I am not able to open the current sql server log file from
enterprise manager in one of my servers. I can open the
archive logs below the current one in enterprise server.
When I double click the current log to open it hangs
everything. What is going on on this server, any help
please.Aboki,
Try recycling the error log using sp_cycle_errorlog
--
Dinesh.
SQL Server FAQ at
http://www.tkdinesh.com
"Aboki" <waco361@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0bda01c36b22$517e07e0$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> I am not able to open the current sql server log file from
> enterprise manager in one of my servers. I can open the
> archive logs below the current one in enterprise server.
> When I double click the current log to open it hangs
> everything. What is going on on this server, any help
> please.
Showing posts with label servers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label servers. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Cumulative wait time on server replies
i've got 2 identiical db on 2 servers. the hardware config is different. i
run the same queries on these 2 servers. execution plan, statistics like
reads / writes / cpu time, etc are all the same, the only difference is the
"Cumulative wait time on server replies".
What does it mean? does it have anything to do with the hardware like
memory, paging file or even the speed of the hard disks?
thanks.SQL Books Online says :-
Cumulative amount of time the driver spent waiting for replies from the
server.
It's unlikely this has anything to do with the performance of your query.
You have identical query plans on different servers, do you have the same
volume of data..?
What does DBCC SHOWCONTIG show for the tables, are there differences in the
level of fragmentation.
Is blocking an issue on one of the servers as it's in a Production
environment and the other is Test..
HTH. Ryan
"Kitty" <Kitty@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E865E508-11BD-4F5D-9568-1C1BAABB4F27@.microsoft.com...
> i've got 2 identiical db on 2 servers. the hardware config is different.
> i
> run the same queries on these 2 servers. execution plan, statistics like
> reads / writes / cpu time, etc are all the same, the only difference is
> the
> "Cumulative wait time on server replies".
> What does it mean? does it have anything to do with the hardware like
> memory, paging file or even the speed of the hard disks?
> thanks.
>
run the same queries on these 2 servers. execution plan, statistics like
reads / writes / cpu time, etc are all the same, the only difference is the
"Cumulative wait time on server replies".
What does it mean? does it have anything to do with the hardware like
memory, paging file or even the speed of the hard disks?
thanks.SQL Books Online says :-
Cumulative amount of time the driver spent waiting for replies from the
server.
It's unlikely this has anything to do with the performance of your query.
You have identical query plans on different servers, do you have the same
volume of data..?
What does DBCC SHOWCONTIG show for the tables, are there differences in the
level of fragmentation.
Is blocking an issue on one of the servers as it's in a Production
environment and the other is Test..
HTH. Ryan
"Kitty" <Kitty@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E865E508-11BD-4F5D-9568-1C1BAABB4F27@.microsoft.com...
> i've got 2 identiical db on 2 servers. the hardware config is different.
> i
> run the same queries on these 2 servers. execution plan, statistics like
> reads / writes / cpu time, etc are all the same, the only difference is
> the
> "Cumulative wait time on server replies".
> What does it mean? does it have anything to do with the hardware like
> memory, paging file or even the speed of the hard disks?
> thanks.
>
Cumulative wait time on server replies
i've got 2 identiical db on 2 servers. the hardware config is different. i
run the same queries on these 2 servers. execution plan, statistics like
reads / writes / cpu time, etc are all the same, the only difference is the
"Cumulative wait time on server replies".
What does it mean? does it have anything to do with the hardware like
memory, paging file or even the speed of the hard disks?
thanks.SQL Books Online says :-
Cumulative amount of time the driver spent waiting for replies from the
server.
It's unlikely this has anything to do with the performance of your query.
You have identical query plans on different servers, do you have the same
volume of data..?
What does DBCC SHOWCONTIG show for the tables, are there differences in the
level of fragmentation.
Is blocking an issue on one of the servers as it's in a Production
environment and the other is Test..
HTH. Ryan
"Kitty" <Kitty@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E865E508-11BD-4F5D-9568-1C1BAABB4F27@.microsoft.com...
> i've got 2 identiical db on 2 servers. the hardware config is different.
> i
> run the same queries on these 2 servers. execution plan, statistics like
> reads / writes / cpu time, etc are all the same, the only difference is
> the
> "Cumulative wait time on server replies".
> What does it mean? does it have anything to do with the hardware like
> memory, paging file or even the speed of the hard disks?
> thanks.
>
run the same queries on these 2 servers. execution plan, statistics like
reads / writes / cpu time, etc are all the same, the only difference is the
"Cumulative wait time on server replies".
What does it mean? does it have anything to do with the hardware like
memory, paging file or even the speed of the hard disks?
thanks.SQL Books Online says :-
Cumulative amount of time the driver spent waiting for replies from the
server.
It's unlikely this has anything to do with the performance of your query.
You have identical query plans on different servers, do you have the same
volume of data..?
What does DBCC SHOWCONTIG show for the tables, are there differences in the
level of fragmentation.
Is blocking an issue on one of the servers as it's in a Production
environment and the other is Test..
HTH. Ryan
"Kitty" <Kitty@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E865E508-11BD-4F5D-9568-1C1BAABB4F27@.microsoft.com...
> i've got 2 identiical db on 2 servers. the hardware config is different.
> i
> run the same queries on these 2 servers. execution plan, statistics like
> reads / writes / cpu time, etc are all the same, the only difference is
> the
> "Cumulative wait time on server replies".
> What does it mean? does it have anything to do with the hardware like
> memory, paging file or even the speed of the hard disks?
> thanks.
>
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Cumulative max-length for index on SQL servers... please help
Folks,
What is the cumulative max-length of columns in both a clustered
and/or nonclustered index for:
a. SQL Server 2000
b. SQL Server 2005
Any comments much, much appreciated...
Thank you,
Al.Look for "maximum capacity specifications" in Books Online, this info
and more can be found there.
almurph@.altavista.com wrote:
> Folks,
> What is the cumulative max-length of columns in both a clustered
> and/or nonclustered index for:
> a. SQL Server 2000
> b. SQL Server 2005
>
> Any comments much, much appreciated...
> Thank you,
> Al.|||Tracy McKibben wrote:
> Look for "maximum capacity specifications" in Books Online, this info
> and more can be found there.
>
> almurph@.altavista.com wrote:
> > Folks,
> >
> > What is the cumulative max-length of columns in both a clustered
> > and/or nonclustered index for:
> >
> > a. SQL Server 2000
> > b. SQL Server 2005
> >
> >
> > Any comments much, much appreciated...
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Al.
Number of columns should not be more than 16 and cumulative length
should not be more than 900. But you can use included column opation in
SQL Server 2005 to add more columns.
More help you can find in Create index statement in BOL and Maximum
Capacity Specifications for SQL Server 2005
Regards
Amish Shah
What is the cumulative max-length of columns in both a clustered
and/or nonclustered index for:
a. SQL Server 2000
b. SQL Server 2005
Any comments much, much appreciated...
Thank you,
Al.Look for "maximum capacity specifications" in Books Online, this info
and more can be found there.
almurph@.altavista.com wrote:
> Folks,
> What is the cumulative max-length of columns in both a clustered
> and/or nonclustered index for:
> a. SQL Server 2000
> b. SQL Server 2005
>
> Any comments much, much appreciated...
> Thank you,
> Al.|||Tracy McKibben wrote:
> Look for "maximum capacity specifications" in Books Online, this info
> and more can be found there.
>
> almurph@.altavista.com wrote:
> > Folks,
> >
> > What is the cumulative max-length of columns in both a clustered
> > and/or nonclustered index for:
> >
> > a. SQL Server 2000
> > b. SQL Server 2005
> >
> >
> > Any comments much, much appreciated...
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Al.
Number of columns should not be more than 16 and cumulative length
should not be more than 900. But you can use included column opation in
SQL Server 2005 to add more columns.
More help you can find in Create index statement in BOL and Maximum
Capacity Specifications for SQL Server 2005
Regards
Amish Shah
Cumulative max-length for index on SQL servers... please help
Look for "maximum capacity specifications" in Books Online, this info
and more can be found there.
almurph@.altavista.com wrote:
> Folks,
> What is the cumulative max-length of columns in both a clustered
> and/or nonclustered index for:
> a. SQL Server 2000
> b. SQL Server 2005
>
> Any comments much, much appreciated...
> Thank you,
> Al.Folks,
What is the cumulative max-length of columns in both a clustered
and/or nonclustered index for:
a. SQL Server 2000
b. SQL Server 2005
Any comments much, much appreciated...
Thank you,
Al.|||Look for "maximum capacity specifications" in Books Online, this info
and more can be found there.
almurph@.altavista.com wrote:
> Folks,
> What is the cumulative max-length of columns in both a clustered
> and/or nonclustered index for:
> a. SQL Server 2000
> b. SQL Server 2005
>
> Any comments much, much appreciated...
> Thank you,
> Al.|||Tracy McKibben wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Look for "maximum capacity specifications" in Books Online, this info
> and more can be found there.
>
> almurph@.altavista.com wrote:
Number of columns should not be more than 16 and cumulative length
should not be more than 900. But you can use included column opation in
SQL Server 2005 to add more columns.
More help you can find in Create index statement in BOL and Maximum
Capacity Specifications for SQL Server 2005
Regards
Amish Shah|||Tracy McKibben wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Look for "maximum capacity specifications" in Books Online, this info
> and more can be found there.
>
> almurph@.altavista.com wrote:
Number of columns should not be more than 16 and cumulative length
should not be more than 900. But you can use included column opation in
SQL Server 2005 to add more columns.
More help you can find in Create index statement in BOL and Maximum
Capacity Specifications for SQL Server 2005
Regards
Amish Shah
and more can be found there.
almurph@.altavista.com wrote:
> Folks,
> What is the cumulative max-length of columns in both a clustered
> and/or nonclustered index for:
> a. SQL Server 2000
> b. SQL Server 2005
>
> Any comments much, much appreciated...
> Thank you,
> Al.Folks,
What is the cumulative max-length of columns in both a clustered
and/or nonclustered index for:
a. SQL Server 2000
b. SQL Server 2005
Any comments much, much appreciated...
Thank you,
Al.|||Look for "maximum capacity specifications" in Books Online, this info
and more can be found there.
almurph@.altavista.com wrote:
> Folks,
> What is the cumulative max-length of columns in both a clustered
> and/or nonclustered index for:
> a. SQL Server 2000
> b. SQL Server 2005
>
> Any comments much, much appreciated...
> Thank you,
> Al.|||Tracy McKibben wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Look for "maximum capacity specifications" in Books Online, this info
> and more can be found there.
>
> almurph@.altavista.com wrote:
Number of columns should not be more than 16 and cumulative length
should not be more than 900. But you can use included column opation in
SQL Server 2005 to add more columns.
More help you can find in Create index statement in BOL and Maximum
Capacity Specifications for SQL Server 2005
Regards
Amish Shah|||Tracy McKibben wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Look for "maximum capacity specifications" in Books Online, this info
> and more can be found there.
>
> almurph@.altavista.com wrote:
Number of columns should not be more than 16 and cumulative length
should not be more than 900. But you can use included column opation in
SQL Server 2005 to add more columns.
More help you can find in Create index statement in BOL and Maximum
Capacity Specifications for SQL Server 2005
Regards
Amish Shah
Cubes
Hi,
I have two Data Sources from two different servers.. Using that i have
created two cubes namely HostCube and Applications Cube..Now i need to
link the two cubes based on host name.. Host name is present in Host
cube and Site name is present in Application cube.. I need to link
these both and get the keywords, referal page, number of applications
running and number of visits.
Am not able to link two cubes and get the result.. I tried using
Virtual Cubes, but it just takes dimensions from both the cubes and
gives the result.. Can anyone help me out in this please.
Thanks in advance..
I would guess you are trying to use AS 2000 to solve the problem.
You should be way better off using AS 2005 that allows you to use data from 2 different datasources in a single cube.
Edward.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Hi Edward,
Thanks alot for your reply..
Yes am using AS 2000.. Now i have copied table and all the tables are in one database..
Here I have a basic question... Can we use dimensions with conditions in Analysis service.. I have three dimensions and i need output for particular condition..
For example: I have Site Dimension, Host Dimension and Tracking Details Dimensions.. Here From Host Dimension I need to take Host Name and compare it with SiteName in Site Dimension and from this i need to take site type and siteid and comapre this site id with siteid in Tracking Details Dimension and get keywords and referer excluding for status=180..
Am totally lost.. Can you help me out in this.. Thanks in advance..
|||Looks to me the problem you are trying to solve should be solved on the client side. Try installing eval version of ProClarity and see if cross drill ( or drill across) functionality gets you you what you need.
Edward.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
cube has been updated by the server, data is now obsolete
Client issues query which sends out individual requests to the 2 OLAP servers that are load balanced. The client evaluates the versions of the returned record sets to ensure the consist data being returned for one single query. Otherwise, this error will be seen:
The cube has been updated by the server the data is now obsolete.
These servers sit behind a cisco 11506 CSS with load balancing based on balance type: least busy server, also persistence based on cookies.
My developer says this worked fine for a long time then just 'started happening'.
any suggestions are appreciated.Any infomational messsage or error on SQL error log?|||I'll see if there are any other associated messages or logs and post them.
The cube has been updated by the server the data is now obsolete.
These servers sit behind a cisco 11506 CSS with load balancing based on balance type: least busy server, also persistence based on cookies.
My developer says this worked fine for a long time then just 'started happening'.
any suggestions are appreciated.Any infomational messsage or error on SQL error log?|||I'll see if there are any other associated messages or logs and post them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)