THE SQL Server Blog Spot on the Web

Welcome to SQLblog.com - The SQL Server blog spot on the web Sign in | |

Search

You searched for the word(s):
Showing page 1 of 56 (556 total posts) < 1 second(s)
  • re: SQL Server 2016 SP1 shocks the world!!!

    almost 20 years ago, when Intel was doing the SSE vector floating point in what became Pentium III, there was some thought that this was an important feature that required 2M transistors back when 2M transistors was a lot (PII was 7.5M, Katmai PIII 9.5M), it ought to get a premium over same frequency PII. However, the reality was that software ...
    Posted to Damian Widera (Weblog) by jchang on November 18, 2016
  • re: Samsung SSD 960 PRO - 3500MB/s

    could you be specific on which OCZ products, ex, Vertex/Vector, or the low end?
    Posted to Joe Chang (Weblog) by jchang on November 13, 2016
  • re: 40 Gigabit Ethernet

    I don't have the infrastructure to test storage spaces. There was a session at PASS by Brian Walters of SanDisk on storage spaces. They cited 24 and 40GB/s! They used 100GbE, not sure whose adapter, but 40GB/s must be 4 x 100GbE at linear scaling. Note iSCSI and FCOE did not scale past 2 x 10GbE back a few years. Their backend had SATA or SAS SSDs ...
    Posted to Joe Chang (Weblog) by jchang on October 30, 2016
  • 40 Gigabit Ethernet

    A couple of months ago, I got a pair of Intel XL710QDA2 Ethernet Converged Network Adapters, basically the fancy way of saying 40 Gigabit Ethernet that does other stuff too. I also bought the Intel QSFP+ Twin-axial cable. At that point in time, I might like to have opted for the newer Intel Omni-Path 100Gbps (56Gbps on PCI-E x4) which came out ...
    Posted to Joe Chang (Weblog) by jchang on October 24, 2016
  • Samsung SSD 960 PRO - 3500MB/s

    Last month, Samsung announced that their 960 Pro, (PCI-E x4 gen3) M.2 NVMe SSD would available in October at 512GB, 1TB and 2TB capacities. This is a high-end PC and workstation product. There is a similar but separate product line (SM961?) for OEM customers. The 960 Pro had already been mentioned earlier this year. This week, all the ...
    Posted to Joe Chang (Weblog) by jchang on October 19, 2016
  • re: Job History row limiter

    I am inclined to recommend modifying sp_sqlagent_log_jobhistory to comment out the call to sp_jobhistory_row_limiter, then once a night or some interval, delete the excess rows from msdb.dbo.sysjobhistory using whatever criteria you might like. As for sp_sqlagent_has_server_access, my guess is that your jobs are running from an account that has ...
    Posted to Joe Chang (Weblog) by jchang on October 18, 2016
  • re: Keep more history for your Agent jobs

    In my case, the issue was not that the sp_jobhistory_row_limiter call consuming too much cpu, but rather that it was enough to show up on the top 10-20 list. For all normal code, I had made substantial improvement, and I did not want to say this is MS code that we cannot touch, when in fact we can touch it. My assessment was that adhering to the ...
    Posted to Tibor Karaszi (Weblog) by jchang on October 17, 2016
  • re: Keep more history for your Agent jobs

    every time a job executes, the procedure sp_sqlagent_log_jobhistory is called to record the fact. this procedure, at the end, calls sp_jobhistory_row_limiter. if you look at the procedure, there is a moderate to significant overhead depending on the circumstances, in the post ...
    Posted to Tibor Karaszi (Weblog) by jchang on October 16, 2016
  • re: Passwords – a secret you have no right to share

    there are 3 levels of password security 1) low - easily guessed 2) medium - somewhat difficult to remember, write it down on a yellow sticky, stick on back of monitor 3) high - difficult to remember, write it on a yellow sticky, stick on front of monitor
    Posted to Rob Farley (Weblog) by jchang on October 12, 2016
  • re: Insert Performance Limitations with Sequentially Increasing Index

    Henrik, if you have a link for the 2011 article, please let me know and I will put it in the body above for reference. A SQL Server Latch uses a lightweight synchronization mechanism, I believe it is used only for reads. It does not have the mechanisms to support SQL writes? SQL Server write operations need locks, which are more expensive than ...
    Posted to Joe Chang (Weblog) by jchang on October 10, 2016
1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last »
Privacy Statement