I always get this error 1222 time out if I go on my SQL Server and open
Enterprise Manager, go under management, Current acvtivity.
How do I set up SQL server to show me the activity.
The error is (both on server and client)
Error 1222 Lock request time otu period exceeded.
THanksThis is because it switches out of READ UNCOMMITTED about halfway through
for whatever reason. Use sp_who2 in query analyzer instead. If you're
interested in locking/blocking check out aba_lockinfo
http://www.sommarskog.se/sqlutil/aba_lockinfo.html
HTH
Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
http://www.sqldbatips.com
I support PASS - the definitive, global
community for SQL Server professionals -
http://www.sqlpass.org
"freesoul777" <freesoul777@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:74405E36-07ED-4A3A-88D8-5E407505035E@.microsoft.com...
>I always get this error 1222 time out if I go on my SQL Server and open
> Enterprise Manager, go under management, Current acvtivity.
> How do I set up SQL server to show me the activity.
> The error is (both on server and client)
> Error 1222 Lock request time otu period exceeded.
> THanks
>
Showing posts with label activity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label activity. Show all posts
Monday, March 19, 2012
Current Activity Window always times out on Sql Server
I always get this error 1222 time out if I go on my SQL Server and open
Enterprise Manager, go under management, Current acvtivity.
How do I set up SQL server to show me the activity.
The error is (both on server and client)
Error 1222 Lock request time otu period exceeded.
THanks
This is because it switches out of READ UNCOMMITTED about halfway through
for whatever reason. Use sp_who2 in query analyzer instead. If you're
interested in locking/blocking check out aba_lockinfo
http://www.sommarskog.se/sqlutil/aba_lockinfo.html
HTH
Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
http://www.sqldbatips.com
I support PASS - the definitive, global
community for SQL Server professionals -
http://www.sqlpass.org
"freesoul777" <freesoul777@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:74405E36-07ED-4A3A-88D8-5E407505035E@.microsoft.com...
>I always get this error 1222 time out if I go on my SQL Server and open
> Enterprise Manager, go under management, Current acvtivity.
> How do I set up SQL server to show me the activity.
> The error is (both on server and client)
> Error 1222 Lock request time otu period exceeded.
> THanks
>
Enterprise Manager, go under management, Current acvtivity.
How do I set up SQL server to show me the activity.
The error is (both on server and client)
Error 1222 Lock request time otu period exceeded.
THanks
This is because it switches out of READ UNCOMMITTED about halfway through
for whatever reason. Use sp_who2 in query analyzer instead. If you're
interested in locking/blocking check out aba_lockinfo
http://www.sommarskog.se/sqlutil/aba_lockinfo.html
HTH
Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
http://www.sqldbatips.com
I support PASS - the definitive, global
community for SQL Server professionals -
http://www.sqlpass.org
"freesoul777" <freesoul777@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:74405E36-07ED-4A3A-88D8-5E407505035E@.microsoft.com...
>I always get this error 1222 time out if I go on my SQL Server and open
> Enterprise Manager, go under management, Current acvtivity.
> How do I set up SQL server to show me the activity.
> The error is (both on server and client)
> Error 1222 Lock request time otu period exceeded.
> THanks
>
Current Activity Window always times out on Sql Server
I always get this error 1222 time out if I go on my SQL Server and open
Enterprise Manager, go under management, Current acvtivity.
How do I set up SQL server to show me the activity.
The error is (both on server and client)
Error 1222 Lock request time otu period exceeded.
THanksThis is because it switches out of READ UNCOMMITTED about halfway through
for whatever reason. Use sp_who2 in query analyzer instead. If you're
interested in locking/blocking check out aba_lockinfo
http://www.sommarskog.se/sqlutil/aba_lockinfo.html
--
HTH
Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
http://www.sqldbatips.com
I support PASS - the definitive, global
community for SQL Server professionals -
http://www.sqlpass.org
"freesoul777" <freesoul777@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:74405E36-07ED-4A3A-88D8-5E407505035E@.microsoft.com...
>I always get this error 1222 time out if I go on my SQL Server and open
> Enterprise Manager, go under management, Current acvtivity.
> How do I set up SQL server to show me the activity.
> The error is (both on server and client)
> Error 1222 Lock request time otu period exceeded.
> THanks
>
Enterprise Manager, go under management, Current acvtivity.
How do I set up SQL server to show me the activity.
The error is (both on server and client)
Error 1222 Lock request time otu period exceeded.
THanksThis is because it switches out of READ UNCOMMITTED about halfway through
for whatever reason. Use sp_who2 in query analyzer instead. If you're
interested in locking/blocking check out aba_lockinfo
http://www.sommarskog.se/sqlutil/aba_lockinfo.html
--
HTH
Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
http://www.sqldbatips.com
I support PASS - the definitive, global
community for SQL Server professionals -
http://www.sqlpass.org
"freesoul777" <freesoul777@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:74405E36-07ED-4A3A-88D8-5E407505035E@.microsoft.com...
>I always get this error 1222 time out if I go on my SQL Server and open
> Enterprise Manager, go under management, Current acvtivity.
> How do I set up SQL server to show me the activity.
> The error is (both on server and client)
> Error 1222 Lock request time otu period exceeded.
> THanks
>
current activity window
I'm trying to understand the output of the current
activity window and have 2 questions:
(1) what is the difference between a green globe and a
grey one. I have a long-running job that says 'Executing'
in the jobs section of EM, but displays as a grey globe.
I thought that running jobs display as green ones?
(2) how can a process spid be displayed as several
globes? Is this multithreading?
TIA,
CB
CB,
(1) Don't know, because I never use this, I always use sp_who2 in QA.
(2) Yes, multithreading.
Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
http://www.markallison.co.uk
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602m.html
CB wrote:
> I'm trying to understand the output of the current
> activity window and have 2 questions:
> (1) what is the difference between a green globe and a
> grey one. I have a long-running job that says 'Executing'
> in the jobs section of EM, but displays as a grey globe.
> I thought that running jobs display as green ones?
> (2) how can a process spid be displayed as several
> globes? Is this multithreading?
> TIA,
> CB
|||Thanks Mark, but does anyone know the difference between
a grey and green globe, and why a running job has a grey
globe in the current activity window?
TIA,
CB
|||The green is for running processes and gray is for sleeping
processes. If you look up current activity window in the
help index, it will take you to the help topic Monitoring
with SQL Server Enterprise Manager which explains what the
different icons represent.
-Sue
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 06:11:20 -0800, "CB"
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Thanks Mark, but does anyone know the difference between
>a grey and green globe, and why a running job has a grey
>globe in the current activity window?
>TIA,
>CB
activity window and have 2 questions:
(1) what is the difference between a green globe and a
grey one. I have a long-running job that says 'Executing'
in the jobs section of EM, but displays as a grey globe.
I thought that running jobs display as green ones?
(2) how can a process spid be displayed as several
globes? Is this multithreading?
TIA,
CB
CB,
(1) Don't know, because I never use this, I always use sp_who2 in QA.
(2) Yes, multithreading.
Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
http://www.markallison.co.uk
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602m.html
CB wrote:
> I'm trying to understand the output of the current
> activity window and have 2 questions:
> (1) what is the difference between a green globe and a
> grey one. I have a long-running job that says 'Executing'
> in the jobs section of EM, but displays as a grey globe.
> I thought that running jobs display as green ones?
> (2) how can a process spid be displayed as several
> globes? Is this multithreading?
> TIA,
> CB
|||Thanks Mark, but does anyone know the difference between
a grey and green globe, and why a running job has a grey
globe in the current activity window?
TIA,
CB
|||The green is for running processes and gray is for sleeping
processes. If you look up current activity window in the
help index, it will take you to the help topic Monitoring
with SQL Server Enterprise Manager which explains what the
different icons represent.
-Sue
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 06:11:20 -0800, "CB"
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Thanks Mark, but does anyone know the difference between
>a grey and green globe, and why a running job has a grey
>globe in the current activity window?
>TIA,
>CB
current activity window
I'm trying to understand the output of the current
activity window and have 2 questions:
(1) what is the difference between a green globe and a
grey one. I have a long-running job that says 'Executing'
in the jobs section of EM, but displays as a grey globe.
I thought that running jobs display as green ones?
(2) how can a process spid be displayed as several
globes? Is this multithreading?
TIA,
CBCB,
(1) Don't know, because I never use this, I always use sp_who2 in QA.
(2) Yes, multithreading.
--
Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
http://www.markallison.co.uk
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602m.html
CB wrote:
> I'm trying to understand the output of the current
> activity window and have 2 questions:
> (1) what is the difference between a green globe and a
> grey one. I have a long-running job that says 'Executing'
> in the jobs section of EM, but displays as a grey globe.
> I thought that running jobs display as green ones?
> (2) how can a process spid be displayed as several
> globes? Is this multithreading?
> TIA,
> CB|||Thanks Mark, but does anyone know the difference between
a grey and green globe, and why a running job has a grey
globe in the current activity window?
TIA,
CB|||The green is for running processes and gray is for sleeping
processes. If you look up current activity window in the
help index, it will take you to the help topic Monitoring
with SQL Server Enterprise Manager which explains what the
different icons represent.
-Sue
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 06:11:20 -0800, "CB"
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Thanks Mark, but does anyone know the difference between
>a grey and green globe, and why a running job has a grey
>globe in the current activity window?
>TIA,
>CB
activity window and have 2 questions:
(1) what is the difference between a green globe and a
grey one. I have a long-running job that says 'Executing'
in the jobs section of EM, but displays as a grey globe.
I thought that running jobs display as green ones?
(2) how can a process spid be displayed as several
globes? Is this multithreading?
TIA,
CBCB,
(1) Don't know, because I never use this, I always use sp_who2 in QA.
(2) Yes, multithreading.
--
Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
http://www.markallison.co.uk
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602m.html
CB wrote:
> I'm trying to understand the output of the current
> activity window and have 2 questions:
> (1) what is the difference between a green globe and a
> grey one. I have a long-running job that says 'Executing'
> in the jobs section of EM, but displays as a grey globe.
> I thought that running jobs display as green ones?
> (2) how can a process spid be displayed as several
> globes? Is this multithreading?
> TIA,
> CB|||Thanks Mark, but does anyone know the difference between
a grey and green globe, and why a running job has a grey
globe in the current activity window?
TIA,
CB|||The green is for running processes and gray is for sleeping
processes. If you look up current activity window in the
help index, it will take you to the help topic Monitoring
with SQL Server Enterprise Manager which explains what the
different icons represent.
-Sue
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 06:11:20 -0800, "CB"
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Thanks Mark, but does anyone know the difference between
>a grey and green globe, and why a running job has a grey
>globe in the current activity window?
>TIA,
>CB
current activity window
I'm trying to understand the output of the current
activity window and have 2 questions:
(1) what is the difference between a green globe and a
grey one. I have a long-running job that says 'Executing'
in the jobs section of EM, but displays as a grey globe.
I thought that running jobs display as green ones?
(2) how can a process spid be displayed as several
globes? Is this multithreading?
TIA,
CBCB,
(1) Don't know, because I never use this, I always use sp_who2 in QA.
(2) Yes, multithreading.
--
Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
http://www.markallison.co.uk
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602m.html
CB wrote:
> I'm trying to understand the output of the current
> activity window and have 2 questions:
> (1) what is the difference between a green globe and a
> grey one. I have a long-running job that says 'Executing'
> in the jobs section of EM, but displays as a grey globe.
> I thought that running jobs display as green ones?
> (2) how can a process spid be displayed as several
> globes? Is this multithreading?
> TIA,
> CB|||Thanks Mark, but does anyone know the difference between
a grey and green globe, and why a running job has a grey
globe in the current activity window?
TIA,
CB|||The green is for running processes and gray is for sleeping
processes. If you look up current activity window in the
help index, it will take you to the help topic Monitoring
with SQL Server Enterprise Manager which explains what the
different icons represent.
-Sue
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 06:11:20 -0800, "CB"
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Thanks Mark, but does anyone know the difference between
>a grey and green globe, and why a running job has a grey
>globe in the current activity window?
>TIA,
>CB
activity window and have 2 questions:
(1) what is the difference between a green globe and a
grey one. I have a long-running job that says 'Executing'
in the jobs section of EM, but displays as a grey globe.
I thought that running jobs display as green ones?
(2) how can a process spid be displayed as several
globes? Is this multithreading?
TIA,
CBCB,
(1) Don't know, because I never use this, I always use sp_who2 in QA.
(2) Yes, multithreading.
--
Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
http://www.markallison.co.uk
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602m.html
CB wrote:
> I'm trying to understand the output of the current
> activity window and have 2 questions:
> (1) what is the difference between a green globe and a
> grey one. I have a long-running job that says 'Executing'
> in the jobs section of EM, but displays as a grey globe.
> I thought that running jobs display as green ones?
> (2) how can a process spid be displayed as several
> globes? Is this multithreading?
> TIA,
> CB|||Thanks Mark, but does anyone know the difference between
a grey and green globe, and why a running job has a grey
globe in the current activity window?
TIA,
CB|||The green is for running processes and gray is for sleeping
processes. If you look up current activity window in the
help index, it will take you to the help topic Monitoring
with SQL Server Enterprise Manager which explains what the
different icons represent.
-Sue
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 06:11:20 -0800, "CB"
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Thanks Mark, but does anyone know the difference between
>a grey and green globe, and why a running job has a grey
>globe in the current activity window?
>TIA,
>CB
current activity takes 15 minutes to refresh
Can anyone think of a reason that it would take 15 minutes
for the Current Activity/process info to refresh? The
only thing going on right now is replication. This server
is the secondary/subscriber to two different publishers.
The distributer is also running on this machine. Other
than the replication processes, nothing else is
running... Thanks.Have you checked Task Manager/Perfmon to see if something else is chewing up
the CPU unrelated to SQl Server?
Kevin Hill
President
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.
"Rob" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:208bd01c45958$120666a0$a101280a@.phx
.gbl...
> Can anyone think of a reason that it would take 15 minutes
> for the Current Activity/process info to refresh? The
> only thing going on right now is replication. This server
> is the secondary/subscriber to two different publishers.
> The distributer is also running on this machine. Other
> than the replication processes, nothing else is
> running... Thanks.|||No because the server guys have everything secured
extremely tight. I can't run anything remotely. Strange,
I know.
>--Original Message--
>Have you checked Task Manager/Perfmon to see if something
else is chewing up
>the CPU unrelated to SQl Server?
>--
>Kevin Hill
>President
>3NF Consulting
>www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
>www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft.
Worth area DBAs.
>"Rob" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
> news:208bd01c45958$120666a0$a101280a@.phx
.gbl...
minutes[vbcol=seagreen]
server[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>.
>|||Not really...happens all the time.
Have you cheked activity via QA instead of EM, using SP_Who, sp_who2,
SP_Lock, dbcc opentran, etc to see if something is hanging out there?
Kevin Hill
President
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:205b401c4595a$de0f7460$a301280a@.phx
.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> No because the server guys have everything secured
> extremely tight. I can't run anything remotely. Strange,
> I know.
>
> else is chewing up
> Worth area DBAs.
> message
> minutes
> server|||I ran sp_who2 and the only thing that seems to be eating
CPU is the two distribution agents. Although sp_lock is
coming back with over 1.1 millon rows... That doesn't
sound right for a server with no production activity and
only the replication agents running. Strange.
>--Original Message--
>Not really...happens all the time.
>Have you cheked activity via QA instead of EM, using
SP_Who, sp_who2,
>SP_Lock, dbcc opentran, etc to see if something is
hanging out there?
>--
>Kevin Hill
>President
>3NF Consulting
>www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
>www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft.
Worth area DBAs.
><anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:205b401c4595a$de0f7460$a301280a@.phx
.gbl...
Strange,[vbcol=seagreen]
something[vbcol=seagreen]
The[vbcol=seagreen]
publishers.[vbcol=seagreen]
Other[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>.
>|||Check the spid or spids for the locks when you execute
sp_lock. Then check what the spids are doing with dbcc
inputbuffer(SpidNumber)
-Sue
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:07:02 -0700,
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>I ran sp_who2 and the only thing that seems to be eating
>CPU is the two distribution agents. Although sp_lock is
>coming back with over 1.1 millon rows... That doesn't
>sound right for a server with no production activity and
>only the replication agents running. Strange.
>SP_Who, sp_who2,
>hanging out there?
>Worth area DBAs.
>Strange,
>something
>The
>publishers.
>Other
for the Current Activity/process info to refresh? The
only thing going on right now is replication. This server
is the secondary/subscriber to two different publishers.
The distributer is also running on this machine. Other
than the replication processes, nothing else is
running... Thanks.Have you checked Task Manager/Perfmon to see if something else is chewing up
the CPU unrelated to SQl Server?
Kevin Hill
President
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.
"Rob" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:208bd01c45958$120666a0$a101280a@.phx
.gbl...
> Can anyone think of a reason that it would take 15 minutes
> for the Current Activity/process info to refresh? The
> only thing going on right now is replication. This server
> is the secondary/subscriber to two different publishers.
> The distributer is also running on this machine. Other
> than the replication processes, nothing else is
> running... Thanks.|||No because the server guys have everything secured
extremely tight. I can't run anything remotely. Strange,
I know.
>--Original Message--
>Have you checked Task Manager/Perfmon to see if something
else is chewing up
>the CPU unrelated to SQl Server?
>--
>Kevin Hill
>President
>3NF Consulting
>www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
>www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft.
Worth area DBAs.
>"Rob" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
> news:208bd01c45958$120666a0$a101280a@.phx
.gbl...
minutes[vbcol=seagreen]
server[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>.
>|||Not really...happens all the time.
Have you cheked activity via QA instead of EM, using SP_Who, sp_who2,
SP_Lock, dbcc opentran, etc to see if something is hanging out there?
Kevin Hill
President
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:205b401c4595a$de0f7460$a301280a@.phx
.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> No because the server guys have everything secured
> extremely tight. I can't run anything remotely. Strange,
> I know.
>
> else is chewing up
> Worth area DBAs.
> message
> minutes
> server|||I ran sp_who2 and the only thing that seems to be eating
CPU is the two distribution agents. Although sp_lock is
coming back with over 1.1 millon rows... That doesn't
sound right for a server with no production activity and
only the replication agents running. Strange.
>--Original Message--
>Not really...happens all the time.
>Have you cheked activity via QA instead of EM, using
SP_Who, sp_who2,
>SP_Lock, dbcc opentran, etc to see if something is
hanging out there?
>--
>Kevin Hill
>President
>3NF Consulting
>www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
>www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft.
Worth area DBAs.
><anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:205b401c4595a$de0f7460$a301280a@.phx
.gbl...
Strange,[vbcol=seagreen]
something[vbcol=seagreen]
The[vbcol=seagreen]
publishers.[vbcol=seagreen]
Other[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>.
>|||Check the spid or spids for the locks when you execute
sp_lock. Then check what the spids are doing with dbcc
inputbuffer(SpidNumber)
-Sue
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:07:02 -0700,
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>I ran sp_who2 and the only thing that seems to be eating
>CPU is the two distribution agents. Although sp_lock is
>coming back with over 1.1 millon rows... That doesn't
>sound right for a server with no production activity and
>only the replication agents running. Strange.
>SP_Who, sp_who2,
>hanging out there?
>Worth area DBAs.
>Strange,
>something
>The
>publishers.
>Other
current activity takes 15 minutes to refresh
Can anyone think of a reason that it would take 15 minutes
for the Current Activity/process info to refresh? The
only thing going on right now is replication. This server
is the secondary/subscriber to two different publishers.
The distributer is also running on this machine. Other
than the replication processes, nothing else is
running... Thanks.
Have you checked Task Manager/Perfmon to see if something else is chewing up
the CPU unrelated to SQl Server?
Kevin Hill
President
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.
"Rob" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:208bd01c45958$120666a0$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> Can anyone think of a reason that it would take 15 minutes
> for the Current Activity/process info to refresh? The
> only thing going on right now is replication. This server
> is the secondary/subscriber to two different publishers.
> The distributer is also running on this machine. Other
> than the replication processes, nothing else is
> running... Thanks.
|||No because the server guys have everything secured
extremely tight. I can't run anything remotely. Strange,
I know.
>--Original Message--
>Have you checked Task Manager/Perfmon to see if something
else is chewing up
>the CPU unrelated to SQl Server?
>--
>Kevin Hill
>President
>3NF Consulting
>www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
>www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft.
Worth area DBAs.
>"Rob" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message[vbcol=seagreen]
>news:208bd01c45958$120666a0$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
minutes[vbcol=seagreen]
server
>
>.
>
|||Not really...happens all the time.
Have you cheked activity via QA instead of EM, using SP_Who, sp_who2,
SP_Lock, dbcc opentran, etc to see if something is hanging out there?
Kevin Hill
President
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:205b401c4595a$de0f7460$a301280a@.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> No because the server guys have everything secured
> extremely tight. I can't run anything remotely. Strange,
> I know.
> else is chewing up
> Worth area DBAs.
> message
> minutes
> server
|||I ran sp_who2 and the only thing that seems to be eating
CPU is the two distribution agents. Although sp_lock is
coming back with over 1.1 millon rows... That doesn't
sound right for a server with no production activity and
only the replication agents running. Strange.
>--Original Message--
>Not really...happens all the time.
>Have you cheked activity via QA instead of EM, using
SP_Who, sp_who2,
>SP_Lock, dbcc opentran, etc to see if something is
hanging out there?
>--
>Kevin Hill
>President
>3NF Consulting
>www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
>www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft.
Worth area DBAs.[vbcol=seagreen]
><anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>news:205b401c4595a$de0f7460$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
Strange,[vbcol=seagreen]
something[vbcol=seagreen]
The[vbcol=seagreen]
publishers.[vbcol=seagreen]
Other
>
>.
>
|||Check the spid or spids for the locks when you execute
sp_lock. Then check what the spids are doing with dbcc
inputbuffer(SpidNumber)
-Sue
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:07:02 -0700,
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>I ran sp_who2 and the only thing that seems to be eating
>CPU is the two distribution agents. Although sp_lock is
>coming back with over 1.1 millon rows... That doesn't
>sound right for a server with no production activity and
>only the replication agents running. Strange.
>SP_Who, sp_who2,
>hanging out there?
>Worth area DBAs.
>Strange,
>something
>The
>publishers.
>Other
for the Current Activity/process info to refresh? The
only thing going on right now is replication. This server
is the secondary/subscriber to two different publishers.
The distributer is also running on this machine. Other
than the replication processes, nothing else is
running... Thanks.
Have you checked Task Manager/Perfmon to see if something else is chewing up
the CPU unrelated to SQl Server?
Kevin Hill
President
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.
"Rob" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:208bd01c45958$120666a0$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> Can anyone think of a reason that it would take 15 minutes
> for the Current Activity/process info to refresh? The
> only thing going on right now is replication. This server
> is the secondary/subscriber to two different publishers.
> The distributer is also running on this machine. Other
> than the replication processes, nothing else is
> running... Thanks.
|||No because the server guys have everything secured
extremely tight. I can't run anything remotely. Strange,
I know.
>--Original Message--
>Have you checked Task Manager/Perfmon to see if something
else is chewing up
>the CPU unrelated to SQl Server?
>--
>Kevin Hill
>President
>3NF Consulting
>www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
>www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft.
Worth area DBAs.
>"Rob" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message[vbcol=seagreen]
>news:208bd01c45958$120666a0$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
minutes[vbcol=seagreen]
server
>
>.
>
|||Not really...happens all the time.
Have you cheked activity via QA instead of EM, using SP_Who, sp_who2,
SP_Lock, dbcc opentran, etc to see if something is hanging out there?
Kevin Hill
President
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:205b401c4595a$de0f7460$a301280a@.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> No because the server guys have everything secured
> extremely tight. I can't run anything remotely. Strange,
> I know.
> else is chewing up
> Worth area DBAs.
> message
> minutes
> server
|||I ran sp_who2 and the only thing that seems to be eating
CPU is the two distribution agents. Although sp_lock is
coming back with over 1.1 millon rows... That doesn't
sound right for a server with no production activity and
only the replication agents running. Strange.
>--Original Message--
>Not really...happens all the time.
>Have you cheked activity via QA instead of EM, using
SP_Who, sp_who2,
>SP_Lock, dbcc opentran, etc to see if something is
hanging out there?
>--
>Kevin Hill
>President
>3NF Consulting
>www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
>www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft.
Worth area DBAs.[vbcol=seagreen]
><anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>news:205b401c4595a$de0f7460$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
Strange,[vbcol=seagreen]
something[vbcol=seagreen]
The[vbcol=seagreen]
publishers.[vbcol=seagreen]
Other
>
>.
>
|||Check the spid or spids for the locks when you execute
sp_lock. Then check what the spids are doing with dbcc
inputbuffer(SpidNumber)
-Sue
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:07:02 -0700,
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>I ran sp_who2 and the only thing that seems to be eating
>CPU is the two distribution agents. Although sp_lock is
>coming back with over 1.1 millon rows... That doesn't
>sound right for a server with no production activity and
>only the replication agents running. Strange.
>SP_Who, sp_who2,
>hanging out there?
>Worth area DBAs.
>Strange,
>something
>The
>publishers.
>Other
current activity takes 15 minutes to refresh
Can anyone think of a reason that it would take 15 minutes
for the Current Activity/process info to refresh? The
only thing going on right now is replication. This server
is the secondary/subscriber to two different publishers.
The distributer is also running on this machine. Other
than the replication processes, nothing else is
running... Thanks.Have you checked Task Manager/Perfmon to see if something else is chewing up
the CPU unrelated to SQl Server?
--
Kevin Hill
President
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.
"Rob" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:208bd01c45958$120666a0$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> Can anyone think of a reason that it would take 15 minutes
> for the Current Activity/process info to refresh? The
> only thing going on right now is replication. This server
> is the secondary/subscriber to two different publishers.
> The distributer is also running on this machine. Other
> than the replication processes, nothing else is
> running... Thanks.|||No because the server guys have everything secured
extremely tight. I can't run anything remotely. Strange,
I know.
>--Original Message--
>Have you checked Task Manager/Perfmon to see if something
else is chewing up
>the CPU unrelated to SQl Server?
>--
>Kevin Hill
>President
>3NF Consulting
>www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
>www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft.
Worth area DBAs.
>"Rob" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
>news:208bd01c45958$120666a0$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
>> Can anyone think of a reason that it would take 15
minutes
>> for the Current Activity/process info to refresh? The
>> only thing going on right now is replication. This
server
>> is the secondary/subscriber to two different publishers.
>> The distributer is also running on this machine. Other
>> than the replication processes, nothing else is
>> running... Thanks.
>
>.
>|||Not really...happens all the time.
Have you cheked activity via QA instead of EM, using SP_Who, sp_who2,
SP_Lock, dbcc opentran, etc to see if something is hanging out there?
--
Kevin Hill
President
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:205b401c4595a$de0f7460$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> No because the server guys have everything secured
> extremely tight. I can't run anything remotely. Strange,
> I know.
> >--Original Message--
> >Have you checked Task Manager/Perfmon to see if something
> else is chewing up
> >the CPU unrelated to SQl Server?
> >
> >--
> >Kevin Hill
> >President
> >3NF Consulting
> >
> >www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
> >www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft.
> Worth area DBAs.
> >
> >"Rob" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message
> >news:208bd01c45958$120666a0$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> >> Can anyone think of a reason that it would take 15
> minutes
> >> for the Current Activity/process info to refresh? The
> >> only thing going on right now is replication. This
> server
> >> is the secondary/subscriber to two different publishers.
> >> The distributer is also running on this machine. Other
> >> than the replication processes, nothing else is
> >> running... Thanks.
> >
> >
> >.
> >|||I ran sp_who2 and the only thing that seems to be eating
CPU is the two distribution agents. Although sp_lock is
coming back with over 1.1 millon rows... That doesn't
sound right for a server with no production activity and
only the replication agents running. Strange.
>--Original Message--
>Not really...happens all the time.
>Have you cheked activity via QA instead of EM, using
SP_Who, sp_who2,
>SP_Lock, dbcc opentran, etc to see if something is
hanging out there?
>--
>Kevin Hill
>President
>3NF Consulting
>www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
>www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft.
Worth area DBAs.
><anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>news:205b401c4595a$de0f7460$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
>> No because the server guys have everything secured
>> extremely tight. I can't run anything remotely.
Strange,
>> I know.
>> >--Original Message--
>> >Have you checked Task Manager/Perfmon to see if
something
>> else is chewing up
>> >the CPU unrelated to SQl Server?
>> >
>> >--
>> >Kevin Hill
>> >President
>> >3NF Consulting
>> >
>> >www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
>> >www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft.
>> Worth area DBAs.
>> >
>> >"Rob" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>> message
>> >news:208bd01c45958$120666a0$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
>> >> Can anyone think of a reason that it would take 15
>> minutes
>> >> for the Current Activity/process info to refresh?
The
>> >> only thing going on right now is replication. This
>> server
>> >> is the secondary/subscriber to two different
publishers.
>> >> The distributer is also running on this machine.
Other
>> >> than the replication processes, nothing else is
>> >> running... Thanks.
>> >
>> >
>> >.
>> >
>
>.
>|||Check the spid or spids for the locks when you execute
sp_lock. Then check what the spids are doing with dbcc
inputbuffer(SpidNumber)
-Sue
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:07:02 -0700,
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>I ran sp_who2 and the only thing that seems to be eating
>CPU is the two distribution agents. Although sp_lock is
>coming back with over 1.1 millon rows... That doesn't
>sound right for a server with no production activity and
>only the replication agents running. Strange.
>>--Original Message--
>>Not really...happens all the time.
>>Have you cheked activity via QA instead of EM, using
>SP_Who, sp_who2,
>>SP_Lock, dbcc opentran, etc to see if something is
>hanging out there?
>>--
>>Kevin Hill
>>President
>>3NF Consulting
>>www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
>>www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft.
>Worth area DBAs.
>><anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>news:205b401c4595a$de0f7460$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
>> No because the server guys have everything secured
>> extremely tight. I can't run anything remotely.
>Strange,
>> I know.
>> >--Original Message--
>> >Have you checked Task Manager/Perfmon to see if
>something
>> else is chewing up
>> >the CPU unrelated to SQl Server?
>> >
>> >--
>> >Kevin Hill
>> >President
>> >3NF Consulting
>> >
>> >www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
>> >www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft.
>> Worth area DBAs.
>> >
>> >"Rob" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>> message
>> >news:208bd01c45958$120666a0$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
>> >> Can anyone think of a reason that it would take 15
>> minutes
>> >> for the Current Activity/process info to refresh?
>The
>> >> only thing going on right now is replication. This
>> server
>> >> is the secondary/subscriber to two different
>publishers.
>> >> The distributer is also running on this machine.
>Other
>> >> than the replication processes, nothing else is
>> >> running... Thanks.
>> >
>> >
>> >.
>> >
>>
>>.
for the Current Activity/process info to refresh? The
only thing going on right now is replication. This server
is the secondary/subscriber to two different publishers.
The distributer is also running on this machine. Other
than the replication processes, nothing else is
running... Thanks.Have you checked Task Manager/Perfmon to see if something else is chewing up
the CPU unrelated to SQl Server?
--
Kevin Hill
President
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.
"Rob" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:208bd01c45958$120666a0$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> Can anyone think of a reason that it would take 15 minutes
> for the Current Activity/process info to refresh? The
> only thing going on right now is replication. This server
> is the secondary/subscriber to two different publishers.
> The distributer is also running on this machine. Other
> than the replication processes, nothing else is
> running... Thanks.|||No because the server guys have everything secured
extremely tight. I can't run anything remotely. Strange,
I know.
>--Original Message--
>Have you checked Task Manager/Perfmon to see if something
else is chewing up
>the CPU unrelated to SQl Server?
>--
>Kevin Hill
>President
>3NF Consulting
>www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
>www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft.
Worth area DBAs.
>"Rob" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
>news:208bd01c45958$120666a0$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
>> Can anyone think of a reason that it would take 15
minutes
>> for the Current Activity/process info to refresh? The
>> only thing going on right now is replication. This
server
>> is the secondary/subscriber to two different publishers.
>> The distributer is also running on this machine. Other
>> than the replication processes, nothing else is
>> running... Thanks.
>
>.
>|||Not really...happens all the time.
Have you cheked activity via QA instead of EM, using SP_Who, sp_who2,
SP_Lock, dbcc opentran, etc to see if something is hanging out there?
--
Kevin Hill
President
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:205b401c4595a$de0f7460$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> No because the server guys have everything secured
> extremely tight. I can't run anything remotely. Strange,
> I know.
> >--Original Message--
> >Have you checked Task Manager/Perfmon to see if something
> else is chewing up
> >the CPU unrelated to SQl Server?
> >
> >--
> >Kevin Hill
> >President
> >3NF Consulting
> >
> >www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
> >www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft.
> Worth area DBAs.
> >
> >"Rob" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message
> >news:208bd01c45958$120666a0$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> >> Can anyone think of a reason that it would take 15
> minutes
> >> for the Current Activity/process info to refresh? The
> >> only thing going on right now is replication. This
> server
> >> is the secondary/subscriber to two different publishers.
> >> The distributer is also running on this machine. Other
> >> than the replication processes, nothing else is
> >> running... Thanks.
> >
> >
> >.
> >|||I ran sp_who2 and the only thing that seems to be eating
CPU is the two distribution agents. Although sp_lock is
coming back with over 1.1 millon rows... That doesn't
sound right for a server with no production activity and
only the replication agents running. Strange.
>--Original Message--
>Not really...happens all the time.
>Have you cheked activity via QA instead of EM, using
SP_Who, sp_who2,
>SP_Lock, dbcc opentran, etc to see if something is
hanging out there?
>--
>Kevin Hill
>President
>3NF Consulting
>www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
>www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft.
Worth area DBAs.
><anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>news:205b401c4595a$de0f7460$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
>> No because the server guys have everything secured
>> extremely tight. I can't run anything remotely.
Strange,
>> I know.
>> >--Original Message--
>> >Have you checked Task Manager/Perfmon to see if
something
>> else is chewing up
>> >the CPU unrelated to SQl Server?
>> >
>> >--
>> >Kevin Hill
>> >President
>> >3NF Consulting
>> >
>> >www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
>> >www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft.
>> Worth area DBAs.
>> >
>> >"Rob" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>> message
>> >news:208bd01c45958$120666a0$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
>> >> Can anyone think of a reason that it would take 15
>> minutes
>> >> for the Current Activity/process info to refresh?
The
>> >> only thing going on right now is replication. This
>> server
>> >> is the secondary/subscriber to two different
publishers.
>> >> The distributer is also running on this machine.
Other
>> >> than the replication processes, nothing else is
>> >> running... Thanks.
>> >
>> >
>> >.
>> >
>
>.
>|||Check the spid or spids for the locks when you execute
sp_lock. Then check what the spids are doing with dbcc
inputbuffer(SpidNumber)
-Sue
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:07:02 -0700,
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>I ran sp_who2 and the only thing that seems to be eating
>CPU is the two distribution agents. Although sp_lock is
>coming back with over 1.1 millon rows... That doesn't
>sound right for a server with no production activity and
>only the replication agents running. Strange.
>>--Original Message--
>>Not really...happens all the time.
>>Have you cheked activity via QA instead of EM, using
>SP_Who, sp_who2,
>>SP_Lock, dbcc opentran, etc to see if something is
>hanging out there?
>>--
>>Kevin Hill
>>President
>>3NF Consulting
>>www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
>>www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft.
>Worth area DBAs.
>><anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>news:205b401c4595a$de0f7460$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
>> No because the server guys have everything secured
>> extremely tight. I can't run anything remotely.
>Strange,
>> I know.
>> >--Original Message--
>> >Have you checked Task Manager/Perfmon to see if
>something
>> else is chewing up
>> >the CPU unrelated to SQl Server?
>> >
>> >--
>> >Kevin Hill
>> >President
>> >3NF Consulting
>> >
>> >www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
>> >www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft.
>> Worth area DBAs.
>> >
>> >"Rob" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>> message
>> >news:208bd01c45958$120666a0$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
>> >> Can anyone think of a reason that it would take 15
>> minutes
>> >> for the Current Activity/process info to refresh?
>The
>> >> only thing going on right now is replication. This
>> server
>> >> is the secondary/subscriber to two different
>publishers.
>> >> The distributer is also running on this machine.
>Other
>> >> than the replication processes, nothing else is
>> >> running... Thanks.
>> >
>> >
>> >.
>> >
>>
>>.
Current activity shows lots of SPID with open transactions...yet DBCC open tran shows no a
Anyone know why this is?
SQL Server 2000 sp3a.
There are about 200 spids in the database that show an open
transaction in the current activity window.
Yet, when I run a dbcc opentran on the database, it says no active
transactions.
An open transaction is one that has not yet commited correct? So
shouldn't it show up in DBCC opentran?
Thanks for any input.
"Sanctus" <mchi55@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175796327.218453.112050@.p77g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
> Anyone know why this is?
> SQL Server 2000 sp3a.
> There are about 200 spids in the database that show an open
> transaction in the current activity window.
> Yet, when I run a dbcc opentran on the database, it says no active
> transactions.
> An open transaction is one that has not yet commited correct? So
> shouldn't it show up in DBCC opentran?
How are you determining the 200 Spids have open transactions?
Note that you may have 200 CONNECTIONS, but they may not be doing anything,
or they're doing very short transactions so you never get a chance to see
them with DBCC OpenTran.
> Thanks for any input.
>
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html
SQL Server 2000 sp3a.
There are about 200 spids in the database that show an open
transaction in the current activity window.
Yet, when I run a dbcc opentran on the database, it says no active
transactions.
An open transaction is one that has not yet commited correct? So
shouldn't it show up in DBCC opentran?
Thanks for any input.
"Sanctus" <mchi55@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175796327.218453.112050@.p77g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
> Anyone know why this is?
> SQL Server 2000 sp3a.
> There are about 200 spids in the database that show an open
> transaction in the current activity window.
> Yet, when I run a dbcc opentran on the database, it says no active
> transactions.
> An open transaction is one that has not yet commited correct? So
> shouldn't it show up in DBCC opentran?
How are you determining the 200 Spids have open transactions?
Note that you may have 200 CONNECTIONS, but they may not be doing anything,
or they're doing very short transactions so you never get a chance to see
them with DBCC OpenTran.
> Thanks for any input.
>
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html
Current activity shows lots of SPID with open transactions...yet DBCC open tran shows no a
Anyone know why this is?
SQL Server 2000 sp3a.
There are about 200 spids in the database that show an open
transaction in the current activity window.
Yet, when I run a dbcc opentran on the database, it says no active
transactions.
An open transaction is one that has not yet commited correct? So
shouldn't it show up in DBCC opentran?
Thanks for any input."Sanctus" <mchi55@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175796327.218453.112050@.p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Anyone know why this is?
> SQL Server 2000 sp3a.
> There are about 200 spids in the database that show an open
> transaction in the current activity window.
> Yet, when I run a dbcc opentran on the database, it says no active
> transactions.
> An open transaction is one that has not yet commited correct? So
> shouldn't it show up in DBCC opentran?
How are you determining the 200 Spids have open transactions?
Note that you may have 200 CONNECTIONS, but they may not be doing anything,
or they're doing very short transactions so you never get a chance to see
them with DBCC OpenTran.
> Thanks for any input.
>
--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html
SQL Server 2000 sp3a.
There are about 200 spids in the database that show an open
transaction in the current activity window.
Yet, when I run a dbcc opentran on the database, it says no active
transactions.
An open transaction is one that has not yet commited correct? So
shouldn't it show up in DBCC opentran?
Thanks for any input."Sanctus" <mchi55@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175796327.218453.112050@.p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Anyone know why this is?
> SQL Server 2000 sp3a.
> There are about 200 spids in the database that show an open
> transaction in the current activity window.
> Yet, when I run a dbcc opentran on the database, it says no active
> transactions.
> An open transaction is one that has not yet commited correct? So
> shouldn't it show up in DBCC opentran?
How are you determining the 200 Spids have open transactions?
Note that you may have 200 CONNECTIONS, but they may not be doing anything,
or they're doing very short transactions so you never get a chance to see
them with DBCC OpenTran.
> Thanks for any input.
>
--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html
Current Activity : Locks/Object : DB Level locks.
The Current Activity monitor (Locks/Object) shows a number of processes that
have obtained a database level lock.
Details: (Mode:Shared, Status:GRANT, Owner:SESSION)
What causes these db level locks?
All are SHARED level locks - and the status for is GRANT - meaning that the
lock has been successfully obtained.
How can I prevent these locks from appearing?
Cheers!
SQLCatZHi
Every connection will acquire a DB level lock when the connection is
established, to the database specified in the connection string from the
client..
This enables SQL Server to do a very fast lookup to see if a DB is in use
(for auto close, detach, drop database etc).
It is a shared lock.
You can not set this.
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"SQLCatz" <SQLCatz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DA43536F-E52A-4D1A-AB83-6433FEA6D1BD@.microsoft.com...
> The Current Activity monitor (Locks/Object) shows a number of processes
> that
> have obtained a database level lock.
> Details: (Mode:Shared, Status:GRANT, Owner:SESSION)
> What causes these db level locks?
> All are SHARED level locks - and the status for is GRANT - meaning that
> the
> lock has been successfully obtained.
> How can I prevent these locks from appearing?
> Cheers!
> SQLCatZ
>
>|||Hello Mike,
If the connection is established only to check on the status of the db -
then it should be a for a very short duration. The entry for this kind of
lock should appear and then disappear from the 'Current Activity :
Locks/Object' view. It should not persist for hours on end.
What should I look out for in the design/code that is creating these
multiple db level locks to persist for extended periods of time.
Thank you.
SQLCatZ|||Hi
The client connection, as long as it is open, holds the DB Shared Lock (SQL
Server does it on it's behalf).
There is nothing wrong with those locks, and at most, there could be 32'737
of them if all connections are used that SQL Server supports.
It is a small number compared to the locks required my most SELECT and
UPDATE operations.
The application should also be looked at. The principle of "Acquire Late,
Release Early" should always be applied. An application should not open a
connection and hold it open until it gets closed, rather, it should open the
connection, do it's query, and close the connection again. Connection
pooling will negate any performance problems related to establishing and
tearing down connections in short intervals.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"SQLCatz" <SQLCatz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:98FF664C-472A-4A50-B383-719E37F10BFE@.microsoft.com...
> Hello Mike,
> If the connection is established only to check on the status of the db -
> then it should be a for a very short duration. The entry for this kind of
> lock should appear and then disappear from the 'Current Activity :
> Locks/Object' view. It should not persist for hours on end.
> What should I look out for in the design/code that is creating these
> multiple db level locks to persist for extended periods of time.
> Thank you.
> SQLCatZ
>
>|||Hello Mike,
Thank you!
Your reply cleared things up.
I was aware of the "Acquire Late, Release Early" principle - but felt very
very uncomfortable when I saw a bunch of DB level locks hanging around for
extended periods of time.
Cheers!
SQLCatZ|||Basically Db locks prevent anyone from doing RESTORE and DROP DATABASE. When
MS looked into how
prohibiting these actions for 7.0, they realized that using the already pres
ent lock handing would
be a clean way of doing it.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"SQLCatz" <SQLCatz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:27C4CB52-A0FE-496F-B41D-86955F2012DB@.microsoft.com...
> Hello Mike,
> Thank you!
> Your reply cleared things up.
> I was aware of the "Acquire Late, Release Early" principle - but felt very
> very uncomfortable when I saw a bunch of DB level locks hanging around for
> extended periods of time.
> Cheers!
> SQLCatZ
>
have obtained a database level lock.
Details: (Mode:Shared, Status:GRANT, Owner:SESSION)
What causes these db level locks?
All are SHARED level locks - and the status for is GRANT - meaning that the
lock has been successfully obtained.
How can I prevent these locks from appearing?
Cheers!
SQLCatZHi
Every connection will acquire a DB level lock when the connection is
established, to the database specified in the connection string from the
client..
This enables SQL Server to do a very fast lookup to see if a DB is in use
(for auto close, detach, drop database etc).
It is a shared lock.
You can not set this.
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"SQLCatz" <SQLCatz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DA43536F-E52A-4D1A-AB83-6433FEA6D1BD@.microsoft.com...
> The Current Activity monitor (Locks/Object) shows a number of processes
> that
> have obtained a database level lock.
> Details: (Mode:Shared, Status:GRANT, Owner:SESSION)
> What causes these db level locks?
> All are SHARED level locks - and the status for is GRANT - meaning that
> the
> lock has been successfully obtained.
> How can I prevent these locks from appearing?
> Cheers!
> SQLCatZ
>
>|||Hello Mike,
If the connection is established only to check on the status of the db -
then it should be a for a very short duration. The entry for this kind of
lock should appear and then disappear from the 'Current Activity :
Locks/Object' view. It should not persist for hours on end.
What should I look out for in the design/code that is creating these
multiple db level locks to persist for extended periods of time.
Thank you.
SQLCatZ|||Hi
The client connection, as long as it is open, holds the DB Shared Lock (SQL
Server does it on it's behalf).
There is nothing wrong with those locks, and at most, there could be 32'737
of them if all connections are used that SQL Server supports.
It is a small number compared to the locks required my most SELECT and
UPDATE operations.
The application should also be looked at. The principle of "Acquire Late,
Release Early" should always be applied. An application should not open a
connection and hold it open until it gets closed, rather, it should open the
connection, do it's query, and close the connection again. Connection
pooling will negate any performance problems related to establishing and
tearing down connections in short intervals.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"SQLCatz" <SQLCatz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:98FF664C-472A-4A50-B383-719E37F10BFE@.microsoft.com...
> Hello Mike,
> If the connection is established only to check on the status of the db -
> then it should be a for a very short duration. The entry for this kind of
> lock should appear and then disappear from the 'Current Activity :
> Locks/Object' view. It should not persist for hours on end.
> What should I look out for in the design/code that is creating these
> multiple db level locks to persist for extended periods of time.
> Thank you.
> SQLCatZ
>
>|||Hello Mike,
Thank you!
Your reply cleared things up.
I was aware of the "Acquire Late, Release Early" principle - but felt very
very uncomfortable when I saw a bunch of DB level locks hanging around for
extended periods of time.
Cheers!
SQLCatZ|||Basically Db locks prevent anyone from doing RESTORE and DROP DATABASE. When
MS looked into how
prohibiting these actions for 7.0, they realized that using the already pres
ent lock handing would
be a clean way of doing it.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"SQLCatz" <SQLCatz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:27C4CB52-A0FE-496F-B41D-86955F2012DB@.microsoft.com...
> Hello Mike,
> Thank you!
> Your reply cleared things up.
> I was aware of the "Acquire Late, Release Early" principle - but felt very
> very uncomfortable when I saw a bunch of DB level locks hanging around for
> extended periods of time.
> Cheers!
> SQLCatZ
>
Current Activity : Locks/Object : DB Level locks.
The Current Activity monitor (Locks/Object) shows a number of processes that
have obtained a database level lock.
Details: (Mode:Shared, Status:GRANT, Owner:SESSION)
What causes these db level locks?
All are SHARED level locks - and the status for is GRANT - meaning that the
lock has been successfully obtained.
How can I prevent these locks from appearing?
Cheers!
SQLCatZ
Hi
Every connection will acquire a DB level lock when the connection is
established, to the database specified in the connection string from the
client..
This enables SQL Server to do a very fast lookup to see if a DB is in use
(for auto close, detach, drop database etc).
It is a shared lock.
You can not set this.
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"SQLCatz" <SQLCatz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DA43536F-E52A-4D1A-AB83-6433FEA6D1BD@.microsoft.com...
> The Current Activity monitor (Locks/Object) shows a number of processes
> that
> have obtained a database level lock.
> Details: (Mode:Shared, Status:GRANT, Owner:SESSION)
> What causes these db level locks?
> All are SHARED level locks - and the status for is GRANT - meaning that
> the
> lock has been successfully obtained.
> How can I prevent these locks from appearing?
> Cheers!
> SQLCatZ
>
>
|||Hello Mike,
If the connection is established only to check on the status of the db -
then it should be a for a very short duration. The entry for this kind of
lock should appear and then disappear from the 'Current Activity :
Locks/Object' view. It should not persist for hours on end.
What should I look out for in the design/code that is creating these
multiple db level locks to persist for extended periods of time.
Thank you.
SQLCatZ
|||Hi
The client connection, as long as it is open, holds the DB Shared Lock (SQL
Server does it on it's behalf).
There is nothing wrong with those locks, and at most, there could be 32'737
of them if all connections are used that SQL Server supports.
It is a small number compared to the locks required my most SELECT and
UPDATE operations.
The application should also be looked at. The principle of "Acquire Late,
Release Early" should always be applied. An application should not open a
connection and hold it open until it gets closed, rather, it should open the
connection, do it's query, and close the connection again. Connection
pooling will negate any performance problems related to establishing and
tearing down connections in short intervals.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"SQLCatz" <SQLCatz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:98FF664C-472A-4A50-B383-719E37F10BFE@.microsoft.com...
> Hello Mike,
> If the connection is established only to check on the status of the db -
> then it should be a for a very short duration. The entry for this kind of
> lock should appear and then disappear from the 'Current Activity :
> Locks/Object' view. It should not persist for hours on end.
> What should I look out for in the design/code that is creating these
> multiple db level locks to persist for extended periods of time.
> Thank you.
> SQLCatZ
>
>
|||Hello Mike,
Thank you!
Your reply cleared things up.
I was aware of the "Acquire Late, Release Early" principle - but felt very
very uncomfortable when I saw a bunch of DB level locks hanging around for
extended periods of time.
Cheers!
SQLCatZ
|||Basically Db locks prevent anyone from doing RESTORE and DROP DATABASE. When MS looked into how
prohibiting these actions for 7.0, they realized that using the already present lock handing would
be a clean way of doing it.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"SQLCatz" <SQLCatz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:27C4CB52-A0FE-496F-B41D-86955F2012DB@.microsoft.com...
> Hello Mike,
> Thank you!
> Your reply cleared things up.
> I was aware of the "Acquire Late, Release Early" principle - but felt very
> very uncomfortable when I saw a bunch of DB level locks hanging around for
> extended periods of time.
> Cheers!
> SQLCatZ
>
have obtained a database level lock.
Details: (Mode:Shared, Status:GRANT, Owner:SESSION)
What causes these db level locks?
All are SHARED level locks - and the status for is GRANT - meaning that the
lock has been successfully obtained.
How can I prevent these locks from appearing?
Cheers!
SQLCatZ
Hi
Every connection will acquire a DB level lock when the connection is
established, to the database specified in the connection string from the
client..
This enables SQL Server to do a very fast lookup to see if a DB is in use
(for auto close, detach, drop database etc).
It is a shared lock.
You can not set this.
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"SQLCatz" <SQLCatz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DA43536F-E52A-4D1A-AB83-6433FEA6D1BD@.microsoft.com...
> The Current Activity monitor (Locks/Object) shows a number of processes
> that
> have obtained a database level lock.
> Details: (Mode:Shared, Status:GRANT, Owner:SESSION)
> What causes these db level locks?
> All are SHARED level locks - and the status for is GRANT - meaning that
> the
> lock has been successfully obtained.
> How can I prevent these locks from appearing?
> Cheers!
> SQLCatZ
>
>
|||Hello Mike,
If the connection is established only to check on the status of the db -
then it should be a for a very short duration. The entry for this kind of
lock should appear and then disappear from the 'Current Activity :
Locks/Object' view. It should not persist for hours on end.
What should I look out for in the design/code that is creating these
multiple db level locks to persist for extended periods of time.
Thank you.
SQLCatZ
|||Hi
The client connection, as long as it is open, holds the DB Shared Lock (SQL
Server does it on it's behalf).
There is nothing wrong with those locks, and at most, there could be 32'737
of them if all connections are used that SQL Server supports.
It is a small number compared to the locks required my most SELECT and
UPDATE operations.
The application should also be looked at. The principle of "Acquire Late,
Release Early" should always be applied. An application should not open a
connection and hold it open until it gets closed, rather, it should open the
connection, do it's query, and close the connection again. Connection
pooling will negate any performance problems related to establishing and
tearing down connections in short intervals.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"SQLCatz" <SQLCatz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:98FF664C-472A-4A50-B383-719E37F10BFE@.microsoft.com...
> Hello Mike,
> If the connection is established only to check on the status of the db -
> then it should be a for a very short duration. The entry for this kind of
> lock should appear and then disappear from the 'Current Activity :
> Locks/Object' view. It should not persist for hours on end.
> What should I look out for in the design/code that is creating these
> multiple db level locks to persist for extended periods of time.
> Thank you.
> SQLCatZ
>
>
|||Hello Mike,
Thank you!
Your reply cleared things up.
I was aware of the "Acquire Late, Release Early" principle - but felt very
very uncomfortable when I saw a bunch of DB level locks hanging around for
extended periods of time.
Cheers!
SQLCatZ
|||Basically Db locks prevent anyone from doing RESTORE and DROP DATABASE. When MS looked into how
prohibiting these actions for 7.0, they realized that using the already present lock handing would
be a clean way of doing it.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"SQLCatz" <SQLCatz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:27C4CB52-A0FE-496F-B41D-86955F2012DB@.microsoft.com...
> Hello Mike,
> Thank you!
> Your reply cleared things up.
> I was aware of the "Acquire Late, Release Early" principle - but felt very
> very uncomfortable when I saw a bunch of DB level locks hanging around for
> extended periods of time.
> Cheers!
> SQLCatZ
>
Current Activity : Locks/Object : DB Level locks.
The Current Activity monitor (Locks/Object) shows a number of processes that
have obtained a database level lock.
Details: (Mode:Shared, Status:GRANT, Owner:SESSION)
What causes these db level locks?
All are SHARED level locks - and the status for is GRANT - meaning that the
lock has been successfully obtained.
How can I prevent these locks from appearing?
Cheers!
SQLCatZHi
Every connection will acquire a DB level lock when the connection is
established, to the database specified in the connection string from the
client..
This enables SQL Server to do a very fast lookup to see if a DB is in use
(for auto close, detach, drop database etc).
It is a shared lock.
You can not set this.
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"SQLCatz" <SQLCatz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DA43536F-E52A-4D1A-AB83-6433FEA6D1BD@.microsoft.com...
> The Current Activity monitor (Locks/Object) shows a number of processes
> that
> have obtained a database level lock.
> Details: (Mode:Shared, Status:GRANT, Owner:SESSION)
> What causes these db level locks?
> All are SHARED level locks - and the status for is GRANT - meaning that
> the
> lock has been successfully obtained.
> How can I prevent these locks from appearing?
> Cheers!
> SQLCatZ
>
>|||Hello Mike,
If the connection is established only to check on the status of the db -
then it should be a for a very short duration. The entry for this kind of
lock should appear and then disappear from the 'Current Activity :
Locks/Object' view. It should not persist for hours on end.
What should I look out for in the design/code that is creating these
multiple db level locks to persist for extended periods of time.
Thank you.
SQLCatZ|||Hi
The client connection, as long as it is open, holds the DB Shared Lock (SQL
Server does it on it's behalf).
There is nothing wrong with those locks, and at most, there could be 32'737
of them if all connections are used that SQL Server supports.
It is a small number compared to the locks required my most SELECT and
UPDATE operations.
The application should also be looked at. The principle of "Acquire Late,
Release Early" should always be applied. An application should not open a
connection and hold it open until it gets closed, rather, it should open the
connection, do it's query, and close the connection again. Connection
pooling will negate any performance problems related to establishing and
tearing down connections in short intervals.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"SQLCatz" <SQLCatz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:98FF664C-472A-4A50-B383-719E37F10BFE@.microsoft.com...
> Hello Mike,
> If the connection is established only to check on the status of the db -
> then it should be a for a very short duration. The entry for this kind of
> lock should appear and then disappear from the 'Current Activity :
> Locks/Object' view. It should not persist for hours on end.
> What should I look out for in the design/code that is creating these
> multiple db level locks to persist for extended periods of time.
> Thank you.
> SQLCatZ
>
>|||Hello Mike,
Thank you!
Your reply cleared things up.
I was aware of the "Acquire Late, Release Early" principle - but felt very
very uncomfortable when I saw a bunch of DB level locks hanging around for
extended periods of time.
Cheers!
SQLCatZ|||Basically Db locks prevent anyone from doing RESTORE and DROP DATABASE. When MS looked into how
prohibiting these actions for 7.0, they realized that using the already present lock handing would
be a clean way of doing it.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"SQLCatz" <SQLCatz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:27C4CB52-A0FE-496F-B41D-86955F2012DB@.microsoft.com...
> Hello Mike,
> Thank you!
> Your reply cleared things up.
> I was aware of the "Acquire Late, Release Early" principle - but felt very
> very uncomfortable when I saw a bunch of DB level locks hanging around for
> extended periods of time.
> Cheers!
> SQLCatZ
>
have obtained a database level lock.
Details: (Mode:Shared, Status:GRANT, Owner:SESSION)
What causes these db level locks?
All are SHARED level locks - and the status for is GRANT - meaning that the
lock has been successfully obtained.
How can I prevent these locks from appearing?
Cheers!
SQLCatZHi
Every connection will acquire a DB level lock when the connection is
established, to the database specified in the connection string from the
client..
This enables SQL Server to do a very fast lookup to see if a DB is in use
(for auto close, detach, drop database etc).
It is a shared lock.
You can not set this.
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"SQLCatz" <SQLCatz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DA43536F-E52A-4D1A-AB83-6433FEA6D1BD@.microsoft.com...
> The Current Activity monitor (Locks/Object) shows a number of processes
> that
> have obtained a database level lock.
> Details: (Mode:Shared, Status:GRANT, Owner:SESSION)
> What causes these db level locks?
> All are SHARED level locks - and the status for is GRANT - meaning that
> the
> lock has been successfully obtained.
> How can I prevent these locks from appearing?
> Cheers!
> SQLCatZ
>
>|||Hello Mike,
If the connection is established only to check on the status of the db -
then it should be a for a very short duration. The entry for this kind of
lock should appear and then disappear from the 'Current Activity :
Locks/Object' view. It should not persist for hours on end.
What should I look out for in the design/code that is creating these
multiple db level locks to persist for extended periods of time.
Thank you.
SQLCatZ|||Hi
The client connection, as long as it is open, holds the DB Shared Lock (SQL
Server does it on it's behalf).
There is nothing wrong with those locks, and at most, there could be 32'737
of them if all connections are used that SQL Server supports.
It is a small number compared to the locks required my most SELECT and
UPDATE operations.
The application should also be looked at. The principle of "Acquire Late,
Release Early" should always be applied. An application should not open a
connection and hold it open until it gets closed, rather, it should open the
connection, do it's query, and close the connection again. Connection
pooling will negate any performance problems related to establishing and
tearing down connections in short intervals.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"SQLCatz" <SQLCatz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:98FF664C-472A-4A50-B383-719E37F10BFE@.microsoft.com...
> Hello Mike,
> If the connection is established only to check on the status of the db -
> then it should be a for a very short duration. The entry for this kind of
> lock should appear and then disappear from the 'Current Activity :
> Locks/Object' view. It should not persist for hours on end.
> What should I look out for in the design/code that is creating these
> multiple db level locks to persist for extended periods of time.
> Thank you.
> SQLCatZ
>
>|||Hello Mike,
Thank you!
Your reply cleared things up.
I was aware of the "Acquire Late, Release Early" principle - but felt very
very uncomfortable when I saw a bunch of DB level locks hanging around for
extended periods of time.
Cheers!
SQLCatZ|||Basically Db locks prevent anyone from doing RESTORE and DROP DATABASE. When MS looked into how
prohibiting these actions for 7.0, they realized that using the already present lock handing would
be a clean way of doing it.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"SQLCatz" <SQLCatz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:27C4CB52-A0FE-496F-B41D-86955F2012DB@.microsoft.com...
> Hello Mike,
> Thank you!
> Your reply cleared things up.
> I was aware of the "Acquire Late, Release Early" principle - but felt very
> very uncomfortable when I saw a bunch of DB level locks hanging around for
> extended periods of time.
> Cheers!
> SQLCatZ
>
Current Activity - Process Info
Hi, please i need to know where sql save (table) the info that i see in Managment/Current Activity - Process Info
thanks so muchTry master..sysprocesses|||hi, thanks for your reply, but how can i obtain the info of the last tsql command executed?, in the table sysprocess i only have the number of spid
thanks so much|||Maybe this helps: http://www.dbforums.com/showthread.php?t=1613608|||use command dbcc inputbuffer(spid)
thanks so muchTry master..sysprocesses|||hi, thanks for your reply, but how can i obtain the info of the last tsql command executed?, in the table sysprocess i only have the number of spid
thanks so much|||Maybe this helps: http://www.dbforums.com/showthread.php?t=1613608|||use command dbcc inputbuffer(spid)
Current Activity - Host Question
When looking at the Current Activity screen in EM, why is that the Host computer is displayed in some cases & not present in others?
For example, I have one generic report user, and in some cases I see the server name they are connecting to the sql server from and in other cases I don't. Doesn't appear to be any rhyme or reason. Is some setting not properly set?
Any direction on helping me understand this will be appreciated.
It depends on the client. Some client libraries and versions grab the name field automatically. Others wait for the application to populate it. ADO.Net does populate the machine name automatically.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"JLS" <jlshoop@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:%23CcqYHlJFHA.656@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
When looking at the Current Activity screen in EM, why is that the Host computer is displayed in some cases & not present in others?
For example, I have one generic report user, and in some cases I see the server name they are connecting to the sql server from and in other cases I don't. Doesn't appear to be any rhyme or reason. Is some setting not properly set?
Any direction on helping me understand this will be appreciated.
|||The setting is done from the client application (in the connection string). Perhaps the app doesn't
set it properly?
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
http://www.sqlug.se/
"JLS" <jlshoop@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:%23CcqYHlJFHA.656@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
When looking at the Current Activity screen in EM, why is that the Host computer is displayed in
some cases & not present in others?
For example, I have one generic report user, and in some cases I see the server name they are
connecting to the sql server from and in other cases I don't. Doesn't appear to be any rhyme or
reason. Is some setting not properly set?
Any direction on helping me understand this will be appreciated.
|||Geoff & Tibor,
Thank you for this information, now I know in which direction to begin.
Thanx!
For example, I have one generic report user, and in some cases I see the server name they are connecting to the sql server from and in other cases I don't. Doesn't appear to be any rhyme or reason. Is some setting not properly set?
Any direction on helping me understand this will be appreciated.
It depends on the client. Some client libraries and versions grab the name field automatically. Others wait for the application to populate it. ADO.Net does populate the machine name automatically.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"JLS" <jlshoop@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:%23CcqYHlJFHA.656@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
When looking at the Current Activity screen in EM, why is that the Host computer is displayed in some cases & not present in others?
For example, I have one generic report user, and in some cases I see the server name they are connecting to the sql server from and in other cases I don't. Doesn't appear to be any rhyme or reason. Is some setting not properly set?
Any direction on helping me understand this will be appreciated.
|||The setting is done from the client application (in the connection string). Perhaps the app doesn't
set it properly?
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
http://www.sqlug.se/
"JLS" <jlshoop@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:%23CcqYHlJFHA.656@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
When looking at the Current Activity screen in EM, why is that the Host computer is displayed in
some cases & not present in others?
For example, I have one generic report user, and in some cases I see the server name they are
connecting to the sql server from and in other cases I don't. Doesn't appear to be any rhyme or
reason. Is some setting not properly set?
Any direction on helping me understand this will be appreciated.
|||Geoff & Tibor,
Thank you for this information, now I know in which direction to begin.
Thanx!
Current Activity - Host Question
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--=_NextPart_000_0006_01C52627.EE921BE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
When looking at the Current Activity screen in EM, why is that the Host = computer is displayed in some cases & not present in others? For example, I have one generic report user, and in some cases I see the = server name they are connecting to the sql server from and in other = cases I don't. Doesn't appear to be any rhyme or reason. Is some = setting not properly set?
Any direction on helping me understand this will be appreciated.
--=_NextPart_000_0006_01C52627.EE921BE0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
&
When looking at the = Current Activity screen in EM, why is that the Host computer is displayed in = some cases & not present in others?
For example, I = have one generic report user, and in some cases I see the server name they are = connecting to the sql server from and in other cases I don't. Doesn't appear = to be any rhyme or reason. Is some setting not properly = set?
Any direction on = helping me understand this will be appreciated.
--=_NextPart_000_0006_01C52627.EE921BE0--The setting is done from the client application (in the connection string). Perhaps the app doesn't
set it properly?
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
http://www.sqlug.se/
"JLS" <jlshoop@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:%23CcqYHlJFHA.656@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
When looking at the Current Activity screen in EM, why is that the Host computer is displayed in
some cases & not present in others?
For example, I have one generic report user, and in some cases I see the server name they are
connecting to the sql server from and in other cases I don't. Doesn't appear to be any rhyme or
reason. Is some setting not properly set?
Any direction on helping me understand this will be appreciated.|||This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--=_NextPart_000_00AE_01C5262A.B5A21F30
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It depends on the client. Some client libraries and versions grab the =name field automatically. Others wait for the application to populate =it. ADO.Net does populate the machine name automatically.
-- Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"JLS" <jlshoop@.hotmail.com> wrote in message =news:%23CcqYHlJFHA.656@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
When looking at the Current Activity screen in EM, why is that the =Host computer is displayed in some cases & not present in others? For example, I have one generic report user, and in some cases I see =the server name they are connecting to the sql server from and in other =cases I don't. Doesn't appear to be any rhyme or reason. Is some =setting not properly set?
Any direction on helping me understand this will be appreciated.
--=_NextPart_000_00AE_01C5262A.B5A21F30
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
&
It depends on the client. Some =client libraries and versions grab the name field automatically. Others =wait for the application to populate it. ADO.Net does populate the machine =name automatically.
-- Geoff N. HitenMicrosoft SQL Server MVPSenior =Database AdministratorCareerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Serverhttp://www.sqlpass.org">www.sqlpass.org
"JLS" wrote =in message news:%23CcqYHlJFHA.6=56@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
When looking at the =Current Activity screen in EM, why is that the Host computer is displayed in =some cases & not present in others?
For example, I =have one generic report user, and in some cases I see the server name they are connecting to the sql server from and in other cases I don't. =Doesn't appear to be any rhyme or reason. Is some setting not properly set?
Any direction on =helping me understand this will be =appreciated.
--=_NextPart_000_00AE_01C5262A.B5A21F30--|||Geoff & Tibor,
Thank you for this information, now I know in which direction to begin.
Thanx!
--=_NextPart_000_0006_01C52627.EE921BE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
When looking at the Current Activity screen in EM, why is that the Host = computer is displayed in some cases & not present in others? For example, I have one generic report user, and in some cases I see the = server name they are connecting to the sql server from and in other = cases I don't. Doesn't appear to be any rhyme or reason. Is some = setting not properly set?
Any direction on helping me understand this will be appreciated.
--=_NextPart_000_0006_01C52627.EE921BE0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
&
When looking at the = Current Activity screen in EM, why is that the Host computer is displayed in = some cases & not present in others?
For example, I = have one generic report user, and in some cases I see the server name they are = connecting to the sql server from and in other cases I don't. Doesn't appear = to be any rhyme or reason. Is some setting not properly = set?
Any direction on = helping me understand this will be appreciated.
--=_NextPart_000_0006_01C52627.EE921BE0--The setting is done from the client application (in the connection string). Perhaps the app doesn't
set it properly?
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
http://www.sqlug.se/
"JLS" <jlshoop@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:%23CcqYHlJFHA.656@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
When looking at the Current Activity screen in EM, why is that the Host computer is displayed in
some cases & not present in others?
For example, I have one generic report user, and in some cases I see the server name they are
connecting to the sql server from and in other cases I don't. Doesn't appear to be any rhyme or
reason. Is some setting not properly set?
Any direction on helping me understand this will be appreciated.|||This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--=_NextPart_000_00AE_01C5262A.B5A21F30
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It depends on the client. Some client libraries and versions grab the =name field automatically. Others wait for the application to populate =it. ADO.Net does populate the machine name automatically.
-- Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"JLS" <jlshoop@.hotmail.com> wrote in message =news:%23CcqYHlJFHA.656@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
When looking at the Current Activity screen in EM, why is that the =Host computer is displayed in some cases & not present in others? For example, I have one generic report user, and in some cases I see =the server name they are connecting to the sql server from and in other =cases I don't. Doesn't appear to be any rhyme or reason. Is some =setting not properly set?
Any direction on helping me understand this will be appreciated.
--=_NextPart_000_00AE_01C5262A.B5A21F30
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
&
It depends on the client. Some =client libraries and versions grab the name field automatically. Others =wait for the application to populate it. ADO.Net does populate the machine =name automatically.
-- Geoff N. HitenMicrosoft SQL Server MVPSenior =Database AdministratorCareerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Serverhttp://www.sqlpass.org">www.sqlpass.org
"JLS"
When looking at the =Current Activity screen in EM, why is that the Host computer is displayed in =some cases & not present in others?
For example, I =have one generic report user, and in some cases I see the server name they are connecting to the sql server from and in other cases I don't. =Doesn't appear to be any rhyme or reason. Is some setting not properly set?
Any direction on =helping me understand this will be =appreciated.
--=_NextPart_000_00AE_01C5262A.B5A21F30--|||Geoff & Tibor,
Thank you for this information, now I know in which direction to begin.
Thanx!
Current Activity - Host Question
When looking at the Current Activity screen in EM, why is that the Host comp
uter is displayed in some cases & not present in others?
For example, I have one generic report user, and in some cases I see the ser
ver name they are connecting to the sql server from and in other cases I don
't. Doesn't appear to be any rhyme or reason. Is some setting not properly
set?
Any direction on helping me understand this will be appreciated.It depends on the client. Some client libraries and versions grab the name
field automatically. Others wait for the application to populate it. ADO.N
et does populate the machine name automatically.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"JLS" <jlshoop@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:%23CcqYHlJFHA.656@.TK2MSFTN
GP14.phx.gbl...
When looking at the Current Activity screen in EM, why is that the Host comp
uter is displayed in some cases & not present in others?
For example, I have one generic report user, and in some cases I see the ser
ver name they are connecting to the sql server from and in other cases I don
't. Doesn't appear to be any rhyme or reason. Is some setting not properly
set?
Any direction on helping me understand this will be appreciated.|||The setting is done from the client application (in the connection string).
Perhaps the app doesn't
set it properly?
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
http://www.sqlug.se/
"JLS" <jlshoop@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:%23CcqYHlJFHA.656@.TK2MSFTN
GP14.phx.gbl...
When looking at the Current Activity screen in EM, why is that the Host comp
uter is displayed in
some cases & not present in others?
For example, I have one generic report user, and in some cases I see the ser
ver name they are
connecting to the sql server from and in other cases I don't. Doesn't appea
r to be any rhyme or
reason. Is some setting not properly set?
Any direction on helping me understand this will be appreciated.|||Geoff & Tibor,
Thank you for this information, now I know in which direction to begin.
Thanx!
uter is displayed in some cases & not present in others?
For example, I have one generic report user, and in some cases I see the ser
ver name they are connecting to the sql server from and in other cases I don
't. Doesn't appear to be any rhyme or reason. Is some setting not properly
set?
Any direction on helping me understand this will be appreciated.It depends on the client. Some client libraries and versions grab the name
field automatically. Others wait for the application to populate it. ADO.N
et does populate the machine name automatically.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"JLS" <jlshoop@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:%23CcqYHlJFHA.656@.TK2MSFTN
GP14.phx.gbl...
When looking at the Current Activity screen in EM, why is that the Host comp
uter is displayed in some cases & not present in others?
For example, I have one generic report user, and in some cases I see the ser
ver name they are connecting to the sql server from and in other cases I don
't. Doesn't appear to be any rhyme or reason. Is some setting not properly
set?
Any direction on helping me understand this will be appreciated.|||The setting is done from the client application (in the connection string).
Perhaps the app doesn't
set it properly?
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
http://www.sqlug.se/
"JLS" <jlshoop@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:%23CcqYHlJFHA.656@.TK2MSFTN
GP14.phx.gbl...
When looking at the Current Activity screen in EM, why is that the Host comp
uter is displayed in
some cases & not present in others?
For example, I have one generic report user, and in some cases I see the ser
ver name they are
connecting to the sql server from and in other cases I don't. Doesn't appea
r to be any rhyme or
reason. Is some setting not properly set?
Any direction on helping me understand this will be appreciated.|||Geoff & Tibor,
Thank you for this information, now I know in which direction to begin.
Thanx!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)