As you probably know, there are 2 categories of DMVs in SQL Server: Point in time versus cumulative and DMVs mentioned previously are in the second category. It means data in these DMVs are accumulative and incremented every time wait events occur. Values reset only when SQL Server restarts or when you intentionally run DBCC SQLPERF command. Baselining these metric values require taking snapshots to compare day-to-day activity or maybe simply trends for a given timeline. Paul Randal kindly provided a TSQL script for trend analysis in a specified time range in this blog post. The interesting part of this script is the focus of most relevant wait types and corresponding statistics. This is basically the kind of scripts I used for many years when I performed SQL Server audits at customer shops but today working as database administrator for a company, I can rely on our observability stack that includes Telegraf / Prometheus and Grafana to do the job.

In a previous write-up, I explained the choice of such platform for SQL Server. But transposing the Paul’s script logic to Prometheus and Grafana was not a trivial stuff, but the result was worthy. It was an interesting topic that I want to share with Ops and DBA who wants to baseline SQL Server telemetry on Prometheus and Grafana observability platform.

So, let’s start with metrics provided by Telegraf collector agent and then scraped by Prometheus job:
– sqlserver_waitstats_wait_time_ms
– sqlserver_waitstats_waiting_tasks_count
– sqlserver_waitstats_resource_wait_time_ms
– sqlserver_waitstats_signe_wait_time_ms

In the context of the blog post we will focus only on the first 2 ones of the above list, but the same logic applies for others.

As a reminder, we want to graph most relevant wait types and their average value within a time range specified in a Grafana dashboard. In fact, this is a 2 steps process:

1) Identifying most relevant wait types by computing their ratio with the total amount of wait time within the specific time range.
2) Graphing in Grafana these most relevant wait types with their corresponding average value for every Prometheus step in the time range.

To address the first point, we need to rely on special Prometheus rate() function and group_left modifier.

As per the Prometheus documentation, rate() gives the per second average rate of change over the specified range interval by using the boundary metric points in it. That is exactly what we need to compute the total average of wait time (in ms) per wait type in a specified time range. rate() needs a range vector as input. Let’s illustrate what is a range vector with the following example. For a sake of simplicity, I filtered with sqlserver_waitstats_wait_time_ms metric to one specific SQL Server instance and wait type (PAGEIOLATCH_EX). Range vector is expressed with a range interval at the end of the query as you can see below:

The result is a set of data metrics within the specified range interval as show below:

We got for each data metric the value and the corresponding timestamp in epoch format. You can convert this epoch format to user friendly one by using date -r -j for example. Another important point here: The sqlserver_waitstats_wait_time_ms metric is a counter in Prometheus world because value keeps increasing over the time as you can see above (from top to bottom). The same concept exists in SQL Server with cumulative DMV category as explained at the beginning. It explains why we need to use rate() function for drawing the right representation of increase / decrease rate over the time between data metric points. We got 12 data metrics with an interval of 5s between each value. This is because in my context we defined a Prometheus scrape interval of 5s for SQL Server => 60s/5s = 12 data points and 11 steps. The next question is how rate calculates per-second rate of change between data points. Referring to my previous example, I can get the rate value by using the following prompQL query:

… and the corresponding value:

To understand this value, let’s have a good reminder of mathematic lesson at school with slope calculation.

Image from Wikipedia

The basic idea of slope value is to find the rate of change of one variable compared to another. Less the distance between two data points we have, more chance we have to get a precise approximate value of the slope. And this is exactly what it is happening with Prometheus when you zoom in or out by changing the range interval. A good resolution is also determined by the Prometheus scraping interval especially when your metrics are extremely volatile. This is something to keep in mind with Prometheus. We are working with approximation by design. So let’s do some math with a slope calculation of the above range vector:

Slope = DV/DT = (332628-332582)/(@1631125796.971 – @1631125746.962) =~ 0.83

Excellent! This is how rate() works and the beauty of this function is that slope calculation is doing automatically for all the steps within the range interval.

But let’s go back to the initial requirement. We need to calculate per wait type the average value of wait time between the first and last point in the specified range vector. We can now step further by using Prometheus aggregation operator as follows:

Please note we could have written it another way without using the sum by aggregator but it allows naturally to exclude all unwanted labels for the result metric. It will be particularly helpful for the next part. Anyway, Here a sample of the output:

Then we can compute label (wait type) ratio (or percentage). First attempt and naïve approach could be as follows:

But we get empty query result. Bad joke right? We need to understand that.

First part of the query gives total amount of wait time per wait type. I put a sample of the results for simplicity:

It results a new set of metrics with only one label for wait_type. Second part gives to total amount of wait time for all wait types as show below:

With SQL statement, we instinctively select columns that have matching values in concerned tables. Those columns are often concerned by primary or foreign keys. In Prometheus world, vector matching is performing the same way by using all labels at the starting point. But samples are selected or dropped from the result vector based either on « ignoring » and « on » keywords. In my case, they are no matching labels so we must tell Prometheus to ignore the remaining label (wait_type) on the first part of the query:

But another error message …

Error executing query: multiple matches for labels: many-to-one matching must be explicit (group_left/group_right)

In the many-to -one or one-to-many vector matching with Prometheus, samples are selected using keywords like group_left or group_right. In other words, we are telling Prometheus to perform a cross join in this case with this final query before performing division between values:

Here we go!

We finally managed to calculate ratio per wait type with a specified range interval. Last thing is to select most relevant wait types by excluding first irrelevant wait types. Most of wait types come from the exclusion list provided by Paul Randal’s script. We also decided to only focus on max top 5 wait types with ratio > 10% but it is up to you to change these values:

I got 3 relevant wait types with their correspond ratio in the specified time range.

Pretty cool stuff but we must now to go through the second requirement. We want to graph the average value of the identified wait types within a specified time range in Grafana dashboard. First thing consists in including the above Prometheus query as variable in the Grafana dashboard. Here how I setup my Top5Waits variable in Grafana:

Some interesting points here: variable dependency kicks in with my $Top5Waits variable that depends hierarchically on another $Instance variable in my dashboard (from another Prometheus query). You probably have noticed the use of [${__range_s}s] to determine the range interval but depending on the Grafana $__interval may be a good fit as well.

In turn, $Top5Waits can be used from another query but this time directly in a Grafana dashboard panel with the average value of most relevant wait types as shown below:

Calculating wait type average is not a hard task by itself. In fact, we can apply the same methods than previously by matching the sqlserver_waitstats_wait_tine_ms and sqlserver_waitstats_waiting_task_count and to divide their corresponding values to obtain the average wait time (in ms) for each step within the time range (remember how the rate () function works). Both metrics own the same set of labels, so we don’t need to use « on » or « ignoring » keywords in this case. But we must introduce the $Top5Waits variable in the label filter in the first metric as follows:

We finally managed to get an interesting dynamic measurement of SQL Server telemetry wait stats. Hope this blog post helps!
Let me know your feedback if your are using SQL Server wait stats in Prometheus and Grafana in a different way !

If you deal with Cloud services and infrastructure, FinOps is a discipline you should get into for keeping under control your costs and getting actionable insights that could result in efficient cloud costs. Azure cost management provides visibility and control. Azure cost analysis is my favorite tool when I want to figure out costs of the different services and to visualize improvements after applying quick wins, architecture upgrades on the environment. It is also a good place to identify stale resources to cleanup. I will focus on Azure SQL DB here. From a cost perspective, Azure SQL DB service includes different meter subcategories regarding the options and the service tier you will use. You may have to pay for the compute, the dedicated storage for your database and for your backups (pitr or ltr) and so on … Cost Analysis allows drill-down analysis through different axis with aggregation or forecast capabilities.

In our context, we would like to know if moving from Azure SQL DB Azure Serverless compute tier (Pay-As-You-Go) to Provisioned Tier (+ Azure Hybrid Benefit + Reserved Instances for 3 years) has some good effects on costs. First look at the cost analysis section by applying correct filters and data aggregation on compute tier, confirmed our initial assumption that Serverless didn’t fit anymore with our context now. The chart uses a monthly-based timeframe daily aggregation. We switched to a different model mi-April as show below:

Real numbers are confidential but not so important here. We can easily notice a drop a daily cost (~ 0.5) between Serverless and Provisioned compute tier.

If we get a higher-level view of all services and costs for previous months, the trend is also confirmed for April with serverless + provisioned tier combined costs lower than serverless computer tier only for previous months. But we need to wait for next months to confirm the trend.

At the same time (and this is the focus on this write-up), we detected a sudden increase of backup storage cost in March that may ruin our optimization efforts made for compute, right? :). To explain this new trend, log analytics came to the rescue. As explained in the previous blog post, we configured streaming of Azure SQL DB telemetry into Log Analytics target to get benefit from solutions like SQL Insights and custom queries from different Azure logs.

Basic metrics are part of Azure SQL DB telemetry and stored in AzureMetrics table. We can use Kusto query to extract backup metrics and get an idea of different backup type trends over the time including FULL, DIFF and LOG backups. The following query shows backup trends within the same timeframe used for billing in cost management (February to May). It also includes a series_file_line function to draw a trendline in the time chart.

Full backup time chart

FULL backup size is relatively steady and cannot explain the sudden increase of storage backup cost in our case.

DIFF and LOG backup time chart

…

LOG and DIFF backup charts are more relevant and the trendline suggests a noticeable change starting mi-March. For the first part of the month, the trendline starts misaligning with backup size series.

At this stage, we found out the cause of the cost increase, but we were interested in understanding the reasons that may explain such trend. After investigating our ITSM system, we were able to find a correlation with the deployment of new maintenance tool – Ola Hallengren maintenance solution + custom scripts to rebuild columnstore indexes. The latter rebuilds aggressively 2 big fact tables with CCI in our DW (unlike the former tool) that explain the increase of DIFF and LOG backup sizes (~ 1TB).

This is where the collaboration with the data engineering team is starting to find an efficient and durable way to minimize the impact of the maintenance:

– Reviewing the custom script threshold may result to a more relax detection of fragmented columnstore indexes. However, this is only a piece of the solution because when a columnstore index becomes a good candidate for the next maintenance operation, it will lead to a resource-intensive and time-consuming operation (> 2.5h dedicated for these two tables). We are using Azure automation jobs with fair share to execute the maintenance and we are limited to 3h max per job execution. We may use a divide and conquer strategy to fit within the permitted execution timeframe, but it would lead to more complexity and we want to keep maintenance as simple as possible.

– We need to find another way to keep index and stat maintenance jobs execute time under a certain control. Introducing partition for these tables is probably a good catch and another piece of the solution. Indeed, currently concerned tables are not partitioned, and we could get benefit from partition-level maintenance for both indexes and statistics at the partition level.

Bottom line

Azure cost management center and log analytics are a powerful recipe in the FinOps practice. Kusto SQL language is a flexible tool for finding and correlate all kinds of log entries and events assuming you configured telemetry to the right target. I definitely like annotation-like system as we are using with Grafana because it makes correlation with external changes and workflows easier. Next step: investigate annotations on metric charts in Application insights?

See you!!

As a reminder, this Grafana dashboard gets information from Prometheus server and metrics related to MSSQL environments. For a sake of clarity, in this dashboard, environment defines one availability group and a set of 2 AG replicas (A or B) in synchronous replication mode. In other words, ENV1 value corresponds to availability group name and to SQL instance names member of the AG group with SERVERA\ENV1 (first replica), SERVERB\ENV1 (second replica).

In the picture above, you can notice 2 sections. One is for availability group and health monitoring and the second includes a set of black box metrics related to saturation and latencies (CPU, RAM, Network, AG replication delay, SQL Buffer Pool, blocked processes …). Good job for one single environment but what if I want to introduce more availability groups and SQL instances in the game?

The first and easiest (or naïve) way we went through when we started writing this dashboard was to copy / paste all the stuff done for one environment the panels as shown below:

After creating a new row (can be associated to section in the present context) at the bottom, all panels were copied from ENV1 to the new fresh section ENV2. New row is created by converting anew panel into row as show below:

Then I need to modify manually ALL the new metrics with the new environment. Let’s illustrate the point with Batch Requests/sec metric as example. The corresponding Prometheus query for the first replica (A) is: (the initial query has been simplified for the purpose of this blog post):

Same query exists for secondary replica (B) but with a different label value:

SERVERA:ENV1 and SERVERB:ENV1 are static values that correspond to the name of each SQL Server instance – respectively SERVERA\ENV1 and SERVERB\ENV1. As you probably already guessed and according to our naming convention, for the new environment and related panels, we obviously changed initial values ENV1 with new one ENV2. But having more environments or providing filtering capabilities to focus only on specific environments make the current process tedious and we need introduce dynamic stuff in the game … Good news, Grafana provides such capabilities with dynamic creation of rows and panels. and rows.

Generating dynamic panels in the same section (row)

Referring to the dashboard, first section concerns availability group health metric. When adding a new environment – meaning a new availability group – we want a new dedicated panel creating automatically in the same section (AG health).
Firstly, we need to add a multi-value variable in the dashboard. Values can be static or dynamic from another query regarding your context. (up to you to choose the right solution according to your context).

Once created, a drop-down list appears at the upper left in the dashboard and now we can perform multi selections or we can filter to specific ones.

Then we need to make panel in the AG Heath section dynamic as follows:
– Change the title value with corresponding dashboard (optional)
– Configure repeat options values with the variable (mandatory). You can also define max panel per row

According to this setup, we can display 4 panels (or availability groups) max per row. The 5th will be created and placed to a new line in the same section as shown below:

Finally, we must replace static label values defined in the query by the variable counterpart. For the availability group we are using sqlserver_hadr_replica_states_replica_synchronization_health metric as follows (again, I voluntary put a sample of the entire query for simplicity purpose):

You can notice the regex expression used to get information from SQL Instances either from primary (A) or secondary (B). The most interesting part concerns the environment that is now dynamic with $ENV variable.

Generating dynamic sections (rows)

As said previously, sections are in fact rows in the Grafana dashboard and rows can contain panels. If we add new environment, we want also to see a new section (and panels) related to it. Configuring dynamic rows is pretty similar to panels. We only need to change the “Repeat for section” with the environment variable as follows (Title remains optional):

As for AG Health panel, we also need to replace static label values in ALL panels with the new environment variable. Thus, referring to the previous Batch Requests / sec example, the updated Prometheus query will be as follows: (respectively for primary and secondary replicas):

…

The dashboard is now ready, and all dynamic kicks in when a new SQL Server instance is added to the list of monitored items. Here an example of outcome in our context:

Happy monitoring!

We have different options and obviously in my company we thought first moving our Azure SQL Database workload telemetry on on-prem central monitoring infrastructure as well. But not to mention the main blocker which is the serverless compute tier because Telegraf Server agent would imply initiating a connection that could prevent auto-pausing the database or at least it would made monitoring more complex because it would supposed to have a predictable workload all the time.

The second option was to rely on Azure monitor which is a common platform for combining several logging, monitoring and dashboard solutions across a wide set of Azure resources. It is scalable platform, fully managed and provides a powerful query language and native features like alerts, if logs or metrics match specific conditions. Another important point is there is no vendor lock-in, with this solution, as we can always fallback to our self-hosted Prometheus and Grafana instances if neither computer tier doesn’t fit nor in case Azure Monitor might not be an option anymore!

Firstly, to achieve a good observability with Azure SQL Database we need to put both diagnostic telemetry and SQL Server audits events in a common Log Analytics workspace. A quick illustration below:

Diagnostic settings are configured per database and including basic metrics (CPU, IO, Memory etc …) and also different SQL Server internal metrics as deadlock, blocked processes or query store information about query execution statistic and waits etc… For more details please refer to the Microsoft BOL.

SQL Azure DB auditing is both server-level or database-level configuration setting. In our context, we defined a template of events at the server level which is then applied to all databases within the logical server. By default, 3 events are automatically audited:
– BATCH_COMPLETED_GROUP
– SUCCESSFUL_DATABASE_AUTHENTICATION_GROUP
– FAILED_DATABASE_AUTHENTICATION_GROUP

The first one of the list is probably to be discussed according to the environment because of its impact but in our context that’s ok because we faced a data warehouse workload. However we added other ones to meet our security requirements:
– PERMISSION_CHANGE_GROUP
– DATABASE_PRINCIPAL_CHANGE_GROUP
– DATABASE_ROLE_MEMBER_CHANGE_GROUP
– USER_CHANGE_PASSWORD_GROUP

But if you take care about Log Analytics as target for SQL audits, you will notice it is still a feature in preview as shown below:

To be clear, usually we don’t consider using Azure preview features in production especially when they remain in this state for a long time but in this specific context we got interested by observability capabilities of the platform. From one hand, we get very useful performance insights through SQL Analytics dashboards (again in preview) and from the other hand we can easily query logs and traces through Log Analytics for correlation with other metrics. Obviously, we hope Microsoft moving a step further and providing this feature in GA in the near feature.

Let’s talk briefly of SQL Analytics first. It is an advanced and free cloud monitoring solution for Azure SQL database monitoring performance and it relies mainly on your Azure Diagnostic metrics and Azure Monitor views to present data in a structured way through performance dashboard.

Here an example of built-in dashboards we are using to track activity and high CPU / IO bound queries against our data warehouse.

You can use drill-down capabilities to different contextual dashboards to get insights of resource intensive queries. For example, we identified some LOG IO intensive queries against a clustered columnstore index and after some refactoring of UPDATE statement to DELETE + INSERT we reduced drastically LOG IO waits.

In addition, Azure monitor helped us in an another scenario where we tried to figure out recent workload patterns and to know if the current compute tier still fits with it. As said previously, we are relying on Serverless compute tier to handle the data warehouse-oriented workload with both auto-scaling and auto-pausing capabilities. At the first glance, we might expect a typical nightly workload as illustrated to Microsoft BOL and a cost optimized to this workload:

Images from Microsoft BOL

It could have been true when the activity started on Azure, but the game has changed with new incoming projects over the time. Starting with the general performance dashboard, the workload seems to follow the right pattern for Serverless compute tier, but we noticed billing keep going during unexpected timeframe as shown below. Let’s precise that I put deliberately only a sample of two days, but this pattern is a good representation of the general workload in our context.

Indeed, workload should be mostly nightly-oriented with sporadic activity during the day but quick correlation with other basic metrics like CPU or Memory percentage usage confirmed a persistent activity all day. We have CPU spikes and probably small batches that keep minimum memory around at other moments.

As per the Microsoft documentation, the minimum auto-pausing delay value is 1h and requires an inactive database (number of sessions = 0 and CPU = 0 for user workload) during this timeframe. Basic metrics didn’t provide any further insights about connections, applications or users that could generate such « noisy » activity, so we had to go another way by looking at the SQL Audit logs stored in Azure Monitor Logs. Data can be read through KQL which stands for Kusto Query Language (and not Kibana Query Language ). It’s the language used to query the Azure log databases: Azure Monitor Logs, Azure Monitor Application Insights and others and it is pretty similar to SQL language in the construct.

Here the first query I used to correlate number of events with metrics and that could prevent auto-pausing to kick in for the concerned database including RPC COMPLETED, BATCH COMPLETED, DATABASE AUTHENTICATION SUCCEEDED or DATABASE AUTHENTICATION FAILED

Results are aggregated and bucketized per hour on generated time event with bin() function. Finally, for a quick and easy read, I choosed a simple and unformatted column chart render. Here the outcome:

As you probably noticed, daily activity is pretty small compared to nightly one and seems to confirm SQL batches and remote procedure calls. From this unclear picture, we can confirm anyway the daily workload is enough to keep the billing going because there is no per hour timeframe where there is no activity.

Let’s write another KQL query to draw a clearer picture of which applications ran during the a daily timeframe 07:00 – 20:00:

And here the new outcome:

The new chart reveals some activities from SQL Server Management Studio but most part concerns applications with .Net SQL Data Provider. For a better clarity, we need more information related about applications and, in my context, I managed to address the point by reducing the search scope with the service principal name that issued the related audit event. It results to this new outcome that is pretty similar to previous one:

Good job so far. For a sake of clarity, the service principal obfuscated above is used by our Reporting Server infrastructure and reports to get data from this data warehouse. By going this way to investigate daily activity at different moments on the concerned Azure SQL database, we came to the conclusion that using Serverless computer tier didn’t make sense anymore and we need to upgrade likely to another computer tier.

Additional thoughts

Azure monitor is definitely a must to have if you are running resources on Azure and if you don’t own a platform for observability (metrics, logs and traces). Otherwise, it can be even beneficial for freeing up your on-prem monitoring infrastructure resources if scalability is a concern. Furthermore, there is no vendor-locking and you can decide to stream Azure monitor data outside in another place but at the cost of additional network transfer fees according to the target scenario. For example, Azure monitor can be used directly as datasource with Grafana. Azure SQL telemetry can be collected with Telegraf agent whereas audit logs can be recorded in another logging system like Kibana. In this blog post, we just surfaced the Azure monitor capabilities but, as demonstrated above, performing deep analysis correlations from different sources in a very few steps is a good point of this platform.

But let’s precise first, this write-up doesn’t constitute any guidance or any kind of best practices for DBAs but only some sharing of my own experience on the topic. As usual, any comment will be appreciated.

That’s said, let’s continue with the context. At the beginning of this year, I started my new DBA position in a customer-centric company where DevOps culture, microservices and CI/CD are omnipresent. What does it mean exactly? To cut the story short, development and operation teams are used a common approach for agile software development and delivery. Tools and processes are used to automate build, test, deploy and to monitor applications with speed, quality and control. In other words, we are talking about Continuous Delivery and in my company, release cycle is faster than traditional shops I encountered so far with several releases per day including database changes. Another interesting point is that we are following the « Operate what you build » principle each team that develops a service is also responsible for operating and supporting it. It presents some advantages for both developers and operations but pushing out changes requires to get feedback and to observe impact on the system on both sides.

In addition, in operation teams we try to act as a centralized team and each member should understand the global scope and topics related to the infrastructure and its ecosystem. This is especially true when you’re dealing with nightly on-calls. Each has its own segment responsibility (regarding their specialized areas) but following DevOps principles, we encourage shared ownership to break down internal silos for optimizing feedback and learning. It implies anyone should be able to temporarily overtake any operational task to some extent assuming the process is well-documented, and learnin has been done correctly. But world is not perfect and this model has its downsides. For example, it will prioritize effectiveness in broader domains leading to increase cognitive load of each team member and to lower visibility in for vertical topics when deeper expertise is sometimes required. Having an end-to-end observable system including infrastructure layer and databases may help to reduce time for investigating and fixing issues before end users experience them.

The initial scenario

Let me give some background info and illustration of the initial scenario:

… and my feeling of what could be improved:

1) From a DBA perspective, at a first glance there are many potential issues. Indeed, a lot of automated or semi-manual deployment processes are out of the control and may have a direct impact on the database environment stability. Without better visibility, there is likely no easy way to address the famous question: He, we are experiencing performance degradations for two days, has something happened on database side?

2) Silos are encouraged between DBA and DEVs in this scenario. Direct consequence is to limit drastically the adding value of the DBA role in a DevOps context. Obviously, primary concerns include production tasks like ensuring integrity, backups and maintenance of databases. But in a DevOps oriented company where we have automated « database-as-code » pipelines, they remain lots of unnecessary complexity and disruptive scripts that DBA should take care. If this role is placed only at the end of the delivery pipeline, collaboration and continuous learning with developer teams will restricted at minimum.

3) There is a dedicated monitoring tool for SQL Server infrastructure and this is a good point. It provides necessary baselining and performance insights for DBAs. But in other hand, the tool in place targets only DBA profiles and its usage is limited to the infrastructure team. This doesn’t contribute to help improving the scalability in the operations team and beyond. Another issue with the existing tooling is correlation can be difficult with external events that come from either the continuous delivery pipeline or configuration changes performed by operations teams on the SQL Server instances. In this case, establishment of observability (the why) may be limited and this is what teams need to respond quickly and resolve emergencies in modern and distributed software.

What is observability?

You probably noticed the word « observability » in my previous sentence, so I think it deserves some explanations before to continue. Observability might seem like a buzzword but in fact it is not a new concept but became prominent in DevOps software development lifecycle (SDLC) methodologies and distributed infrastructure systems. Referring to the Wikipedia definition, Observability is the ability to infer internal states of a system based on the system’s external outputs. To be honest, it has not helped me very much and further readings were necessary to shed the light on what observability exactly is and what difference exist with monitoring.

Let’s start instead with monitoring which is the ability to translate infrastructure log metrics data into meaningful and actionable insights. It helps knowing when something goes wrong and starting your response quickly. This is the basis for monitoring tool and the existing one is doing a good job on it. In DBA world, monitoring is often related to performance but reporting performance is only as useful as that reporting accurately represents the internal state of the global system and not only your database environment. For example, in the past I went to some customer shops where I was in charge to audit their SQL Server infrastructure. Generally, customers were able to present their context, but they didn’t get the possibility to provide real facts or performance metrics of their application. In this case, you usually rely on a top-down approach and if you’re either lucky or experimented enough, you manage to find what is going wrong. But sometimes I got relevant SQL Server metrics that would have highlighted a database performance issue, but we didn’t make a clear correlation with those identified on application side. In this case, relying only on database performance metrics was not enough for inferring the internal state of the application. From my experience, many shops are concerned with such applications that have been designed for success and not for failure. They often lake of debuggability monitoring and telemetry is often missing. Collecting data is as the base of observability.

Observability provides not only the when of an error or issue, but more importantly the why. With modern software architectures including micro-services and the emphasis of DevOps, monitoring goals are no longer limited to collecting and processing log data, metrics, and event traces. Instead, it should be employed to improve observability by getting a better understanding of the properties of an application and its performance across distributed systems and delivery pipeline. Referring to the new context I’m working now, metric capture and analysis is started with deployment of each micro-service and it provides better observability by measuring all the work done across all dependencies.

White-Box vs. Black-Box Monitoring

In my company as many other companies, different approaches are used when it comes monitoring: White-box and Black-Box monitoring.
White-box monitoring focuses on exposing internals of a system. For example, this approach is used by many SQL Server performance tools on the market that make effort to set a map of the system with a bunch of internal statistic data about index or internal cache usage, existing wait stats, locks and so on …

In contrast, black-Box monitoring is symptom oriented and tests externally visible behavior as a user would see it. Goal is only monitoring the system from the outside and seeing ongoing problems in the system. There are many ways to achieve black-box monitoring and the first obvious one is using probes which will collect CPU or memory usage, network communications, HTTP health check or latency and so on … Another option is to use a set of integration tests that run all the time to test the system from a behavior / business perspective.

White-Box vs. Black-Box Monitoring: Which is finally more important? All are and can work together. In my company, both are used at different layers of the micro-service architecture including software and infrastructure components.

RED vs USE monitoring

When you’re working in a web-oriented and customer-centric company, you are quickly introduced to The Four Golden Signals monitoring concept which defines a series of metrics originally from Google Site Reliability Engineering including latency, traffic, errors and saturation. The RED method is a subset of “Four Golden Signals” and focus on micro-service architectures and include following metrics:

• Rate: number of requests our service is serving per second
• Error: number of failed requests per second
• Duration: amount of time it takes to process a request

Those metrics are relatively straightforward to understand and may reduce time to figure out which service was throwing the errors and then eventually look at the logs or to restart the service, whatever.

For HTTP Metrics the RED Method is a good fit while the USE Method is more suitable for infrastructure side where main concern is to keep physical resources under control. The latter is based on 3 metrics:

• Utilization: Mainly represented in percentage and indicates if a resource is in underload or overload state.
• Saturation: Work in a queue and waiting to be processed
• Errors: Count of event errors

Those metrics are commonly used by DBAs to monitor performance. It is worth noting that utilization metric can be sometimes misinterpreted especially when maximum value depends of the context and can go over 100%.

SQL Server infrastructure monitoring expectations

Referring to the starting scenario and all concepts surfaced above, it was clear for us to evolve our existing SQL Server monitoring architecture to improve our ability to reach the following goals:

• Keeping analyzing long-term trends to respond usual questions like how my daily-workload is evolving? How big is my database? …
• Alerting to respond for a broken issue we need to fix or for an issue that is going on and we must check soon.
• Building comprehensive dashboards – dashboards should answer basic questions about our SQL Server instances, and should include some form of the advanced SQL telemetry and logging for deeper analysis.
• Conducting an ad-hoc retrospective analysis with easier correlation: from example an http response latency that increased in one service. What happened around? Is-it related to database issue? Or blocking issue raised on the SQL Server instance? Is it related to a new query or schema change deployed from the automated delivery pipeline? In other words, good observability should be part of the new solution.
• Automated discovery and telemetry collection for every SQL Server instance installed on our environment, either on VM or in container.
• To rely entirely on the common platform monitoring based on Prometheus and Grafana. Having the same tooling make often communication easier between people (human factor is also an important aspect of DevOps)

Prometheus, Grafana and Telegraf

Prometheus and Grafana are the central monitoring solution for our micro-service architecture. Some others exist but we’ll focus on these tools in the context of this write-up.
Prometheus is an open-source ecosystem for monitoring and alerting. It uses a multi-dimensional data model based on time series data identified by metric name and key/value pairs. WQL is the query language used by Prometheus to aggregate data in real time and data are directly shown or consumed via HTTP API to allow external system like Grafana. Unlike previous tooling, we appreciated collecting SQL Server metrics as well as those of the underlying infrastructure like VMWare and others. It allows to comprehensive picture of a full path between the database services and infrastructure components they rely on.

Grafana is an open source software used to display time series analytics. It allows us to query, visualize and generate alerts from our metrics. It is also possible to integrate a variety of data sources in addition of Prometheus increasing the correlation and aggregation capabilities of metrics from different sources. Finally, Grafana comes with a native annotation store and the ability to add annotation events directly from the graph panel or via the HTTP API. This feature is especially useful to store annotations and tags related to external events and we decided to use it for tracking software releases or SQL Server configuration changes. Having such event directly on dashboard may reduce troubleshooting effort by responding faster to the why of an issue.

For collecting data we use Telegraf plugin for SQL Server. The plugin exposes all configured metrics to be polled by a Prometheus server. The plugin can be used for both on-prem and Azure instances including Azure SQL DB and Azure SQL MI. Automated deployment and configuration requires low effort as well.

The high-level overview of the new implemented monitoring solution is as follows:

SQL Server telemetry is achieved through Telegraf + Prometheus and includes both Black-box and White-box oriented metrics. External events like automated deployment, server-level and database-level configuration changes are monitored through a centralized scheduled framework based on PowerShell. Then annotations + tags are written accordingly to Grafana and event details are recorded to logging tables for further troubleshooting.

Did the new monitoring met our expectations?

Well, having experienced the new monitoring solution during this year, I would say we are on a good track. We worked mainly on 2 dashboards. The first one exposes basic black-box metrics to show quickly if something is going wrong while the second one is DBA oriented with a plenty of internal counters to dig further and to perform retrospective analysis.

Here a sample of representative issues we faced this year and we managed to fix with the new monitoring solution:

1) Resource pressure and black-box monitoring in action:

For this scenario, the first dashboard highlighted resource pressure issues, but it is worth noting that even if the infrastructure was burning, users didn’t experience any side effects or slowness on application side. After corresponding alerts raised on our side, we applied proactive and temporary fixes before users experience them. I would say, this scenario is something we would able to manage with previous monitoring and the good news is we didn’t notice any regression on this topic.

2) Better observability for better resolution of complex issue

This scenario was more interesting because the first symptom started from the application side without alerting the infrastructure layer. We started suffering from HTTP request slowness on November around 12:00am and developers got alerted with sporadic timeout issues from the logging system. After they traversed the service graph, they spotted on something went wrong on the database service by correlating http slowness with blocked processes on SQL Server dashboard as shown below. I put a simplified view on the dashboards, but we need to cross several routes between the front-end services and databases.

Then I got a call from them and we started investigating blocking processes from the logging tables in place on SQL Server side. At a first glance, different queries with a longer execution time than usual and neither release deployments nor configuration updates may explain such sudden behavior change. The issue kept around and at 15:42 it started appearing more frequently to deserve a deeper look at the SQL Server internal metrics. We quickly found out some interesting correlation with other metrics and we finally managed to figure out why things went wrong as show below:

Root cause was related to transaction replication slowness within Always On availability group databases and we directly jumped on storage issue according to error log details on secondary:

End-to-End observability by including the database services to the new monitoring system drastically reduces the time for finding the root cause. But we also learnt from this experience and to continuously improve the observability we added a black-box oriented metric related to availability group replication latency (see below) to detect faster any potential issue.

And what’s next?

Having such monitoring is not the endpoint of this story. As said at the beginning of this write-up, continuous delivery comes with its own DBA challenges illustrated by the starting scenario. Traditionally the DBA role is siloed, turning requests or tickets into work and they can be lacking context about the broader business or technology used in the company. I experienced myself several situations where you get alerted during the night when developer’s query exceeds some usage threshold. Having discussed the point with many DBAs, they tend to be conservative about database changes (normal reaction?) especially when you are at the end of the delivery process without clear view of what will could deployed exactly.

Here the new situation:

Implementing new monitoring stuff changed the way to observe the system (at least from a DBA perspective). Again, I believe the adding value of DBA role in a company with a strong DevOps mindset is being part of both production DBAs and Development DBAs. Making observability consistent across all the delivery pipeline including databases is likely part of the success and may help DBA getting a broader picture of system components. Referring to my context, I’m now able to get more interaction with developer teams on early phases and to provide them contextual feedbacks (and not generic feedbacks) for improvements regarding SQL production telemetry. They also have access to them and can check by themselves impact of their development. In the same way, feedbacks and work with my team around database infrastructure topic may appear more relevant.

It is finally a matter of collaboration