SQL Server Performance Forum – Threads Archive
Profiler or trace script?Env.: Win2k3, SQL2k SP3 I want to monitor the Production server. I can run Profiler on another machine and set it to monitor my production. I can also use Profiler to create a trace script and run it in QA on the same machine instead of Profiler. Which one has less impact to production? The answer seems obvious that a script should be better than a GUI utility like Profiler but I am looking for any Microsoft suggestion or any practical experience. Thanks, CanadaDBA
I prefer profiler, from WS. Luis Martin
SQL-Server-Performance.com One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that one’s work is terribly important
All postings are provided â€œAS ISâ€ with no warranties for accuracy.
The serverside trace is less impact to the server, it’s also easier to automate as well as being more reliable than having to run the gui on a workstation.
But how about the situation I defined above? I am going to start the trace on a second server and leave it for 2 hours. In this situation, if the Profiler is running has more impact or if the Trace script is running? My guess is both have the same impact on the production but the Profiler needs more resources from the server that it is running on. CanadaDBA
The Profiler GUI puts overhead on the server, which you can avoid using a trace.
See if this helps:
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Heute schon gebloggt?http://www.insidesql.de/blogs
Ich unterstÃ¼tze PASS Deutschland e.V. http://www.sqlpass.de)
.. about server side advantages. Satya SKJ
Contributing Editor & Forums Moderator
This posting is provided â€œAS ISâ€ with no rights for the sake of knowledge sharing.