SQL Server Performance Forum – Threads Archive
Running a Trace
I read somewhere that it is less taxing on the SQL server to run traces remotely versus logging on to the server itself. This seemed logical to me (not that I should know) since at least the Profiler was not running on the server. But my Boss connected to the SQL server and stayed connected all day long. I asked why and he said he was running traces and the data has to fly across the network and that must put pressure on the server versus running it locally. That sounded wacky to me but I figured it was best to ask the experts. Is it better to run the trace remotely (across a T1 lets say) then log onto the server directly (which I hate anyone to do). Thanks DougRunning it remotely over a fast network is the most optimal option. Either option will create some performance hit, but running it over the network on another machine is the least of the two evils. Also, only capture the information you really need so that you minimize the impact of the overhead. In the case of a T1, the answer is not so clear. If only the basic data is captured, then running Profiler over the T1 probably won’t be an issue. But if you are collecting a lot of data for a long time, then capturing it on the local server "might" be better. But, remember, if you capture the data locally, you will still have to move it over the T1 for local analysis, unless you have Terminal Service access to the server and can analyze it from a local perspective. —————————–
Brad M. McGehee, MVP
Webmaster
SQL-Server-Performance.Com
Yes, I agree with Brad. Also, I read somewhere that It’s better to capture the trace to a file than to a table on the same server. You can later save the file into a table if you want.
]]>