| Author |
 Topic  |
|
hawk
Starting Member
25 Posts |
 Posted - 08/03/2005 : 17:54:53
|
See the full thread. He does try to answer but says it should not affect performance.
I'm on right now with MS Support folks helping me. They say that they have confirmed that SP4 causes the issue and they may have some coding work arounds. (I'm on hold while they get a Tech Lead on the line). |
 |
|
|
hawk
Starting Member
25 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2005 : 18:02:44
|
Well I guess we won't be trying any "work arounds".
Basically they told me that since they have confirmed that the issue is caused by SP4 that they won't charge for the call up to this point. But in order to try and resolve the issue it would take more time and effort on their part. So they would have to start charging us for the time.
Given we don't "need" SP4 I've opted to close the case at this point.
So anyone having problems with SP4 might want to put a call in. Just so it is on record and maybe they will find a fix. |
Edited by - hawk on 08/03/2005 18:03:55 |
|
|
|
tkizer
Almighty SQL Goddess
USA
35007 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2005 : 18:05:11
|
That's unfortunate. They should at least post back to the thread to confirm that the performance problems are caused by SP4.
Tara |
Edited by - tkizer on 08/03/2005 18:12:53 |
|
|
|
paulrandal
Yak with Vast SQL Skills
USA
899 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2005 : 18:12:07
|
Hold on - I'm talking to one of the Escalation Managers in PSS... this seems wrong to me.
Paul Randal
Dev Lead, Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
(Legalese: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.) |
|
|
|
eyechart
Flowing Fount of Yak Knowledge
USA
3575 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2005 : 18:21:30
|
if the performance problems are caused by SP4, why would they charge the customer for time? that doesn't make sense.
-ec |
|
|
|
hawk
Starting Member
25 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2005 : 18:30:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by eyechart
if the performance problems are caused by SP4, why would they charge the customer for time? that doesn't make sense.
-ec
I agree, but given we don't need SP4 (not on the machine we have problems with that is, where we needed it things are OK) I have no reason to press the issue. If we went any longer on it I was going to have to speak with some folks here at my office just to see if we wanted to spend any more time working on this ourselves. So I was close to ending things myself anyway.
We actually had 3 machines with major problems, but I only called about one and removed SP4 from all of them. We still run it on the other servers that have not had any major issues. |
Edited by - hawk on 08/03/2005 18:32:47 |
|
|
|
eyechart
Flowing Fount of Yak Knowledge
USA
3575 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2005 : 18:40:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by hawk
quote:
Originally posted by eyechart
if the performance problems are caused by SP4, why would they charge the customer for time? that doesn't make sense.
-ec
I agree, but given we don't need SP4 (not on the machine we have problems with that is, where we needed it things are OK) I have no reason to press the issue. If we went any longer on it I was going to have to speak with some folks here at my office just to see if we wanted to spend any more time working on this ourselves. So I was close to ending things myself anyway.
We actually had 3 machines with major problems, but I only called about one and removed SP4 from all of them. We still run it on the other servers that have not had any major issues.
I will be needing SP4 for our new opteron x64 boxes that are being racked as I type this. I would like to push the issue with microsoft so that it can be resolved as quickly as possible.
If you feel like it, email me your SRX number and I can take it up with our TAM.
-ec |
|
|
|
hawk
Starting Member
25 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2005 : 18:48:10
|
I already posted it in a prior post here  . It is SRX050726602487 .
Honestly this cost me and my team time just like the folks at MS. I don't have much time to put into this so no need to press the issue.
I have not received the e-mail yet to cofirm I want to close the case. Paul must be working on something... .
Anyone else with this problem, are you using FT Indexes on the machine with problems? Just curious. And if you go back to SP3a be sure to bebuild them  . |
|
|
|
paulrandal
Yak with Vast SQL Skills
USA
899 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2005 : 19:03:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by hawk
I have not received the e-mail yet to cofirm I want to close the case. Paul must be working on something... .
I've got an Escalation Manager chasing this up - you should not have to pay to have PSS help you work around the issue - someone made a mistake IMHO.
Paul Randal
Dev Lead, Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
(Legalese: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.) |
|
|
|
hawk
Starting Member
25 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2005 : 11:39:37
|
| Thank you Paul. |
|
|
|
paulrandal
Yak with Vast SQL Skills
USA
899 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2005 : 17:53:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by hawk
Thank you Paul.
This has been sorted out (the PSS screw-up, not the bug). You should have been called back by PSS today to say they made a mistake.
Sorry for the bad experience.
Paul Randal
Dev Lead, Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
(Legalese: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.) |
|
|
|
hawk
Starting Member
25 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2005 : 18:13:20
|
Kevin Turner (new MS COO) please make sure Mr. Paul Randal gets a raise  . |
|
|
|
hawk
Starting Member
25 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2005 : 15:42:05
|
Spoke with the PSS rep handling this case today since I had not heard back from them. He checked and confirmed again what he said before. That any more help would require deductions of support calls.
I still think Paul has earned a raise.
No biggie. We don't need SP4 on the machines that had problems. Although I guess someone will have to get to the bottom of the issue eventually. |
|
|
|
paulrandal
Yak with Vast SQL Skills
USA
899 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2005 : 16:13:30
|
Very strange - I'm following this up (I know you're not bothered but I'm really pissed)
Paul Randal
Dev Lead, Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
(Legalese: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.) |
|
|
|
hawk
Starting Member
25 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2005 : 16:40:38
|
Just got a call from Kevin "in Redmond". He was really helpful and is getting us some free help. We will start working on it Monday morning.
Like I said, Paul should get a raise .
Thanks again Paul. |
|
|
|
paulrandal
Yak with Vast SQL Skills
USA
899 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2005 : 16:45:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by hawk
Just got a call from Kevin "in Redmond". He was really helpful and is getting us some free help. We will start working on it Monday morning.
Like I said, Paul should get a raise .
Thanks again Paul.
I'm glad it was finally sorted out and sorry again that you were screwed about. I just hate it when someone in the company makes us look bad. Let's just say that there will be some repercussions for those involved 
Paul Randal
Dev Lead, Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
(Legalese: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.) |
|
|
|
X002548
Not Just a Number
15586 Posts |
|
|
Carnac
Starting Member
1 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2005 : 09:21:56
|
Hello World. I'm posting here for the first time, though I've followed this thread. We are having the same apparently SP4-related issue with the following symptoms: 1.) queries taking much longer than they did before SP4, 2.) the SPID of those queries always seems to report that they are blocked by themselves, 3.)sp_who2 'active' reports multiple rows with same SPID (which I take to mean the db is working in parallel) but only one of which indicates it is blocked by itself; and, 4.) all of the affected queries, regardless of complexity, seem to involve fairly large amounts of data (ie millions of rows).
In our case, we have a warehouse just under 2 TBs with over 5 years of data. We have been using this DB for over 3 years and constantly add to it. The SPs that make up the bulk of the periodic ETL logic have worked fine for years and I can accurately predict how long they will take based on which month's data we are importing. Its that regular. Apres SP4 queries that used to take 4 hours now take 7 or 8. As I sit this monday morning, I now see that a simple update query--executed on Friday evening--I expected to complete in a matter of a few hours is still running. I need SP4 to work due to some distributed query functionality that is not available in SP3. We have not yet opened a PSS incident and I was hoping to not have to deal with it. Thanks to all on this board who have already contributed to identifying the problem and fixing it. If the MS reps here think it will be value-added, we will open a call. Until then, please post any fixes or workarounds. Incidentally, does anyone else recommend messing around with the Max degree of ||ism? Is there any way this could be related to the "hyper-threading" on intel chips that make the machine appear as if it has twice the actual processors?
thanks and sorry for the ramble.
-Carnac |
|
|
|
eyechart
Flowing Fount of Yak Knowledge
USA
3575 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2005 : 10:24:34
|
carnac,
open a call with microsoft, if you have already taken the steps suggested in the other SP4 performance related threads (rebuild stats, etc.) then this is the only thing left to do.
-ec |
|
|
|
hawk
Starting Member
25 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2005 : 17:49:04
|
Yes Carnac, open a PSS ticket ASAP. For me although I'm working with MS on the issue it is not as urgent a need for us as you. You would want to get a call in given your level of need.
Besides you may be able to find something not yet discovered.
I hope folks with this problem are not just "looking and waiting". I don't need this fixed as badly as some others out there. So you would want to get a call in yourself. |
Edited by - hawk on 08/08/2005 17:49:42 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Frequent blocking occurences after SQL SP4
Forum Locked
