User profile for JoergH

Hi Russell, sure I'll send it in a few minutes. Meanwhile, I opened a support case #131718, and this issue is already tracked as SRP-11790. Joerg / comments

Hi Russell,sure I'll send it in a few minutes. Meanwhile, I opened a support case #131718, and this issue is already tracked as SRP-11790.Joerg

0 votes

DanAppleyard said: I am updating this forum post to explain the discovered reason. It has nothing to do with SQL Monitor directly. As stated earlier, it seemed to correspond with the creation of backup-related alerts. SQL Monitor appears to use the database_name field from msdb.dbo.backupset table. I had some entries that had the name in uppercase, so SQL Monitor read that and ended up creating new database entries for the given server. Hi Dan, hi Jessica, same thing here! Every database that has a database_name entry in msdb.dbo.backupset that differs from the original database name as seen in sys.databases, appears as doubled in SQL Monitor. The ones whose names come from msdb.dbo.backupset are showing no data for actual metrics and history. In my case all different written names in msdb.dbo.backupset derived from sql agent backup jobs (e.g. "backup database [abc]" instead of "backup database [AbC]"). This doesn't seem to be a brand new thing - we already ignored it (sorry for that) since several versions of SQL Monitor (actually on 9.02). My Question: How did you resolve that issue? Some additional info: => We observe those doubled database entries exactly since installing 8.0.19.16748 back in October! I used the following query to find the day of first appearace (CollectionDate) for the doubled entries: SELECT _name COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_Cp1_CS_AS as _name_1     , utils.TicksToDateTime(CollectionDate) AS Collection_Datum     , * FROM [data].[Cluster_SqlServer_Database_Keys] WHERE Parentid = 15 -- this belongs to that specific monitored server ORDER BY _name_1 Could someone please provide us with a solution for that problem? 16 out of 38 databases on that server appear as additional ghost entries. Regards, Joerg / comments

DanAppleyard said: I am updating this forum post to explain the discovered reason. It has nothing to do with SQL Monitor directly. As stated earlier, it seemed to correspond with the creati...

0 votes

Hi Russel, thanks and sorry - I read that blog post some time ago and didn't realize that fact. In addition: I got an answer from Paul Randall to my question "Is this a value you would expect and is this a wait type that can be put on the "ignore"-list?". He answered "Yup - entirely expected". So, could you place a request for putting this wait-type on SQL Monitor's exclude-list? Thanks and regards, Joerg / comments

Hi Russel,thanks and sorry - I read that blog post some time ago and didn't realize that fact. In addition: I got an answer from Paul Randall to my question "Is this a value you would expect and is...

0 votes

How can we help you today?

JoergH

Comments