Timeline for Why is SQL running the same query longer from another connection? [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 7, 2020 at 22:23 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
added [query-performance] to 2412 questions - Shog9 (Id=1924)
|
|
| Jun 24, 2013 at 14:54 | history | closed |
Mark Storey-Smith StanleyJohns Hannah Vernon♦ András Váczi RolandoMySQLDBA |
too localized | |
| Jun 23, 2013 at 16:10 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jun 24, 2013 at 14:54 | |||||
| Apr 23, 2013 at 21:06 | comment | added | user22930 | I also have the same problem, would be interested if you find out the solution | |
| Mar 14, 2013 at 13:30 | answer | added | Jimbo | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 13, 2013 at 23:21 | comment | added | Mark Storey-Smith | If the list of "checked" is as comprehensive as you suggest, I'd be inclined to crack out Wireshark. Alternatively, show us the data you've gathered. Here is a great example question that demonstrates the benefit of sharing the detail of your investigations. | |
| Mar 13, 2013 at 22:29 | history | edited | RenoDBA | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 19 characters in body
|
| Mar 13, 2013 at 21:57 | comment | added | RenoDBA | Windwos 2003 Ent Server, TCPChimney is disabled by default, but we checked the registry and its set to disabled on both servers. | |
| Mar 13, 2013 at 21:47 | answer | added | Jonesome Reinstate Monica | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 13, 2013 at 21:43 | comment | added | RenoDBA | ~~silly [enter] buytton~~ As for ping times, 0 - 5ms, with 0% packet loss | |
| Mar 13, 2013 at 21:40 | comment | added | RenoDBA | Robert: My first thoughts were network too. So far i haven't found any reason for it though, especialy since the SQL Profiler says the durration is so long. I will grant you that the durration includes the time to xmit the results, but with a resultset of 1 row with 4 columns [INT, INT, VARCHAR(50), VARCHAR(100)] I couldn't imagine anything transfering so slow unless we were on a 150 baud coupler modem thats dangeling over time square. | |
| Mar 13, 2013 at 21:37 | comment | added | RenoDBA | NICs on both sides are FD and connected at 1GB speeds to the switch. Keep in mind though, there is very little actual data being sent to the server or returned. | |
| Mar 13, 2013 at 20:32 | answer | added | Richard Schweiger | timeline score: 0 | |
| Mar 13, 2013 at 20:15 | comment | added | Kin Shah | Adding to what Robert has mentioned - Is the NIC card configured in FULL DUPLEX mode ? | |
| Mar 13, 2013 at 20:14 | review | First posts | |||
| Mar 13, 2013 at 20:38 | |||||
| Mar 13, 2013 at 20:09 | comment | added | Robert L Davis | Check to see if the nic is configured correctly for tcp chimney and offloading as well. | |
| Mar 13, 2013 at 20:08 | comment | added | Robert L Davis | Check the connections between the two. How long does a ping/traceroute from the app server to the db server take? And reverse. Also check IPSec which can add a lot of overload to the processing of data. | |
| Mar 13, 2013 at 20:05 | comment | added | Robert L Davis | Your description would seem to clearly indicate a nic/network problem. Make sure the nics and switches in between are set to the same setting (preferably Auto). If the speeds do not match, the connection to the nic defaults to single duplex rather than half duplex which means it does I or O at any given time, not both. | |
| Mar 13, 2013 at 19:54 | history | asked | RenoDBA | CC BY-SA 3.0 |