I have a server running sql 2000. We recently had to replace a failed drive
on a raid 5 array. Subsequent to changing it, the performance of the server
has declined considerably and blocking locks are occuring, which we never had
experienced before on this server. There are no errors reported for the new
disk.
I'm now trying to work out what could be the problem and how in fact to
correct it. Will running specific maintenance jobs correct the problem? Like
UPDATE STATISTICS?
Thanks!
Hi
Has the array rebuilt?
The fact that performance is perceived to be worse, look at a hardware
problem, not at a SQL one.
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/
"gracie" <gracie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:83C86485-F322-491C-973F-DF197CD10EBE@.microsoft.com...
>I have a server running sql 2000. We recently had to replace a failed drive
> on a raid 5 array. Subsequent to changing it, the performance of the
> server
> has declined considerably and blocking locks are occuring, which we never
> had
> experienced before on this server. There are no errors reported for the
> new
> disk.
> I'm now trying to work out what could be the problem and how in fact to
> correct it. Will running specific maintenance jobs correct the problem?
> Like
> UPDATE STATISTICS?
> Thanks!
|||Yes it's been rebuilt and the status of the drive and the drive array are
reported with a status of ok.
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> Has the array rebuilt?
> The fact that performance is perceived to be worse, look at a hardware
> problem, not at a SQL one.
> 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/
> "gracie" <gracie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:83C86485-F322-491C-973F-DF197CD10EBE@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Did you replace like for like..?
For instance replacing a 72Gb 15,000RPM disk with a 72Gb 10,000RPM disk
would cause the entire array to drop back to 10,000RPM
HTH
"gracie" <gracie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F84864F8-F9C5-4879-97A0-542842DD59AB@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yes it's been rebuilt and the status of the drive and the drive array are
> reported with a status of ok.
>
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
drive[vbcol=seagreen]
never[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
problem?[vbcol=seagreen]
sql
Showing posts with label subsequent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label subsequent. Show all posts
Friday, March 30, 2012
replacing hard disk
I have a server running sql 2000. We recently had to replace a failed drive
on a raid 5 array. Subsequent to changing it, the performance of the server
has declined considerably and blocking locks are occuring, which we never ha
d
experienced before on this server. There are no errors reported for the new
disk.
I'm now trying to work out what could be the problem and how in fact to
correct it. Will running specific maintenance jobs correct the problem? Like
UPDATE STATISTICS?
Thanks!Hi
Has the array rebuilt?
The fact that performance is perceived to be worse, look at a hardware
problem, not at a SQL one.
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/
"gracie" <gracie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:83C86485-F322-491C-973F-DF197CD10EBE@.microsoft.com...
>I have a server running sql 2000. We recently had to replace a failed drive
> on a raid 5 array. Subsequent to changing it, the performance of the
> server
> has declined considerably and blocking locks are occuring, which we never
> had
> experienced before on this server. There are no errors reported for the
> new
> disk.
> I'm now trying to work out what could be the problem and how in fact to
> correct it. Will running specific maintenance jobs correct the problem?
> Like
> UPDATE STATISTICS?
> Thanks!|||Yes it's been rebuilt and the status of the drive and the drive array are
reported with a status of ok.
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> Has the array rebuilt?
> The fact that performance is perceived to be worse, look at a hardware
> problem, not at a SQL one.
> 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/
> "gracie" <gracie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:83C86485-F322-491C-973F-DF197CD10EBE@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Did you replace like for like..?
For instance replacing a 72Gb 15,000RPM disk with a 72Gb 10,000RPM disk
would cause the entire array to drop back to 10,000RPM
HTH
"gracie" <gracie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F84864F8-F9C5-4879-97A0-542842DD59AB@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yes it's been rebuilt and the status of the drive and the drive array are
> reported with a status of ok.
>
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
>
drive[vbcol=seagreen]
never[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
problem?[vbcol=seagreen]
on a raid 5 array. Subsequent to changing it, the performance of the server
has declined considerably and blocking locks are occuring, which we never ha
d
experienced before on this server. There are no errors reported for the new
disk.
I'm now trying to work out what could be the problem and how in fact to
correct it. Will running specific maintenance jobs correct the problem? Like
UPDATE STATISTICS?
Thanks!Hi
Has the array rebuilt?
The fact that performance is perceived to be worse, look at a hardware
problem, not at a SQL one.
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/
"gracie" <gracie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:83C86485-F322-491C-973F-DF197CD10EBE@.microsoft.com...
>I have a server running sql 2000. We recently had to replace a failed drive
> on a raid 5 array. Subsequent to changing it, the performance of the
> server
> has declined considerably and blocking locks are occuring, which we never
> had
> experienced before on this server. There are no errors reported for the
> new
> disk.
> I'm now trying to work out what could be the problem and how in fact to
> correct it. Will running specific maintenance jobs correct the problem?
> Like
> UPDATE STATISTICS?
> Thanks!|||Yes it's been rebuilt and the status of the drive and the drive array are
reported with a status of ok.
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> Has the array rebuilt?
> The fact that performance is perceived to be worse, look at a hardware
> problem, not at a SQL one.
> 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/
> "gracie" <gracie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:83C86485-F322-491C-973F-DF197CD10EBE@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Did you replace like for like..?
For instance replacing a 72Gb 15,000RPM disk with a 72Gb 10,000RPM disk
would cause the entire array to drop back to 10,000RPM
HTH
"gracie" <gracie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F84864F8-F9C5-4879-97A0-542842DD59AB@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yes it's been rebuilt and the status of the drive and the drive array are
> reported with a status of ok.
>
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
>
drive[vbcol=seagreen]
never[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
problem?[vbcol=seagreen]
replacing hard disk
I have a server running sql 2000. We recently had to replace a failed drive
on a raid 5 array. Subsequent to changing it, the performance of the server
has declined considerably and blocking locks are occuring, which we never had
experienced before on this server. There are no errors reported for the new
disk.
I'm now trying to work out what could be the problem and how in fact to
correct it. Will running specific maintenance jobs correct the problem? Like
UPDATE STATISTICS?
Thanks!Hi
Has the array rebuilt?
The fact that performance is perceived to be worse, look at a hardware
problem, not at a SQL one.
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/
"gracie" <gracie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:83C86485-F322-491C-973F-DF197CD10EBE@.microsoft.com...
>I have a server running sql 2000. We recently had to replace a failed drive
> on a raid 5 array. Subsequent to changing it, the performance of the
> server
> has declined considerably and blocking locks are occuring, which we never
> had
> experienced before on this server. There are no errors reported for the
> new
> disk.
> I'm now trying to work out what could be the problem and how in fact to
> correct it. Will running specific maintenance jobs correct the problem?
> Like
> UPDATE STATISTICS?
> Thanks!|||Yes it's been rebuilt and the status of the drive and the drive array are
reported with a status of ok.
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> Has the array rebuilt?
> The fact that performance is perceived to be worse, look at a hardware
> problem, not at a SQL one.
> 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/
> "gracie" <gracie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:83C86485-F322-491C-973F-DF197CD10EBE@.microsoft.com...
> >I have a server running sql 2000. We recently had to replace a failed drive
> > on a raid 5 array. Subsequent to changing it, the performance of the
> > server
> > has declined considerably and blocking locks are occuring, which we never
> > had
> > experienced before on this server. There are no errors reported for the
> > new
> > disk.
> >
> > I'm now trying to work out what could be the problem and how in fact to
> > correct it. Will running specific maintenance jobs correct the problem?
> > Like
> > UPDATE STATISTICS?
> >
> > Thanks!
>
>|||Did you replace like for like..?
For instance replacing a 72Gb 15,000RPM disk with a 72Gb 10,000RPM disk
would cause the entire array to drop back to 10,000RPM
--
HTH
"gracie" <gracie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F84864F8-F9C5-4879-97A0-542842DD59AB@.microsoft.com...
> Yes it's been rebuilt and the status of the drive and the drive array are
> reported with a status of ok.
>
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Has the array rebuilt?
> > The fact that performance is perceived to be worse, look at a hardware
> > problem, not at a SQL one.
> >
> > 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/
> >
> > "gracie" <gracie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:83C86485-F322-491C-973F-DF197CD10EBE@.microsoft.com...
> > >I have a server running sql 2000. We recently had to replace a failed
drive
> > > on a raid 5 array. Subsequent to changing it, the performance of the
> > > server
> > > has declined considerably and blocking locks are occuring, which we
never
> > > had
> > > experienced before on this server. There are no errors reported for
the
> > > new
> > > disk.
> > >
> > > I'm now trying to work out what could be the problem and how in fact
to
> > > correct it. Will running specific maintenance jobs correct the
problem?
> > > Like
> > > UPDATE STATISTICS?
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> >
> >
> >
on a raid 5 array. Subsequent to changing it, the performance of the server
has declined considerably and blocking locks are occuring, which we never had
experienced before on this server. There are no errors reported for the new
disk.
I'm now trying to work out what could be the problem and how in fact to
correct it. Will running specific maintenance jobs correct the problem? Like
UPDATE STATISTICS?
Thanks!Hi
Has the array rebuilt?
The fact that performance is perceived to be worse, look at a hardware
problem, not at a SQL one.
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/
"gracie" <gracie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:83C86485-F322-491C-973F-DF197CD10EBE@.microsoft.com...
>I have a server running sql 2000. We recently had to replace a failed drive
> on a raid 5 array. Subsequent to changing it, the performance of the
> server
> has declined considerably and blocking locks are occuring, which we never
> had
> experienced before on this server. There are no errors reported for the
> new
> disk.
> I'm now trying to work out what could be the problem and how in fact to
> correct it. Will running specific maintenance jobs correct the problem?
> Like
> UPDATE STATISTICS?
> Thanks!|||Yes it's been rebuilt and the status of the drive and the drive array are
reported with a status of ok.
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> Has the array rebuilt?
> The fact that performance is perceived to be worse, look at a hardware
> problem, not at a SQL one.
> 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/
> "gracie" <gracie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:83C86485-F322-491C-973F-DF197CD10EBE@.microsoft.com...
> >I have a server running sql 2000. We recently had to replace a failed drive
> > on a raid 5 array. Subsequent to changing it, the performance of the
> > server
> > has declined considerably and blocking locks are occuring, which we never
> > had
> > experienced before on this server. There are no errors reported for the
> > new
> > disk.
> >
> > I'm now trying to work out what could be the problem and how in fact to
> > correct it. Will running specific maintenance jobs correct the problem?
> > Like
> > UPDATE STATISTICS?
> >
> > Thanks!
>
>|||Did you replace like for like..?
For instance replacing a 72Gb 15,000RPM disk with a 72Gb 10,000RPM disk
would cause the entire array to drop back to 10,000RPM
--
HTH
"gracie" <gracie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F84864F8-F9C5-4879-97A0-542842DD59AB@.microsoft.com...
> Yes it's been rebuilt and the status of the drive and the drive array are
> reported with a status of ok.
>
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Has the array rebuilt?
> > The fact that performance is perceived to be worse, look at a hardware
> > problem, not at a SQL one.
> >
> > 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/
> >
> > "gracie" <gracie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:83C86485-F322-491C-973F-DF197CD10EBE@.microsoft.com...
> > >I have a server running sql 2000. We recently had to replace a failed
drive
> > > on a raid 5 array. Subsequent to changing it, the performance of the
> > > server
> > > has declined considerably and blocking locks are occuring, which we
never
> > > had
> > > experienced before on this server. There are no errors reported for
the
> > > new
> > > disk.
> > >
> > > I'm now trying to work out what could be the problem and how in fact
to
> > > correct it. Will running specific maintenance jobs correct the
problem?
> > > Like
> > > UPDATE STATISTICS?
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> >
> >
> >
Monday, March 12, 2012
Repeating Headers and Footers in all pages
I used ReportItems!textbox4.Value for displaying a data field in the header and footer.
But it is not getting repeated in the subsequent pages...
It is getting displayed only in the first page...
Kindly provide me with a solution to get it repeated in all the pages asap!!!........
Regards,
Aravind RJ
Hi,
can you check where you have placed the field you are refering to using the report items.Place that field in the table header or footer or else in the body of the report.If you are placing it in the table header set the property "repeat on new page" for the table header. For the body of the report this property is auotmatically set. you can place it either in the body or the table header or footer.
Also set the visibility of the field being referred accordingly.
hope this works,
somiya
|||Hi,
i am sorry if i wasnt clear earlier...
by body of the report,i meant put the textbox in the detailed section of the report.
Regards,
Somiya
|||Hi somiya,
yes. i placed the fields which i wanted to display using ReportItems! in a table's detail section only.... i also made it repeat on each page... but it dint work and in vain......
in the mean time i found out another way for this.... add those fields which you want to be present in the header / footer to the "Report Parameters", make it hidden and relate it to the database fields which you want to display.... this way, the items get repeated in all the pages....
Thanks,
Aravind RJ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)