% disktime

In NT4 this counter returned a value between 0 and 100. In 2000, the number
exceeeds 100. What is it acuatlly counting and why would a percentage stat
return more than 100?
I find that counter to be basically useless these days. I prefer the avg and
current disk queues for an indication of activity ove rthat.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Jeffrey K. Ericson" <JeffreyKEricson@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:F7733806-7CB4-4D43-B20A-0F0E5AA6AAD2@.microsoft.com...
> In NT4 this counter returned a value between 0 and 100. In 2000, the
> number
> exceeeds 100. What is it acuatlly counting and why would a percentage
> stat
> return more than 100?
|||http://support.microsoft.com/default...310067&sd=tech
"Jeffrey K. Ericson" wrote:

> In NT4 this counter returned a value between 0 and 100. In 2000, the number
> exceeeds 100. What is it acuatlly counting and why would a percentage stat
> return more than 100?
|||click on the properties for that counter, your vertical scale is probably not
set to 100
"Jeffrey K. Ericson" wrote:

> In NT4 this counter returned a value between 0 and 100. In 2000, the number
> exceeeds 100. What is it acuatlly counting and why would a percentage stat
> return more than 100?

% disktime

In NT4 this counter returned a value between 0 and 100. In 2000, the number
exceeeds 100. What is it acuatlly counting and why would a percentage stat
return more than 100?I find that counter to be basically useless these days. I prefer the avg and
current disk queues for an indication of activity ove rthat.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Jeffrey K. Ericson" <JeffreyKEricson@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:F7733806-7CB4-4D43-B20A-0F0E5AA6AAD2@.microsoft.com...
> In NT4 this counter returned a value between 0 and 100. In 2000, the
> number
> exceeeds 100. What is it acuatlly counting and why would a percentage
> stat
> return more than 100?|||http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...;310067&sd=tech
"Jeffrey K. Ericson" wrote:

> In NT4 this counter returned a value between 0 and 100. In 2000, the numb
er
> exceeeds 100. What is it acuatlly counting and why would a percentage sta
t
> return more than 100?|||click on the properties for that counter, your vertical scale is probably no
t
set to 100
"Jeffrey K. Ericson" wrote:

> In NT4 this counter returned a value between 0 and 100. In 2000, the numb
er
> exceeeds 100. What is it acuatlly counting and why would a percentage sta
t
> return more than 100?

% disktime

In NT4 this counter returned a value between 0 and 100. In 2000, the number
exceeeds 100. What is it acuatlly counting and why would a percentage stat
return more than 100?I find that counter to be basically useless these days. I prefer the avg and
current disk queues for an indication of activity ove rthat.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Jeffrey K. Ericson" <JeffreyKEricson@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:F7733806-7CB4-4D43-B20A-0F0E5AA6AAD2@.microsoft.com...
> In NT4 this counter returned a value between 0 and 100. In 2000, the
> number
> exceeeds 100. What is it acuatlly counting and why would a percentage
> stat
> return more than 100?|||http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;310067&sd=tech
"Jeffrey K. Ericson" wrote:
> In NT4 this counter returned a value between 0 and 100. In 2000, the number
> exceeeds 100. What is it acuatlly counting and why would a percentage stat
> return more than 100?|||click on the properties for that counter, your vertical scale is probably not
set to 100
"Jeffrey K. Ericson" wrote:
> In NT4 this counter returned a value between 0 and 100. In 2000, the number
> exceeeds 100. What is it acuatlly counting and why would a percentage stat
> return more than 100?

% Disk Time (Perfmon)

I have a Windows 2000 Advanced Server with SQL Server 2000
Enterprise Edition on a SAN. What units are the %Disk
Time measured in from Perfmon?
Is the (% Disk Time E) = (Disk Time E) / (Total % Disk
Time) ?
Please help me with these questions.
Thanks,
Mike
Mike
This counter measured how busy a physical array is. In general it should be
less 55% otherwise you probably jave IO bottleneck.
"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:c13201c47a1b$4db045c0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have a Windows 2000 Advanced Server with SQL Server 2000
> Enterprise Edition on a SAN. What units are the %Disk
> Time measured in from Perfmon?
> Is the (% Disk Time E) = (Disk Time E) / (Total % Disk
> Time) ?
> Please help me with these questions.
> Thanks,
> Mike
|||I don't tend to agree with that advice.
On it's own
<<
'%Disk Time[vbcol=seagreen]
Is not a very reliable indicator of an IO bottleneck. You could easily have
a bottleneck if this counter is much lower than 55%. You might NOT have a
bottleneck if this counter is 55% or higher.
There are many, many more counters which you should take a look. You need to
take a look at queue lenght, wait times for disk transfers, time it takes
per read and write. In addition, there are a host of other counters
specific to your SAN that you should take a look at.
Unfortunately, I'm running a bit late right now and I don't have time to
write a long message. Tom Davidson from MS has a nice article in SQL Server
Magazine that dicusses some of these counters. I believe it might also be on
MSDN. It shouldn't be too hard to track down if you search by his name on
each site.
Brian Moran
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:u1rJ0yheEHA.3520@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Mike
> This counter measured how busy a physical array is. In general it should
be
> less 55% otherwise you probably jave IO bottleneck.
>
>
> "Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:c13201c47a1b$4db045c0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
>
|||Brian
First of all i have said 'probably'
Secondly if you have this counter higher than 55% for continuous periods
(let me say 15 min)then your SQL Server
may be experiencing an I/O bottleneck.
"Brian Moran" <brian@.solidqualitylearning.com> wrote in message
news:%23r7TWIieEHA.2848@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I don't tend to agree with that advice.
> On it's own
> <<
> '%Disk Time
> Is not a very reliable indicator of an IO bottleneck. You could easily
have
> a bottleneck if this counter is much lower than 55%. You might NOT have a
> bottleneck if this counter is 55% or higher.
> There are many, many more counters which you should take a look. You need
to
> take a look at queue lenght, wait times for disk transfers, time it takes
> per read and write. In addition, there are a host of other counters
> specific to your SAN that you should take a look at.
>
> Unfortunately, I'm running a bit late right now and I don't have time to
> write a long message. Tom Davidson from MS has a nice article in SQL
Server
> Magazine that dicusses some of these counters. I believe it might also be
on
> MSDN. It shouldn't be too hard to track down if you search by his name on
> each site.
> --
> Brian Moran
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
> news:u1rJ0yheEHA.3520@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> be
>

% Disk Time (Perfmon)

I have a Windows 2000 Advanced Server with SQL Server 2000
Enterprise Edition on a SAN. What units are the %Disk
Time measured in from Perfmon?
Is the (% Disk Time E) = (Disk Time E) / (Total % Disk
Time) ?
Please help me with these questions.
Thanks,
MikeMike
This counter measured how busy a physical array is. In general it should be
less 55% otherwise you probably jave IO bottleneck.
"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:c13201c47a1b$4db045c0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have a Windows 2000 Advanced Server with SQL Server 2000
> Enterprise Edition on a SAN. What units are the %Disk
> Time measured in from Perfmon?
> Is the (% Disk Time E) = (Disk Time E) / (Total % Disk
> Time) ?
> Please help me with these questions.
> Thanks,
> Mike|||I don't tend to agree with that advice.
On it's own
<<
'%Disk Time
Is not a very reliable indicator of an IO bottleneck. You could easily have
a bottleneck if this counter is much lower than 55%. You might NOT have a
bottleneck if this counter is 55% or higher.
There are many, many more counters which you should take a look. You need to
take a look at queue lenght, wait times for disk transfers, time it takes
per read and write. In addition, there are a host of other counters
specific to your SAN that you should take a look at.
Unfortunately, I'm running a bit late right now and I don't have time to
write a long message. Tom Davidson from MS has a nice article in SQL Server
Magazine that dicusses some of these counters. I believe it might also be on
MSDN. It shouldn't be too hard to track down if you search by his name on
each site.
--
Brian Moran
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:u1rJ0yheEHA.3520@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Mike
> This counter measured how busy a physical array is. In general it should
be
> less 55% otherwise you probably jave IO bottleneck.
>
>
> "Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:c13201c47a1b$4db045c0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
>|||Brian
First of all i have said 'probably'
Secondly if you have this counter higher than 55% for continuous periods
(let me say 15 min)then your SQL Server
may be experiencing an I/O bottleneck.
"Brian Moran" <brian@.solidqualitylearning.com> wrote in message
news:%23r7TWIieEHA.2848@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I don't tend to agree with that advice.
> On it's own
> <<
> '%Disk Time
> Is not a very reliable indicator of an IO bottleneck. You could easily
have
> a bottleneck if this counter is much lower than 55%. You might NOT have a
> bottleneck if this counter is 55% or higher.
> There are many, many more counters which you should take a look. You need
to
> take a look at queue lenght, wait times for disk transfers, time it takes
> per read and write. In addition, there are a host of other counters
> specific to your SAN that you should take a look at.
>
> Unfortunately, I'm running a bit late right now and I don't have time to
> write a long message. Tom Davidson from MS has a nice article in SQL
Server
> Magazine that dicusses some of these counters. I believe it might also be
on
> MSDN. It shouldn't be too hard to track down if you search by his name on
> each site.
> --
> Brian Moran
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
> news:u1rJ0yheEHA.3520@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> be
>