DBCC Logical Scan Bytes/Sec

Hi,
I have a process data acquisition system running with SQL 2000
Enterprise Manager. I have a large hard drive Read activity. By using the
performance monitor, I found that this reading activity is clearly associate
with DBCC logical scan bytes/sec counter and is mostly twin with Physical
Hard drive read/sec.
The point is that I didn't find what trigger this scan. I observed that more
my database is growing more this scan take time. Actually the hard drive is
busy at more that 99% of the time to read and data request take more and
more time.
Is those DBCC scans are essential and how can I identify what is triggering
them?
Regards
MarcDo you have any maintenance tasks scheduled that run a DBCC CHECKDB? Use
profiler to see what commands are being run at that time.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"marc quirion" <mquirion@.videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:I4pFe.52350$mv2.811211@.weber.videotron.net...
> Hi,
> I have a process data acquisition system running with SQL 2000
> Enterprise Manager. I have a large hard drive Read activity. By using the
> performance monitor, I found that this reading activity is clearly
> associate with DBCC logical scan bytes/sec counter and is mostly twin with
> Physical Hard drive read/sec.
> The point is that I didn't find what trigger this scan. I observed that
> more my database is growing more this scan take time. Actually the hard
> drive is busy at more that 99% of the time to read and data request take
> more and more time.
> Is those DBCC scans are essential and how can I identify what is
> triggering them?
>
> Regards
> Marc
>|||Hi Mr. Kelly, thanks for the reply.
That was a thing I was suspecting but I didn't know how to trace it. I used
SQL Profiler, like suggested, and I found many querys who use the DBCC
UPDATEUSAGE command. I think this is another disk intensive command any way
I found some with a duration over 250000 ( milliseconds I guess ).
Is there any reason to use this command frequently?
Thanks again for the help. I'll try to reach to conceptors of the DB to see
why they're using this command intensively.
Regards
Marc
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> a crit dans le message de
news: ubKtOedkFHA.2044@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Do you have any maintenance tasks scheduled that run a DBCC CHECKDB? Use
> profiler to see what commands are being run at that time.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "marc quirion" <mquirion@.videotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:I4pFe.52350$mv2.811211@.weber.videotron.net...
>|||That command certainly would do it. There is no real reason to update it so
often. If they need that kind of accurate data that often they should
rethink what they are doing and why.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"marc quirion" <mquirion@.videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:8vnGe.8806$nx3.312875@.wagner.videotron.net...
> Hi Mr. Kelly, thanks for the reply.
> That was a thing I was suspecting but I didn't know how to trace it. I
> used
> SQL Profiler, like suggested, and I found many querys who use the DBCC
> UPDATEUSAGE command. I think this is another disk intensive command any
> way
> I found some with a duration over 250000 ( milliseconds I guess ).
> Is there any reason to use this command frequently?
> Thanks again for the help. I'll try to reach to conceptors of the DB to
> see
> why they're using this command intensively.
> Regards
> Marc
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> a crit dans le message de
> news: ubKtOedkFHA.2044@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>