Dedicated database for service broker?

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

stevehunter_1@hotmail.com - 30 Oct 2007 04:26 GMT

I would like to enable_broker on a production database. It seems to
be working fine in testing. I am wondering if there is any extra
overhead is running the service broker on a busy production database
or if it is preferable to create a new database?

I would think there are no concerns, but I just wanted to double check
before going through this major effort and finding out this was a mis-
step ......

Reply to this Message

Kent Tegels - 30 Oct 2007 16:20 GMT

Hello steve,

> I would like to enable_broker on a production database. It seems to
> be working fine in testing. I am wondering if there is any extra
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> before going through this major effort and finding out this was a mis-
> step ......

Enabling broker in and of itself is a non-plus. Most databases freshly created
in SQL 2005 have broker enabled anyway.

Now actually using broker -- having a service program process messages out
of queue or dispatch new messages, that's obviously NOT free.

So the question here becomes, are you simply asking if flipping the enabled
bit is potentially harmful or do you mean more than that?

Thanks,
Kent Tegels
http://staff.develop.com/ktegels/

Reply to this Message

stevehunter_1@hotmail.com - 31 Oct 2007 07:27 GMT

yes .. what i am suggesting is that our production database is very
busy processing thousands of transactions a second. It would seem to
me that the overhead of 10-20 messages/second is trivial in relation
to that. I was just wondering if "setting up" the broker and enabling
it and starting to use it would consume more than its proportional
share of resources. So if i am sending 10 messages/sec with the
service broker and doing 1000 t-sql's then it would seem the service
broker is consuming 1-3% of resources as its share. This is perfectly
OK. I just do not want to learn that the service broker consumes
10-20% because then it is too expensive

> Hello steve,
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> Thanks,
> Kent Tegelshttp://staff.develop.com/ktegels/

Reply to this Message

Kent Tegels - 31 Oct 2007 15:57 GMT

Hello steve,

> yes .. what i am suggesting is that our production database is very
> busy processing thousands of transactions a second. It would seem to
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> OK. I just do not want to learn that the service broker consumes
> 10-20% because then it is too expensive

It all depends on what the processing of those messages entails and what
locks the processing takes.

Test before production implementation.

Thanks,
Kent Tegels
http://staff.develop.com/ktegels/

Reply to this Message