The local sql server that was working fine earlier does not start now. I have already created tables and accessed them using stored procedures.
I get an error 1069: The service did not start due to logon problems. I have only changed my domain password. I do not remember what authentication I chose for log on.
Any suggestions would be helpful.
Thanks
Hi All,
We have scheduled SQL DB backups using Veritas Netbackup tool. The primary DB server backup strategy is given below.
1. Full Backup: Once in a week
2. Diff Backup: every day at midnight
3. T-Log Backup: Every one hour.
We have configured DB mirroring from primary DB server to secondary DB server. We are facing space issue on drive because log file size is around 150 GB (total capacity of log drive is 200 GB). We are planning to follow below steps to shrink log file and to reclaim disk space.
1.Break DB mirroring.
2. Shrink log file using below command.
USE PRODDB
GO
ALTER DATABASE PRODDB SET RECOVERY SIMPLE WITH NO_WAIT
DBCC SHRINKFILE('PRODDB_log', 1)
ALTER DATABASE PRODDB SET RECOVERY FULL WITH NO_WAIT
GO
3. Reconfigure DB mirroring from primary DB server to secondary DB server using below steps.
a. Take latest full backup & Log backup of primary DB server using SQL Agent and restore it on secondary DB server.
b. Configure DB mirroring using wizard or SQL scripts.
My Questions are,
1. By performing above steps, will it break Veritas Netbackup tool backup strategy?
2. If YES, can you please tell me the steps to shrink log file in DB mirroring environment.
Our PROD DB size is around 300 GB.
Dear all,
When we have a database “in transition” state why this state is not recognized in sys.databases? it is just a question
In my case, db appears as “online” although in fact it’s false, a picture worth a thousand words:
I have Data Collection on SQL server 2012 setup and all statistics data was stored in [MngDataWarehouse].
Recently when I tried to get report from SSMS Management: Number of Errors, the report crashed and got following error and I also found that the SQL Server Agent scheduled job have been running very long more than 3 hours sometime and there are deadlocks for cleaning the expired logs.
How could I fix this? Please help!
Thanks, Steven
“the current transaction cannot be committed and cannot support operations that write to the log file”
Further investigation found the following error:
“Could not allocate space for object dbo.Table because the 'PRIMARY' filegroup is full.”
Facts:
can any one help me and answer :
thanks you all :-).
Omer Aviad
I am looking for an updated KB article of https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/325335. This article is for SQL server 7.0 - SQL Server 2005. Is there anything for 2008R2 and above?
Thank you
Hi folks,
I'm trying to wrap my head around this particular performance counter, however, I can't - at least not based on what I'm pulling from PerfMon versus what's described in articles like this.
What I'm getting from PerfMon is a value that increase by 1 per second. So, where I ran a 12 hour trace, I ended up with a minimum value of 2,717,203 and a maximum of 2,760,404 making for a difference of 43,201 seconds, or basically 12 hours.
I pilfered an extract from someone else's post where they were querying the same information in SQL Server and got vastly different results. First, here's the query:
SELECT * FROM (SELECT [instance_name] [node],[cntr_value] [PageLife_S] FROM sys.dm_os_performance_counters WHERE [counter_name] = 'Page life expectancy' ) ple INNER JOIN ( SELECT [instance_name] [node],[cntr_value] [DatabasePages] FROM sys.dm_os_performance_counters WHERE [counter_name] = 'Database pages' ) dp ON ple.[node] = dp.[node]
And here's the matching results:
Using the figures above, is anyone able to explain to me how to interpret the "Buffer Node: Page Life Expectancy" counters?
Cheers,
Lain
Hi All,
This is my first time seeing this, data file is in restoring, and log file is in online, have you seen this? Do you know how it end up like this?
We have stored procedure with simple select statement, it is selecting data from table with following filtered index:
CREATE NONCLUSTERED INDEX [IX_cdrs_phone_score_originating_ip_binary_sub_org_id_utcdate_i_filter_null] ON [agg].[cdrs_phone_score] ( [originating_ip_binary] ASC, /*binary (16)*/ [sub_org_id] ASC, /*int*/ [utcdate] ASC /*datetime*/ ) INCLUDE ( [reqtype], /*smallint*/ [phone_num]) /*bigint*/ WHERE ([originating_ip_binary] IS NOT NULL) WITH (PAD_INDEX = OFF, STATISTICS_NORECOMPUTE = OFF, SORT_IN_TEMPDB = OFF, DROP_EXISTING = OFF, ONLINE = OFF, ALLOW_ROW_LOCKS = ON, ALLOW_PAGE_LOCKS = ON) ON [PRIMARY] GO
There is 570 million rows in table.
Average execution time is 847ms and stored procedure is executing around 40times per seconds from different SPIDs. However, after we started our applications last time we were able to see heavy blocking with following lock types (this is just a first few rows):
"SPID","Wait Time","Type","Resource","Command","CPU","I/O","Status","Blocking SPID","Session SQL"
145,0,,,SELECT,"25,967","1,110" ,"running, blocking",,
" 73","4,846",LCK_M_X,"OBJECT: 6:615673241:0 [COMPILE]",EXECUTE,"31,094","1,722","suspended, blocked, blocking",145,
" 86","4,753",LCK_M_X,"OBJECT: 6:615673241:0 [COMPILE]",EXECUTE,"37,365","2,880","suspended, blocked",73,
" 169","4,714",LCK_M_X,"OBJECT: 6:615673241:0 [COMPILE]",EXECUTE,"20,051",664,"suspended, blocked",73,
" 139","4,632",LCK_M_X,"OBJECT: 6:615673241:0 [COMPILE]",EXECUTE,"29,768",965,"suspended, blocked",73,
This is first select (from auto update statistics) - SPID 145:
SELECT StatMan ([SC0],
[SC1],
[SC2],
[SC3],
[SB0000])
FROM (SELECT TOP 100 PERCENT
[SC0],
[SC1],
[SC2],
[SC3],
step_direction ([SC0]) over (ORDER BY NULL) AS [SB0000]
FROM (SELECT [originating_ip_binary] AS [SC0], [sub_org_id] AS [SC1], [utcdate] AS [SC2], [cdrsid] AS [SC3]
FROM [agg].[cdrs_phone_score] TABLESAMPLE SYSTEM (4.439952e+000 PERCENT) WITH (READUNCOMMITTED)
WHERE ([originating_ip_binary] IS NOT NULL)) AS _MS_UPDSTATS_TBL_HELPER ORDER BY [SC0], [SC1], [SC2], [SC3], [SB0000] ) AS _MS_UPDSTATS_TBL
OPTION (MAXDOP 1) After we added WITH RECOMPILE in stored procedure body all blocking was gone. Anybody had similar issue?
Hi experts,
I never seen this before, and I wanted to know if it really makes a difference?
In the merge I usually do:
merge
..
when matched and
target.column <> source.column
But I have some legacy code and I see this:
OR CHECKSUM (TARGET.ID, TARGET.column1) <> CHECKSUM (SOURCE.ID, SOURCE.column1)
OR CHECKSUM (TARGET.ID, TARGET.column2) <> CHECKSUM (SOURCE.iID, SOURCE.column2)
OR CHECKSUM (TARGET.ID, TARGET.column3) <> CHECKSUM (SOURCE.ID, SOURCE.column3)
Why did that person add that? it really makes a difference the CHECKSUM?
When I try to set up a new SQL agent job on a SQL2012 server, at the point of defining the job step type = SSIS package, the sql agent setup crashes and I get error:the type initializer for ‘’ threw an exception. (SQLManagerUI) Additional information: Attempted to read or write protected memory. This is often an indication that other memory is corrupt. (DTEParseMgd)
Other posts suggest that the only workaround is to install SQL2014 or 2016, or return to SQL2008, neither of which are possible for us. We have to move away from SQL2008 for security reasons, and we cannot move to SQL2014 because we use access adp project fromt ends which need the SQLOLEDB data provider which is obsolete in SQL2014. Does anyone know if Microsoft have released a service patch for SQL2012 which fixes this issue for good?
Hi expert,
I have scheduled Backup job that backup all databases on myinstance but not all DB has been backup , only a few..how could this occurred ?
what should I do experts..??
thanks for all U'reply
There are identical notes (Session id, Login etc.) in a Processes tab of Activity Monitor. Usially it is two, sometimes three same rows.
Does anyone have a similar situation?
Is this a bug or it is just s/th wrong in my comp?
(SQL Server 2008 R2 CUP3)
Hello ,
issue description:
We have Virtual Win Server 2012 R2 with two SQL Server Instances 2014.
Is anybody face such a situation that when there are two instance of SQL server 2014 for one of them allocated about 16 gb of memory, for another one allocated about 100 gb of memory, so first instance is using all his allocated memory 16 gb but second
instance of Sql Server is using only 1 gb of 100 gb his allocated memory.
Description of environment:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Windows NT 6.2 <X64> (Build 9200: ) (Hypervisor)
Total RAM 128 GB
1. SQL Server
12.0.2000.8 RTM Enterprise Edition (64-bit) Microsoft SQL Server 2014 - 12.0.2000.8 (X64)
Maximum memory server aprox. 16 Gb
2. SQL Server
12.0.4100.1 SP1 Enterprise Edition (64-bit) Microsoft SQL Server 2014 - 12.0.4100.1 (X64)
Maximum memory server aprox. 100 Gb
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loading of second instance is sufficiently large but he can't take for using greater than 1 gb memory.
What could be the reason for such behavior of the second instance of SQL Server?
Guys, thanks in advance for your help!
Regards,
Vyacheslav.
sp_spaceused returns a value for "reserved kb" for a table, the total space used by the table.
I would have thought that merely truncating a table leaves that space intact, just moves it to "unused".
But a quick test shows this is not the case - sometimes (always?) after a truncate it returns zero space reserved.
Interestingly, just deleting all the rows (from a heap) reports the reserved space is still there, but zero unused. At least until the ghost record cleanup runs, I guess. No? It reports zero ghost rows, but space reserved and nothing unused. Odd.
So, can anybody summarize when a truncate table frees space to zero?
And maybe just how that even works?
Thanks,
Josh
Just poking around the database we seem to have one table reporting a bunch of ghost rows.
The table is a heap, but it has a nonclustered index on it.
It reports 600k ghost rows and 300k regular rows.
The fix for this is to rebuild with a clustered index?
What is the explanation for how it happens without getting cleaned up?
Microsoft SQL Server 2014 (SP1-CU5) (KB3130926) - 12.0.4439.1 (X64)
Feb 15 2016 12:12:43
Copyright (c) Microsoft Corporation
Enterprise Edition: Core-based Licensing (64-bit) on Windows NT 6.3 <X64> (Build 9600: ) (Hypervisor)
Thanks,
Josh
Every time I try to set Admin up using SQL I receive the message shown in the attachment. We have to use SQL due to the number of users we have. There ae other applications on this server that use SQl and they have no issues. I have checked and rechecked the admin username and password for SQL and still get message. I have created a new SQL admin user and tried it but to no avail. AVG support is balking at it because they think it is SQL related. I am no SQL expert by any stretch. Any help would be greatly appreciated