Precision Scale Problems Between SQL 2K SP3 and SP4

This is a really strange error that I am seeing and I'm wondering if
anyone else has seen it yet.
I have a small database (less than 100k for backup file) that I send to a
third party. On several tables in this database there are fields that are
set to decimal(19,4). I am running SQL Server 2000 sp3/3a. Third party is
running 2K sp4. When they restore the database on their side, SOME of
these same numeric fields are showing a scale of 0, so in effect the scale
is lost and rather than reporting "1.5000" we are reporting a value of
"1". The precision and scale on third party's end is decimal(18,0).
Is there any way to explain why the scale for SOME of these fields is
changing? It's not even a complete conversion. There are some fields that
are not getting converted, which REALLY confuses me.
The only thing I can figure is that a version of the database with this
scale exists somewhere on the server and that when they do a restore,
somehow the scale for these fields is retained from that old database,
even though we are restoring from a backup. How this would happen, I have
no idea, but it is the only thing I can think of at this point.
Perhaps the database backup file contains multiple backups and the first
(older schema) is restored by default. You can check this with RESTORE
HEADERONLY:
RESTORE HEADERONLY
FROM DISK='C:\Backups\MyBackup.bak'
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"KBarrett" <kelseybarrett@.matteicos.com> wrote in message
news:op.szk8rrbkbpkth2@.tmc-kbarrett.matteicos.com...
> This is a really strange error that I am seeing and I'm wondering if
> anyone else has seen it yet.
> I have a small database (less than 100k for backup file) that I send to a
> third party. On several tables in this database there are fields that are
> set to decimal(19,4). I am running SQL Server 2000 sp3/3a. Third party is
> running 2K sp4. When they restore the database on their side, SOME of
> these same numeric fields are showing a scale of 0, so in effect the scale
> is lost and rather than reporting "1.5000" we are reporting a value of
> "1". The precision and scale on third party's end is decimal(18,0).
> Is there any way to explain why the scale for SOME of these fields is
> changing? It's not even a complete conversion. There are some fields that
> are not getting converted, which REALLY confuses me.
> The only thing I can figure is that a version of the database with this
> scale exists somewhere on the server and that when they do a restore,
> somehow the scale for these fields is retained from that old database,
> even though we are restoring from a backup. How this would happen, I have
> no idea, but it is the only thing I can think of at this point.
>
|||Thanks for the tip Dan. I will check on that.
-k
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 20:35:28 -0800, Dan Guzman
<guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Perhaps the database backup file contains multiple backups and the first
> (older schema) is restored by default. You can check this with RESTORE
> HEADERONLY:
> RESTORE HEADERONLY
> FROM DISK='C:\Backups\MyBackup.bak'

Precision Scale Problems Between SQL 2K SP3 and SP4

This is a really strange error that I am seeing and I'm wondering if
anyone else has seen it yet.
I have a small database (less than 100k for backup file) that I send to a
third party. On several tables in this database there are fields that are
set to decimal(19,4). I am running SQL Server 2000 sp3/3a. Third party is
running 2K sp4. When they restore the database on their side, SOME of
these same numeric fields are showing a scale of 0, so in effect the scale
is lost and rather than reporting "1.5000" we are reporting a value of
"1". The precision and scale on third party's end is decimal(18,0).
Is there any way to explain why the scale for SOME of these fields is
changing? It's not even a complete conversion. There are some fields that
are not getting converted, which REALLY confuses me.
The only thing I can figure is that a version of the database with this
scale exists somewhere on the server and that when they do a restore,
somehow the scale for these fields is retained from that old database,
even though we are restoring from a backup. How this would happen, I have
no idea, but it is the only thing I can think of at this point.Perhaps the database backup file contains multiple backups and the first
(older schema) is restored by default. You can check this with RESTORE
HEADERONLY:
RESTORE HEADERONLY
FROM DISK='C:\Backups\MyBackup.bak'
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"KBarrett" <kelseybarrett@.matteicos.com> wrote in message
news:op.szk8rrbkbpkth2@.tmc-kbarrett.matteicos.com...
> This is a really strange error that I am seeing and I'm wondering if
> anyone else has seen it yet.
> I have a small database (less than 100k for backup file) that I send to a
> third party. On several tables in this database there are fields that are
> set to decimal(19,4). I am running SQL Server 2000 sp3/3a. Third party is
> running 2K sp4. When they restore the database on their side, SOME of
> these same numeric fields are showing a scale of 0, so in effect the scale
> is lost and rather than reporting "1.5000" we are reporting a value of
> "1". The precision and scale on third party's end is decimal(18,0).
> Is there any way to explain why the scale for SOME of these fields is
> changing? It's not even a complete conversion. There are some fields that
> are not getting converted, which REALLY confuses me.
> The only thing I can figure is that a version of the database with this
> scale exists somewhere on the server and that when they do a restore,
> somehow the scale for these fields is retained from that old database,
> even though we are restoring from a backup. How this would happen, I have
> no idea, but it is the only thing I can think of at this point.
>|||Thanks for the tip Dan. I will check on that.
-k
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 20:35:28 -0800, Dan Guzman
<guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Perhaps the database backup file contains multiple backups and the first
> (older schema) is restored by default. You can check this with RESTORE
> HEADERONLY:
> RESTORE HEADERONLY
> FROM DISK='C:\Backups\MyBackup.bak'

Precision Scale Problems Between SQL 2K SP3 and SP4

This is a really strange error that I am seeing and I'm wondering if
anyone else has seen it yet.
I have a small database (less than 100k for backup file) that I send to a
third party. On several tables in this database there are fields that are
set to decimal(19,4). I am running SQL Server 2000 sp3/3a. Third party is
running 2K sp4. When they restore the database on their side, SOME of
these same numeric fields are showing a scale of 0, so in effect the scale
is lost and rather than reporting "1.5000" we are reporting a value of
"1". The precision and scale on third party's end is decimal(18,0).
Is there any way to explain why the scale for SOME of these fields is
changing? It's not even a complete conversion. There are some fields that
are not getting converted, which REALLY confuses me.
The only thing I can figure is that a version of the database with this
scale exists somewhere on the server and that when they do a restore,
somehow the scale for these fields is retained from that old database,
even though we are restoring from a backup. How this would happen, I have
no idea, but it is the only thing I can think of at this point.Perhaps the database backup file contains multiple backups and the first
(older schema) is restored by default. You can check this with RESTORE
HEADERONLY:
RESTORE HEADERONLY
FROM DISK='C:\Backups\MyBackup.bak'
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"KBarrett" <kelseybarrett@.matteicos.com> wrote in message
news:op.szk8rrbkbpkth2@.tmc-kbarrett.matteicos.com...
> This is a really strange error that I am seeing and I'm wondering if
> anyone else has seen it yet.
> I have a small database (less than 100k for backup file) that I send to a
> third party. On several tables in this database there are fields that are
> set to decimal(19,4). I am running SQL Server 2000 sp3/3a. Third party is
> running 2K sp4. When they restore the database on their side, SOME of
> these same numeric fields are showing a scale of 0, so in effect the scale
> is lost and rather than reporting "1.5000" we are reporting a value of
> "1". The precision and scale on third party's end is decimal(18,0).
> Is there any way to explain why the scale for SOME of these fields is
> changing? It's not even a complete conversion. There are some fields that
> are not getting converted, which REALLY confuses me.
> The only thing I can figure is that a version of the database with this
> scale exists somewhere on the server and that when they do a restore,
> somehow the scale for these fields is retained from that old database,
> even though we are restoring from a backup. How this would happen, I have
> no idea, but it is the only thing I can think of at this point.
>|||Thanks for the tip Dan. I will check on that.
-k
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 20:35:28 -0800, Dan Guzman
<guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Perhaps the database backup file contains multiple backups and the first
> (older schema) is restored by default. You can check this with RESTORE
> HEADERONLY:
> RESTORE HEADERONLY
> FROM DISK='C:\Backups\MyBackup.bak'

pre-1750 (#?!) dates in SQL table

Sorry for incomplete info here. This is infrequent problem we have.
We have SQL 2000 (sp3?). Our internet team inserts rows into
a table. Don't know the mechanism they use (yet). We use a
VB6 app to read the rows. Two rows have appeared in the table
with pre-1750 dates in last month. E.g., 0204-03-02 00:00:00. When
I did SELECT DATEPART(year, colname) in Query Analyzer, I got 204
for year. When I did SELECT CONVERT (float, colname) I got
-61024.0 (or some value pretty close to that).
Has anyone see anything similar?
Craig HesselI've never seen anything like it. I'd start with DBCC CHECKTABLE.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Craig Hessel" <craig_hessel@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:f39je.4580$eR.285@.fe05.lga..
.
> Sorry for incomplete info here. This is infrequent problem we have.
> We have SQL 2000 (sp3?). Our internet team inserts rows into
> a table. Don't know the mechanism they use (yet). We use a
> VB6 app to read the rows. Two rows have appeared in the table
> with pre-1750 dates in last month. E.g., 0204-03-02 00:00:00. When
> I did SELECT DATEPART(year, colname) in Query Analyzer, I got 204
> for year. When I did SELECT CONVERT (float, colname) I got
> -61024.0 (or some value pretty close to that).
> Has anyone see anything similar?
> Craig Hessel
>
>|||Thanks, Tibor. I contacted internet team member and he confirmed they could
indeed insert bad dates:
"I just ran a test and it looks like the SQL driver we use from WebSphere
does not do the same date checks as the one you use. I was able to enter a
date in the year 204 and the database took it without question. "
"We use JDBC drivers to interact with the database and we use Java code to
come up with what essentially is a Long value representing the number of
milliseconds since 1/1/1900 (or something like that) to represent the date.
We then update the database with that value. "
BTW, I missed a digit in the SELECT CONVERT(float, colname) value reported
earlier. The year
204 is about 600,000 days, not 60,000 days, before Jan 1, 1900.
Craig
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:%23PrRtBRXFHA.3716@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> I've never seen anything like it. I'd start with DBCC CHECKTABLE.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Craig Hessel" <craig_hessel@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f39je.4580$eR.285@.fe05.lga...
>|||I've seen a similar problem with bulk loads of dates using non-MS ODBC
drivers. Do check your SP though as I don't recall this happening since
SP3. Check for a driver update as well.
You may find you can fix the dates with an UPDATE like this:
UPDATE YourTable SET dt = NULL
WHERE dt < '17530101'
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--sql

pre-1750 (#?!) dates in SQL table

Sorry for incomplete info here. This is infrequent problem we have.
We have SQL 2000 (sp3?). Our internet team inserts rows into
a table. Don't know the mechanism they use (yet). We use a
VB6 app to read the rows. Two rows have appeared in the table
with pre-1750 dates in last month. E.g., 0204-03-02 00:00:00. When
I did SELECT DATEPART(year, colname) in Query Analyzer, I got 204
for year. When I did SELECT CONVERT (float, colname) I got
-61024.0 (or some value pretty close to that).
Has anyone see anything similar?
Craig Hessel
I've never seen anything like it. I'd start with DBCC CHECKTABLE.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Craig Hessel" <craig_hessel@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:f39je.4580$eR.285@.fe05.lga...
> Sorry for incomplete info here. This is infrequent problem we have.
> We have SQL 2000 (sp3?). Our internet team inserts rows into
> a table. Don't know the mechanism they use (yet). We use a
> VB6 app to read the rows. Two rows have appeared in the table
> with pre-1750 dates in last month. E.g., 0204-03-02 00:00:00. When
> I did SELECT DATEPART(year, colname) in Query Analyzer, I got 204
> for year. When I did SELECT CONVERT (float, colname) I got
> -61024.0 (or some value pretty close to that).
> Has anyone see anything similar?
> Craig Hessel
>
>
|||Thanks, Tibor. I contacted internet team member and he confirmed they could
indeed insert bad dates:
"I just ran a test and it looks like the SQL driver we use from WebSphere
does not do the same date checks as the one you use. I was able to enter a
date in the year 204 and the database took it without question. "
"We use JDBC drivers to interact with the database and we use Java code to
come up with what essentially is a Long value representing the number of
milliseconds since 1/1/1900 (or something like that) to represent the date.
We then update the database with that value. "
BTW, I missed a digit in the SELECT CONVERT(float, colname) value reported
earlier. The year
204 is about 600,000 days, not 60,000 days, before Jan 1, 1900.
Craig
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:%23PrRtBRXFHA.3716@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> I've never seen anything like it. I'd start with DBCC CHECKTABLE.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Craig Hessel" <craig_hessel@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f39je.4580$eR.285@.fe05.lga...
>
|||I've seen a similar problem with bulk loads of dates using non-MS ODBC
drivers. Do check your SP though as I don't recall this happening since
SP3. Check for a driver update as well.
You may find you can fix the dates with an UPDATE like this:
UPDATE YourTable SET dt = NULL
WHERE dt < '17530101'
David Portas
SQL Server MVP

pre-1750 (#?!) dates in SQL table

Sorry for incomplete info here. This is infrequent problem we have.
We have SQL 2000 (sp3?). Our internet team inserts rows into
a table. Don't know the mechanism they use (yet). We use a
VB6 app to read the rows. Two rows have appeared in the table
with pre-1750 dates in last month. E.g., 0204-03-02 00:00:00. When
I did SELECT DATEPART(year, colname) in Query Analyzer, I got 204
for year. When I did SELECT CONVERT (float, colname) I got
-61024.0 (or some value pretty close to that).
Has anyone see anything similar?
Craig HesselI've never seen anything like it. I'd start with DBCC CHECKTABLE.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Craig Hessel" <craig_hessel@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:f39je.4580$eR.285@.fe05.lga...
> Sorry for incomplete info here. This is infrequent problem we have.
> We have SQL 2000 (sp3?). Our internet team inserts rows into
> a table. Don't know the mechanism they use (yet). We use a
> VB6 app to read the rows. Two rows have appeared in the table
> with pre-1750 dates in last month. E.g., 0204-03-02 00:00:00. When
> I did SELECT DATEPART(year, colname) in Query Analyzer, I got 204
> for year. When I did SELECT CONVERT (float, colname) I got
> -61024.0 (or some value pretty close to that).
> Has anyone see anything similar?
> Craig Hessel
>
>|||Thanks, Tibor. I contacted internet team member and he confirmed they could
indeed insert bad dates:
"I just ran a test and it looks like the SQL driver we use from WebSphere
does not do the same date checks as the one you use. I was able to enter a
date in the year 204 and the database took it without question. "
"We use JDBC drivers to interact with the database and we use Java code to
come up with what essentially is a Long value representing the number of
milliseconds since 1/1/1900 (or something like that) to represent the date.
We then update the database with that value. "
BTW, I missed a digit in the SELECT CONVERT(float, colname) value reported
earlier. The year
204 is about 600,000 days, not 60,000 days, before Jan 1, 1900.
Craig
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:%23PrRtBRXFHA.3716@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> I've never seen anything like it. I'd start with DBCC CHECKTABLE.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Craig Hessel" <craig_hessel@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f39je.4580$eR.285@.fe05.lga...
>> Sorry for incomplete info here. This is infrequent problem we have.
>> We have SQL 2000 (sp3?). Our internet team inserts rows into
>> a table. Don't know the mechanism they use (yet). We use a
>> VB6 app to read the rows. Two rows have appeared in the table
>> with pre-1750 dates in last month. E.g., 0204-03-02 00:00:00. When
>> I did SELECT DATEPART(year, colname) in Query Analyzer, I got 204
>> for year. When I did SELECT CONVERT (float, colname) I got
>> -61024.0 (or some value pretty close to that).
>> Has anyone see anything similar?
>> Craig Hessel
>>
>|||I've seen a similar problem with bulk loads of dates using non-MS ODBC
drivers. Do check your SP though as I don't recall this happening since
SP3. Check for a driver update as well.
You may find you can fix the dates with an UPDATE like this:
UPDATE YourTable SET dt = NULL
WHERE dt < '17530101'
--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--

Post SP3 upgrade

I upgraded a server last night to SP3 and all of my push subscriptions
disappeared, but all the publications remained. When I go to recreate
them, the push subscriptions, I receive the following message...
Error 2812: Could not find stored rocedure
'distribution.dbo.sp_MShelp_subscriber_info'. Could not find the
Distributor or the distribution database for the local server. The
Distributir may not be installed, or the local server may not be
configured as a Publisher at the Distributor.
What does this mean? Can I create the push subscriptions?
TIA,
Larry...b
can you issue these queries for me?
select count(*) from master.dbo.sysobjects
go
select count(*) from distribution.dbo.sysobjects
go
Issue them in both the publisher and subscriber.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
<lreames@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108496768.247604.52820@.z14g2000cwz.googlegro ups.com...
> I upgraded a server last night to SP3 and all of my push subscriptions
> disappeared, but all the publications remained. When I go to recreate
> them, the push subscriptions, I receive the following message...
> Error 2812: Could not find stored rocedure
> 'distribution.dbo.sp_MShelp_subscriber_info'. Could not find the
> Distributor or the distribution database for the local server. The
> Distributir may not be installed, or the local server may not be
> configured as a Publisher at the Distributor.
> What does this mean? Can I create the push subscriptions?
> TIA,
> Larry...b
>
|||on publisher
select count(*) from master.dbo.sysobjects --> 1265
select count(*) from distribution.dbo.sysobjects --> 63
on subscriber
select count(*) from master.dbo.sysobjects --> 1308
select count(*) from distribution.dbo.sysobjects --> 245
|||Oops wrong queries - although right now I strongly suspect you have had an
incomplete service pack deployment on your publisher. Can you post these
logs here:
%windir%\sqlsp.log
%windir%\sqlstp.log
Then post the results of these queries
on the publisher
select count(*) from master.dbo.sysobjects where type='p'
select count(*) from distribution.dbo.sysobjects where type='p'
select @.@.version
on the subscriber
select count(*) from master.dbo.sysobjects where type='p'
select count(*) from distribution.dbo.sysobjects where type='p'
select @.@.version
Please do not apply the sp on your subscriber again. Also do you have
backups of your master database over the past couple of days?
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
<lreames@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108498247.749656.228490@.f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> on publisher
> select count(*) from master.dbo.sysobjects --> 1265
> select count(*) from distribution.dbo.sysobjects --> 63
> on subscriber
> select count(*) from master.dbo.sysobjects --> 1308
> select count(*) from distribution.dbo.sysobjects --> 245
>
|||can you also save the results of this query and post them here:
select name, crdate from sysobjects where type='p'
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OMUZ8D9EFHA.1348@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Oops wrong queries - although right now I strongly suspect you have had an
> incomplete service pack deployment on your publisher. Can you post these
> logs here:
> %windir%\sqlsp.log
> %windir%\sqlstp.log
> Then post the results of these queries
> on the publisher
> select count(*) from master.dbo.sysobjects where type='p'
> select count(*) from distribution.dbo.sysobjects where type='p'
> select @.@.version
> on the subscriber
> select count(*) from master.dbo.sysobjects where type='p'
> select count(*) from distribution.dbo.sysobjects where type='p'
> select @.@.version
> Please do not apply the sp on your subscriber again. Also do you have
> backups of your master database over the past couple of days?
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
> <lreames@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1108498247.749656.228490@.f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>

POST SP3 Problems

Fresh install of Win2K Server with all the latest Services Packs and Patches.

Fresh Install of SQL Servers 2000

Everything works OK

Install SP3

SQL Services Manager runs for 1 second and closes

Running New SQL Server Registration Wizard in Enterprise Manger, after hitting Next on the first screen Enterprise Manager goes poof and closes

DR. Watson Error:

Event Type: Information
Event Source: DrWatson
Event Category: None
Event ID: 4097
Date: 2/14/2003
Time: 8:38:37 AM
User: N/A
Computer: CRUISE03
Description:
The application, mmc.exe, generated an application error The error occurred on 02/14/2003 @. 08:38:37.458 The exception generated was c0000005 at address 780011CD (wcslen)

Has anyone else experienced this error, or know how I can correct it?I have experienced a different error (possibly related)

Windows 2K box
SQL 2K sp2

Add SQL SP3

SQL Server process crashes on any extended stored procedure execution. Some DBCC commands (checkdb but not showcontig) also crash the server process.

I talked to Microsoft about it, and it seems that there is one MDAC hotfix that will report a successful installation no matter what. Out of 4 machines, I only had one go bad, but I still have 30 to go...

The fix in my case was as follows:
1) run C:\SQL2KSP3\x86\other\sqlredis.exe /t:C:\Extract /c

2) run C:\Extract\mdac_qfe.exe
2a) reboot.
3) Re-run SQL SP3 setup

It fixed my particular problem, but I don't know if it will do anything to yours. Can you run extended stored procs in Query Analyzer?
~Matt|||Unfortunately this fix didn't work for me.

I don't having any stored procedures to test, this is a very simple setup for my new web server.

Post SP3 Full text performance degradation

Since upgrading to service pack 3a (from sql server with
no sp) I am experiencing performance issues with my full
text searches. Its hard to quantify the problem - but
since the upgrade I am definitely seeing significatnt
increase in duration for searches - especially when they
run concurrently.
As part of the upgrade the catalogs were rebuilt.
Any ideas would be appreciated
This is abnormal. There were some problems with the search algorithim prior
to SP 3 relating to ranking. If you are doing ordering you may experieince
some difference in performance.
I noticed a performance increase. How many simultaneous queries are you
running? You can get this metric by looking at the performance monitor
counter Microsoft Search:Queries
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
"rob" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3ff201c4ab8e$5a1c3400$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> Since upgrading to service pack 3a (from sql server with
> no sp) I am experiencing performance issues with my full
> text searches. Its hard to quantify the problem - but
> since the upgrade I am definitely seeing significatnt
> increase in duration for searches - especially when they
> run concurrently.
> As part of the upgrade the catalogs were rebuilt.
> Any ideas would be appreciated
|||Hilary,
Right now it is running at an average of about 300000, but
we are experiencing light load, and we are having no
problem. I'll keep the metric running and monitor what
happens when we do have problems.
The stored procedure that runs the various
containscontable commands uses dynamic sql, and also joins
on tables in other databases on the same server - do you
know if either of these aspects could have been affected
by SP3. I have made no code changes that would account
for the problems I am seeing.
THanks, Rob
>--Original Message--
>This is abnormal. There were some problems with the
search algorithim prior
>to SP 3 relating to ranking. If you are doing ordering
you may experieince
>some difference in performance.
>I noticed a performance increase. How many simultaneous
queries are you
>running? You can get this metric by looking at the
performance monitor
>counter Microsoft Search:Queries
>--
>Hilary Cotter
>Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
>http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
>
>"rob" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
>news:3ff201c4ab8e$5a1c3400$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
>
>.
>
|||Hilary,
I just saw the cpu flat-lining again, but the metric did
not really change.
Rob
>--Original Message--
>This is abnormal. There were some problems with the
search algorithim prior
>to SP 3 relating to ranking. If you are doing ordering
you may experieince
>some difference in performance.
>I noticed a performance increase. How many simultaneous
queries are you
>running? You can get this metric by looking at the
performance monitor
>counter Microsoft Search:Queries
>--
>Hilary Cotter
>Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
>http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
>
>"rob" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
>news:3ff201c4ab8e$5a1c3400$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
>
>.
>
|||are there any error messages in the event log from MSSearch or MSSCi?
When you say you saw the CPU flat lining I take it, that CPU is going to
100%, or it is remaining constant?
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:333301c4aba7$988ef3d0$a501280a@.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hilary,
> I just saw the cpu flat-lining again, but the metric did
> not really change.
> Rob
> search algorithim prior
> you may experieince
> queries are you
> performance monitor
> message
|||There are no errors or warnings - and the searches do
return after several seconds, but they run the cpu at 100%
until they return, and are much slower than before SP3 was
installed.
Do you think the problem could be related to cross-
database queries or dynamic sql?
Rob
>--Original Message--
>are there any error messages in the event log from
MSSearch or MSSCi?
>When you say you saw the CPU flat lining I take it, that
CPU is going to[vbcol=seagreen]
>100%, or it is remaining constant?
>--
>Hilary Cotter
>Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
>http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
>
><anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>news:333301c4aba7$988ef3d0$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
with[vbcol=seagreen]
full[vbcol=seagreen]
but[vbcol=seagreen]
they
>
>.
>
|||dynamic sql is often inefficient, but not always as in some cases the
execution plan will be cached and reused.
However, in the type of queries you would use with SQL FTS it is not cached.
It could be related to cross database queries, especially if you are not
fully qualifying your database and owner names.
Can you post your query here? Also how many queries are occuring per second
or minute? And how many rows are in your table?
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:36bb01c4abca$99400670$a501280a@.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> There are no errors or warnings - and the searches do
> return after several seconds, but they run the cpu at 100%
> until they return, and are much slower than before SP3 was
> installed.
> Do you think the problem could be related to cross-
> database queries or dynamic sql?
> Rob
> MSSearch or MSSCi?
> CPU is going to
> with
> full
> but
> they
|||Rob,
There were several MAJOR fixes related to FTS in SQL Server 2000 SP3 that
caused existing FT Catalogs to be automatically rebuilt (if you selected
them during the SP3 installation) or your could of deferred the rebuild if
the FT Catalogs were large and use the procedures in KB article Q240867 at a
later point in time. Do you know which option you selected during the SP3
upgrade?
Below are two KB articles that document these fixes related to FTS in SP3:
327217 (Q327217) INF: Installing SQL Server 2000 Service Pack 3 Rebuilds All
Full-Text Catalogs
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;327217
312410 (Q312410) "FIX: Full Text RANK Results May Vary After Catalog
Repopulation"
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;312410 (references
Q240867)
Regards,
John
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:36bb01c4abca$99400670$a501280a@.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> There are no errors or warnings - and the searches do
> return after several seconds, but they run the cpu at 100%
> until they return, and are much slower than before SP3 was
> installed.
> Do you think the problem could be related to cross-
> database queries or dynamic sql?
> Rob
> MSSearch or MSSCi?
> CPU is going to
> with
> full
> but
> they

Post SP3 ERROR

upgraded a server last night to SP3 and all of my push subscriptions
disappeared, but all the publications remained. When I go to recreate
them, the push subscriptions, I receive the following message...
Error 2812: Could not find stored procedure
'distribution.dbo.sp_MShelp_subscriber_info'. Could not find the
Distributor or the distribution database for the local server. The
Distributir may not be installed, or the local server may not be
configured as a Publisher at the Distributor.
What does this mean? Can I create the push subscriptions?
TIA,
Larry...
Is this proc in the distribution database? Can you post your sqlsp.log and
your sqlsp.logs here? You can find them in %windir%
Also can you give us some history of your server? Is this the first time you
applied SP 3 to them? What was on these servers before you applied SP3?
This problem occasionally occurs on SQL Servers - I'd like to try to get to
the bottom of it.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
<lreames@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108653185.903933.16440@.c13g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
> upgraded a server last night to SP3 and all of my push subscriptions
> disappeared, but all the publications remained. When I go to recreate
> them, the push subscriptions, I receive the following message...
>
> Error 2812: Could not find stored procedure
> 'distribution.dbo.sp_MShelp_subscriber_info'. Could not find the
> Distributor or the distribution database for the local server. The
> Distributir may not be installed, or the local server may not be
> configured as a Publisher at the Distributor.
>
> What does this mean? Can I create the push subscriptions?
>
> TIA,
> Larry...
>
|||Hilary,
You responded to me via email, this was a repost.
Larry....

post disaster questions

sql2k sp3
First of all thanks alot to those of you who helped me out
yesterday. Now Im trying to better prepare for the future.
I had a corrupted Master db. The cause of this is still in
debate and at this point Im hoping it doesnt happen again.
The event viewer said one of our disks in a raid 5 array
was bad, but: a checkdisk, some Dell software, being able
to get on the disk and write, and our network admins
disagree. Fair enough. Since SQL needs to be on in order
to do a restore, restoring Master when SQL couldnt be
started wasnt an option. So I had to uninstall, reinstall
SQL. Then restore Master from the day befores backup. So
my questions are:
Is there a way to backup the Master mdf and ldf files
without shutting down SQL?
When I restored Master anfter the uninstall/ reinstall,
most of my user db's appeared unscathed. Why? I was
expecting to need to restore them from backup. Most of
them aren't backed up as they are mostly use for QA
purposes. The two that didnt survive were our actual
Development db and the Replication Distribution db. The
Development db I was able to restaore from backup and the
Distribution was just a loss. So, why did most of them
appear after restoring the Master but two of them didnt? I
wasnt expecting any of them to make it without restores.
TIA, ChrisRThey showed, up because the information about the databases is stored in the
tables within the master database. So basically since you restored from a
master database the information about your users database was also restored.
As far as backing up the master mdf and ldf files, I'm assuming you want to
do this at the file system level, with the DOS "copy" command. Since the
mdf and ldf files are in use when the database server is up, you can't use
the "copy" command. You will need to shutdown SQL Server and then do the
copy.
--
----
----
-
Need SQL Server Examples check out my website
http://www.geocities.com/sqlserverexamples
"ChrisR" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:cfda01c48ac9$69e6a7c0$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> sql2k sp3
> First of all thanks alot to those of you who helped me out
> yesterday. Now Im trying to better prepare for the future.
> I had a corrupted Master db. The cause of this is still in
> debate and at this point Im hoping it doesnt happen again.
> The event viewer said one of our disks in a raid 5 array
> was bad, but: a checkdisk, some Dell software, being able
> to get on the disk and write, and our network admins
> disagree. Fair enough. Since SQL needs to be on in order
> to do a restore, restoring Master when SQL couldnt be
> started wasnt an option. So I had to uninstall, reinstall
> SQL. Then restore Master from the day befores backup. So
> my questions are:
> Is there a way to backup the Master mdf and ldf files
> without shutting down SQL?
> When I restored Master anfter the uninstall/ reinstall,
> most of my user db's appeared unscathed. Why? I was
> expecting to need to restore them from backup. Most of
> them aren't backed up as they are mostly use for QA
> purposes. The two that didnt survive were our actual
> Development db and the Replication Distribution db. The
> Development db I was able to restaore from backup and the
> Distribution was just a loss. So, why did most of them
> appear after restoring the Master but two of them didnt? I
> wasnt expecting any of them to make it without restores.
> TIA, ChrisR|||Do you know why two of the db's didnt survive once the
master was restored?
>--Original Message--
>They showed, up because the information about the
databases is stored in the
>tables within the master database. So basically since
you restored from a
>master database the information about your users database
was also restored.
>As far as backing up the master mdf and ldf files, I'm
assuming you want to
>do this at the file system level, with the DOS "copy"
command. Since the
>mdf and ldf files are in use when the database server is
up, you can't use
>the "copy" command. You will need to shutdown SQL Server
and then do the
>copy.
>--
>----
--
>----
--
>-
>Need SQL Server Examples check out my website
>http://www.geocities.com/sqlserverexamples
>
>"ChrisR" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
>news:cfda01c48ac9$69e6a7c0$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
>> sql2k sp3
>> First of all thanks alot to those of you who helped me
out
>> yesterday. Now Im trying to better prepare for the
future.
>> I had a corrupted Master db. The cause of this is still
in
>> debate and at this point Im hoping it doesnt happen
again.
>> The event viewer said one of our disks in a raid 5 array
>> was bad, but: a checkdisk, some Dell software, being
able
>> to get on the disk and write, and our network admins
>> disagree. Fair enough. Since SQL needs to be on in order
>> to do a restore, restoring Master when SQL couldnt be
>> started wasnt an option. So I had to uninstall,
reinstall
>> SQL. Then restore Master from the day befores backup. So
>> my questions are:
>> Is there a way to backup the Master mdf and ldf files
>> without shutting down SQL?
>> When I restored Master anfter the uninstall/ reinstall,
>> most of my user db's appeared unscathed. Why? I was
>> expecting to need to restore them from backup. Most of
>> them aren't backed up as they are mostly use for QA
>> purposes. The two that didnt survive were our actual
>> Development db and the Replication Distribution db. The
>> Development db I was able to restaore from backup and
the
>> Distribution was just a loss. So, why did most of them
>> appear after restoring the Master but two of them
didnt? I
>> wasnt expecting any of them to make it without restores.
>> TIA, ChrisR
>
>.
>|||Perhaps you hadn't created those databases at the time you took the backup of the master database?
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"ChrisR" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:014001c48ad4$519314f0$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> Do you know why two of the db's didnt survive once the
> master was restored?
>
> >--Original Message--
> >They showed, up because the information about the
> databases is stored in the
> >tables within the master database. So basically since
> you restored from a
> >master database the information about your users database
> was also restored.
> >
> >As far as backing up the master mdf and ldf files, I'm
> assuming you want to
> >do this at the file system level, with the DOS "copy"
> command. Since the
> >mdf and ldf files are in use when the database server is
> up, you can't use
> >the "copy" command. You will need to shutdown SQL Server
> and then do the
> >copy.
> >
> >--
> >
> >----
> --
> >----
> --
> >-
> >
> >Need SQL Server Examples check out my website
> >http://www.geocities.com/sqlserverexamples
> >
> >
> >"ChrisR" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message
> >news:cfda01c48ac9$69e6a7c0$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> >> sql2k sp3
> >>
> >> First of all thanks alot to those of you who helped me
> out
> >> yesterday. Now Im trying to better prepare for the
> future.
> >>
> >> I had a corrupted Master db. The cause of this is still
> in
> >> debate and at this point Im hoping it doesnt happen
> again.
> >> The event viewer said one of our disks in a raid 5 array
> >> was bad, but: a checkdisk, some Dell software, being
> able
> >> to get on the disk and write, and our network admins
> >> disagree. Fair enough. Since SQL needs to be on in order
> >> to do a restore, restoring Master when SQL couldnt be
> >> started wasnt an option. So I had to uninstall,
> reinstall
> >> SQL. Then restore Master from the day befores backup. So
> >> my questions are:
> >>
> >> Is there a way to backup the Master mdf and ldf files
> >> without shutting down SQL?
> >>
> >> When I restored Master anfter the uninstall/ reinstall,
> >> most of my user db's appeared unscathed. Why? I was
> >> expecting to need to restore them from backup. Most of
> >> them aren't backed up as they are mostly use for QA
> >> purposes. The two that didnt survive were our actual
> >> Development db and the Replication Distribution db. The
> >> Development db I was able to restaore from backup and
> the
> >> Distribution was just a loss. So, why did most of them
> >> appear after restoring the Master but two of them
> didnt? I
> >> wasnt expecting any of them to make it without restores.
> >>
> >> TIA, ChrisR
> >
> >
> >.
> >|||There're two reasons that 2 dbs didn't appear:
(1) Somebody changed the location.
(2) 2 dbs were created after you backed up Master DB.
BTW, why do you need to backup master data files?
SQL backup is enough for you to recover the whole
system.
Steven
>--Original Message--
>Perhaps you hadn't created those databases at the time
you took the backup of the master database?
>--
>Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
>"ChrisR" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:014001c48ad4$519314f0$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
>> Do you know why two of the db's didnt survive once the
>> master was restored?
>>
>> >--Original Message--
>> >They showed, up because the information about the
>> databases is stored in the
>> >tables within the master database. So basically since
>> you restored from a
>> >master database the information about your users
database
>> was also restored.
>> >
>> >As far as backing up the master mdf and ldf files, I'm
>> assuming you want to
>> >do this at the file system level, with the DOS "copy"
>> command. Since the
>> >mdf and ldf files are in use when the database server
is
>> up, you can't use
>> >the "copy" command. You will need to shutdown SQL
Server
>> and then do the
>> >copy.
>> >
>> >--
>> >
>> >----
--
>> --
>> >----
--
>> --
>> >-
>> >
>> >Need SQL Server Examples check out my website
>> >http://www.geocities.com/sqlserverexamples
>> >
>> >
>> >"ChrisR" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>> message
>> >news:cfda01c48ac9$69e6a7c0$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
>> >> sql2k sp3
>> >>
>> >> First of all thanks alot to those of you who helped
me
>> out
>> >> yesterday. Now Im trying to better prepare for the
>> future.
>> >>
>> >> I had a corrupted Master db. The cause of this is
still
>> in
>> >> debate and at this point Im hoping it doesnt happen
>> again.
>> >> The event viewer said one of our disks in a raid 5
array
>> >> was bad, but: a checkdisk, some Dell software, being
>> able
>> >> to get on the disk and write, and our network admins
>> >> disagree. Fair enough. Since SQL needs to be on in
order
>> >> to do a restore, restoring Master when SQL couldnt be
>> >> started wasnt an option. So I had to uninstall,
>> reinstall
>> >> SQL. Then restore Master from the day befores
backup. So
>> >> my questions are:
>> >>
>> >> Is there a way to backup the Master mdf and ldf files
>> >> without shutting down SQL?
>> >>
>> >> When I restored Master anfter the uninstall/
reinstall,
>> >> most of my user db's appeared unscathed. Why? I was
>> >> expecting to need to restore them from backup. Most
of
>> >> them aren't backed up as they are mostly use for QA
>> >> purposes. The two that didnt survive were our actual
>> >> Development db and the Replication Distribution db.
The
>> >> Development db I was able to restaore from backup and
>> the
>> >> Distribution was just a loss. So, why did most of
them
>> >> appear after restoring the Master but two of them
>> didnt? I
>> >> wasnt expecting any of them to make it without
restores.
>> >>
>> >> TIA, ChrisR
>> >
>> >
>> >.
>> >
>
>.
>|||>BTW, why do you need to backup master data files?
> SQL backup is enough for you to recover the whole
> system.
>
Not if SQL cant start to do a Master restore.
>--Original Message--
>There're two reasons that 2 dbs didn't appear:
>(1) Somebody changed the location.
>(2) 2 dbs were created after you backed up Master DB.
>BTW, why do you need to backup master data files?
> SQL backup is enough for you to recover the whole
> system.
>Steven
>
>>--Original Message--
>>Perhaps you hadn't created those databases at the time
>you took the backup of the master database?
>>--
>>Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>>http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>>http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>>
>>"ChrisR" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>message news:014001c48ad4$519314f0$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
>> Do you know why two of the db's didnt survive once the
>> master was restored?
>>
>> >--Original Message--
>> >They showed, up because the information about the
>> databases is stored in the
>> >tables within the master database. So basically since
>> you restored from a
>> >master database the information about your users
>database
>> was also restored.
>> >
>> >As far as backing up the master mdf and ldf files, I'm
>> assuming you want to
>> >do this at the file system level, with the DOS "copy"
>> command. Since the
>> >mdf and ldf files are in use when the database server
>is
>> up, you can't use
>> >the "copy" command. You will need to shutdown SQL
>Server
>> and then do the
>> >copy.
>> >
>> >--
>> >
>> >---
-
>--
>> --
>> >---
-
>--
>> --
>> >-
>> >
>> >Need SQL Server Examples check out my website
>> >http://www.geocities.com/sqlserverexamples
>> >
>> >
>> >"ChrisR" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
in
>> message
>> >news:cfda01c48ac9$69e6a7c0$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
>> >> sql2k sp3
>> >>
>> >> First of all thanks alot to those of you who helped
>me
>> out
>> >> yesterday. Now Im trying to better prepare for the
>> future.
>> >>
>> >> I had a corrupted Master db. The cause of this is
>still
>> in
>> >> debate and at this point Im hoping it doesnt happen
>> again.
>> >> The event viewer said one of our disks in a raid 5
>array
>> >> was bad, but: a checkdisk, some Dell software, being
>> able
>> >> to get on the disk and write, and our network admins
>> >> disagree. Fair enough. Since SQL needs to be on in
>order
>> >> to do a restore, restoring Master when SQL couldnt
be
>> >> started wasnt an option. So I had to uninstall,
>> reinstall
>> >> SQL. Then restore Master from the day befores
>backup. So
>> >> my questions are:
>> >>
>> >> Is there a way to backup the Master mdf and ldf
files
>> >> without shutting down SQL?
>> >>
>> >> When I restored Master anfter the uninstall/
>reinstall,
>> >> most of my user db's appeared unscathed. Why? I was
>> >> expecting to need to restore them from backup. Most
>of
>> >> them aren't backed up as they are mostly use for QA
>> >> purposes. The two that didnt survive were our actual
>> >> Development db and the Replication Distribution db.
>The
>> >> Development db I was able to restaore from backup
and
>> the
>> >> Distribution was just a loss. So, why did most of
>them
>> >> appear after restoring the Master but two of them
>> didnt? I
>> >> wasnt expecting any of them to make it without
>restores.
>> >>
>> >> TIA, ChrisR
>> >
>> >
>> >.
>> >
>>
>>.
>.
>

Possible SQL 2000 Performance Issue

We have a SQL 2000 SP3 Server hosting the MOM 2000 application. We are
running the MSSQLSERVER service and SQLSERVERAGENT service using a Domain
service account.
Our audit level is set to All - this is in accordance with the customer's
requirements.
The application log is constantly being written to with mssqlserver events -
service account successful logon - we would expect this as we have the full
auditing enabled.
However, the MOM application is reporting the following is part of an error
in the application log;
"Not enough storage is available to process this command"
The server has 2GB RAM and the Sqlservr process runs at about 1.5Gb of this
- is it likely to be the amount of auditing that is causing the error or not
enough RAM or combination of the two ?Any problem observed in the SQL server error log? Is ounds more like you are
running low/out of disk space.
"georgejuggins" wrote:

> We have a SQL 2000 SP3 Server hosting the MOM 2000 application. We are
> running the MSSQLSERVER service and SQLSERVERAGENT service using a Domain
> service account.
> Our audit level is set to All - this is in accordance with the customer's
> requirements.
> The application log is constantly being written to with mssqlserver events
-
> service account successful logon - we would expect this as we have the ful
l
> auditing enabled.
> However, the MOM application is reporting the following is part of an erro
r
> in the application log;
> "Not enough storage is available to process this command"
> The server has 2GB RAM and the Sqlservr process runs at about 1.5Gb of thi
s
> - is it likely to be the amount of auditing that is causing the error or n
ot
> enough RAM or combination of the two ?
>

Possible SQL 2000 Performance Issue

We have a SQL 2000 SP3 Server hosting the MOM 2000 application. We are
running the MSSQLSERVER service and SQLSERVERAGENT service using a Domain
service account.
Our audit level is set to All - this is in accordance with the customer's
requirements.
The application log is constantly being written to with mssqlserver events -
service account successful logon - we would expect this as we have the full
auditing enabled.
However, the MOM application is reporting the following is part of an error
in the application log;
"Not enough storage is available to process this command"
The server has 2GB RAM and the Sqlservr process runs at about 1.5Gb of this
- is it likely to be the amount of auditing that is causing the error or not
enough RAM or combination of the two ?
Any problem observed in the SQL server error log? Is ounds more like you are
running low/out of disk space.
"georgejuggins" wrote:

> We have a SQL 2000 SP3 Server hosting the MOM 2000 application. We are
> running the MSSQLSERVER service and SQLSERVERAGENT service using a Domain
> service account.
> Our audit level is set to All - this is in accordance with the customer's
> requirements.
> The application log is constantly being written to with mssqlserver events -
> service account successful logon - we would expect this as we have the full
> auditing enabled.
> However, the MOM application is reporting the following is part of an error
> in the application log;
> "Not enough storage is available to process this command"
> The server has 2GB RAM and the Sqlservr process runs at about 1.5Gb of this
> - is it likely to be the amount of auditing that is causing the error or not
> enough RAM or combination of the two ?
>

Possible SQL 2000 Performance Issue

We have a SQL 2000 SP3 Server hosting the MOM 2000 application. We are
running the MSSQLSERVER service and SQLSERVERAGENT service using a Domain
service account.
Our audit level is set to All - this is in accordance with the customer's
requirements.
The application log is constantly being written to with mssqlserver events -
service account successful logon - we would expect this as we have the full
auditing enabled.
However, the MOM application is reporting the following is part of an error
in the application log;
"Not enough storage is available to process this command"
The server has 2GB RAM and the Sqlservr process runs at about 1.5Gb of this
- is it likely to be the amount of auditing that is causing the error or not
enough RAM or combination of the two ?Any problem observed in the SQL server error log? Is ounds more like you are
running low/out of disk space.
"georgejuggins" wrote:
> We have a SQL 2000 SP3 Server hosting the MOM 2000 application. We are
> running the MSSQLSERVER service and SQLSERVERAGENT service using a Domain
> service account.
> Our audit level is set to All - this is in accordance with the customer's
> requirements.
> The application log is constantly being written to with mssqlserver events -
> service account successful logon - we would expect this as we have the full
> auditing enabled.
> However, the MOM application is reporting the following is part of an error
> in the application log;
> "Not enough storage is available to process this command"
> The server has 2GB RAM and the Sqlservr process runs at about 1.5Gb of this
> - is it likely to be the amount of auditing that is causing the error or not
> enough RAM or combination of the two ?
>

possible currupt database?

Hello everyone,
I recently moved a database from a Windows 2000 server (standard)
running SQL 2000 SP3 and placed it on a Windows 2003 server (standard) also
running SQL 2000 SP3. For some weird reason, on our citrix server which is
a BL20P (HP Blade) when my clients access their session and run the
application that is tied into the database that I just moved from one server
to the other, when they are prompted to either cancel or save their work, it
freezes and it doesn't save their work. Prior of moving this database, they
didn't have this problem, the other weird thing is, other people (normal
workstation computers) when they access the same program it works fine and
there are no hang ups. This program is a proprietary program that we use to
issue permits and it's made by HDL companies. I've had no luck with them
because they are pointing figures at me. My question, is it possible that
during the transportation of the database, and could it have been corrupted
during the process? Is there a way to do a consistency check on the
database? Help...
Thank you
Alex AndersonAlex,
Yes, there are tools to do consistency checks. Read about DBCC CHECKDB in
the BOL.
However, if your other non-HDL users are working, then I suspect the
database is probably not corrupted. I would suggest that you recheck the
security issues (grants, usernames, etc) that the HDL documentation should
specify. It may be that an account or account rights got missed during the
move.
Russell Fields
"Alex Anderson" <AAnderson@.Murrieta.org> wrote in message
news:uKw5$3cQEHA.132@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hello everyone,
> I recently moved a database from a Windows 2000 server (standard)
> running SQL 2000 SP3 and placed it on a Windows 2003 server (standard)
also
> running SQL 2000 SP3. For some weird reason, on our citrix server which
is
> a BL20P (HP Blade) when my clients access their session and run the
> application that is tied into the database that I just moved from one
server
> to the other, when they are prompted to either cancel or save their work,
it
> freezes and it doesn't save their work. Prior of moving this database,
they
> didn't have this problem, the other weird thing is, other people (normal
> workstation computers) when they access the same program it works fine and
> there are no hang ups. This program is a proprietary program that we use
to
> issue permits and it's made by HDL companies. I've had no luck with them
> because they are pointing figures at me. My question, is it possible
that
> during the transportation of the database, and could it have been
corrupted
> during the process? Is there a way to do a consistency check on the
> database? Help...
> Thank you
> Alex Anderson
>|||Russell,
Thank you for responding. I have logged in the same user that logs into
citrix where the problem exists on a workstation and that same user doesn't
have the problem. Security I have specified are two groups and there is
another SQL security user but that is for administration purposes. I'll
read up on DBCC and CHECKDB. It's the strangest problem I've ran into, and
I have everyone involved except Microsoft which would be my last ditch
effort.
Thank you
Alex Anderson
"Russell Fields" <RussellFields@.NoMailPlease.Com> wrote in message
news:OmZCaGdQEHA.1392@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Alex,
> Yes, there are tools to do consistency checks. Read about DBCC CHECKDB in
> the BOL.
> However, if your other non-HDL users are working, then I suspect the
> database is probably not corrupted. I would suggest that you recheck the
> security issues (grants, usernames, etc) that the HDL documentation should
> specify. It may be that an account or account rights got missed during
the
> move.
> Russell Fields
> "Alex Anderson" <AAnderson@.Murrieta.org> wrote in message
> news:uKw5$3cQEHA.132@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> also
> is
> server
work,[vbcol=seagreen]
> it
> they
and[vbcol=seagreen]
use[vbcol=seagreen]
> to
them[vbcol=seagreen]
> that
> corrupted
>

possible currupt database?

Hello everyone,
I recently moved a database from a Windows 2000 server (standard)
running SQL 2000 SP3 and placed it on a Windows 2003 server (standard) also
running SQL 2000 SP3. For some weird reason, on our citrix server which is
a BL20P (HP Blade) when my clients access their session and run the
application that is tied into the database that I just moved from one server
to the other, when they are prompted to either cancel or save their work, it
freezes and it doesn't save their work. Prior of moving this database, they
didn't have this problem, the other weird thing is, other people (normal
workstation computers) when they access the same program it works fine and
there are no hang ups. This program is a proprietary program that we use to
issue permits and it's made by HDL companies. I've had no luck with them
because they are pointing figures at me. My question, is it possible that
during the transportation of the database, and could it have been corrupted
during the process? Is there a way to do a consistency check on the
database? Help...
Thank you
Alex Anderson
Alex,
Yes, there are tools to do consistency checks. Read about DBCC CHECKDB in
the BOL.
However, if your other non-HDL users are working, then I suspect the
database is probably not corrupted. I would suggest that you recheck the
security issues (grants, usernames, etc) that the HDL documentation should
specify. It may be that an account or account rights got missed during the
move.
Russell Fields
"Alex Anderson" <AAnderson@.Murrieta.org> wrote in message
news:uKw5$3cQEHA.132@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hello everyone,
> I recently moved a database from a Windows 2000 server (standard)
> running SQL 2000 SP3 and placed it on a Windows 2003 server (standard)
also
> running SQL 2000 SP3. For some weird reason, on our citrix server which
is
> a BL20P (HP Blade) when my clients access their session and run the
> application that is tied into the database that I just moved from one
server
> to the other, when they are prompted to either cancel or save their work,
it
> freezes and it doesn't save their work. Prior of moving this database,
they
> didn't have this problem, the other weird thing is, other people (normal
> workstation computers) when they access the same program it works fine and
> there are no hang ups. This program is a proprietary program that we use
to
> issue permits and it's made by HDL companies. I've had no luck with them
> because they are pointing figures at me. My question, is it possible
that
> during the transportation of the database, and could it have been
corrupted
> during the process? Is there a way to do a consistency check on the
> database? Help...
> Thank you
> Alex Anderson
>
|||Russell,
Thank you for responding. I have logged in the same user that logs into
citrix where the problem exists on a workstation and that same user doesn't
have the problem. Security I have specified are two groups and there is
another SQL security user but that is for administration purposes. I'll
read up on DBCC and CHECKDB. It's the strangest problem I've ran into, and
I have everyone involved except Microsoft which would be my last ditch
effort.
Thank you
Alex Anderson
"Russell Fields" <RussellFields@.NoMailPlease.Com> wrote in message
news:OmZCaGdQEHA.1392@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Alex,
> Yes, there are tools to do consistency checks. Read about DBCC CHECKDB in
> the BOL.
> However, if your other non-HDL users are working, then I suspect the
> database is probably not corrupted. I would suggest that you recheck the
> security issues (grants, usernames, etc) that the HDL documentation should
> specify. It may be that an account or account rights got missed during
the[vbcol=seagreen]
> move.
> Russell Fields
> "Alex Anderson" <AAnderson@.Murrieta.org> wrote in message
> news:uKw5$3cQEHA.132@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> also
> is
> server
work,[vbcol=seagreen]
> it
> they
and[vbcol=seagreen]
use[vbcol=seagreen]
> to
them
> that
> corrupted
>

possible currupt database?

Hello everyone,
I recently moved a database from a Windows 2000 server (standard)
running SQL 2000 SP3 and placed it on a Windows 2003 server (standard) also
running SQL 2000 SP3. For some weird reason, on our citrix server which is
a BL20P (HP Blade) when my clients access their session and run the
application that is tied into the database that I just moved from one server
to the other, when they are prompted to either cancel or save their work, it
freezes and it doesn't save their work. Prior of moving this database, they
didn't have this problem, the other weird thing is, other people (normal
workstation computers) when they access the same program it works fine and
there are no hang ups. This program is a proprietary program that we use to
issue permits and it's made by HDL companies. I've had no luck with them
because they are pointing figures at me. My question, is it possible that
during the transportation of the database, and could it have been corrupted
during the process? Is there a way to do a consistency check on the
database? Help...
Thank you
Alex AndersonAlex,
Yes, there are tools to do consistency checks. Read about DBCC CHECKDB in
the BOL.
However, if your other non-HDL users are working, then I suspect the
database is probably not corrupted. I would suggest that you recheck the
security issues (grants, usernames, etc) that the HDL documentation should
specify. It may be that an account or account rights got missed during the
move.
Russell Fields
"Alex Anderson" <AAnderson@.Murrieta.org> wrote in message
news:uKw5$3cQEHA.132@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hello everyone,
> I recently moved a database from a Windows 2000 server (standard)
> running SQL 2000 SP3 and placed it on a Windows 2003 server (standard)
also
> running SQL 2000 SP3. For some weird reason, on our citrix server which
is
> a BL20P (HP Blade) when my clients access their session and run the
> application that is tied into the database that I just moved from one
server
> to the other, when they are prompted to either cancel or save their work,
it
> freezes and it doesn't save their work. Prior of moving this database,
they
> didn't have this problem, the other weird thing is, other people (normal
> workstation computers) when they access the same program it works fine and
> there are no hang ups. This program is a proprietary program that we use
to
> issue permits and it's made by HDL companies. I've had no luck with them
> because they are pointing figures at me. My question, is it possible
that
> during the transportation of the database, and could it have been
corrupted
> during the process? Is there a way to do a consistency check on the
> database? Help...
> Thank you
> Alex Anderson
>|||Russell,
Thank you for responding. I have logged in the same user that logs into
citrix where the problem exists on a workstation and that same user doesn't
have the problem. Security I have specified are two groups and there is
another SQL security user but that is for administration purposes. I'll
read up on DBCC and CHECKDB. It's the strangest problem I've ran into, and
I have everyone involved except Microsoft which would be my last ditch
effort.
Thank you
Alex Anderson
"Russell Fields" <RussellFields@.NoMailPlease.Com> wrote in message
news:OmZCaGdQEHA.1392@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Alex,
> Yes, there are tools to do consistency checks. Read about DBCC CHECKDB in
> the BOL.
> However, if your other non-HDL users are working, then I suspect the
> database is probably not corrupted. I would suggest that you recheck the
> security issues (grants, usernames, etc) that the HDL documentation should
> specify. It may be that an account or account rights got missed during
the
> move.
> Russell Fields
> "Alex Anderson" <AAnderson@.Murrieta.org> wrote in message
> news:uKw5$3cQEHA.132@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > I recently moved a database from a Windows 2000 server (standard)
> > running SQL 2000 SP3 and placed it on a Windows 2003 server (standard)
> also
> > running SQL 2000 SP3. For some weird reason, on our citrix server which
> is
> > a BL20P (HP Blade) when my clients access their session and run the
> > application that is tied into the database that I just moved from one
> server
> > to the other, when they are prompted to either cancel or save their
work,
> it
> > freezes and it doesn't save their work. Prior of moving this database,
> they
> > didn't have this problem, the other weird thing is, other people (normal
> > workstation computers) when they access the same program it works fine
and
> > there are no hang ups. This program is a proprietary program that we
use
> to
> > issue permits and it's made by HDL companies. I've had no luck with
them
> > because they are pointing figures at me. My question, is it possible
> that
> > during the transportation of the database, and could it have been
> corrupted
> > during the process? Is there a way to do a consistency check on the
> > database? Help...
> >
> > Thank you
> > Alex Anderson
> >
> >
>