MAXDOP Settings for SQL Server 2014 Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)MAXDOP setting algorithm for SQL ServerCXPACKET Waits performance tune for SQL Server 2008SQL Server recommended MAXDOP settings for NUMAMAXDOP setting algorithm for SQL ServerOracle GoldenGate add trandata errorsIdeal MAXDOP & CPUs - how to trace for parallel queries?MAXDOP query for SQL Server 2012Multi-instance SQL Server Standard Editon MaxDop settingsResource semaphore query compile waitsInvestigating errors from strange queryLots of short term blockings on SQL Server 2008-R2 database

Centre cell vertically in tabularx

Order between one to one functions and their inverses

NIntegrate on a solution of a matrix ODE

newbie Q : How to read an output file in one command line

The Nth Gryphon Number

Marquee sign letters

Why can't fire hurt Daenerys but it did to Jon Snow in season 1?

One-one communication

Problem with display of presentation

How to make triangles with rounded sides and corners? (squircle with 3 sides)

Why are two-digit numbers in Jonathan Swift's "Gulliver's Travels" (1726) written in "German style"?

Was the pager message from Nick Fury to Captain Marvel unnecessary?

latest version of QGIS fails to edit attribute table of GeoJSON file

Why not use the yoke to control yaw, as well as pitch and roll?

How does the body cool itself in a stillsuit?

What are some likely causes to domain member PC losing contact to domain controller?

Understanding piped command in Gnu/Linux

By what mechanism was the 2017 UK General Election called?

The test team as an enemy of development? And how can this be avoided?

How do you write "wild blueberries flavored"?

Fit odd number of triplets in a measure?

The bible of geometry: Is there a modern treatment of geometries from the most primitive to the most advanced?

Does the main washing effect of soap come from foam?

Is this Kuo-toa homebrew race balanced?



MAXDOP Settings for SQL Server 2014



Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)MAXDOP setting algorithm for SQL ServerCXPACKET Waits performance tune for SQL Server 2008SQL Server recommended MAXDOP settings for NUMAMAXDOP setting algorithm for SQL ServerOracle GoldenGate add trandata errorsIdeal MAXDOP & CPUs - how to trace for parallel queries?MAXDOP query for SQL Server 2012Multi-instance SQL Server Standard Editon MaxDop settingsResource semaphore query compile waitsInvestigating errors from strange queryLots of short term blockings on SQL Server 2008-R2 database



.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








8















I know this question has been asked number of times and also has answers to it but, I still need a bit more guidance on this subject.



Below is the details of my CPU from SSMS:



CPU



Below is CPU tab from task manager of the DB Server:



CPU Tab



I have kept the setting of MAXDOP at 2 by following below formula:



declare @hyperthreadingRatio bit
declare @logicalCPUs int
declare @HTEnabled int
declare @physicalCPU int
declare @SOCKET int
declare @logicalCPUPerNuma int
declare @NoOfNUMA int
declare @MaxDOP int

select @logicalCPUs = cpu_count -- [Logical CPU Count]
,@hyperthreadingRatio = hyperthread_ratio -- [Hyperthread Ratio]
,@physicalCPU = cpu_count / hyperthread_ratio -- [Physical CPU Count]
,@HTEnabled = case
when cpu_count > hyperthread_ratio
then 1
else 0
end -- HTEnabled
from sys.dm_os_sys_info
option (recompile);

select @logicalCPUPerNuma = COUNT(parent_node_id) -- [NumberOfLogicalProcessorsPerNuma]
from sys.dm_os_schedulers
where [status] = 'VISIBLE ONLINE'
and parent_node_id < 64
group by parent_node_id
option (recompile);

select @NoOfNUMA = count(distinct parent_node_id)
from sys.dm_os_schedulers -- find NO OF NUMA Nodes
where [status] = 'VISIBLE ONLINE'
and parent_node_id < 64

IF @NoofNUMA > 1 AND @HTEnabled = 0
SET @MaxDOP= @logicalCPUPerNuma
ELSE IF @NoofNUMA > 1 AND @HTEnabled = 1
SET @MaxDOP=round( @NoofNUMA / @physicalCPU *1.0,0)
ELSE IF @HTEnabled = 0
SET @MaxDOP=@logicalCPUs
ELSE IF @HTEnabled = 1
SET @MaxDOP=@physicalCPU

IF @MaxDOP > 10
SET @MaxDOP=10
IF @MaxDOP = 0
SET @MaxDOP=1

PRINT 'logicalCPUs : ' + CONVERT(VARCHAR, @logicalCPUs)
PRINT 'hyperthreadingRatio : ' + CONVERT(VARCHAR, @hyperthreadingRatio)
PRINT 'physicalCPU : ' + CONVERT(VARCHAR, @physicalCPU)
PRINT 'HTEnabled : ' + CONVERT(VARCHAR, @HTEnabled)
PRINT 'logicalCPUPerNuma : ' + CONVERT(VARCHAR, @logicalCPUPerNuma)
PRINT 'NoOfNUMA : ' + CONVERT(VARCHAR, @NoOfNUMA)
PRINT '---------------------------'
Print 'MAXDOP setting should be : ' + CONVERT(VARCHAR, @MaxDOP)


I am still seeing high wait times related to CXPACKET. I am using below query to get that:



WITH [Waits] AS
(SELECT
[wait_type],
[wait_time_ms] / 1000.0 AS [WaitS],
([wait_time_ms] - [signal_wait_time_ms]) / 1000.0 AS [ResourceS],
[signal_wait_time_ms] / 1000.0 AS [SignalS],
[waiting_tasks_count] AS [WaitCount],
100.0 * [wait_time_ms] / SUM ([wait_time_ms]) OVER() AS [Percentage],
ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY [wait_time_ms] DESC) AS [RowNum]
FROM sys.dm_os_wait_stats
WHERE [wait_type] NOT IN (
N'BROKER_EVENTHANDLER', N'BROKER_RECEIVE_WAITFOR',
N'BROKER_TASK_STOP', N'BROKER_TO_FLUSH',
N'BROKER_TRANSMITTER', N'CHECKPOINT_QUEUE',
N'CHKPT', N'CLR_AUTO_EVENT',
N'CLR_MANUAL_EVENT', N'CLR_SEMAPHORE',
N'DBMIRROR_DBM_EVENT', N'DBMIRROR_EVENTS_QUEUE',
N'DBMIRROR_WORKER_QUEUE', N'DBMIRRORING_CMD',
N'DIRTY_PAGE_POLL', N'DISPATCHER_QUEUE_SEMAPHORE',
N'EXECSYNC', N'FSAGENT',
N'FT_IFTS_SCHEDULER_IDLE_WAIT', N'FT_IFTSHC_MUTEX',
N'HADR_CLUSAPI_CALL', N'HADR_FILESTREAM_IOMGR_IOCOMPLETION',
N'HADR_LOGCAPTURE_WAIT', N'HADR_NOTIFICATION_DEQUEUE',
N'HADR_TIMER_TASK', N'HADR_WORK_QUEUE',
N'KSOURCE_WAKEUP', N'LAZYWRITER_SLEEP',
N'LOGMGR_QUEUE', N'ONDEMAND_TASK_QUEUE',
N'PWAIT_ALL_COMPONENTS_INITIALIZED',
N'QDS_PERSIST_TASK_MAIN_LOOP_SLEEP',
N'QDS_CLEANUP_STALE_QUERIES_TASK_MAIN_LOOP_SLEEP',
N'REQUEST_FOR_DEADLOCK_SEARCH', N'RESOURCE_QUEUE',
N'SERVER_IDLE_CHECK', N'SLEEP_BPOOL_FLUSH',
N'SLEEP_DBSTARTUP', N'SLEEP_DCOMSTARTUP',
N'SLEEP_MASTERDBREADY', N'SLEEP_MASTERMDREADY',
N'SLEEP_MASTERUPGRADED', N'SLEEP_MSDBSTARTUP',
N'SLEEP_SYSTEMTASK', N'SLEEP_TASK',
N'SLEEP_TEMPDBSTARTUP', N'SNI_HTTP_ACCEPT',
N'SP_SERVER_DIAGNOSTICS_SLEEP', N'SQLTRACE_BUFFER_FLUSH',
N'SQLTRACE_INCREMENTAL_FLUSH_SLEEP',
N'SQLTRACE_WAIT_ENTRIES', N'WAIT_FOR_RESULTS',
N'WAITFOR', N'WAITFOR_TASKSHUTDOWN',
N'WAIT_XTP_HOST_WAIT', N'WAIT_XTP_OFFLINE_CKPT_NEW_LOG',
N'WAIT_XTP_CKPT_CLOSE', N'XE_DISPATCHER_JOIN',
N'XE_DISPATCHER_WAIT', N'XE_TIMER_EVENT')
AND [waiting_tasks_count] > 0
)
SELECT
MAX ([W1].[wait_type]) AS [WaitType],
CAST (MAX ([W1].[WaitS]) AS DECIMAL (16,2)) AS [Wait_S],
CAST (MAX ([W1].[ResourceS]) AS DECIMAL (16,2)) AS [Resource_S],
CAST (MAX ([W1].[SignalS]) AS DECIMAL (16,2)) AS [Signal_S],
MAX ([W1].[WaitCount]) AS [WaitCount],
CAST (MAX ([W1].[Percentage]) AS DECIMAL (5,2)) AS [Percentage],
CAST ((MAX ([W1].[WaitS]) / MAX ([W1].[WaitCount])) AS DECIMAL (16,4)) AS [AvgWait_S],
CAST ((MAX ([W1].[ResourceS]) / MAX ([W1].[WaitCount])) AS DECIMAL (16,4)) AS [AvgRes_S],
CAST ((MAX ([W1].[SignalS]) / MAX ([W1].[WaitCount])) AS DECIMAL (16,4)) AS [AvgSig_S]
FROM [Waits] AS [W1]
INNER JOIN [Waits] AS [W2]
ON [W2].[RowNum] <= [W1].[RowNum]
GROUP BY [W1].[RowNum]
HAVING SUM ([W2].[Percentage]) - MAX ([W1].[Percentage]) < 95; -- percentage threshold
GO


Currently CXPACKET wait stands at 63% for my server:



Wait Statistics



I referred to multiple articles on the recommendation from experts and also looked at MAXDOP suggestions by Microsoft; however, I am not really sure what should be the optimum value for this one.



I found one question on the same topic here however if I go with that suggestion by Kin then, MAXDOP should be 4. In the same question, if we go with Max Vernon, it should be 3.



Kindly provide your valuable suggestion.




Version: Microsoft SQL Server 2014 (SP3) (KB4022619) - 12.0.6024.0
(X64) Sep 7 2018 01:37:51 Enterprise Edition: Core-based Licensing
(64-bit) on Windows NT 6.3 (Build 9600: ) (Hypervisor)




Cost Threshold for Parallelism is set at 70. CTfP has been set to 70 after testing the same for values ranging from default to 25 and 50 respectively. When it was default(5) and MAXDOP was 0, wait time was close to 70% for CXPACKET.



I executed sp_blitzfirst for 60 seconds in the expert mode and below is the output for findings and wait stats:



sp_blitzfirst










share|improve this question
























  • I agree with @JaredKarney 's comment in his answer: What are you trying to fix/solve? Are you encountering bad performance? Why do you believe that a high CXPACKET wait is bad? Could you please elaborate on why your situation is different than all the other questions and answers regarding this issue?

    – hot2use
    Mar 25 at 15:42











  • @hot2use Yes, I am having performance issue and trying to see all possible aspects which could deteriorate performance. I am not expert on CXPACKET wait stats and hence wanted to have some guidance from experts.

    – Learning_DBAdmin
    Mar 25 at 17:23

















8















I know this question has been asked number of times and also has answers to it but, I still need a bit more guidance on this subject.



Below is the details of my CPU from SSMS:



CPU



Below is CPU tab from task manager of the DB Server:



CPU Tab



I have kept the setting of MAXDOP at 2 by following below formula:



declare @hyperthreadingRatio bit
declare @logicalCPUs int
declare @HTEnabled int
declare @physicalCPU int
declare @SOCKET int
declare @logicalCPUPerNuma int
declare @NoOfNUMA int
declare @MaxDOP int

select @logicalCPUs = cpu_count -- [Logical CPU Count]
,@hyperthreadingRatio = hyperthread_ratio -- [Hyperthread Ratio]
,@physicalCPU = cpu_count / hyperthread_ratio -- [Physical CPU Count]
,@HTEnabled = case
when cpu_count > hyperthread_ratio
then 1
else 0
end -- HTEnabled
from sys.dm_os_sys_info
option (recompile);

select @logicalCPUPerNuma = COUNT(parent_node_id) -- [NumberOfLogicalProcessorsPerNuma]
from sys.dm_os_schedulers
where [status] = 'VISIBLE ONLINE'
and parent_node_id < 64
group by parent_node_id
option (recompile);

select @NoOfNUMA = count(distinct parent_node_id)
from sys.dm_os_schedulers -- find NO OF NUMA Nodes
where [status] = 'VISIBLE ONLINE'
and parent_node_id < 64

IF @NoofNUMA > 1 AND @HTEnabled = 0
SET @MaxDOP= @logicalCPUPerNuma
ELSE IF @NoofNUMA > 1 AND @HTEnabled = 1
SET @MaxDOP=round( @NoofNUMA / @physicalCPU *1.0,0)
ELSE IF @HTEnabled = 0
SET @MaxDOP=@logicalCPUs
ELSE IF @HTEnabled = 1
SET @MaxDOP=@physicalCPU

IF @MaxDOP > 10
SET @MaxDOP=10
IF @MaxDOP = 0
SET @MaxDOP=1

PRINT 'logicalCPUs : ' + CONVERT(VARCHAR, @logicalCPUs)
PRINT 'hyperthreadingRatio : ' + CONVERT(VARCHAR, @hyperthreadingRatio)
PRINT 'physicalCPU : ' + CONVERT(VARCHAR, @physicalCPU)
PRINT 'HTEnabled : ' + CONVERT(VARCHAR, @HTEnabled)
PRINT 'logicalCPUPerNuma : ' + CONVERT(VARCHAR, @logicalCPUPerNuma)
PRINT 'NoOfNUMA : ' + CONVERT(VARCHAR, @NoOfNUMA)
PRINT '---------------------------'
Print 'MAXDOP setting should be : ' + CONVERT(VARCHAR, @MaxDOP)


I am still seeing high wait times related to CXPACKET. I am using below query to get that:



WITH [Waits] AS
(SELECT
[wait_type],
[wait_time_ms] / 1000.0 AS [WaitS],
([wait_time_ms] - [signal_wait_time_ms]) / 1000.0 AS [ResourceS],
[signal_wait_time_ms] / 1000.0 AS [SignalS],
[waiting_tasks_count] AS [WaitCount],
100.0 * [wait_time_ms] / SUM ([wait_time_ms]) OVER() AS [Percentage],
ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY [wait_time_ms] DESC) AS [RowNum]
FROM sys.dm_os_wait_stats
WHERE [wait_type] NOT IN (
N'BROKER_EVENTHANDLER', N'BROKER_RECEIVE_WAITFOR',
N'BROKER_TASK_STOP', N'BROKER_TO_FLUSH',
N'BROKER_TRANSMITTER', N'CHECKPOINT_QUEUE',
N'CHKPT', N'CLR_AUTO_EVENT',
N'CLR_MANUAL_EVENT', N'CLR_SEMAPHORE',
N'DBMIRROR_DBM_EVENT', N'DBMIRROR_EVENTS_QUEUE',
N'DBMIRROR_WORKER_QUEUE', N'DBMIRRORING_CMD',
N'DIRTY_PAGE_POLL', N'DISPATCHER_QUEUE_SEMAPHORE',
N'EXECSYNC', N'FSAGENT',
N'FT_IFTS_SCHEDULER_IDLE_WAIT', N'FT_IFTSHC_MUTEX',
N'HADR_CLUSAPI_CALL', N'HADR_FILESTREAM_IOMGR_IOCOMPLETION',
N'HADR_LOGCAPTURE_WAIT', N'HADR_NOTIFICATION_DEQUEUE',
N'HADR_TIMER_TASK', N'HADR_WORK_QUEUE',
N'KSOURCE_WAKEUP', N'LAZYWRITER_SLEEP',
N'LOGMGR_QUEUE', N'ONDEMAND_TASK_QUEUE',
N'PWAIT_ALL_COMPONENTS_INITIALIZED',
N'QDS_PERSIST_TASK_MAIN_LOOP_SLEEP',
N'QDS_CLEANUP_STALE_QUERIES_TASK_MAIN_LOOP_SLEEP',
N'REQUEST_FOR_DEADLOCK_SEARCH', N'RESOURCE_QUEUE',
N'SERVER_IDLE_CHECK', N'SLEEP_BPOOL_FLUSH',
N'SLEEP_DBSTARTUP', N'SLEEP_DCOMSTARTUP',
N'SLEEP_MASTERDBREADY', N'SLEEP_MASTERMDREADY',
N'SLEEP_MASTERUPGRADED', N'SLEEP_MSDBSTARTUP',
N'SLEEP_SYSTEMTASK', N'SLEEP_TASK',
N'SLEEP_TEMPDBSTARTUP', N'SNI_HTTP_ACCEPT',
N'SP_SERVER_DIAGNOSTICS_SLEEP', N'SQLTRACE_BUFFER_FLUSH',
N'SQLTRACE_INCREMENTAL_FLUSH_SLEEP',
N'SQLTRACE_WAIT_ENTRIES', N'WAIT_FOR_RESULTS',
N'WAITFOR', N'WAITFOR_TASKSHUTDOWN',
N'WAIT_XTP_HOST_WAIT', N'WAIT_XTP_OFFLINE_CKPT_NEW_LOG',
N'WAIT_XTP_CKPT_CLOSE', N'XE_DISPATCHER_JOIN',
N'XE_DISPATCHER_WAIT', N'XE_TIMER_EVENT')
AND [waiting_tasks_count] > 0
)
SELECT
MAX ([W1].[wait_type]) AS [WaitType],
CAST (MAX ([W1].[WaitS]) AS DECIMAL (16,2)) AS [Wait_S],
CAST (MAX ([W1].[ResourceS]) AS DECIMAL (16,2)) AS [Resource_S],
CAST (MAX ([W1].[SignalS]) AS DECIMAL (16,2)) AS [Signal_S],
MAX ([W1].[WaitCount]) AS [WaitCount],
CAST (MAX ([W1].[Percentage]) AS DECIMAL (5,2)) AS [Percentage],
CAST ((MAX ([W1].[WaitS]) / MAX ([W1].[WaitCount])) AS DECIMAL (16,4)) AS [AvgWait_S],
CAST ((MAX ([W1].[ResourceS]) / MAX ([W1].[WaitCount])) AS DECIMAL (16,4)) AS [AvgRes_S],
CAST ((MAX ([W1].[SignalS]) / MAX ([W1].[WaitCount])) AS DECIMAL (16,4)) AS [AvgSig_S]
FROM [Waits] AS [W1]
INNER JOIN [Waits] AS [W2]
ON [W2].[RowNum] <= [W1].[RowNum]
GROUP BY [W1].[RowNum]
HAVING SUM ([W2].[Percentage]) - MAX ([W1].[Percentage]) < 95; -- percentage threshold
GO


Currently CXPACKET wait stands at 63% for my server:



Wait Statistics



I referred to multiple articles on the recommendation from experts and also looked at MAXDOP suggestions by Microsoft; however, I am not really sure what should be the optimum value for this one.



I found one question on the same topic here however if I go with that suggestion by Kin then, MAXDOP should be 4. In the same question, if we go with Max Vernon, it should be 3.



Kindly provide your valuable suggestion.




Version: Microsoft SQL Server 2014 (SP3) (KB4022619) - 12.0.6024.0
(X64) Sep 7 2018 01:37:51 Enterprise Edition: Core-based Licensing
(64-bit) on Windows NT 6.3 (Build 9600: ) (Hypervisor)




Cost Threshold for Parallelism is set at 70. CTfP has been set to 70 after testing the same for values ranging from default to 25 and 50 respectively. When it was default(5) and MAXDOP was 0, wait time was close to 70% for CXPACKET.



I executed sp_blitzfirst for 60 seconds in the expert mode and below is the output for findings and wait stats:



sp_blitzfirst










share|improve this question
























  • I agree with @JaredKarney 's comment in his answer: What are you trying to fix/solve? Are you encountering bad performance? Why do you believe that a high CXPACKET wait is bad? Could you please elaborate on why your situation is different than all the other questions and answers regarding this issue?

    – hot2use
    Mar 25 at 15:42











  • @hot2use Yes, I am having performance issue and trying to see all possible aspects which could deteriorate performance. I am not expert on CXPACKET wait stats and hence wanted to have some guidance from experts.

    – Learning_DBAdmin
    Mar 25 at 17:23













8












8








8


4






I know this question has been asked number of times and also has answers to it but, I still need a bit more guidance on this subject.



Below is the details of my CPU from SSMS:



CPU



Below is CPU tab from task manager of the DB Server:



CPU Tab



I have kept the setting of MAXDOP at 2 by following below formula:



declare @hyperthreadingRatio bit
declare @logicalCPUs int
declare @HTEnabled int
declare @physicalCPU int
declare @SOCKET int
declare @logicalCPUPerNuma int
declare @NoOfNUMA int
declare @MaxDOP int

select @logicalCPUs = cpu_count -- [Logical CPU Count]
,@hyperthreadingRatio = hyperthread_ratio -- [Hyperthread Ratio]
,@physicalCPU = cpu_count / hyperthread_ratio -- [Physical CPU Count]
,@HTEnabled = case
when cpu_count > hyperthread_ratio
then 1
else 0
end -- HTEnabled
from sys.dm_os_sys_info
option (recompile);

select @logicalCPUPerNuma = COUNT(parent_node_id) -- [NumberOfLogicalProcessorsPerNuma]
from sys.dm_os_schedulers
where [status] = 'VISIBLE ONLINE'
and parent_node_id < 64
group by parent_node_id
option (recompile);

select @NoOfNUMA = count(distinct parent_node_id)
from sys.dm_os_schedulers -- find NO OF NUMA Nodes
where [status] = 'VISIBLE ONLINE'
and parent_node_id < 64

IF @NoofNUMA > 1 AND @HTEnabled = 0
SET @MaxDOP= @logicalCPUPerNuma
ELSE IF @NoofNUMA > 1 AND @HTEnabled = 1
SET @MaxDOP=round( @NoofNUMA / @physicalCPU *1.0,0)
ELSE IF @HTEnabled = 0
SET @MaxDOP=@logicalCPUs
ELSE IF @HTEnabled = 1
SET @MaxDOP=@physicalCPU

IF @MaxDOP > 10
SET @MaxDOP=10
IF @MaxDOP = 0
SET @MaxDOP=1

PRINT 'logicalCPUs : ' + CONVERT(VARCHAR, @logicalCPUs)
PRINT 'hyperthreadingRatio : ' + CONVERT(VARCHAR, @hyperthreadingRatio)
PRINT 'physicalCPU : ' + CONVERT(VARCHAR, @physicalCPU)
PRINT 'HTEnabled : ' + CONVERT(VARCHAR, @HTEnabled)
PRINT 'logicalCPUPerNuma : ' + CONVERT(VARCHAR, @logicalCPUPerNuma)
PRINT 'NoOfNUMA : ' + CONVERT(VARCHAR, @NoOfNUMA)
PRINT '---------------------------'
Print 'MAXDOP setting should be : ' + CONVERT(VARCHAR, @MaxDOP)


I am still seeing high wait times related to CXPACKET. I am using below query to get that:



WITH [Waits] AS
(SELECT
[wait_type],
[wait_time_ms] / 1000.0 AS [WaitS],
([wait_time_ms] - [signal_wait_time_ms]) / 1000.0 AS [ResourceS],
[signal_wait_time_ms] / 1000.0 AS [SignalS],
[waiting_tasks_count] AS [WaitCount],
100.0 * [wait_time_ms] / SUM ([wait_time_ms]) OVER() AS [Percentage],
ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY [wait_time_ms] DESC) AS [RowNum]
FROM sys.dm_os_wait_stats
WHERE [wait_type] NOT IN (
N'BROKER_EVENTHANDLER', N'BROKER_RECEIVE_WAITFOR',
N'BROKER_TASK_STOP', N'BROKER_TO_FLUSH',
N'BROKER_TRANSMITTER', N'CHECKPOINT_QUEUE',
N'CHKPT', N'CLR_AUTO_EVENT',
N'CLR_MANUAL_EVENT', N'CLR_SEMAPHORE',
N'DBMIRROR_DBM_EVENT', N'DBMIRROR_EVENTS_QUEUE',
N'DBMIRROR_WORKER_QUEUE', N'DBMIRRORING_CMD',
N'DIRTY_PAGE_POLL', N'DISPATCHER_QUEUE_SEMAPHORE',
N'EXECSYNC', N'FSAGENT',
N'FT_IFTS_SCHEDULER_IDLE_WAIT', N'FT_IFTSHC_MUTEX',
N'HADR_CLUSAPI_CALL', N'HADR_FILESTREAM_IOMGR_IOCOMPLETION',
N'HADR_LOGCAPTURE_WAIT', N'HADR_NOTIFICATION_DEQUEUE',
N'HADR_TIMER_TASK', N'HADR_WORK_QUEUE',
N'KSOURCE_WAKEUP', N'LAZYWRITER_SLEEP',
N'LOGMGR_QUEUE', N'ONDEMAND_TASK_QUEUE',
N'PWAIT_ALL_COMPONENTS_INITIALIZED',
N'QDS_PERSIST_TASK_MAIN_LOOP_SLEEP',
N'QDS_CLEANUP_STALE_QUERIES_TASK_MAIN_LOOP_SLEEP',
N'REQUEST_FOR_DEADLOCK_SEARCH', N'RESOURCE_QUEUE',
N'SERVER_IDLE_CHECK', N'SLEEP_BPOOL_FLUSH',
N'SLEEP_DBSTARTUP', N'SLEEP_DCOMSTARTUP',
N'SLEEP_MASTERDBREADY', N'SLEEP_MASTERMDREADY',
N'SLEEP_MASTERUPGRADED', N'SLEEP_MSDBSTARTUP',
N'SLEEP_SYSTEMTASK', N'SLEEP_TASK',
N'SLEEP_TEMPDBSTARTUP', N'SNI_HTTP_ACCEPT',
N'SP_SERVER_DIAGNOSTICS_SLEEP', N'SQLTRACE_BUFFER_FLUSH',
N'SQLTRACE_INCREMENTAL_FLUSH_SLEEP',
N'SQLTRACE_WAIT_ENTRIES', N'WAIT_FOR_RESULTS',
N'WAITFOR', N'WAITFOR_TASKSHUTDOWN',
N'WAIT_XTP_HOST_WAIT', N'WAIT_XTP_OFFLINE_CKPT_NEW_LOG',
N'WAIT_XTP_CKPT_CLOSE', N'XE_DISPATCHER_JOIN',
N'XE_DISPATCHER_WAIT', N'XE_TIMER_EVENT')
AND [waiting_tasks_count] > 0
)
SELECT
MAX ([W1].[wait_type]) AS [WaitType],
CAST (MAX ([W1].[WaitS]) AS DECIMAL (16,2)) AS [Wait_S],
CAST (MAX ([W1].[ResourceS]) AS DECIMAL (16,2)) AS [Resource_S],
CAST (MAX ([W1].[SignalS]) AS DECIMAL (16,2)) AS [Signal_S],
MAX ([W1].[WaitCount]) AS [WaitCount],
CAST (MAX ([W1].[Percentage]) AS DECIMAL (5,2)) AS [Percentage],
CAST ((MAX ([W1].[WaitS]) / MAX ([W1].[WaitCount])) AS DECIMAL (16,4)) AS [AvgWait_S],
CAST ((MAX ([W1].[ResourceS]) / MAX ([W1].[WaitCount])) AS DECIMAL (16,4)) AS [AvgRes_S],
CAST ((MAX ([W1].[SignalS]) / MAX ([W1].[WaitCount])) AS DECIMAL (16,4)) AS [AvgSig_S]
FROM [Waits] AS [W1]
INNER JOIN [Waits] AS [W2]
ON [W2].[RowNum] <= [W1].[RowNum]
GROUP BY [W1].[RowNum]
HAVING SUM ([W2].[Percentage]) - MAX ([W1].[Percentage]) < 95; -- percentage threshold
GO


Currently CXPACKET wait stands at 63% for my server:



Wait Statistics



I referred to multiple articles on the recommendation from experts and also looked at MAXDOP suggestions by Microsoft; however, I am not really sure what should be the optimum value for this one.



I found one question on the same topic here however if I go with that suggestion by Kin then, MAXDOP should be 4. In the same question, if we go with Max Vernon, it should be 3.



Kindly provide your valuable suggestion.




Version: Microsoft SQL Server 2014 (SP3) (KB4022619) - 12.0.6024.0
(X64) Sep 7 2018 01:37:51 Enterprise Edition: Core-based Licensing
(64-bit) on Windows NT 6.3 (Build 9600: ) (Hypervisor)




Cost Threshold for Parallelism is set at 70. CTfP has been set to 70 after testing the same for values ranging from default to 25 and 50 respectively. When it was default(5) and MAXDOP was 0, wait time was close to 70% for CXPACKET.



I executed sp_blitzfirst for 60 seconds in the expert mode and below is the output for findings and wait stats:



sp_blitzfirst










share|improve this question
















I know this question has been asked number of times and also has answers to it but, I still need a bit more guidance on this subject.



Below is the details of my CPU from SSMS:



CPU



Below is CPU tab from task manager of the DB Server:



CPU Tab



I have kept the setting of MAXDOP at 2 by following below formula:



declare @hyperthreadingRatio bit
declare @logicalCPUs int
declare @HTEnabled int
declare @physicalCPU int
declare @SOCKET int
declare @logicalCPUPerNuma int
declare @NoOfNUMA int
declare @MaxDOP int

select @logicalCPUs = cpu_count -- [Logical CPU Count]
,@hyperthreadingRatio = hyperthread_ratio -- [Hyperthread Ratio]
,@physicalCPU = cpu_count / hyperthread_ratio -- [Physical CPU Count]
,@HTEnabled = case
when cpu_count > hyperthread_ratio
then 1
else 0
end -- HTEnabled
from sys.dm_os_sys_info
option (recompile);

select @logicalCPUPerNuma = COUNT(parent_node_id) -- [NumberOfLogicalProcessorsPerNuma]
from sys.dm_os_schedulers
where [status] = 'VISIBLE ONLINE'
and parent_node_id < 64
group by parent_node_id
option (recompile);

select @NoOfNUMA = count(distinct parent_node_id)
from sys.dm_os_schedulers -- find NO OF NUMA Nodes
where [status] = 'VISIBLE ONLINE'
and parent_node_id < 64

IF @NoofNUMA > 1 AND @HTEnabled = 0
SET @MaxDOP= @logicalCPUPerNuma
ELSE IF @NoofNUMA > 1 AND @HTEnabled = 1
SET @MaxDOP=round( @NoofNUMA / @physicalCPU *1.0,0)
ELSE IF @HTEnabled = 0
SET @MaxDOP=@logicalCPUs
ELSE IF @HTEnabled = 1
SET @MaxDOP=@physicalCPU

IF @MaxDOP > 10
SET @MaxDOP=10
IF @MaxDOP = 0
SET @MaxDOP=1

PRINT 'logicalCPUs : ' + CONVERT(VARCHAR, @logicalCPUs)
PRINT 'hyperthreadingRatio : ' + CONVERT(VARCHAR, @hyperthreadingRatio)
PRINT 'physicalCPU : ' + CONVERT(VARCHAR, @physicalCPU)
PRINT 'HTEnabled : ' + CONVERT(VARCHAR, @HTEnabled)
PRINT 'logicalCPUPerNuma : ' + CONVERT(VARCHAR, @logicalCPUPerNuma)
PRINT 'NoOfNUMA : ' + CONVERT(VARCHAR, @NoOfNUMA)
PRINT '---------------------------'
Print 'MAXDOP setting should be : ' + CONVERT(VARCHAR, @MaxDOP)


I am still seeing high wait times related to CXPACKET. I am using below query to get that:



WITH [Waits] AS
(SELECT
[wait_type],
[wait_time_ms] / 1000.0 AS [WaitS],
([wait_time_ms] - [signal_wait_time_ms]) / 1000.0 AS [ResourceS],
[signal_wait_time_ms] / 1000.0 AS [SignalS],
[waiting_tasks_count] AS [WaitCount],
100.0 * [wait_time_ms] / SUM ([wait_time_ms]) OVER() AS [Percentage],
ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY [wait_time_ms] DESC) AS [RowNum]
FROM sys.dm_os_wait_stats
WHERE [wait_type] NOT IN (
N'BROKER_EVENTHANDLER', N'BROKER_RECEIVE_WAITFOR',
N'BROKER_TASK_STOP', N'BROKER_TO_FLUSH',
N'BROKER_TRANSMITTER', N'CHECKPOINT_QUEUE',
N'CHKPT', N'CLR_AUTO_EVENT',
N'CLR_MANUAL_EVENT', N'CLR_SEMAPHORE',
N'DBMIRROR_DBM_EVENT', N'DBMIRROR_EVENTS_QUEUE',
N'DBMIRROR_WORKER_QUEUE', N'DBMIRRORING_CMD',
N'DIRTY_PAGE_POLL', N'DISPATCHER_QUEUE_SEMAPHORE',
N'EXECSYNC', N'FSAGENT',
N'FT_IFTS_SCHEDULER_IDLE_WAIT', N'FT_IFTSHC_MUTEX',
N'HADR_CLUSAPI_CALL', N'HADR_FILESTREAM_IOMGR_IOCOMPLETION',
N'HADR_LOGCAPTURE_WAIT', N'HADR_NOTIFICATION_DEQUEUE',
N'HADR_TIMER_TASK', N'HADR_WORK_QUEUE',
N'KSOURCE_WAKEUP', N'LAZYWRITER_SLEEP',
N'LOGMGR_QUEUE', N'ONDEMAND_TASK_QUEUE',
N'PWAIT_ALL_COMPONENTS_INITIALIZED',
N'QDS_PERSIST_TASK_MAIN_LOOP_SLEEP',
N'QDS_CLEANUP_STALE_QUERIES_TASK_MAIN_LOOP_SLEEP',
N'REQUEST_FOR_DEADLOCK_SEARCH', N'RESOURCE_QUEUE',
N'SERVER_IDLE_CHECK', N'SLEEP_BPOOL_FLUSH',
N'SLEEP_DBSTARTUP', N'SLEEP_DCOMSTARTUP',
N'SLEEP_MASTERDBREADY', N'SLEEP_MASTERMDREADY',
N'SLEEP_MASTERUPGRADED', N'SLEEP_MSDBSTARTUP',
N'SLEEP_SYSTEMTASK', N'SLEEP_TASK',
N'SLEEP_TEMPDBSTARTUP', N'SNI_HTTP_ACCEPT',
N'SP_SERVER_DIAGNOSTICS_SLEEP', N'SQLTRACE_BUFFER_FLUSH',
N'SQLTRACE_INCREMENTAL_FLUSH_SLEEP',
N'SQLTRACE_WAIT_ENTRIES', N'WAIT_FOR_RESULTS',
N'WAITFOR', N'WAITFOR_TASKSHUTDOWN',
N'WAIT_XTP_HOST_WAIT', N'WAIT_XTP_OFFLINE_CKPT_NEW_LOG',
N'WAIT_XTP_CKPT_CLOSE', N'XE_DISPATCHER_JOIN',
N'XE_DISPATCHER_WAIT', N'XE_TIMER_EVENT')
AND [waiting_tasks_count] > 0
)
SELECT
MAX ([W1].[wait_type]) AS [WaitType],
CAST (MAX ([W1].[WaitS]) AS DECIMAL (16,2)) AS [Wait_S],
CAST (MAX ([W1].[ResourceS]) AS DECIMAL (16,2)) AS [Resource_S],
CAST (MAX ([W1].[SignalS]) AS DECIMAL (16,2)) AS [Signal_S],
MAX ([W1].[WaitCount]) AS [WaitCount],
CAST (MAX ([W1].[Percentage]) AS DECIMAL (5,2)) AS [Percentage],
CAST ((MAX ([W1].[WaitS]) / MAX ([W1].[WaitCount])) AS DECIMAL (16,4)) AS [AvgWait_S],
CAST ((MAX ([W1].[ResourceS]) / MAX ([W1].[WaitCount])) AS DECIMAL (16,4)) AS [AvgRes_S],
CAST ((MAX ([W1].[SignalS]) / MAX ([W1].[WaitCount])) AS DECIMAL (16,4)) AS [AvgSig_S]
FROM [Waits] AS [W1]
INNER JOIN [Waits] AS [W2]
ON [W2].[RowNum] <= [W1].[RowNum]
GROUP BY [W1].[RowNum]
HAVING SUM ([W2].[Percentage]) - MAX ([W1].[Percentage]) < 95; -- percentage threshold
GO


Currently CXPACKET wait stands at 63% for my server:



Wait Statistics



I referred to multiple articles on the recommendation from experts and also looked at MAXDOP suggestions by Microsoft; however, I am not really sure what should be the optimum value for this one.



I found one question on the same topic here however if I go with that suggestion by Kin then, MAXDOP should be 4. In the same question, if we go with Max Vernon, it should be 3.



Kindly provide your valuable suggestion.




Version: Microsoft SQL Server 2014 (SP3) (KB4022619) - 12.0.6024.0
(X64) Sep 7 2018 01:37:51 Enterprise Edition: Core-based Licensing
(64-bit) on Windows NT 6.3 (Build 9600: ) (Hypervisor)




Cost Threshold for Parallelism is set at 70. CTfP has been set to 70 after testing the same for values ranging from default to 25 and 50 respectively. When it was default(5) and MAXDOP was 0, wait time was close to 70% for CXPACKET.



I executed sp_blitzfirst for 60 seconds in the expert mode and below is the output for findings and wait stats:



sp_blitzfirst







sql-server sql-server-2014 configuration maxdop






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Mar 25 at 14:22









Paul White

54.3k14288461




54.3k14288461










asked Mar 24 at 11:59









Learning_DBAdminLearning_DBAdmin

635215




635215












  • I agree with @JaredKarney 's comment in his answer: What are you trying to fix/solve? Are you encountering bad performance? Why do you believe that a high CXPACKET wait is bad? Could you please elaborate on why your situation is different than all the other questions and answers regarding this issue?

    – hot2use
    Mar 25 at 15:42











  • @hot2use Yes, I am having performance issue and trying to see all possible aspects which could deteriorate performance. I am not expert on CXPACKET wait stats and hence wanted to have some guidance from experts.

    – Learning_DBAdmin
    Mar 25 at 17:23

















  • I agree with @JaredKarney 's comment in his answer: What are you trying to fix/solve? Are you encountering bad performance? Why do you believe that a high CXPACKET wait is bad? Could you please elaborate on why your situation is different than all the other questions and answers regarding this issue?

    – hot2use
    Mar 25 at 15:42











  • @hot2use Yes, I am having performance issue and trying to see all possible aspects which could deteriorate performance. I am not expert on CXPACKET wait stats and hence wanted to have some guidance from experts.

    – Learning_DBAdmin
    Mar 25 at 17:23
















I agree with @JaredKarney 's comment in his answer: What are you trying to fix/solve? Are you encountering bad performance? Why do you believe that a high CXPACKET wait is bad? Could you please elaborate on why your situation is different than all the other questions and answers regarding this issue?

– hot2use
Mar 25 at 15:42





I agree with @JaredKarney 's comment in his answer: What are you trying to fix/solve? Are you encountering bad performance? Why do you believe that a high CXPACKET wait is bad? Could you please elaborate on why your situation is different than all the other questions and answers regarding this issue?

– hot2use
Mar 25 at 15:42













@hot2use Yes, I am having performance issue and trying to see all possible aspects which could deteriorate performance. I am not expert on CXPACKET wait stats and hence wanted to have some guidance from experts.

– Learning_DBAdmin
Mar 25 at 17:23





@hot2use Yes, I am having performance issue and trying to see all possible aspects which could deteriorate performance. I am not expert on CXPACKET wait stats and hence wanted to have some guidance from experts.

– Learning_DBAdmin
Mar 25 at 17:23










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















13














Bogus



Here's why that wait stats report stinks: It doesn't tell you how long the server has been up.



I can see it in your screenshot of CPU time: 55 days!



Alright, so let's do some math.



Math



There are 86,400 seconds in day.



SELECT (86400 * 55) seconds_in_55_days


The answer there? 4,752,000



You have a total of 452,488 seconds of CXPACKET.



SELECT 4752000 / 452488 AS oh_yeah_that_axis


Which gives you... 10 (it's closer to 9.5 if you do actual math, here).



So while CXPACKET might be 62% of your server's waits, it's only happening about 10% of the time.



Leave It Alone



You've made the right adjustments to settings, it's time to do actual query and index tuning if you want to change the numbers in a meaningful way.



Other considerations



CXPACKET may arise from skewed parallelism:




  • More on CXPACKET Waits: Skewed Parallelism

On newer versions, it may surface as CXCONSUMER:



  • CXCONSUMER Is Harmless? Not So Fast, Tiger.

Absent a third party monitoring tool, it may be worth capturing wait stats on your own:



  • Capturing wait statistics for a period of time

  • How to Capture Baselines with sp_BlitzFirst





share|improve this answer
































    10














    Wait stats are just numbers. If your server is doing anything at all then you'll likely to have some kind of waits appear. Also, by definition there must be one wait which will have the highest percent. That doesn't mean anything without some kind of normalization. Your server has been up for 55 days if I'm reading the output of task manager correctly. That means that you only have 452000/(55*86400) = 0.095 wait seconds of CXPACKET per second overall. In addition, since you're on SQL Server 2014 your CXPACKET waits include both benign parallel waits and actionable waits. See Making parallelism waits actionable for more details. I would not jump to a conclusion that MAXDOP is set incorrectly based on what you have presented here.



    I would first measure throughput. Is there actually a problem here? We can't tell you how to do that because it depends on your workload. For an OLTP system you might measure transactions per second. For an ETL, you might measure rows loaded per second, and so on.



    If you do have a problem and system performance needs to be improved I would then check CPU during times when you experience that problem. If CPU is too high then you probably need to tune your queries, increase server resources, or reduce the total number of active queries. If CPU is too low then you may again need to tune your queries, increase the total number of active queries, or there might be some wait type that's responsible.



    If you do elect to look at wait stats, you should look at them only during the period in which you're experiencing a performance problem. Looking at global wait stats over the past 55 days simply is not actionable in almost all cases. It adds unnecessary noise to the data that makes your job harder.



    Once you've completed a proper investigation it is possible that changing MAXDOP will help you. For a server of your size I would stick to MAXDOP 1, 2, 4, or 8. We cannot tell you which of those will be best for your workload. You need to monitor your throughput before and after changing MAXDOP to make a conclusion.






    share|improve this answer
































      0














      1. Your 'starting' maxdop should be 4; smallest number of cores per numa node up to 8. Your formula is incorrect.


      2. High percentage of waits for a particular type means nothing. Everything in SQL waits, so something is always the highest. The ONLY thing high cxpacket waits means is that you have a high percentage of parallelism going on. CPU doesn't look high overall (at least for the snapshot provided), so probably not a problem.


      3. Before ever trying to solve a problem, define the problem. What problem are you trying to solve? In this case, it seems you've defined the problem as high percentage of cxpacket waits, but that in and of itself is not a problem.






      share|improve this answer























      • Virtual NUMA could easily have 2 cores per numa node. Why do you claim 4 is the smallest number of cores per numa node? Can you explain what you mean?

        – Max Vernon
        Mar 25 at 15:00


















      -2














      I think the most pertinent question is...are you actually experiencing any performance issues? If the answer is no, then why are you looking for a problem when there isn't one?



      Like the other answers have said, everything waits, and all CX waits indicate is if you have queries going parallel, something I will mention is maybe you should look at what your cost threshold for parallelism is set at IF you are having issues with the queries that are going parallel ie small queries that aren't performing a lot of work going parallel and that is possibly making them run worse, not better, and large queries that should be going parallel are being delayed because of all the smaller ones that are running poorly.



      If not then, you don't have a problem stop trying to create one.






      share|improve this answer























      • Please read the question completely, cost threshold for parallelism is provided.

        – Learning_DBAdmin
        Mar 31 at 3:41











      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "182"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f232943%2fmaxdop-settings-for-sql-server-2014%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes








      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      13














      Bogus



      Here's why that wait stats report stinks: It doesn't tell you how long the server has been up.



      I can see it in your screenshot of CPU time: 55 days!



      Alright, so let's do some math.



      Math



      There are 86,400 seconds in day.



      SELECT (86400 * 55) seconds_in_55_days


      The answer there? 4,752,000



      You have a total of 452,488 seconds of CXPACKET.



      SELECT 4752000 / 452488 AS oh_yeah_that_axis


      Which gives you... 10 (it's closer to 9.5 if you do actual math, here).



      So while CXPACKET might be 62% of your server's waits, it's only happening about 10% of the time.



      Leave It Alone



      You've made the right adjustments to settings, it's time to do actual query and index tuning if you want to change the numbers in a meaningful way.



      Other considerations



      CXPACKET may arise from skewed parallelism:




      • More on CXPACKET Waits: Skewed Parallelism

      On newer versions, it may surface as CXCONSUMER:



      • CXCONSUMER Is Harmless? Not So Fast, Tiger.

      Absent a third party monitoring tool, it may be worth capturing wait stats on your own:



      • Capturing wait statistics for a period of time

      • How to Capture Baselines with sp_BlitzFirst





      share|improve this answer





























        13














        Bogus



        Here's why that wait stats report stinks: It doesn't tell you how long the server has been up.



        I can see it in your screenshot of CPU time: 55 days!



        Alright, so let's do some math.



        Math



        There are 86,400 seconds in day.



        SELECT (86400 * 55) seconds_in_55_days


        The answer there? 4,752,000



        You have a total of 452,488 seconds of CXPACKET.



        SELECT 4752000 / 452488 AS oh_yeah_that_axis


        Which gives you... 10 (it's closer to 9.5 if you do actual math, here).



        So while CXPACKET might be 62% of your server's waits, it's only happening about 10% of the time.



        Leave It Alone



        You've made the right adjustments to settings, it's time to do actual query and index tuning if you want to change the numbers in a meaningful way.



        Other considerations



        CXPACKET may arise from skewed parallelism:




        • More on CXPACKET Waits: Skewed Parallelism

        On newer versions, it may surface as CXCONSUMER:



        • CXCONSUMER Is Harmless? Not So Fast, Tiger.

        Absent a third party monitoring tool, it may be worth capturing wait stats on your own:



        • Capturing wait statistics for a period of time

        • How to Capture Baselines with sp_BlitzFirst





        share|improve this answer



























          13












          13








          13







          Bogus



          Here's why that wait stats report stinks: It doesn't tell you how long the server has been up.



          I can see it in your screenshot of CPU time: 55 days!



          Alright, so let's do some math.



          Math



          There are 86,400 seconds in day.



          SELECT (86400 * 55) seconds_in_55_days


          The answer there? 4,752,000



          You have a total of 452,488 seconds of CXPACKET.



          SELECT 4752000 / 452488 AS oh_yeah_that_axis


          Which gives you... 10 (it's closer to 9.5 if you do actual math, here).



          So while CXPACKET might be 62% of your server's waits, it's only happening about 10% of the time.



          Leave It Alone



          You've made the right adjustments to settings, it's time to do actual query and index tuning if you want to change the numbers in a meaningful way.



          Other considerations



          CXPACKET may arise from skewed parallelism:




          • More on CXPACKET Waits: Skewed Parallelism

          On newer versions, it may surface as CXCONSUMER:



          • CXCONSUMER Is Harmless? Not So Fast, Tiger.

          Absent a third party monitoring tool, it may be worth capturing wait stats on your own:



          • Capturing wait statistics for a period of time

          • How to Capture Baselines with sp_BlitzFirst





          share|improve this answer















          Bogus



          Here's why that wait stats report stinks: It doesn't tell you how long the server has been up.



          I can see it in your screenshot of CPU time: 55 days!



          Alright, so let's do some math.



          Math



          There are 86,400 seconds in day.



          SELECT (86400 * 55) seconds_in_55_days


          The answer there? 4,752,000



          You have a total of 452,488 seconds of CXPACKET.



          SELECT 4752000 / 452488 AS oh_yeah_that_axis


          Which gives you... 10 (it's closer to 9.5 if you do actual math, here).



          So while CXPACKET might be 62% of your server's waits, it's only happening about 10% of the time.



          Leave It Alone



          You've made the right adjustments to settings, it's time to do actual query and index tuning if you want to change the numbers in a meaningful way.



          Other considerations



          CXPACKET may arise from skewed parallelism:




          • More on CXPACKET Waits: Skewed Parallelism

          On newer versions, it may surface as CXCONSUMER:



          • CXCONSUMER Is Harmless? Not So Fast, Tiger.

          Absent a third party monitoring tool, it may be worth capturing wait stats on your own:



          • Capturing wait statistics for a period of time

          • How to Capture Baselines with sp_BlitzFirst






          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Mar 24 at 23:43

























          answered Mar 24 at 14:24









          Erik DarlingErik Darling

          23.1k1370114




          23.1k1370114























              10














              Wait stats are just numbers. If your server is doing anything at all then you'll likely to have some kind of waits appear. Also, by definition there must be one wait which will have the highest percent. That doesn't mean anything without some kind of normalization. Your server has been up for 55 days if I'm reading the output of task manager correctly. That means that you only have 452000/(55*86400) = 0.095 wait seconds of CXPACKET per second overall. In addition, since you're on SQL Server 2014 your CXPACKET waits include both benign parallel waits and actionable waits. See Making parallelism waits actionable for more details. I would not jump to a conclusion that MAXDOP is set incorrectly based on what you have presented here.



              I would first measure throughput. Is there actually a problem here? We can't tell you how to do that because it depends on your workload. For an OLTP system you might measure transactions per second. For an ETL, you might measure rows loaded per second, and so on.



              If you do have a problem and system performance needs to be improved I would then check CPU during times when you experience that problem. If CPU is too high then you probably need to tune your queries, increase server resources, or reduce the total number of active queries. If CPU is too low then you may again need to tune your queries, increase the total number of active queries, or there might be some wait type that's responsible.



              If you do elect to look at wait stats, you should look at them only during the period in which you're experiencing a performance problem. Looking at global wait stats over the past 55 days simply is not actionable in almost all cases. It adds unnecessary noise to the data that makes your job harder.



              Once you've completed a proper investigation it is possible that changing MAXDOP will help you. For a server of your size I would stick to MAXDOP 1, 2, 4, or 8. We cannot tell you which of those will be best for your workload. You need to monitor your throughput before and after changing MAXDOP to make a conclusion.






              share|improve this answer





























                10














                Wait stats are just numbers. If your server is doing anything at all then you'll likely to have some kind of waits appear. Also, by definition there must be one wait which will have the highest percent. That doesn't mean anything without some kind of normalization. Your server has been up for 55 days if I'm reading the output of task manager correctly. That means that you only have 452000/(55*86400) = 0.095 wait seconds of CXPACKET per second overall. In addition, since you're on SQL Server 2014 your CXPACKET waits include both benign parallel waits and actionable waits. See Making parallelism waits actionable for more details. I would not jump to a conclusion that MAXDOP is set incorrectly based on what you have presented here.



                I would first measure throughput. Is there actually a problem here? We can't tell you how to do that because it depends on your workload. For an OLTP system you might measure transactions per second. For an ETL, you might measure rows loaded per second, and so on.



                If you do have a problem and system performance needs to be improved I would then check CPU during times when you experience that problem. If CPU is too high then you probably need to tune your queries, increase server resources, or reduce the total number of active queries. If CPU is too low then you may again need to tune your queries, increase the total number of active queries, or there might be some wait type that's responsible.



                If you do elect to look at wait stats, you should look at them only during the period in which you're experiencing a performance problem. Looking at global wait stats over the past 55 days simply is not actionable in almost all cases. It adds unnecessary noise to the data that makes your job harder.



                Once you've completed a proper investigation it is possible that changing MAXDOP will help you. For a server of your size I would stick to MAXDOP 1, 2, 4, or 8. We cannot tell you which of those will be best for your workload. You need to monitor your throughput before and after changing MAXDOP to make a conclusion.






                share|improve this answer



























                  10












                  10








                  10







                  Wait stats are just numbers. If your server is doing anything at all then you'll likely to have some kind of waits appear. Also, by definition there must be one wait which will have the highest percent. That doesn't mean anything without some kind of normalization. Your server has been up for 55 days if I'm reading the output of task manager correctly. That means that you only have 452000/(55*86400) = 0.095 wait seconds of CXPACKET per second overall. In addition, since you're on SQL Server 2014 your CXPACKET waits include both benign parallel waits and actionable waits. See Making parallelism waits actionable for more details. I would not jump to a conclusion that MAXDOP is set incorrectly based on what you have presented here.



                  I would first measure throughput. Is there actually a problem here? We can't tell you how to do that because it depends on your workload. For an OLTP system you might measure transactions per second. For an ETL, you might measure rows loaded per second, and so on.



                  If you do have a problem and system performance needs to be improved I would then check CPU during times when you experience that problem. If CPU is too high then you probably need to tune your queries, increase server resources, or reduce the total number of active queries. If CPU is too low then you may again need to tune your queries, increase the total number of active queries, or there might be some wait type that's responsible.



                  If you do elect to look at wait stats, you should look at them only during the period in which you're experiencing a performance problem. Looking at global wait stats over the past 55 days simply is not actionable in almost all cases. It adds unnecessary noise to the data that makes your job harder.



                  Once you've completed a proper investigation it is possible that changing MAXDOP will help you. For a server of your size I would stick to MAXDOP 1, 2, 4, or 8. We cannot tell you which of those will be best for your workload. You need to monitor your throughput before and after changing MAXDOP to make a conclusion.






                  share|improve this answer















                  Wait stats are just numbers. If your server is doing anything at all then you'll likely to have some kind of waits appear. Also, by definition there must be one wait which will have the highest percent. That doesn't mean anything without some kind of normalization. Your server has been up for 55 days if I'm reading the output of task manager correctly. That means that you only have 452000/(55*86400) = 0.095 wait seconds of CXPACKET per second overall. In addition, since you're on SQL Server 2014 your CXPACKET waits include both benign parallel waits and actionable waits. See Making parallelism waits actionable for more details. I would not jump to a conclusion that MAXDOP is set incorrectly based on what you have presented here.



                  I would first measure throughput. Is there actually a problem here? We can't tell you how to do that because it depends on your workload. For an OLTP system you might measure transactions per second. For an ETL, you might measure rows loaded per second, and so on.



                  If you do have a problem and system performance needs to be improved I would then check CPU during times when you experience that problem. If CPU is too high then you probably need to tune your queries, increase server resources, or reduce the total number of active queries. If CPU is too low then you may again need to tune your queries, increase the total number of active queries, or there might be some wait type that's responsible.



                  If you do elect to look at wait stats, you should look at them only during the period in which you're experiencing a performance problem. Looking at global wait stats over the past 55 days simply is not actionable in almost all cases. It adds unnecessary noise to the data that makes your job harder.



                  Once you've completed a proper investigation it is possible that changing MAXDOP will help you. For a server of your size I would stick to MAXDOP 1, 2, 4, or 8. We cannot tell you which of those will be best for your workload. You need to monitor your throughput before and after changing MAXDOP to make a conclusion.







                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited Mar 24 at 15:09









                  Learning_DBAdmin

                  635215




                  635215










                  answered Mar 24 at 14:26









                  Joe ObbishJoe Obbish

                  22.2k43493




                  22.2k43493





















                      0














                      1. Your 'starting' maxdop should be 4; smallest number of cores per numa node up to 8. Your formula is incorrect.


                      2. High percentage of waits for a particular type means nothing. Everything in SQL waits, so something is always the highest. The ONLY thing high cxpacket waits means is that you have a high percentage of parallelism going on. CPU doesn't look high overall (at least for the snapshot provided), so probably not a problem.


                      3. Before ever trying to solve a problem, define the problem. What problem are you trying to solve? In this case, it seems you've defined the problem as high percentage of cxpacket waits, but that in and of itself is not a problem.






                      share|improve this answer























                      • Virtual NUMA could easily have 2 cores per numa node. Why do you claim 4 is the smallest number of cores per numa node? Can you explain what you mean?

                        – Max Vernon
                        Mar 25 at 15:00















                      0














                      1. Your 'starting' maxdop should be 4; smallest number of cores per numa node up to 8. Your formula is incorrect.


                      2. High percentage of waits for a particular type means nothing. Everything in SQL waits, so something is always the highest. The ONLY thing high cxpacket waits means is that you have a high percentage of parallelism going on. CPU doesn't look high overall (at least for the snapshot provided), so probably not a problem.


                      3. Before ever trying to solve a problem, define the problem. What problem are you trying to solve? In this case, it seems you've defined the problem as high percentage of cxpacket waits, but that in and of itself is not a problem.






                      share|improve this answer























                      • Virtual NUMA could easily have 2 cores per numa node. Why do you claim 4 is the smallest number of cores per numa node? Can you explain what you mean?

                        – Max Vernon
                        Mar 25 at 15:00













                      0












                      0








                      0







                      1. Your 'starting' maxdop should be 4; smallest number of cores per numa node up to 8. Your formula is incorrect.


                      2. High percentage of waits for a particular type means nothing. Everything in SQL waits, so something is always the highest. The ONLY thing high cxpacket waits means is that you have a high percentage of parallelism going on. CPU doesn't look high overall (at least for the snapshot provided), so probably not a problem.


                      3. Before ever trying to solve a problem, define the problem. What problem are you trying to solve? In this case, it seems you've defined the problem as high percentage of cxpacket waits, but that in and of itself is not a problem.






                      share|improve this answer













                      1. Your 'starting' maxdop should be 4; smallest number of cores per numa node up to 8. Your formula is incorrect.


                      2. High percentage of waits for a particular type means nothing. Everything in SQL waits, so something is always the highest. The ONLY thing high cxpacket waits means is that you have a high percentage of parallelism going on. CPU doesn't look high overall (at least for the snapshot provided), so probably not a problem.


                      3. Before ever trying to solve a problem, define the problem. What problem are you trying to solve? In this case, it seems you've defined the problem as high percentage of cxpacket waits, but that in and of itself is not a problem.







                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered Mar 25 at 11:24









                      Jared KarneyJared Karney

                      952




                      952












                      • Virtual NUMA could easily have 2 cores per numa node. Why do you claim 4 is the smallest number of cores per numa node? Can you explain what you mean?

                        – Max Vernon
                        Mar 25 at 15:00

















                      • Virtual NUMA could easily have 2 cores per numa node. Why do you claim 4 is the smallest number of cores per numa node? Can you explain what you mean?

                        – Max Vernon
                        Mar 25 at 15:00
















                      Virtual NUMA could easily have 2 cores per numa node. Why do you claim 4 is the smallest number of cores per numa node? Can you explain what you mean?

                      – Max Vernon
                      Mar 25 at 15:00





                      Virtual NUMA could easily have 2 cores per numa node. Why do you claim 4 is the smallest number of cores per numa node? Can you explain what you mean?

                      – Max Vernon
                      Mar 25 at 15:00











                      -2














                      I think the most pertinent question is...are you actually experiencing any performance issues? If the answer is no, then why are you looking for a problem when there isn't one?



                      Like the other answers have said, everything waits, and all CX waits indicate is if you have queries going parallel, something I will mention is maybe you should look at what your cost threshold for parallelism is set at IF you are having issues with the queries that are going parallel ie small queries that aren't performing a lot of work going parallel and that is possibly making them run worse, not better, and large queries that should be going parallel are being delayed because of all the smaller ones that are running poorly.



                      If not then, you don't have a problem stop trying to create one.






                      share|improve this answer























                      • Please read the question completely, cost threshold for parallelism is provided.

                        – Learning_DBAdmin
                        Mar 31 at 3:41















                      -2














                      I think the most pertinent question is...are you actually experiencing any performance issues? If the answer is no, then why are you looking for a problem when there isn't one?



                      Like the other answers have said, everything waits, and all CX waits indicate is if you have queries going parallel, something I will mention is maybe you should look at what your cost threshold for parallelism is set at IF you are having issues with the queries that are going parallel ie small queries that aren't performing a lot of work going parallel and that is possibly making them run worse, not better, and large queries that should be going parallel are being delayed because of all the smaller ones that are running poorly.



                      If not then, you don't have a problem stop trying to create one.






                      share|improve this answer























                      • Please read the question completely, cost threshold for parallelism is provided.

                        – Learning_DBAdmin
                        Mar 31 at 3:41













                      -2












                      -2








                      -2







                      I think the most pertinent question is...are you actually experiencing any performance issues? If the answer is no, then why are you looking for a problem when there isn't one?



                      Like the other answers have said, everything waits, and all CX waits indicate is if you have queries going parallel, something I will mention is maybe you should look at what your cost threshold for parallelism is set at IF you are having issues with the queries that are going parallel ie small queries that aren't performing a lot of work going parallel and that is possibly making them run worse, not better, and large queries that should be going parallel are being delayed because of all the smaller ones that are running poorly.



                      If not then, you don't have a problem stop trying to create one.






                      share|improve this answer













                      I think the most pertinent question is...are you actually experiencing any performance issues? If the answer is no, then why are you looking for a problem when there isn't one?



                      Like the other answers have said, everything waits, and all CX waits indicate is if you have queries going parallel, something I will mention is maybe you should look at what your cost threshold for parallelism is set at IF you are having issues with the queries that are going parallel ie small queries that aren't performing a lot of work going parallel and that is possibly making them run worse, not better, and large queries that should be going parallel are being delayed because of all the smaller ones that are running poorly.



                      If not then, you don't have a problem stop trying to create one.







                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered Mar 30 at 20:42









                      TheDwindlingDbaTheDwindlingDba

                      71




                      71












                      • Please read the question completely, cost threshold for parallelism is provided.

                        – Learning_DBAdmin
                        Mar 31 at 3:41

















                      • Please read the question completely, cost threshold for parallelism is provided.

                        – Learning_DBAdmin
                        Mar 31 at 3:41
















                      Please read the question completely, cost threshold for parallelism is provided.

                      – Learning_DBAdmin
                      Mar 31 at 3:41





                      Please read the question completely, cost threshold for parallelism is provided.

                      – Learning_DBAdmin
                      Mar 31 at 3:41

















                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Database Administrators Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f232943%2fmaxdop-settings-for-sql-server-2014%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

                      He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

                      Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029