Dbcc Checkdb , so time consuming ?

hi,
I run dbcc checkdb over my 200 GB db. It runs for more than 21 hours. Is it
normal?
Will I face any problem if I cancel it now?
Thanks
BanuShould be fine if you cancel the DBCC CHECKDB, it's just reading pages,
etc. (not changing anything) so there would be nothing to rollback. It
does have to read every page in the DB, so it will be time consuming,
and the duration will depend a lot on the hardware it's running on too
(speed of the processor(s), I/O throughput, etc.). However 21 hours
does sounds a little excessive for a 200GB database, but it does depend
a lot, as I said, on hardware.
*mike hodgson*
blog: http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com
Banu_tr wrote:

>hi,
>I run dbcc checkdb over my 200 GB db. It runs for more than 21 hours. Is it
>normal?
>Will I face any problem if I cancel it now?
>Thanks
>Banu
>|||Hi Mike,
Infact my hardware is fine I think. 3 Gb Ram, 2.8 Ghz Xeon CPU, MSA 1000
Controller, Proliant DL380 GB System,
I have Active/pasive cluster.
I started the script last night which means when load is relativeley low.
I couldn't estimate whether it comes closer to end or not.
thanks
"Mike Hodgson" wrote:

> Should be fine if you cancel the DBCC CHECKDB, it's just reading pages,
> etc. (not changing anything) so there would be nothing to rollback. It
> does have to read every page in the DB, so it will be time consuming,
> and the duration will depend a lot on the hardware it's running on too
> (speed of the processor(s), I/O throughput, etc.). However 21 hours
> does sounds a little excessive for a 200GB database, but it does depend
> a lot, as I said, on hardware.
> --
> *mike hodgson*
> blog: http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com
>
> Banu_tr wrote:
>
>|||I'd check sp_who2 for the amount of IO & CPU that particular spid has
consumed, and run sp_who2 a few times to see if the figures are changing
at all (particularly the IO figure). Also, check to make sure it's not
part of a blocking chain, and you can check the wait time, last wait
type & wait resource (in sysprocesses), if it is waiting, to see what
the problem is.
*mike hodgson*
blog: http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com
Banu_tr wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Hi Mike,
>Infact my hardware is fine I think. 3 Gb Ram, 2.8 Ghz Xeon CPU, MSA 1000
>Controller, Proliant DL380 GB System,
>I have Active/pasive cluster.
>I started the script last night which means when load is relativeley low.
>I couldn't estimate whether it comes closer to end or not.
>thanks
>
>
>"Mike Hodgson" wrote:
>
>|||This hardware sounds small for a 200GB DB. Of course a lot depends on what
you are doing with the database. How's your single cpu and average disk
queue length doing during the DBCC?
"Banu_tr" <abuslu@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:863EB638-0EF6-40AC-B5D5-DB93F4820F9F@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Mike,
> Infact my hardware is fine I think. 3 Gb Ram, 2.8 Ghz Xeon CPU, MSA 1000
> Controller, Proliant DL380 GB System,
> I have Active/pasive cluster.
> I started the script last night which means when load is relativeley low.
> I couldn't estimate whether it comes closer to end or not.
> thanks
>
>
> "Mike Hodgson" wrote:
>|||I give up after 23 hours. I checked what you recommend but it seems normal.
Thanks
"Mike Hodgson" wrote:

> I'd check sp_who2 for the amount of IO & CPU that particular spid has
> consumed, and run sp_who2 a few times to see if the figures are changing
> at all (particularly the IO figure). Also, check to make sure it's not
> part of a blocking chain, and you can check the wait time, last wait
> type & wait resource (in sysprocesses), if it is waiting, to see what
> the problem is.
> --
> *mike hodgson*
> blog: http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com
>
> Banu_tr wrote:
>
>|||A single CPU is not a lot of horse power for a 200GB DBCC. Especially if
anything else is requesting time on the cpu. You can have blocking as well
if other users are updating the pages it wants to read. 3GB is not a lot of
memory either.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Banu_tr" <abuslu@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:863EB638-0EF6-40AC-B5D5-DB93F4820F9F@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Mike,
> Infact my hardware is fine I think. 3 Gb Ram, 2.8 Ghz Xeon CPU, MSA 1000
> Controller, Proliant DL380 GB System,
> I have Active/pasive cluster.
> I started the script last night which means when load is relativeley low.
> I couldn't estimate whether it comes closer to end or not.
> thanks
>
>
> "Mike Hodgson" wrote:
>|||Right - this sounds like normal runtime on a single-proc box, expecially if
its found errors and has had to go back to do more in-depth checks of the
non-clustered indexes. Have you had a faster run-time in the past?
How much concurrent activity is there that's generating txn-log? CHECKDB has
to internally roll-back all the txn-log that's occured while its been
running which will further slow things down.
In SQL Server 2005, the behavior's changed so it doesn't have to do this,
and there's progress reporting so you can see how far its progressed.
Thanks
Paul Randal
Dev Lead, Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:OhSVgn6hFHA.2852@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>A single CPU is not a lot of horse power for a 200GB DBCC. Especially if
>anything else is requesting time on the cpu. You can have blocking as well
>if other users are updating the pages it wants to read. 3GB is not a lot
>of memory either.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Banu_tr" <abuslu@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:863EB638-0EF6-40AC-B5D5-DB93F4820F9F@.microsoft.com...
>