Is there a log of activity as compared to the Tran log?

I am trying to identify if I have unwanted guests gaining access to my
system or it's a run away query by a user on my network. I am thinking of
recording SPIDs as one way.
Via Spotlight I can see that I'm having beyond normal usage. Granted I have
a new PHB who likes to run queries off his laptop to show off to other
managers. Real scary when he has a little understanding of the data.
The box running Spotlight is WAY under powered, but can it keep that logging
data instead of the server itself?You can create your own log with profiler - it's a good tool
to track down performance issues in a database. If you use
it and performance is a concern, don't trace to the database
or from the database. Trace from a client and if tracing to
a file, have it go on that client.
Or use a server side trace. But you'd probably want to play
around with profiler from a client first.
-Sue
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 08:30:52 -0500, "Stephen Russell"
<srussell@.transactiongraphics.com> wrote:

>I am trying to identify if I have unwanted guests gaining access to my
>system or it's a run away query by a user on my network. I am thinking of
>recording SPIDs as one way.
>Via Spotlight I can see that I'm having beyond normal usage. Granted I hav
e
>a new PHB who likes to run queries off his laptop to show off to other
>managers. Real scary when he has a little understanding of the data.
>The box running Spotlight is WAY under powered, but can it keep that loggin
g
>data instead of the server itself?
>|||2 things here really
1. Tracking "unwanted guests" gaining access to your SQL Server is easily
tracked with no perf hit by setting "Audit level" to "All". This is strictly
for login attempts and can be se via EM. Right click on your server, select
properties and click on the security tab. This puts an entry in the logs
everytime a login attempt is successfully or failed. At the very minimum,
you should log failures.
2. Runaway queries are a little harder to do with SQL Server 2000. First,
you need to define what you mean by runaway queries. CPU consumption?
Memory? Length of query? SQL Profiler and a bunch of 3rd party tools from
folks like Quest, BMC, etc... let's you capture the appropriate data to
"look at" so you can figure out who's got a runaway query. Depending on what
you use, you may have to do extra work. For example, if you capture trace
info with Profiler or SQL Trace, you'll need a way to track the data and
raise alerts based on thresholds that you set. Life gets a LOT better in
2005 with the default "reports" (it's a cool dashboard really) but in 2000,
there's a little bit of work needed to get you there. :-)
Btw, one thing you might want to consider is the Query Governor cost limit
option. It's not the most "precise" tool you can have since it works based
on estimates but it's a pretty good start with minimal effort. Look it up in
BOL. It's well documented.
joe.
"Stephen Russell" <srussell@.transactiongraphics.com> wrote in message
news:u5%23LlMEwFHA.664@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>I am trying to identify if I have unwanted guests gaining access to my
>system or it's a run away query by a user on my network. I am thinking of
>recording SPIDs as one way.
> Via Spotlight I can see that I'm having beyond normal usage. Granted I
> have a new PHB who likes to run queries off his laptop to show off to
> other managers. Real scary when he has a little understanding of the
> data.
> The box running Spotlight is WAY under powered, but can it keep that
> logging data instead of the server itself?
>
>

Is Storing Images in MSSQL feasible?

Hi,

I need to know if storing images in the MSSQL database is a viable option when compared to having them in a different directory and only storing their location or address in the DB.

I ask this with reference to the performance of the DB. Will having many images of huge size on the databse make it slow for retrieval as the MDX or database file size would eventually increase?

Does the size of the database file has to do anything with MSSQL query performance?

Comments on this will be appreciated.

Thanksstore the location and file name. You will bloat your database and retrieving the images will not be as efficient. When you store image data, it is not really in the "row" but the row contains a link to another location inside the database. The main issue for me, and I have a lot of image data and I get loads of new ones all of the time, is capacity. By putting the images on a huge file server I avoid the issue of having to buy bigger and bigger machines to put sql server on and having to migrate my databases as a result.|||Thanks for the reply. I too follow the same approach, but would like to know if storing the images in the db does affect its performance. I mean when we query the db will the result sets hving image data in them load on the ram and make accessiblity slower. OR Does a huge .mdx db file make query responses slower.|||SQL Server is basically designed to work with small bits of data (rows of tables). Start throwing in large image data, and you get into some interesting memory errors at times. Let me see if I can dig out one of my old threads....|||Hi,

Consider this:

Pages are mapped with "bitmaps" (or allocation pages) for various purposes.
These maps are designed to follow a "pyramid"-type structure, with a single page pointing to children pages that point to ... and so on. Generally speaking, anything past a three-level map begins to degrade performance. This is true for index levels also.

What was said above about bloating the database and the design for small(er) rows is accurate.

You will have issues with: Backups, Consistency Checks, Migrations, etc. Any table scans will have to grind past the image pages, etc. etc.

'Nuff said?

Good luck!|||Thanks guys for your valuable input. MCrowley can you please send me links to your other posts as mentioned.

I too am of the same idea and was trying to prove my point to some people who think storing images in a database does improve performance and maintain data integrity (as if the folder locations can change if you simply store the address of the image).

Regards|||Sorry. Looks like it might have been lost in the latest troubles here.