Multithreading SQL connections

Hi there
I am working on the design of a system that its’ main function will be to
talk to devices over TCP/IP. There can be up to 50,000 devices that I need t
o
talk to within an hour period.
There will be a Queue on SQL 2005 which will contain requests for these
devices. I will need to check this queue and depending on the information on
the queue I need to talk to the devices. There will be one request for each
device every hour, therefore I need to be able to process multiple
communications at one time.
Here is my question: Should I create independent threads which would read
SQL and do pretty much everything, having a collection of about 50 or so
threads doing this? I have heard that I should avoid this high number of
connections to SQL at one time.
The other solution that I came up with is to have one SQL reader and have
the communication sockets as the threads, so they do their job and return. I
n
this thread communication scenario should I destroy the thread once I am
done, or should I have thread communication and keep the thread alive and
just send new requests to it?
I know this is pretty broad, but any help would be appreciated.
Thank you,
Spike S50 connections at a time in SQL Server is not an issue at all. Especially
if you are using connection pooling. When you say Queue what exactly do you
mean? Is this a regular table or is this a Queue from Service Broker?
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Spike Spiegel" <cbb_spike@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8AFEA5E5-1E9B-4D23-BFD9-1AEB25230AF6@.microsoft.com...
> Hi there
> I am working on the design of a system that its' main function will be to
> talk to devices over TCP/IP. There can be up to 50,000 devices that I need
> to
> talk to within an hour period.
> There will be a Queue on SQL 2005 which will contain requests for these
> devices. I will need to check this queue and depending on the information
> on
> the queue I need to talk to the devices. There will be one request for
> each
> device every hour, therefore I need to be able to process multiple
> communications at one time.
> Here is my question: Should I create independent threads which would read
> SQL and do pretty much everything, having a collection of about 50 or so
> threads doing this? I have heard that I should avoid this high number of
> connections to SQL at one time.
> The other solution that I came up with is to have one SQL reader and have
> the communication sockets as the threads, so they do their job and return.
> In
> this thread communication scenario should I destroy the thread once I am
> done, or should I have thread communication and keep the thread alive and
> just send new requests to it?
> I know this is pretty broad, but any help would be appreciated.
> Thank you,
> Spike S|||Hi Andrew
Sorry, I should have not used the word queue. It is basically just a table
with a very log record, about 50 fields, my application would be pulling fro
m
it.
What do you mean by "connection pooling?"
Right I am running a test and basically I am opening a connection using the
System.Data.SqlClient.SqlConnection class, and reading my record with
SqlConnection + SqlDataReader and writing records with the SqlConnection.+
TSQL statement. Are these the most efficient/fastest way to do this? I am
very interested in speed here.
If I were to create a thread and send the SqlConnection to the thread for
them all to share the same connection, would that make the code more
efficient?
What would be a good threshold for number of threads? 100? 500? 1000? 10000?
Please let me know.
Thank you,
Spike S.|||> What do you mean by "connection pooling?"
I would google for more details but essentially it is used by .net to make
the process of connecting and disconnecting much more efficient. You retain
a pool of connections that stay connected all the time. These are then
handed out as the app requests new connections and instead of closing it
completely it just cleans it up and makes it ready for the next user. It's
the default behavior with .net.

> Right I am running a test and basically I am opening a connection using
> the
> System.Data.SqlClient.SqlConnection class, and reading my record with
> SqlConnection + SqlDataReader and writing records with the SqlConnection.+
> TSQL statement. Are these the most efficient/fastest way to do this? I am
> very interested in speed here.
Actually using stored procedures to read and write the data is the most
efficient way.

> What would be a good threshold for number of threads? 100? 500? 1000?
> 10000?
Testing is the only way to know for sure.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Spike Spiegel" <cbb_spike@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:96A7733E-31CD-4744-9DD9-FD8CF64278A0@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Andrew
> Sorry, I should have not used the word queue. It is basically just a table
> with a very log record, about 50 fields, my application would be pulling
> from
> it.
> What do you mean by "connection pooling?"
> Right I am running a test and basically I am opening a connection using
> the
> System.Data.SqlClient.SqlConnection class, and reading my record with
> SqlConnection + SqlDataReader and writing records with the SqlConnection.+
> TSQL statement. Are these the most efficient/fastest way to do this? I am
> very interested in speed here.
> If I were to create a thread and send the SqlConnection to the thread for
> them all to share the same connection, would that make the code more
> efficient?
> What would be a good threshold for number of threads? 100? 500? 1000?
> 10000?
> Please let me know.
> Thank you,
> Spike S.|||Hi Andrew
Thank you very much for all the information.
I did some testing, using the connection pooling, and it is exactly what I
was looking for, I can have around 50 threads before I see a performance hit
.
This is the first time I posted into a managed Microsoft newsgroup. From
this experience I will not think twice before checking the managed group
again.
Thank you again for all your help.
Take care,
Spike S.|||Please note that Andy doesn't have anything to do with the MSDN managed
newsgroup program/policy/whatever you want to call it. Andy doesn't work for
Microsoft and is out here helping everybody on his own dime. That, in my
opinion, means he deserves even more thanks. :-)
Sincerely,
Steve Dybing
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Spike Spiegel" <cbb_spike@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:74D54EA9-786B-45AE-8007-88804D2A4B56@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Andrew
> Thank you very much for all the information.
> I did some testing, using the connection pooling, and it is exactly what I
> was looking for, I can have around 50 threads before I see a performance
> hit.
> This is the first time I posted into a managed Microsoft newsgroup. From
> this experience I will not think twice before checking the managed group
> again.
> Thank you again for all your help.
> Take care,
> Spike S.|||Double thanks to Andrew then...|||Double you are welcome.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Spike Spiegel" <cbb_spike@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:A5A1E014-F5C1-43E4-8956-F9D19EA5C153@.microsoft.com...
> Double thanks to Andrew then...|||Ahhh gee Thanks Steve :)
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Steve Dybing [MSFT]" <steve.dybing@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:eFQhpyFdGHA.3908@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Please note that Andy doesn't have anything to do with the MSDN managed
> newsgroup program/policy/whatever you want to call it. Andy doesn't work
> for Microsoft and is out here helping everybody on his own dime. That, in
> my opinion, means he deserves even more thanks. :-)
> --
> Sincerely,
> Steve Dybing
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
> "Spike Spiegel" <cbb_spike@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:74D54EA9-786B-45AE-8007-88804D2A4B56@.microsoft.com...
>sql

multiple sql servers?

We are having some slow connections to our sql server. The server is located
at Site A, everyone at Site A can connect to the server through the LAN
quickly, just the way things should be. People at Site B, however, connect
to the SQL Server at Site A over a WAN; this causes the connection to be
slow. We were wondering if it is possible to install a second SQL Server at
Site B that will replicate with the server at Site A maybe once every night.
This way people at Site B could connect to a server that is on their LAN.
Hi,
Before doing that could you people verify with your network folks about the
network speed. It can be because of the slow network and can be solved.
Once you find that network can not be made fast, then probably you could
plan to setup a new database at Site B.
After that use some scripting mechanism / DTS / Logshipping to sync the
database with Site A.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Benjamin" <Benjamin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:717DC17B-C748-4718-AC0F-7420F280DDEE@.microsoft.com...
> We are having some slow connections to our sql server. The server is
> located
> at Site A, everyone at Site A can connect to the server through the LAN
> quickly, just the way things should be. People at Site B, however,
> connect
> to the SQL Server at Site A over a WAN; this causes the connection to be
> slow. We were wondering if it is possible to install a second SQL Server
> at
> Site B that will replicate with the server at Site A maybe once every
> night.
> This way people at Site B could connect to a server that is on their LAN.

multiple sql servers?

We are having some slow connections to our sql server. The server is locate
d
at Site A, everyone at Site A can connect to the server through the LAN
quickly, just the way things should be. People at Site B, however, connect
to the SQL Server at Site A over a WAN; this causes the connection to be
slow. We were wondering if it is possible to install a second SQL Server at
Site B that will replicate with the server at Site A maybe once every night.
This way people at Site B could connect to a server that is on their LAN.Hi,
Before doing that could you people verify with your network folks about the
network speed. It can be because of the slow network and can be solved.
Once you find that network can not be made fast, then probably you could
plan to setup a new database at Site B.
After that use some scripting mechanism / DTS / Logshipping to sync the
database with Site A.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Benjamin" <Benjamin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:717DC17B-C748-4718-AC0F-7420F280DDEE@.microsoft.com...
> We are having some slow connections to our sql server. The server is
> located
> at Site A, everyone at Site A can connect to the server through the LAN
> quickly, just the way things should be. People at Site B, however,
> connect
> to the SQL Server at Site A over a WAN; this causes the connection to be
> slow. We were wondering if it is possible to install a second SQL Server
> at
> Site B that will replicate with the server at Site A maybe once every
> night.
> This way people at Site B could connect to a server that is on their LAN.

Multiple simultaneous osql network connections fail

I am attempting to make 1000 simultaneous osql connections from one Windows
2000 server with sp4 to another Windows 2000 sever with sp4 that is hosting
a SQL 2000 server database with sp3a, but I reach an upper limit of about
30 - 40 connections.
Is osql limited to the number of simultaneous connections it can open to
another server? The database server isn't limited, so it must be the
client. If so, can that be increased?There isn't an OSQL limitation for connection requests other than the
resources on the box. There's something else going on if you can only make
30 to 40 connections. What happens when you try to make the 41st
connection? What error does the client receive?
Thanks,
Kevin McDonnell
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||This is the error I get for the jobs that failed after, in this case,
submitting 50 osql jobs simultaneously. 42 succeeded and 8 did not.
Application popup: osql.exe - Application Error : The application failed to
initialize properly (0xc0000142). Click on OK to terminate the application.
event id 26
"Kevin McDonnell [MSFT]" <kevmc@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:kMxpahY0DHA.3564@.cpmsftngxa07.phx.gbl...

quote:

---

> There isn't an OSQL limitation for connection requests other than the
> resources on the box. There's something else going on if you can only

---

make

quote:

---

> 30 to 40 connections. What happens when you try to make the 41st
> connection? What error does the client receive?
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin McDonnell
> Microsoft Corporation
> This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>
>

---

|||SQL Server uses a non-interactive desktop heap. The non-interactive desktop
heap
may run out of memory if a lot of processes are created. When there is not
sufficient memory to satisfy an
allocation request, an error is returned and the user is notified that the
computer is low on memory. Some programs may not handle the
failure, and sometimes there may not be sufficient memory to create the
error
message dialog box. When there is not sufficient memory to create the error
message dialog box, the requested operation may fail without generating an
error message.
WARNING: If you use Registry Editor incorrectly, you may cause serious
problems that may require you to reinstall your operating system. Microsoft
cannot guarantee that you can solve problems that result from using
Registry
Editor incorrectly. Use Registry Editor at your own risk.
To work around this problem, follow these steps:
1. At a command prompt, type "REGEDT32.EXE" to start Registry Editor.
2. In Registry Editor, locate the following registry key:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControl
Set\Control\Session
Manager\SubSystems
3. In the right pane of Registry Editor, click "Windows".
4. On the "Edit" menu, click "Modify".
5. In the "Edit String" dialog box, locate the "SharedSection"
parameter string in the "Value
data" text box, and then specify an increased value for the
"SharedSection" parameter.
Note The SharedSection parameter specifies the system and desktop by using
the following
format, where <<xxxx>> defines the maximum size of the system-wide heap
(in
kilobytes), <<yyyy>> defines the size of the per desktop heap, and
<<zzzz>> is the size of the desktop heap for each desktop that is
associated with a non-interactive Windows station:
SharedSection=<<xxxx>>,<<yyyy>>,<<zzzz>>
6. Click "OK".
Increasing the non-interactive desktop heap by 256K or 512K
typically provides sufficient memory to resolve the problem.
Thanks,
Kevin McDonnell
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||Does Windows Server 2003 still have the 48 MB limitation in
system-wide space for the heaps?
David Martin
kevmc@.online.microsoft.com (Kevin McDonnell [MSFT]) wrote in message news:<WfRfCD90DHA.2256@.cpmsftngxa07
.phx.gbl>...

quote:

---

> SQL Server uses a non-interactive desktop heap. The non-interactive deskto
p
> heap
> may run out of memory if a lot of processes are created. When there is not
> sufficient memory to satisfy an
> allocation request, an error is returned and the user is notified that the
> computer is low on memory. Some programs may not handle the
> failure, and sometimes there may not be sufficient memory to create the
> error
> message dialog box. When there is not sufficient memory to create the erro
r
> message dialog box, the requested operation may fail without generating an
> error message.
>
> WARNING: If you use Registry Editor incorrectly, you may cause serious
> problems that may require you to reinstall your operating system. Microso
ft
> cannot guarantee that you can solve problems that result from using
> Registry
> Editor incorrectly. Use Registry Editor at your own risk.
>
> To work around this problem, follow these steps:
> 1. At a command prompt, type "REGEDT32.EXE" to start Registry Editor.
> 2. In Registry Editor, locate the following registry key:
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControl
Set\Control\Session
> Manager\SubSystems
> 3. In the right pane of Registry Editor, click "Windows".
> 4. On the "Edit" menu, click "Modify".
> 5. In the "Edit String" dialog box, locate the "SharedSection"
> parameter string in the "Value
> data" text box, and then specify an increased value for the
> "SharedSection" parameter.
> Note The SharedSection parameter specifies the system and desktop by using
> the following
> format, where <<xxxx>> defines the maximum size of the system-wide hea
p
> (in
> kilobytes), <<yyyy>> defines the size of the per desktop heap, and
> <<zzzz>> is the size of the desktop heap for each desktop that is
> associated with a non-interactive Windows station:
> SharedSection=<<xxxx>>,<<yyyy>>,<<zzzz>>
> 6. Click "OK".
>
> Increasing the non-interactive desktop heap by 256K or 512K
> typically provides sufficient memory to resolve the problem.
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin McDonnell
> Microsoft Corporation
> This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.

---

|||The Windows 2003 default setting is:
SharedSection=1024,3072,512
Thanks,
Kevin McDonnell
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||That did the trick.
Thanks!
"Kevin McDonnell [MSFT]" <kevmc@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:d9bDOnU1DHA.3564@.cpmsftngxa07.phx.gbl...

quote:

---

> The Windows 2003 default setting is:
> SharedSection=1024,3072,512
> Thanks,
> Kevin McDonnell
> Microsoft Corporation
> This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>
>

---

|||I'm having a problem that I think is related to this non-interactive
desktop heap thing. In Windows 2003, I'm using ASP.NET to start a
large number of processes (about 250 processes that use very little CPU
and about 2KB per process). After the first 150 or so are started, I
get the "The application failed to initialize properly (0xc0000142)"
error. The processes show up in Windows Task Manager but don't
function properly. The ASP.NET application runs in its own application
pool that runs under the System account. Also, after attempting to
launch this large number of processes from an ASP.NET page, all other
ASP.NET pages running under the same application pool randomly get a
"Compiler Error 128". I've tried changing the SharedSection key to
1024,3072,1024 which should be more than sufficient if this is the
problem. Any suggestions?
Kevin McDonnell [MSFT] wrote:
> *The Windows 2003 default setting is:
> SharedSection=1024,3072,512
> Thanks,
> Kevin McDonnell
> Microsoft Corporation
> This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no
> rights. *
DavidGrampa
---
Posted via http://www.mcse.ms
---
View this thread: http://www.mcse.ms/message237589.html

Multiple server connections with XP client to SQL server using Great Plains

We have 2 XP clients using Great Plains client connecting
to a Small Business Server running SQL 2000. When these
users start up Great Plains they each are using multiple
server connections/sessions which is eating up our
limited licenses. Our Windows 2000 users only use one
connection but the two XP users are taking up 4 and 7
licenses each. I'm not sure if it is an XP, Great
Plains, SQL or Small Business Server issue.
.SQL server cals are machine based, a single machine with
sql cal can open multiple connections to a sql server and
it can also connect to multiple sql servers at the same
time.
Are you getting an error for exceeding licenses ?
Use sp_who command in sql query analyzer to find out how
many connections are open.
>--Original Message--
>We have 2 XP clients using Great Plains client connecting
>to a Small Business Server running SQL 2000. When these
>users start up Great Plains they each are using multiple
>server connections/sessions which is eating up our
>limited licenses. Our Windows 2000 users only use one
>connection but the two XP users are taking up 4 and 7
>licenses each. I'm not sure if it is an XP, Great
>Plains, SQL or Small Business Server issue.
>..
>
>.
>|||We've got a 25 user Small Business Server CAL. As soon
as we get 25 connections (as seen through a NETSTAT
command) the server refuses to allow anymore. We
discovered that the two machines that are creating
multiple connections are XP and it appears to be ODBC
related.
>--Original Message--
>SQL server cals are machine based, a single machine with
>sql cal can open multiple connections to a sql server
and
>it can also connect to multiple sql servers at the same
>time.
>Are you getting an error for exceeding licenses ?
>Use sp_who command in sql query analyzer to find out how
>many connections are open.
>>--Original Message--
>>We have 2 XP clients using Great Plains client
connecting
>>to a Small Business Server running SQL 2000. When
these
>>users start up Great Plains they each are using
multiple
>>server connections/sessions which is eating up our
>>limited licenses. Our Windows 2000 users only use one
>>connection but the two XP users are taking up 4 and 7
>>licenses each. I'm not sure if it is an XP, Great
>>Plains, SQL or Small Business Server issue.
>>..
>>
>>.
>.
>

Multiple SA Sessions

As a DBA, I was just handed a SQL Server to support where the client has
install an application and all user connections are logged in as 'sa'. Does
anybody know what priority 'sa' has, would this be a huge contention problem
and would this be one of my major sources for blocking processes? There are
about 20,000 updates per day and active queries being run simultaniously.
This is SQL Server 2000 Standard Ed on windows 2000.
I am looking for any documents or whitepapers to convince client this has to
change - comments and suggestions are welcome.The login doesn't influence priorities regarding resource usage, blocking et
c. There are many
reasons why you shouldn't be using sa, but blocking problems is not one of t
hem.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
http://www.sqlug.se/
"DBAJimbo" <DBAJimbo@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8540E787-D825-4931-B2F1-CAF449744D96@.microsoft.com...
> As a DBA, I was just handed a SQL Server to support where the client has
> install an application and all user connections are logged in as 'sa'. Do
es
> anybody know what priority 'sa' has, would this be a huge contention probl
em
> and would this be one of my major sources for blocking processes? There a
re
> about 20,000 updates per day and active queries being run simultaniously.
> This is SQL Server 2000 Standard Ed on windows 2000.
> I am looking for any documents or whitepapers to convince client this has
to
> change - comments and suggestions are welcome.|||As the sa account can do anything on the server, this setup raises all sorts
of security issues. Another account should be created and used, which has
only the access it needs.
Alternatively, if your users can all authenticate using their windows domain
accounts, you can create windows domain groups that you can give certain
rights to, and add users to the appropriate groups. This gives much better
control over who can do/access what on the server.
Regards
Adam
"DBAJimbo" wrote:

> As a DBA, I was just handed a SQL Server to support where the client has
> install an application and all user connections are logged in as 'sa'. Do
es
> anybody know what priority 'sa' has, would this be a huge contention probl
em
> and would this be one of my major sources for blocking processes? There a
re
> about 20,000 updates per day and active queries being run simultaniously.
> This is SQL Server 2000 Standard Ed on windows 2000.
> I am looking for any documents or whitepapers to convince client this has
to
> change - comments and suggestions are welcome.

Multiple SA Sessions

As a DBA, I was just handed a SQL Server to support where the client has
install an application and all user connections are logged in as 'sa'. Does
anybody know what priority 'sa' has, would this be a huge contention problem
and would this be one of my major sources for blocking processes? There are
about 20,000 updates per day and active queries being run simultaniously.
This is SQL Server 2000 Standard Ed on windows 2000.
I am looking for any documents or whitepapers to convince client this has to
change - comments and suggestions are welcome.The login doesn't influence priorities regarding resource usage, blocking etc. There are many
reasons why you shouldn't be using sa, but blocking problems is not one of them.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
http://www.sqlug.se/
"DBAJimbo" <DBAJimbo@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8540E787-D825-4931-B2F1-CAF449744D96@.microsoft.com...
> As a DBA, I was just handed a SQL Server to support where the client has
> install an application and all user connections are logged in as 'sa'. Does
> anybody know what priority 'sa' has, would this be a huge contention problem
> and would this be one of my major sources for blocking processes? There are
> about 20,000 updates per day and active queries being run simultaniously.
> This is SQL Server 2000 Standard Ed on windows 2000.
> I am looking for any documents or whitepapers to convince client this has to
> change - comments and suggestions are welcome.|||As the sa account can do anything on the server, this setup raises all sorts
of security issues. Another account should be created and used, which has
only the access it needs.
Alternatively, if your users can all authenticate using their windows domain
accounts, you can create windows domain groups that you can give certain
rights to, and add users to the appropriate groups. This gives much better
control over who can do/access what on the server.
Regards
Adam
"DBAJimbo" wrote:
> As a DBA, I was just handed a SQL Server to support where the client has
> install an application and all user connections are logged in as 'sa'. Does
> anybody know what priority 'sa' has, would this be a huge contention problem
> and would this be one of my major sources for blocking processes? There are
> about 20,000 updates per day and active queries being run simultaniously.
> This is SQL Server 2000 Standard Ed on windows 2000.
> I am looking for any documents or whitepapers to convince client this has to
> change - comments and suggestions are welcome.

Multiple SA Sessions

As a DBA, I was just handed a SQL Server to support where the client has
install an application and all user connections are logged in as 'sa'. Does
anybody know what priority 'sa' has, would this be a huge contention problem
and would this be one of my major sources for blocking processes? There are
about 20,000 updates per day and active queries being run simultaniously.
This is SQL Server 2000 Standard Ed on windows 2000.
I am looking for any documents or whitepapers to convince client this has to
change - comments and suggestions are welcome.
The login doesn't influence priorities regarding resource usage, blocking etc. There are many
reasons why you shouldn't be using sa, but blocking problems is not one of them.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
http://www.sqlug.se/
"DBAJimbo" <DBAJimbo@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8540E787-D825-4931-B2F1-CAF449744D96@.microsoft.com...
> As a DBA, I was just handed a SQL Server to support where the client has
> install an application and all user connections are logged in as 'sa'. Does
> anybody know what priority 'sa' has, would this be a huge contention problem
> and would this be one of my major sources for blocking processes? There are
> about 20,000 updates per day and active queries being run simultaniously.
> This is SQL Server 2000 Standard Ed on windows 2000.
> I am looking for any documents or whitepapers to convince client this has to
> change - comments and suggestions are welcome.
|||As the sa account can do anything on the server, this setup raises all sorts
of security issues. Another account should be created and used, which has
only the access it needs.
Alternatively, if your users can all authenticate using their windows domain
accounts, you can create windows domain groups that you can give certain
rights to, and add users to the appropriate groups. This gives much better
control over who can do/access what on the server.
Regards
Adam
"DBAJimbo" wrote:

> As a DBA, I was just handed a SQL Server to support where the client has
> install an application and all user connections are logged in as 'sa'. Does
> anybody know what priority 'sa' has, would this be a huge contention problem
> and would this be one of my major sources for blocking processes? There are
> about 20,000 updates per day and active queries being run simultaniously.
> This is SQL Server 2000 Standard Ed on windows 2000.
> I am looking for any documents or whitepapers to convince client this has to
> change - comments and suggestions are welcome.