Do scheduled jobs stay in memory?

My boss was looking at our SQL box, comparing the jobs list to the running
processes list. He noticed that the numbers are roughly analogous to each
other. He posed me the question, "do scheduled jobs stay in memory, or do
they release themselves when complete?"
I'm pretty sure the answer is that they release themselves, but I figured I
would bow to somebody from this group who had much more knowledge of the
matter.
Regards,
Scotti don't know exactly what numbers you see in the job list.
if a job is running, you will see it in "current activity - process info"
to answer his question, more than likely that job (or at least pieces of it)
will stay in memory
some of its code may stay in the procedure cache.
some of its data may stay in the buffer cache.
sql server generally tries to keep everything in memory and only releases
things when it feels it's necessary.
Scott McNair wrote:
> My boss was looking at our SQL box, comparing the jobs list to the running
> processes list. He noticed that the numbers are roughly analogous to each
> other. He posed me the question, "do scheduled jobs stay in memory, or do
> they release themselves when complete?"
> I'm pretty sure the answer is that they release themselves, but I figured I
> would bow to somebody from this group who had much more knowledge of the
> matter.
> Regards,
> Scott|||Scott,
if you look at the "current activity" in EM under Management, in Process
Info you will find the process running. You can find that when the jobs are
not running, you will not have processes related to the jobs. Yes, when a
job finishes, it releases itself.
A task (a job, a QA query etc) can possibly spin off multiple processes, so
you may have more processes then your currently running task. This might be
the reason that you sometimes see a relation between the number of processes
and processes, but that is completely coincidental.
Quentin
"Scott McNair" <scott.mcnair@.sfmco.takethispartout.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94E688FF6C32Asfmco@.207.46.248.16...
> My boss was looking at our SQL box, comparing the jobs list to the running
> processes list. He noticed that the numbers are roughly analogous to each
> other. He posed me the question, "do scheduled jobs stay in memory, or do
> they release themselves when complete?"
> I'm pretty sure the answer is that they release themselves, but I figured
I
> would bow to somebody from this group who had much more knowledge of the
> matter.
> Regards,
> Scott

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

DMO, VFP and SQL 2005

I have an application writing in VFP that is used to manage some database
processes, some of these processes are currently writing in DMO. We are in
the process of upgrading to sql 2005 and I’m running into some trouble. I
m
currently changing some of the process to t-sql statements but I have an
issue where I think I need to use DMO. I’ve installed the backwards
compatible objects but I can not seem to connect via DMO. I have a default
instance of sql 2000, a named instance 2000 and a named instance of 2005
running on laptop running XP Tablet edition.
Code
ox= CREATEOBJECT("SQLDMO.sqlServer")
?ox.Connect("MA-ENG-PCANINO2\sql2005","sa", "SASA")
Executing that returns this error.
OLE IDispatch exception code 55555 from Microsoft SQL-DMO (ODBC SQLState:
42000): [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]To connect to this
server you must use SQL Server Management Studio or SQL Server Management
Objects (SMO)...
Thank you in advance.
Pauly CIt’s working now, I read in another post to unregistered and reregister th
e
SQLDMO.dll - \\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\80\Tools\Binn\SQLDMO.dll.
I did just that and now I’m able to successfully connect to SQL 2005 via D
MO.
YIPPEE
"Pauly C" wrote:

> I have an application writing in VFP that is used to manage some database
> processes, some of these processes are currently writing in DMO. We are i
n
> the process of upgrading to sql 2005 and I’m running into some trouble.
I’m
> currently changing some of the process to t-sql statements but I have an
> issue where I think I need to use DMO. I’ve installed the backwards
> compatible objects but I can not seem to connect via DMO. I have a defaul
t
> instance of sql 2000, a named instance 2000 and a named instance of 2005
> running on laptop running XP Tablet edition.
> Code
> ox= CREATEOBJECT("SQLDMO.sqlServer")
> ?ox.Connect("MA-ENG-PCANINO2\sql2005","sa", "SASA")
> Executing that returns this error.
> OLE IDispatch exception code 55555 from Microsoft SQL-DMO (ODBC SQLState:
> 42000): [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]To connect to this
> server you must use SQL Server Management Studio or SQL Server Management
> Objects (SMO)...
> Thank you in advance.
> Pauly C
>