Tracking Processes

Question

Post reply

Tracking Processes

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 42 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply

ronmoses@gmail.com SSCarpal Tunnel Points: 4480 More actions · Answer 1

Is sp_processdetails actually a thing?

Ron

-----
a haiku...

NULL is not zero
NULL is not an empty string
NULL is the unknown

Hugo Kornelis SSC Guru Points: 64790 More actions · Answer 2

ronmoses (9/21/2012)
Is sp_processdetails actually a thing?

Nope!

Hugo Kornelis, SQL Server/Data Platform MVP (2006-2016)
Visit my SQL Server blog: https://sqlserverfast.com/blog/
SQL Server Execution Plan Reference: https://sqlserverfast.com/epr/

Rich Mechaber SSChampion Points: 11130 More actions · Answer 3

rVadim (9/20/2012)
I answered "Non of the above". I thought DiskIO in sp_Who2 means reads and writes combined, not just reads as question asks. Am I wrong?

Me, too. <> [Reads]

Stephen_W_Dodd SSCommitted Points: 1648 More actions · Answer 4

Apparently, not everyone thinks that sp_who2 is total disk I/O (reads and writes).

http://www.devx.com/tips/Tip/14208

Rich Mechaber SSChampion Points: 11130 More actions · Answer 5

Stephen_W_Dodd (9/21/2012)
Apparently, not everyone thinks that sp_who2 is total disk I/O (reads and writes).
http://www.devx.com/tips/Tip/14208

I think that is incorrect.

As vk-kirov posted, sp_who2 returns data from the system view sysprocesses; the column returned as [DiskIO] from sp_who2 is a reformatted version of sysprocesses.physical_io.

According to BOL (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms179881%28v=sql.105%29.aspx), the column physical_io in sysprocesses is a BIGINT returning "Cumulative disk reads and writes for the process."

Rich

Stephen_W_Dodd SSCommitted Points: 1648 More actions · Answer 6

I agree, Rich. Just pointing out where some of the confusion may have originated. 🙂

(Bob Brown) SSCrazy Points: 2705 More actions · Answer 7

(Bob Brown)

SSCrazy

Points: 2705

September 21, 2012 at 7:04 am

#1540663

Good way to end the week! Thanks.

sestell1 SSChampion Points: 10230 More actions · Answer 8

Shoot, I had selected sp_who2, but changed it since it said disk reads instead of total disk IO.

Ugh... I'm never quite sure if it's an oversight, typo, or trick question. :blink::crazy:

sburcombe SSCrazy Points: 2460 More actions · Answer 9

Victor Kirkpatrick (9/21/2012)
Love answering a question correctly and getting it wrong. Either correct the question and say total IO and not "reads", or correct the answer.

I agree.

Simone

Error Handler Ten Centuries Points: 1086 More actions · Answer 10

Thanks guys...I always try to upload easy and interesting questions. Some time begin a DBA or Develper we do not pay attention n these small but important things, which can make our lives very easy.:-)

Best,
Naseer Ahmad
SQL Server DBA

Steve Jones - SSC Editor SSC Guru Points: 736478 More actions · Answer 11

The question was poorly worded and I missed the total disk activity in edit.

The question has been corrected and points awarded back as of a few minutes ago.

Rich Mechaber SSChampion Points: 11130 More actions · Answer 12

Steve Jones - SSC Editor (9/21/2012)
The question was poorly worded and I missed the total disk activity in edit.
The question has been corrected and points awarded back as of a few minutes ago.

Thanks Steve!

thadeushuck Ten Centuries Points: 1367 More actions · Answer 13

SP_WHO2 does not answer this ... it does not give you disk reads and writes. It gives their sums.

(Bob Brown) SSCrazy Points: 2705 More actions · Answer 14

thadeushuck (9/21/2012)
SP_WHO2 does not answer this ... it does not give you disk reads and writes. It gives their sums.

Speaking of sums: The correct answers were 51% and those given credit for the bad wording of the question was 16% and the total correct answers is 96%!:rolleyes:

TomThomson SSC Guru Points: 104773 More actions · Answer 15

Nice easy question (now that the wording has been edited a little).

But sp_who2 is not very useful, and isn't documented anywhere as far as I can tell.

I used sp_who2 ages ago, and wrote a thing to replace it because sp_who2 didn't do quite what I wanted in some cases (I can't remember what that did, it was so long ago) but now I would use sp_WhoIsActive (available from Adam Machanic's blog) which is rather nice.

Tom