Do locks slow other processes?

Hi,
Lets say I have a process running on the server (e.g a stored proc) -
Process A
Then another scheduled process starts to run but is locked up by process A.
Will process A run any slower as it's holding up the second process, or,
does it not affect the performance at all?
Basically, I'm quite happy for the second process to have to wait - but - I
don't want the performance to be radically slowed.
ThanksLondon
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/reducing_locks.asp
"London Developer" <dev@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:OSO5ge8lDHA.744@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Lets say I have a process running on the server (e.g a stored proc) -
> Process A
> Then another scheduled process starts to run but is locked up by process
A.
> Will process A run any slower as it's holding up the second process, or,
> does it not affect the performance at all?
> Basically, I'm quite happy for the second process to have to wait - but -
I
> don't want the performance to be radically slowed.
> Thanks
>|||Process A should not be slowed by processes which are waiting on A.
Offcourse if there are more processes which are running or claiming memory,
process A can get slowed. A waiting process should consume very little (or
no) cpu. It is offcourse in a list of processes so the OS uses a very very
VERY small amount of CPU to check or pass over this process when
rescheduling, SQL-server has to set a wait on a lock this consumes very VERY
VERY small amount of cpu.
Offcourse if the process which is blocked by A holds locks and process A
needs those resources you wil have a deadlock. This holds both processes
till a deadlock is detected, one process is 'aborted' the other can
continue.
ben brugman
"London Developer" <dev@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:OSO5ge8lDHA.744@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Lets say I have a process running on the server (e.g a stored proc) -
> Process A
> Then another scheduled process starts to run but is locked up by process
A.
> Will process A run any slower as it's holding up the second process, or,
> does it not affect the performance at all?
> Basically, I'm quite happy for the second process to have to wait - but -
I
> don't want the performance to be radically slowed.
> Thanks
>sql