DPM DB table sizes - check

DPM 2012 SP1 environment.
I've noticed that our DPMDB size reached 40GB (plus 15GB log), which seemed bit high (personal feeling, not based on any data), so I've checked table sizes and sorted them by the space used and the 2 largest tables are tbl_TE_TaskTrail (~18GB) and tbl_RM_RecoverySource
(14GB).
What exactly is contained in these DBs and are their sizes normal (as in proportional to the overall DB size)?

Hi,
The SQL job will run very quickly as it just triggers the DPM task.
lets get some verbose tracing and see if we can find where we're failing under the covers.
1) Stop and disable the MSDPM service.
2) Delete or move all the MSDPM*.errlog files
3) Open regedit and add the following value to enable verbose logging for MSDPM
  Location: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Microsoft Data Protection Manager
   Name:       MSDPMTraceLogLevel
   Type: REG_DWORD
   Value:    0x43e
4) Re-Enable the MSDPM service.
5) Run the below SQL Script to get the nightly maintenance job that runs at midnight.
USE DPMDB
SELECT SCH.ScheduleId as "SQL JOB ID", SCH.JobDefinitionId,sch.ScheduleXml,JD.Xml
FROM tbl_JM_JobDefinition JD
JOIN tbl_SCH_ScheduleDefinition SCH
    ON JD.JobDefinitionId = SCH.JobDefinitionId
WHERE JD.Type = '282faac6-e3cb-4015-8c6d-4276fcca11d4' -- summary manager
AND JD.IsDeleted = 0
AND SCH.IsDeleted = 0
It will return the SQL Job ID - locate that job under the SQL Server Agent - Jobs.
6) Run the SQL job manually by Right-clicking and select "Start job at step..."
7) After 10 minutes, run the following from an administrative command prompt from where the new msdpm*.errlog is located.
   find /i "GarbageCollector.cs" msdpm*.errlog >GarbageCollector.cs.txt
8) Open the GarbageCollector.cs.txt in notepad and see if you can find the entry where the dbo.tbl_TE_TaskTrail is being cleaned up. It should show the number of rows effected
Look for: DELETE FROM dbo.tbl_TE_TaskTrail WHERE IsGCed = 1
You can look at other entries and see if there are any errors in there that would prevent garbage collection of that table from occurring.
9) Remove or rename the MSDPMTraceLogLevel from the registry and restart MSDPM to disable verbose logging.
Please remember to click “Mark as Answer” on the post that helps you, and to click “Unmark as Answer” if a marked post does not actually answer your question. This can be beneficial to other community members reading the thread. Regards, Mike J. [MSFT]
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Similar Messages

Checking HANA Table sizes in SAP PO

Hello All,
We have SAP PO 7.4 deployed on SAP HANA SP 09, and the SAP PO is growing fast, and it grew by 200 GB over the last 2 days. The current size of the data volume is showing almost 500 GB just for the PO system. This is HANA tenant database installation.
The total memory used by this system show about 90 GB RAM. However, I just don't how to get the list of the table with SIZE. I looked the view CS_M_TABLE, which is showing all the tables which are using the memory, but that does not still add up though. I need to get the list of all the physical table size so I can understand to see which table is growing fast and try to come with something that would explain why we are seeing about 500 GB of database size for a SAP Java PO System.
Thanks for all the help.
Kumar

Hello,
As very simple bit of SQL that you can adapt to your needs.
select table_name, round(table_size/1024/1024) as MB, table_type FROM SYS.M_TABLES where table_size/1024/1024 > 1000 order by table_size desc
select * from M_CS_TABLES where memory_size_in_total > 1000 order by memory_size_in_total desc
It's just a basic way of looking at things but at least it will give you all tables greater than 1GB.
I would imagine others will probably come up with something a bit more eloquent and perhaps better adapted to your needs.
Cheers,
A.

Enqueue Replication Server - Lock Table Size

Note : I think I had posted it wrongly under ABAP Development, hence request moderator to kindly delete this post. Thanks
Dear Experts,
If Enqueue Replication server is configured, can you tell me how to check the Lock Table size value, which we set using profile parameter enque/table_size.
If enque server is configured in the same host as CI, it can be checked using
ST02 --> Detail Analysis Menu --> Storage --> Shared Memory Detail --> Enque Table
As it is a Standalone Enqueue Server, I don't know where to check this value.
Thanking you in anticipation.
Best Regards
L Raghunahth

Hi
Raghunath
Check the following links
http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw2004s/helpdata/en/37/a2e3ab344411d3acb00000e83539c3/content.htm
http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw04s/helpdata/en/44/5efc11f3893672e10000000a114a6b/content.htm
Regards
Bhaskar

Table size difference?

we have 2 db's called UT & ST.. with same setup and data also same
running on hp-ux itanium 11.23 with same binary 9.2.0.6
one of schema called arb contain only materialised views in both db's and with same name of db link connect to same remote server in both db's...
in that schema of one table called rate has tablesize as 323 mb and st db, has same table rate has 480mb of tablesize, by querying the bytes of dba segement of table i found the difference.. query has follows
In UT db
select sum(bytes)/1024/1024 from dba_segments where segment_name='RATE'
output
323
In ST db
select sum(bytes)/1024/1024 from dba_segments where segment_name='RATE'
output
480mb
its quite strange, both of table, contain same ddl and same counts of records and initalextent and next extents, all storage parameter are same and same uniform size of 160k tablespace with both db..
ddl table of ut enviornment
SQL> select dbms_metadata.get_ddl('TABLE','RATE','ARB') from dual;
CREATE TABLE "ARB"."RATE"
( "SEQNUM" NUMBER(10,0) NOT NULL ENABLE,---------- ) PCTFREE 10 PCTUSED 40 INITRANS 1 MAXTRANS 255 NOCOMPRESS LOGGING
STORAGE(INITIAL 163840 NEXT 163840 MINEXTENTS 1 MAXEXTENTS 2147483645
PCTINCREASE 0 FREELISTS 1 FREELIST GROUPS 1 BUFFER_POOL DEFAULT)
TABLESPACE "AB_DATA"
ddl table of st enviornment
CREATE TABLE "ARB"."RATE"
( "SEQNUM" NUMBER(10,0) NOT NULL ENABLE,---------- ) PCTFREE 10 PCTUSED 40 INITRANS 1 MAXTRANS 255 NOCOMPRESS LOGGING
STORAGE(INITIAL 163840 NEXT 163840 MINEXTENTS 1 MAXEXTENTS 2147483645
PCTINCREASE 0 FREELISTS 1 FREELIST GROUPS 1 BUFFER_POOL DEFAULT)
TABLESPACE "AB_DATA"..
tablespace of st db
SQL> select dbms_metadata.get_ddl('TABLESPACE','AB_DATA') from dual;
CREATE TABLESPACE "AB_DATA" DATAFILE
'/koala_u11/oradata/ORST31/ab_data01ORST31.dbf' SIZE 1598029824 REUSE
LOGGING ONLINE PERMANENT BLOCKSIZE 8192
EXTENT MANAGEMENT LOCAL UNIFORM SIZE 163840 SEGMENT SPACE MANAGEMENT MANUAL
tablespace of ut db
SQL> select dbms_metadata.get_ddl('TABLESPACE','AB_DATA') from dual;
CREATE TABLESPACE "AB_DATA" DATAFILE
'/koala_u11/oradata/ORDV32/ab_data01ORDV32.dbf' SIZE 1048576000 REUSE
LOGGING ONLINE PERMANENT BLOCKSIZE 8192
EXTENT MANAGEMENT LOCAL UNIFORM SIZE 163840 SEGMENT SPACE MANAGEMENT MANUAL
why table size is difference?

If everything is the same as you stated, i would guess the bigger table might have some free blocks. If you truncate the bigger one and insert /*+ append */ into bigger (select * from smaller) then check the size of bigger table, see what you can find. By the way, dba_segments, or dba_extents only gives the usage to extents level granulity, withing a extent, there are blocks might not be fully occupied. In order to get exact bytes of the space, you 'll need to use dbms_space package.
You may get some idear from the extream example I created below :
SQL>create table big (c char(2000));
Table created.
SQL>select sum(bytes)/1024 kb from user_segments
SQL>where segment_name='BIG';
KB
128               -- my tablespace is LMT uniform sized 128KB
1 row selected.
SQL>begin
SQL> for i in 1..100 loop
SQL> insert into big values ('A');
SQL> end loop;
SQL>end;
SQL>/
PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.
SQL>select sum(bytes)/1024 kb from user_segments
SQL>where segment_name='BIG';
KB
256               -- 2 extents after loading 100 records, 2KB+ each record
1 row selected.
SQL>commit;
Commit complete.
SQL>update big set c='B' where rownum=1;
1 row updated.
SQL>delete big where c='A';
99 rows deleted.          -- remove 99 records at the end of extents
SQL>commit;
Commit complete.
SQL>select sum(bytes)/1024 kb from user_segments
SQL>where segment_name='BIG';
KB
256               -- same 2 extents 256KB since the HWM is not changed after DELETE
1 row selected.
SQL>select count(*) from big;
COUNT(*)
1               -- however, only 1 record occupies 256KB space(lots of free blocks)
1 row selected.
SQL>insert /*+ append */ into big (select 'A' from dba_objects where rownum<=99);
99 rows created.          -- insert 99 records ABOVE HWM by using /*+ append */ hint
SQL>commit;
Commit complete.
SQL>select count(*) from big;
COUNT(*)
100
1 row selected.
S6UJAZ@dor_f501>select sum(bytes)/1024 kb from user_segments
S6UJAZ@dor_f501>where segment_name='BIG';
KB
512               -- same 100 records, same uniformed extent size, same tablespace LMT, same table
                    -- now takes 512 KB space(twice as much as what it took originally)
1 row selected.

Why Index size is bigger than table size?

Dear All,
I found in my database my tables sizes is coming around 30TB (All Tables in Database). and my index size for the same is 60TB. This is data ware housing environment.
How the index size and table size are differing?
Why they are differing? why index size is bigger than table size?
How to manage the size?
Please give me clear explanation and required information on the above.
Regards
Suresh

There are many reasons why the total space allocated indexes could be larger than the total space allocated to tables. Sometimes it's a mark of good design, sometimes it indicates a problem. In your position your first move is to spend as little time as possible in deciding whether your high-level summary is indicative of a problem, so you need to look at a little more detail.
As someone else pointed out - are you looking at the sizes because you are running out of space, or because you have a perceived performance problem. If not, then your question is one of curiosity.
If it's about performance then you should be looking for code (either through statspack/AWR or sql_trace) that is performing badly and use the analysis of that code to help you identify suspect indexes.
If it's about space, then you need to do some simple investigations aimed at finding a few indexes that can be "shrunk" or dropped. Pointers for this are:
select
        table_owner, table_name, count(*)
from
        dba_indexes
group by
        table_owner, table_name
having
        count(*) > 2   -- adjust to keep the output short
order by
        count(*) desc;This tells you which tables have the most indexes - check the sizes of the tables and indexes and then check the index definitions for the larger tables with lots of indexes.
Second quick check - join dba_tables to dba_indexes by table_name, and report the table blocks and index leaf blocks in desending order of leaf block count. Look for indexes which are very big, and also bigger than their underlying tables. There are special cases (and bugs) that can cause indexes to be much bigger than they need to be ... this report may identify a couple of anomalies that could benefit from an emergency fix followed (possibly) by a strategic fix.
Regards
Jonathan Lewis

Fact table size of the cube

BW Gods!
I need to selectively delete data from a cube which holds data from 2001-2006.....say I want to delete data only for 2001. It was suggested to me by pizzaman in one of our earlier threads that BW would decide if the data to be deleted is more than 10% of the cube size and if it is, it would just copy the cube without the data which has to deleted and it would rename the cube. So he suggested that I should find out the fact table size and make sure that there is enough space in my fact tablespace for this operation to go on.
My question is, how do I find out the fact table size of the cube?
How do I find out if there is enough space on fact tablespace for the above said deletion operation to be executed.
I am not too sure whether I have put across the question correctly. Let me know.
Thank you all in adavance
Ashwin

You want to make sure you include space for the F fact table and the E fact table, assuming you compress the infocube. If you use DB02 and use wild cards you migh be able to get all teh size info in one shot.
Gnerally, he indices for an InfoCube don't occupy a lot of space, but they do take space.
The default InfoCube table space is PSAFACTD and indics are in PSAPFACTI - not 100% sure that is universal acorss all the different DBs. Your shop could also have put them in differnt tablespaces altogether. Probably worth a quick check with your DBAs - they might know that they have lot of space availalbe, and you don't need to take the time to run down the space usage info.
The table copy process will NOT delete the original fact tables unless/until it has successfully loaded to new copy.

Lock table size change in instance profile RZ10

i need your help. I changed the table size from 10000 to 17000 and then to 20000 but still have the same table size as before.i used rz10 to change the parameter enque/table_size.
the steps i followed are as in all documents i can find.
1. change parameter value
2. save it (parameter and instance)
3. activate it.
4.on restart instance (i just left it for the offline backup to do this).
on the 4th step is that enough, because after the system came back i checked the parameter in rz11 and the current value on the parameter is still 10000. (owner entries and granule still 12557 as before)
am i missing something?
vinaka
epeli

Hi,
it COULD be that the offline backup did indeed no restart of the instance. From Oracle I know that there is a so called "reconnect-status" where the SAP instance is trying over a defined period of time to log to the database again after the workprocesses lost connection to the database processes. In this timeframe the instance is not to be considered as restarted.
If you check ST02 you see the point of time where the instance was restarted in reality the last time. If this date is before your offline backup you need to do the restart manually.
Best regards, Alexander

Do we have some way to reduce Dimension table size using NLS?

Initially we thought the Cube
archive in NLS would be like:
Replicate Cube in NLS with DAP. DAP creation will create a new structure same like "Star Schema".
While we load data to NLS it deletes from DB.
And hence it reduced size of the DB.
Associated Dimensions will also be replicated in the NLS.
After actually implementation we found :
Fact table size is reducing and DB size with associated E/F fact table is reducing
Dimension tables are still there in DB, and still saving space in DB.
Do we have some other way to reduce Dimension table size using NLS?
As when we are analyzing top 100 tables in SAP BW, we are seeing multiple dimensions are part
of this list.
Thanks,
Jaydip

Hi Jaydip,
Please check below link it might be helpful for you.
http://www.informatik.uni-jena.de/dbis/lehre/ss2011/dbarch/SAP_BW_DB2_NLS_22062011.pdf

Estimate table size for last 4 years

Hi,
I am on Oracle 10g
I need to estimate a table size for the last 4 years. So what I plan to do is get a count of data in the table for last 4 years and then multiply that value by avg_row_length to get the total size for 4 years. Is this technique correct or do I need to add some overhead?
Thanks

Yes, the technique is correct, but it is better to account for some overhead. I usually multiply the results by 10 :)
The most important thing to check is if there is any trend in data volumes. Was the count of records 4 years ago more or less equal to the last year? Is the business growing or steady? How fast is it growing? What are prospects for the future? Last year in not always 25% of last 4 years. It happens that last year is more than 3 other years added together.
The other, technical issue is internal organisation of data in Oracle datafiles. The famous PCTFREE. If you expact that the data will be updated then it is much better to keep some unused space in each database block in case some of your records get larger. This is much better for performance reasons. For example, you leave 10% of each database block free and when you update your record with longer value (like replace NULL column with actual 25-characters string) then your record still fits into the same block. You should account for this and add this to your estimates.
On the other hand, if your records get never updated and you load them in batch, then maybe they can be ORDERed before insert and you can setup a table with COMPRESS clause. Oracle COMPRESS clause has very little common with zip/gzip utilities, however it can bring you significant space savings.
Finally, there is no point to make estimates too accurate. They are just only estimates and the reality will be almost always different. In general, it is better to overestimate and have some disk space unused than underestimate and need to have people to deal with the issue. Disks are cheap, people on the project are expensive.

Table Sizes Optimized in Query

Hi Experts,
When I was run the query, I am not getting the data in the query but when I checked the data in the cube, the data is available there. I went RSRT there I checked the technical information in that <b>Table Sizes Optimized is showing RED</b>. What is this error How to solve this problem?
Thanks in Advance
Ravi.

Hi Ravi,
What was the fix for this issue ?
Appreciate your help.
Thanks

Table size effect on query performance

I know this sounds like a very generic question, but, how much does table size affect the performance of a query?
This is a rather unusual case actually. I am running a query on two tables, say, Table1 and Table2. Table1 is roughly 1 million record. Whereas for Table2, I tried using different number of records.
The resultant query returns 150,000 records. If I keep Table2 to 500 records, the query execution time takes 2 minutes. But, if I increase Table2 to 8,000 records, it would take close to 20 minutes!
I have checked the "Explain plan" statement and note that the indexes for the columns used for joining the two tables are being used.
Is it normal for table size to have such a big effect on performance time, even when number of records is under the 10,000 range?
Really appreciate your inputs. Thanks in advance.

Did you update your statistics when you changed the size of Table2? The CBO will probably choose different plans as the size of Table2 changes. If it thinks there are many more or fewer rows, you're likely to have performance issues.
Justin

Spry Table: size of detail regions

I have a table with 5 items. each item is linked to a
different image (the detail region).
I want to have different sizes of detail regions : so when I
click on item 1 of the table, the detail region (image) that opens
has a X size, and when I click on item 2 of the table, the detail
region (another image) that opens has a Y size. etc...
I am using an image placeholder to place the image of the
detail region: it may be the source of the problem. But if I don't
use an image placeholder, the image/detail region does not show.
Many thanks in advance

Hi..
For the Tabs... you can set the property to layout as matrix layout and set the property of the tabs 'stretchedHorizontally' & 'stretchedVertically' = x
for the table... select the columns in the table and check this property "resizable" if this one is checked.. remove that and try it.. so that your table will not get resized based on the DB data...
Hope this will help you
Regards
Raja

Is it possible to see decrease of table size & size of tablespace

Hello
I wander is it possible to see decrease of table size & size of tablespace(in db02 or in brtools). I have in mind decrease due to archiving in XI.
Thank you in advance

Hi,
Yes it is possible to decrease of table size & inturn size of tablespace.
You can go for table reorg.
https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/scn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/70c8f19f-8010-2c10-ac89-8d828039d8b4.
Check SAP Note 541538 - FAQ: Reorganization
Also
1.From DB02--> detail analysis menu you can take out top 50 tables & indexes. you can mark the size of the index should be generally less than the table.If its more or very much similar size of table, you can rebuild it using SE14. This can free some space.
or else you may use brspace to do this.
http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw70/helpdata/EN/58/6bec38c9fa7e44b7f2163905863575/frameset.htm
In case of table this option is risky as it may result in data loss.
2. Earlywatch alert gives the top 20 degenrated index. you can check that which also gives a factor 'storage quality'.
3. Run report SAP_DROP_TMPTABLES. It removes temporary database objects. ( we do this in our BW system)
Hope this helps.
Thanks,
Sushil
Edited by: Sushil Suryawanshi on May 25, 2009 1:30 AM

"Convert Text to Table" Size limit issue?

Alphabetize a List
I’ve been using this well known work around for years.
Select your list and in the Menu bar click Format>Table>Convert Text to Table
Select one of the column’s cells (1st click selects entire table, 2nd click selects individual cell)
Open “Table Inspector” (Click Table icon at top of Pages document)
Make sure “table” button is selected, not “format” button
Choose Sort Ascending from the Edit Rows & Columns pop-up menu
Finally, click Format>Table>Convert Table to Text.
A few days ago I added items & my list was 999 items long, ~22 pages.
Tonight, I added 4 more items. Still the same # pages but now 1,003 items long.
Unable to Convert Text to Table! Tried for 45 minutes. I think there is a list length limit, perhaps 999 items?
I tried closing the document w/o any changes. Re-opening Pages & re-adding my new items to the end of the list as always & once again when I highlight list & Format>Table>Convert Text to Table .....nothing happens! I could highlight part of the list up to 999 items & leave the 4 new items unhighlighted & it works. I pasted the list into a new doc and copied a few items from the middle of the list & added them to the end of my new 999 list to make it 1003 items long (but different items) & did NOT work. I even attempted to add a single new item making the list an even 1000 items long & nope, not working. Even restarted iMac, no luck.
I can get it to work with 999 or fewer items easily as always but no way when I add even a single new item.
Anyone else have this problem? It s/b easy to test out. If you have a list of say, 100 items, just copy & repeatedly paste into a new document multiple times to get over 1,000 & see if you can select all & then convert it from text to table.
Thanks!
Pages 08 v 3.03
OS 10.6.8

G,
Yes, Pages has a table size limit, as you have discovered. Numbers has a much greater capacity for table length, so if you do your sort in Numbers you won't have any practical limitation.
A better approach than switching to Numbers for the sort would be to download, install and activate Devon Wordservice. Then you could sort your list without converting it to a table.
Jerry

Any table to check A version of datasource in development and quality syste

Hi Experts,
1. Do we have any tables to check A version of objects once the datasource moved to quality system?...
2. I have moved some datasources from development to quality system and in the log of the request i am seeing the error message like below
DataSource xyz does not exist in source system qa system of version A
Mapping between data source xyz and source system QA is inconsistent
DataSource xyz does not exist in source system QA of version A
Field field1 will not be delivered from DataSource xyz in source system qa system
Field field2 will not be delivered from DataSource xyz in source system QA system
Field nfield3 will not be delivered from DataSource xyz in source system QA
Field field4 will not be delivered from DataSource xyz in source system QA
Field field5 will not be delivered from DataSource xyz in source system QAT
How to handle this type issue while transporting issues..
Could any one help me to resolve this issue.
Thanks,
Vachan

Hi Jr,
thanks for your reply...Please give me the correct path to check the mapping..
Thanks,
Vachan

DPM DB table sizes - check

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for