replacing hard disk

I have a server running sql 2000. We recently had to replace a failed drive
on a raid 5 array. Subsequent to changing it, the performance of the server
has declined considerably and blocking locks are occuring, which we never had
experienced before on this server. There are no errors reported for the new
disk.
I'm now trying to work out what could be the problem and how in fact to
correct it. Will running specific maintenance jobs correct the problem? Like
UPDATE STATISTICS?
Thanks!
Hi
Has the array rebuilt?
The fact that performance is perceived to be worse, look at a hardware
problem, not at a SQL one.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"gracie" <gracie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:83C86485-F322-491C-973F-DF197CD10EBE@.microsoft.com...
>I have a server running sql 2000. We recently had to replace a failed drive
> on a raid 5 array. Subsequent to changing it, the performance of the
> server
> has declined considerably and blocking locks are occuring, which we never
> had
> experienced before on this server. There are no errors reported for the
> new
> disk.
> I'm now trying to work out what could be the problem and how in fact to
> correct it. Will running specific maintenance jobs correct the problem?
> Like
> UPDATE STATISTICS?
> Thanks!
|||Yes it's been rebuilt and the status of the drive and the drive array are
reported with a status of ok.
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:

> Hi
> Has the array rebuilt?
> The fact that performance is perceived to be worse, look at a hardware
> problem, not at a SQL one.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "gracie" <gracie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:83C86485-F322-491C-973F-DF197CD10EBE@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Did you replace like for like..?
For instance replacing a 72Gb 15,000RPM disk with a 72Gb 10,000RPM disk
would cause the entire array to drop back to 10,000RPM
HTH
"gracie" <gracie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F84864F8-F9C5-4879-97A0-542842DD59AB@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yes it's been rebuilt and the status of the drive and the drive array are
> reported with a status of ok.
>
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
drive[vbcol=seagreen]
never[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
problem?[vbcol=seagreen]
sql

replacing hard disk

I have a server running sql 2000. We recently had to replace a failed drive
on a raid 5 array. Subsequent to changing it, the performance of the server
has declined considerably and blocking locks are occuring, which we never ha
d
experienced before on this server. There are no errors reported for the new
disk.
I'm now trying to work out what could be the problem and how in fact to
correct it. Will running specific maintenance jobs correct the problem? Like
UPDATE STATISTICS?
Thanks!Hi
Has the array rebuilt?
The fact that performance is perceived to be worse, look at a hardware
problem, not at a SQL one.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"gracie" <gracie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:83C86485-F322-491C-973F-DF197CD10EBE@.microsoft.com...
>I have a server running sql 2000. We recently had to replace a failed drive
> on a raid 5 array. Subsequent to changing it, the performance of the
> server
> has declined considerably and blocking locks are occuring, which we never
> had
> experienced before on this server. There are no errors reported for the
> new
> disk.
> I'm now trying to work out what could be the problem and how in fact to
> correct it. Will running specific maintenance jobs correct the problem?
> Like
> UPDATE STATISTICS?
> Thanks!|||Yes it's been rebuilt and the status of the drive and the drive array are
reported with a status of ok.
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:

> Hi
> Has the array rebuilt?
> The fact that performance is perceived to be worse, look at a hardware
> problem, not at a SQL one.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "gracie" <gracie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:83C86485-F322-491C-973F-DF197CD10EBE@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Did you replace like for like..?
For instance replacing a 72Gb 15,000RPM disk with a 72Gb 10,000RPM disk
would cause the entire array to drop back to 10,000RPM
HTH
"gracie" <gracie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F84864F8-F9C5-4879-97A0-542842DD59AB@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yes it's been rebuilt and the status of the drive and the drive array are
> reported with a status of ok.
>
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
>
drive[vbcol=seagreen]
never[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
problem?[vbcol=seagreen]

replacing hard disk

I have a server running sql 2000. We recently had to replace a failed drive
on a raid 5 array. Subsequent to changing it, the performance of the server
has declined considerably and blocking locks are occuring, which we never had
experienced before on this server. There are no errors reported for the new
disk.
I'm now trying to work out what could be the problem and how in fact to
correct it. Will running specific maintenance jobs correct the problem? Like
UPDATE STATISTICS?
Thanks!Hi
Has the array rebuilt?
The fact that performance is perceived to be worse, look at a hardware
problem, not at a SQL one.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"gracie" <gracie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:83C86485-F322-491C-973F-DF197CD10EBE@.microsoft.com...
>I have a server running sql 2000. We recently had to replace a failed drive
> on a raid 5 array. Subsequent to changing it, the performance of the
> server
> has declined considerably and blocking locks are occuring, which we never
> had
> experienced before on this server. There are no errors reported for the
> new
> disk.
> I'm now trying to work out what could be the problem and how in fact to
> correct it. Will running specific maintenance jobs correct the problem?
> Like
> UPDATE STATISTICS?
> Thanks!|||Yes it's been rebuilt and the status of the drive and the drive array are
reported with a status of ok.
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> Has the array rebuilt?
> The fact that performance is perceived to be worse, look at a hardware
> problem, not at a SQL one.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "gracie" <gracie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:83C86485-F322-491C-973F-DF197CD10EBE@.microsoft.com...
> >I have a server running sql 2000. We recently had to replace a failed drive
> > on a raid 5 array. Subsequent to changing it, the performance of the
> > server
> > has declined considerably and blocking locks are occuring, which we never
> > had
> > experienced before on this server. There are no errors reported for the
> > new
> > disk.
> >
> > I'm now trying to work out what could be the problem and how in fact to
> > correct it. Will running specific maintenance jobs correct the problem?
> > Like
> > UPDATE STATISTICS?
> >
> > Thanks!
>
>|||Did you replace like for like..?
For instance replacing a 72Gb 15,000RPM disk with a 72Gb 10,000RPM disk
would cause the entire array to drop back to 10,000RPM
--
HTH
"gracie" <gracie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F84864F8-F9C5-4879-97A0-542842DD59AB@.microsoft.com...
> Yes it's been rebuilt and the status of the drive and the drive array are
> reported with a status of ok.
>
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Has the array rebuilt?
> > The fact that performance is perceived to be worse, look at a hardware
> > problem, not at a SQL one.
> >
> > Regards
> > --
> > Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> > Zurich, Switzerland
> >
> > IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> >
> > MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> >
> > Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> >
> > "gracie" <gracie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:83C86485-F322-491C-973F-DF197CD10EBE@.microsoft.com...
> > >I have a server running sql 2000. We recently had to replace a failed
drive
> > > on a raid 5 array. Subsequent to changing it, the performance of the
> > > server
> > > has declined considerably and blocking locks are occuring, which we
never
> > > had
> > > experienced before on this server. There are no errors reported for
the
> > > new
> > > disk.
> > >
> > > I'm now trying to work out what could be the problem and how in fact
to
> > > correct it. Will running specific maintenance jobs correct the
problem?
> > > Like
> > > UPDATE STATISTICS?
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> >
> >
> >

Replacing failed node with dissimilar hardware

I need to replace a node with a server that is not the same as the failed one. When the cluster was built the hardware was identical down to the positioning of the NIC and HBA. What are the consequences of this? It is a SQL 2000 server SP3a running on Win
dows 2000 Advanced server.
Thanks for any input.
Paul L
Its not a best practice or something that I ever like to do, but it will
work. So no real consequences to speak of.
Cheers,
Rod
"Paul" <paul_lane@.supplyworks.com> wrote in message
news:AE7B3C3A-82B4-4F64-AF85-7F2165B9CD5D@.microsoft.com...
> I need to replace a node with a server that is not the same as the failed
one. When the cluster was built the hardware was identical down to the
positioning of the NIC and HBA. What are the consequences of this? It is a
SQL 2000 server SP3a running on Windows 2000 Advanced server.
> Thanks for any input.
> Paul L
|||Not something I would do in production. But we do it in the lab all the
time. I have a Win2003 3+1 cluster with three different kinds of hardware
from two vendors. It works fine.
Linchi Shea
linchi_shea@.NOSPAMml.com
"Paul" <paul_lane@.supplyworks.com> wrote in message
news:AE7B3C3A-82B4-4F64-AF85-7F2165B9CD5D@.microsoft.com...
> I need to replace a node with a server that is not the same as the failed
one. When the cluster was built the hardware was identical down to the
positioning of the NIC and HBA. What are the consequences of this? It is a
SQL 2000 server SP3a running on Windows 2000 Advanced server.
> Thanks for any input.
> Paul L
|||The major consequence would be if there was a failure and you needed
support from Microsoft. Only cluster configurations on the HCL are
supported.
Rand
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.
|||Thanks for all of your input, I appreciate it.

replace failed node without downtime? (sp1 question)

Is there a manual procedure whereby I could get a replacement node up to SP1
binaries without having to interrupt service by failing the cluster over
just to apply SP1 to the newly rebuilt node?
Hopefully I'm making sense - the node that went down was a passive node and
it's been rebuilt - but in order to get the binaries up to SP1 the only way
I know how is to fail the cluster to the new node just to get the SP1
binaries on it.
Thanks in advance!
Karl
Hi,
My understanding of your issue is: After adding a new node in SQL 2005
cluster instance, the SQL version on new node is RTM and old node is SP1
In such scenario, we have following two ways to apply SQL Sp1 for this SQL
2005 cluster.
1. Apply SP1 again on the active node (OLD node) and the new node
will be upgraded to SP3 as well.
2. Add registry Need_SP_Key on the passive node and install SQL
service pack 1on Passive node directly, In this way, the SP1 will only be
installed on Passive node.
Hope this helps.
Best regards,
Vincent Xu
Microsoft Online Partner Support
================================================== ====
Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
================================================== ====
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others
may learn and benefit from this issue.
================================================== ====
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties,and confers no rights.
================================================== ====
--[vbcol=seagreen]
SP1[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
way[vbcol=seagreen]
|||Yes, you understand what I'm trying to do. I have a couple of questions,
please.
If I try #1 on the old (already SP1) node - will it stop the SQL Service or
will it leave the active node online while it patches the passive node
remotely?
For #2 when I search for Need_SP_Key I only get SQL 2000 information and the
2005 BOL has nothing I can find about it. Sounds like the best option
though.
-Karl
"Vincent Xu [MSFT]" <v-xuwen@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1EObEyf4GHA.2336@.TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl...
Hi,
My understanding of your issue is: After adding a new node in SQL 2005
cluster instance, the SQL version on new node is RTM and old node is SP1
In such scenario, we have following two ways to apply SQL Sp1 for this SQL
2005 cluster.
1. Apply SP1 again on the active node (OLD node) and the new node
will be upgraded to SP3 as well.
2. Add registry Need_SP_Key on the passive node and install SQL
service pack 1on Passive node directly, In this way, the SP1 will only be
installed on Passive node.
Hope this helps.
Best regards,
Vincent Xu
Microsoft Online Partner Support
================================================== ====
Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
================================================== ====
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others
may learn and benefit from this issue.
================================================== ====
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties,and confers no rights.
================================================== ====
--[vbcol=seagreen]
SP1[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
way[vbcol=seagreen]
|||Hi,
Found more information:
You can even install SP1 on node 2 directly:
- Verified that SP1 was successfully installed on Node1, we did that by
running
Select @.@.Version & physically checking the File Version property of
sqlservr.exe on
Node1 which is 2005.90.2047.0
- We made Node1 as a active node.
- Started installation on Node2.
Note: This time setup wont allow us to check the checkbox for instance in
"Feature
Selection" window, as Node1 (which is a active node) is already on SP1, so
we will
continue so we continued setup without it.
- Let it run for all products till setup got completed.
- Verified that SP1 was successfully installed on Node2, we did that by
running
Select @.@.Version & physically checking the File Version property of
sqlservr.exe on
Node2 which is 2005.90.2047.0
- Verified by failing over also.
Hope this helps.
Best regards,
Vincent Xu
Microsoft Online Partner Support
================================================== ====
Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
================================================== ====
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others
may learn and benefit from this issue.
================================================== ====
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties,and confers no rights.
================================================== ====
--[vbcol=seagreen]
<1EObEyf4GHA.2336@.TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl>[vbcol=seagreen]
or[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]

Repl failure on <> in data field

We added data to a table with ‘<’ and ‘>’ symbols. The replication failed on
SQLServer with the error “Syntax error or access violation”. We replaced the
'<' and '>' with '(' and ')', which fixed the replication error. Can you not
use brackets in a table that is replicated?
This applies to the following characters: * ,< , > , ? , / , \ , % , | , : ,
" and '
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
|||Is this a known bug?
Is there any fix available?
"Paul Ibison" wrote:

> This applies to the following characters: * ,< , > , ? , / , \ , % , | , : ,
> " and '
> Cheers,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
> (recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
>
>
|||You could describe it as a limitation, a feature or a bug
There's no fix - apart from removing the relevant characters (see
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;[LN];829746)
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
|||Sorry I did not expained well.
The table name doesn't contain special character but a space. (Space is not
in the list of special characters). For example [Title Types]
Replication works fine. Adding new data, updating data gets replicated
successfully. Now, when you add data with any special characters in one of
the nvarchar data fields of replicated table ( i.e. [Title Types]).
Replication fails.
The microsoft article addressing the issue of article name with special
characters but I have issue with data when table name contains space(which is
not special character listed).
I can not stop users to not enter special characters in data. So I think I
have only 2 options:
1. Rename table to TitleTypes (i.e remove space), All special characters
will work in data. (Lot of work as table is getting referenced from many
places)
2. add instead of trigger on table to get rid of special characters. (Extra
load on DB for insert and update due to trigger).
Further suggestions will be helpful.
Thanks
"Paul Ibison" wrote:

> You could describe it as a limitation, a feature or a bug
> There's no fix - apart from removing the relevant characters (see
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;[LN];829746)
> Cheers,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
> (recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
>
>
>

Repeated Login failed for user SA in Event Log.

At regular intervals there are failed login message for User SA, User User,
User Root in the event log. This seems to have started after Security Patche
s
were applied.
How do I stop these failed logins occuring?
Thanks
--
John Franks MIScT, MIAP, MCSA, MCSE, MCDBACheck the Enterprise manager settings for configuration of SQL Agent.
Try changing SQL Agent to use Windows Authentication instead of Standard
Security.
Thanks,
Kevin McDonnell
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||Thanks Kevin, we are already using Window authentication, any other
suggestions '
"Kevin McDonnell [MSFT]" wrote:

> Check the Enterprise manager settings for configuration of SQL Agent.
> Try changing SQL Agent to use Windows Authentication instead of Standard
> Security.
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin McDonnell
> Microsoft Corporation
> This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>
>|||Otherwise, you could use SQL Profiler to capture failed login events to try
to find out what application is causing them, or run a network trace .
Thanks,
Kevin McDonnell
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Repeated Errors in SQL Server log file

I have hundreds of these errors saying 'Login failed for user 'Reporting' The user is not associated with a trusted SQL Server connection [CLIENT: ip address]

The ip address is that of the server that sql server is installed on.

Looking in my log file, all looks good until I get to Service Broker manager has started, then I get Error: 18452, Severity: 14 State: 1 then these two lines repeat about every minute, for the last 3 days!

I think I must have just missed a tick box somewhere, but where?

I have been into one of the databases, and input and checked data, both via an application I wrote and SQL Server Management Studio.

I am also having trouble connecting using my application to connect to the database, I can only connect if I use a Windows administrator account (this SQL Server 2005 running on a Windows 2003 Server, with the app on PC running Windows 2000)

Hello Graham,

did you find any solutions for that problem? I'm discovering a similar problem. The state of my error message is 5. According to the following source http://blogs.msdn.com/sql_protocols/archive/2006/02/21/536201.aspx this means the user is not known. This is correct. Neither the SQL-Server nor the Windows system has such a userid.

The faulty user name is 'Reporting'. What is that user used for? I have set up other SQL Server 2005 servers but was never asked for such a name.

Greetings,

Frank

|||

Frank

No, but I haven't had much chance to chase this, too many other issues!

|||

I've run into the same problem. As far as I can tell the "Reporting" userid is coming from Symantec Reporting Server for Antivirus or Client Security. Everything seems to be functioning in the Reporting console in Symantec Client security just fine, yet I still get the error. I've tried most of what I can think of to resolve this, but will let you know if I find anything else out. Please do likewise.

Jim

Repeated Errors in SQL Server log file

I have hundreds of these errors saying 'Login failed for user 'Reporting' The user is not associated with a trusted SQL Server connection [CLIENT: ip address]

The ip address is that of the server that sql server is installed on.

Looking in my log file, all looks good until I get to Service Broker manager has started, then I get Error: 18452, Severity: 14 State: 1 then these two lines repeat about every minute, for the last 3 days!

I think I must have just missed a tick box somewhere, but where?

I have been into one of the databases, and input and checked data, both via an application I wrote and SQL Server Management Studio.

I am also having trouble connecting using my application to connect to the database, I can only connect if I use a Windows administrator account (this SQL Server 2005 running on a Windows 2003 Server, with the app on PC running Windows 2000)

Hello Graham,

did you find any solutions for that problem? I'm discovering a similar problem. The state of my error message is 5. According to the following source http://blogs.msdn.com/sql_protocols/archive/2006/02/21/536201.aspx this means the user is not known. This is correct. Neither the SQL-Server nor the Windows system has such a userid.

The faulty user name is 'Reporting'. What is that user used for? I have set up other SQL Server 2005 servers but was never asked for such a name.

Greetings,

Frank

|||

Frank

No, but I haven't had much chance to chase this, too many other issues!

|||

I've run into the same problem. As far as I can tell the "Reporting" userid is coming from Symantec Reporting Server for Antivirus or Client Security. Everything seems to be functioning in the Reporting console in Symantec Client security just fine, yet I still get the error. I've tried most of what I can think of to resolve this, but will let you know if I find anything else out. Please do likewise.

Jim

Repeated "Login failed for user 'sa'" entries in SQL Server log

I'm getting repeating "Login failed for user 'sa'" messages in my SQL Server
log - every 20 to 30 seconds. These are also being recorded to the Event
Viewer / Application log. This is a SQL Server 2000 SP4 instance inside the
firewall.
I'm running SQL Profiler and capturing as follows:
Events:
Security Audig - Audit Login Failed
Sessions - ExistingConnection
Stored Procedures - RPC:Completed
Data Columns: All columns
SQL Profiler is returning:
Application Name: OSQL-32
ClientProcessID: <differs>
DatabaseID: 1
Error: 18456
Hostname: <server name>
LoginName: sa
LoginSid: 0x01
StartTime: <differs>
Success: 0
TextData: Login failed for user 'sa'.
I don't see much useful information here that can help me track down where
this is coming from; all the other data columns are empty. Am I missing
something? Is there some other tool I could use to track this down?
I'm guessing it's something on the server, based upon the ApplicationName
and HostName values being returned. Could it be a monitoring agent, i.e. MO
M?
Thanks,
MikeIn most cases this is usually a drone (BotNet) PC hijacked and trying to gai
n
access to your SQL server using the sa account. Why Microsoft haven't
produced any useful tools to:
1. Track to the source
2. Automatically filter out traffic once the repeatative pattern has been
established and notify
But there again, I don't expect much from a company like Microsoft who's
moto is "just enough effort to get revenue and leverage the profit".
netstat should help you identify the IP (in your case it sounds like someone
behind your firewall has infested a PC with a BotNet -- since it happens
every 20-30 seconds it should be pretty clear which IP is the source.
You can also use ActivePorts (freeware) to identify the source connections.
Anyway, why these tools aren't built into SQL 2005 is beyond me -- but I
guess that just goes to show you Microsoft's true "commitment" to security
and why their OS/services are such a easy target when compared to *nix based
platforms.
"mikron2" wrote:

> I'm getting repeating "Login failed for user 'sa'" messages in my SQL Serv
er
> log - every 20 to 30 seconds. These are also being recorded to the Event
> Viewer / Application log. This is a SQL Server 2000 SP4 instance inside t
he
> firewall.
>
> I'm running SQL Profiler and capturing as follows:
> Events:
> Security Audig - Audit Login Failed
> Sessions - ExistingConnection
> Stored Procedures - RPC:Completed
> Data Columns: All columns
> SQL Profiler is returning:
> Application Name: OSQL-32
> ClientProcessID: <differs>
> DatabaseID: 1
> Error: 18456
> Hostname: <server name>
> LoginName: sa
> LoginSid: 0x01
> StartTime: <differs>
> Success: 0
> TextData: Login failed for user 'sa'.
> I don't see much useful information here that can help me track down where
> this is coming from; all the other data columns are empty. Am I missing
> something? Is there some other tool I could use to track this down?
> I'm guessing it's something on the server, based upon the ApplicationName
> and HostName values being returned. Could it be a monitoring agent, i.e.
MOM?
> Thanks,
> Mike
>

repair_rebuild and the transaction log

We have a large-ish database (160GB) which grew to over 300GB last weekend
when the maintenance job failed. Half of it is unused but I can't shrink it
due to index errors and when I run checkdb it also reports index errors. I
would like to run checkdb with repair_rebuild but there is not much room for
the log file to grow now the DB has gotten so big - it will max out around
8-10GB.
My questions are:
Will repair_rebuild need the log file to grow any larger than 8GB on a 160GB
database? If so can I just move the log file to a drive with more room?
I can't copy the DB to another server and test out the repair_rebuild - does
anyone have an idea how long it will take on a 160GB database? Are we talking
several hours or days?
Is DBCC reindex a better option in my case?
Thanks
Part of DBCC CHECK With Repair_rebuild option is rebuilding corrupt
indexes. How about adding a new transaction log to a different drive
instead of moving existing log file?
Yih-Yoon Lee
J Jetson wrote:
> We have a large-ish database (160GB) which grew to over 300GB last weekend
> when the maintenance job failed. Half of it is unused but I can't shrink it
> due to index errors and when I run checkdb it also reports index errors. I
> would like to run checkdb with repair_rebuild but there is not much room for
> the log file to grow now the DB has gotten so big - it will max out around
> 8-10GB.
> My questions are:
> Will repair_rebuild need the log file to grow any larger than 8GB on a 160GB
> database? If so can I just move the log file to a drive with more room?
> I can't copy the DB to another server and test out the repair_rebuild - does
> anyone have an idea how long it will take on a 160GB database? Are we talking
> several hours or days?
> Is DBCC reindex a better option in my case?
> Thanks
|||t8-10GB is too small for 160GB db to run checkdb.
You can move log file to a big disk with detach and atach syntax and then
run check db. Alternatively, you can turn Recovery Model from "Full" to
"Simple" in DB Options.
Given that, SQL server will not grow log file. It's same as trunc. log on
chkpt in SQL 7.
Zrich
"J Jetson" wrote:

> We have a large-ish database (160GB) which grew to over 300GB last weekend
> when the maintenance job failed. Half of it is unused but I can't shrink it
> due to index errors and when I run checkdb it also reports index errors. I
> would like to run checkdb with repair_rebuild but there is not much room for
> the log file to grow now the DB has gotten so big - it will max out around
> 8-10GB.
> My questions are:
> Will repair_rebuild need the log file to grow any larger than 8GB on a 160GB
> database? If so can I just move the log file to a drive with more room?
> I can't copy the DB to another server and test out the repair_rebuild - does
> anyone have an idea how long it will take on a 160GB database? Are we talking
> several hours or days?
> Is DBCC reindex a better option in my case?
> Thanks
|||> t8-10GB is too small for 160GB db to run checkdb.
I don't know how you can possibly say that when you have no idea what
corruptions exist in the database or the size of the indexes that the
repair_rebuild option may cause to be rebuilt.
Can you post the output from DBCC CHECKDB? Also, have you done root-cause
analysis to work out why the corruption happened? (e.g. look through the SQL
errorlog and Windows event logs for hardware errors).
Regards
Paul Randal
Dev Lead, Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Zrich" <Zrich@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:92D7B4F1-0637-4A56-BB98-4EE0C002239C@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> t8-10GB is too small for 160GB db to run checkdb.
> You can move log file to a big disk with detach and atach syntax and then
> run check db. Alternatively, you can turn Recovery Model from "Full" to
> "Simple" in DB Options.
> Given that, SQL server will not grow log file. It's same as trunc. log on
> chkpt in SQL 7.
> Zrich
> "J Jetson" wrote:
weekend[vbcol=seagreen]
it[vbcol=seagreen]
I[vbcol=seagreen]
for[vbcol=seagreen]
around[vbcol=seagreen]
160GB[vbcol=seagreen]
does[vbcol=seagreen]
talking[vbcol=seagreen]

repair_rebuild and the transaction log

We have a large-ish database (160GB) which grew to over 300GB last weekend
when the maintenance job failed. Half of it is unused but I can't shrink it
due to index errors and when I run checkdb it also reports index errors. I
would like to run checkdb with repair_rebuild but there is not much room for
the log file to grow now the DB has gotten so big - it will max out around
8-10GB.
My questions are:
Will repair_rebuild need the log file to grow any larger than 8GB on a 160GB
database? If so can I just move the log file to a drive with more room?
I can't copy the DB to another server and test out the repair_rebuild - does
anyone have an idea how long it will take on a 160GB database? Are we talkin
g
several hours or days?
Is DBCC reindex a better option in my case?
ThanksPart of DBCC CHECK With Repair_rebuild option is rebuilding corrupt
indexes. How about adding a new transaction log to a different drive
instead of moving existing log file?
Yih-Yoon Lee
J Jetson wrote:
> We have a large-ish database (160GB) which grew to over 300GB last weekend
> when the maintenance job failed. Half of it is unused but I can't shrink i
t
> due to index errors and when I run checkdb it also reports index errors. I
> would like to run checkdb with repair_rebuild but there is not much room f
or
> the log file to grow now the DB has gotten so big - it will max out around
> 8-10GB.
> My questions are:
> Will repair_rebuild need the log file to grow any larger than 8GB on a 160
GB
> database? If so can I just move the log file to a drive with more room?
> I can't copy the DB to another server and test out the repair_rebuild - do
es
> anyone have an idea how long it will take on a 160GB database? Are we talk
ing
> several hours or days?
> Is DBCC reindex a better option in my case?
> Thanks|||t8-10GB is too small for 160GB db to run checkdb.
You can move log file to a big disk with detach and atach syntax and then
run check db. Alternatively, you can turn Recovery Model from "Full" to
"Simple" in DB Options.
Given that, SQL server will not grow log file. It's same as trunc. log on
chkpt in SQL 7.
Zrich
"J Jetson" wrote:

> We have a large-ish database (160GB) which grew to over 300GB last weekend
> when the maintenance job failed. Half of it is unused but I can't shrink i
t
> due to index errors and when I run checkdb it also reports index errors. I
> would like to run checkdb with repair_rebuild but there is not much room f
or
> the log file to grow now the DB has gotten so big - it will max out around
> 8-10GB.
> My questions are:
> Will repair_rebuild need the log file to grow any larger than 8GB on a 160
GB
> database? If so can I just move the log file to a drive with more room?
> I can't copy the DB to another server and test out the repair_rebuild - do
es
> anyone have an idea how long it will take on a 160GB database? Are we talk
ing
> several hours or days?
> Is DBCC reindex a better option in my case?
> Thanks|||> t8-10GB is too small for 160GB db to run checkdb.
I don't know how you can possibly say that when you have no idea what
corruptions exist in the database or the size of the indexes that the
repair_rebuild option may cause to be rebuilt.
Can you post the output from DBCC CHECKDB? Also, have you done root-cause
analysis to work out why the corruption happened? (e.g. look through the SQL
errorlog and Windows event logs for hardware errors).
Regards
Paul Randal
Dev Lead, Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Zrich" <Zrich@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:92D7B4F1-0637-4A56-BB98-4EE0C002239C@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> t8-10GB is too small for 160GB db to run checkdb.
> You can move log file to a big disk with detach and atach syntax and then
> run check db. Alternatively, you can turn Recovery Model from "Full" to
> "Simple" in DB Options.
> Given that, SQL server will not grow log file. It's same as trunc. log on
> chkpt in SQL 7.
> Zrich
> "J Jetson" wrote:
>
weekend[vbcol=seagreen]
it[vbcol=seagreen]
I[vbcol=seagreen]
for[vbcol=seagreen]
around[vbcol=seagreen]
160GB[vbcol=seagreen]
does[vbcol=seagreen]
talking[vbcol=seagreen]

repair_rebuild and the transaction log

We have a large-ish database (160GB) which grew to over 300GB last weekend
when the maintenance job failed. Half of it is unused but I can't shrink it
due to index errors and when I run checkdb it also reports index errors. I
would like to run checkdb with repair_rebuild but there is not much room for
the log file to grow now the DB has gotten so big - it will max out around
8-10GB.
My questions are:
Will repair_rebuild need the log file to grow any larger than 8GB on a 160GB
database? If so can I just move the log file to a drive with more room?
I can't copy the DB to another server and test out the repair_rebuild - does
anyone have an idea how long it will take on a 160GB database? Are we talking
several hours or days?
Is DBCC reindex a better option in my case?
ThanksPart of DBCC CHECK With Repair_rebuild option is rebuilding corrupt
indexes. How about adding a new transaction log to a different drive
instead of moving existing log file?
Yih-Yoon Lee
J Jetson wrote:
> We have a large-ish database (160GB) which grew to over 300GB last weekend
> when the maintenance job failed. Half of it is unused but I can't shrink it
> due to index errors and when I run checkdb it also reports index errors. I
> would like to run checkdb with repair_rebuild but there is not much room for
> the log file to grow now the DB has gotten so big - it will max out around
> 8-10GB.
> My questions are:
> Will repair_rebuild need the log file to grow any larger than 8GB on a 160GB
> database? If so can I just move the log file to a drive with more room?
> I can't copy the DB to another server and test out the repair_rebuild - does
> anyone have an idea how long it will take on a 160GB database? Are we talking
> several hours or days?
> Is DBCC reindex a better option in my case?
> Thanks|||t8-10GB is too small for 160GB db to run checkdb.
You can move log file to a big disk with detach and atach syntax and then
run check db. Alternatively, you can turn Recovery Model from "Full" to
"Simple" in DB Options.
Given that, SQL server will not grow log file. It's same as trunc. log on
chkpt in SQL 7.
Zrich
"J Jetson" wrote:
> We have a large-ish database (160GB) which grew to over 300GB last weekend
> when the maintenance job failed. Half of it is unused but I can't shrink it
> due to index errors and when I run checkdb it also reports index errors. I
> would like to run checkdb with repair_rebuild but there is not much room for
> the log file to grow now the DB has gotten so big - it will max out around
> 8-10GB.
> My questions are:
> Will repair_rebuild need the log file to grow any larger than 8GB on a 160GB
> database? If so can I just move the log file to a drive with more room?
> I can't copy the DB to another server and test out the repair_rebuild - does
> anyone have an idea how long it will take on a 160GB database? Are we talking
> several hours or days?
> Is DBCC reindex a better option in my case?
> Thanks|||> t8-10GB is too small for 160GB db to run checkdb.
I don't know how you can possibly say that when you have no idea what
corruptions exist in the database or the size of the indexes that the
repair_rebuild option may cause to be rebuilt.
Can you post the output from DBCC CHECKDB? Also, have you done root-cause
analysis to work out why the corruption happened? (e.g. look through the SQL
errorlog and Windows event logs for hardware errors).
Regards
--
Paul Randal
Dev Lead, Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Zrich" <Zrich@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:92D7B4F1-0637-4A56-BB98-4EE0C002239C@.microsoft.com...
> t8-10GB is too small for 160GB db to run checkdb.
> You can move log file to a big disk with detach and atach syntax and then
> run check db. Alternatively, you can turn Recovery Model from "Full" to
> "Simple" in DB Options.
> Given that, SQL server will not grow log file. It's same as trunc. log on
> chkpt in SQL 7.
> Zrich
> "J Jetson" wrote:
> > We have a large-ish database (160GB) which grew to over 300GB last
weekend
> > when the maintenance job failed. Half of it is unused but I can't shrink
it
> > due to index errors and when I run checkdb it also reports index errors.
I
> > would like to run checkdb with repair_rebuild but there is not much room
for
> > the log file to grow now the DB has gotten so big - it will max out
around
> > 8-10GB.
> >
> > My questions are:
> >
> > Will repair_rebuild need the log file to grow any larger than 8GB on a
160GB
> > database? If so can I just move the log file to a drive with more room?
> >
> > I can't copy the DB to another server and test out the repair_rebuild -
does
> > anyone have an idea how long it will take on a 160GB database? Are we
talking
> > several hours or days?
> >
> > Is DBCC reindex a better option in my case?
> >
> > Thanks

Repair a Sql Server

Hi,
I have an instance of Sql Server 2000 on a Windows Server 2000
The server has 2 mirror hard disk
On disk failed and we replace it by a new one
Since than, some DTS does not work because the connection to another
database on the same server failed
Also the Console Entreprise Manager can not connect to all database
If a create a new registration from a remote computer the registration work
and I can see all the database
It seem's that some files are corrupted on the server
Is there a way to do a repair on SqlServer 2000?
If yes How can I do that?
Or what should I do to resolve the problem?
Thanks in advance?firstly to be sure if SQL server databases are corrupted, you can check
by doing DBCC CheckDB on all the databases|||It sounds like your redundant disk array isn't. Find and fix any disk
corruption issues, then you can restore the SQL Server. I have found that
fixing databases in place with underlying file system corruption to have
very poor success rates.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"GC" <GC@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B7E33597-020E-49BB-B91A-3D181A020FF5@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I have an instance of Sql Server 2000 on a Windows Server 2000
> The server has 2 mirror hard disk
> On disk failed and we replace it by a new one
> Since than, some DTS does not work because the connection to another
> database on the same server failed
> Also the Console Entreprise Manager can not connect to all database
> If a create a new registration from a remote computer the registration
> work
> and I can see all the database
> It seem's that some files are corrupted on the server
> Is there a way to do a repair on SqlServer 2000?
> If yes How can I do that?
> Or what should I do to resolve the problem?
> Thanks in advance?

Repair a Sql Server

Hi,
I have an instance of Sql Server 2000 on a Windows Server 2000
The server has 2 mirror hard disk
On disk failed and we replace it by a new one
Since than, some DTS does not work because the connection to another
database on the same server failed
Also the Console Entreprise Manager can not connect to all database
If a create a new registration from a remote computer the registration work
and I can see all the database
It seem's that some files are corrupted on the server
Is there a way to do a repair on SqlServer 2000?
If yes How can I do that?
Or what should I do to resolve the problem?
Thanks in advance?
firstly to be sure if SQL server databases are corrupted, you can check
by doing DBCC CheckDB on all the databases
|||It sounds like your redundant disk array isn't. Find and fix any disk
corruption issues, then you can restore the SQL Server. I have found that
fixing databases in place with underlying file system corruption to have
very poor success rates.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"GC" <GC@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B7E33597-020E-49BB-B91A-3D181A020FF5@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I have an instance of Sql Server 2000 on a Windows Server 2000
> The server has 2 mirror hard disk
> On disk failed and we replace it by a new one
> Since than, some DTS does not work because the connection to another
> database on the same server failed
> Also the Console Entreprise Manager can not connect to all database
> If a create a new registration from a remote computer the registration
> work
> and I can see all the database
> It seem's that some files are corrupted on the server
> Is there a way to do a repair on SqlServer 2000?
> If yes How can I do that?
> Or what should I do to resolve the problem?
> Thanks in advance?

Repair a Sql Server

Hi,
I have an instance of Sql Server 2000 on a Windows Server 2000
The server has 2 mirror hard disk
On disk failed and we replace it by a new one
Since than, some DTS does not work because the connection to another
database on the same server failed
Also the Console Entreprise Manager can not connect to all database
If a create a new registration from a remote computer the registration work
and I can see all the database
It seem's that some files are corrupted on the server
Is there a way to do a repair on SqlServer 2000?
If yes How can I do that?
Or what should I do to resolve the problem?
Thanks in advance?firstly to be sure if SQL server databases are corrupted, you can check
by doing DBCC CheckDB on all the databases|||It sounds like your redundant disk array isn't. Find and fix any disk
corruption issues, then you can restore the SQL Server. I have found that
fixing databases in place with underlying file system corruption to have
very poor success rates.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"GC" <GC@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B7E33597-020E-49BB-B91A-3D181A020FF5@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I have an instance of Sql Server 2000 on a Windows Server 2000
> The server has 2 mirror hard disk
> On disk failed and we replace it by a new one
> Since than, some DTS does not work because the connection to another
> database on the same server failed
> Also the Console Entreprise Manager can not connect to all database
> If a create a new registration from a remote computer the registration
> work
> and I can see all the database
> It seem's that some files are corrupted on the server
> Is there a way to do a repair on SqlServer 2000?
> If yes How can I do that?
> Or what should I do to resolve the problem?
> Thanks in advance?