Showing posts with label cpu. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cpu. Show all posts

Sunday, March 11, 2012

Complicated licensing question

Hi,

I have a dual CPU Dell PowerEdge for my SQL server. I have a SQL 2005 license for 1 CPU. In addition to that, I have a SQL 2005 license that I obtained at the SQL Launch event for free.

Here are my questions:

If I just install SQL 2005 on my dual CPU server, will it not run at all, or will it just utilize one of the CPUs? Is this against the licensing agreement? I don't expect performance issues even if the SQL software only utilizes one of the processors, so that would work fine for us. However, if this is not a workable solution and I need two licenses, can I use the SQL Launch license as the second license? I can't figure out if it is a per-CPU or per-user license.

Thank you,

Pavla

If you have more than one CPU on the Servers you will have to disable them at BIOS Level to make them not accessible to SQL Server. The icences of the launch event were AFAIK Server licences with One CAL. So this would not bring you any further. If you want to use the other processor you will have to buy another proc license.

HTH, Jens K. Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

Complicated Licensing Question

We are currently upgrading our 2 CPU SQL Server 2000 Enterprise box to a 4
CPU box. Along with this, we are hoping to upgrade to SQL Server 2005 within
a year after the hardware upgrade.
The only reason we are currently running SQL Server 2000 Enterprise is
because our server has over 2 GB of memory. In 2005, the 2 GB memory
limitation has been removed for the Standard Edition so we are moving over to
the Standard Edition when we upgrade in a year.
So currently, we are looking to add two more SQL Server 2000 Ent licenses
for the addtional CPUs. Can I buy two SQL Server Standard licenses and use
the downgrade rights to temporarily run 2000 Enterprise?
"licensing_confusion" <licensing_confusion@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
in message news:0D3492D5-F10D-435D-8FC0-293BCB09C94F@.microsoft.com...
> We are currently upgrading our 2 CPU SQL Server 2000 Enterprise box to a 4
> CPU box. Along with this, we are hoping to upgrade to SQL Server 2005
> within
> a year after the hardware upgrade.
> The only reason we are currently running SQL Server 2000 Enterprise is
> because our server has over 2 GB of memory. In 2005, the 2 GB memory
> limitation has been removed for the Standard Edition so we are moving over
> to
> the Standard Edition when we upgrade in a year.
> So currently, we are looking to add two more SQL Server 2000 Ent licenses
> for the addtional CPUs. Can I buy two SQL Server Standard licenses and
> use
> the downgrade rights to temporarily run 2000 Enterprise?
The best thing you can do is contact a Microsoft licensing specialist:
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/index/worldwide.mspx
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
|||"licensing_confusion" <licensing_confusion@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
in message news:0D3492D5-F10D-435D-8FC0-293BCB09C94F@.microsoft.com...
> We are currently upgrading our 2 CPU SQL Server 2000 Enterprise box to a 4
> CPU box. Along with this, we are hoping to upgrade to SQL Server 2005
> within
> a year after the hardware upgrade.
> The only reason we are currently running SQL Server 2000 Enterprise is
> because our server has over 2 GB of memory. In 2005, the 2 GB memory
> limitation has been removed for the Standard Edition so we are moving over
> to
> the Standard Edition when we upgrade in a year.
> So currently, we are looking to add two more SQL Server 2000 Ent licenses
> for the addtional CPUs. Can I buy two SQL Server Standard licenses and
> use
> the downgrade rights to temporarily run 2000 Enterprise?
I never got an answer to taht when I asked a similar question, directly to
Microsoft.
BUT, they are the only ones who can really answer that.
Any advice given here, unless by an official MS person is worth what you're
paying for it.
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting
sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com
|||"licensing_confusion" <licensing_confusion@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
in message news:0D3492D5-F10D-435D-8FC0-293BCB09C94F@.microsoft.com...
> We are currently upgrading our 2 CPU SQL Server 2000 Enterprise box to a 4
> CPU box. Along with this, we are hoping to upgrade to SQL Server 2005
> within
> a year after the hardware upgrade.
> The only reason we are currently running SQL Server 2000 Enterprise is
> because our server has over 2 GB of memory. In 2005, the 2 GB memory
> limitation has been removed for the Standard Edition so we are moving over
> to
> the Standard Edition when we upgrade in a year.
> So currently, we are looking to add two more SQL Server 2000 Ent licenses
> for the addtional CPUs. Can I buy two SQL Server Standard licenses and
> use
> the downgrade rights to temporarily run 2000 Enterprise?
So your question is can buy a SQL 2005 Standard License ($5,999 per proc,
retail) to and use it to run SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition ($25,000 per proc,
retail). Sounds unlikely.
David
|||"David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted meat@.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:ej3Tc2RXHHA.1432@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
> "licensing_confusion" <licensing_confusion@.discussions.microsoft.com>
> wrote in message
> news:0D3492D5-F10D-435D-8FC0-293BCB09C94F@.microsoft.com...
> So your question is can buy a SQL 2005 Standard License ($5,999 per proc,
> retail) to and use it to run SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition ($25,000 per
> proc, retail). Sounds unlikely.
> David
I think that's his question, which is similar to the case we had. 2
node-cluster with 8 gig of ram with 2 CPUs each.
Wanted to upgrade to 4 CPUs.
We're running SQL 2000, but plan on updating to SQL 2005.
Now, SQL 2005 Standard works on that config, but 2000 requires Enterprise.
So kind of puts some folks in a bind. :-/

Complicated Licensing Question

We are currently upgrading our 2 CPU SQL Server 2000 Enterprise box to a 4
CPU box. Along with this, we are hoping to upgrade to SQL Server 2005 withi
n
a year after the hardware upgrade.
The only reason we are currently running SQL Server 2000 Enterprise is
because our server has over 2 GB of memory. In 2005, the 2 GB memory
limitation has been removed for the Standard Edition so we are moving over t
o
the Standard Edition when we upgrade in a year.
So currently, we are looking to add two more SQL Server 2000 Ent licenses
for the addtional CPUs. Can I buy two SQL Server Standard licenses and use
the downgrade rights to temporarily run 2000 Enterprise?"licensing_confusion" <licensing_confusion@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
in message news:0D3492D5-F10D-435D-8FC0-293BCB09C94F@.microsoft.com...
> We are currently upgrading our 2 CPU SQL Server 2000 Enterprise box to a 4
> CPU box. Along with this, we are hoping to upgrade to SQL Server 2005
> within
> a year after the hardware upgrade.
> The only reason we are currently running SQL Server 2000 Enterprise is
> because our server has over 2 GB of memory. In 2005, the 2 GB memory
> limitation has been removed for the Standard Edition so we are moving over
> to
> the Standard Edition when we upgrade in a year.
> So currently, we are looking to add two more SQL Server 2000 Ent licenses
> for the addtional CPUs. Can I buy two SQL Server Standard licenses and
> use
> the downgrade rights to temporarily run 2000 Enterprise?
The best thing you can do is contact a Microsoft licensing specialist:
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/index/worldwide.mspx
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--|||"licensing_confusion" <licensing_confusion@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
in message news:0D3492D5-F10D-435D-8FC0-293BCB09C94F@.microsoft.com...
> We are currently upgrading our 2 CPU SQL Server 2000 Enterprise box to a 4
> CPU box. Along with this, we are hoping to upgrade to SQL Server 2005
> within
> a year after the hardware upgrade.
> The only reason we are currently running SQL Server 2000 Enterprise is
> because our server has over 2 GB of memory. In 2005, the 2 GB memory
> limitation has been removed for the Standard Edition so we are moving over
> to
> the Standard Edition when we upgrade in a year.
> So currently, we are looking to add two more SQL Server 2000 Ent licenses
> for the addtional CPUs. Can I buy two SQL Server Standard licenses and
> use
> the downgrade rights to temporarily run 2000 Enterprise?
I never got an answer to taht when I asked a similar question, directly to
Microsoft.
BUT, they are the only ones who can really answer that.
Any advice given here, unless by an official MS person is worth what you're
paying for it.
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting
sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com|||"licensing_confusion" <licensing_confusion@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
in message news:0D3492D5-F10D-435D-8FC0-293BCB09C94F@.microsoft.com...
> We are currently upgrading our 2 CPU SQL Server 2000 Enterprise box to a 4
> CPU box. Along with this, we are hoping to upgrade to SQL Server 2005
> within
> a year after the hardware upgrade.
> The only reason we are currently running SQL Server 2000 Enterprise is
> because our server has over 2 GB of memory. In 2005, the 2 GB memory
> limitation has been removed for the Standard Edition so we are moving over
> to
> the Standard Edition when we upgrade in a year.
> So currently, we are looking to add two more SQL Server 2000 Ent licenses
> for the addtional CPUs. Can I buy two SQL Server Standard licenses and
> use
> the downgrade rights to temporarily run 2000 Enterprise?
So your question is can buy a SQL 2005 Standard License ($5,999 per proc,
retail) to and use it to run SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition ($25,000 per proc,
retail). Sounds unlikely.
David|||"David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted meat@.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:ej3Tc2RXHHA.1432@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
> "licensing_confusion" <licensing_confusion@.discussions.microsoft.com>
> wrote in message
> news:0D3492D5-F10D-435D-8FC0-293BCB09C94F@.microsoft.com...
> So your question is can buy a SQL 2005 Standard License ($5,999 per proc,
> retail) to and use it to run SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition ($25,000 per
> proc, retail). Sounds unlikely.
> David
I think that's his question, which is similar to the case we had. 2
node-cluster with 8 gig of ram with 2 CPUs each.
Wanted to upgrade to 4 CPUs.
We're running SQL 2000, but plan on updating to SQL 2005.
Now, SQL 2005 Standard works on that config, but 2000 requires Enterprise.
So kind of puts some folks in a bind. :-/

Complicated Licensing Question

We are currently upgrading our 2 CPU SQL Server 2000 Enterprise box to a 4
CPU box. Along with this, we are hoping to upgrade to SQL Server 2005 within
a year after the hardware upgrade.
The only reason we are currently running SQL Server 2000 Enterprise is
because our server has over 2 GB of memory. In 2005, the 2 GB memory
limitation has been removed for the Standard Edition so we are moving over to
the Standard Edition when we upgrade in a year.
So currently, we are looking to add two more SQL Server 2000 Ent licenses
for the addtional CPUs. Can I buy two SQL Server Standard licenses and use
the downgrade rights to temporarily run 2000 Enterprise?"licensing_confusion" <licensing_confusion@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
in message news:0D3492D5-F10D-435D-8FC0-293BCB09C94F@.microsoft.com...
> We are currently upgrading our 2 CPU SQL Server 2000 Enterprise box to a 4
> CPU box. Along with this, we are hoping to upgrade to SQL Server 2005
> within
> a year after the hardware upgrade.
> The only reason we are currently running SQL Server 2000 Enterprise is
> because our server has over 2 GB of memory. In 2005, the 2 GB memory
> limitation has been removed for the Standard Edition so we are moving over
> to
> the Standard Edition when we upgrade in a year.
> So currently, we are looking to add two more SQL Server 2000 Ent licenses
> for the addtional CPUs. Can I buy two SQL Server Standard licenses and
> use
> the downgrade rights to temporarily run 2000 Enterprise?
The best thing you can do is contact a Microsoft licensing specialist:
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/index/worldwide.mspx
--
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--|||"licensing_confusion" <licensing_confusion@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
in message news:0D3492D5-F10D-435D-8FC0-293BCB09C94F@.microsoft.com...
> We are currently upgrading our 2 CPU SQL Server 2000 Enterprise box to a 4
> CPU box. Along with this, we are hoping to upgrade to SQL Server 2005
> within
> a year after the hardware upgrade.
> The only reason we are currently running SQL Server 2000 Enterprise is
> because our server has over 2 GB of memory. In 2005, the 2 GB memory
> limitation has been removed for the Standard Edition so we are moving over
> to
> the Standard Edition when we upgrade in a year.
> So currently, we are looking to add two more SQL Server 2000 Ent licenses
> for the addtional CPUs. Can I buy two SQL Server Standard licenses and
> use
> the downgrade rights to temporarily run 2000 Enterprise?
I never got an answer to taht when I asked a similar question, directly to
Microsoft.
BUT, they are the only ones who can really answer that.
Any advice given here, unless by an official MS person is worth what you're
paying for it.
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting
sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com|||"licensing_confusion" <licensing_confusion@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
in message news:0D3492D5-F10D-435D-8FC0-293BCB09C94F@.microsoft.com...
> We are currently upgrading our 2 CPU SQL Server 2000 Enterprise box to a 4
> CPU box. Along with this, we are hoping to upgrade to SQL Server 2005
> within
> a year after the hardware upgrade.
> The only reason we are currently running SQL Server 2000 Enterprise is
> because our server has over 2 GB of memory. In 2005, the 2 GB memory
> limitation has been removed for the Standard Edition so we are moving over
> to
> the Standard Edition when we upgrade in a year.
> So currently, we are looking to add two more SQL Server 2000 Ent licenses
> for the addtional CPUs. Can I buy two SQL Server Standard licenses and
> use
> the downgrade rights to temporarily run 2000 Enterprise?
So your question is can buy a SQL 2005 Standard License ($5,999 per proc,
retail) to and use it to run SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition ($25,000 per proc,
retail). Sounds unlikely.
David|||"David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted meat@.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:ej3Tc2RXHHA.1432@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
> "licensing_confusion" <licensing_confusion@.discussions.microsoft.com>
> wrote in message
> news:0D3492D5-F10D-435D-8FC0-293BCB09C94F@.microsoft.com...
>> We are currently upgrading our 2 CPU SQL Server 2000 Enterprise box to a
>> 4
>> CPU box. Along with this, we are hoping to upgrade to SQL Server 2005
>> within
>> a year after the hardware upgrade.
>> The only reason we are currently running SQL Server 2000 Enterprise is
>> because our server has over 2 GB of memory. In 2005, the 2 GB memory
>> limitation has been removed for the Standard Edition so we are moving
>> over to
>> the Standard Edition when we upgrade in a year.
>> So currently, we are looking to add two more SQL Server 2000 Ent licenses
>> for the addtional CPUs. Can I buy two SQL Server Standard licenses and
>> use
>> the downgrade rights to temporarily run 2000 Enterprise?
> So your question is can buy a SQL 2005 Standard License ($5,999 per proc,
> retail) to and use it to run SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition ($25,000 per
> proc, retail). Sounds unlikely.
> David
I think that's his question, which is similar to the case we had. 2
node-cluster with 8 gig of ram with 2 CPUs each.
Wanted to upgrade to 4 CPUs.
We're running SQL 2000, but plan on updating to SQL 2005.
Now, SQL 2005 Standard works on that config, but 2000 requires Enterprise.
So kind of puts some folks in a bind. :-/

Friday, February 17, 2012

Compile Blocking Issues

We've recently been experiencing problems locking issues seemingly caused by
compiles.. ..cpu max's out at 100%, query duration get longer, and we see a
large number of LCK_M_X in sysprocesses with coupled with something like TAB:
5:736291420:0 [COMPILE].. ..what could be causing this issue?
K1) What is the table referenced in the lock?
2) It could be caused by lots of compiles' :-)) Seriously, do you do a
lot of sproc calls? Even worse, lots of badly-written ADO calls? Lots of
temptable useage (it is SCARY how many recompiles can be caused by this!!)?
SQL 2000 or 2005'
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Ben UK" <BenUK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6E5794CF-C439-4FC7-A0EE-C71478CF552A@.microsoft.com...
> We've recently been experiencing problems locking issues seemingly caused
> by
> compiles.. ..cpu max's out at 100%, query duration get longer, and we see
> a
> large number of LCK_M_X in sysprocesses with coupled with something like
> TAB:
> 5:736291420:0 [COMPILE].. ..what could be causing this issue?
> K|||Have you read this:
"Description of SQL Server blocking caused by compile locks"
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/263889
--
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.InsideSQLServer.com
http://sqlblog.com
"Ben UK" <BenUK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6E5794CF-C439-4FC7-A0EE-C71478CF552A@.microsoft.com...
> We've recently been experiencing problems locking issues seemingly caused
> by
> compiles.. ..cpu max's out at 100%, query duration get longer, and we see
> a
> large number of LCK_M_X in sysprocesses with coupled with something like
> TAB:
> 5:736291420:0 [COMPILE].. ..what could be causing this issue?
> K|||On Jun 13, 11:49 am, "TheSQLGuru" <kgbo...@.earthlink.net> wrote:
> 1) What is the table referenced in the lock?
> 2) It could be caused by lots of compiles' :-)) Seriously, do you do a
> lot of sproc calls? Even worse, lots of badly-written ADO calls? Lots of
> temptable useage (it is SCARY how many recompiles can be caused by this!!)?
> SQL 2000 or 2005'
> --
> TheSQLGuru
> President
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
> "Ben UK" <B...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6E5794CF-C439-4FC7-A0EE-C71478CF552A@.microsoft.com...
>
>
> > We've recently been experiencing problems locking issues seemingly caused
> > by
> > compiles.. ..cpu max's out at 100%, query duration get longer, and we see
> > a
> > large number of LCK_M_X in sysprocesses with coupled with something like
> > TAB:
> > 5:736291420:0 [COMPILE].. ..what could be causing this issue?
> > K- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
I've observed this behavior with sprocs that are called very often and
make use of temp tables. As data is inserted into the temp table one
or more sp-recompile events will happen. If many concurrent spids are
calling this sproc at the same time, SQL appears to allow only one
spid at a time to perform the recompile - this will reduce the level
of concurrency in the system and you will see blocking spids that are
marked with [COMPILE]. Try to use profiler to trace stored procedure
recompiles, and RPC:Completed events to identify what is being
recomplied, then ideally try to tune the code to reduce recompiles.|||Thanks for the responses, we're SQL 2005, SP1, the objects referenced in the
lock are primarily 2 sp's and 1 udf.. ..when querying sysprocesses we can see
around 30 occurances of this lock from around 600 connections.
The problems *seem*to have started since we changed the schema and removed a
table containing denormalized data and replaced it with a view. Both the
sp's that have compile issues reference the new view (as do around 50-60
more), the udf doesn't reference any new tables... ...the udf uses a table
variable, but neither sp uses temp tables of any kind.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/263889
^ I did read the article earlier today.. ..it was kinda useful, but I didn't
see anything in there that would indicate the cause of our issue. The only
thing it made me question was some of the table with the sp's weren't fully
qualified.. ..but this has always been the case so it would be strange for
this to only just start causing a problem..
Again thanks for the responses.. ..any help is greatly appreciated
K
Unfortunately I can't analyse new traces, as currently our frontend is being
redirected..|||Is 736291420 an object id for a stored proc? It sounds like what MS calls
"rolling block". Does the blocking head spid(s) constantly changing?
Did you run profiler trace to see where the SP:Recompile event occurs and
what Event Subclass it falls into?
"Ben UK" <BenUK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6E5794CF-C439-4FC7-A0EE-C71478CF552A@.microsoft.com...
> We've recently been experiencing problems locking issues seemingly caused
> by
> compiles.. ..cpu max's out at 100%, query duration get longer, and we see
> a
> large number of LCK_M_X in sysprocesses with coupled with something like
> TAB:
> 5:736291420:0 [COMPILE].. ..what could be causing this issue?
> K|||Yep it's a sproc and the blocking head does constantly change.. ..what causes
this behaviour?
Thanks in advance
K
"YPD" wrote:
> Is 736291420 an object id for a stored proc? It sounds like what MS calls
> "rolling block". Does the blocking head spid(s) constantly changing?
> Did you run profiler trace to see where the SP:Recompile event occurs and
> what Event Subclass it falls into?
>
> "Ben UK" <BenUK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6E5794CF-C439-4FC7-A0EE-C71478CF552A@.microsoft.com...
> >
> > We've recently been experiencing problems locking issues seemingly caused
> > by
> > compiles.. ..cpu max's out at 100%, query duration get longer, and we see
> > a
> > large number of LCK_M_X in sysprocesses with coupled with something like
> > TAB:
> > 5:736291420:0 [COMPILE].. ..what could be causing this issue?
> >
> > K
>
>|||The culprit for the performance problem should be stored procedure
recompilations. What happens is the sprocs are recompiled everytime they get
called. The recompliation doesn't happen in a timely fasion so that client
connections calling the sprocs have to be queued up waiting to be
recompiled.
Profiler is your friend. Please run a profiler trace to capture a series of
events to determine what caused the recomplications. The link
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/243586/ referenced in Kalen's post is a good
place to start.
"Ben UK" <BenUK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AA4556BF-995D-4201-B887-36C04FEB9E84@.microsoft.com...
> Yep it's a sproc and the blocking head does constantly change.. ..what
> causes
> this behaviour?
> Thanks in advance
> K
> "YPD" wrote:
>> Is 736291420 an object id for a stored proc? It sounds like what MS calls
>> "rolling block". Does the blocking head spid(s) constantly changing?
>> Did you run profiler trace to see where the SP:Recompile event occurs and
>> what Event Subclass it falls into?
>>
>> "Ben UK" <BenUK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:6E5794CF-C439-4FC7-A0EE-C71478CF552A@.microsoft.com...
>> >
>> > We've recently been experiencing problems locking issues seemingly
>> > caused
>> > by
>> > compiles.. ..cpu max's out at 100%, query duration get longer, and we
>> > see
>> > a
>> > large number of LCK_M_X in sysprocesses with coupled with something
>> > like
>> > TAB:
>> > 5:736291420:0 [COMPILE].. ..what could be causing this issue?
>> >
>> > K
>>

Compile Blocking Issues

We've recently been experiencing problems locking issues seemingly caused by
compiles.. ..cpu max's out at 100%, query duration get longer, and we see a
large number of LCK_M_X in sysprocesses with coupled with something like TAB:
5:736291420:0 [COMPILE].. ..what could be causing this issue?
K
1) What is the table referenced in the lock?
2) It could be caused by lots of compiles? :-)) Seriously, do you do a
lot of sproc calls? Even worse, lots of badly-written ADO calls? Lots of
temptable useage (it is SCARY how many recompiles can be caused by this!!)?
SQL 2000 or 2005?
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Ben UK" <BenUK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6E5794CF-C439-4FC7-A0EE-C71478CF552A@.microsoft.com...
> We've recently been experiencing problems locking issues seemingly caused
> by
> compiles.. ..cpu max's out at 100%, query duration get longer, and we see
> a
> large number of LCK_M_X in sysprocesses with coupled with something like
> TAB:
> 5:736291420:0 [COMPILE].. ..what could be causing this issue?
> K
|||Have you read this:
"Description of SQL Server blocking caused by compile locks"
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/263889
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.InsideSQLServer.com
http://sqlblog.com
"Ben UK" <BenUK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6E5794CF-C439-4FC7-A0EE-C71478CF552A@.microsoft.com...
> We've recently been experiencing problems locking issues seemingly caused
> by
> compiles.. ..cpu max's out at 100%, query duration get longer, and we see
> a
> large number of LCK_M_X in sysprocesses with coupled with something like
> TAB:
> 5:736291420:0 [COMPILE].. ..what could be causing this issue?
> K
|||On Jun 13, 11:49 am, "TheSQLGuru" <kgbo...@.earthlink.net> wrote:
> 1) What is the table referenced in the lock?
> 2) It could be caused by lots of compiles? :-)) Seriously, do you do a
> lot of sproc calls? Even worse, lots of badly-written ADO calls? Lots of
> temptable useage (it is SCARY how many recompiles can be caused by this!!)?
> SQL 2000 or 2005?
> --
> TheSQLGuru
> President
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
> "Ben UK" <B...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6E5794CF-C439-4FC7-A0EE-C71478CF552A@.microsoft.com...
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I've observed this behavior with sprocs that are called very often and
make use of temp tables. As data is inserted into the temp table one
or more sp-recompile events will happen. If many concurrent spids are
calling this sproc at the same time, SQL appears to allow only one
spid at a time to perform the recompile - this will reduce the level
of concurrency in the system and you will see blocking spids that are
marked with [COMPILE]. Try to use profiler to trace stored procedure
recompiles, and RPC:Completed events to identify what is being
recomplied, then ideally try to tune the code to reduce recompiles.
|||Thanks for the responses, we're SQL 2005, SP1, the objects referenced in the
lock are primarily 2 sp's and 1 udf.. ..when querying sysprocesses we can see
around 30 occurances of this lock from around 600 connections.
The problems *seem*to have started since we changed the schema and removed a
table containing denormalized data and replaced it with a view. Both the
sp's that have compile issues reference the new view (as do around 50-60
more), the udf doesn't reference any new tables... ...the udf uses a table
variable, but neither sp uses temp tables of any kind.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/263889
^ I did read the article earlier today.. ..it was kinda useful, but I didn't
see anything in there that would indicate the cause of our issue. The only
thing it made me question was some of the table with the sp's weren't fully
qualified.. ..but this has always been the case so it would be strange for
this to only just start causing a problem..
Again thanks for the responses.. ..any help is greatly appreciated
K
Unfortunately I can't analyse new traces, as currently our frontend is being
redirected..
|||Is 736291420 an object id for a stored proc? It sounds like what MS calls
"rolling block". Does the blocking head spid(s) constantly changing?
Did you run profiler trace to see where the SP:Recompile event occurs and
what Event Subclass it falls into?
"Ben UK" <BenUK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6E5794CF-C439-4FC7-A0EE-C71478CF552A@.microsoft.com...
> We've recently been experiencing problems locking issues seemingly caused
> by
> compiles.. ..cpu max's out at 100%, query duration get longer, and we see
> a
> large number of LCK_M_X in sysprocesses with coupled with something like
> TAB:
> 5:736291420:0 [COMPILE].. ..what could be causing this issue?
> K
|||Yep it's a sproc and the blocking head does constantly change.. ..what causes
this behaviour?
Thanks in advance
K
"YPD" wrote:

> Is 736291420 an object id for a stored proc? It sounds like what MS calls
> "rolling block". Does the blocking head spid(s) constantly changing?
> Did you run profiler trace to see where the SP:Recompile event occurs and
> what Event Subclass it falls into?
>
> "Ben UK" <BenUK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6E5794CF-C439-4FC7-A0EE-C71478CF552A@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||The culprit for the performance problem should be stored procedure
recompilations. What happens is the sprocs are recompiled everytime they get
called. The recompliation doesn't happen in a timely fasion so that client
connections calling the sprocs have to be queued up waiting to be
recompiled.
Profiler is your friend. Please run a profiler trace to capture a series of
events to determine what caused the recomplications. The link
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/243586/ referenced in Kalen's post is a good
place to start.
"Ben UK" <BenUK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AA4556BF-995D-4201-B887-36C04FEB9E84@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yep it's a sproc and the blocking head does constantly change.. ..what
> causes
> this behaviour?
> Thanks in advance
> K
> "YPD" wrote:

Compile Blocking Issues

We've recently been experiencing problems locking issues seemingly caused by
compiles.. ..cpu max's out at 100%, query duration get longer, and we see a
large number of LCK_M_X in sysprocesses with coupled with something like TAB
:
5:736291420:0 [COMPILE].. ..what could be causing this issue?
K1) What is the table referenced in the lock?
2) It could be caused by lots of compiles' :-)) Seriously, do you do a
lot of sproc calls? Even worse, lots of badly-written ADO calls? Lots of
temptable useage (it is SCARY how many recompiles can be caused by this!!)?
SQL 2000 or 2005'
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Ben UK" <BenUK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6E5794CF-C439-4FC7-A0EE-C71478CF552A@.microsoft.com...
> We've recently been experiencing problems locking issues seemingly caused
> by
> compiles.. ..cpu max's out at 100%, query duration get longer, and we see
> a
> large number of LCK_M_X in sysprocesses with coupled with something like
> TAB:
> 5:736291420:0 [COMPILE].. ..what could be causing this issue?
> K|||Have you read this:
"Description of SQL Server blocking caused by compile locks"
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/263889
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.InsideSQLServer.com
http://sqlblog.com
"Ben UK" <BenUK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6E5794CF-C439-4FC7-A0EE-C71478CF552A@.microsoft.com...
> We've recently been experiencing problems locking issues seemingly caused
> by
> compiles.. ..cpu max's out at 100%, query duration get longer, and we see
> a
> large number of LCK_M_X in sysprocesses with coupled with something like
> TAB:
> 5:736291420:0 [COMPILE].. ..what could be causing this issue?
> K|||On Jun 13, 11:49 am, "TheSQLGuru" <kgbo...@.earthlink.net> wrote:
> 1) What is the table referenced in the lock?
> 2) It could be caused by lots of compiles' :-)) Seriously, do you do a
> lot of sproc calls? Even worse, lots of badly-written ADO calls? Lots of
> temptable useage (it is SCARY how many recompiles can be caused by this!!)
?
> SQL 2000 or 2005'
> --
> TheSQLGuru
> President
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
> "Ben UK" <B...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6E5794CF-C439-4FC7-A0EE-C71478CF552A@.microsoft.com...
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I've observed this behavior with sprocs that are called very often and
make use of temp tables. As data is inserted into the temp table one
or more sp-recompile events will happen. If many concurrent spids are
calling this sproc at the same time, SQL appears to allow only one
spid at a time to perform the recompile - this will reduce the level
of concurrency in the system and you will see blocking spids that are
marked with [COMPILE]. Try to use profiler to trace stored procedure
recompiles, and RPC:Completed events to identify what is being
recomplied, then ideally try to tune the code to reduce recompiles.|||Thanks for the responses, we're SQL 2005, SP1, the objects referenced in the
lock are primarily 2 sp's and 1 udf.. ..when querying sysprocesses we can se
e
around 30 occurances of this lock from around 600 connections.
The problems *seem*to have started since we changed the schema and removed a
table containing denormalized data and replaced it with a view. Both the
sp's that have compile issues reference the new view (as do around 50-60
more), the udf doesn't reference any new tables... ...the udf uses a table
variable, but neither sp uses temp tables of any kind.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/263889
^ I did read the article earlier today.. ..it was kinda useful, but I didn't
see anything in there that would indicate the cause of our issue. The only
thing it made me question was some of the table with the sp's weren't fully
qualified.. ..but this has always been the case so it would be strange for
this to only just start causing a problem..
Again thanks for the responses.. ..any help is greatly appreciated
K
Unfortunately I can't analyse new traces, as currently our frontend is being
redirected..|||Is 736291420 an object id for a stored proc? It sounds like what MS calls
"rolling block". Does the blocking head spid(s) constantly changing?
Did you run profiler trace to see where the SP:Recompile event occurs and
what Event Subclass it falls into?
"Ben UK" <BenUK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6E5794CF-C439-4FC7-A0EE-C71478CF552A@.microsoft.com...
> We've recently been experiencing problems locking issues seemingly caused
> by
> compiles.. ..cpu max's out at 100%, query duration get longer, and we see
> a
> large number of LCK_M_X in sysprocesses with coupled with something like
> TAB:
> 5:736291420:0 [COMPILE].. ..what could be causing this issue?
> K|||Yep it's a sproc and the blocking head does constantly change.. ..what cause
s
this behaviour?
Thanks in advance
K
"YPD" wrote:

> Is 736291420 an object id for a stored proc? It sounds like what MS calls
> "rolling block". Does the blocking head spid(s) constantly changing?
> Did you run profiler trace to see where the SP:Recompile event occurs and
> what Event Subclass it falls into?
>
> "Ben UK" <BenUK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6E5794CF-C439-4FC7-A0EE-C71478CF552A@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||The culprit for the performance problem should be stored procedure
recompilations. What happens is the sprocs are recompiled everytime they get
called. The recompliation doesn't happen in a timely fasion so that client
connections calling the sprocs have to be queued up waiting to be
recompiled.
Profiler is your friend. Please run a profiler trace to capture a series of
events to determine what caused the recomplications. The link
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/243586/ referenced in Kalen's post is a good
place to start.
"Ben UK" <BenUK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AA4556BF-995D-4201-B887-36C04FEB9E84@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yep it's a sproc and the blocking head does constantly change.. ..what
> causes
> this behaviour?
> Thanks in advance
> K
> "YPD" wrote:
>