Showing posts with label edition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label edition. Show all posts

Sunday, March 25, 2012

Clean Install Windows Auth Error

Hi,

I cannot log in to SQL Server 2005 Dev Edition in my local machine using Windows Authentication. The server returned "Login failed..." when connecting with SQL Server Management Studio.

I have not change anything since installation of this server.

This problem happens in RTM and SP1 versions, both running on Windows Vista RTM.

Anyone having this kind of problem too? Any solution? I'm guessing it's Vista-related.

True, this is something of Vista. http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/windowsvistasupport.mspx

Sorry for not reading it first.

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Clarify the name changes on all SQL Server 2005 CE RC1 pages and give installion help for mobile

Please add some more substantial needed info in ALL the web pages of "SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition RC1, Release Candidate 1", like at:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/920700

for:
1) Clarifying the confusing name changes of the Mobile Edition to Everywhere Edition then to CE,
2) Giving installion instructions of the RC1 for mobile devices

Thanks,
Alpoge

I can address 1):

Microsoft first started using the name "Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Everywhere Edition" during the alpha and early beta tests. Once Microsoft branding and their legal team completed their work (and negotiations with Sybase) they decided to change the name to "Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition". This name change is being propagated into Visual Studio 2005 and SQL Server Management Studio as well as into the OLE DB drivers and .NET providers (as described in my Ebook). Last news in this regard says that the changes will be first seen in January sometime. Since the SqlCe namespace is unchanged, your source code should not have to change.

2) I don't work with Mobile devices, but as I understand it, there is no change in how it's deployed to these devices.

See www.hitchhikerguides.net for more information.

hth

|||See these postings as well

http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1038295&SiteID=1
http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1046958&SiteID=1

Clarify the name changes on all SQL Server 2005 CE RC1 pages and give installion help for mo

Please add some more substantial needed info in ALL the web pages of "SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition RC1, Release Candidate 1", like at:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/920700

for:
1) Clarifying the confusing name changes of the Mobile Edition to Everywhere Edition then to CE,
2) Giving installion instructions of the RC1 for mobile devices

Thanks,
Alpoge

I can address 1):

Microsoft first started using the name "Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Everywhere Edition" during the alpha and early beta tests. Once Microsoft branding and their legal team completed their work (and negotiations with Sybase) they decided to change the name to "Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition". This name change is being propagated into Visual Studio 2005 and SQL Server Management Studio as well as into the OLE DB drivers and .NET providers (as described in my Ebook). Last news in this regard says that the changes will be first seen in January sometime. Since the SqlCe namespace is unchanged, your source code should not have to change.

2) I don't work with Mobile devices, but as I understand it, there is no change in how it's deployed to these devices.

See www.hitchhikerguides.net for more information.

hth

|||See these postings as well

http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1038295&SiteID=1
http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1046958&SiteID=1

Monday, March 19, 2012

Chosing the best Data Access component for SQL Server Express

Hi all,

I have to chose the best Data Access Component with SQL Server Express edition.

The application that I am going to develope is a simple one but the speed should be as much as possible.

Any help would be highly appreciated.

Thanks & regards

Arun Gupta

The 'best' speed would most likely be attained using the SQL native client and a datareader object.

Choosing DB Edition (Std vs Ent)

I need to decided between Standard and Enterprise Edition (Cost is a
criteria - but its secondary to performance - <!--and I am not paying for
it myself-->)

The server spec under consideration: Dual Xeon, 1GB RAM, 36GB - RAID 1
(Dell PowerEdge 1850).

Application: Windows 2003 Std Server, ASP.NET, MS SQL Server 2000 based
data driven web application.

Approximately 25 simultaneous clients. Peak activity would probably be 50
transactions/activities per second (2 per second per client). I expect
the database size to grow up to 4GB in 1 year.

The application would use only basic OLAP features (if at all)...so
feature set wise I believe that standard edition is good enough.

What I am concerned about is when MS documentation says that Standard
Edition is for "organization that do not require the advanced scalability,
availability, performance, or analysis features of the SQL Server 2000
Enterprise Edition"

Is there a difference in performance between Std and Ent editions? In
terms of number of transactions per second that can be serviced?

What other criteria should I be aware of before deciding to go one way or
the other?

Any ideas?"Jonas Hei" <maps_263@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:opsehfbjyzr0m89z@.fx1025...
>I need to decided between Standard and Enterprise Edition (Cost is a
>criteria - but its secondary to performance - <!--and I am not paying for
>it myself-->)
> The server spec under consideration: Dual Xeon, 1GB RAM, 36GB - RAID 1
> (Dell PowerEdge 1850).
> Application: Windows 2003 Std Server, ASP.NET, MS SQL Server 2000 based
> data driven web application.
> Approximately 25 simultaneous clients. Peak activity would probably be 50
> transactions/activities per second (2 per second per client). I expect
> the database size to grow up to 4GB in 1 year.
> The application would use only basic OLAP features (if at all)...so
> feature set wise I believe that standard edition is good enough.
> What I am concerned about is when MS documentation says that Standard
> Edition is for "organization that do not require the advanced scalability,
> availability, performance, or analysis features of the SQL Server 2000
> Enterprise Edition"
> Is there a difference in performance between Std and Ent editions? In
> terms of number of transactions per second that can be serviced?
> What other criteria should I be aware of before deciding to go one way or
> the other?
> Any ideas?

I'd guess that we're referring to features in the section you quoted even
though it makes it sound like the Enterprise Edition is inherently faster
than the Standard Edition. That's simply not the case. For example,
Clustering is a high availability option that is only available in the
Enterprise Edition. You can get more information about features by Edition
and choosing a particular Edition here:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evalua...es/choosing.asp.

There is nothing in either the Standard or Enterprise Edition engine that
I'm aware of that throttles performance based on the Edition that you're
using. The only Edition that has a performance throttle based on the Edition
is MSDE.

If the Standard Edition contains the features your application needs, my
guess is that it will run it just fine. Of course, without testing that's
impossible to know for sure.

--
Sincerely,
Stephen Dybing

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||Hi

The engine is the same for both editions, the Enterprise edition has
additional features, such as failover clustering, built in log shipping and
automatic use of indexed views.

See
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d..._ar_ts_1cdv.asp

If you don't want to use these features or if you are happy to "manually"
implement the features or can provide your own solutions, then standard
edition should be ok. All editions should be supported on your hardware.

John

"Jonas Hei" <maps_263@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:opsehfbjyzr0m89z@.fx1025...
> I need to decided between Standard and Enterprise Edition (Cost is a
> criteria - but its secondary to performance - <!--and I am not paying for
> it myself-->)
> The server spec under consideration: Dual Xeon, 1GB RAM, 36GB - RAID 1
> (Dell PowerEdge 1850).
> Application: Windows 2003 Std Server, ASP.NET, MS SQL Server 2000 based
> data driven web application.
> Approximately 25 simultaneous clients. Peak activity would probably be 50
> transactions/activities per second (2 per second per client). I expect
> the database size to grow up to 4GB in 1 year.
> The application would use only basic OLAP features (if at all)...so
> feature set wise I believe that standard edition is good enough.
> What I am concerned about is when MS documentation says that Standard
> Edition is for "organization that do not require the advanced scalability,
> availability, performance, or analysis features of the SQL Server 2000
> Enterprise Edition"
> Is there a difference in performance between Std and Ent editions? In
> terms of number of transactions per second that can be serviced?
> What other criteria should I be aware of before deciding to go one way or
> the other?
> Any ideas?|||Stephen Dybing [MSFT] (stephd@.online.microsoft.com) writes:
> There is nothing in either the Standard or Enterprise Edition engine
> that I'm aware of that throttles performance based on the Edition that
> you're using. The only Edition that has a performance throttle based on
> the Edition is MSDE.

There are however features in Enterprise Edition that may help to
improve performance. One such features in indexed views. You can use
indexed views in Std Edition too, but there situations where the optimizer
will not consider the view.

Then again, if you are not using indexed views, this will not make a
difference.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp|||True, but in my defense, it's listed on the Features page I pointed
everybody at. :-)

--
Sincerely,
Stephen Dybing

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

"Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@.sommarskog.se> wrote in message
news:Xns956828A66F7CYazorman@.127.0.0.1...
> Stephen Dybing [MSFT] (stephd@.online.microsoft.com) writes:
>> There is nothing in either the Standard or Enterprise Edition engine
>> that I'm aware of that throttles performance based on the Edition that
>> you're using. The only Edition that has a performance throttle based on
>> the Edition is MSDE.
> There are however features in Enterprise Edition that may help to
> improve performance. One such features in indexed views. You can use
> indexed views in Std Edition too, but there situations where the optimizer
> will not consider the view.
> Then again, if you are not using indexed views, this will not make a
> difference.
>
> --
> Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
> Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

CheckSAPwdPolicy Return=''28001''

I need help for the following problem:

We use SQL Server 2005 Express. With a Microsoft Windows Server 2003 family, Enterprise Edition Service Pack 1 (Build 3790) we get the following installation problem.

In the log-file SQLSetup0005_M067RT1107P1_SQL.log we get these lines:

...

Failed to validate sa password error 2704
<EndFunc Name='CheckSAPwdPolicy' Return='28001' GetLastError='0'>
Error Code: 0x80076d61 (28001)
Windows Error Text: Source File Name: sqlca\sqlcax.cpp
Compiler Timestamp: Fri Feb 9 22:35:05 2007
Function Name: SAPasswordPolicyCheck
Source Line Number: 2727
...

I try it on other PC a Microsoft Windows Server 2003 family, Enterprise Edition Service Pack 1 (Build 3790) - Installation.

Here I got no problems!

What is the reason?

Thank you!

Seems that the first computer has a password policy enabled in Windows which is applied to the sa account (and all appropiate SQL accounts on the server). Either a Local Security Policy or a domain policy is applied to the server which sets the password complexity on the server. If your password is not conform to the complexity rules, the creation of the user will fail. (use the MMC snapin for configuration)

Jens K. Suessmeyer

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

|||

Thank you very much for your help!

The problem is the local security policy!

CheckQueryProcessorAlive

Please help me determine what could cause the SQL Server 2000 Cluster error
listed below. This is a server with SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition as an
Active/Active Cluster and Windows 2003 Server.
Please help me with this error.
Thanks,
00000780.0000149c::2005/01/05-18:22:53.035 INFO [API] User denied access
using default cluster SD. GetLastError() = 0x00000005; dwStatus = 0x00000000.
000008ec.000007e4::2005/01/05-18:23:17.957 ERR SQL Server <SQL Server
(OLTP)>: [sqsrvres] CheckQueryProcessorAlive: sqlexecdirect failed
000008ec.000007e4::2005/01/05-18:23:17.957 ERR SQL Server <SQL Server
(OLTP)>: [sqsrvres] printODBCError: sqlstate = 01000; native error = 2746;
message = [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][TCP/IP Sockets]ConnectionWrite
(send()).
000008ec.000007e4::2005/01/05-18:23:17.957 ERR SQL Server <SQL Server
(OLTP)>: [sqsrvres] printODBCError: sqlstate = 08S01; native error = b;
message = [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][TCP/IP Sockets]General network
error. Check your network documentation.
000008ec.000007e4::2005/01/05-18:23:17.957 ERR SQL Server <SQL Server
(OLTP)>: [sqsrvres] OnlineThread: QP is not online.
000008ec.000007e4::2005/01/05-18:23:17.957 ERR SQL Server <SQL Server
(OLTP)>: [sqsrvres] CheckQueryProcessorAlive: sqlexecdirect failed
000008ec.000007e4::2005/01/05-18:23:17.957 ERR SQL Server <SQL Server
(OLTP)>: [sqsrvres] printODBCError: sqlstate = 08S01; native error = 0;
message = [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver]Communication link failure
000008ec.000007e4::2005/01/05-18:23:17.957 ERR SQL Server <SQL Server
(OLTP)>: [sqsrvres] CheckQueryProcessorAlive: sqlexecdirect failed
000008ec.000007e4::2005/01/05-18:23:17.957 ERR SQL Server <SQL Server
(OLTP)>: [sqsrvres] printODBCError: sqlstate = 08S01; native error = 0;
message = [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver]Communication link failure
000008ec.000007e4::2005/01/05-18:23:17.973 ERR SQL Server <SQL Server
(OLTP)>: [sqsrvres] CheckQueryProcessorAlive: sqlexecdirect failed
000008ec.000007e4::2005/01/05-18:23:17.973 ERR SQL Server <SQL Server
(OLTP)>: [sqsrvres] printODBCError: sqlstate = 08S01; native error = 0;
message = [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver]Communication link failure
000008ec.000007e4::2005/01/05-18:23:17.973 ERR SQL Server <SQL Server
(OLTP)>: [sqsrvres] CheckQueryProcessorAlive: sqlexecdirect failed
000008ec.000007e4::2005/01/05-18:23:17.973 ERR SQL Server <SQL Server
(OLTP)>: [sqsrvres] printODBCError: sqlstate = 08S01; native error = 0;
message = [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver]Communication link failure
000008ec.000007e4::2005/01/05-18:23:17.973 ERR SQL Server <SQL Server
(OLTP)>: [sqsrvres] CheckQueryProcessorAlive: sqlexecdirect failed
000008ec.000007e4::2005/01/05-18:23:17.973 ERR SQL Server <SQL Server
(OLTP)>: [sqsrvres] printODBCError: sqlstate = 08S01; native error = 0;
message = [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver]Communication link failure
00000780.00000e6c::2005/01/05-18:23:22.676 INFO [CP] CppRegNotifyThread
checkpointing key Software\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL Server\OLTP\MSSQLSERVER to
id 4 due to timer
00000780.00000e6c::2005/01/05-18:23:22.676 INFO [Qfs] QfsGetTempFileName
C:\Temp\, CLS, 41268 => C:\Temp\CLSA164.tmp, status 0
00000780.00000e6c::2005/01/05-18:23:22.676 INFO [Qfs] QfsDeleteFile
C:\Temp\CLSA164.tmp, status 0
00000780.00000e6c::2005/01/05-18:23:22.707 INFO [Qfs] QfsRegSaveKey
C:\Temp\CLSA164.tmp, status 0
The cluster is not running with the required access. Pls check the access by
giving the correct user / pass
Regards
Nirvan
"Joe P." wrote:

> Please help me determine what could cause the SQL Server 2000 Cluster error
> listed below. This is a server with SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition as an
> Active/Active Cluster and Windows 2003 Server.
> Please help me with this error.
> Thanks,
>
> 00000780.0000149c::2005/01/05-18:22:53.035 INFO [API] User denied access
> using default cluster SD. GetLastError() = 0x00000005; dwStatus = 0x00000000.
> 000008ec.000007e4::2005/01/05-18:23:17.957 ERR SQL Server <SQL Server
> (OLTP)>: [sqsrvres] CheckQueryProcessorAlive: sqlexecdirect failed
> 000008ec.000007e4::2005/01/05-18:23:17.957 ERR SQL Server <SQL Server
> (OLTP)>: [sqsrvres] printODBCError: sqlstate = 01000; native error = 2746;
> message = [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][TCP/IP Sockets]ConnectionWrite
> (send()).
> 000008ec.000007e4::2005/01/05-18:23:17.957 ERR SQL Server <SQL Server
> (OLTP)>: [sqsrvres] printODBCError: sqlstate = 08S01; native error = b;
> message = [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][TCP/IP Sockets]General network
> error. Check your network documentation.
> 000008ec.000007e4::2005/01/05-18:23:17.957 ERR SQL Server <SQL Server
> (OLTP)>: [sqsrvres] OnlineThread: QP is not online.
> 000008ec.000007e4::2005/01/05-18:23:17.957 ERR SQL Server <SQL Server
> (OLTP)>: [sqsrvres] CheckQueryProcessorAlive: sqlexecdirect failed
> 000008ec.000007e4::2005/01/05-18:23:17.957 ERR SQL Server <SQL Server
> (OLTP)>: [sqsrvres] printODBCError: sqlstate = 08S01; native error = 0;
> message = [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver]Communication link failure
> 000008ec.000007e4::2005/01/05-18:23:17.957 ERR SQL Server <SQL Server
> (OLTP)>: [sqsrvres] CheckQueryProcessorAlive: sqlexecdirect failed
> 000008ec.000007e4::2005/01/05-18:23:17.957 ERR SQL Server <SQL Server
> (OLTP)>: [sqsrvres] printODBCError: sqlstate = 08S01; native error = 0;
> message = [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver]Communication link failure
> 000008ec.000007e4::2005/01/05-18:23:17.973 ERR SQL Server <SQL Server
> (OLTP)>: [sqsrvres] CheckQueryProcessorAlive: sqlexecdirect failed
> 000008ec.000007e4::2005/01/05-18:23:17.973 ERR SQL Server <SQL Server
> (OLTP)>: [sqsrvres] printODBCError: sqlstate = 08S01; native error = 0;
> message = [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver]Communication link failure
> 000008ec.000007e4::2005/01/05-18:23:17.973 ERR SQL Server <SQL Server
> (OLTP)>: [sqsrvres] CheckQueryProcessorAlive: sqlexecdirect failed
> 000008ec.000007e4::2005/01/05-18:23:17.973 ERR SQL Server <SQL Server
> (OLTP)>: [sqsrvres] printODBCError: sqlstate = 08S01; native error = 0;
> message = [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver]Communication link failure
> 000008ec.000007e4::2005/01/05-18:23:17.973 ERR SQL Server <SQL Server
> (OLTP)>: [sqsrvres] CheckQueryProcessorAlive: sqlexecdirect failed
> 000008ec.000007e4::2005/01/05-18:23:17.973 ERR SQL Server <SQL Server
> (OLTP)>: [sqsrvres] printODBCError: sqlstate = 08S01; native error = 0;
> message = [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver]Communication link failure
> 00000780.00000e6c::2005/01/05-18:23:22.676 INFO [CP] CppRegNotifyThread
> checkpointing key Software\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL Server\OLTP\MSSQLSERVER to
> id 4 due to timer
> 00000780.00000e6c::2005/01/05-18:23:22.676 INFO [Qfs] QfsGetTempFileName
> C:\Temp\, CLS, 41268 => C:\Temp\CLSA164.tmp, status 0
> 00000780.00000e6c::2005/01/05-18:23:22.676 INFO [Qfs] QfsDeleteFile
> C:\Temp\CLSA164.tmp, status 0
> 00000780.00000e6c::2005/01/05-18:23:22.707 INFO [Qfs] QfsRegSaveKey
> C:\Temp\CLSA164.tmp, status 0
>
|||This might help explain...
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;291255
jg
[quote]Originally posted by Joe P.
[b]Please help me determine what could cause the SQL Server 2000 Cluster error
listed below. This is a server with SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition as an
Active/Active Cluster and Windows 2003 Server.
Please help me with this error.
Thanks,|||The service account that MSCS is running under connects to the SQL
instance every 60 seconds by default (configurable in advanced tab of
the SQL Server resource in cluster administrator) and runs
select @.@.server
using its trusted connection. If it's capable of doing that then it's
happy that the SQL instance is alive. It also does a looks alive poll
every 5 seconds (by default) but I'm not sure what it does for a looks
alive poll (probably just a quick check of the status of the MSSQLServer
service on the owner node).
Basically, make sure the cluster service account has a trusted
connection to the SQL server. All it needs is to be a member of the
public role in the master DB (which every login has anyway) so just add
a trusted login for it if it doesn't already exist.
*mike hodgson* |/ database administrator/ | mallesons stephen jaques
*T* +61 (2) 9296 3668 |* F* +61 (2) 9296 3885 |* M* +61 (408) 675 907
*E* mailto:mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com |* W* http://www.mallesons.com
Nirvan Biswas wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>The cluster is not running with the required access. Pls check the access by
>giving the correct user / pass
>Regards
>Nirvan
>"Joe P." wrote:
>

Checkpointing Not Happening in Simple Recovery Model

The server is Windows 2003, SQL Server 2000, sp3 Standard Edition.
We have at least two databases on this server in simple recovery model. Of
course, one of these databases is tempdb so this is very problematic.
The transaction logs just keep filling up and filling up, growing to max,
and finally become full. We would then have to issue an alter database
statement to increase the size of the log. Although an alter database
statement is one of those things that should trigger a checkpoint - it does
not clear out the space used in the log file. So, once we are able to get a
bit of free space, we can manually issue a checkpoint.
We have incorporated a checkpoint to run every 15 minutes. We also have an
alert that will catch a log at 80% full and then issues a checkpoint on that
database. But, we want to figure out what is going on and what is causing
this.
Any ideas?
MichelleThis sounds more like the result of long-running transactions, e.g.:
begin tran
-- a whole bunch of statements
commit tran
The log cannot be truncated beyond the first open transaction.
--
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com
"michelle" <michelle@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23FjEC4Q6EHA.260@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
The server is Windows 2003, SQL Server 2000, sp3 Standard Edition.
We have at least two databases on this server in simple recovery model. Of
course, one of these databases is tempdb so this is very problematic.
The transaction logs just keep filling up and filling up, growing to max,
and finally become full. We would then have to issue an alter database
statement to increase the size of the log. Although an alter database
statement is one of those things that should trigger a checkpoint - it does
not clear out the space used in the log file. So, once we are able to get a
bit of free space, we can manually issue a checkpoint.
We have incorporated a checkpoint to run every 15 minutes. We also have an
alert that will catch a log at 80% full and then issues a checkpoint on that
database. But, we want to figure out what is going on and what is causing
this.
Any ideas?
Michelle|||Do you have long running transactions? If so, the log can't be truncated
until you either commit or roll back.
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/
"michelle" <michelle@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:#FjEC4Q6EHA.260@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> The server is Windows 2003, SQL Server 2000, sp3 Standard Edition.
> We have at least two databases on this server in simple recovery model. Of
> course, one of these databases is tempdb so this is very problematic.
> The transaction logs just keep filling up and filling up, growing to max,
> and finally become full. We would then have to issue an alter database
> statement to increase the size of the log. Although an alter database
> statement is one of those things that should trigger a checkpoint - it
does
> not clear out the space used in the log file. So, once we are able to get
a
> bit of free space, we can manually issue a checkpoint.
> We have incorporated a checkpoint to run every 15 minutes. We also have an
> alert that will catch a log at 80% full and then issues a checkpoint on
that
> database. But, we want to figure out what is going on and what is causing
> this.
> Any ideas?
> Michelle
>|||I appreciate that two people have pointed to long-running transactions
(perhaps transactions left 'open' that never commit?).
But, would I then be able to issue a checkpoint and recover the free space
or wouldn't these long-running transactions still just keep the space in the
log? If there are transactions still open, I would think that issuing a
checkpoint statement manually would not do any good. Maybe I'm wrong.
Please note that depending on how much space we have allocated to these
logs, it can take days to fill it up. For example, tempdb would go for
several days (and the space used in the log would keep growing and growing)
until it would finally get full. It didn't seem like anything would then
roll back - I waited 45 minutes one day (server is pretty powerful, fast
disks on SAN, 4 GB RAM, 2 HT cpus).
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:eKX$p%23Q6EHA.2568@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Do you have long running transactions? If so, the log can't be truncated
> until you either commit or roll back.
> 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/
> "michelle" <michelle@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:#FjEC4Q6EHA.260@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > The server is Windows 2003, SQL Server 2000, sp3 Standard Edition.
> >
> > We have at least two databases on this server in simple recovery model.
Of
> > course, one of these databases is tempdb so this is very problematic.
> >
> > The transaction logs just keep filling up and filling up, growing to
max,
> > and finally become full. We would then have to issue an alter database
> > statement to increase the size of the log. Although an alter database
> > statement is one of those things that should trigger a checkpoint - it
> does
> > not clear out the space used in the log file. So, once we are able to
get
> a
> > bit of free space, we can manually issue a checkpoint.
> >
> > We have incorporated a checkpoint to run every 15 minutes. We also have
an
> > alert that will catch a log at 80% full and then issues a checkpoint on
> that
> > database. But, we want to figure out what is going on and what is
causing
> > this.
> >
> > Any ideas?
> >
> > Michelle
> >
> >
>|||Checkpoint isn't gonna buy you anything here. Try running DBCC OPENTRAN for
the databases in question. If you are seeing a long-running transaction, it
will identify the SPID for it, as well as the date/time it started.
--
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com
"michelle" <michelle@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uYsCGHR6EHA.2568@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
I appreciate that two people have pointed to long-running transactions
(perhaps transactions left 'open' that never commit?).
But, would I then be able to issue a checkpoint and recover the free space
or wouldn't these long-running transactions still just keep the space in the
log? If there are transactions still open, I would think that issuing a
checkpoint statement manually would not do any good. Maybe I'm wrong.
Please note that depending on how much space we have allocated to these
logs, it can take days to fill it up. For example, tempdb would go for
several days (and the space used in the log would keep growing and growing)
until it would finally get full. It didn't seem like anything would then
roll back - I waited 45 minutes one day (server is pretty powerful, fast
disks on SAN, 4 GB RAM, 2 HT cpus).
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:eKX$p%23Q6EHA.2568@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Do you have long running transactions? If so, the log can't be truncated
> until you either commit or roll back.
> 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/
> "michelle" <michelle@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:#FjEC4Q6EHA.260@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > The server is Windows 2003, SQL Server 2000, sp3 Standard Edition.
> >
> > We have at least two databases on this server in simple recovery model.
Of
> > course, one of these databases is tempdb so this is very problematic.
> >
> > The transaction logs just keep filling up and filling up, growing to
max,
> > and finally become full. We would then have to issue an alter database
> > statement to increase the size of the log. Although an alter database
> > statement is one of those things that should trigger a checkpoint - it
> does
> > not clear out the space used in the log file. So, once we are able to
get
> a
> > bit of free space, we can manually issue a checkpoint.
> >
> > We have incorporated a checkpoint to run every 15 minutes. We also have
an
> > alert that will catch a log at 80% full and then issues a checkpoint on
> that
> > database. But, we want to figure out what is going on and what is
causing
> > this.
> >
> > Any ideas?
> >
> > Michelle
> >
> >
>|||I guess that's my point. If I have open transactions, checkpoint shouldn't
help me because they'll stay in the log and take up space. BUT, when I issue
a checkpoint, the space is freed - leading me to believe that the log is NOT
full of open transactions but full of committed transactions. Yet, the logs
are becoming well over 70% full (or were until we started issuing regular
checkpoints). I'm not coming up with any open transactions, either.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:%23uBD8kR6EHA.2568@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Checkpoint isn't gonna buy you anything here. Try running DBCC OPENTRAN
for
> the databases in question. If you are seeing a long-running transaction,
it
> will identify the SPID for it, as well as the date/time it started.
> --
> Tom
> ---
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com
>
> "michelle" <michelle@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:uYsCGHR6EHA.2568@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I appreciate that two people have pointed to long-running transactions
> (perhaps transactions left 'open' that never commit?).
> But, would I then be able to issue a checkpoint and recover the free space
> or wouldn't these long-running transactions still just keep the space in
the
> log? If there are transactions still open, I would think that issuing a
> checkpoint statement manually would not do any good. Maybe I'm wrong.
> Please note that depending on how much space we have allocated to these
> logs, it can take days to fill it up. For example, tempdb would go for
> several days (and the space used in the log would keep growing and
growing)
> until it would finally get full. It didn't seem like anything would then
> roll back - I waited 45 minutes one day (server is pretty powerful, fast
> disks on SAN, 4 GB RAM, 2 HT cpus).
>
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
> news:eKX$p%23Q6EHA.2568@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > Do you have long running transactions? If so, the log can't be truncated
> > until you either commit or roll back.
> >
> > 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/
> >
> > "michelle" <michelle@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:#FjEC4Q6EHA.260@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > The server is Windows 2003, SQL Server 2000, sp3 Standard Edition.
> > >
> > > We have at least two databases on this server in simple recovery
model.
> Of
> > > course, one of these databases is tempdb so this is very problematic.
> > >
> > > The transaction logs just keep filling up and filling up, growing to
> max,
> > > and finally become full. We would then have to issue an alter database
> > > statement to increase the size of the log. Although an alter database
> > > statement is one of those things that should trigger a checkpoint - it
> > does
> > > not clear out the space used in the log file. So, once we are able to
> get
> > a
> > > bit of free space, we can manually issue a checkpoint.
> > >
> > > We have incorporated a checkpoint to run every 15 minutes. We also
have
> an
> > > alert that will catch a log at 80% full and then issues a checkpoint
on
> > that
> > > database. But, we want to figure out what is going on and what is
> causing
> > > this.
> > >
> > > Any ideas?
> > >
> > > Michelle
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||Have you run:
sp_configure "recovery interval (min)"
If this has changed from the default, then that can have an influence on
checkpointing - and thus the amount of used space in your logs.
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com
"michelle" <michelle@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%2312oIES6EHA.3840@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
I guess that's my point. If I have open transactions, checkpoint shouldn't
help me because they'll stay in the log and take up space. BUT, when I issue
a checkpoint, the space is freed - leading me to believe that the log is NOT
full of open transactions but full of committed transactions. Yet, the logs
are becoming well over 70% full (or were until we started issuing regular
checkpoints). I'm not coming up with any open transactions, either.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:%23uBD8kR6EHA.2568@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Checkpoint isn't gonna buy you anything here. Try running DBCC OPENTRAN
for
> the databases in question. If you are seeing a long-running transaction,
it
> will identify the SPID for it, as well as the date/time it started.
> --
> Tom
> ---
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com
>
> "michelle" <michelle@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:uYsCGHR6EHA.2568@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I appreciate that two people have pointed to long-running transactions
> (perhaps transactions left 'open' that never commit?).
> But, would I then be able to issue a checkpoint and recover the free space
> or wouldn't these long-running transactions still just keep the space in
the
> log? If there are transactions still open, I would think that issuing a
> checkpoint statement manually would not do any good. Maybe I'm wrong.
> Please note that depending on how much space we have allocated to these
> logs, it can take days to fill it up. For example, tempdb would go for
> several days (and the space used in the log would keep growing and
growing)
> until it would finally get full. It didn't seem like anything would then
> roll back - I waited 45 minutes one day (server is pretty powerful, fast
> disks on SAN, 4 GB RAM, 2 HT cpus).
>
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
> news:eKX$p%23Q6EHA.2568@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > Do you have long running transactions? If so, the log can't be truncated
> > until you either commit or roll back.
> >
> > 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/
> >
> > "michelle" <michelle@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:#FjEC4Q6EHA.260@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > The server is Windows 2003, SQL Server 2000, sp3 Standard Edition.
> > >
> > > We have at least two databases on this server in simple recovery
model.
> Of
> > > course, one of these databases is tempdb so this is very problematic.
> > >
> > > The transaction logs just keep filling up and filling up, growing to
> max,
> > > and finally become full. We would then have to issue an alter database
> > > statement to increase the size of the log. Although an alter database
> > > statement is one of those things that should trigger a checkpoint - it
> > does
> > > not clear out the space used in the log file. So, once we are able to
> get
> > a
> > > bit of free space, we can manually issue a checkpoint.
> > >
> > > We have incorporated a checkpoint to run every 15 minutes. We also
have
> an
> > > alert that will catch a log at 80% full and then issues a checkpoint
on
> > that
> > > database. But, we want to figure out what is going on and what is
> causing
> > > this.
> > >
> > > Any ideas?
> > >
> > > Michelle
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||I know that we talked about looking into changing this to see if it would
make a difference but it looks like we're still using the default settings
for this:
name minimum maximum config_value
run_value
recovery interval (min) 0 32767 0
0
Right?
Thanks - Michelle
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:O1cBGMS6EHA.796@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Have you run:
> sp_configure "recovery interval (min)"
> If this has changed from the default, then that can have an influence on
> checkpointing - and thus the amount of used space in your logs.
>
> --
> Tom
> ---
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com
>
> "michelle" <michelle@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:%2312oIES6EHA.3840@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> I guess that's my point. If I have open transactions, checkpoint shouldn't
> help me because they'll stay in the log and take up space. BUT, when I
issue
> a checkpoint, the space is freed - leading me to believe that the log is
NOT
> full of open transactions but full of committed transactions. Yet, the
logs
> are becoming well over 70% full (or were until we started issuing regular
> checkpoints). I'm not coming up with any open transactions, either.
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:%23uBD8kR6EHA.2568@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > Checkpoint isn't gonna buy you anything here. Try running DBCC OPENTRAN
> for
> > the databases in question. If you are seeing a long-running
transaction,
> it
> > will identify the SPID for it, as well as the date/time it started.
> >
> > --
> > Tom
> >
> > ---
> > Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> > SQL Server MVP
> > Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> > Toronto, ON Canada
> > www.pinnaclepublishing.com
> >
> >
> > "michelle" <michelle@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:uYsCGHR6EHA.2568@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > I appreciate that two people have pointed to long-running transactions
> > (perhaps transactions left 'open' that never commit?).
> >
> > But, would I then be able to issue a checkpoint and recover the free
space
> > or wouldn't these long-running transactions still just keep the space in
> the
> > log? If there are transactions still open, I would think that issuing a
> > checkpoint statement manually would not do any good. Maybe I'm wrong.
> >
> > Please note that depending on how much space we have allocated to these
> > logs, it can take days to fill it up. For example, tempdb would go for
> > several days (and the space used in the log would keep growing and
> growing)
> > until it would finally get full. It didn't seem like anything would then
> > roll back - I waited 45 minutes one day (server is pretty powerful, fast
> > disks on SAN, 4 GB RAM, 2 HT cpus).
> >
> >
> > "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
> > news:eKX$p%23Q6EHA.2568@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > > Do you have long running transactions? If so, the log can't be
truncated
> > > until you either commit or roll back.
> > >
> > > 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/
> > >
> > > "michelle" <michelle@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > news:#FjEC4Q6EHA.260@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > > The server is Windows 2003, SQL Server 2000, sp3 Standard Edition.
> > > >
> > > > We have at least two databases on this server in simple recovery
> model.
> > Of
> > > > course, one of these databases is tempdb so this is very
problematic.
> > > >
> > > > The transaction logs just keep filling up and filling up, growing to
> > max,
> > > > and finally become full. We would then have to issue an alter
database
> > > > statement to increase the size of the log. Although an alter
database
> > > > statement is one of those things that should trigger a checkpoint -
it
> > > does
> > > > not clear out the space used in the log file. So, once we are able
to
> > get
> > > a
> > > > bit of free space, we can manually issue a checkpoint.
> > > >
> > > > We have incorporated a checkpoint to run every 15 minutes. We also
> have
> > an
> > > > alert that will catch a log at 80% full and then issues a checkpoint
> on
> > > that
> > > > database. But, we want to figure out what is going on and what is
> > causing
> > > > this.
> > > >
> > > > Any ideas?
> > > >
> > > > Michelle
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||Well, this is odd. With the default values here, you shouldn't be
experiencing what you have. You could try experimenting with low values -
like 1, 2 or 5 - and see if that gets things under control.
--
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com
"michelle" <michelle@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:udRdWoS6EHA.3856@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
I know that we talked about looking into changing this to see if it would
make a difference but it looks like we're still using the default settings
for this:
name minimum maximum config_value
run_value
recovery interval (min) 0 32767 0
0
Right?
Thanks - Michelle
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:O1cBGMS6EHA.796@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Have you run:
> sp_configure "recovery interval (min)"
> If this has changed from the default, then that can have an influence on
> checkpointing - and thus the amount of used space in your logs.
>
> --
> Tom
> ---
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com
>
> "michelle" <michelle@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:%2312oIES6EHA.3840@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> I guess that's my point. If I have open transactions, checkpoint shouldn't
> help me because they'll stay in the log and take up space. BUT, when I
issue
> a checkpoint, the space is freed - leading me to believe that the log is
NOT
> full of open transactions but full of committed transactions. Yet, the
logs
> are becoming well over 70% full (or were until we started issuing regular
> checkpoints). I'm not coming up with any open transactions, either.
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:%23uBD8kR6EHA.2568@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > Checkpoint isn't gonna buy you anything here. Try running DBCC OPENTRAN
> for
> > the databases in question. If you are seeing a long-running
transaction,
> it
> > will identify the SPID for it, as well as the date/time it started.
> >
> > --
> > Tom
> >
> > ---
> > Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> > SQL Server MVP
> > Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> > Toronto, ON Canada
> > www.pinnaclepublishing.com
> >
> >
> > "michelle" <michelle@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:uYsCGHR6EHA.2568@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > I appreciate that two people have pointed to long-running transactions
> > (perhaps transactions left 'open' that never commit?).
> >
> > But, would I then be able to issue a checkpoint and recover the free
space
> > or wouldn't these long-running transactions still just keep the space in
> the
> > log? If there are transactions still open, I would think that issuing a
> > checkpoint statement manually would not do any good. Maybe I'm wrong.
> >
> > Please note that depending on how much space we have allocated to these
> > logs, it can take days to fill it up. For example, tempdb would go for
> > several days (and the space used in the log would keep growing and
> growing)
> > until it would finally get full. It didn't seem like anything would then
> > roll back - I waited 45 minutes one day (server is pretty powerful, fast
> > disks on SAN, 4 GB RAM, 2 HT cpus).
> >
> >
> > "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
> > news:eKX$p%23Q6EHA.2568@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > > Do you have long running transactions? If so, the log can't be
truncated
> > > until you either commit or roll back.
> > >
> > > 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/
> > >
> > > "michelle" <michelle@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > news:#FjEC4Q6EHA.260@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > > The server is Windows 2003, SQL Server 2000, sp3 Standard Edition.
> > > >
> > > > We have at least two databases on this server in simple recovery
> model.
> > Of
> > > > course, one of these databases is tempdb so this is very
problematic.
> > > >
> > > > The transaction logs just keep filling up and filling up, growing to
> > max,
> > > > and finally become full. We would then have to issue an alter
database
> > > > statement to increase the size of the log. Although an alter
database
> > > > statement is one of those things that should trigger a checkpoint -
it
> > > does
> > > > not clear out the space used in the log file. So, once we are able
to
> > get
> > > a
> > > > bit of free space, we can manually issue a checkpoint.
> > > >
> > > > We have incorporated a checkpoint to run every 15 minutes. We also
> have
> > an
> > > > alert that will catch a log at 80% full and then issues a checkpoint
> on
> > > that
> > > > database. But, we want to figure out what is going on and what is
> > causing
> > > > this.
> > > >
> > > > Any ideas?
> > > >
> > > > Michelle
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||We'll give this a try after the weekend - don't want to make trouble over
the Christmas Holiday - :)
I'll report back with the results.
Thanks for your help!
Michelle
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:%233MfXsS6EHA.3124@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Well, this is odd. With the default values here, you shouldn't be
> experiencing what you have. You could try experimenting with low values -
> like 1, 2 or 5 - and see if that gets things under control.
> --
> Tom
> ---
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com
>
> "michelle" <michelle@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:udRdWoS6EHA.3856@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> I know that we talked about looking into changing this to see if it would
> make a difference but it looks like we're still using the default settings
> for this:
> name minimum maximum config_value
> run_value
> recovery interval (min) 0 32767 0
> 0
> Right?
> Thanks - Michelle
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:O1cBGMS6EHA.796@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > Have you run:
> >
> > sp_configure "recovery interval (min)"
> >
> > If this has changed from the default, then that can have an influence on
> > checkpointing - and thus the amount of used space in your logs.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tom
> >
> > ---
> > Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> > SQL Server MVP
> > Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> > Toronto, ON Canada
> > www.pinnaclepublishing.com
> >
> >
> > "michelle" <michelle@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:%2312oIES6EHA.3840@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > I guess that's my point. If I have open transactions, checkpoint
shouldn't
> > help me because they'll stay in the log and take up space. BUT, when I
> issue
> > a checkpoint, the space is freed - leading me to believe that the log is
> NOT
> > full of open transactions but full of committed transactions. Yet, the
> logs
> > are becoming well over 70% full (or were until we started issuing
regular
> > checkpoints). I'm not coming up with any open transactions, either.
> >
> > "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> > news:%23uBD8kR6EHA.2568@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > Checkpoint isn't gonna buy you anything here. Try running DBCC
OPENTRAN
> > for
> > > the databases in question. If you are seeing a long-running
> transaction,
> > it
> > > will identify the SPID for it, as well as the date/time it started.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tom
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> > > SQL Server MVP
> > > Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> > > Toronto, ON Canada
> > > www.pinnaclepublishing.com
> > >
> > >
> > > "michelle" <michelle@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > news:uYsCGHR6EHA.2568@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > I appreciate that two people have pointed to long-running transactions
> > > (perhaps transactions left 'open' that never commit?).
> > >
> > > But, would I then be able to issue a checkpoint and recover the free
> space
> > > or wouldn't these long-running transactions still just keep the space
in
> > the
> > > log? If there are transactions still open, I would think that issuing
a
> > > checkpoint statement manually would not do any good. Maybe I'm wrong.
> > >
> > > Please note that depending on how much space we have allocated to
these
> > > logs, it can take days to fill it up. For example, tempdb would go for
> > > several days (and the space used in the log would keep growing and
> > growing)
> > > until it would finally get full. It didn't seem like anything would
then
> > > roll back - I waited 45 minutes one day (server is pretty powerful,
fast
> > > disks on SAN, 4 GB RAM, 2 HT cpus).
> > >
> > >
> > > "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
> > > news:eKX$p%23Q6EHA.2568@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > > > Do you have long running transactions? If so, the log can't be
> truncated
> > > > until you either commit or roll back.
> > > >
> > > > 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/
> > > >
> > > > "michelle" <michelle@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:#FjEC4Q6EHA.260@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > > > The server is Windows 2003, SQL Server 2000, sp3 Standard Edition.
> > > > >
> > > > > We have at least two databases on this server in simple recovery
> > model.
> > > Of
> > > > > course, one of these databases is tempdb so this is very
> problematic.
> > > > >
> > > > > The transaction logs just keep filling up and filling up, growing
to
> > > max,
> > > > > and finally become full. We would then have to issue an alter
> database
> > > > > statement to increase the size of the log. Although an alter
> database
> > > > > statement is one of those things that should trigger a
checkpoint -
> it
> > > > does
> > > > > not clear out the space used in the log file. So, once we are able
> to
> > > get
> > > > a
> > > > > bit of free space, we can manually issue a checkpoint.
> > > > >
> > > > > We have incorporated a checkpoint to run every 15 minutes. We also
> > have
> > > an
> > > > > alert that will catch a log at 80% full and then issues a
checkpoint
> > on
> > > > that
> > > > > database. But, we want to figure out what is going on and what is
> > > causing
> > > > > this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any ideas?
> > > > >
> > > > > Michelle
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||Are you sure that you have simple recovery model selected for tempdb?
Regards,
Daniel
"michelle" <michelle@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:#FjEC4Q6EHA.260@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> The server is Windows 2003, SQL Server 2000, sp3 Standard Edition.
> We have at least two databases on this server in simple recovery model. Of
> course, one of these databases is tempdb so this is very problematic.
> The transaction logs just keep filling up and filling up, growing to max,
> and finally become full. We would then have to issue an alter database
> statement to increase the size of the log. Although an alter database
> statement is one of those things that should trigger a checkpoint - it
does
> not clear out the space used in the log file. So, once we are able to get
a
> bit of free space, we can manually issue a checkpoint.
> We have incorporated a checkpoint to run every 15 minutes. We also have an
> alert that will catch a log at 80% full and then issues a checkpoint on
that
> database. But, we want to figure out what is going on and what is causing
> this.
> Any ideas?
> Michelle
>|||You cannot set the recovery model in tempdb.
--
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com
"Daniel Joskovski" <omnis@.NOSPAMunetREMOVECAPS.com.mk> wrote in message
news:u5NjKcV6EHA.2624@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Are you sure that you have simple recovery model selected for tempdb?
Regards,
Daniel
"michelle" <michelle@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:#FjEC4Q6EHA.260@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> The server is Windows 2003, SQL Server 2000, sp3 Standard Edition.
> We have at least two databases on this server in simple recovery model. Of
> course, one of these databases is tempdb so this is very problematic.
> The transaction logs just keep filling up and filling up, growing to max,
> and finally become full. We would then have to issue an alter database
> statement to increase the size of the log. Although an alter database
> statement is one of those things that should trigger a checkpoint - it
does
> not clear out the space used in the log file. So, once we are able to get
a
> bit of free space, we can manually issue a checkpoint.
> We have incorporated a checkpoint to run every 15 minutes. We also have an
> alert that will catch a log at 80% full and then issues a checkpoint on
that
> database. But, we want to figure out what is going on and what is causing
> this.
> Any ideas?
> Michelle
>|||Yes, you are right, I read that Michelle is writing about logs not log, is
there possibility that she looks at transaction logs on databases with full
or bulk logged recovery model?
Regards,
Daniel
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:ONo0e4b6EHA.1392@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> You cannot set the recovery model in tempdb.
> --
> Tom
> ---
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com
>
> "Daniel Joskovski" <omnis@.NOSPAMunetREMOVECAPS.com.mk> wrote in message
> news:u5NjKcV6EHA.2624@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Are you sure that you have simple recovery model selected for tempdb?
> Regards,
> Daniel
> "michelle" <michelle@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:#FjEC4Q6EHA.260@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > The server is Windows 2003, SQL Server 2000, sp3 Standard Edition.
> >
> > We have at least two databases on this server in simple recovery model.
Of
> > course, one of these databases is tempdb so this is very problematic.
> >
> > The transaction logs just keep filling up and filling up, growing to
max,
> > and finally become full. We would then have to issue an alter database
> > statement to increase the size of the log. Although an alter database
> > statement is one of those things that should trigger a checkpoint - it
> does
> > not clear out the space used in the log file. So, once we are able to
get
> a
> > bit of free space, we can manually issue a checkpoint.
> >
> > We have incorporated a checkpoint to run every 15 minutes. We also have
an
> > alert that will catch a log at 80% full and then issues a checkpoint on
> that
> > database. But, we want to figure out what is going on and what is
causing
> > this.
> >
> > Any ideas?
> >
> > Michelle
> >
> >
>|||She says that she has simple recovery and that one of them is tempdb. Maybe
the next thing we should look at is doing sp_helpdb.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com
.
"Daniel Joskovski" <omnis@.NOSPAMunetREMOVECAPS.com.mk> wrote in message
news:uevSRcu6EHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Yes, you are right, I read that Michelle is writing about logs not log, is
there possibility that she looks at transaction logs on databases with full
or bulk logged recovery model?
Regards,
Daniel
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:ONo0e4b6EHA.1392@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> You cannot set the recovery model in tempdb.
> --
> Tom
> ---
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com
>
> "Daniel Joskovski" <omnis@.NOSPAMunetREMOVECAPS.com.mk> wrote in message
> news:u5NjKcV6EHA.2624@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Are you sure that you have simple recovery model selected for tempdb?
> Regards,
> Daniel
> "michelle" <michelle@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:#FjEC4Q6EHA.260@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > The server is Windows 2003, SQL Server 2000, sp3 Standard Edition.
> >
> > We have at least two databases on this server in simple recovery model.
Of
> > course, one of these databases is tempdb so this is very problematic.
> >
> > The transaction logs just keep filling up and filling up, growing to
max,
> > and finally become full. We would then have to issue an alter database
> > statement to increase the size of the log. Although an alter database
> > statement is one of those things that should trigger a checkpoint - it
> does
> > not clear out the space used in the log file. So, once we are able to
get
> a
> > bit of free space, we can manually issue a checkpoint.
> >
> > We have incorporated a checkpoint to run every 15 minutes. We also have
an
> > alert that will catch a log at 80% full and then issues a checkpoint on
> that
> > database. But, we want to figure out what is going on and what is
causing
> > this.
> >
> > Any ideas?
> >
> > Michelle
> >
> >
>|||I think so,
also I think next line will go straight.
select name,databasepropertyex(name,'recovery') model from
master.dbo.sysdatabases
Regards,
Daniel
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:OqkKwr06EHA.2488@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> She says that she has simple recovery and that one of them is tempdb.
Maybe
> the next thing we should look at is doing sp_helpdb.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com
> .
> "Daniel Joskovski" <omnis@.NOSPAMunetREMOVECAPS.com.mk> wrote in message
> news:uevSRcu6EHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Yes, you are right, I read that Michelle is writing about logs not log, is
> there possibility that she looks at transaction logs on databases with
full
> or bulk logged recovery model?
> Regards,
> Daniel
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:ONo0e4b6EHA.1392@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > You cannot set the recovery model in tempdb.
> >
> > --
> > Tom
> >
> > ---
> > Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> > SQL Server MVP
> > Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> > Toronto, ON Canada
> > www.pinnaclepublishing.com
> >
> >
> > "Daniel Joskovski" <omnis@.NOSPAMunetREMOVECAPS.com.mk> wrote in message
> > news:u5NjKcV6EHA.2624@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > Are you sure that you have simple recovery model selected for tempdb?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Daniel
> >
> > "michelle" <michelle@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:#FjEC4Q6EHA.260@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > The server is Windows 2003, SQL Server 2000, sp3 Standard Edition.
> > >
> > > We have at least two databases on this server in simple recovery
model.
> Of
> > > course, one of these databases is tempdb so this is very problematic.
> > >
> > > The transaction logs just keep filling up and filling up, growing to
> max,
> > > and finally become full. We would then have to issue an alter database
> > > statement to increase the size of the log. Although an alter database
> > > statement is one of those things that should trigger a checkpoint - it
> > does
> > > not clear out the space used in the log file. So, once we are able to
> get
> > a
> > > bit of free space, we can manually issue a checkpoint.
> > >
> > > We have incorporated a checkpoint to run every 15 minutes. We also
have
> an
> > > alert that will catch a log at 80% full and then issues a checkpoint
on
> > that
> > > database. But, we want to figure out what is going on and what is
> causing
> > > this.
> > >
> > > Any ideas?
> > >
> > > Michelle
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||Now all we need are the results...
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com
.
"Daniel Joskovski" <omnis@.NOSPAMunetREMOVECAPS.com.mk> wrote in message
news:u6RXHH66EHA.3368@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
I think so,
also I think next line will go straight.
select name,databasepropertyex(name,'recovery') model from
master.dbo.sysdatabases
Regards,
Daniel
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:OqkKwr06EHA.2488@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> She says that she has simple recovery and that one of them is tempdb.
Maybe
> the next thing we should look at is doing sp_helpdb.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com
> .
> "Daniel Joskovski" <omnis@.NOSPAMunetREMOVECAPS.com.mk> wrote in message
> news:uevSRcu6EHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Yes, you are right, I read that Michelle is writing about logs not log, is
> there possibility that she looks at transaction logs on databases with
full
> or bulk logged recovery model?
> Regards,
> Daniel
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:ONo0e4b6EHA.1392@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > You cannot set the recovery model in tempdb.
> >
> > --
> > Tom
> >
> > ---
> > Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> > SQL Server MVP
> > Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> > Toronto, ON Canada
> > www.pinnaclepublishing.com
> >
> >
> > "Daniel Joskovski" <omnis@.NOSPAMunetREMOVECAPS.com.mk> wrote in message
> > news:u5NjKcV6EHA.2624@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > Are you sure that you have simple recovery model selected for tempdb?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Daniel
> >
> > "michelle" <michelle@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:#FjEC4Q6EHA.260@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > The server is Windows 2003, SQL Server 2000, sp3 Standard Edition.
> > >
> > > We have at least two databases on this server in simple recovery
model.
> Of
> > > course, one of these databases is tempdb so this is very problematic.
> > >
> > > The transaction logs just keep filling up and filling up, growing to
> max,
> > > and finally become full. We would then have to issue an alter database
> > > statement to increase the size of the log. Although an alter database
> > > statement is one of those things that should trigger a checkpoint - it
> > does
> > > not clear out the space used in the log file. So, once we are able to
> get
> > a
> > > bit of free space, we can manually issue a checkpoint.
> > >
> > > We have incorporated a checkpoint to run every 15 minutes. We also
have
> an
> > > alert that will catch a log at 80% full and then issues a checkpoint
on
> > that
> > > database. But, we want to figure out what is going on and what is
> causing
> > > this.
> > >
> > > Any ideas?
> > >
> > > Michelle
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||Yes, I am looking at databases set to simple:
distribution SIMPLE
master SIMPLE
tempdb SIMPLE
sqlprofile SIMPLE
msdb SIMPLE
pubs SIMPLE
Northwind SIMPLE
PERFMON SIMPLE
When we're fully-staffed again tomorrow, we'll look into stopping the
15-minute checkpoints and altering the recovery interval.
Michelle
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:uXBQ3Q66EHA.2804@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Now all we need are the results...
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com
> .
> "Daniel Joskovski" <omnis@.NOSPAMunetREMOVECAPS.com.mk> wrote in message
> news:u6RXHH66EHA.3368@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I think so,
> also I think next line will go straight.
> select name,databasepropertyex(name,'recovery') model from
> master.dbo.sysdatabases
> Regards,
> Daniel
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:OqkKwr06EHA.2488@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> > She says that she has simple recovery and that one of them is tempdb.
> Maybe
> > the next thing we should look at is doing sp_helpdb.
> >
> > --
> > Tom
> >
> > ----
> > Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> > SQL Server MVP
> > Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> > Toronto, ON Canada
> > www.pinnaclepublishing.com
> > .
> > "Daniel Joskovski" <omnis@.NOSPAMunetREMOVECAPS.com.mk> wrote in message
> > news:uevSRcu6EHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > Yes, you are right, I read that Michelle is writing about logs not log,
is
> > there possibility that she looks at transaction logs on databases with
> full
> > or bulk logged recovery model?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Daniel
> >
> > "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> > news:ONo0e4b6EHA.1392@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > You cannot set the recovery model in tempdb.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tom
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> > > SQL Server MVP
> > > Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> > > Toronto, ON Canada
> > > www.pinnaclepublishing.com
> > >
> > >
> > > "Daniel Joskovski" <omnis@.NOSPAMunetREMOVECAPS.com.mk> wrote in
message
> > > news:u5NjKcV6EHA.2624@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > > Are you sure that you have simple recovery model selected for tempdb?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Daniel
> > >
> > > "michelle" <michelle@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > news:#FjEC4Q6EHA.260@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > > The server is Windows 2003, SQL Server 2000, sp3 Standard Edition.
> > > >
> > > > We have at least two databases on this server in simple recovery
> model.
> > Of
> > > > course, one of these databases is tempdb so this is very
problematic.
> > > >
> > > > The transaction logs just keep filling up and filling up, growing to
> > max,
> > > > and finally become full. We would then have to issue an alter
database
> > > > statement to increase the size of the log. Although an alter
database
> > > > statement is one of those things that should trigger a checkpoint -
it
> > > does
> > > > not clear out the space used in the log file. So, once we are able
to
> > get
> > > a
> > > > bit of free space, we can manually issue a checkpoint.
> > > >
> > > > We have incorporated a checkpoint to run every 15 minutes. We also
> have
> > an
> > > > alert that will catch a log at 80% full and then issues a checkpoint
> on
> > > that
> > > > database. But, we want to figure out what is going on and what is
> > causing
> > > > this.
> > > >
> > > > Any ideas?
> > > >
> > > > Michelle
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

Checkpointing Not Happening in Simple Recovery Model

The server is Windows 2003, SQL Server 2000, sp3 Standard Edition.
We have at least two databases on this server in simple recovery model. Of
course, one of these databases is tempdb so this is very problematic.
The transaction logs just keep filling up and filling up, growing to max,
and finally become full. We would then have to issue an alter database
statement to increase the size of the log. Although an alter database
statement is one of those things that should trigger a checkpoint - it does
not clear out the space used in the log file. So, once we are able to get a
bit of free space, we can manually issue a checkpoint.
We have incorporated a checkpoint to run every 15 minutes. We also have an
alert that will catch a log at 80% full and then issues a checkpoint on that
database. But, we want to figure out what is going on and what is causing
this.
Any ideas?
Michelle
This sounds more like the result of long-running transactions, e.g.:
begin tran
-- a whole bunch of statements
commit tran
The log cannot be truncated beyond the first open transaction.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com
"michelle" <michelle@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23FjEC4Q6EHA.260@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
The server is Windows 2003, SQL Server 2000, sp3 Standard Edition.
We have at least two databases on this server in simple recovery model. Of
course, one of these databases is tempdb so this is very problematic.
The transaction logs just keep filling up and filling up, growing to max,
and finally become full. We would then have to issue an alter database
statement to increase the size of the log. Although an alter database
statement is one of those things that should trigger a checkpoint - it does
not clear out the space used in the log file. So, once we are able to get a
bit of free space, we can manually issue a checkpoint.
We have incorporated a checkpoint to run every 15 minutes. We also have an
alert that will catch a log at 80% full and then issues a checkpoint on that
database. But, we want to figure out what is going on and what is causing
this.
Any ideas?
Michelle
|||Do you have long running transactions? If so, the log can't be truncated
until you either commit or roll back.
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/
"michelle" <michelle@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:#FjEC4Q6EHA.260@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> The server is Windows 2003, SQL Server 2000, sp3 Standard Edition.
> We have at least two databases on this server in simple recovery model. Of
> course, one of these databases is tempdb so this is very problematic.
> The transaction logs just keep filling up and filling up, growing to max,
> and finally become full. We would then have to issue an alter database
> statement to increase the size of the log. Although an alter database
> statement is one of those things that should trigger a checkpoint - it
does
> not clear out the space used in the log file. So, once we are able to get
a
> bit of free space, we can manually issue a checkpoint.
> We have incorporated a checkpoint to run every 15 minutes. We also have an
> alert that will catch a log at 80% full and then issues a checkpoint on
that
> database. But, we want to figure out what is going on and what is causing
> this.
> Any ideas?
> Michelle
>
|||I appreciate that two people have pointed to long-running transactions
(perhaps transactions left 'open' that never commit?).
But, would I then be able to issue a checkpoint and recover the free space
or wouldn't these long-running transactions still just keep the space in the
log? If there are transactions still open, I would think that issuing a
checkpoint statement manually would not do any good. Maybe I'm wrong.
Please note that depending on how much space we have allocated to these
logs, it can take days to fill it up. For example, tempdb would go for
several days (and the space used in the log would keep growing and growing)
until it would finally get full. It didn't seem like anything would then
roll back - I waited 45 minutes one day (server is pretty powerful, fast
disks on SAN, 4 GB RAM, 2 HT cpus).
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:eKX$p%23Q6EHA.2568@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Do you have long running transactions? If so, the log can't be truncated
> until you either commit or roll back.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "michelle" <michelle@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:#FjEC4Q6EHA.260@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Of[vbcol=seagreen]
max,[vbcol=seagreen]
> does
get[vbcol=seagreen]
> a
an[vbcol=seagreen]
> that
causing
>
|||Checkpoint isn't gonna buy you anything here. Try running DBCC OPENTRAN for
the databases in question. If you are seeing a long-running transaction, it
will identify the SPID for it, as well as the date/time it started.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com
"michelle" <michelle@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uYsCGHR6EHA.2568@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
I appreciate that two people have pointed to long-running transactions
(perhaps transactions left 'open' that never commit?).
But, would I then be able to issue a checkpoint and recover the free space
or wouldn't these long-running transactions still just keep the space in the
log? If there are transactions still open, I would think that issuing a
checkpoint statement manually would not do any good. Maybe I'm wrong.
Please note that depending on how much space we have allocated to these
logs, it can take days to fill it up. For example, tempdb would go for
several days (and the space used in the log would keep growing and growing)
until it would finally get full. It didn't seem like anything would then
roll back - I waited 45 minutes one day (server is pretty powerful, fast
disks on SAN, 4 GB RAM, 2 HT cpus).
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:eKX$p%23Q6EHA.2568@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Do you have long running transactions? If so, the log can't be truncated
> until you either commit or roll back.
> 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/
> "michelle" <michelle@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:#FjEC4Q6EHA.260@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Of[vbcol=seagreen]
max,[vbcol=seagreen]
> does
get[vbcol=seagreen]
> a
an[vbcol=seagreen]
> that
causing
>
|||I guess that's my point. If I have open transactions, checkpoint shouldn't
help me because they'll stay in the log and take up space. BUT, when I issue
a checkpoint, the space is freed - leading me to believe that the log is NOT
full of open transactions but full of committed transactions. Yet, the logs
are becoming well over 70% full (or were until we started issuing regular
checkpoints). I'm not coming up with any open transactions, either.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:%23uBD8kR6EHA.2568@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Checkpoint isn't gonna buy you anything here. Try running DBCC OPENTRAN
for
> the databases in question. If you are seeing a long-running transaction,
it
> will identify the SPID for it, as well as the date/time it started.
> --
> Tom
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com
>
> "michelle" <michelle@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:uYsCGHR6EHA.2568@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I appreciate that two people have pointed to long-running transactions
> (perhaps transactions left 'open' that never commit?).
> But, would I then be able to issue a checkpoint and recover the free space
> or wouldn't these long-running transactions still just keep the space in
the
> log? If there are transactions still open, I would think that issuing a
> checkpoint statement manually would not do any good. Maybe I'm wrong.
> Please note that depending on how much space we have allocated to these
> logs, it can take days to fill it up. For example, tempdb would go for
> several days (and the space used in the log would keep growing and
growing)[vbcol=seagreen]
> until it would finally get full. It didn't seem like anything would then
> roll back - I waited 45 minutes one day (server is pretty powerful, fast
> disks on SAN, 4 GB RAM, 2 HT cpus).
>
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
> news:eKX$p%23Q6EHA.2568@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
model.[vbcol=seagreen]
> Of
> max,
> get
have[vbcol=seagreen]
> an
on
> causing
>
|||Have you run:
sp_configure "recovery interval (min)"
If this has changed from the default, then that can have an influence on
checkpointing - and thus the amount of used space in your logs.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com
"michelle" <michelle@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%2312oIES6EHA.3840@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
I guess that's my point. If I have open transactions, checkpoint shouldn't
help me because they'll stay in the log and take up space. BUT, when I issue
a checkpoint, the space is freed - leading me to believe that the log is NOT
full of open transactions but full of committed transactions. Yet, the logs
are becoming well over 70% full (or were until we started issuing regular
checkpoints). I'm not coming up with any open transactions, either.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:%23uBD8kR6EHA.2568@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Checkpoint isn't gonna buy you anything here. Try running DBCC OPENTRAN
for
> the databases in question. If you are seeing a long-running transaction,
it
> will identify the SPID for it, as well as the date/time it started.
> --
> Tom
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com
>
> "michelle" <michelle@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:uYsCGHR6EHA.2568@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I appreciate that two people have pointed to long-running transactions
> (perhaps transactions left 'open' that never commit?).
> But, would I then be able to issue a checkpoint and recover the free space
> or wouldn't these long-running transactions still just keep the space in
the
> log? If there are transactions still open, I would think that issuing a
> checkpoint statement manually would not do any good. Maybe I'm wrong.
> Please note that depending on how much space we have allocated to these
> logs, it can take days to fill it up. For example, tempdb would go for
> several days (and the space used in the log would keep growing and
growing)[vbcol=seagreen]
> until it would finally get full. It didn't seem like anything would then
> roll back - I waited 45 minutes one day (server is pretty powerful, fast
> disks on SAN, 4 GB RAM, 2 HT cpus).
>
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
> news:eKX$p%23Q6EHA.2568@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
model.[vbcol=seagreen]
> Of
> max,
> get
have[vbcol=seagreen]
> an
on
> causing
>
|||I know that we talked about looking into changing this to see if it would
make a difference but it looks like we're still using the default settings
for this:
name minimum maximum config_value
run_value
recovery interval (min) 0 32767 0
0
Right?
Thanks - Michelle
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:O1cBGMS6EHA.796@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Have you run:
> sp_configure "recovery interval (min)"
> If this has changed from the default, then that can have an influence on
> checkpointing - and thus the amount of used space in your logs.
>
> --
> Tom
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com
>
> "michelle" <michelle@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:%2312oIES6EHA.3840@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> I guess that's my point. If I have open transactions, checkpoint shouldn't
> help me because they'll stay in the log and take up space. BUT, when I
issue
> a checkpoint, the space is freed - leading me to believe that the log is
NOT
> full of open transactions but full of committed transactions. Yet, the
logs[vbcol=seagreen]
> are becoming well over 70% full (or were until we started issuing regular
> checkpoints). I'm not coming up with any open transactions, either.
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:%23uBD8kR6EHA.2568@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> for
transaction,[vbcol=seagreen]
> it
space[vbcol=seagreen]
> the
> growing)
truncated[vbcol=seagreen]
> model.
problematic.[vbcol=seagreen]
database[vbcol=seagreen]
database[vbcol=seagreen]
it[vbcol=seagreen]
to
> have
> on
>
|||Well, this is odd. With the default values here, you shouldn't be
experiencing what you have. You could try experimenting with low values -
like 1, 2 or 5 - and see if that gets things under control.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com
"michelle" <michelle@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:udRdWoS6EHA.3856@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
I know that we talked about looking into changing this to see if it would
make a difference but it looks like we're still using the default settings
for this:
name minimum maximum config_value
run_value
recovery interval (min) 0 32767 0
0
Right?
Thanks - Michelle
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:O1cBGMS6EHA.796@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Have you run:
> sp_configure "recovery interval (min)"
> If this has changed from the default, then that can have an influence on
> checkpointing - and thus the amount of used space in your logs.
>
> --
> Tom
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com
>
> "michelle" <michelle@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:%2312oIES6EHA.3840@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> I guess that's my point. If I have open transactions, checkpoint shouldn't
> help me because they'll stay in the log and take up space. BUT, when I
issue
> a checkpoint, the space is freed - leading me to believe that the log is
NOT
> full of open transactions but full of committed transactions. Yet, the
logs[vbcol=seagreen]
> are becoming well over 70% full (or were until we started issuing regular
> checkpoints). I'm not coming up with any open transactions, either.
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:%23uBD8kR6EHA.2568@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> for
transaction,[vbcol=seagreen]
> it
space[vbcol=seagreen]
> the
> growing)
truncated[vbcol=seagreen]
> model.
problematic.[vbcol=seagreen]
database[vbcol=seagreen]
database[vbcol=seagreen]
it[vbcol=seagreen]
to
> have
> on
>
|||We'll give this a try after the weekend - don't want to make trouble over
the Christmas Holiday -
I'll report back with the results.
Thanks for your help!
Michelle
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:%233MfXsS6EHA.3124@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Well, this is odd. With the default values here, you shouldn't be
> experiencing what you have. You could try experimenting with low values -
> like 1, 2 or 5 - and see if that gets things under control.
> --
> Tom
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com
>
> "michelle" <michelle@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:udRdWoS6EHA.3856@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> I know that we talked about looking into changing this to see if it would
> make a difference but it looks like we're still using the default settings
> for this:
> name minimum maximum config_value
> run_value
> recovery interval (min) 0 32767 0
> 0
> Right?
> Thanks - Michelle
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:O1cBGMS6EHA.796@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
shouldn't[vbcol=seagreen]
> issue
> NOT
> logs
regular[vbcol=seagreen]
OPENTRAN[vbcol=seagreen]
> transaction,
> space
in[vbcol=seagreen]
a[vbcol=seagreen]
these[vbcol=seagreen]
then[vbcol=seagreen]
fast[vbcol=seagreen]
> truncated
> problematic.
to[vbcol=seagreen]
> database
> database
checkpoint -[vbcol=seagreen]
> it
> to
checkpoint
>