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 12»»

A SQL Server Issue? (Database Weekly May 11, 2009) Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Friday, May 8, 2009 6:55 PM


SSC-Dedicated

SSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-Dedicated

Group: Administrators
Last Login: Yesterday @ 9:42 PM
Points: 31,036, Visits: 15,466
Comments posted to this topic are about the item A SQL Server Issue? (Database Weekly May 11, 2009)






Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest

Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Post #713441
Posted Saturday, May 9, 2009 11:47 AM


SSCrazy Eights

SSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy Eights

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 10:07 AM
Points: 9,923, Visits: 11,170
According to this:

http://sqlcat.com/faq/archive/2009/05/08/windows2008-r2-beta-download-runs-smoothly-now.aspx

...this was nothing to do with SQL Server, CPU spikes, page splitting or GUIDs. The site was simply configured for an expected 20% increase in traffic (and was prepared to handle a 100% increase) but in the event load went up by 500%...!

Given that information, direct from the SQL Server team, it's no wonder things slowed down a bit.

As always, making bold statements before the facts are known is liable to make the participants look a little silly...

Cheers,

Paul




Paul White
SQL Server MVP
SQLblog.com
@SQL_Kiwi
Post #713587
Posted Sunday, May 10, 2009 12:35 AM
SSC Veteran

SSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC Veteran

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Sunday, September 8, 2013 5:39 PM
Points: 263, Visits: 862
Uh oh, the dreaded clustered vs. non-clustered argument. Well, in this specific case, it might have been better to go with the non-clustered option. But it's easy to say that after the fact, isn't it?

To quote from one of my favorite TV shows EVER - "This has all happened before, and it will all happen again."

(Battlestar Galactica 2004, btw)



James Stover, McDBA
Post #713658
Posted Sunday, May 10, 2009 1:50 AM


SSCrazy Eights

SSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy Eights

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 10:07 AM
Points: 9,923, Visits: 11,170
James,

Have you read the article at the link I posted?

Paul




Paul White
SQL Server MVP
SQLblog.com
@SQL_Kiwi
Post #713665
Posted Sunday, May 10, 2009 4:09 AM
SSC Veteran

SSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC Veteran

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Sunday, September 8, 2013 5:39 PM
Points: 263, Visits: 862
Paul White (5/10/2009)
James,

Have you read the article at the link I posted?

Paul


Er, no sorry. Read it just now. OK, so it was a capacity issue unrelated to SQL. Well, that's good news. Unfortunately, thanks to the lightning speed at which mis-information spreads on the internet, this issue will probably be "sticky" for SQL Server for a while.

Regarding the ZDNet blog, I quote:

"Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications."

Well Ed, the SQLCAT team has posted an official explanation. Where is your official correction on the topic? Award-winning journalists publicly correct their mis-information.



James Stover, McDBA
Post #713687
Posted Sunday, May 10, 2009 4:17 AM


SSCrazy Eights

SSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy Eights

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 10:07 AM
Points: 9,923, Visits: 11,170
Hey James,

Yes it is spreading, but there is some fire-control too:

http://sqlblog.com/blogs/andrew_kelly/archive/2009/05/09/so-the-real-story-is.aspx

It will be interesting to see if Ed does post a correction.

Paul




Paul White
SQL Server MVP
SQLblog.com
@SQL_Kiwi
Post #713689
Posted Monday, May 11, 2009 9:37 AM


SSC-Dedicated

SSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-Dedicated

Group: Administrators
Last Login: Yesterday @ 9:42 PM
Points: 31,036, Visits: 15,466
Paul,

Excellent link and thanks for posting.

I don't think it changes the point of the editorial: Microsoft should ensure the blame, or explanation, is the architecture and planning, not the platform.








Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest

Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Post #714240
Posted Monday, May 11, 2009 12:25 PM


SSCrazy

SSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, September 11, 2014 3:05 AM
Points: 2,039, Visits: 1,665
Yes, it was a capacity planning issue because they hadn't tested the schema for that load. As soon as they rebuilt the clustered index to remove the fragmentation, things sped up. Not a SQL problem, a design and planning problem.

And the CAT team article didn't say anything about what it *wasn't* - only that it was a capacity planning issue. That's a nice catch-all for all kinds of performance problems...


Paul Randal
CEO, SQLskills.com: Check out SQLskills online training!
Blog:www.SQLskills.com/blogs/paul Twitter: @PaulRandal
SQL MVP, Microsoft RD, Contributing Editor of TechNet Magazine
Author of DBCC CHECKDB/repair (and other Storage Engine) code of SQL Server 2005
Post #714406
Posted Monday, May 11, 2009 12:27 PM


SSC-Dedicated

SSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-Dedicated

Group: Administrators
Last Login: Yesterday @ 9:42 PM
Points: 31,036, Visits: 15,466
I pinged the ZDNet writer. He is looking into it and will likely post an update.








Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest

Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Post #714409
Posted Monday, May 11, 2009 12:36 PM


SSCrazy

SSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, September 11, 2014 3:05 AM
Points: 2,039, Visits: 1,665
And also, if it turns out that what was reported originally was BS, I did caveat my blog post by saying "Now, this is slight conjecture, as I don't know the exact schema, but it's the only thing that explains what's been divulged so far".

I'll be happy to hear a definitive statement that it had nothing to do with the unanticipated load on the schema and lack of frequent defrags.

Thanks


Paul Randal
CEO, SQLskills.com: Check out SQLskills online training!
Blog:www.SQLskills.com/blogs/paul Twitter: @PaulRandal
SQL MVP, Microsoft RD, Contributing Editor of TechNet Magazine
Author of DBCC CHECKDB/repair (and other Storage Engine) code of SQL Server 2005
Post #714416
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase 12»»

Permissions Expand / Collapse