Batch Requests/Sec counter

Hi,
I hope that somebody can help me to clarify for this.
Below is an excerpt extracted from the www.sql-server-performance.com websit
e.
The batch requests per second shown on the performance monitor screen is in
the scale of 1000.
My current server has 6 CPUs but with only 100mb network card. I'm a bit con
cern on the values shown for this particular counter which is average over 2
7243187 batch requests/Sec. Also lately the CPU utilization is also getting
higher in the range of abov
e 80%. The question here is whether a network bottleneck in this can cause a
n increase in CPU utilization? if yes may I know why also?
Thanks
-debbie-
----
--
To get a feel of how busy SQL Server is, monitor the SQLServer: SQL Statisti
cs: Batch Requests/Sec counter. This counter measures the number of batch re
quests that SQL Server receives per second, and generally follows in step to
how busy your server's CPU
s are. Generally speaking, over 1000 batch requests per second indicates a v
ery busy SQL Server, and could mean that if you are not already experiencing
a CPU bottleneck, that you may very well soon. Of course, this is a relativ
e number, and the bigger yo
ur hardware, the more batch requests per second SQL Server can handle.
From a network bottleneck approach, a typical 100Mbs network card is only ab
le to handle about 3000 batch requests per second. If you have a server that
is this busy, you may need to have two or more network cards, or go to a 1G
bs network card.
----
--I find it hard to believe that your system is processing 27 million batch
requests per second<g>. Where are you getting the value from?
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"debcwong" <debcwong@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:92A9ACE5-072E-4DF4-822F-B5E23B669B49@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I hope that somebody can help me to clarify for this.
> Below is an excerpt extracted from the www.sql-server-performance.com
website.
> The batch requests per second shown on the performance monitor screen is
in the scale of 1000.
> My current server has 6 CPUs but with only 100mb network card. I'm a bit
concern on the values shown for this particular counter which is average
over 27243187 batch requests/Sec. Also lately the CPU utilization is also
getting higher in the range of above 80%. The question here is whether a
network bottleneck in this can cause an increase in CPU utilization? if yes
may I know why also?
>
> Thanks
> -debbie-
> ----
--
> To get a feel of how busy SQL Server is, monitor the SQLServer: SQL
Statistics: Batch Requests/Sec counter. This counter measures the number of
batch requests that SQL Server receives per second, and generally follows in
step to how busy your server's CPUs are. Generally speaking, over 1000 batch
requests per second indicates a very busy SQL Server, and could mean that if
you are not already experiencing a CPU bottleneck, that you may very well
soon. Of course, this is a relative number, and the bigger your hardware,
the more batch requests per second SQL Server can handle.
> From a network bottleneck approach, a typical 100Mbs network card is only
able to handle about 3000 batch requests per second. If you have a server
that is this busy, you may need to have two or more network cards, or go to
a 1Gbs network card.
> ----
--
>|||Sounds like you pulled the raw counters from sysperfinfo. Those are not
time-adjusted. See http://support.microsoft.com/?id=555064 for a short
explanation. You wil need to use the Performance Monitor tool to see the
actual per/second values.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"debcwong" <debcwong@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:92A9ACE5-072E-4DF4-822F-B5E23B669B49@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I hope that somebody can help me to clarify for this.
> Below is an excerpt extracted from the www.sql-server-performance.com
website.
> The batch requests per second shown on the performance monitor screen is
in the scale of 1000.
> My current server has 6 CPUs but with only 100mb network card. I'm a bit
concern on the values shown for this particular counter which is average
over 27243187 batch requests/Sec. Also lately the CPU utilization is also
getting higher in the range of above 80%. The question here is whether a
network bottleneck in this can cause an increase in CPU utilization? if yes
may I know why also?
>
> Thanks
> -debbie-
> ----
--
> To get a feel of how busy SQL Server is, monitor the SQLServer: SQL
Statistics: Batch Requests/Sec counter. This counter measures the number of
batch requests that SQL Server receives per second, and generally follows in
step to how busy your server's CPUs are. Generally speaking, over 1000 batch
requests per second indicates a very busy SQL Server, and could mean that if
you are not already experiencing a CPU bottleneck, that you may very well
soon. Of course, this is a relative number, and the bigger your hardware,
the more batch requests per second SQL Server can handle.
> From a network bottleneck approach, a typical 100Mbs network card is only
able to handle about 3000 batch requests per second. If you have a server
that is this busy, you may need to have two or more network cards, or go to
a 1Gbs network card.
> ----
--
>|||The performance monitor shows it at the scale of 1000 so
after you times it it's around the same value as
sysperfinfo. So I guess that I shouldn't times the scale?

>--Original Message--
>Sounds like you pulled the raw counters from
sysperfinfo. Those are not
>time-adjusted. See http://support.microsoft.com/?
id=555064 for a short
>explanation. You wil need to use the Performance
Monitor tool to see the
>actual per/second values.
>--
>Geoff N. Hiten
>Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>Senior Database Administrator
>Careerbuilder.com
>I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
>www.sqlpass.org
>"debcwong" <debcwong@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
>news:92A9ACE5-072E-4DF4-822F-
B5E23B669B49@.microsoft.com...
performance.com[vbcol=seagreen]
>website.
monitor screen is[vbcol=seagreen]
>in the scale of 1000.
network card. I'm a bit[vbcol=seagreen]
>concern on the values shown for this particular counter
which is average
>over 27243187 batch requests/Sec. Also lately the CPU
utilization is also
>getting higher in the range of above 80%. The question
here is whether a
>network bottleneck in this can cause an increase in CPU
utilization? if yes
>may I know why also?
--[vbcol=seagreen]
>--
SQLServer: SQL[vbcol=seagreen]
>Statistics: Batch Requests/Sec counter. This counter
measures the number of
>batch requests that SQL Server receives per second, and
generally follows in
>step to how busy your server's CPUs are. Generally
speaking, over 1000 batch
>requests per second indicates a very busy SQL Server,
and could mean that if
>you are not already experiencing a CPU bottleneck, that
you may very well
>soon. Of course, this is a relative number, and the
bigger your hardware,
>the more batch requests per second SQL Server can handle.
network card is only[vbcol=seagreen]
>able to handle about 3000 batch requests per second. If
you have a server
>that is this busy, you may need to have two or more
network cards, or go to
>a 1Gbs network card.
--[vbcol=seagreen]
>--
>
>.
>|||The scale on performance monitor only affects the position of the graph.
The counter value should be the correct number.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:240a801c45f46$fb515f60$a301280a@.phx
.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> The performance monitor shows it at the scale of 1000 so
> after you times it it's around the same value as
> sysperfinfo. So I guess that I shouldn't times the scale?
>
> sysperfinfo. Those are not
> id=555064 for a short
> Monitor tool to see the
> message
> B5E23B669B49@.microsoft.com...
> performance.com
> monitor screen is
> network card. I'm a bit
> which is average
> utilization is also
> here is whether a
> utilization? if yes
> --
> SQLServer: SQL
> measures the number of
> generally follows in
> speaking, over 1000 batch
> and could mean that if
> you may very well
> bigger your hardware,
> network card is only
> you have a server
> network cards, or go to
> --|||hmm... the scale of the graph is the same as the counter
but the scale in the column beneath it is 1000...
sorry... very confusing to me.

>--Original Message--
>The scale on performance monitor only affects the
position of the graph.
>The counter value should be the correct number.
>--
>Geoff N. Hiten
>Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>Senior Database Administrator
>Careerbuilder.com
>I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
>www.sqlpass.org
><anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:240a801c45f46$fb515f60$a301280a@.phx
.gbl...
so[vbcol=seagreen]
scale?[vbcol=seagreen]
in[vbcol=seagreen]
this.[vbcol=seagreen]
server-[vbcol=seagreen]
performance[vbcol=seagreen]
counter[vbcol=seagreen]
CPU[vbcol=seagreen]
--[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
that[vbcol=seagreen]
handle.[vbcol=seagreen]
If[vbcol=seagreen]
--[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>.
>|||It's easier to see the actual values in the Report mode vs. the graph mode
or Perfmon.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2466001c45fca$da3d27d0$a601280a@.phx
.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> hmm... the scale of the graph is the same as the counter
> but the scale in the column beneath it is 1000...
> sorry... very confusing to me.
>
> position of the graph.
> so
> scale?
> in
> this.
> server-
> performance
> counter
> CPU
> --
> and
> that
> handle.
> If
> --