SQL Server Profiler and Sysmon monitoring local vs. remote

Most people have heard the suggestion to monitor a SQL Server from another machine because Profiler and Sysmon consume a lot of resources. Monitoring a server locally also introduces a Heisenberg uncertainty principle type of problem where the act of measurement alters the state of what is attempting to be measured.

I heard a SQL Server MVP making a case for not monitoring remotely because of the network bandwidth demands. Are there situations where monitoring should be done locally Is there an exception to the rule of using another machine to monitor


Answer this question

SQL Server Profiler and Sysmon monitoring local vs. remote

  • DLdfrd

    If network traffic becomes an issue then probably SQL Server is generating too many trace events. In such cases it is strongly recommended that you switch to server side file trace, instead of using rowset (Profiler) trace.

    Performance counters should not generate too much traffic since usually we are collecting them on relatively large intervals. Using PerfLib (Perfmon, sysmon) is better than using sys.dm_os_performance_counters (sysperfinfo) since all related data structures in SQL Server process are optimized for PerfLib.

    Thanks, Ivan



  • SQL Server Profiler and Sysmon monitoring local vs. remote