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

Using Server Side Traces for Dynamic Performance Evaluation Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Thursday, December 3, 2009 8:32 AM


Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 9:16 AM
Points: 1,157, Visits: 3,263
G33kKahuna (12/2/2009)

G33kKahuna - Is it your position that server side trace information offers no value in troubleshooting performance issues? What “fantasy world” are you living in?


Tommy,

Which part of my response said server side trace is bad? infact the wait types I mentioned can be captured only on the server side ...

Sounds like you are suggesting that avg read, write and cpu are the only server side performance indicators .... looks like you got a lot to catchup on SQL Server performance tuning bud ...

Look up Andew Kelly, Paul Randel, Jimmy May and Linchi Shea articles

JacekO, I would have calibrated SQL Wait & Waiting stats for autogrows but you seem to prefer your approach ... fair enough and peace.


G33kKahuna - We are talking in circles...I merely supported the analysis of server side trace data as a tool to troubleshoot performance issues; not the end all be all. Your arrogance is unbecoming. Perhaps we should take this offline.


Tommy

Post #828233
Posted Thursday, December 3, 2009 4:45 PM
Valued Member

Valued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued Member

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, October 31, 2013 8:04 PM
Points: 68, Visits: 278
Your arrogance is unbecoming. Perhaps we should take this offline


Jacek's article was debate worthy. I believe he and I don't see eye to eye on the evaluation approach .... he did clarify his position as well.

You jumped in the middle from nowhere with a pitbull attitude. You lacked skills to support your own argument or counter mine, not to mention lack of comprehension. Like I said before you offered, I would be more than happy to debate you offline but after your response from yesterday; it would be a waste of time .... cheers
Post #828568
Posted Thursday, December 3, 2009 5:49 PM


Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 9:16 AM
Points: 1,157, Visits: 3,263
G33kKahuna (12/3/2009)
Your arrogance is unbecoming. Perhaps we should take this offline


Jacek's article was debate worthy. I believe he and I don't see eye to eye on the evaluation approach .... he did clarify his position as well.

You jumped in the middle from nowhere with a pitbull attitude. You lacked skills to support your own argument or counter mine, not to mention lack of comprehension. Like I said before you offered, I would be more than happy to debate you offline but after your response from yesterday; it would be a waste of time .... cheers


That was not my intention and if I insulted you in anyway, please accept my apologies. I found the article insightful and was merely trying to support the author for his contribution. Feel free to PM me offline.

Updated this post to include an example; using the information below we were able to hone in on Procedure_C; closer inspection of the execution plan in the server side trace revealed a missing index; i.e.

Object Name # of Executions Avg_Reads Avg_Writes Avg_CPU Avg_Duration Max_Duration
Procedure_A 3002 6830 0 234 1 3
Procedure_B 2925 882 0 26 0 3
Procedure_C 1835 10201 0 246 2 51

Object Name < 1 1 - 2 Seconds 3 - 5 Seconds 5 + Seconds
Procedure_B 2234 512 134 0
Procedure_A 2285 510 118 0
Procedure_C 1032 418 235 150


Tommy

Post #828587
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase «««123

Permissions Expand / Collapse