Error 18210 Backup up SQL Server 2005 Database to network drive

I have 2 different servers that run nightly backup jobs to a network drive using the UNC format. I am noticing the larger databases encountering the following errors on a regular basis

Error: 18210, Severity: 16, State: 1.

'\\fnfssql3\SQLBackups\MNSQL05\<database>.BAK'. Operating system error 64(The specified network name is no longer available.).

BACKUP failed to complete the command BACKUP DATABASE <database>. Check the backup application log for detailed messages.

There are 5 databases on this server all backed up by the same job and 3 of them wortk fine and 2 of them fail so it is not a permissions problem. Have there been any problems with backing up to a network drive in 2005?

Well, backing up to networks drives is not officially *supported*, thats why the browser only display the local drives.

The reason for that and the logical explanation why you shouldn′t do that is, because the network is less reliable than local drives. If you want to make sure the database is backuped to network, you will have to either make sure the windows where the backups are streamed to the network don′t interfer with each other or you use a local backup to a drive and copy the files later over. Thats the most reliable option beside using a NAS / SAN.

Jens K. Suessmeyer

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

|||

Network hic-up can do this. One can see such error without sql involved.

Try trapping the error and retry the operation. Also, try backing up locally as suggested by Jens.

|||

Backing up database to a UNC path is fully supported. You must be thinking of running the database from a network drive.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/304261

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/sqlbackuprest.mspx

|||

Oj,

the reason why I put *supported* in stars is, that it is sure supported, but not reliable in terms of just having a network share associated on a UNC share. (I thought he explanation should made that clearer, sorry for the poor explanation :-) ) The reliablity descrease due to your mentioned outages on the network. Having big backup files for the transfer over the network is there not recommended undless you have a SAN or a NAS which ensures more reliablity for the transfer. I often used the UNC path backup too on customer sites but either tried to shape the task to copy the files to different time windows or used a local backup and copied the files over with a mechanism (like xcopy / robocopy) to restart in the case of a connection loss.

Jens K. Suessmeyer

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

Erratic Performance of SQL Server

Hello,

We have a complex system with many stored procedures, the same procedures run every day at about the same time. We are noticing severe fluctuations in performance. One day a procedure will take 150 minutes, the next day 250 minutes, the next day 100 minutes. A graph of the performance looks like a voice graph or a lie detector for a criminal. We are using SQL Server 2000 on an Itanium. Any suggestions or hints about how to stablize? This is happening for all of our procedures that run 24 hours a day.

Hi.

Are you running with SQL Server 2000 service pack 4 (for build 2039) and the last 2000 cumulative hotfix package (for build 2187)?

Regards,

Gary.

|||Stored procedure performance is always going to be directly relative to the load on the server, the number of rows being processed, the nature of the queries, i.e. read only versus updates and, in particular, on the performance of the I/O devices which can certainly vary if your stored procedures are competing against other processes trying to access the same data.

What is the stored procedure doing and what kind of data volumes are we talking about, i.e. a thousand rows, 10 million rows? Are there any cursors? Are there any other applications competing for the same data, i.e. an OLTP system?
|||

You might want to take the following steps:

1. Check the DBCC SHOW_STATISTICS and rowmodctr values (under the sysindexes table -- The rowmodctr value should be as close to ZERO as possible) and find out if the statistics for the database and the tables involved are out of date. If yes, please update the statistics with a full scan or 100% sampling rate.

2. Make sure that you are not running into a parameter sniffing issue. Please refer the following article for more details:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/recomp.mspx

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190439.aspx

Sporadic bursts in SP performance which leads to inconsistent duration for a stored procedure would be due to recompilation of the SP with a bad input parameter which generates a bad plan.

Also, try and see if recompiling the stored procedure at that particular time helps.

|||You need to itemize your durations. If you run Profiler, you will see real execution costs, such as amount of CPU and number of reads/writes. Are these values wildly different from day to day? Note that different durations may be caused by:
- locking, when you procedure spends significant time in lock waiting state;
- network delays. Your procedure may be waiting for the client to receive the result sets.

For instance, you can run one and the same query twice and get the same CPU, the same reads, but very different duration, because one time there were no exclusive locks to wait for, and the other time the procedure spent most of the time in lock ewaiting state. Another example is when you invoke a query from SSMS, and most of the duration is spent by SSMS drawing a grid. If you switch to text mode and rerun the query, you may get a shorter duration.|||

Thanks for your replies, I'll look at these in more detail, but I want to provide some additional information.

We are running SQL Server 2000, Enterprise edition, 64-bit, version 8.00.2039 SP4. Our server is not shared by any other application, but we have two instances with concurrent processing. The two instances use separate databases, but each instance has 3 job queues that can run procesing tasks simultaneously. Locking could be an issue on one instance, but not on the other instance. We are observing the same erratic processing times on both instances. Our SQL server uses a SAN, which is used by other applications, but the processing performed by the other applications is very light. We have several different procedures, most are not parameterized. Some of our longest running stored procedures perform a fairly simple SELECT INTO with joins on master data tables -- but these procedures are the most erratic with regard to different processing times. The data volumes for these procedures is up to about 20 million records. Locking is not an issue in these procedures. Since all of our procedures seem to be erratic, I'm wondering if there might be a problem with the SQL server optimizer in our configuration.

|||Have you monitored your TempDB's? If they're too small, it will have to keep extending which is a serious drag on performance. If your stored procedures are doing a lot of sorts, group by's, and are using a lot of temp tables this might add further credence to the TempDB issue. Since you're using SELECT INTO the operations are unlogged so I doubt that's your problem. You also might monitor your QIO's on your SAN devices to see if there is a lot of contention, particularly on the device with TempDB on it. (If at all possible you might move the TempDB's to their own devices.) You might also consider creating one TempDB file for each processor if you haven't already and turning on Traceflag 1118.

Just some thoughts. Hope it helps.

Erratic Performance of SQL Server

Hello,

We have a complex system with many stored procedures, the same procedures run every day at about the same time. We are noticing severe fluctuations in performance. One day a procedure will take 150 minutes, the next day 250 minutes, the next day 100 minutes. A graph of the performance looks like a voice graph or a lie detector for a criminal. We are using SQL Server 2000 on an Itanium. Any suggestions or hints about how to stablize? This is happening for all of our procedures that run 24 hours a day.

Hi.

Are you running with SQL Server 2000 service pack 4 (for build 2039) and the last 2000 cumulative hotfix package (for build 2187)?

Regards,

Gary.

|||Stored procedure performance is always going to be directly relative to the load on the server, the number of rows being processed, the nature of the queries, i.e. read only versus updates and, in particular, on the performance of the I/O devices which can certainly vary if your stored procedures are competing against other processes trying to access the same data.

What is the stored procedure doing and what kind of data volumes are we talking about, i.e. a thousand rows, 10 million rows? Are there any cursors? Are there any other applications competing for the same data, i.e. an OLTP system?
|||

You might want to take the following steps:

1. Check the DBCC SHOW_STATISTICS and rowmodctr values (under the sysindexes table -- The rowmodctr value should be as close to ZERO as possible) and find out if the statistics for the database and the tables involved are out of date. If yes, please update the statistics with a full scan or 100% sampling rate.

2. Make sure that you are not running into a parameter sniffing issue. Please refer the following article for more details:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/recomp.mspx

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190439.aspx

Sporadic bursts in SP performance which leads to inconsistent duration for a stored procedure would be due to recompilation of the SP with a bad input parameter which generates a bad plan.

Also, try and see if recompiling the stored procedure at that particular time helps.

|||You need to itemize your durations. If you run Profiler, you will see real execution costs, such as amount of CPU and number of reads/writes. Are these values wildly different from day to day? Note that different durations may be caused by:
- locking, when you procedure spends significant time in lock waiting state;
- network delays. Your procedure may be waiting for the client to receive the result sets.

For instance, you can run one and the same query twice and get the same CPU, the same reads, but very different duration, because one time there were no exclusive locks to wait for, and the other time the procedure spent most of the time in lock ewaiting state. Another example is when you invoke a query from SSMS, and most of the duration is spent by SSMS drawing a grid. If you switch to text mode and rerun the query, you may get a shorter duration.|||

Thanks for your replies, I'll look at these in more detail, but I want to provide some additional information.

We are running SQL Server 2000, Enterprise edition, 64-bit, version 8.00.2039 SP4. Our server is not shared by any other application, but we have two instances with concurrent processing. The two instances use separate databases, but each instance has 3 job queues that can run procesing tasks simultaneously. Locking could be an issue on one instance, but not on the other instance. We are observing the same erratic processing times on both instances. Our SQL server uses a SAN, which is used by other applications, but the processing performed by the other applications is very light. We have several different procedures, most are not parameterized. Some of our longest running stored procedures perform a fairly simple SELECT INTO with joins on master data tables -- but these procedures are the most erratic with regard to different processing times. The data volumes for these procedures is up to about 20 million records. Locking is not an issue in these procedures. Since all of our procedures seem to be erratic, I'm wondering if there might be a problem with the SQL server optimizer in our configuration.

|||Have you monitored your TempDB's? If they're too small, it will have to keep extending which is a serious drag on performance. If your stored procedures are doing a lot of sorts, group by's, and are using a lot of temp tables this might add further credence to the TempDB issue. Since you're using SELECT INTO the operations are unlogged so I doubt that's your problem. You also might monitor your QIO's on your SAN devices to see if there is a lot of contention, particularly on the device with TempDB on it. (If at all possible you might move the TempDB's to their own devices.) You might also consider creating one TempDB file for each processor if you haven't already and turning on Traceflag 1118.

Just some thoughts. Hope it helps.

Erratic Performance of SQL Server

Hello,

We have a complex system with many stored procedures, the same procedures run every day at about the same time. We are noticing severe fluctuations in performance. One day a procedure will take 150 minutes, the next day 250 minutes, the next day 100 minutes. A graph of the performance looks like a voice graph or a lie detector for a criminal. We are using SQL Server 2000 on an Itanium. Any suggestions or hints about how to stablize? This is happening for all of our procedures that run 24 hours a day.

Hi.

Are you running with SQL Server 2000 service pack 4 (for build 2039) and the last 2000 cumulative hotfix package (for build 2187)?

Regards,

Gary.

|||Stored procedure performance is always going to be directly relative to the load on the server, the number of rows being processed, the nature of the queries, i.e. read only versus updates and, in particular, on the performance of the I/O devices which can certainly vary if your stored procedures are competing against other processes trying to access the same data.

What is the stored procedure doing and what kind of data volumes are we talking about, i.e. a thousand rows, 10 million rows? Are there any cursors? Are there any other applications competing for the same data, i.e. an OLTP system?
|||

You might want to take the following steps:

1. Check the DBCC SHOW_STATISTICS and rowmodctr values (under the sysindexes table -- The rowmodctr value should be as close to ZERO as possible) and find out if the statistics for the database and the tables involved are out of date. If yes, please update the statistics with a full scan or 100% sampling rate.

2. Make sure that you are not running into a parameter sniffing issue. Please refer the following article for more details:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/recomp.mspx

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190439.aspx

Sporadic bursts in SP performance which leads to inconsistent duration for a stored procedure would be due to recompilation of the SP with a bad input parameter which generates a bad plan.

Also, try and see if recompiling the stored procedure at that particular time helps.

|||You need to itemize your durations. If you run Profiler, you will see real execution costs, such as amount of CPU and number of reads/writes. Are these values wildly different from day to day? Note that different durations may be caused by:
- locking, when you procedure spends significant time in lock waiting state;
- network delays. Your procedure may be waiting for the client to receive the result sets.

For instance, you can run one and the same query twice and get the same CPU, the same reads, but very different duration, because one time there were no exclusive locks to wait for, and the other time the procedure spent most of the time in lock ewaiting state. Another example is when you invoke a query from SSMS, and most of the duration is spent by SSMS drawing a grid. If you switch to text mode and rerun the query, you may get a shorter duration.|||

Thanks for your replies, I'll look at these in more detail, but I want to provide some additional information.

We are running SQL Server 2000, Enterprise edition, 64-bit, version 8.00.2039 SP4. Our server is not shared by any other application, but we have two instances with concurrent processing. The two instances use separate databases, but each instance has 3 job queues that can run procesing tasks simultaneously. Locking could be an issue on one instance, but not on the other instance. We are observing the same erratic processing times on both instances. Our SQL server uses a SAN, which is used by other applications, but the processing performed by the other applications is very light. We have several different procedures, most are not parameterized. Some of our longest running stored procedures perform a fairly simple SELECT INTO with joins on master data tables -- but these procedures are the most erratic with regard to different processing times. The data volumes for these procedures is up to about 20 million records. Locking is not an issue in these procedures. Since all of our procedures seem to be erratic, I'm wondering if there might be a problem with the SQL server optimizer in our configuration.

|||Have you monitored your TempDB's? If they're too small, it will have to keep extending which is a serious drag on performance. If your stored procedures are doing a lot of sorts, group by's, and are using a lot of temp tables this might add further credence to the TempDB issue. Since you're using SELECT INTO the operations are unlogged so I doubt that's your problem. You also might monitor your QIO's on your SAN devices to see if there is a lot of contention, particularly on the device with TempDB on it. (If at all possible you might move the TempDB's to their own devices.) You might also consider creating one TempDB file for each processor if you haven't already and turning on Traceflag 1118.

Just some thoughts. Hope it helps.