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

dll locked by VS

Hi,
I'm new to VS-Development an have to write a little assembly for Reporting
Services. Every time a change something in the assembly, I call the
following .bat-file:
copy "D:\rw\Visual Studio
2005\wbiReports\wbiReports\bin\Debug\wbiReports.dll" "C:\Programme\Microsoft
SQL Server\MSSQL.3\Reporting Services\ReportServer\bin\"
copy "D:\rw\Visual Studio
2005\wbiReports\wbiReports\bin\Debug\wbiReports.dll" "\\wbi-lyta\C$\Program
Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL.3\Reporting Services\ReportServer\bin\"
copy "D:\rw\Visual Studio
2005\wbiReports\wbiReports\bin\Debug\wbiReports.dll" "C:\Programme\Microsoft
Visual Studio 8\Common7\IDE\PrivateAssemblies\"
But the last copy fails, if there is still one VS open. I normally have 3
projects open, 2 reports and the assembly-project. Now having to close not
only every project but even close all VSs is very annoying. Am I doing
anything wrong?
Regards,
RalphI have run into the same problem. The best workaround I found is to
use NUnit to do all of my testing for the assembly. When I'm done I
install it into the appropriate directories and modify and test my
reports. This allows me to avoid the problem for the most part.

Distributed Transactions Co-ordinator

We are running MS SQL Server 2000, on Windows 2003, and the environment is
locked down to the nth degree.
We are running Distributed Transactions and Java, and are experiencing
problems. We are being told that the reason is because we have COM+
disabled. And that we are likely to experience many other inexplainable
problems if we don't enable it.
The build we have is a standard build, and we have other SQL Server
implementations running with no issue.
Is COM+ required to run SQL Server, Distributed Transactions or allow
connectivitiy in to the database through JAVA?
Thanks
BevNot COM+, you just need MSDTC a very small piece; so you do need to have:
1) The MSDTC service running (NET START MSDTC)
2) The MSDTC service enable for network transactions, which by default on
Windows Server 2003 is turned off, see
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;817064 "How to
enable network DTC access in Windows Server 2003", you can set this with
MMC, start mmc %windir%\system32\com\comexp.msc
GertD@.SQLDev.Net
Please reply only to the newsgroups.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
You assume all risk for your use.
Copyright © SQLDev.Net 1991-2004 All rights reserved.
"Beverley" <Beverley@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0D039C49-8F62-44D4-A62B-4EE31BE43862@.microsoft.com...
> We are running MS SQL Server 2000, on Windows 2003, and the environment is
> locked down to the nth degree.
> We are running Distributed Transactions and Java, and are experiencing
> problems. We are being told that the reason is because we have COM+
> disabled. And that we are likely to experience many other inexplainable
> problems if we don't enable it.
> The build we have is a standard build, and we have other SQL Server
> implementations running with no issue.
> Is COM+ required to run SQL Server, Distributed Transactions or allow
> connectivitiy in to the database through JAVA?
> Thanks
> Bev