exec sp_who2 'active' - Status = Sleeping?

OK... I'm getting confused...
I'm executing:
exec sp_who2 'active'
And getting the below results:
SPID Status Login
-- -- --
198 sleeping Domain\User
...
...
With that said, can someone please refresh my memory about sleeping SPID's
status? How can it be active but sleeping?
Thanks,
MichaelI ask because when I query sysprocesses, I see CPU and physical I/O increase
while it's sleeping...
SYSPROCESSES ServerName 134219768
**********************************
spid cpu physical_io
-- -- --
69 188 135499
69 79 135499
69 141 135499
69 172 135499
69 218 135499
69 187 135499
69 171 135499
69 172 135499
Thanks!|||Hi Batman
There is no value 'active'.
Take a look at the code for sp_who2. You'll see that if you specify
'active', it eliminates spids where status='sleeping' and command is one of
a small list of values, including 'AWAITING COMMAND', and there is nothing
blocking. So a spid can be considered active if it is currently waiting for
some resource. What does the COMMAND column report?
--
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
http://sqlblog.com
"BATMAN" <BATMAN@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:073AFE2C-C957-4978-8AFF-420C5C7A6D86@.microsoft.com...
> OK... I'm getting confused...
> I'm executing:
> exec sp_who2 'active'
> And getting the below results:
> SPID Status Login
> -- -- --
> 198 sleeping Domain\User
> ...
> ...
> With that said, can someone please refresh my memory about sleeping SPID's
> status? How can it be active but sleeping?
> Thanks,
> Michael|||The COMMAND column says "SELECT"...
Not to mention, we use the sp_blocker_pss80 sproc and is shows the same
status and command.
Again it shows sleeping but the cumulative CPU and I/O grew over a minute
and then disapeared...|||A process can sleep occasionally, but still be an active process, and use
system resources.
Perhaps what you mean by 'active' and what sp_who2 means by active are not
the same thing.
--
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
http://sqlblog.com
"Batman" <Batman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B63A566F-E9B6-4754-90EB-E2B2DD17D938@.microsoft.com...
> The COMMAND column says "SELECT"...
> Not to mention, we use the sp_blocker_pss80 sproc and is shows the same
> status and command.
> Again it shows sleeping but the cumulative CPU and I/O grew over a minute
> and then disapeared...
>
>
>

exec sp_who2 'active' - Status = Sleeping?

OK... I'm getting confused...
I'm executing:
exec sp_who2 'active'
And getting the below results:
SPID Status Login
-- -- --
198 sleeping Domain\User
...
...
With that said, can someone please refresh my memory about sleeping SPID's
status? How can it be active but sleeping?
Thanks,
MichaelI ask because when I query sysprocesses, I see CPU and physical I/O increase
while it's sleeping...
SYSPROCESSES ServerName 134219768
**********************************
spid cpu physical_io
-- -- --
69 188 135499
69 79 135499
69 141 135499
69 172 135499
69 218 135499
69 187 135499
69 171 135499
69 172 135499
Thanks!|||Hi Batman
There is no value 'active'.
Take a look at the code for sp_who2. You'll see that if you specify
'active', it eliminates spids where status='sleeping' and command is one of
a small list of values, including 'AWAITING COMMAND', and there is nothing
blocking. So a spid can be considered active if it is currently waiting for
some resource. What does the COMMAND column report?
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
http://sqlblog.com
"BATMAN" <BATMAN@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:073AFE2C-C957-4978-8AFF-420C5C7A6D86@.microsoft.com...
> OK... I'm getting confused...
> I'm executing:
> exec sp_who2 'active'
> And getting the below results:
> SPID Status Login
> -- -- --
> 198 sleeping Domain\User
> ...
> ...
> With that said, can someone please refresh my memory about sleeping SPID's
> status? How can it be active but sleeping?
> Thanks,
> Michael|||The COMMAND column says "SELECT"...
Not to mention, we use the sp_blocker_pss80 sproc and is shows the same
status and command.
Again it shows sleeping but the cumulative CPU and I/O grew over a minute
and then disapeared...|||A process can sleep occasionally, but still be an active process, and use
system resources.
Perhaps what you mean by 'active' and what sp_who2 means by active are not
the same thing.
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
http://sqlblog.com
"Batman" <Batman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B63A566F-E9B6-4754-90EB-E2B2DD17D938@.microsoft.com...
> The COMMAND column says "SELECT"...
> Not to mention, we use the sp_blocker_pss80 sproc and is shows the same
> status and command.
> Again it shows sleeping but the cumulative CPU and I/O grew over a minute
> and then disapeared...
>
>
>

exec sp_who2 'active' - Status = Sleeping?

OK... I'm getting confused...
I'm executing:
exec sp_who2 'active'
And getting the below results:
SPID Status Login
-- -- --
198 sleeping Domain\User
...
...
With that said, can someone please refresh my memory about sleeping SPID's
status? How can it be active but sleeping?
Thanks,
Michael
I ask because when I query sysprocesses, I see CPU and physical I/O increase
while it's sleeping...
SYSPROCESSES ServerName 134219768
**********************************
spid cpu physical_io
-- -- --
69 188 135499
69 79 135499
69 141 135499
69 172 135499
69 218 135499
69 187 135499
69 171 135499
69 172 135499
Thanks!
|||Hi Batman
There is no value 'active'.
Take a look at the code for sp_who2. You'll see that if you specify
'active', it eliminates spids where status='sleeping' and command is one of
a small list of values, including 'AWAITING COMMAND', and there is nothing
blocking. So a spid can be considered active if it is currently waiting for
some resource. What does the COMMAND column report?
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
http://sqlblog.com
"BATMAN" <BATMAN@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:073AFE2C-C957-4978-8AFF-420C5C7A6D86@.microsoft.com...
> OK... I'm getting confused...
> I'm executing:
> exec sp_who2 'active'
> And getting the below results:
> SPID Status Login
> -- -- --
> 198 sleeping Domain\User
> ...
> ...
> With that said, can someone please refresh my memory about sleeping SPID's
> status? How can it be active but sleeping?
> Thanks,
> Michael
|||The COMMAND column says "SELECT"...
Not to mention, we use the sp_blocker_pss80 sproc and is shows the same
status and command.
Again it shows sleeping but the cumulative CPU and I/O grew over a minute
and then disapeared...
|||A process can sleep occasionally, but still be an active process, and use
system resources.
Perhaps what you mean by 'active' and what sp_who2 means by active are not
the same thing.
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
http://sqlblog.com
"Batman" <Batman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B63A566F-E9B6-4754-90EB-E2B2DD17D938@.microsoft.com...
> The COMMAND column says "SELECT"...
> Not to mention, we use the sp_blocker_pss80 sproc and is shows the same
> status and command.
> Again it shows sleeping but the cumulative CPU and I/O grew over a minute
> and then disapeared...
>
>
>

Exclude Single User From Single Report

Here is my situation. I have a group set up in Active Directory for a group
of people that will share similar reports. The problem is that there is one
report that one particular user in that group doesn't need to see, but
everybody else in the group does need to see the report. Right now I have
the group added so everyone sees the report.
How can I exclude that one user from the report, but allow everyone else to
still see. This of course is without creating a new group of the same users,
but without this particular user. That would work, but seems as if there
should be another way.
Thanks!
BJbjkaledas,
I don't know how well you will like this answer, but I don't see many
other alternatives...
That report is currently inheriting its permissions from the folder it
is in. You can override that inheritance and specify item-level
permissions for that report (without affecting the other reports in
that folder).
Once you override the inheritance, you will have to delete the AD group
and add all of the group members EXCEPT for the user you want to
exclude. Unfortunately, that also means that you will have to manually
maintain those permissions when new members are added to the AD group.
Not optimal, but all I can think of.
Microsoft could solve this problem by allowing administrators to
explicity grant AND explicitly deny permissions to objects. All
permissions would stack, and in case of a conflict, it could default to
the most conservative (or limited) access level.
For example, if a user was in a group that could view and another group
that could execute, then the user could view and execute. However, if
the user was in a group that could execute and another group that could
"not execute", then it could default to the "not execute".
Maybe they will include that in the next release...
-Josh
bjkaledas wrote:
> Here is my situation. I have a group set up in Active Directory for a group
> of people that will share similar reports. The problem is that there is one
> report that one particular user in that group doesn't need to see, but
> everybody else in the group does need to see the report. Right now I have
> the group added so everyone sees the report.
> How can I exclude that one user from the report, but allow everyone else to
> still see. This of course is without creating a new group of the same users,
> but without this particular user. That would work, but seems as if there
> should be another way.
> Thanks!
> BJ|||Josh,
Thank you for your response. It seems easier to get one here than on the
forums. I had feared that was the only way around this issue. That is ok
though. Hopefully they will have exclusions in the next version. Hopefully
they will have exceptions in the Subscription schedules also!
Thanks again!
BJ
"Josh" wrote:
> bjkaledas,
> I don't know how well you will like this answer, but I don't see many
> other alternatives...
> That report is currently inheriting its permissions from the folder it
> is in. You can override that inheritance and specify item-level
> permissions for that report (without affecting the other reports in
> that folder).
> Once you override the inheritance, you will have to delete the AD group
> and add all of the group members EXCEPT for the user you want to
> exclude. Unfortunately, that also means that you will have to manually
> maintain those permissions when new members are added to the AD group.
> Not optimal, but all I can think of.
> Microsoft could solve this problem by allowing administrators to
> explicity grant AND explicitly deny permissions to objects. All
> permissions would stack, and in case of a conflict, it could default to
> the most conservative (or limited) access level.
> For example, if a user was in a group that could view and another group
> that could execute, then the user could view and execute. However, if
> the user was in a group that could execute and another group that could
> "not execute", then it could default to the "not execute".
> Maybe they will include that in the next release...
> -Josh
>
> bjkaledas wrote:
> > Here is my situation. I have a group set up in Active Directory for a group
> > of people that will share similar reports. The problem is that there is one
> > report that one particular user in that group doesn't need to see, but
> > everybody else in the group does need to see the report. Right now I have
> > the group added so everyone sees the report.
> >
> > How can I exclude that one user from the report, but allow everyone else to
> > still see. This of course is without creating a new group of the same users,
> > but without this particular user. That would work, but seems as if there
> > should be another way.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > BJ
>

Exchange 5.5 email problem

I have an Active Directory network with an Exchange 5.5 server running on a
Windows NT box.
I am hosting 3 email domains on that box. For example lets call them
mydomain1.com, mydomain2.com and mydomain3.com.
All external emails come in and work just fine except for the mydomain3.com
emails. My internal Active Dirctory domain is mydomain3.com.
Currently my Exchange server on the NT box is pointing at the internal DNS
server that forwards requests to the outside. I was thinking my problem is
that and that I might need to have the NT box with Exchange on it use our
ISP DNS servers instead.
Any ideas? I read something about Active Directory Connector, but didn't
know if I need to look at that or how the DNS settings are set up on the
Exchange server.
Thanks...if anyone wants to email me directly...feel free!!
"CJ" <chrisj@.illicom.net> wrote:

>I have an Active Directory network with an Exchange 5.5 server running on a
>Windows NT box.
>I am hosting 3 email domains on that box. For example lets call them
>mydomain1.com, mydomain2.com and mydomain3.com.
>All external emails come in and work just fine except for the mydomain3.com
>emails. My internal Active Dirctory domain is mydomain3.com.
>Currently my Exchange server on the NT box is pointing at the internal DNS
>server that forwards requests to the outside. I was thinking my problem is
>that and that I might need to have the NT box with Exchange on it use our
>ISP DNS servers instead.
>Any ideas? I read something about Active Directory Connector, but didn't
>know if I need to look at that or how the DNS settings are set up on the
>Exchange server.
>Thanks...if anyone wants to email me directly...feel free!!
>
If your Exchange server is running without ADC then it's not AD aware
(but you'd worked that out)
The Internet Mail Service should receive mail for all three domains
and route them to wherever you need.
Can you confirm that all three domains are set to "Route Inbound"? Or
alternatively two of the domains are routed to a third domain (be it
1, 2 or 3)
Then you need to make sure that you are receiving the mails for
domain3.com in the first place. Is it a registered domain? Does it
have MX records that point to a valid A record in the ISP DNS?
If domain3 isn't valid then you're not going to get mail into it.
Check by doing an nslookup against all three domains and make sure
that they point to the same A record and that the A record matches the
IP address you want the mail delivered to.#
Mark Arnold MCSA MCSE+M MVP,
FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exchange.htm
Blog: http://www.msexchange.me.uk
|||Figured it out.. the problem ended up being i simply needed my Exchange
server to have the DNS settings for my ISP, not my internal DNS servers
"Mark Arnold [MVP]" <mark@.mvps.org> wrote in message
news:9gaif051c15fpakgru8be75a35dgaefh9p@.4ax.com... [vbcol=seagreen]
> "CJ" <chrisj@.illicom.net> wrote:
a[vbcol=seagreen]
mydomain3.com[vbcol=seagreen]
DNS[vbcol=seagreen]
is
> If your Exchange server is running without ADC then it's not AD aware
> (but you'd worked that out)
> The Internet Mail Service should receive mail for all three domains
> and route them to wherever you need.
> Can you confirm that all three domains are set to "Route Inbound"? Or
> alternatively two of the domains are routed to a third domain (be it
> 1, 2 or 3)
> Then you need to make sure that you are receiving the mails for
> domain3.com in the first place. Is it a registered domain? Does it
> have MX records that point to a valid A record in the ISP DNS?
> If domain3 isn't valid then you're not going to get mail into it.
> Check by doing an nslookup against all three domains and make sure
> that they point to the same A record and that the A record matches the
> IP address you want the mail delivered to.#
>
> Mark Arnold MCSA MCSE+M MVP,
> FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exchange.htm
> Blog: http://www.msexchange.me.uk