Re: Batch Requests/Sec counter

Tech Tip: Click here to run a free scan for Windows Errors and optimize PC performance

From: Andrew J. Kelly (sqlmvpnooospam_at_shadhawk.com)
Date: 07/02/04 

Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 21:22:12 -0400

It's easier to see the actual values in the Report mode vs. the graph mode
or Perfmon. 

-- 
Andrew J. Kelly  SQL MVP
<anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2466001c45fca$da3d27d0$a601280a@phx.gbl...
> hmm... the scale of the graph is the same as the counter
> but the scale in the column beneath it is 1000....
> sorry.... very confusing to me.
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >The scale on performance monitor only affects the
> position of the graph.
> >The counter value should be the correct number.
> >
> >-- 
> >Geoff N. Hiten
> >Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> >Senior Database Administrator
> >Careerbuilder.com
> >
> >I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
> >www.sqlpass.org
> >
> ><anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >news:240a801c45f46$fb515f60$a301280a@phx.gbl...
> >> The performance monitor shows it at the scale of 1000
> so
> >> after you times it it's around the same value as
> >> sysperfinfo. So I guess that I shouldn't times the
> scale?
> >>
> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >Sounds like you pulled the raw counters from
> >> sysperfinfo.  Those are not
> >> >time-adjusted.  See http://support.microsoft.com/?
> >> id=555064 for a short
> >> >explanation.  You wil need to use the Performance
> >> Monitor tool to see the
> >> >actual per/second values.
> >> >
> >> >-- 
> >> >Geoff N. Hiten
> >> >Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> >> >Senior Database Administrator
> >> >Careerbuilder.com
> >> >
> >> >I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
> >> >www.sqlpass.org
> >> >
> >> >"debcwong" <debcwong@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
> in
> >> message
> >> >news:92A9ACE5-072E-4DF4-822F-
> >> B5E23B669B49@microsoft.com...
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >> I hope that somebody can help me to clarify for
> this.
> >> >> Below is an excerpt extracted from the www.sql-
> server-
> >> performance.com
> >> >website.
> >> >>
> >> >> The batch requests per second shown on the
> performance
> >> monitor screen is
> >> >in the scale of 1000.
> >> >> My current server has 6 CPUs but with only 100mb
> >> network card. I'm a bit
> >> >concern on the values shown for this particular
> counter
> >> which is average
> >> >over 27243187 batch requests/Sec. Also lately the CPU
> >> utilization is also
> >> >getting higher in the range of above 80%. The question
> >> here is whether a
> >> >network bottleneck in this can cause an increase in
> CPU
> >> utilization? if yes
> >> >may I know why also?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks
> >> >> -debbie-
> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------
> ---
> >> -------------------
> >> >----------------
> >> >> To get a feel of how busy SQL Server is, monitor the
> >> SQLServer: SQL
> >> >Statistics: Batch Requests/Sec counter. This counter
> >> measures the number of
> >> >batch requests that SQL Server receives per second,
> and
> >> generally follows in
> >> >step to how busy your server's CPUs are. Generally
> >> speaking, over 1000 batch
> >> >requests per second indicates a very busy SQL Server,
> >> and could mean that if
> >> >you are not already experiencing a CPU bottleneck,
> that
> >> you may very well
> >> >soon. Of course, this is a relative number, and the
> >> bigger your hardware,
> >> >the more batch requests per second SQL Server can
> handle.
> >> >>
> >> >> From a network bottleneck approach, a typical 100Mbs
> >> network card is only
> >> >able to handle about 3000 batch requests per second.
> If
> >> you have a server
> >> >that is this busy, you may need to have two or more
> >> network cards, or go to
> >> >a 1Gbs network card.
> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------
> ---
> >> -------------------
> >> >----------------
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >.
> >> >
> >
> >
> >.
> >

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Access 2007->SQL Server2005 "connection was forcibly closed",G
    ... I moved every table I was able to move to the SQL ... closed connections - but all of these errors are in the version which used ... the SQL Server 2000 and everything worked ... communication between ODBC (OLEDB and Native Client, ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.connect)
  • Re: Unable to Apply SP4 to SQL 2000 Cluster (new Node)
    ... Rebuild the node in the failover cluster. ... Scenario 1" in SQL Server 2000 Books Online. ... This setup process updates to SP4 only the binaries on the new ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)
  • Re: WSS 3.0 question
    ... I followed the advise given in removing WSS 3.0 etc, ... the server is complaining that the SQL service(?) was tempered with or corrupt. ... I may just instal the SQL server as I was going eventuall use it anyway. ... If WSUS 3.0 is installed, I would suggest you uninstall it and then you install WSS 3.0. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: WSUS
    ... I'm not seeing performance issues with the full enchilada installed, and 25 users busy hitting SQL. ... WSUS isn't difficult to uninstall - if you have WSUS v2 (installed with SBS R2) uninstall R2 from add/remove programs. ... How can anyone work with 4 instances of SQL Server on the same box? ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: SQL Resets
    ... If it were SQL that was falling short, ... The default backlog for SQL Server is 5. ... System.InvalidOperationException: Internal connection fatal error. ... From time to time, under heavy loads, we are getting resets at ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.connect)