SQL Monitor does not track sql server renames. The assumption for this is that it would be a very rare event which could also involve fundamental changes (e.g. upgrade from 2005 to 2008R2) which would make that historical data irrelevant. Also the data repository is not designed to hold huge amounts of historical data, as this would cause the database to grow exponentially (amongst other issues).
But if you still think this could be useful, please post on the SQL Monitor UserVoice forum. The development team can then possibly consider some changes for the future.https://sqlmonitor.uservoice.com/forums ... uggestions
1) This idea that the historical data captured by SQL Monitor is of no use is costing Red-Gate in lost sales. Theres so much you could do with that data and yet you toss it away like as if it were trash. What a shame. This kind of presumption with software by IBM helped launch Microsoft to its throne of power in the technology world. In an age of data sharing where knowledge is considered power, why would any software vendor toss information aside?
2) While not purging the historical data can cause the DB to grow it doesn't have to be such gorwth that its unmanagable. In our case we have not seen any serious growth of our SQL Monitor DB and we've never purged the data since w started capturing about 2 years ago.
3) I will definately add this to the SQL Monitor suggestions/features list