DBCC SHOWFILESTATS

Hello,
I′m testing the execution of my database backups with omniback. These
backups fails so i've made a trace and i get the following error: "Error:
7983, Severity: 14, State: 14"
"dbcc showfilestats( 1 )"
The user used to access the databases is a domain admin but in sql server i
only give him the backup operator database role.
If this user were sysadmin everything goes fine but i want to limit his
access.
Do you have any idea about this?
What does the documentation for the backup vendor say? Does it say that the login need to be
sysadmin. If not, you have a bug in their program. If it does, well...
You cannot grant permissions on this. Also, this is an undocumented command, so the backup vendor is
using it at their own risk.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"CC&JM" <CC&JM@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A094D1B4-135A-492B-ADAC-2C12CB9CAC35@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> Im testing the execution of my database backups with omniback. These
> backups fails so i've made a trace and i get the following error: "Error:
> 7983, Severity: 14, State: 14"
> "dbcc showfilestats( 1 )"
> The user used to access the databases is a domain admin but in sql server i
> only give him the backup operator database role.
> If this user were sysadmin everything goes fine but i want to limit his
> access.
> Do you have any idea about this?
>
|||Moreover, the SQL Backup alternatives typically want to use the Virtual
Backup Device Interface API. At this time, only system admins can make calls
with this interface. Backup Operators do not.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:

> What does the documentation for the backup vendor say? Does it say that the login need to be
> sysadmin. If not, you have a bug in their program. If it does, well...
> You cannot grant permissions on this. Also, this is an undocumented command, so the backup vendor is
> using it at their own risk.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "CC&JM" <CC&JM@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:A094D1B4-135A-492B-ADAC-2C12CB9CAC35@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||That undocumented DBCC command is SA-only - there's no way around this.
Paul Randal
Dev Lead, Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"AnthonyThomas" <AnthonyThomas@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:354E62F2-2E58-4D0A-BE1F-E1AA3D8262BE@.microsoft.com...
> Moreover, the SQL Backup alternatives typically want to use the Virtual
> Backup Device Interface API. At this time, only system admins can make
calls[vbcol=seagreen]
> with this interface. Backup Operators do not.
> Sincerely,
>
> Anthony Thomas
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
the login need to be[vbcol=seagreen]
command, so the backup vendor is[vbcol=seagreen]
"Error:[vbcol=seagreen]
server i[vbcol=seagreen]
his[vbcol=seagreen]

DBCC SHOWFILESTATS

Hello,
I′m testing the execution of my database backups with omniback. These
backups fails so i've made a trace and i get the following error: "Error:
7983, Severity: 14, State: 14"
"dbcc showfilestats( 1 )"
The user used to access the databases is a domain admin but in sql server i
only give him the backup operator database role.
If this user were sysadmin everything goes fine but i want to limit his
access.
Do you have any idea about this?What does the documentation for the backup vendor say? Does it say that the
login need to be
sysadmin. If not, you have a bug in their program. If it does, well...
You cannot grant permissions on this. Also, this is an undocumented command,
so the backup vendor is
using it at their own risk.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"CC&JM" <CC&JM@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A094D1B4-135A-492B-ADAC-2C12CB9CAC35@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> Im testing the execution of my database backups with omniback. These
> backups fails so i've made a trace and i get the following error: "Error:
> 7983, Severity: 14, State: 14"
> "dbcc showfilestats( 1 )"
> The user used to access the databases is a domain admin but in sql server
i
> only give him the backup operator database role.
> If this user were sysadmin everything goes fine but i want to limit his
> access.
> Do you have any idea about this?
>|||Moreover, the SQL Backup alternatives typically want to use the Virtual
Backup Device Interface API. At this time, only system admins can make call
s
with this interface. Backup Operators do not.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:

> What does the documentation for the backup vendor say? Does it say that th
e login need to be
> sysadmin. If not, you have a bug in their program. If it does, well...
> You cannot grant permissions on this. Also, this is an undocumented comman
d, so the backup vendor is
> using it at their own risk.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "CC&JM" <CC&JM@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:A094D1B4-135A-492B-ADAC-2C12CB9CAC35@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||That undocumented DBCC command is SA-only - there's no way around this.
Paul Randal
Dev Lead, Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"AnthonyThomas" <AnthonyThomas@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:354E62F2-2E58-4D0A-BE1F-E1AA3D8262BE@.microsoft.com...
> Moreover, the SQL Backup alternatives typically want to use the Virtual
> Backup Device Interface API. At this time, only system admins can make
calls[vbcol=seagreen]
> with this interface. Backup Operators do not.
> Sincerely,
>
> Anthony Thomas
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
>
the login need to be[vbcol=seagreen]
command, so the backup vendor is[vbcol=seagreen]
"Error:[vbcol=seagreen]
server i[vbcol=seagreen]
his[vbcol=seagreen]

DBCC SHOWFILESTATS

Hello,
I´m testing the execution of my database backups with omniback. These
backups fails so i've made a trace and i get the following error: "Error:
7983, Severity: 14, State: 14"
"dbcc showfilestats( 1 )"
The user used to access the databases is a domain admin but in sql server i
only give him the backup operator database role.
If this user were sysadmin everything goes fine but i want to limit his
access.
Do you have any idea about this?What does the documentation for the backup vendor say? Does it say that the login need to be
sysadmin. If not, you have a bug in their program. If it does, well...
You cannot grant permissions on this. Also, this is an undocumented command, so the backup vendor is
using it at their own risk.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"CC&JM" <CC&JM@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A094D1B4-135A-492B-ADAC-2C12CB9CAC35@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I´m testing the execution of my database backups with omniback. These
> backups fails so i've made a trace and i get the following error: "Error:
> 7983, Severity: 14, State: 14"
> "dbcc showfilestats( 1 )"
> The user used to access the databases is a domain admin but in sql server i
> only give him the backup operator database role.
> If this user were sysadmin everything goes fine but i want to limit his
> access.
> Do you have any idea about this?
>|||Moreover, the SQL Backup alternatives typically want to use the Virtual
Backup Device Interface API. At this time, only system admins can make calls
with this interface. Backup Operators do not.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> What does the documentation for the backup vendor say? Does it say that the login need to be
> sysadmin. If not, you have a bug in their program. If it does, well...
> You cannot grant permissions on this. Also, this is an undocumented command, so the backup vendor is
> using it at their own risk.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "CC&JM" <CC&JM@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:A094D1B4-135A-492B-ADAC-2C12CB9CAC35@.microsoft.com...
> > Hello,
> >
> > I´m testing the execution of my database backups with omniback. These
> > backups fails so i've made a trace and i get the following error: "Error:
> > 7983, Severity: 14, State: 14"
> > "dbcc showfilestats( 1 )"
> >
> > The user used to access the databases is a domain admin but in sql server i
> > only give him the backup operator database role.
> > If this user were sysadmin everything goes fine but i want to limit his
> > access.
> >
> > Do you have any idea about this?
> >
>
>|||That undocumented DBCC command is SA-only - there's no way around this.
--
Paul Randal
Dev Lead, Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"AnthonyThomas" <AnthonyThomas@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:354E62F2-2E58-4D0A-BE1F-E1AA3D8262BE@.microsoft.com...
> Moreover, the SQL Backup alternatives typically want to use the Virtual
> Backup Device Interface API. At this time, only system admins can make
calls
> with this interface. Backup Operators do not.
> Sincerely,
>
> Anthony Thomas
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> > What does the documentation for the backup vendor say? Does it say that
the login need to be
> > sysadmin. If not, you have a bug in their program. If it does, well...
> >
> > You cannot grant permissions on this. Also, this is an undocumented
command, so the backup vendor is
> > using it at their own risk.
> >
> > --
> > Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> > http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> > http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> >
> >
> > "CC&JM" <CC&JM@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:A094D1B4-135A-492B-ADAC-2C12CB9CAC35@.microsoft.com...
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I´m testing the execution of my database backups with omniback. These
> > > backups fails so i've made a trace and i get the following error:
"Error:
> > > 7983, Severity: 14, State: 14"
> > > "dbcc showfilestats( 1 )"
> > >
> > > The user used to access the databases is a domain admin but in sql
server i
> > > only give him the backup operator database role.
> > > If this user were sysadmin everything goes fine but i want to limit
his
> > > access.
> > >
> > > Do you have any idea about this?
> > >
> >
> >
> >sql

DBCC fails, why?

Every time I run DBCC to do an integrity check I get the following errors...
and the first one i dont understand it says Expected value 0_PCT_FULL,
actual value 100_PCT_FULL, I checked and it was set to 0...
Msg 8914, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Incorrect PFS free space information for page (1:628) in object ID
949578421, index ID 0, partition ID 72057594042253312, alloc unit ID
72057594046644224 (type LOB data). Expected value 0_PCT_FULL, actual value
100_PCT_FULL.
Msg 8914, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Incorrect PFS free space information for page (1:632) in object ID
949578421, index ID 0, partition ID 72057594042253312, alloc unit ID
72057594046644224 (type LOB data). Expected value 0_PCT_FULL, actual value
100_PCT_FULL.
Msg 8914, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Incorrect PFS free space information for page (1:640) in object ID
949578421, index ID 0, partition ID 72057594042253312, alloc unit ID
72057594046644224 (type LOB data). Expected value 0_PCT_FULL, actual value
100_PCT_FULL.
Msg 8914, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Incorrect PFS free space information for page (1:3410) in object ID
949578421, index ID 0, partition ID 72057594042253312, alloc unit ID
72057594046644224 (type LOB data). Expected value 0_PCT_FULL, actual value
100_PCT_FULL.
Msg 8914, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Incorrect PFS free space information for page (1:3510) in object ID
949578421, index ID 0, partition ID 72057594042253312, alloc unit ID
72057594046644224 (type LOB data). Expected value 0_PCT_FULL, actual value
100_PCT_FULL.
Msg 8914, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Incorrect PFS free space information for page (1:4948) in object ID
949578421, index ID 0, partition ID 72057594042253312, alloc unit ID
72057594046644224 (type LOB data). Expected value 0_PCT_FULL, actual value
100_PCT_FULL.
CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 6 consistency errors in table
'sysmaintplan_logdetail' (object ID 949578421).
CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 6 consistency errors in database
'msdb'.
repair_allow_data_loss is the minimum repair level for the errors found by
DBCC CHECKDB (msdb).
Msg 8914, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Incorrect PFS free space information for page (1:158) in object ID 60, index
ID 1, partition ID 281474980642816, alloc unit ID 71776119065149440 (type
LOB data). Expected value 0_PCT_FULL, actual value 100_PCT_FULL.
Msg 8914, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Incorrect PFS free space information for page (1:161) in object ID 60, index
ID 1, partition ID 281474980642816, alloc unit ID 71776119065149440 (type
LOB data). Expected value 0_PCT_FULL, actual value 100_PCT_FULL.
Msg 8914, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Incorrect PFS free space information for page (1:338) in object ID 60, index
ID 1, partition ID 281474980642816, alloc unit ID 71776119065149440 (type
LOB data). Expected value 0_PCT_FULL, actual value 100_PCT_FULL.
Msg 8914, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Incorrect PFS free space information for page (1:448) in object ID 60, index
ID 1, partition ID 281474980642816, alloc unit ID 71776119065149440 (type
LOB data). Expected value 0_PCT_FULL, actual value 100_PCT_FULL.
CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 4 consistency errors in table
'sys.sysobjvalues' (object ID 60).
CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 4 consistency errors in database
'BENE_Testing'.
repair_allow_data_loss is the minimum repair level for the errors found by
DBCC CHECKDB (BENE_Testing).
here is the SQL used for this
USE [master]
GO
DBCC CHECKDB WITH NO_INFOMSGS
GO
USE [model]
GO
DBCC CHECKDB WITH NO_INFOMSGS
GO
USE [msdb]
GO
DBCC CHECKDB WITH NO_INFOMSGS
GO
USE [BENE_Live]
GO
DBCC CHECKDB WITH NO_INFOMSGS
GO
USE [BENE_Users]
GO
DBCC CHECKDB WITH NO_INFOMSGS
GO
USE [BDB_FileTransferImports]
GO
DBCC CHECKDB WITH NO_INFOMSGS
GO
USE [RESC_Intranet]
GO
DBCC CHECKDB WITH NO_INFOMSGS
GO
USE [RPTS_Reports]
GO
DBCC CHECKDB WITH NO_INFOMSGS
GO
USE [RSMN_Messaging]
GO
DBCC CHECKDB WITH NO_INFOMSGS
GO
USE [BUGS_GeminiWeb]
GO
DBCC CHECKDB WITH NO_INFOMSGS
GO
USE [BENE_Testing]
GO
DBCC CHECKDB WITH NO_INFOMSGS
GO
USE [ReportServer]
GO
DBCC CHECKDB WITH NO_INFOMSGS
GO
USE [ReportServerTempDB]
GO
DBCC CHECKDB WITH NO_INFOMSGSYou have a corruption in your database. I'm surprised that allow data loss i
s considered as the
minimum repair level for these messages. Download Books Online for SQL Serve
r 2000, and search for
the error numbers there for further explanations (these error numbers isn't
documented yet in BOL
2005). Also, you might want to check out
http://www.karaszi.com/SQLServer/in..._suspect_db.asp
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Brian Henry" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message news:ulc0G36YGHA.4620@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.g
bl...
> Every time I run DBCC to do an integrity check I get the following errors.
.
> and the first one i dont understand it says Expected value 0_PCT_FULL, act
ual value 100_PCT_FULL,
> I checked and it was set to 0...
> Msg 8914, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Incorrect PFS free space information for page (1:628) in object ID 9495784
21, index ID 0,
> partition ID 72057594042253312, alloc unit ID 72057594046644224 (type LOB
data). Expected value
> 0_PCT_FULL, actual value 100_PCT_FULL.
> Msg 8914, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Incorrect PFS free space information for page (1:632) in object ID 9495784
21, index ID 0,
> partition ID 72057594042253312, alloc unit ID 72057594046644224 (type LOB
data). Expected value
> 0_PCT_FULL, actual value 100_PCT_FULL.
> Msg 8914, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Incorrect PFS free space information for page (1:640) in object ID 9495784
21, index ID 0,
> partition ID 72057594042253312, alloc unit ID 72057594046644224 (type LOB
data). Expected value
> 0_PCT_FULL, actual value 100_PCT_FULL.
> Msg 8914, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Incorrect PFS free space information for page (1:3410) in object ID 949578
421, index ID 0,
> partition ID 72057594042253312, alloc unit ID 72057594046644224 (type LOB
data). Expected value
> 0_PCT_FULL, actual value 100_PCT_FULL.
> Msg 8914, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Incorrect PFS free space information for page (1:3510) in object ID 949578
421, index ID 0,
> partition ID 72057594042253312, alloc unit ID 72057594046644224 (type LOB
data). Expected value
> 0_PCT_FULL, actual value 100_PCT_FULL.
> Msg 8914, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Incorrect PFS free space information for page (1:4948) in object ID 949578
421, index ID 0,
> partition ID 72057594042253312, alloc unit ID 72057594046644224 (type LOB
data). Expected value
> 0_PCT_FULL, actual value 100_PCT_FULL.
> CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 6 consistency errors in table 'sysma
intplan_logdetail'
> (object ID 949578421).
> CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 6 consistency errors in database 'ms
db'.
> repair_allow_data_loss is the minimum repair level for the errors found by
DBCC CHECKDB (msdb).
> Msg 8914, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Incorrect PFS free space information for page (1:158) in object ID 60, ind
ex ID 1, partition ID
> 281474980642816, alloc unit ID 71776119065149440 (type LOB data). Expected
value 0_PCT_FULL,
> actual value 100_PCT_FULL.
> Msg 8914, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Incorrect PFS free space information for page (1:161) in object ID 60, ind
ex ID 1, partition ID
> 281474980642816, alloc unit ID 71776119065149440 (type LOB data). Expected
value 0_PCT_FULL,
> actual value 100_PCT_FULL.
> Msg 8914, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Incorrect PFS free space information for page (1:338) in object ID 60, ind
ex ID 1, partition ID
> 281474980642816, alloc unit ID 71776119065149440 (type LOB data). Expected
value 0_PCT_FULL,
> actual value 100_PCT_FULL.
> Msg 8914, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Incorrect PFS free space information for page (1:448) in object ID 60, ind
ex ID 1, partition ID
> 281474980642816, alloc unit ID 71776119065149440 (type LOB data). Expected
value 0_PCT_FULL,
> actual value 100_PCT_FULL.
> CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 4 consistency errors in table 'sys.s
ysobjvalues' (object ID
> 60).
> CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 4 consistency errors in database 'BE
NE_Testing'.
> repair_allow_data_loss is the minimum repair level for the errors found by
DBCC CHECKDB
> (BENE_Testing).
>
>
> here is the SQL used for this
>
> USE [master]
> GO
> DBCC CHECKDB WITH NO_INFOMSGS
> GO
> USE [model]
> GO
> DBCC CHECKDB WITH NO_INFOMSGS
> GO
> USE [msdb]
> GO
> DBCC CHECKDB WITH NO_INFOMSGS
> GO
> USE [BENE_Live]
> GO
> DBCC CHECKDB WITH NO_INFOMSGS
> GO
> USE [BENE_Users]
> GO
> DBCC CHECKDB WITH NO_INFOMSGS
> GO
> USE [BDB_FileTransferImports]
> GO
> DBCC CHECKDB WITH NO_INFOMSGS
> GO
> USE [RESC_Intranet]
> GO
> DBCC CHECKDB WITH NO_INFOMSGS
> GO
> USE [RPTS_Reports]
> GO
> DBCC CHECKDB WITH NO_INFOMSGS
> GO
> USE [RSMN_Messaging]
> GO
> DBCC CHECKDB WITH NO_INFOMSGS
> GO
> USE [BUGS_GeminiWeb]
> GO
> DBCC CHECKDB WITH NO_INFOMSGS
> GO
> USE [BENE_Testing]
> GO
> DBCC CHECKDB WITH NO_INFOMSGS
> GO
> USE [ReportServer]
> GO
> DBCC CHECKDB WITH NO_INFOMSGS
> GO
> USE [ReportServerTempDB]
> GO
> DBCC CHECKDB WITH NO_INFOMSGS
>|||well I repaired one of them successfully with no data loss... but the msdb
databsae of course i cant repair with that allow data loss because it
requires single user mode, but you cant take a system db into that... so a
little lost on what to do with that one
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:uyYjlM7YGHA.4916@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> You have a corruption in your database. I'm surprised that allow data loss
> is considered as the minimum repair level for these messages. Download
> Books Online for SQL Server 2000, and search for the error numbers there
> for further explanations (these error numbers isn't documented yet in BOL
> 2005). Also, you might want to check out
> http://www.karaszi.com/SQLServer/in..._suspect_db.asp
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Brian Henry" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:ulc0G36YGHA.4620@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>|||RESTORE DATABASE msdb ? Assuming of course you do backup of your system data
bases.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Brian Henry" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message news:OaEPGX7YGHA.1764@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.g
bl...
> well I repaired one of them successfully with no data loss... but the msdb
databsae of course i
> cant repair with that allow data loss because it requires single user mode
, but you cant take a
> system db into that... so a little lost on what to do with that one
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote i
n message
> news:uyYjlM7YGHA.4916@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>|||we do backups, but the big problem is, apparently this has been like this
for months now!...
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:u3rbdM8YGHA.428@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> RESTORE DATABASE msdb ? Assuming of course you do backup of your system
> databases.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Brian Henry" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:OaEPGX7YGHA.1764@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>|||Come to think about it, how did you conclude that you can't set msdb to sing
le user? I just tried it
on both a 2000 sp3 instance as well as 2005 instance. Both were successful.
You have to stop Agent
first, of course.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Brian Henry" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message news:uyZEFr8YGHA.4936@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.g
bl...
> we do backups, but the big problem is, apparently this has been like this
for months now!...
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote i
n message
> news:u3rbdM8YGHA.428@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>|||didn't try stoping the anget, just tried altering the db to single user mode
and it failed and said it couldnt be... ill try it without the agent and see
what happens (this is sql 2005 btw)
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:%23eo3O58YGHA.3704@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Come to think about it, how did you conclude that you can't set msdb to
> single user? I just tried it on both a 2000 sp3 instance as well as 2005
> instance. Both were successful. You have to stop Agent first, of course.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Brian Henry" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:uyZEFr8YGHA.4936@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>|||it works with stoping the agent, thanks! wouldnt of thought of that..
"Brian Henry" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%238qrve9YGHA.3448@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> didn't try stoping the anget, just tried altering the db to single user
> mode and it failed and said it couldnt be... ill try it without the agent
> and see what happens (this is sql 2005 btw)
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote
> in message news:%23eo3O58YGHA.3704@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>

dbcc errorlog fails

I have ran the sp_cycle_errorlog and dbcc errorlog command on a SQL 200
Datacenter cluster. The logs for .2 through .6 change. However, the
origional errorlog does not. I do not get a new error log started. I do not
want to stop and start the sql server as this would shutdown production. Has
anyone seen this and how should I go about fixing this?
Thanks for you support.
Rick Schantz
How are you determining that the log hasn't changed? If you
are viewing the logs in Enterprise Manager, did you refresh
the view? Are you viewing the files in Explorer and
expecting a new file? The logs are cycled rather than new
files being created.
What happens if you execute sp_cycle_errorlog a few times?
If you are sure data from errorlog isn't moving to
errorlog.1, you could check for locking on the log files by
some other process.
-Sue
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 12:13:03 -0700, Rick Schantz
<RickSchantz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>I have ran the sp_cycle_errorlog and dbcc errorlog command on a SQL 200
>Datacenter cluster. The logs for .2 through .6 change. However, the
>origional errorlog does not. I do not get a new error log started. I do not
>want to stop and start the sql server as this would shutdown production. Has
>anyone seen this and how should I go about fixing this?
>Thanks for you support.
|||I tested the command on another server. The log size for errorlog. went to
errorlog.1 and so on while a new errorlog. was created. Errorlog.6 was
deleted. I executed sp_cycle_error a few times and .2 and .3 are missing. .4
and .5 still exist. .6 never existed. All of this was viewed by Enterpise
Manager and I was refreshing it several times. I did not look for locking on
the errorlog. file. What process would be locking the errorlog file? Our
goal is to cycle the logs on a weekly basis and archive the oldest one. Any
suggestions? Thanks for your fast response.
"Sue Hoegemeier" wrote:

> How are you determining that the log hasn't changed? If you
> are viewing the logs in Enterprise Manager, did you refresh
> the view? Are you viewing the files in Explorer and
> expecting a new file? The logs are cycled rather than new
> files being created.
> What happens if you execute sp_cycle_errorlog a few times?
> If you are sure data from errorlog isn't moving to
> errorlog.1, you could check for locking on the log files by
> some other process.
> -Sue
> On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 12:13:03 -0700, Rick Schantz
> <RickSchantz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>
|||Backup or antivirus software would be a couple of programs that could
lock a file. You can check for this using filemon from sysinternals:
http://www.sysinternals.com/
Once you figure out whatever the problem is with cycling the logs, it
should be pretty easy to set up a job to archive. You can just save .6
file off somewhere using an ActiveX script and FSO or DOS commands and
a CmdExec step and then run sp_cycle_errorlog.
-Sue
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 07:03:06 -0700, Rick Schantz
<RickSchantz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>I tested the command on another server. The log size for errorlog. went to
>errorlog.1 and so on while a new errorlog. was created. Errorlog.6 was
>deleted. I executed sp_cycle_error a few times and .2 and .3 are missing. .4
>and .5 still exist. .6 never existed. All of this was viewed by Enterpise
>Manager and I was refreshing it several times. I did not look for locking on
>the errorlog. file. What process would be locking the errorlog file? Our
>goal is to cycle the logs on a weekly basis and archive the oldest one. Any
>suggestions? Thanks for your fast response.
>"Sue Hoegemeier" wrote:
|||I renamed the file errorlog.6 and then ran the EXEC sp_cycle_errorlog
command. The errorlog.5 went to errorlog.6 and errorlog. when to errorlog.1.
A new errorlog. was created. Not sure what was going on but I'll monitor it
from here. I also used the filemon tool. Great tool.
Thanks
"Sue Hoegemeier" wrote:

> Backup or antivirus software would be a couple of programs that could
> lock a file. You can check for this using filemon from sysinternals:
> http://www.sysinternals.com/
> Once you figure out whatever the problem is with cycling the logs, it
> should be pretty easy to set up a job to archive. You can just save .6
> file off somewhere using an ActiveX script and FSO or DOS commands and
> a CmdExec step and then run sp_cycle_errorlog.
> -Sue
> On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 07:03:06 -0700, Rick Schantz
> <RickSchantz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>

dbcc errorlog fails

I have ran the sp_cycle_errorlog and dbcc errorlog command on a SQL 200
Datacenter cluster. The logs for .2 through .6 change. However, the
origional errorlog does not. I do not get a new error log started. I do not
want to stop and start the sql server as this would shutdown production. Has
anyone seen this and how should I go about fixing this?
Thanks for you support.
--
Rick SchantzHow are you determining that the log hasn't changed? If you
are viewing the logs in Enterprise Manager, did you refresh
the view? Are you viewing the files in Explorer and
expecting a new file? The logs are cycled rather than new
files being created.
What happens if you execute sp_cycle_errorlog a few times?
If you are sure data from errorlog isn't moving to
errorlog.1, you could check for locking on the log files by
some other process.
-Sue
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 12:13:03 -0700, Rick Schantz
<RickSchantz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>I have ran the sp_cycle_errorlog and dbcc errorlog command on a SQL 200
>Datacenter cluster. The logs for .2 through .6 change. However, the
>origional errorlog does not. I do not get a new error log started. I do not
>want to stop and start the sql server as this would shutdown production. Has
>anyone seen this and how should I go about fixing this?
>Thanks for you support.|||I tested the command on another server. The log size for errorlog. went to
errorlog.1 and so on while a new errorlog. was created. Errorlog.6 was
deleted. I executed sp_cycle_error a few times and .2 and .3 are missing. .4
and .5 still exist. .6 never existed. All of this was viewed by Enterpise
Manager and I was refreshing it several times. I did not look for locking on
the errorlog. file. What process would be locking the errorlog file? Our
goal is to cycle the logs on a weekly basis and archive the oldest one. Any
suggestions? Thanks for your fast response.
"Sue Hoegemeier" wrote:
> How are you determining that the log hasn't changed? If you
> are viewing the logs in Enterprise Manager, did you refresh
> the view? Are you viewing the files in Explorer and
> expecting a new file? The logs are cycled rather than new
> files being created.
> What happens if you execute sp_cycle_errorlog a few times?
> If you are sure data from errorlog isn't moving to
> errorlog.1, you could check for locking on the log files by
> some other process.
> -Sue
> On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 12:13:03 -0700, Rick Schantz
> <RickSchantz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> >I have ran the sp_cycle_errorlog and dbcc errorlog command on a SQL 200
> >Datacenter cluster. The logs for .2 through .6 change. However, the
> >origional errorlog does not. I do not get a new error log started. I do not
> >want to stop and start the sql server as this would shutdown production. Has
> >anyone seen this and how should I go about fixing this?
> >
> >Thanks for you support.
>|||Backup or antivirus software would be a couple of programs that could
lock a file. You can check for this using filemon from sysinternals:
http://www.sysinternals.com/
Once you figure out whatever the problem is with cycling the logs, it
should be pretty easy to set up a job to archive. You can just save .6
file off somewhere using an ActiveX script and FSO or DOS commands and
a CmdExec step and then run sp_cycle_errorlog.
-Sue
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 07:03:06 -0700, Rick Schantz
<RickSchantz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>I tested the command on another server. The log size for errorlog. went to
>errorlog.1 and so on while a new errorlog. was created. Errorlog.6 was
>deleted. I executed sp_cycle_error a few times and .2 and .3 are missing. .4
>and .5 still exist. .6 never existed. All of this was viewed by Enterpise
>Manager and I was refreshing it several times. I did not look for locking on
>the errorlog. file. What process would be locking the errorlog file? Our
>goal is to cycle the logs on a weekly basis and archive the oldest one. Any
>suggestions? Thanks for your fast response.
>"Sue Hoegemeier" wrote:
>> How are you determining that the log hasn't changed? If you
>> are viewing the logs in Enterprise Manager, did you refresh
>> the view? Are you viewing the files in Explorer and
>> expecting a new file? The logs are cycled rather than new
>> files being created.
>> What happens if you execute sp_cycle_errorlog a few times?
>> If you are sure data from errorlog isn't moving to
>> errorlog.1, you could check for locking on the log files by
>> some other process.
>> -Sue
>> On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 12:13:03 -0700, Rick Schantz
>> <RickSchantz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>> >I have ran the sp_cycle_errorlog and dbcc errorlog command on a SQL 200
>> >Datacenter cluster. The logs for .2 through .6 change. However, the
>> >origional errorlog does not. I do not get a new error log started. I do not
>> >want to stop and start the sql server as this would shutdown production. Has
>> >anyone seen this and how should I go about fixing this?
>> >
>> >Thanks for you support.
>>|||I renamed the file errorlog.6 and then ran the EXEC sp_cycle_errorlog
command. The errorlog.5 went to errorlog.6 and errorlog. when to errorlog.1.
A new errorlog. was created. Not sure what was going on but I'll monitor it
from here. I also used the filemon tool. Great tool.
Thanks
"Sue Hoegemeier" wrote:
> Backup or antivirus software would be a couple of programs that could
> lock a file. You can check for this using filemon from sysinternals:
> http://www.sysinternals.com/
> Once you figure out whatever the problem is with cycling the logs, it
> should be pretty easy to set up a job to archive. You can just save .6
> file off somewhere using an ActiveX script and FSO or DOS commands and
> a CmdExec step and then run sp_cycle_errorlog.
> -Sue
> On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 07:03:06 -0700, Rick Schantz
> <RickSchantz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> >I tested the command on another server. The log size for errorlog. went to
> >errorlog.1 and so on while a new errorlog. was created. Errorlog.6 was
> >deleted. I executed sp_cycle_error a few times and .2 and .3 are missing. .4
> >and .5 still exist. .6 never existed. All of this was viewed by Enterpise
> >Manager and I was refreshing it several times. I did not look for locking on
> >the errorlog. file. What process would be locking the errorlog file? Our
> >goal is to cycle the logs on a weekly basis and archive the oldest one. Any
> >suggestions? Thanks for your fast response.
> >
> >"Sue Hoegemeier" wrote:
> >
> >> How are you determining that the log hasn't changed? If you
> >> are viewing the logs in Enterprise Manager, did you refresh
> >> the view? Are you viewing the files in Explorer and
> >> expecting a new file? The logs are cycled rather than new
> >> files being created.
> >> What happens if you execute sp_cycle_errorlog a few times?
> >> If you are sure data from errorlog isn't moving to
> >> errorlog.1, you could check for locking on the log files by
> >> some other process.
> >>
> >> -Sue
> >>
> >> On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 12:13:03 -0700, Rick Schantz
> >> <RickSchantz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I have ran the sp_cycle_errorlog and dbcc errorlog command on a SQL 200
> >> >Datacenter cluster. The logs for .2 through .6 change. However, the
> >> >origional errorlog does not. I do not get a new error log started. I do not
> >> >want to stop and start the sql server as this would shutdown production. Has
> >> >anyone seen this and how should I go about fixing this?
> >> >
> >> >Thanks for you support.
> >>
> >>
>

DBCC DBREINDEX fails for table

Hi,

I am facing a rather peculiar issue where I am getting a floating point exception error while rebuilding index for a particular table.

---
Error Number : 3628

Message :

[Microsoft SQL-DMO (ODBC SQLState: 42000)] Error 3628: [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]A floating point exception occurred in the user process. Current transaction is canceled.

[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server
----
This seems to be a rare issue ( as acknowledged by microsoft ) and they seem to suggest that it happens with SQL Server 2000 SP3 . I migrated my database into an SQL Server 2000 SP4 and started the rebuild again .. .. But it still failed with the same error ..

Am just hoping the microsoft guys are wrong and many of you have actually faced this stuff before.. Please let me know.

Thanks in advance,
Ranjit.That's one I have not come accross. Have a look at this thread, and see if you can follow the same steps:

http://sqlforums.windowsitpro.com/web/forum/messageview.aspx?catid=70&threadid=45658&enterthread=y

Are the columns in the index float datatypes?|||What about an INDEXDEFRAG instead of a rebuild?

Regards,

hmscott|||My bet is that it is a corrupt value for a floating point number... Not all possible values are valid floating point values. Some of them are non-sensical, so any attempt to even read them produces a runtime error.

A simple test would be to do a SELECT * to see if you can successfully retrieve all of the rows.

If that is the case, you'll need to fix the row before you can successfully build the index.

-PatP|||Thanks MCrowley/Scott/Pat for all your help.
But I am not done yet and would be back after some more research.. maybe to ask you guys again or to let you what I did to overcome my issue :)

Thanks once again,
Ranjit.|||Just an update on this one ..

Well this was due to corrupt float data in the tables ..to track the errant row ..we tried to export it into a file from where we could see it .. so we tried various methods of export ..

we could not export it into an xls/textfile, As the no of rows were large, ..
export thru bcp was possible but we could not correct the data as it was in native format .. import through BCP failed surprisingly long before it encountered the corrupt data rows .. ( maybe some mismatch in the data during bcp export )

But the select statement was the best solution in identifying the corrupt rows .. SQL failed to select on the corrupt data rows .. and we knew the error lay in those rows ..

Once identified, an update command was successfully executed on the corrupt rows and rectified ..

PS: all this was done on a test database .. we still have to sit down with the business team and make the changes ..

Just wanted to know what could be the best way out

1) change the data in corrupt rows and make sure their application inputs correct data
2) alter the column of the tables to accomodate the data ..

Please let me know.

And Thanks once again for the wonderful help I recieved during this issue.

Warm Regards,
Ranjit.|||One option is to simply "plug" the offending values. If you know that column plugh of the row associated with PK 'xyzzy' is bad, you can simply:UPDATE myTable
SET plugh = 0e0
WHERE 'xyzzy' = PK

Another approach is to make a copy, the basic idea is simple, but implementing it can be a bit difficult to explain. The short answer is to copy all of the completely readable rows in the original table to a scratch table, then copy the columns you can get from the probem row or rows substituting some acceptable value for the problem columns.

The exact mechanics of this process get complicated, due to space/time/other constraints. Feel free to ask for more help if you run into problems, because there are often easy fixes for otherwise unsolvable problems if you're willing to "think outside the box" a bit!

-PatP

dbcc checktable(sysindexes)

I'm trying to attach a copy of a database to another server. When I do
this, the attach fails due to an index problem. The error message
indicates that I should run:
dbcc checktable(sysindexes)
when I run this on the original server (where the database is attached)
I get a missing sysindexes object error.
However, I am able to run this:
select * from sysindexes
without any apparent problem.
What do I do now?
FYI: dbcc checkdb reports no problems.
TIA.Hi Karl
Did you try DBCC CHECKCATALOG?
--
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.solidqualitylearning.com
"Karl" <karlt@.nospam.nospame> wrote in message
news:O6WspeMbGHA.3740@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> I'm trying to attach a copy of a database to another server. When I do
> this, the attach fails due to an index problem. The error message
> indicates that I should run:
> dbcc checktable(sysindexes)
> when I run this on the original server (where the database is attached) I
> get a missing sysindexes object error.
> However, I am able to run this:
> select * from sysindexes
> without any apparent problem.
> What do I do now?
> FYI: dbcc checkdb reports no problems.
>
> TIA.|||Thanks for the reply.
DBCC CHECKCATALOG reports no errors. It also doesn't give any other
information other than that command completed successfully.
Now what?
Kalen Delaney wrote:
> Hi Karl
> Did you try DBCC CHECKCATALOG?
>|||Karl
So , you don't see the database since as you said the attach command is
failed, am I right?
Do you detach the database on the "source" server?
Can you perfom BACKUP DATABASE on the source server , then copy the .BAK
file to the "destination" server and run RESTORE DATABASE command? Do you
get the same error?
"Karl" <karlt@.nospam.nospame> wrote in message
news:%23iKyzWPbGHA.3376@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for the reply.
> DBCC CHECKCATALOG reports no errors. It also doesn't give any other
> information other than that command completed successfully.
> Now what?
>
>
> Kalen Delaney wrote:
>> Hi Karl
>> Did you try DBCC CHECKCATALOG?

dbcc checktable(sysindexes)

I'm trying to attach a copy of a database to another server. When I do
this, the attach fails due to an index problem. The error message
indicates that I should run:
dbcc checktable(sysindexes)
when I run this on the original server (where the database is attached)
I get a missing sysindexes object error.
However, I am able to run this:
select * from sysindexes
without any apparent problem.
What do I do now?
FYI: dbcc checkdb reports no problems.
TIA.Hi Karl
Did you try DBCC CHECKCATALOG?
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.solidqualitylearning.com
"Karl" <karlt@.nospam.nospame> wrote in message
news:O6WspeMbGHA.3740@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> I'm trying to attach a copy of a database to another server. When I do
> this, the attach fails due to an index problem. The error message
> indicates that I should run:
> dbcc checktable(sysindexes)
> when I run this on the original server (where the database is attached) I
> get a missing sysindexes object error.
> However, I am able to run this:
> select * from sysindexes
> without any apparent problem.
> What do I do now?
> FYI: dbcc checkdb reports no problems.
>
> TIA.|||Thanks for the reply.
DBCC CHECKCATALOG reports no errors. It also doesn't give any other
information other than that command completed successfully.
Now what?
Kalen Delaney wrote:
> Hi Karl
> Did you try DBCC CHECKCATALOG?
>|||Karl
So , you don't see the database since as you said the attach command is
failed, am I right?
Do you detach the database on the "source" server?
Can you perfom BACKUP DATABASE on the source server , then copy the .BAK
file to the "destination" server and run RESTORE DATABASE command? Do you
get the same error?
"Karl" <karlt@.nospam.nospame> wrote in message
news:%23iKyzWPbGHA.3376@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks for the reply.
> DBCC CHECKCATALOG reports no errors. It also doesn't give any other
> information other than that command completed successfully.
> Now what?
>
>
> Kalen Delaney wrote:

DBCC Checkdb runs 12 hours

We have a really ancient Sql Server db -- version 6.5 --
with a 7.6 GB database on it. The DBCC Checkdb runs 12
hours, and now it fails every time it runs, without giving
any meaningful error messages. Is there some way to speed
up DBCC Checkdb? Or should we be running some other
utility?The best way to speed it up is to migrate to SQL 7.0 or better yet 2000. I
don't know of any way in 6.5.
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"khabita" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:fc0901c3f24c$16443170$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> We have a really ancient Sql Server db -- version 6.5 --
> with a 7.6 GB database on it. The DBCC Checkdb runs 12
> hours, and now it fails every time it runs, without giving
> any meaningful error messages. Is there some way to speed
> up DBCC Checkdb? Or should we be running some other
> utility?|||Thanks. But we are moving away from Sql Server, so I doubt
we'll upgrade. I guess we'll just have to live with the
slow performance until we move the db to Oracle.

>--Original Message--
>The best way to speed it up is to migrate to SQL 7.0 or
better yet 2000. I
>don't know of any way in 6.5.
>--
>Andrew J. Kelly
>SQL Server MVP
>
>"khabita" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
>news:fc0901c3f24c$16443170$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
giving
speed
>
>.
>|||Too bad. It would cost you tons less just to upgrade to SQL Server 2000. I
did an upgrade in place (i.e. on the same box) from 6.5 to 7.0 and tripled
the speed of an app.
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:f71201c3f25a$37fc35c0$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
Thanks. But we are moving away from Sql Server, so I doubt
we'll upgrade. I guess we'll just have to live with the
slow performance until we move the db to Oracle.

>--Original Message--
>The best way to speed it up is to migrate to SQL 7.0 or
better yet 2000. I
>don't know of any way in 6.5.
>--
>Andrew J. Kelly
>SQL Server MVP
>
>"khabita" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
>news:fc0901c3f24c$16443170$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
giving
speed
>
>.
>

DBCC Checkdb runs 12 hours

We have a really ancient Sql Server db -- version 6.5 --
with a 7.6 GB database on it. The DBCC Checkdb runs 12
hours, and now it fails every time it runs, without giving
any meaningful error messages. Is there some way to speed
up DBCC Checkdb? Or should we be running some other
utility?The best way to speed it up is to migrate to SQL 7.0 or better yet 2000. I
don't know of any way in 6.5.
--
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"khabita" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:fc0901c3f24c$16443170$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> We have a really ancient Sql Server db -- version 6.5 --
> with a 7.6 GB database on it. The DBCC Checkdb runs 12
> hours, and now it fails every time it runs, without giving
> any meaningful error messages. Is there some way to speed
> up DBCC Checkdb? Or should we be running some other
> utility?|||Thanks. But we are moving away from Sql Server, so I doubt
we'll upgrade. I guess we'll just have to live with the
slow performance until we move the db to Oracle.
>--Original Message--
>The best way to speed it up is to migrate to SQL 7.0 or
better yet 2000. I
>don't know of any way in 6.5.
>--
>Andrew J. Kelly
>SQL Server MVP
>
>"khabita" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
>news:fc0901c3f24c$16443170$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
>> We have a really ancient Sql Server db -- version 6.5 --
>> with a 7.6 GB database on it. The DBCC Checkdb runs 12
>> hours, and now it fails every time it runs, without
giving
>> any meaningful error messages. Is there some way to
speed
>> up DBCC Checkdb? Or should we be running some other
>> utility?
>
>.
>|||This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--=_NextPart_000_023E_01C3F232.508BED60
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Too bad. It would cost you tons less just to upgrade to SQL Server 2000. I
did an upgrade in place (i.e. on the same box) from 6.5 to 7.0 and tripled
the speed of an app.
--
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:f71201c3f25a$37fc35c0$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
Thanks. But we are moving away from Sql Server, so I doubt
we'll upgrade. I guess we'll just have to live with the
slow performance until we move the db to Oracle.
>--Original Message--
>The best way to speed it up is to migrate to SQL 7.0 or
better yet 2000. I
>don't know of any way in 6.5.
>--
>Andrew J. Kelly
>SQL Server MVP
>
>"khabita" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
>news:fc0901c3f24c$16443170$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
>> We have a really ancient Sql Server db -- version 6.5 --
>> with a 7.6 GB database on it. The DBCC Checkdb runs 12
>> hours, and now it fails every time it runs, without
giving
>> any meaningful error messages. Is there some way to
speed
>> up DBCC Checkdb? Or should we be running some other
>> utility?
>
>.
>
--=_NextPart_000_023E_01C3F232.508BED60
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
&

---

Too bad. It would cost you tons =less just to upgrade to SQL Server 2000. I did an upgrade in place (i.e. on the =same box) from 6.5 to 7.0 and tripled the speed of an app.
-- Tom
---T=homas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBASQL Server MVPColumnist, SQL =Server ProfessionalToronto, ON Canadahttp://www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql">www.pinnaclepublishing.com=/sql
wrote in message news:f71201c3f25a$37=fc35c0$a301280a@.phx.gbl...Thanks. But we are moving away from Sql Server, so I doubt we'll upgrade. I =guess we'll just have to live with the slow performance until we move the =db to Oracle.>--Original Message-->The best way to =speed it up is to migrate to SQL 7.0 or better yet 2000. I>don't =know of any way in 6.5.>>-- >>Andrew J. =Kelly>SQL Server MVP>>>"khabita" wrote in message>news:fc0901c3f24c$16443170$a001280a@.phx.gbl...>=> We have a really ancient Sql Server db -- version 6.5 =-- > with a 7.6 GB database on it. The DBCC Checkdb runs 12> hours, and =now it fails every time it runs, without giving> any meaningful =error messages. Is there some way to speed> up DBCC Checkdb? Or =should we be running some other> utility?>>>.>

---

--=_NextPart_000_023E_01C3F232.508BED60--