Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase 123»»»

Transactional Replication Performance Issues After Migration From 2000 to 2008 Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Wednesday, November 13, 2013 2:18 PM
Grasshopper

GrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopper

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, November 22, 2013 2:40 PM
Points: 16, Visits: 71
We currently have 140 SQL 2000 publications replicating to a single 2008 server with about 25 articles. 5 of the articles are quite substantial. We are in the process of migrating to new 2008 servers that perform in general significantly better than the old 2000 infrastructure. Previously all replication ran fine with a latency of no more than a minute at any time even under peak load. We have migrated about 60 servers to the new 2008 infrastructure but the latency has now shot up. This makes no sense in terms of performance. We have tried a number of things to resolve this but have so far been unsuccessful. The 2008 and 2000 publications are both going to the same DB and using the same replication procs.

First the @status in add article needed changing from the original script where it was 0 to 24. This gave a significant improvement but the latency is still up to 40 minutes at peak times.
We have tried changing from push to pull. This made the performance worse.
We have changed the PollingInterval on the distribution agent from 5 (2008 default) to 10 (2000 default). This made no noticeable difference.
We have changed the ImmediateSync setting to 0 from 1. This made no noticeable difference.
We have ensured the index etc is ok on the central MSreplication_unscriptions table. This made no noticeable difference.
We have tried lock hints on some of the replication procs. This made no noticeable difference.

Any ideas would be much appreciated
Post #1514063
Posted Thursday, November 14, 2013 1:17 AM
Grasshopper

GrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopper

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, November 22, 2013 2:40 PM
Points: 16, Visits: 71
For reference all changes except the @Status and PollingInterval have been made at 2 or 3 of the 60 new servers to test, not at all 60.
Post #1514164
Posted Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:36 AM
Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 8:12 AM
Points: 1,362, Visits: 15,266
Have you established where the latency is?

Log reader to distribution server?
Distribution agent to subscriber?
Post #1514183
Posted Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:55 AM
Grasshopper

GrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopper

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, November 22, 2013 2:40 PM
Points: 16, Visits: 71
Cheers for the response. The publisher is its own distributor, there isn't a separate server for this. I will post some outputs from the Distribution and Log Reader agents shortly
Post #1514194
Posted Thursday, November 14, 2013 3:01 AM
Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 8:12 AM
Points: 1,362, Visits: 15,266
Also, is the latency across all subscribers?
Post #1514196
Posted Thursday, November 14, 2013 3:05 AM
Grasshopper

GrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopper

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, November 22, 2013 2:40 PM
Points: 16, Visits: 71
Some are worse than others, but there is latency across all the new servers. There was a correlation to the number of records in msrepl_commans and performance. But even when we set ImmediateSync to 0 and running the Distribution Cleanup job every 30 mins to keep the table size, this didn't help with I guess suggests it is an issue with applying the commands at the subscriber rather than getting the off the distributor?

There is no latency on the 2000 boxes
Post #1514198
Posted Thursday, November 14, 2013 4:28 AM
Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 8:12 AM
Points: 1,362, Visits: 15,266
chris.roddis-ferrari (11/14/2013)
Some are worse than others, but there is latency across all the new servers. There was a correlation to the number of records in msrepl_commans and performance. But even when we set ImmediateSync to 0 and running the Distribution Cleanup job every 30 mins to keep the table size, this didn't help with I guess suggests it is an issue with applying the commands at the subscriber rather than getting the off the distributor?

There is no latency on the 2000 boxes


It could be.

For clarity, you have 200 publishers (140/60 2000/2008) delivering to a single subscriber using push transactional replication. All of the 60 2008 publishers are experiencing latency at a currently unknown "bottleneck".

Are the subscriptions going to the same database/objects?
Post #1514215
Posted Thursday, November 14, 2013 5:04 AM
Grasshopper

GrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopper

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, November 22, 2013 2:40 PM
Points: 16, Visits: 71
Yes all going to the same database/objects. The split is 80 on 2000 and 60 on 2008

Cheers
Post #1514221
Posted Thursday, November 14, 2013 5:15 AM


SSCrazy

SSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 6:42 AM
Points: 2,837, Visits: 3,956
Any Drive(disk) level changes happened ? like comparatively low graded disk is being used now.

-------Bhuvnesh----------
I work only to learn Sql Server...though my company pays me for getting their stuff done
Post #1514224
Posted Thursday, November 14, 2013 5:40 AM
Grasshopper

GrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopper

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, November 22, 2013 2:40 PM
Points: 16, Visits: 71
Disk is now significantly better
Was previously 2 Utlra SCSI 420 72GB drives RAID1-0 and is now 4 SAS 300GB drives 2 RAID1-0 pairs.
Post #1514234
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase 123»»»

Permissions Expand / Collapse