Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
You should be able to capture what is getting run via profiler, and run it on both servers and dig into what it's actually doing. I'd be sure to...
May 3, 2011 at 2:45 pm
I did see some majore performance degredation on some specific queries on x64, specifically those that include NOT IN (SUBQUERY).
check your queires/sp's in question to see if that might be...
May 3, 2011 at 12:11 pm
Ours was a Dell server, and the performance issues was drastic, dispite all the config changes I made, it made no difference.
Since you have two new servers, I'd look more...
May 3, 2011 at 9:27 am
We ended up changing out the MotherBoard and all the memory via Dell. The box is now performing as expected.
May 3, 2011 at 9:06 am
I've already verified the alignment, it all looks good to me.
BlockSize Index Name ...
August 16, 2010 at 1:41 pm
The performance issue is related to tempdb, or at least it appears to be.
Tempdb, is on a dedicated RAID10, 64K Stripe element size, 64k cluster size when formated.
I've included an...
August 16, 2010 at 9:20 am
If I run the below select, with the 256 mg tempdb mdf's it takes 11 seconds to run, 4 on the production box, same table
Select *
into #temp
from table ...
August 13, 2010 at 3:49 pm
I just had to try to see if I could reproduce the same results to get the slow performance.
I re-set all my initial tempdb mdf files back to 1024, restarted...
August 13, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Can someone explain this one.
I had created 12 mdf files for tempdb, one per processor core, dual core 6 core procs.
I initially created the mdf files for tempdb at 1...
August 13, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)