Production experience to share

I wanted to post this in case anyone else runs into it - save you loads of
time.
Yesterday we deployed our latest release of reports - someone forgot to move
the pin on the report in source control and yet the updated stored proc for
the report went out. Net result was the updated stored proc was out there
but the report wasn't. The new stored proc was requesting a new parameter
the report couldn't supply. Normally on our dev box we get the error message
back from reporting services rather quickly (~3 seconds). On our test box it
was taking 3 minutes and production was just hanging.
We are using C# to proxy all report requests (so nobody can hit the box
directly) and the error codes being returned to C# were basically saying that
reporting services was abruptly cutting the connection. We received Denial
of Service Attach messages, Tls errors, SSL/Tls trust errors and timeout
errors. Nothing returned about missing parameters - the exception object
doesn't receive detailed info as to why the connection was killed - only that
it was killed. In order to get the details we will have to modify the code
to go into the HTML returned by the WebRequest object.
I don't know why the report was hanging for as long as it was- I went into
the IIS logs to see what was being requested (fortunately we have to use URL
requests in our case) and when picking through the requests I noticed that it
wasn't passing in a required parameter. (The report didn't request it, so it
didn't pass it). When I recreated the request through report manager I
noticed that it wasn't using all of the parameters expected.
In our attempts we upped the MaxReqPerUser property in RSReportServer.config
file from default (20) to 140 as a guess - it helped for about 5 minutes,
then everybody crashed again.
Microsoft - hopefully the new RS release will interrogate the stored proc at
runtime and return results quicker? Hopefully error integration will be
better with C# next year? I doubt it b/c there may not be a good way to pass
errors to the exception object.
I am sharing this b/c I was on the phone with MS premier support ($$)
yesterday for 7 hours and they offered no creative ideas or really anything
of signifigance. Please add this to your knowledge base so the next guy
might avoid 12 hours of headache.
Any comments are welcomed!
John Hennesey
JohnHennesey82:hotmail.comThanks for sharing...I'll have to remember this one...
"JohnHennesey" <JohnHennesey@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C285281B-4230-4114-8B3A-E303CB2FADD9@.microsoft.com...
>I wanted to post this in case anyone else runs into it - save you loads of
> time.
> Yesterday we deployed our latest release of reports - someone forgot to
> move
> the pin on the report in source control and yet the updated stored proc
> for
> the report went out. Net result was the updated stored proc was out there
> but the report wasn't. The new stored proc was requesting a new
> parameter
> the report couldn't supply. Normally on our dev box we get the error
> message
> back from reporting services rather quickly (~3 seconds). On our test box
> it
> was taking 3 minutes and production was just hanging.
> We are using C# to proxy all report requests (so nobody can hit the box
> directly) and the error codes being returned to C# were basically saying
> that
> reporting services was abruptly cutting the connection. We received
> Denial
> of Service Attach messages, Tls errors, SSL/Tls trust errors and timeout
> errors. Nothing returned about missing parameters - the exception object
> doesn't receive detailed info as to why the connection was killed - only
> that
> it was killed. In order to get the details we will have to modify the
> code
> to go into the HTML returned by the WebRequest object.
> I don't know why the report was hanging for as long as it was- I went into
> the IIS logs to see what was being requested (fortunately we have to use
> URL
> requests in our case) and when picking through the requests I noticed that
> it
> wasn't passing in a required parameter. (The report didn't request it, so
> it
> didn't pass it). When I recreated the request through report manager I
> noticed that it wasn't using all of the parameters expected.
> In our attempts we upped the MaxReqPerUser property in
> RSReportServer.config
> file from default (20) to 140 as a guess - it helped for about 5 minutes,
> then everybody crashed again.
> Microsoft - hopefully the new RS release will interrogate the stored proc
> at
> runtime and return results quicker? Hopefully error integration will be
> better with C# next year? I doubt it b/c there may not be a good way to
> pass
> errors to the exception object.
> I am sharing this b/c I was on the phone with MS premier support ($$)
> yesterday for 7 hours and they offered no creative ideas or really
> anything
> of signifigance. Please add this to your knowledge base so the next guy
> might avoid 12 hours of headache.
> Any comments are welcomed!
> John Hennesey
> JohnHennesey82:hotmail.com

Processors

Does anybody have any experience or know of any articles between 4
dual-core vs. a 8 proc box'
I'm looking at comparing processors exclusively.
ThanksThe licensing price for 4 dual-core is 4 processors but for 8 proc., it's 8
processors. This should be a sufficient argument to chose the former over
the later.
--
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF
"Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157559259.768841.213380@.h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Does anybody have any experience or know of any articles between 4
> dual-core vs. a 8 proc box'
> I'm looking at comparing processors exclusively.
> Thanks
>|||Money for licensing is of no concern.
Sylvain Lafontaine (fill the blanks, no spam please) wrote:
> The licensing price for 4 dual-core is 4 processors but for 8 proc., it's 8
> processors. This should be a sufficient argument to chose the former over
> the later.
> --
> Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
> MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
> E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF
>
> "Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1157559259.768841.213380@.h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Does anybody have any experience or know of any articles between 4
> > dual-core vs. a 8 proc box'
> >
> > I'm looking at comparing processors exclusively.
> >
> > Thanks
> >|||Then you're a lucky guy or you are doing a theorytical study.
Comparing a dual core processor with two single cores mean nothing if you
don't specify the type of processor, memory, motherboard (north and south
bridges are important here) and the type of controler used for input/output
. Of course, running 32 or 64 bits will also have some effect on the
results, as well as the type of software and operating system used.
So, comparing only the processors can be tricky.
However, if you want a short answer, single core processor are older
technologies, so they should probably give you a lesser performance in
comparaison against the latest dual-core processors running at the same
frequency on a core by core basis.
--
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF
"Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157564917.777675.299710@.p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Money for licensing is of no concern.
>
>
> Sylvain Lafontaine (fill the blanks, no spam please) wrote:
>> The licensing price for 4 dual-core is 4 processors but for 8 proc., it's
>> 8
>> processors. This should be a sufficient argument to chose the former
>> over
>> the later.
>> --
>> Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
>> MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
>> E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF
>>
>> "Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1157559259.768841.213380@.h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Does anybody have any experience or know of any articles between 4
>> > dual-core vs. a 8 proc box'
>> >
>> > I'm looking at comparing processors exclusively.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>|||Maybe, to focus my concern slightly, how does SQL 2005 handles
parallelism with dual core vs. single core architectures. With
analytical processes crunching enormous datasets, hundreds of millions
of records, we have found parallelism essential.|||SQL Server doesn't differentiate between a dual core processor and two
single core processors - they're both seen as two processors. The actual
performance is going to depend on the processor architecture - whether the
dual core shares components between the processor for example.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157571394.948255.161810@.d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Maybe, to focus my concern slightly, how does SQL 2005 handles
> parallelism with dual core vs. single core architectures. With
> analytical processes crunching enormous datasets, hundreds of millions
> of records, we have found parallelism essential.
>|||Multi-cores is not hyperthreading: excerpt for the licensing purpose, there
is no real difference in performance or in functionality between a dual-core
or two single cores.
However, a dual-core will not access the memory in the same way as two
single cores because of the type of memory controler used and the L2 cache
and even then, there are differences between old dual cores and the new
models, the latest beeing able to share their L2 cache between the two
cores.
For a peformance comparaison between the latest serie of Xeon (the Woodcrest
or the 51xx) and the Opteron, see:
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2772 .
In my opinion, you don't have to compare the Woodcrest serie with any of the
previous models of Xeon, either single or dual-core.
--
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF
"Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157571394.948255.161810@.d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Maybe, to focus my concern slightly, how does SQL 2005 handles
> parallelism with dual core vs. single core architectures. With
> analytical processes crunching enormous datasets, hundreds of millions
> of records, we have found parallelism essential.
>|||Thank you!!|||"Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157564917.777675.299710@.p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Money for licensing is of no concern.
I call "shenanigans" on that statement.
I'll assume you're on the Enterprise version. Last I checked
(more than a year ago) Ent was going for $16,000 a processor.
I don't care what kind of budget you have 4 x 16K = $64,000
is relevant. It's a concern to even a multi-million dollar budget.
If it's truly "of no concern", it's because you're planning on
running it illegally.|||Maybe he works for the Treasury Dept and they just print as much money as
they need.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"Sgt.Sausage" <nobody@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:938ee$4501f2a6$42a1e606$22924@.FUSE.NET...
> "Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1157564917.777675.299710@.p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> Money for licensing is of no concern.
> I call "shenanigans" on that statement.
> I'll assume you're on the Enterprise version. Last I checked
> (more than a year ago) Ent was going for $16,000 a processor.
> I don't care what kind of budget you have 4 x 16K = $64,000
> is relevant. It's a concern to even a multi-million dollar budget.
> If it's truly "of no concern", it's because you're planning on
> running it illegally.
>

Processors

Does anybody have any experience or know of any articles between 4
dual-core vs. a 8 proc box'
I'm looking at comparing processors exclusively.
ThanksThe licensing price for 4 dual-core is 4 processors but for 8 proc., it's 8
processors. This should be a sufficient argument to chose the former over
the later.
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF
"Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157559259.768841.213380@.h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Does anybody have any experience or know of any articles between 4
> dual-core vs. a 8 proc box'
> I'm looking at comparing processors exclusively.
> Thanks
>|||Money for licensing is of no concern.
Sylvain Lafontaine (fill the blanks, no spam please) wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> The licensing price for 4 dual-core is 4 processors but for 8 proc., it's
8
> processors. This should be a sufficient argument to chose the former over
> the later.
> --
> Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
> MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
> E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF
>
> "Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1157559259.768841.213380@.h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...|||Then you're a lucky guy or you are doing a theorytical study.
Comparing a dual core processor with two single cores mean nothing if you
don't specify the type of processor, memory, motherboard (north and south
bridges are important here) and the type of controler used for input/output
. Of course, running 32 or 64 bits will also have some effect on the
results, as well as the type of software and operating system used.
So, comparing only the processors can be tricky.
However, if you want a short answer, single core processor are older
technologies, so they should probably give you a lesser performance in
comparaison against the latest dual-core processors running at the same
frequency on a core by core basis.
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF
"Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157564917.777675.299710@.p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Money for licensing is of no concern.
>
>
> Sylvain Lafontaine (fill the blanks, no spam please) wrote:
>|||Maybe, to focus my concern slightly, how does SQL 2005 handles
parallelism with dual core vs. single core architectures. With
analytical processes crunching enormous datasets, hundreds of millions
of records, we have found parallelism essential.|||SQL Server doesn't differentiate between a dual core processor and two
single core processors - they're both seen as two processors. The actual
performance is going to depend on the processor architecture - whether the
dual core shares components between the processor for example.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157571394.948255.161810@.d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Maybe, to focus my concern slightly, how does SQL 2005 handles
> parallelism with dual core vs. single core architectures. With
> analytical processes crunching enormous datasets, hundreds of millions
> of records, we have found parallelism essential.
>|||Multi-cores is not hyperthreading: excerpt for the licensing purpose, there
is no real difference in performance or in functionality between a dual-core
or two single cores.
However, a dual-core will not access the memory in the same way as two
single cores because of the type of memory controler used and the L2 cache
and even then, there are differences between old dual cores and the new
models, the latest beeing able to share their L2 cache between the two
cores.
For a peformance comparaison between the latest serie of Xeon (the Woodcrest
or the 51xx) and the Opteron, see:
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2772 .
In my opinion, you don't have to compare the Woodcrest serie with any of the
previous models of Xeon, either single or dual-core.
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF
"Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157571394.948255.161810@.d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Maybe, to focus my concern slightly, how does SQL 2005 handles
> parallelism with dual core vs. single core architectures. With
> analytical processes crunching enormous datasets, hundreds of millions
> of records, we have found parallelism essential.
>|||Thank you!!|||"Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157564917.777675.299710@.p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...

> Money for licensing is of no concern.
I call "shenanigans" on that statement.
I'll assume you're on the Enterprise version. Last I checked
(more than a year ago) Ent was going for $16,000 a processor.
I don't care what kind of budget you have 4 x 16K = $64,000
is relevant. It's a concern to even a multi-million dollar budget.
If it's truly "of no concern", it's because you're planning on
running it illegally.|||Maybe he works for the Treasury Dept and they just print as much money as
they need.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"Sgt.Sausage" <nobody@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:938ee$4501f2a6$42a1e606$22924@.FUSE.NET...
> "Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1157564917.777675.299710@.p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> I call "shenanigans" on that statement.
> I'll assume you're on the Enterprise version. Last I checked
> (more than a year ago) Ent was going for $16,000 a processor.
> I don't care what kind of budget you have 4 x 16K = $64,000
> is relevant. It's a concern to even a multi-million dollar budget.
> If it's truly "of no concern", it's because you're planning on
> running it illegally.
>