My Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio is slow. And by slow I mean >1minute to render a context menu-slow.
All other things work perfectly fine. The connection to the database itself is not slow (my app works just fine and context menus don't need connection to the DB anyway I guess)..
Anybody has any idea what I should check to solve this?
--EDIT--
Cpu is around 3%
Gigs of free ram
Only clicking right on a table in the object explorer, nothing else
the database is remote
It's the full version of SSMS
No system logging errors
Reinstall had no effect
UPDATE
I installed Toad for SQL and everything works super smooth there. Actually, I find it way more productive then MSSql ever was for me. It's not really an answer to my question, but it certainly a solution.
Have you installed any add-ins/plugins? Those might be the source of the problem.
Does this behavior occur for all SQL Servers you connect to, or just a few in particular? If it's only certain ones, it may be a really slow SQL Server - to get any context menus or list databases, it has to execute some queries against the remote servers to collect information, and if they're less than responsive, SSMS will be too.
Related
I'm trying to update a SQL Server project in Visual Studio 2019 by using the SSDT schema comparison. My source is a running database server, the destination is the VS SQL Server project.
When the comparison is done and I click "Update", I get the message
Source schema drift detected. Press Compare to refresh the comparison
No matter how many times I refresh the comparison, I always get the same result.
I have tried various connection tweaks (read-only intent, asynchronous processing, multiple active result sets) in the hopes that I can make the comparison run faster and update the project before the drift happens, but to no avail. I have also tried reducing the types of objects included in the comparison, but have not been able to reduce it enough to prevent drift from being detected.
I think the biggest issue I have is that aside from the "schema drift detected" message, I feel like I'm shooting in the dark. By that I mean that I have no idea what is causing SSDT to detect drift, and therefore I can't work around it.
I tried running the SQL Profiler to capture what SSDT is doing so I could find where SSDT is detecting drift. However, I haven't been able to find any query that gives different results when run multiple times within a short period.
So in conclusion, my questions are:
What does SSDT look at to determine when the database schema has drifted?
How can I update my SQL Server project when it always detects schema drift?
I also struggled for months to find the cause of the same error. I was already thinking about flashing Windows 10 on my laptop. I won't list the dead ends anymore. In my final desperation, I copied the SQL Server database and VS project to another machine, and there the comparison worked without a bone. The suspicion arose that maybe the error is not in VS, but rather that my SQL server is confusing VS.
I have a SQL Server 2012. I put the latest update on it (SP4) and wonder of wonders, compare and sync started working perfectly right away. Of course, now before every update I pray a little so that I don't encounter the "Source schema drift detected" message.
I have been unsuccessfully fighting this annoying error for MANY SSDT versions.
Searching for it you will see multiple places where it is claimed to be fixed, WHICH IS FALSE, as it is happening right now with VS 2022 SSDT.
In my case, it ONLY happens when comparing against ONE out of the 5 database servers I regularly use the tool with.
The only workaround I have found that usually works is to REBOOT the destination database server (NOT just cycle the SQL Server Service) and then run the SSDT compare QUICKLY!
As the server that this happens on is an integration server running on a VM in my local network, I can bounce the server, but in other scenarios this would be a show-stopper.
IMO the most onerous things about this issue is that you cannot even generate the script to copy / paste into SSMS, which is how I often use the tool.
This issue has not been fixed for YEARS and is very intermittent, so I have no hope of seeing it actually fixed - I hope this workaround is helpful to someone.
I have a number of MS Access databases that range from the simple to the fairly complex. They exist as split databases on a shared drive on an on site LAN and the users all have accdr front ends to work with.
Until Covid 19 this worked quite well, now we all have to work from home. While I expected some performance issues, I did not quite expect performance to take quite that much of a hit. So I am looking for ways to migrate to something that will work well with everyone trying to work via a VPN.
An additional fly in the ointment is that there is no budget to work with and getting IT support is akin to summoning the great old ones (it's difficult and you are likely to die insane).
So I have begun to research some different options. MS SQL Server has come up, but I don't know very much about how to implement it. I do not have a dedicated machine to put this on.
I have looked at Sharepoint, but some of the stuff I have been reading makes it seem like this is not a great option as some of my queries are complicated and I have some pretty large tables (45k records, 100 fields per record) In the most complex DB, I have to add several thousand records each day and run several update queries on the freshly added records.
MS Azure looks promising, but again I don't know if that will put me at odds with the malevolent IT gods.
I started looking at office 365 Power apps, but I don't need any mobile device support and it doesn't look like it has the Oomph I need.
Google and Duck Duck Go haven't thrown up anything usefull that I could find among the dross. I'm certain what I need is out there, I just can't find it. I have found that One drive is right out, and likewise Sharepoint for anything other than the simplest DB I have built.
What I am looking for is any solutions, articles, books or even papyrus scrolls and stone tablets that might get me pointed in the right direction. Any Ideas? Any other information you need?
Edit: After so looking I have found that I may be able to get MS SQL server on a virtual server without angering the IT demons. Azure as a solution is out unless I find a suitable sacrifice. Any good places to look for information on how to use SQL server from a standing start?
Consider migrating the backend databases to SQL Server. There's a SQL Server Migration Assistant that will do this for you. Your frontend will contain links to the resulting SQL Server tables.
The last time I did this I got an immediate 2X performance improvement on a LAN. Over a VPN, you should expect similar, possibly better, performance improvements. Quite a good win for something so simple to do without having to do a full rewrite. Don't expect miracles however; Access by nature is a very thick client.
You don't necessarily need a full-blown SQL Server; SQL Server Express should suffice, and you can run that on any machine on your LAN. The download for SQL Server Express Edition can be found here.
You can read up on the migration process here.
You should consider using Remote Destop Connection first!
As you already managed to connect employees by VPN to LAN, you just need to enable remote access to their machines at work! That is the simplest solution and it doesn't need a fast connection or any changes on the application. You can enable WOL so they can turn on machines themselfes.
Of course you should also consider migrate to a RDBMS like Robert advised!
I have a server with a default instance and 2 named instances of SQL Server 2005 standard installed. This is a mission critical production server that cannot be restarted during normal business hours.
Will uninstalling the two named instances of SQL Server 2005 require a reboot or put the server in a state that may cause issues with the default instance of SQL Server 2005 until it's rebooted?
This would probably get a better answer at serverfault.com.
I'm not sure how much it would help perf, if SQL isn't getting hit it doesn't do much. You could probably get away with uninstalling, but then again when in surgery bad things happen. I've never killed SQL server uninstalling an instance, but I have killed the client tools. I would take one of the following approaches:
a) First, backup and drop all the databases to reclaim the disk space. Then stop disable the services for the named instances. The binaries will still be there, but they aren't too large and will be sitting idle.
b) Better long-term plan if you can source the hardware is to setup a new de novo box and drop a clean SQL instance over there, then port the live server over. Really not too painful. Then repurpose old box as is fit.
Is there a critical reason why you need to uninstall named instances. Can you just ignore them?
EDIT: the answer is yes you can uninstall via add/remove programs
Rebooting doesn't occur
An article which might apply to your situation:
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=915854
I'm running Sql Server Management Studio 2008 on a decent machine. Even if it is the only thing open with no other connections to the database, anything that has to do with the Database Diagram or simple schema changes in a designer take up to 10 minutes to complete and SQL Management Studio is unresponsive during that time. The same SQL code takes less than a second. This entirely defeats the purpose of the designers and diagramers.
------------------
System Information
------------------
Operating System: Windows Vista™ Ultimate (6.0, Build 6001) Service Pack 1 (6001.vistasp1_gdr.080917-1612)
Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6700 # 2.66GHz (4 CPUs), ~2.7GHz
Memory: 6142MB RAM
Please tell me this isn't a WOW64 problem; if it is, I love MS, but step up your 64-bit support in development tools.
Is there anything I can do to get the performance anywhere near acceptable?
Edit:
I've got version 10.0.1600.22 of SQL Server Management Studio installed. Is this not the latest release? I'm sure I installed it from an MSDN CD and I pretty much rely on Windows Update these days. Is there any place I can quickly see what the latest release version number is for tools like this?
Edit:
Every time I go to open a database diagram I get the message "This database does not have one or more of the support objects required to use database diagramming. Do you wish to create them?" I say yes every time. Is this part of the problem? Also, if I press the copy icon, I get the message "Current thread must be set to single thread apartment (STA) mode before OLE calls can be made." Database corruption?
I'm running in a similar environment and not having that problem.
As with any performance problem, you'll have to analyze it a bit - just saying "it takes 10 minutes" give no information on the reason it takes so long, so no information you can use to solve the problem.
Here are some tools to play around with. I'd have mentioned them originally, but "play around" is all I've learned to do with them. I'd recommend you try learning a little about them, which I have not done. http://technet.microsoft.com is a good source on performance issues.
Start with Task Manager, believe it or not. It's been enhanced in Vista and Server 2008, and now has a better Performance tab, and a Services tab. Be sure to click "Show processes from all users", or you'll miss nasty things done by services.
The bottom of the Performance tab has a "Resource Monitor" button. Click it, watch it, learn what it can do for you.
The Resource Monitor is actually part of a larger "Reliability and Performance Monitor" tool in Administrative Tools. Try it. It even includes the new version of perfmon, which will be more useful when you have a better idea what counters to look at.
I will also suggest the Process Explorer and Process Monitor tools from Sysinternals. See http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/default.aspx.
Do your simple schema changes possibly mean that you're reordering the columns of a table?
In that case, what SQL Management Studio does behind the scenes is create a new table, move all the data from the old table to the newly created table, and then drop the old table.
Thus, if you reorder columns on a table with lots of data, lots of indices or both, you CAN incur a massive amount of "reorganization" work without really realizing it.
Marc
Can you try connecting your SQL Management Studio to a different instance of SQL Server or, better, an instance on a remote machine (and try to make similar changes)?
Are there any entries in the System or Application Event Logs (or SQL logs for that matter)? Have you tried uninstalling and reinstalling SQL Server on your machine? What version of SQL Server (database) are you running?
Lastly, can you open the Activity Monitor successfully? Right click on the server (machine name) - top of the three in the object explorer window - and click on 'Activity Monitor'.
Do you have problems with other software on your machine or only with SQL Server & Management Studio?
When you open SSMS it attempts to validate itself with Microsoft. You can speed this process by performing the second of the recommendations at the following link.
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/faq/sql_server_management_studio_load_time_p1.aspx
Also, are you using the registered servers feature? If so SSMS will attempt to validate all of these.
It seems as though it was a network configuration problem. Never trust a developer (myself) to setup a haphazard domain at his office.
I had my DNS server on my computer pointed to my ISP's (default because the wireless router we're using provided by the ISP doesn't allow me to override the DNS server to my own) instead of my DNS server here, so I have to remember to configure it manually on each computer, which I forgot for this particular computer.
I only discovered it when I tried to connect for the first time to a remote SQL Server instance form this PC. It was trying to resolve to an actual sub-domain of mycompany.com instead of my DNS server's authority of COMPUTERNAME.corp.mycompany.com
I can't say why this was an issue for the designers in SQL Server but not anything else, but my only hypothesis is that when I established a connection to my own computer locally using the computer name instead of "." or "localhost", SQL queries executed immediately, knowing it was local, but the designers still waited for a timeout from the external IP address before trying the local one.
Whatever the explanation is, changing my DNS server for my network card on the local machine to my DNS server's IP made it all work very quickly.
I had a similar issue with mine. Turned out to be some interference with the biometrics login service running on my laptop. Disabled the service and now it works.
Is it good, bad, or indifferent to run SQL Server on your webserver?
I'm using Server 2008 and SQL Server 2005, but I don't think that matters to this question.
For small sites, it doesn't make a bit of a difference.
As the load grows, though, this scales really badly, and quicker than you think:
Database servers are built on the premise they "own" the server. They trade memory for speed and they easily use all available RAM for internal caching.
Once resources start to be scarce, profiling becomes very difficult -- it is clear that IIS and SQL are both suffering, less clear where the bottleneck is. IIS needs CPU, SQL Server needs RAM or CPU etc etc
No matter how many layers you put in your code, it all runs on the same CPU, therefore a single layered application will run better in this context -- less overhead -- but it will not scale.
Security is really bad, usually you isolate SQL behind a firewall!
If you can afford it, it's probably better to shell out a few bucks and get a second server, maybe using PostgreSQL. One IIS server and one PostgreSQL cost about as much as on IIS + SQL Server because of licensing costs...
Larger shops would probably not consider this a best practice... However, if you aren't dealing with hundreds of requests per second, you're fine putting them both on one box.
In fact, for small apps, you will see better performance on the back-end because data does not have to go across the wire. It's all about scale.
Keep in mind that database servers eat memory. Here's one important lesson from the school of hard knocks: if you decide to run SQL Server 2005 on the same machine as your web server (and that is the setup you mentioned in your question), make sure you go into Sql Server Management Studio and do this:
Right click on the server instance and click properties
Select 'memory' from the list on the left
Change 'maximum server memory' to something your server can sustain.
If you don't do that, SQL Server will eventually take up all of your server's RAM and hang onto it indefinitely. This will cause your server to more or less sputter and die. If you are not aware of this, it can be very frustrating to troubleshoot.
I've done this quite a few times. It's not something you would do if you had the infrastructure of a large corporation and it does not scale, but it's fine for a lot of things.
It really comes down to how much work your webserver and your sql server are doing.
Without more information I doubt you are going to get any helpful answers.
If your web server is publicly accessible, this is a VERY bad idea from a security perspective.
Although it makes a lot of things more difficult from a routing, firewall, ports, authentication, etc. perspective, separation is good. When you have your database server running on the web server, if your web server is compromised, then your sql server is, too.
When you have them on separate boxes, you've raised the bar a little.
There's still a lot more work to be done to secure your web server AND your database server, but why make it easier than it needs to be?
I'd say it was best to run them on the same server until it becomes a problem. That way you'll save yourself some money and time upfront. Once the site becomes a success and requires a some architectural changes it should have already paid for itself.
Remember to back up :)
It will depend on the expected load of the server. For small sites, it is no problem at all (if correctly configured). For large sites, you might want to consider distributing the load over different servers: web server, file server, database server, etc.
I've seen this issue over and over again. The right answer is to put SQL Server on one machine and IIS (web server) on the other. Your money will go into the SQL Server machine because the right drive system and RAM must be purchased to support a efficient server but the web server can be a much scaled down & less expensive machine with just a mirrored drive set.