http://www2.sqlblog.com/blogs/adam_machanic/archive/2011/04/23/leader-of-the-block-a-month-of-activity-monitoring-part-23-of-30.aspxThis post is part 23 of a 30-part series about the Who is Active stored procedure. A new post will run each day during the month of April, 2011. After April all of these posts will be edited and combined into a single document to become the basis of theenCommunityServer 2.1 SP2 (Build: 61129.1)http://www2.sqlblog.com/blogs/adam_machanic/archive/2011/04/23/leader-of-the-block-a-month-of-activity-monitoring-part-23-of-30.aspx#35134Sat, 23 Apr 2011 16:34:28 GMT21093a07-8b3d-42db-8cbf-3350fcbf5496:35134AaronBertrand<p>Personally I think sleep time since the last request completed is more relevant and interesting than the time since they logged in. Though I wonder if it makes sense to have an option to include both, so you could see sessions that have done a lot of work, or have been logged on for a long time, and compare that to how long they have been logged in since doing work.</p> http://www2.sqlblog.com/blogs/adam_machanic/archive/2011/04/23/leader-of-the-block-a-month-of-activity-monitoring-part-23-of-30.aspx#35136Sat, 23 Apr 2011 22:02:12 GMT21093a07-8b3d-42db-8cbf-3350fcbf5496:35136Adam Machanic<p>How about instead of an option if I just add login_time as a new column? Another way to think about this: Would you ever want to see the login_time expressed in the [dd hh:mm:ss.mss] column, were I to change that column to express the amount of time since the last batch (for sleeping sessions)? </p> <p>Another question is whether this new behavior will be more or less confusing than the existing behavior. It's tough to know what the right move is.</p> http://www2.sqlblog.com/blogs/adam_machanic/archive/2011/04/23/leader-of-the-block-a-month-of-activity-monitoring-part-23-of-30.aspx#35152Mon, 25 Apr 2011 05:59:55 GMT21093a07-8b3d-42db-8cbf-3350fcbf5496:35152Paul White<p>Hey Adam,</p> <p>An excellent post today. &nbsp;As far as the homework is concerned:</p> <p>&quot;... I've been thinking that it might make more sense to instead show the amount of time since the last request completed—the amount of time that the session has been sleeping. This seems to me to be more useful information and more in line with the goal of the stored procedure.&quot;</p> <p>I agree!</p> <p>Paul</p> http://www2.sqlblog.com/blogs/adam_machanic/archive/2011/04/23/leader-of-the-block-a-month-of-activity-monitoring-part-23-of-30.aspx#35200Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:36:31 GMT21093a07-8b3d-42db-8cbf-3350fcbf5496:35200LeoPasta<p>I too agree that showing the time since the last batch will be more useful (and less confusing) than showing the time since login. </p> http://www2.sqlblog.com/blogs/adam_machanic/archive/2011/04/23/leader-of-the-block-a-month-of-activity-monitoring-part-23-of-30.aspx#35222Tue, 26 Apr 2011 23:43:20 GMT21093a07-8b3d-42db-8cbf-3350fcbf5496:35222Erin Stellatou <p>Adam-</p> <p>One thing I remember you telling me: even if you filter out sleeping SPIDs, if you're doing @find_block_leaders = 1, it WILL show a sleeping SPID if that's the lead blocker. &nbsp;And I just proved it last week with the issue I discussed with Paul :) &nbsp;I didn't see you mention that tidbit in the post, thought it was worth noting.</p> <p>Also, as someone who works on systems with a lot of sleeping SPIDs, I would be very interested in seeing the amount of time the session has been sleeping.</p> <p>E</p> http://www2.sqlblog.com/blogs/adam_machanic/archive/2011/04/23/leader-of-the-block-a-month-of-activity-monitoring-part-23-of-30.aspx#35351Sat, 30 Apr 2011 15:45:19 GMT21093a07-8b3d-42db-8cbf-3350fcbf5496:35351Adam Machanic<p>This post is part 30 of a 30-part series about the Who is Active stored procedure. A new post will run</p>