I'm using the DevArt dotConnect for Oracle performance counters in my dev/test environment. By adding Use Performance Monitor=True to my database connection string, I can capture useful information such as number of connections, etc.
However, on my production box, I cannot see the DevArt performance counters in Resource Monitor:
I believe that the performance counters are installed, since they appear in the registry:
...and I imagine that adding Use Performance Monitor=True to my database connection string would cause an error if the relevant DLLs etc. were not present.
What else do I need to do to make the performance counters appear in Resource Monitor?
Related
I'm experiencing poor performance from Azure PostGreSQL-PaaS and need help with how to proceed.
I'm trying out Azure PostGreSQL-PaaS in a project. I'm experiencing an intolerable performance from the database (or at least it seems like the database is the problem).
Our application is running in an Azure-VM and both the VM and the database is located in western Europe.
The network between the VM and the database seems to perform ok. (Using psping (from Sysinternals) on the database port 5432 I get latency between 2 ms and 4 ms)
PostGreSQL incorporates a benchmark tool called pgbench. This tool runs a sequence of simple sql statements on a test dataset and provides timing.
I ran pgbench on the VM against the database. Pgbench reports latency between 800 ms and 1600 ms.
If I do the same test with pgbench in-house on our local network against an in-house database I typically get latency below 10 ms.
I tried to contact Microsoft support regarding this, but I've basically been told that since the network seems to perform ok this must be a PostGreSQL-software-problem and not related to Microsoft.
Since the database is PostGreSQL-Paas I've only got limited access to logs and metrics.
Can anyone please help or advice me with how to proceed with this?
Performance of Azure PostgreSQL PaaS offering depends on different server and client configuration, including the SKU provisioned along with storage IOPS. Microsoft engineering has published series of performance blog which helps customer gain measurable and empirical gains by following these steps based on their workload. Please review these blog post:
Performance best practices for Azure PostgreSQL
Performance tuning of Azure PostgreSQL
Performance quick tips for Azure PostgreSQL
Is your in-house Postgres set up similar to the set up in Azure ?
I had the same issue. We moved from a dedicated VM (Ubuntu, Size Standard B2s 2 vcpus, 4 GiB memory, ~35€ p.m. ) running PostgreSQL to the Azure managed PostgreSQL instance (General Purpose, single server, 2vcpus, 10GB Memory, ~130€ p.m. ).
I first noticed the bad performance when the main API request of our webapplication suddenly took 3s instead of 1.7s / 2s.
I ran some very simple timing tests on my old setup with dedicated VM:
select count(*) from mytable;
count
-------
4686
Time: 0.940 ms
And those are the timings of the new setup with Azure managed PostgreSQL:
select count(*) from mytable;
count
-------
4686
Time: 21,353 ms
I think I do not have to explain these numbers :)
I have created a support ticket, and got some insights:
"In Azure PostgreSQL single server, we have a gateway to manage and route connections and there are always 3 copies of the data to ensure your data is not lost, and all of this will create latency."
I also asked what the benefits are of the managed database:
A: Being a instance running on azure, you’ve benefit of:
-Automatic patching, your instance is automatically upgraded.
-Crash recovery, in case our system detects the instance is not running, it tries to perform a restart/swithover to a new host. If all this fails, an oncall engineer is activated to manually restore the instance.
-Automatic backups and one click point in time restore.
-Redundancy of data."
They suggested that I switch from Single Server to a Flexible server, where the gateway is ditched and the performance apparently should be better, but not as good as on a managed instance:
"In several tests we’ve made, the performance comparing to single server is much better. But to setup the right expectactions, you will not get 1 to 1 performance as having PostgreSQL running in a dedicated virtual machine."
I asked for the results of those tests, I will post them here as soon as I get them.
I think you have to decide if the benefits mentioned above are so high that you are willing to pay at least 4 times more compared to a dedicated VM and if you can live with the worse performance. We will now switch back to a master / slave configuration with 2 dedicated VMs.
Let's assume the following situation:
I have a database server that uses 4 core CPU;
My machine has 2 core CPU;
Assume they are of equal speed in terms of GHZ;
Systems are connected over a network (two lines 200mb/s each);
Test tool that I use provides # of threads parameter and will issue commands in parallel to the server.
QUESTIONS:
How would you test parallel reads/writes via stored procedure? Please brainstorm as any advice is appreciated;
How can I prove that many threads are executing the queries on the server (or should I not pay attention to this as this servers and DB's responsibility)?
What controls how many threads are executed at any time primarily in case of SQL server? I checked the "server properties" > processors > # of processors and threads section - waht more should I check?
How can I check that my application truly executes on all my machine cores - in other words - uses real threads instead of virtual ones? Or should I pay attention only to the virtual ones?
Should I pay attention to the network bandwidth? Can it be a bottleneck (I dont' send any big data, only commands with variables).
1.) not sure perhaps someone else can answer
2.) SQL Sentry allows you to monitor your SQL activity (use the free trial and buy if you like it)
3.) Max Dop controls the number of processors & also the cost threshold will affect parrallelism
4.) Same as 2 perhaps, i'm not sure i understand
5.) Depends on what you are doing are where you see aproblem SQL sentry will show wait stats that may help
I have the need to access a sybase database (12.5) from oversea. The high latency is definitely a problem.
I already optimized the connection parameters to make better use of the network and achieved a 20x performance increase, but it's still not enough : 1 minute to get 3Mb of data.
We need another 10x or 20x increase for our application.
Technical data :
the data are flowing through a single TCP connection using the TDS protocol
the client app is an excel sheet with macros, using the default Sybase driver
the corporate environment makes it difficult to push big changes in the 10+ years architecture, so solutions need to be the least intrusive. But some changes may be bargained due to the importance of this project.
Can anyone give me pointers ?
I already thought of :
splitting SQL requests over several concurrent connections to the database. The problem is data consistency : what if records are modified at the same time since requests will not be exactly executed at the same time ? Is there an existing mechanism to spread a request over several calls on different connections ?
using some kind of database "cache" or "local replication" oversea, but I don't know what is possible.
Thanks.
Try to install local database (ASE or ASA) and synchronize this databases with Sybase Mobilink (or Sybase Replication Server if you need small replication latency and you have a lot of money).
(I know I answer to my own question)
Eventually, we settled to designing our own database remote access protocol. It's not complicated since we are only using a basic subset of SQL (SELECT and UPDATE), and the protocol doesn't have to understand SQL anyway.
By using our own protocol, we'll be able to use compression, make the client able to use several TCP links at the same time, maximize network utilisation and add some functionnal caching secific to our application.
The client will be our app and the server will be a "proxy" to the real database, sitting next to it (like #Tim suggested in the comments).
It's not the only solution, but we feel that it's a good balance between enormous replication price, development complexity and expected benefits.
At my current workplace, the production SQL server and web servers are also used as development and test servers. I've asked for dedicated servers, but been refused as I can't justify it to satisfaction (the reasons against being cost of software, software licenses and hardware resources).
So, what justifications are there for a dedicated test/development server (a combined server at the moment - I don't want to push my luck and ask for 6 servers!)?
Summarised list
Resource usage
Prevention of errors
DR purposes
The list doesn't seem as extensive as I'd hoped.
Consider using Virtual Machines to reduce costs.
Well for starters the potential resources the production database has to use is restricted.
Also rogue/accidental developer SQL scripts could play havock with the production data.
Could there be issues with production data sensitivity? (eg personal data)
just a few to get started :)
Try to calculate the cost of downtime if you take the production system down due to a mistake in development.
Try also to calculate the cost of slow response times in production if/when you are doing performance testing.
As a cost benefit the test/dev hardware can be used as a spare if something bad happens to the production hardware.
Explain how often developer have fat-handed moments and hit enter too soon while editing statements starting...
drop table...
UPDATE veryImportantTable SET veryImportantField = '' WHERE 1 = 1 --TODO: make proper condition
This'd be reason enough for me. :)
I hope you have at least separate databases and are not developing on production data.
Check the data protection act, and also look into PCI-DSS if you want to be really secure (Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard).
I think it's livable to have a test-database on the same physical machine as your production DB. Performance is often not an issue (and assuming it's a multicore muchas memory machine, even if you do a heavy query on test, production will often not noticably slow down), and so long as the DB connections are separate, the chance of accidental damage is very very low.
As for a web-server, almost any machine can run one of those (apache is free, and even IIS is free for 10 simultaneous connections or fewer) - you could install a test web server on any old machine, configure it to use your test DB, and have a decent, low-cost solution.
'course a separate machine is "cleaner" - but the difference isn't huge.
One strong argument is availability / reduce downtime / disaster recovery.
i.e. to have another machine on standby to replace the production machine should anything bad happen to it hardware-wise (e.g. disk controllers or motherboards or power supplies dying).
Ideally the additional machine should be identical to the production one so it can be swapped directly, or individual parts swapped in as required. They can also back each other up or have a local copy of their counterparts last backup so they can be restored from quickly.
Of course it depends on how critical uptime is to the business as to how much value they'll see it this. If you're able to roughly work out how much they'll lose in $ due to lost business with and without a 'hot spare' server and present your case from a $ saved viewpoint (hopefully a lot more than the cost of the server), they might go for it.
Background to question: I'm looking to implement a caching system for my website. Currently we're exploring memcache as a means of doing this. However, I am looking to see if something similar exists for SQL Server. I understand that MySQL has query cache which although is not distributed works as a sort of 'stop gap' measure. Is MySQL query cache equivalent to the buffer cache in SQL Server?
So here are my questions:
Is there a way to know is currently stored in the buffer cache?
Follow up to this, is there a way to force certain tables or result sets into the cache
How much control do I have over what goes on in the buffer and procedure cache? I understand there used to be a DBCC PINTABLE command but that has since been discontinued.
Slightly off topic: Should the caching even exists on the database layer? Or it is more prudent to manage caches using Velocity/Memcache? Is so, why? It seems like cache invalidation is something of a pain when handling many objects with overlapping triggers.
Thanks!
SQL Server implements a buffer pool same way every database product under the sun does (more or less) since System R showed the way. The gory details are explain in Transaction Processing: Concepts and Techniques. I addition it has a caching framework used by the procedure cache, permission token cache and many many other caching classes. This framework is best described in Clock Hands - what are they for.
But this is not the kind of caching applications are usually interested in. The internal database cache is perfect for scale-up scenarios where a more powerfull back end database is able to respond faster to more queries by using these caches, but the modern application stack tends to scale out the web servers and the real problem is caching the results of query interogations in a cache used by the web farm. Ideally, this cache should be shared and distributed. Memcached and Velocity are examples of such application caching infrastructure. Memcache has a long history by now, its uses and shortcommings are understood, there is significant know-how around how to use it, deploy it, manage it and monitor it.
The biggest problem with caching in the application layer, and specially with distributed caching, is cache invalidation. How to detect the changes that occur in the back end data and mark cached entries invalid so that new requests don't use stale data.
The simplest (for some definition of simple...) alternative is proactive invalidation from the application. The code knows when it changes an entity in the database, and after the change occurs it takes the extra step to mark the cached entries invalid. This has several short commings:
Is difficult to know exactly which cached entries are to be invalidated. Dependencies can be quite complex, things are always more that just a simple table/entry, there are aggregate queries, joins, partitioned data etc etc.
Code discipline is required to ensure all paths that modify data also invalidate the cache.
Changes to the data that occur outside the application scope are not detected. In practice, there are always changes that occur outside the application scope: other applications using the same data, import/export and ETL jobs, manual intervention etc etc.
A more complicated alternative is a cache that is notified by the database itself when changes occur. Not many technologies are around to support this though, it cannot work without an active support from the database. SQL Server has Query Notifications for such scenarios, you can read more about it at The Mysterious Notification. Implementing QN based caching in a standalone application is fairly complicated (and often done badly) but it works fine when implemented correctly. Doing so in a shared scaled out cache like Memcached is quite a feats of strength, but is doable.
Nai,
Answers to your questions follow:
From Wiki - Always correct... ? :-). For a more Microsoft answer, here is their description on Buffer Cache.
Buffer management
SQL Server buffers pages in RAM to
minimize disc I/O. Any 8 KB page can
be buffered in-memory, and the set of
all pages currently buffered is called
the buffer cache. The amount of memory
available to SQL Server decides how
many pages will be cached in memory.
The buffer cache is managed by the
Buffer Manager. Either reading from or
writing to any page copies it to the
buffer cache. Subsequent reads or
writes are redirected to the in-memory
copy, rather than the on-disc version.
The page is updated on the disc by the
Buffer Manager only if the in-memory
cache has not been referenced for some
time. While writing pages back to
disc, asynchronous I/O is used whereby
the I/O operation is done in a
background thread so that other
operations do not have to wait for the
I/O operation to complete. Each page
is written along with its checksum
when it is written. When reading the
page back, its checksum is computed
again and matched with the stored
version to ensure the page has not
been damaged or tampered with in the
meantime.
For this answer, please refer to the above answer:
Either reading from or writing to any page copies it to the buffer cache. Subsequent reads or writes are redirected to the in-memory copy, rather than the on-disc version.
You can query the bpool_commit_target and bpool_committed columns in the sys.dm_os_sys_info catalog view to return the number of pages reserved as the memory target and the number of pages currently committed in the buffer cache, respectively.
I feel like Microsoft has had time to figure out caching for their product and should be trusted.
I hope this information was helpful,
Thanks!
Caching can take many different meaning for an ASP.Net application spread from the browser all the way to your hardware with the IIS, Application, Database thrown in the middle.
The caching you are talking about is Database level caching, this is mostly transparent to your application. This level of caching will include buffer pools, statement caches etc. Make sure your DB server has plenty of RAM. In theory a DB server should be able to load the entire DB store in memory. There is not much you can do at this level unless you pre-fetch some anticipated data when you start the application and ensure that it is in DB cache.
On the other hand is in-memory distributed caching system. Apart from memcache and velocity, you can look at some commercial solutions like NCache or Oracle Coherence. I have no experience in either of them to recommend. This level of caching promises scalability at a cheaper cost. It is expensive to scale the DB tier compared to this. You may have to consider aspects like network bandwidth though. This type of caching, specially with invalidation and expiry can be complicated
You can cache at Web Service tier using output caching at IIS level (in IIS 7) and ASP.Net level.
At the application level you can use ASP.Net cache. This is the one that you can control most and gives you good benefits.
Then there is caching going on at client web proxy tier that can be controlled by cache-control HTTP header.
Finally you have browser level caching, view state and cookies for small data.
And don't forget that hardware like SAN caches at physical disk access level too.
In summary caching can occur at many levels and it for you to analyse and implement the best solution for your scenario. You have find out stability and volatility of your data, expected load etc. I believe caching at ASP.Net level (specially for objects) gives you most flexibility and control.
Your specific technical questions about SQL Server's buffer cache are going down the wrong path when it comes to "implement a caching system for my website".
Sure, SQL Server is going to cache data so it can improve its performance (and it does so rather well), but the point of implementing a caching layer on your web front-ends is to avoid from having to talk to the database at all - because there is still overhead and resource contention even when your query is fulfilled entirely from SQL Server's cache.
You want to be looking into is: memcached, Velocity, ASP.NET Cache, P&P Caching Application Block, etc.