I visited the this web page. I get the same error message but the server version is 12. According to one of the posts it is possible to solve a problem by turning performance monitoring off. I did log on to the Azure Portal but I cannot find this option anywhere. How do I turn it off? I guess that performance monitoring actually has another name in this context.
I guess that there are many people out there who would like to know how to turn it off. Any help will be much appreciated, thanks!
The V12 server model does not have a way to disable performance monitoring, as such. It is also different in how tempdb works, meaning that you should not assume that tempdb being full strictly implies that performance monitoring was the cause.
The size of tempdb in v12 is substantially larger than V11. it is also not shared across customers (unlike in v11), so generally having out-of-space issues on tempdb in v12 is a result of large queries or other operations that consume significant space there. If your workload is hitting cases like this and you do not have an obvious way to make it work, please open up a support case with Microsoft and we will assist you.
Related
I need to decide which database to use for a system where I need AP from CAP theorem. Data I constantly but slowly going in. Big queries are expected. It should be reliable - no single point of failure. I can use up to 3 instances on different nodes. In-memory solutions are bad for me because of data size -
it should be running for years and I expect up to terabyte data sizes. Most guys in my team prefer SQL. But I understand that traditional SQL databases are not fault tolerant in terms of hardware failure. Any ideas?
Since this question was asked there have been some significant changes in the Distributed SQL or NewSQL landscape...the most noteworthy being the viability of CockroachDB. That appears to be the best option in a situation like the one referenced in this question.
No single points of failure. Easy to scale. Can handle tons of volume. You can run it wherever you want. Speaks postgres. Super fault tolerant.
Amazon Redshift seems to be the best answer(thank you kuujo). But we will try rethinkdb because it has some nice feature
With Microsoft SQL Server 2005, is it possible to combine the processing power of multiple physical servers into a single logical sql server? Is it possible on SQL Server 2008?
I'm thinking, if the database files were located on a SAN and somehow one of the sql servers acted as a kind of master, then processing could be spread out over multiple physical servers, for instance even allowing simultaneous updates where there was no overlap, and in the case of read-only queries on unlocked tables no limit.
We have an application that is limited by the speed of our sql server, and probably stuck with server 2005 for now. Is the only option to get a single more powerful physical server?
Sorry I'm not an expert, I'm not sure if the question is a stupid one.
TIA
Before rushing out and buying new hardware, find out where your bottlenecks really are. Many locking problems can be solved with the appropriate indexes for your workload.
For example, I've seen instances where placing tempDB on SSD solved performance issues and saved the client buying an expensive new server.
Analyse your workload: How Can I Log and Find the Most Expensive Queries?
With SQL Server 2008 you can utilise the Management Data Warehouse (MDW) to capture your workload.
White Paper: SQL Server 2008 Performance and Scale
Also: please be aware that a SAN solution is not necessarily a faster I/O solution than directly attached storage. It depends on the SAN, number of Physical disks in a LUN, LUN subscription and usage, the speed of the HBA's and several other hardware factors...
Optimizing the app may be a big job of going through all business logic and lines of code. But looking for the most expansive query can easily locate the bottleneck area. Maybe it only happens to a couple of the biggest tables, views or stored procedures. Add or fine tune an index may help right the way. If bumping up the RAM is possible try that option as well. That is cheap and easy configure.
Good luck.
You might want to google for "sql server scalable shared database". Yes you can store your db files on a SAN and use multiple servers, but you're going to have to meet some pretty rigid criteria for it to be a performance boost or even useful (high ratio of reads to writes, small enough dataset to fit in memory or a fast enough SAN, multiple concurrent accessors, etc, etc).
Clustering is complicated and probably much more expensive in the long run than a bigger server, and far less effective than properly optimized application code. You should definitely make sure your app is well optimized.
I'm running a software called Fishbowl inventory and it is running on a firebird database (Windows server 2003) at this time the fishbowl software is running extremely slow when more then one user accesses the software. I'm thinking I maybe able to speed up the application by forcing the database to run "In Memory". However I can not find documentation on how to do this. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you in advance.
Robert
Firebird does not have memory tables - they may or may not be added in future versions (>3) but certainly not in the upcoming 2.5. There can be any other number of reasons why your software is slow with multiple users; however, Firebird itself has pretty good concurrency, so make sure you find the actual bottleneck first.
+1 to Holger. Find the bottleneck first.
Sinática Monitor may help you.
In-memory tables are nice either for OLAP (when data is not changing) or for temporary internal data storage.
In both cases data loss is not danger.
Pity that FB has no in-memory mode. I think about using SQLite as result.
As for caching, i think simple parallel thread that reads all the blocks of database file would make it in-memory - in OS cache if OS has enough memory.
But i also think, that OS already cached as much of DB file as it could and agressive forcing to cache would make overall performance even worse.
I had read an article some time ago, from someone who did a memory drive (like in old DOS) and ran a Database there. The problem is if anything fails, you lose everything. You should do backups very often to ensure a minimum of security.
Not a good idea at all I think.
Does the replication system that comes with DB4O work well? Basically I would like to know if anyone has some good numbers on the record throughput of their replication system and if it handles concurrency errors gracefully or not. What is the relative performance difference between SQL Server's merge replication between two SQL servers and using DRS between two DB4O databases?
We are currently working on improving the replication system further and improving performance certainly is a goal.
I think it's quite hard to produce comparable figures. Every object that needs to be replicated requires a lookup in the UUID BTree. If you know what you are doing, you can finetune that to run completely in memory. Then again the throughput will depend very much on how many indexes you have on each side and how big indexes are. db4o and the SQL server of your choice (and any other SQL server) may scale differently with size and that may very much depend on the hardware you use (db4o loves solid state discs with short seek times).
This is like with any other benchmark: You can only find out how things really will work for you if you mock up the scenario that you think you need and run it on your hardware.
As to handling concurrency: Any conflict will call back into your code and it's your choice how you handle it. You can resolve by hand by merging changes to either side and you can also ignore objects. It's up to your code to find out what it thinks is right.
With respect to concurrency if you have a replication session running side-by-side with another live session that constantly modifies objects: Currently released dRS code is not yet strong for this case. While we implement replication between db4o and the high-end object database Versant VOD we will try to cover these kind of concurrency cases also.
I'm sure it repeats everywhere. You can 'feel' network is slow, or machine or slow or something. But the server/chassis logs are not showing anything, so IT doesn't believe you. What do you do?
Your regressions are taking twice the time ... but that's not enough
Okay you transfer 100 GB using dd etc, but ... that's not enough.
Okay you get server placed in different chassis for 2 week, it works fine ... but .. that's not enough...
so HOW do you get IT to replace the chassis ?
More specifically:
Is there any suite which I can run on two setups ( supposed to be identical ), which can show up difference in network/cpu/disk access .. which IT will believe ?
Computers don't age and slow down the same way we do. If your server is getting slower -- actually slower, not just feels slower because every other computer you use is getting faster -- then there is a reason and it is possible that you may be able to fix it. I'd try cleaning up some disk space, de-fragmenting the disk, and checking what other processes are running (perhaps someone's added more apps to the system and you're just not getting as many cycles).
If your app uses a database, you may want to analyze your query performance and see if some indices are in order. Queries that perform well when you have little data can start taking a long time as the amount of data grows if they have to use table scans. As a former "IT" guy, I'd also be reluctant to throw hardware at a problem because someone tells me the system is slowing down. I'd want to know what has changed and see if I could get the system running the way it should be. If the app has simply out grown the hardware -- after you've made suitable optimizations -- then upgrading is a reasonable choice.
Run a standard benchmark suite. See if it pinpoints memory, cpu, bus or disk, when compared to a "working" similar computer.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmark_(computing)#Common_benchmarks for some tips.
The only way to prove something is to do a stringent audit.
Now traditionally, we should keep the system constant between two different sets while altering the variable we are interested. In this case the variable is the hardware that your code is running on. So in simple terms, you should audit the running of your software on two different sets of hardware, one being the hardware you are unhappy about. And see the difference.
Now if you are to do this properly, which I am sure you are, you will first need to come up with a null hypothesis, something like:
"The slowness of the application is
unrelated to the specific hardware we
are using"
And now you set about disproving that hypothesis in favour of an alternative hypothesis. Once you have collected enough results, you can apply statistical analyses on them, to decide whether any differences are statistically significant. There are analyses to find out how much data you need, and then compare the two sets to decide if the differences are random, or not random (which would disprove your null hypothesis). The type of tests you do will mostly depend on your data, but clever people have made checklists to help us decide.
It sounds like your main problem is being listened to by IT, but raw technical data may not be persuasive to the right people. Getting backup from the business may help you and that means talking about money.
Luckily, both platforms already contain a common piece of software - the application itself - designed to make or save money for someone. Why not measure how quickly it can do that e.g. how long does it take to process an order?
By measuring how long your application spends dealing with each sub task or data source you can get a rough idea of the underlying hardware which is under performing. Writing to a local database, or handling a data structure larger than RAM will impact the disk, making network calls will impact the network hardware, CPU bound calculations will impact there.
This data will never be as precise as a benchmark, and it may require expensive coding, but its easier to translate what it finds into money terms. Log4j's NDC and MDC features, and Springs AOP might be good enabling tools for you.
Run perfmon.msc from Start / Run in Windows 2000 through to Vista. Then just add counters for CPU, disk etc..
For SQL queries you should capture the actual queries then run them manually to see if they are slow.
For instance if using SQL Server, run the profiler from Tools, SQL Server Profiler. Then perform some operations in your program and look at the capture for any suspicous database calls. Copy and paste one of the queries into a new query window in management studio and run it.
For networking you should try artificially limiting your network speed to see how it affects your code (e.g. Traffic Shaper XP is a simple freeware limiter).