and not the other?
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%23$5lw3oqGHA.2108@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks,
> There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this
> was
> actually PER Microsoft.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> That's odd. How much RAM do you have on each node and let us know
>> whether
>> the /3GB switch is/isn't used.
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OZ4SudcqGHA.2256@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
>> Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
>> However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
>> physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it
>> is
>> running normally.
>>
>> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
>> news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4
>> hot
>> fix:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
>>
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from
>> SP3
>> to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The
>> amount
>> of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
>> running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I
>> checked
>> the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes
>> also.
>> Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?
>>
>>
>|||I just ran a perfmon and measured SQLServer:Memory Manager - Target Server
Memory and Total Server Memory. It's at a steady 5 GB. My Max memory is
set to 6 GB. Is this normal?
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:%23Jp05DpqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Just wanted to sure. What's odd is that it appears to run differently on
> each node. Also, of the 8 GB, how much did you tell it to use for SQL
> Server? Could you give us the sp_configure output for max server memory
> and
> AWE?
> Are there other processes running on one node and not the other?
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%23$5lw3oqGHA.2108@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks,
> There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this
> was
> actually PER Microsoft.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> That's odd. How much RAM do you have on each node and let us know
>> whether
>> the /3GB switch is/isn't used.
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OZ4SudcqGHA.2256@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
>> Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
>> However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
>> physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it
>> is
>> running normally.
>>
>> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
>> news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4
>> hot
>> fix:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
>>
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from
>> SP3
>> to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The
>> amount
>> of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
>> running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I
>> checked
>> the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes
>> also.
>> Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?
>>
>>
>|||6GB = 6,144MB, so you're just a little short of using the 6GB. Leaving the
remaining 2GB to the OS is plenty.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OxSToz2qGHA.3564@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Thanks so much for your help Tom.
There are no processes running on one node that's not running on the other.
SQL Server is configured to use 6 GB - again, this was suggested by
microsoft when we were troubleshooting another problem several months back.
Here's the sp_configure output
max server memory (MB) 4 2147483647 6008
6008
awe enabled 0 1 1 1
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:%23Jp05DpqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Just wanted to sure. What's odd is that it appears to run differently on
> each node. Also, of the 8 GB, how much did you tell it to use for SQL
> Server? Could you give us the sp_configure output for max server memory
> and
> AWE?
> Are there other processes running on one node and not the other?
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%23$5lw3oqGHA.2108@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks,
> There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this
> was
> actually PER Microsoft.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> That's odd. How much RAM do you have on each node and let us know
>> whether
>> the /3GB switch is/isn't used.
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OZ4SudcqGHA.2256@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
>> Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
>> However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
>> physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it
>> is
>> running normally.
>>
>> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
>> news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4
>> hot
>> fix:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
>>
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from
>> SP3
>> to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The
>> amount
>> of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
>> running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I
>> checked
>> the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes
>> also.
>> Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?
>>
>>
>|||If you were using AWE, yes.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:enizG02qGHA.2180@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
If I were to increase the Max Memory, would I need to restart SQL service
for it to take effect?
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:%23Jp05DpqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Just wanted to sure. What's odd is that it appears to run differently on
> each node. Also, of the 8 GB, how much did you tell it to use for SQL
> Server? Could you give us the sp_configure output for max server memory
> and
> AWE?
> Are there other processes running on one node and not the other?
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%23$5lw3oqGHA.2108@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks,
> There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this
> was
> actually PER Microsoft.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> That's odd. How much RAM do you have on each node and let us know
>> whether
>> the /3GB switch is/isn't used.
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OZ4SudcqGHA.2256@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
>> Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
>> However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
>> physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it
>> is
>> running normally.
>>
>> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
>> news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4
>> hot
>> fix:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
>>
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from
>> SP3
>> to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The
>> amount
>> of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
>> running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I
>> checked
>> the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes
>> also.
>> Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?
>>
>>
>|||Your max server memory should be at 6 GB = 6,144 MB. Not sure why it's
below that. The only other thing I can think of is that you may have a
Windows hotfix that was applied to one box and not the other.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ea$m452qGHA.4864@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
I just ran a perfmon and measured SQLServer:Memory Manager - Target Server
Memory and Total Server Memory. It's at a steady 5 GB. My Max memory is
set to 6 GB. Is this normal?
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:%23Jp05DpqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Just wanted to sure. What's odd is that it appears to run differently on
> each node. Also, of the 8 GB, how much did you tell it to use for SQL
> Server? Could you give us the sp_configure output for max server memory
> and
> AWE?
> Are there other processes running on one node and not the other?
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%23$5lw3oqGHA.2108@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks,
> There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this
> was
> actually PER Microsoft.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> That's odd. How much RAM do you have on each node and let us know
>> whether
>> the /3GB switch is/isn't used.
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OZ4SudcqGHA.2256@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
>> Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
>> However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
>> physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it
>> is
>> running normally.
>>
>> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
>> news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4
>> hot
>> fix:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
>>
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> .
>> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from
>> SP3
>> to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The
>> amount
>> of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
>> running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I
>> checked
>> the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes
>> also.
>> Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?
>>
>>
>
reindexing slow after installing SQL 2K SP4?
I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from SP3
to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The amount
of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I checked
the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes also.
Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4 hot
fix:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from SP3
to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The amount
of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I checked
the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes also.
Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?|||Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it is
running normally.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4
> hot
> fix:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
>
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from
> SP3
> to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The amount
> of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
> running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I checked
> the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes also.
> Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?
>|||That's odd. How much RAM do you have on each node and let us know whether
the /3GB switch is/isn't used.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OZ4SudcqGHA.2256@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it is
running normally.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4
> hot
> fix:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
>
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from
> SP3
> to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The amount
> of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
> running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I checked
> the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes also.
> Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?
>|||Thanks,
There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this was
actually PER Microsoft.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> That's odd. How much RAM do you have on each node and let us know whether
> the /3GB switch is/isn't used.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:OZ4SudcqGHA.2256@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
> Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
> However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
> physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it is
> running normally.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>|||Just wanted to sure. What's odd is that it appears to run differently on
each node. Also, of the 8 GB, how much did you tell it to use for SQL
Server? Could you give us the sp_configure output for max server memory and
AWE?
Are there other processes running on one node and not the other?
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23$5lw3oqGHA.2108@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Thanks,
There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this was
actually PER Microsoft.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> That's odd. How much RAM do you have on each node and let us know whether
> the /3GB switch is/isn't used.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:OZ4SudcqGHA.2256@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
> Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
> However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
> physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it is
> running normally.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>|||Thanks so much for your help Tom.
There are no processes running on one node that's not running on the other.
SQL Server is configured to use 6 GB - again, this was suggested by
microsoft when we were troubleshooting another problem several months back.
Here's the sp_configure output
max server memory (MB) 4 2147483647 6008
6008
awe enabled 0 1 1 1
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:%23Jp05DpqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Just wanted to sure. What's odd is that it appears to run differently on
> each node. Also, of the 8 GB, how much did you tell it to use for SQL
> Server? Could you give us the sp_configure output for max server memory
> and
> AWE?
> Are there other processes running on one node and not the other?
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%23$5lw3oqGHA.2108@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks,
> There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this
> was
> actually PER Microsoft.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>|||If I were to increase the Max Memory, would I need to restart SQL service
for it to take effect?
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:%23Jp05DpqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Just wanted to sure. What's odd is that it appears to run differently on
> each node. Also, of the 8 GB, how much did you tell it to use for SQL
> Server? Could you give us the sp_configure output for max server memory
> and
> AWE?
> Are there other processes running on one node and not the other?
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%23$5lw3oqGHA.2108@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks,
> There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this
> was
> actually PER Microsoft.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>|||I just ran a perfmon and measured SQLServer:Memory Manager - Target Server
Memory and Total Server Memory. It's at a steady 5 GB. My Max memory is
set to 6 GB. Is this normal?
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:%23Jp05DpqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Just wanted to sure. What's odd is that it appears to run differently on
> each node. Also, of the 8 GB, how much did you tell it to use for SQL
> Server? Could you give us the sp_configure output for max server memory
> and
> AWE?
> Are there other processes running on one node and not the other?
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%23$5lw3oqGHA.2108@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks,
> There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this
> was
> actually PER Microsoft.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>|||6GB = 6,144MB, so you're just a little short of using the 6GB. Leaving the
remaining 2GB to the OS is plenty.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OxSToz2qGHA.3564@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Thanks so much for your help Tom.
There are no processes running on one node that's not running on the other.
SQL Server is configured to use 6 GB - again, this was suggested by
microsoft when we were troubleshooting another problem several months back.
Here's the sp_configure output
max server memory (MB) 4 2147483647 6008
6008
awe enabled 0 1 1 1
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:%23Jp05DpqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Just wanted to sure. What's odd is that it appears to run differently on
> each node. Also, of the 8 GB, how much did you tell it to use for SQL
> Server? Could you give us the sp_configure output for max server memory
> and
> AWE?
> Are there other processes running on one node and not the other?
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%23$5lw3oqGHA.2108@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks,
> There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this
> was
> actually PER Microsoft.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The amount
of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I checked
the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes also.
Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4 hot
fix:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from SP3
to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The amount
of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I checked
the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes also.
Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?|||Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it is
running normally.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4
> hot
> fix:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
>
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from
> SP3
> to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The amount
> of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
> running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I checked
> the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes also.
> Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?
>|||That's odd. How much RAM do you have on each node and let us know whether
the /3GB switch is/isn't used.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OZ4SudcqGHA.2256@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it is
running normally.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> There is an issue with AWE in SP4 - it stops using it. Get the post-SP4
> hot
> fix:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761
>
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:OYQCGUbqGHA.928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> I'm using SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition (Clustered). After upgrading from
> SP3
> to SP4, my re-indexing job takes 3-4 times longer than before. The amount
> of data is about the same. Nothing else within SQL has changed. I am
> running SQL on the other node, but the hardware is identical and I checked
> the boot.ini (for enabling AWE) file and it's the same on boh boxes also.
> Has anyone experienced this after installing Service Pack 4?
>|||Thanks,
There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this was
actually PER Microsoft.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> That's odd. How much RAM do you have on each node and let us know whether
> the /3GB switch is/isn't used.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:OZ4SudcqGHA.2256@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
> Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
> However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
> physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it is
> running normally.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>|||Just wanted to sure. What's odd is that it appears to run differently on
each node. Also, of the 8 GB, how much did you tell it to use for SQL
Server? Could you give us the sp_configure output for max server memory and
AWE?
Are there other processes running on one node and not the other?
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23$5lw3oqGHA.2108@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Thanks,
There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this was
actually PER Microsoft.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> That's odd. How much RAM do you have on each node and let us know whether
> the /3GB switch is/isn't used.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:OZ4SudcqGHA.2256@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks. I actually forgot to mention that I did install the Post SP 4
> Hotfix rollup. My SQL Version is at 8.00.2187.
> However, I did check Perfmon and SQL is using up more than 50% of the
> physical memory, which I think, according to the article, means that it is
> running normally.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:ux$ot8bqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>|||Thanks so much for your help Tom.
There are no processes running on one node that's not running on the other.
SQL Server is configured to use 6 GB - again, this was suggested by
microsoft when we were troubleshooting another problem several months back.
Here's the sp_configure output
max server memory (MB) 4 2147483647 6008
6008
awe enabled 0 1 1 1
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:%23Jp05DpqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Just wanted to sure. What's odd is that it appears to run differently on
> each node. Also, of the 8 GB, how much did you tell it to use for SQL
> Server? Could you give us the sp_configure output for max server memory
> and
> AWE?
> Are there other processes running on one node and not the other?
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%23$5lw3oqGHA.2108@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks,
> There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this
> was
> actually PER Microsoft.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>|||If I were to increase the Max Memory, would I need to restart SQL service
for it to take effect?
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:%23Jp05DpqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Just wanted to sure. What's odd is that it appears to run differently on
> each node. Also, of the 8 GB, how much did you tell it to use for SQL
> Server? Could you give us the sp_configure output for max server memory
> and
> AWE?
> Are there other processes running on one node and not the other?
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%23$5lw3oqGHA.2108@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks,
> There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this
> was
> actually PER Microsoft.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>|||I just ran a perfmon and measured SQLServer:Memory Manager - Target Server
Memory and Total Server Memory. It's at a steady 5 GB. My Max memory is
set to 6 GB. Is this normal?
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:%23Jp05DpqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Just wanted to sure. What's odd is that it appears to run differently on
> each node. Also, of the 8 GB, how much did you tell it to use for SQL
> Server? Could you give us the sp_configure output for max server memory
> and
> AWE?
> Are there other processes running on one node and not the other?
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%23$5lw3oqGHA.2108@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks,
> There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this
> was
> actually PER Microsoft.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>|||6GB = 6,144MB, so you're just a little short of using the 6GB. Leaving the
remaining 2GB to the OS is plenty.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OxSToz2qGHA.3564@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Thanks so much for your help Tom.
There are no processes running on one node that's not running on the other.
SQL Server is configured to use 6 GB - again, this was suggested by
microsoft when we were troubleshooting another problem several months back.
Here's the sp_configure output
max server memory (MB) 4 2147483647 6008
6008
awe enabled 0 1 1 1
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:%23Jp05DpqGHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Just wanted to sure. What's odd is that it appears to run differently on
> each node. Also, of the 8 GB, how much did you tell it to use for SQL
> Server? Could you give us the sp_configure output for max server memory
> and
> AWE?
> Are there other processes running on one node and not the other?
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> .
> "Nieves" <JuanN@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%23$5lw3oqGHA.2108@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks,
> There's 8 GB of RAM on each node. The 3/GB switch is not used and this
> was
> actually PER Microsoft.
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:euOlQmcqGHA.4992@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
Reindexing 27GB table
On one of the database, I support has 16957722 records in a table and it's
clustered index size is 27606.30.
I used to run the Reindex job created on weekly Sunday starting at 11:00 PM.
It takes more than 7 hours.
Since it is a 24x7 server, when Reindexing job runs it causes blocks so I am
cancelling the job.
In this situation what would you suggest to reindex the table of
such big one ( 27 GB ) ?
Appreciate your advise.
--
Thanks
S SIVAPRASADFirst you need to determine whether you benefit from reindexing. See
[url]http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/ss2kidbp.mspx.[/url
]
To check frag level use DBCC SHOWCONTIG (2000) or sys.dm_db_index_physical_s
tats (2005).
In 2000, you have little options of you want to do this "online", your optio
n is DBCC INDEXDEFRAG.
In 2005, you can use either ALTER INDEX with REORGANIZE (same as INDEXDEFRAG
), or use ALTER INDEX
with REBUILD, ONLINE (same as DBREINDEX, except for ONLINE which is new opti
on).
All have pro and cons, one thing to consider is the usage of transaction log
space (which depends on
what type of command you run and can also be influenced by recovery model).
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"S Siva Prasad [SIVA]" <SSivaPrasadSIVA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
in message
news:2484E248-2FCD-47F8-BACB-0AB9E71DEAC3@.microsoft.com...
> On one of the database, I support has 16957722 records in a table and it's
> clustered index size is 27606.30.
> I used to run the Reindex job created on weekly Sunday starting at 11:00 P
M.
> It takes more than 7 hours.
> Since it is a 24x7 server, when Reindexing job runs it causes blocks so I
am
> cancelling the job.
> In this situation what would you suggest to reindex the table of
> such big one ( 27 GB ) ?
> Appreciate your advise.
> --
> Thanks
> S SIVAPRASAD|||It is on SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition with SP4 (8.00.2040) .
Database is on Full recovery model and it has enough space for Log file
growth.
DBCC SHOWCONITG() ran and rebuilding of the indexes is necessary now.
Let me know what would be the best optimal way of rebuilding the indexes.
The box is on 24x7 and I want to rebuild the index as quick as possible.
The clustered index sized around 27 GB.
--
Thanks
S SIVAPRASAD
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> First you need to determine whether you benefit from reindexing. See
> [url]http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/ss2kidbp.mspx.[/u
rl]
> To check frag level use DBCC SHOWCONTIG (2000) or sys.dm_db_index_physical
_stats (2005).
> In 2000, you have little options of you want to do this "online", your opt
ion is DBCC INDEXDEFRAG.
> In 2005, you can use either ALTER INDEX with REORGANIZE (same as INDEXDEFR
AG), or use ALTER INDEX
> with REBUILD, ONLINE (same as DBREINDEX, except for ONLINE which is new op
tion).
> All have pro and cons, one thing to consider is the usage of transaction l
og space (which depends on
> what type of command you run and can also be influenced by recovery model)
.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "S Siva Prasad [SIVA]" <SSivaPrasadSIVA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wro
te in message
> news:2484E248-2FCD-47F8-BACB-0AB9E71DEAC3@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||There's no "optimal way". There are different options, all with advantages a
nd disadvantages. Based
on your requirements, you can weigh the advantages to the disadvantages and
pick the one that suits
your particular need best. Make sure you understand the pros and cons with e
ach method and read the
whitepaper I posted a link to.
Having said that, if the box is 24*7, indexdefrag might be better. But it ca
n take longer time than
dbreindex (but it doesn't block nearly as much), it can produce more log rec
ords, and the
defragmentation might not be as perfect as dbreindex.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"S Siva Prasad [SIVA]" <SSivaPrasadSIVA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
in message
news:8A93A9FA-E357-475D-BB40-8F9BE0A43CCF@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> It is on SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition with SP4 (8.00.2040) .
> Database is on Full recovery model and it has enough space for Log file
> growth.
> DBCC SHOWCONITG() ran and rebuilding of the indexes is necessary now.
> Let me know what would be the best optimal way of rebuilding the indexes.
> The box is on 24x7 and I want to rebuild the index as quick as possible.
> The clustered index sized around 27 GB.
> --
> Thanks
> S SIVAPRASAD
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
>
clustered index size is 27606.30.
I used to run the Reindex job created on weekly Sunday starting at 11:00 PM.
It takes more than 7 hours.
Since it is a 24x7 server, when Reindexing job runs it causes blocks so I am
cancelling the job.
In this situation what would you suggest to reindex the table of
such big one ( 27 GB ) ?
Appreciate your advise.
--
Thanks
S SIVAPRASADFirst you need to determine whether you benefit from reindexing. See
[url]http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/ss2kidbp.mspx.[/url
]
To check frag level use DBCC SHOWCONTIG (2000) or sys.dm_db_index_physical_s
tats (2005).
In 2000, you have little options of you want to do this "online", your optio
n is DBCC INDEXDEFRAG.
In 2005, you can use either ALTER INDEX with REORGANIZE (same as INDEXDEFRAG
), or use ALTER INDEX
with REBUILD, ONLINE (same as DBREINDEX, except for ONLINE which is new opti
on).
All have pro and cons, one thing to consider is the usage of transaction log
space (which depends on
what type of command you run and can also be influenced by recovery model).
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"S Siva Prasad [SIVA]" <SSivaPrasadSIVA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
in message
news:2484E248-2FCD-47F8-BACB-0AB9E71DEAC3@.microsoft.com...
> On one of the database, I support has 16957722 records in a table and it's
> clustered index size is 27606.30.
> I used to run the Reindex job created on weekly Sunday starting at 11:00 P
M.
> It takes more than 7 hours.
> Since it is a 24x7 server, when Reindexing job runs it causes blocks so I
am
> cancelling the job.
> In this situation what would you suggest to reindex the table of
> such big one ( 27 GB ) ?
> Appreciate your advise.
> --
> Thanks
> S SIVAPRASAD|||It is on SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition with SP4 (8.00.2040) .
Database is on Full recovery model and it has enough space for Log file
growth.
DBCC SHOWCONITG() ran and rebuilding of the indexes is necessary now.
Let me know what would be the best optimal way of rebuilding the indexes.
The box is on 24x7 and I want to rebuild the index as quick as possible.
The clustered index sized around 27 GB.
--
Thanks
S SIVAPRASAD
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> First you need to determine whether you benefit from reindexing. See
> [url]http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/ss2kidbp.mspx.[/u
rl]
> To check frag level use DBCC SHOWCONTIG (2000) or sys.dm_db_index_physical
_stats (2005).
> In 2000, you have little options of you want to do this "online", your opt
ion is DBCC INDEXDEFRAG.
> In 2005, you can use either ALTER INDEX with REORGANIZE (same as INDEXDEFR
AG), or use ALTER INDEX
> with REBUILD, ONLINE (same as DBREINDEX, except for ONLINE which is new op
tion).
> All have pro and cons, one thing to consider is the usage of transaction l
og space (which depends on
> what type of command you run and can also be influenced by recovery model)
.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "S Siva Prasad [SIVA]" <SSivaPrasadSIVA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wro
te in message
> news:2484E248-2FCD-47F8-BACB-0AB9E71DEAC3@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||There's no "optimal way". There are different options, all with advantages a
nd disadvantages. Based
on your requirements, you can weigh the advantages to the disadvantages and
pick the one that suits
your particular need best. Make sure you understand the pros and cons with e
ach method and read the
whitepaper I posted a link to.
Having said that, if the box is 24*7, indexdefrag might be better. But it ca
n take longer time than
dbreindex (but it doesn't block nearly as much), it can produce more log rec
ords, and the
defragmentation might not be as perfect as dbreindex.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"S Siva Prasad [SIVA]" <SSivaPrasadSIVA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
in message
news:8A93A9FA-E357-475D-BB40-8F9BE0A43CCF@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> It is on SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition with SP4 (8.00.2040) .
> Database is on Full recovery model and it has enough space for Log file
> growth.
> DBCC SHOWCONITG() ran and rebuilding of the indexes is necessary now.
> Let me know what would be the best optimal way of rebuilding the indexes.
> The box is on 24x7 and I want to rebuild the index as quick as possible.
> The clustered index sized around 27 GB.
> --
> Thanks
> S SIVAPRASAD
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
>
Reindexing 27GB table
On one of the database, I support has 16957722 records in a table and it's
clustered index size is 27606.30.
I used to run the Reindex job created on weekly Sunday starting at 11:00 PM.
It takes more than 7 hours.
Since it is a 24x7 server, when Reindexing job runs it causes blocks so I am
cancelling the job.
In this situation what would you suggest to reindex the table of
such big one ( 27 GB ) ?
Appreciate your advise.
--
Thanks
S SIVAPRASADFirst you need to determine whether you benefit from reindexing. See
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/ss2kidbp.mspx.
To check frag level use DBCC SHOWCONTIG (2000) or sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats (2005).
In 2000, you have little options of you want to do this "online", your option is DBCC INDEXDEFRAG.
In 2005, you can use either ALTER INDEX with REORGANIZE (same as INDEXDEFRAG), or use ALTER INDEX
with REBUILD, ONLINE (same as DBREINDEX, except for ONLINE which is new option).
All have pro and cons, one thing to consider is the usage of transaction log space (which depends on
what type of command you run and can also be influenced by recovery model).
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"S Siva Prasad [SIVA]" <SSivaPrasadSIVA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2484E248-2FCD-47F8-BACB-0AB9E71DEAC3@.microsoft.com...
> On one of the database, I support has 16957722 records in a table and it's
> clustered index size is 27606.30.
> I used to run the Reindex job created on weekly Sunday starting at 11:00 PM.
> It takes more than 7 hours.
> Since it is a 24x7 server, when Reindexing job runs it causes blocks so I am
> cancelling the job.
> In this situation what would you suggest to reindex the table of
> such big one ( 27 GB ) ?
> Appreciate your advise.
> --
> Thanks
> S SIVAPRASAD|||It is on SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition with SP4 (8.00.2040) .
Database is on Full recovery model and it has enough space for Log file
growth.
DBCC SHOWCONITG() ran and rebuilding of the indexes is necessary now.
Let me know what would be the best optimal way of rebuilding the indexes.
The box is on 24x7 and I want to rebuild the index as quick as possible.
The clustered index sized around 27 GB.
--
Thanks
S SIVAPRASAD
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> First you need to determine whether you benefit from reindexing. See
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/ss2kidbp.mspx.
> To check frag level use DBCC SHOWCONTIG (2000) or sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats (2005).
> In 2000, you have little options of you want to do this "online", your option is DBCC INDEXDEFRAG.
> In 2005, you can use either ALTER INDEX with REORGANIZE (same as INDEXDEFRAG), or use ALTER INDEX
> with REBUILD, ONLINE (same as DBREINDEX, except for ONLINE which is new option).
> All have pro and cons, one thing to consider is the usage of transaction log space (which depends on
> what type of command you run and can also be influenced by recovery model).
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "S Siva Prasad [SIVA]" <SSivaPrasadSIVA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:2484E248-2FCD-47F8-BACB-0AB9E71DEAC3@.microsoft.com...
> > On one of the database, I support has 16957722 records in a table and it's
> > clustered index size is 27606.30.
> >
> > I used to run the Reindex job created on weekly Sunday starting at 11:00 PM.
> > It takes more than 7 hours.
> >
> > Since it is a 24x7 server, when Reindexing job runs it causes blocks so I am
> > cancelling the job.
> >
> > In this situation what would you suggest to reindex the table of
> > such big one ( 27 GB ) ?
> >
> > Appreciate your advise.
> > --
> > Thanks
> > S SIVAPRASAD
>
>|||There's no "optimal way". There are different options, all with advantages and disadvantages. Based
on your requirements, you can weigh the advantages to the disadvantages and pick the one that suits
your particular need best. Make sure you understand the pros and cons with each method and read the
whitepaper I posted a link to.
Having said that, if the box is 24*7, indexdefrag might be better. But it can take longer time than
dbreindex (but it doesn't block nearly as much), it can produce more log records, and the
defragmentation might not be as perfect as dbreindex.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"S Siva Prasad [SIVA]" <SSivaPrasadSIVA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8A93A9FA-E357-475D-BB40-8F9BE0A43CCF@.microsoft.com...
> It is on SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition with SP4 (8.00.2040) .
> Database is on Full recovery model and it has enough space for Log file
> growth.
> DBCC SHOWCONITG() ran and rebuilding of the indexes is necessary now.
> Let me know what would be the best optimal way of rebuilding the indexes.
> The box is on 24x7 and I want to rebuild the index as quick as possible.
> The clustered index sized around 27 GB.
> --
> Thanks
> S SIVAPRASAD
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
>> First you need to determine whether you benefit from reindexing. See
>> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/ss2kidbp.mspx.
>> To check frag level use DBCC SHOWCONTIG (2000) or sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats (2005).
>> In 2000, you have little options of you want to do this "online", your option is DBCC
>> INDEXDEFRAG.
>> In 2005, you can use either ALTER INDEX with REORGANIZE (same as INDEXDEFRAG), or use ALTER INDEX
>> with REBUILD, ONLINE (same as DBREINDEX, except for ONLINE which is new option).
>> All have pro and cons, one thing to consider is the usage of transaction log space (which depends
>> on
>> what type of command you run and can also be influenced by recovery model).
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>>
>> "S Siva Prasad [SIVA]" <SSivaPrasadSIVA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:2484E248-2FCD-47F8-BACB-0AB9E71DEAC3@.microsoft.com...
>> > On one of the database, I support has 16957722 records in a table and it's
>> > clustered index size is 27606.30.
>> >
>> > I used to run the Reindex job created on weekly Sunday starting at 11:00 PM.
>> > It takes more than 7 hours.
>> >
>> > Since it is a 24x7 server, when Reindexing job runs it causes blocks so I am
>> > cancelling the job.
>> >
>> > In this situation what would you suggest to reindex the table of
>> > such big one ( 27 GB ) ?
>> >
>> > Appreciate your advise.
>> > --
>> > Thanks
>> > S SIVAPRASAD
>>
clustered index size is 27606.30.
I used to run the Reindex job created on weekly Sunday starting at 11:00 PM.
It takes more than 7 hours.
Since it is a 24x7 server, when Reindexing job runs it causes blocks so I am
cancelling the job.
In this situation what would you suggest to reindex the table of
such big one ( 27 GB ) ?
Appreciate your advise.
--
Thanks
S SIVAPRASADFirst you need to determine whether you benefit from reindexing. See
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/ss2kidbp.mspx.
To check frag level use DBCC SHOWCONTIG (2000) or sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats (2005).
In 2000, you have little options of you want to do this "online", your option is DBCC INDEXDEFRAG.
In 2005, you can use either ALTER INDEX with REORGANIZE (same as INDEXDEFRAG), or use ALTER INDEX
with REBUILD, ONLINE (same as DBREINDEX, except for ONLINE which is new option).
All have pro and cons, one thing to consider is the usage of transaction log space (which depends on
what type of command you run and can also be influenced by recovery model).
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"S Siva Prasad [SIVA]" <SSivaPrasadSIVA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2484E248-2FCD-47F8-BACB-0AB9E71DEAC3@.microsoft.com...
> On one of the database, I support has 16957722 records in a table and it's
> clustered index size is 27606.30.
> I used to run the Reindex job created on weekly Sunday starting at 11:00 PM.
> It takes more than 7 hours.
> Since it is a 24x7 server, when Reindexing job runs it causes blocks so I am
> cancelling the job.
> In this situation what would you suggest to reindex the table of
> such big one ( 27 GB ) ?
> Appreciate your advise.
> --
> Thanks
> S SIVAPRASAD|||It is on SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition with SP4 (8.00.2040) .
Database is on Full recovery model and it has enough space for Log file
growth.
DBCC SHOWCONITG() ran and rebuilding of the indexes is necessary now.
Let me know what would be the best optimal way of rebuilding the indexes.
The box is on 24x7 and I want to rebuild the index as quick as possible.
The clustered index sized around 27 GB.
--
Thanks
S SIVAPRASAD
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> First you need to determine whether you benefit from reindexing. See
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/ss2kidbp.mspx.
> To check frag level use DBCC SHOWCONTIG (2000) or sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats (2005).
> In 2000, you have little options of you want to do this "online", your option is DBCC INDEXDEFRAG.
> In 2005, you can use either ALTER INDEX with REORGANIZE (same as INDEXDEFRAG), or use ALTER INDEX
> with REBUILD, ONLINE (same as DBREINDEX, except for ONLINE which is new option).
> All have pro and cons, one thing to consider is the usage of transaction log space (which depends on
> what type of command you run and can also be influenced by recovery model).
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "S Siva Prasad [SIVA]" <SSivaPrasadSIVA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:2484E248-2FCD-47F8-BACB-0AB9E71DEAC3@.microsoft.com...
> > On one of the database, I support has 16957722 records in a table and it's
> > clustered index size is 27606.30.
> >
> > I used to run the Reindex job created on weekly Sunday starting at 11:00 PM.
> > It takes more than 7 hours.
> >
> > Since it is a 24x7 server, when Reindexing job runs it causes blocks so I am
> > cancelling the job.
> >
> > In this situation what would you suggest to reindex the table of
> > such big one ( 27 GB ) ?
> >
> > Appreciate your advise.
> > --
> > Thanks
> > S SIVAPRASAD
>
>|||There's no "optimal way". There are different options, all with advantages and disadvantages. Based
on your requirements, you can weigh the advantages to the disadvantages and pick the one that suits
your particular need best. Make sure you understand the pros and cons with each method and read the
whitepaper I posted a link to.
Having said that, if the box is 24*7, indexdefrag might be better. But it can take longer time than
dbreindex (but it doesn't block nearly as much), it can produce more log records, and the
defragmentation might not be as perfect as dbreindex.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"S Siva Prasad [SIVA]" <SSivaPrasadSIVA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8A93A9FA-E357-475D-BB40-8F9BE0A43CCF@.microsoft.com...
> It is on SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition with SP4 (8.00.2040) .
> Database is on Full recovery model and it has enough space for Log file
> growth.
> DBCC SHOWCONITG() ran and rebuilding of the indexes is necessary now.
> Let me know what would be the best optimal way of rebuilding the indexes.
> The box is on 24x7 and I want to rebuild the index as quick as possible.
> The clustered index sized around 27 GB.
> --
> Thanks
> S SIVAPRASAD
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
>> First you need to determine whether you benefit from reindexing. See
>> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/ss2kidbp.mspx.
>> To check frag level use DBCC SHOWCONTIG (2000) or sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats (2005).
>> In 2000, you have little options of you want to do this "online", your option is DBCC
>> INDEXDEFRAG.
>> In 2005, you can use either ALTER INDEX with REORGANIZE (same as INDEXDEFRAG), or use ALTER INDEX
>> with REBUILD, ONLINE (same as DBREINDEX, except for ONLINE which is new option).
>> All have pro and cons, one thing to consider is the usage of transaction log space (which depends
>> on
>> what type of command you run and can also be influenced by recovery model).
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>>
>> "S Siva Prasad [SIVA]" <SSivaPrasadSIVA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:2484E248-2FCD-47F8-BACB-0AB9E71DEAC3@.microsoft.com...
>> > On one of the database, I support has 16957722 records in a table and it's
>> > clustered index size is 27606.30.
>> >
>> > I used to run the Reindex job created on weekly Sunday starting at 11:00 PM.
>> > It takes more than 7 hours.
>> >
>> > Since it is a 24x7 server, when Reindexing job runs it causes blocks so I am
>> > cancelling the job.
>> >
>> > In this situation what would you suggest to reindex the table of
>> > such big one ( 27 GB ) ?
>> >
>> > Appreciate your advise.
>> > --
>> > Thanks
>> > S SIVAPRASAD
>>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)