Post reply

IntegrityTask in 2005 only takes seconds to finish ???

  • March 2, 2009 at 12:02 am

    #131328

    Hi,

    we just upgraded one of our databases from SQL 2000 to SQL 2005. In SQL2000 the MaintenancePlan Task "Integrity" took about 30 minutes, but now in 2005 it takes not even 2 secs? Is there a difference between the TSQL statements when creating the Jobs using the Wizard?

    Thanks for your help,

    Nat

  • March 5, 2009 at 1:00 am

    #953826

    Anybody ?!?!?!

  • March 5, 2009 at 9:00 am

    #954101

    There could be many reasons. Let me ask a few questions.

    - Is the hardware different ?

    - Are the OS's different ?

    - Is the load on the server the same ?

    - Is the scheduling of the of the maintenance the same ?

    Once we start to answer a few of these maybe we can explain your super increase in performance.

    On another note, I have seen most DB's perform better on 2005 as opposed to 2000.

    RegardsRudy KomacsarSenior Database Administrator"Ave Caesar! - Morituri te salutamus."

  • March 5, 2009 at 9:08 am

    #954107

    Thanks so much for the answer.

    Now,

    - Is the hardware different ? Yes, before we had a dualcore Processor with 4GB Ram, now it's a quadcore Processor with 16GB Ram

    - Are the OS's different ? No, both systems are running Windows Server 2003

    - Is the load on the server the same ? What exactly do you mean by "load"?

    - Is the scheduling of the of the maintenance the same ? Yes, they run at the same time as before

    On another note, I have seen most DB's perform better on 2005 as opposed to 2000. - I expected the job to be faster, but not that much, that's why I thought there are differences in the jobs when created with the wizard.

    Regards,

    Nat

  • March 5, 2009 at 9:26 am

    #954128

    I am going to assume that you went to x64 for SQL 2005 as well.

    Right off you doubled the number of processors - always good.

    Then you quadrupled RAM - even better.

    It is quite possible that everything was in RAM or the prefetching kept everything there.

    Oh, when I sya 'load' - I mean user connections, JOB executing and the like.

    Hope that helps explain a bit ...

    RegardsRudy KomacsarSenior Database Administrator"Ave Caesar! - Morituri te salutamus."

  • March 5, 2009 at 9:50 am

    #954150

    Oh ok, so the "load" is still the same, we only got a new server and upgraded to SQL 2005 (x64, correct), the rest stayed the same.

    I'll take it as it is then, hopefully the job really does work properly.

    Thanks for the answer 🙂

    Regards,

    Nat

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)

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