February 10, 2013 at 11:08 pm
I have a 2008 Server(SAN) which is fetching data from 2005 server (Physical server) through linked server.
Intially both were on SAN and that time the job took 30 mintues to fetch data from 2005 Server but now 2005 server is on Physical Server and the same job is running for 50 hours and it continues to run.
Is there any way through which the job time can be reduced.
February 10, 2013 at 11:35 pm
mahesh.dasoni (2/10/2013)
I have a 2008 Server(SAN) which is fetching data from 2005 server (Physical server) through linked server.Intially both were on SAN and that time the job took 30 mintues to fetch data from 2005 Server but now 2005 server is on Physical Server and the same job is running for 50 hours and it continues to run.
Is there any way through which the job time can be reduced.
Probably not the answer you want to hear but why not move it back to the SAN?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 10, 2013 at 11:40 pm
We will be moving to SAN in couple of weeks but till then we cant ignore the job,it has to run.
February 11, 2013 at 8:29 am
Not what you may want to hear, but have you may have to convert the process (temporarily) to use a different methodology, if it is that important?
- Are you using bulk loads?
- What about getting a BCP of the data from the 2005 server, then importing it into the 2008 server?
- How about any sort of replication?
- If they are on the same network or in the same room, what about a dedicated network backbone between the two servers?
I do not believe there is a "magic bullet" to allow the transfer to be much faster (we tried these things years ago), other than changing the process, especially via Linked Server...
Argue for your limitations, and sure enough they're yours (Richard Bach, Illusions)
February 11, 2013 at 3:09 pm
mahesh.dasoni (2/10/2013)
We will be moving to SAN in couple of weeks but till then we cant ignore the job,it has to run.
Ok... now I'm totally confused. I thought you said it was on a SAN and then you took it off the SAN and that's when the troubles started. My question was, if that's true, why not just put it back to where it was when it ran ok?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply