Differences in SQL 2000/2005 jobs function

  • Within the SQL Server Agent job function, there are some differences

    between SQL 2000 and 2005 where the change in the new version is not

    as useful as the earlier version, in my opinion.

    To clarify:

    In 2000 the scheduled jobs are listed under: Management - SQL Server

    Agent - Jobs

    in 2005 the scheduled jobs are listed under: SQL Server Agent - Jobs

    The differences I am highlighting are:

    1. When a job has failed in 2000, it is immediately noticable because

    the job is listed with an indicator of a red cross, whereas in 2005

    there is no such indicator and the only way to find a job failure is

    to look in the job history (or of course use job alerting)

    2. In the 2000 job listing there are some useful columns such as

    "Category", "Last Run Status" and "Next Run Date" and from this it is

    very easy to find which jobs are running next, to group jobs, etc. I

    cannot see a way to add any such columns.

    Are these differences correct or is there something I am missing or

    not doing?

    Any info or comments welcome.

  • In SQL Server 2005/2008 you now have a Job Activity Monitor. Open that and you have everything you are looking for and more.

    One thing to note is if you are looking at jobs for maintenance plans, you want to use the maintenance plan history and not job history. The maintenance plan history will show each tasks in the maintenance plan - the job history only shows the results for the job.

    Jeffrey Williams
    “We are all faced with a series of great opportunities brilliantly disguised as impossible situations.”

    ― Charles R. Swindoll

    How to post questions to get better answers faster
    Managing Transaction Logs

  • Thank you for this! Its not immediately obvious as one has to double-click rather than opening a tree, but its great that this feature is still available.

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply