choosing server and raid. -- Repost

1st sorry about repost but did not get any replies on my last post. Any
advice is grattly appriciated.
I'd like to get some feed back on what I can setup with these systems. I have
very limmited budget. One is primary server and the other is a
backup/recovery system. The intent is to setup logshipping between the two.
The database is currently 30 GB / data 4 GB Log and we expect it to grow 5
GB per year.
server (A) / primary server
DL380G3 server
Smart Array 5i Plus Controler
1 36 GB HD (currently OS and runtimes)
3 72 GB ULTRA320 10,000 rmp HD (currently everything else)
server (b) / backup/recovery
Dell PowerEdge 1600SC
PERC4 Single Channel
5 36 GB 15,000 rmp HD (raid 5) / 2 partitions (OS,database files)
My usumption
server (a) makeit the backup server
buy another 36 GB dribe and raid 1 with current
server (b)
buy another 36 GB harddrive
setup 2 HD in Raid 1 setup
setup 4 HD in raid 5 or raid 10 setup for database
? where should I place TEMPDB, transaction logs
What about backup of transaction log? should I partition the hard drives
jccondor wrote:
> server (A) / primary server
> DL380G3 server
> Smart Array 5i Plus Controler
> 1 36 GB HD (currently OS and runtimes)
> 3 72 GB ULTRA320 10,000 rmp HD (currently everything else)
The OS should be on a mirrored set if possible. That would require you
add another 36GB HD and set it up for RAID 1. Three disks does not leave
you with many options for the databases, log files, and tempdb. While
you can RAID 5 them, three disks is not ideal and having the data and
log files on the same array is not the best option either. Unless this
is a really small database with limited OLTP activity. So your
assumption about purchasing another 36GB drive sounds like a good idea.
If this is just for backups and are looking for the best write speed,
then a RAID 5 array is not the best choice since it has high overhead
for writing. But it may work for you if you need the redundancy. I
assume you want some redundancy on the disks and RAID 5 is the cheapest,
despite its write performance issues. Of course, if you only need
redundancy for the backups, then you could use one of the 72GB drives
for the OS, RAID 1 the other two and store backups there, and then move
the 36GB drive to the other server.

> server (b) / backup/recovery
> Dell PowerEdge 1600SC
> PERC4 Single Channel
> 5 36 GB 15,000 rmp HD (raid 5) / 2 partitions (OS,database files)
Partitioning a RAID 5 array into two partitions really gives you nothing
performance-wise. For best performance on a server, it's best to isolate
the OS/Program Files, the database files, and the log files. On a busy
server you can even isolate tempdb. It all depends on your database and
the type and level of activity. With 6 drives, you could use three RAID
1 arrays, a RAID 1 array for the OS and a RAID 1+0 for the database and
log files.
Since we know little about your database, the type of activity, the
level of activity, reads vs writes, the size, and the expected growth,
it's difficult to recommend a solution.
David Gugick
Quest Software
www.imceda.com
www.quest.com

choosing server and raid. -- Repost

1st sorry about repost but did not get any replies on my last post. Any
advice is grattly appriciated.
I'd like to get some feed back on what I can setup with these systems. I have
very limmited budget. One is primary server and the other is a
backup/recovery system. The intent is to setup logshipping between the two.
The database is currently 30 GB / data 4 GB Log and we expect it to grow 5
GB per year.
server (A) / primary server
DL380G3 server
Smart Array 5i Plus Controler
1 36 GB HD (currently OS and runtimes)
3 72 GB ULTRA320 10,000 rmp HD (currently everything else)
server (b) / backup/recovery
Dell PowerEdge 1600SC
PERC4 Single Channel
5 36 GB 15,000 rmp HD (raid 5) / 2 partitions (OS,database files)
My usumption
server (a) makeit the backup server
buy another 36 GB dribe and raid 1 with current
server (b)
buy another 36 GB harddrive
setup 2 HD in Raid 1 setup
setup 4 HD in raid 5 or raid 10 setup for database
? where should I place TEMPDB, transaction logs
What about backup of transaction log? should I partition the hard drivesjccondor wrote:
> server (A) / primary server
> DL380G3 server
> Smart Array 5i Plus Controler
> 1 36 GB HD (currently OS and runtimes)
> 3 72 GB ULTRA320 10,000 rmp HD (currently everything else)
The OS should be on a mirrored set if possible. That would require you
add another 36GB HD and set it up for RAID 1. Three disks does not leave
you with many options for the databases, log files, and tempdb. While
you can RAID 5 them, three disks is not ideal and having the data and
log files on the same array is not the best option either. Unless this
is a really small database with limited OLTP activity. So your
assumption about purchasing another 36GB drive sounds like a good idea.
If this is just for backups and are looking for the best write speed,
then a RAID 5 array is not the best choice since it has high overhead
for writing. But it may work for you if you need the redundancy. I
assume you want some redundancy on the disks and RAID 5 is the cheapest,
despite its write performance issues. Of course, if you only need
redundancy for the backups, then you could use one of the 72GB drives
for the OS, RAID 1 the other two and store backups there, and then move
the 36GB drive to the other server.
> server (b) / backup/recovery
> Dell PowerEdge 1600SC
> PERC4 Single Channel
> 5 36 GB 15,000 rmp HD (raid 5) / 2 partitions (OS,database files)
Partitioning a RAID 5 array into two partitions really gives you nothing
performance-wise. For best performance on a server, it's best to isolate
the OS/Program Files, the database files, and the log files. On a busy
server you can even isolate tempdb. It all depends on your database and
the type and level of activity. With 6 drives, you could use three RAID
1 arrays, a RAID 1 array for the OS and a RAID 1+0 for the database and
log files.
Since we know little about your database, the type of activity, the
level of activity, reads vs writes, the size, and the expected growth,
it's difficult to recommend a solution.
David Gugick
Quest Software
www.imceda.com
www.quest.com

choosing server and raid. -- Repost

1st sorry about repost but did not get any replies on my last post. Any
advice is grattly appriciated.
I'd like to get some feed back on what I can setup with these systems. I hav
e
very limmited budget. One is primary server and the other is a
backup/recovery system. The intent is to setup logshipping between the two.
The database is currently 30 GB / data 4 GB Log and we expect it to grow 5
GB per year.
server (A) / primary server
DL380G3 server
Smart Array 5i Plus Controler
1 36 GB HD (currently OS and runtimes)
3 72 GB ULTRA320 10,000 rmp HD (currently everything else)
server (b) / backup/recovery
Dell PowerEdge 1600SC
PERC4 Single Channel
5 36 GB 15,000 rmp HD (raid 5) / 2 partitions (OS,database files)
My usumption
server (a) makeit the backup server
buy another 36 GB dribe and raid 1 with current
server (b)
buy another 36 GB harddrive
setup 2 HD in Raid 1 setup
setup 4 HD in raid 5 or raid 10 setup for database
? where should I place TEMPDB, transaction logs
What about backup of transaction log? should I partition the hard drivesjccondor wrote:
> server (A) / primary server
> DL380G3 server
> Smart Array 5i Plus Controler
> 1 36 GB HD (currently OS and runtimes)
> 3 72 GB ULTRA320 10,000 rmp HD (currently everything else)
The OS should be on a mirrored set if possible. That would require you
add another 36GB HD and set it up for RAID 1. Three disks does not leave
you with many options for the databases, log files, and tempdb. While
you can RAID 5 them, three disks is not ideal and having the data and
log files on the same array is not the best option either. Unless this
is a really small database with limited OLTP activity. So your
assumption about purchasing another 36GB drive sounds like a good idea.
If this is just for backups and are looking for the best write speed,
then a RAID 5 array is not the best choice since it has high overhead
for writing. But it may work for you if you need the redundancy. I
assume you want some redundancy on the disks and RAID 5 is the cheapest,
despite its write performance issues. Of course, if you only need
redundancy for the backups, then you could use one of the 72GB drives
for the OS, RAID 1 the other two and store backups there, and then move
the 36GB drive to the other server.

> server (b) / backup/recovery
> Dell PowerEdge 1600SC
> PERC4 Single Channel
> 5 36 GB 15,000 rmp HD (raid 5) / 2 partitions (OS,database files)
Partitioning a RAID 5 array into two partitions really gives you nothing
performance-wise. For best performance on a server, it's best to isolate
the OS/Program Files, the database files, and the log files. On a busy
server you can even isolate tempdb. It all depends on your database and
the type and level of activity. With 6 drives, you could use three RAID
1 arrays, a RAID 1 array for the OS and a RAID 1+0 for the database and
log files.
Since we know little about your database, the type of activity, the
level of activity, reads vs writes, the size, and the expected growth,
it's difficult to recommend a solution.
David Gugick
Quest Software
www.imceda.com
www.quest.com

Choosing RAID level

Hi,
In your opinion what would be a better choice for running Microsoft SQL
Server 2000 on Microsoft Windows 2000 Advanced Server:
1) 4-disk RAID10 for OS and tempdb,
2) 2x2-(same)disk RAID1 - one for OS, one for tempdb
Why?
The server will be dedicated only for running the SQL Server so paging
shouldn't be an issue.
Many thanks,
Oskar
You might want to start here:
http://b.wunder.home.comcast.net/18960.htm
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP
http://www.datamanipulation.net
"Oskar" <Oskar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:51D6E5C7-88C3-45B4-96A9-14C3CCDCCD2C@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> In your opinion what would be a better choice for running Microsoft SQL
> Server 2000 on Microsoft Windows 2000 Advanced Server:
> 1) 4-disk RAID10 for OS and tempdb,
> 2) 2x2-(same)disk RAID1 - one for OS, one for tempdb
> Why?
> The server will be dedicated only for running the SQL Server so paging
> shouldn't be an issue.
> --
> Many thanks,
> Oskar
>

Choosing RAID level

Hi,
In your opinion what would be a better choice for running Microsoft SQL
Server 2000 on Microsoft Windows 2000 Advanced Server:
1) 4-disk RAID10 for OS and tempdb,
2) 2x2-(same)disk RAID1 - one for OS, one for tempdb
Why?
The server will be dedicated only for running the SQL Server so paging
shouldn't be an issue.
Many thanks,
OskarYou might want to start here:
http://b.wunder.home.comcast.net/18960.htm
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP
http://www.datamanipulation.net
--
"Oskar" <Oskar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:51D6E5C7-88C3-45B4-96A9-14C3CCDCCD2C@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> In your opinion what would be a better choice for running Microsoft SQL
> Server 2000 on Microsoft Windows 2000 Advanced Server:
> 1) 4-disk RAID10 for OS and tempdb,
> 2) 2x2-(same)disk RAID1 - one for OS, one for tempdb
> Why?
> The server will be dedicated only for running the SQL Server so paging
> shouldn't be an issue.
> --
> Many thanks,
> Oskar
>

Choosing RAID level

Hi,
In your opinion what would be a better choice for running Microsoft SQL
Server 2000 on Microsoft Windows 2000 Advanced Server:
1) 4-disk RAID10 for OS and tempdb,
2) 2x2-(same)disk RAID1 - one for OS, one for tempdb
Why?
The server will be dedicated only for running the SQL Server so paging
shouldn't be an issue.
--
Many thanks,
OskarYou might want to start here:
http://b.wunder.home.comcast.net/18960.htm
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP
http://www.datamanipulation.net
--
"Oskar" <Oskar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:51D6E5C7-88C3-45B4-96A9-14C3CCDCCD2C@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> In your opinion what would be a better choice for running Microsoft SQL
> Server 2000 on Microsoft Windows 2000 Advanced Server:
> 1) 4-disk RAID10 for OS and tempdb,
> 2) 2x2-(same)disk RAID1 - one for OS, one for tempdb
> Why?
> The server will be dedicated only for running the SQL Server so paging
> shouldn't be an issue.
> --
> Many thanks,
> Oskar
>

Checking a database for physical damage

Hi,
Today I had one disk of my server array crashed, it is on raid 5 with
hot spare disks.
SQL Server reported some errors on event logger but apparently the hot
spare disks were used correctly since it is working right now.
So far is fine, but just in case I ran this command:
DBCC CHECKDB (MyProd) WITH ALL_ERRORMSGS
And it showed no errors.
Are there any other commands that I can run to check for integrity in a
database in a case like this?
If the CHECKDB was clean, you are in good shape. You might also include
DBCC CHECKCATALOG as part of your scheduled integrity checks but it unlikely
that a hardware error will introduce catalog problems.
You mention SQL Server errors but SQL Server should be oblivious to the
problem, assuming the controller gracefully handles such errors. If the
errors are due to the I/O subsystem become sluggish during the rebuild,
check to see if your array controller allows you to configure the rebuild
priority.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
<craigkenisston@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165648156.056709.236200@.f1g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> Hi,
> Today I had one disk of my server array crashed, it is on raid 5 with
> hot spare disks.
> SQL Server reported some errors on event logger but apparently the hot
> spare disks were used correctly since it is working right now.
> So far is fine, but just in case I ran this command:
> DBCC CHECKDB (MyProd) WITH ALL_ERRORMSGS
> And it showed no errors.
> Are there any other commands that I can run to check for integrity in a
> database in a case like this?
>
|||Dan,
Thank for your comment. I did not expect to have SQL Server errors
either. But they were.
I guess as you suggest, the problem went during the rebuild, not
directly because the failure.
The errors I had were:
18052 :
Error: 3624, Severity: 20, State: 1.
And this:
17066 :
SQL Server Assertion: File:
<p:\sql\ntdbms\storeng\drs\include\record.inl>, line=1447
Failed Assertion = 'm_SizeRec > 0 && m_SizeRec <= MAXDATAROW'.
I also had other errores, but the only message they have is about
telling "The description for Event ID ( XXXX ) in Source ( MSSQLSERVER
) cannot be found. "
Regards,
Dan Guzman wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> If the CHECKDB was clean, you are in good shape. You might also include
> DBCC CHECKCATALOG as part of your scheduled integrity checks but it unlikely
> that a hardware error will introduce catalog problems.
> You mention SQL Server errors but SQL Server should be oblivious to the
> problem, assuming the controller gracefully handles such errors. If the
> errors are due to the I/O subsystem become sluggish during the rebuild,
> check to see if your array controller allows you to configure the rebuild
> priority.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> <craigkenisston@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1165648156.056709.236200@.f1g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
|||The assertion error indicates garbage was returned to SQL Server. I find it
strange that the controller would return bad data during the rebuild. Even
during the rebuild, the controller ought to be able to reconstruct the
original data and return it to SQL, albeit more slowly than a healthy array.
Anyway, I'm glad your DBCCs are clean and you are out of the woods.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
<craigkenisston@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165681327.852727.312450@.f1g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> Dan,
> Thank for your comment. I did not expect to have SQL Server errors
> either. But they were.
> I guess as you suggest, the problem went during the rebuild, not
> directly because the failure.
> The errors I had were:
> 18052 :
> Error: 3624, Severity: 20, State: 1.
> And this:
> 17066 :
> SQL Server Assertion: File:
> <p:\sql\ntdbms\storeng\drs\include\record.inl>, line=1447
> Failed Assertion = 'm_SizeRec > 0 && m_SizeRec <= MAXDATAROW'.
>
> I also had other errores, but the only message they have is about
> telling "The description for Event ID ( XXXX ) in Source ( MSSQLSERVER
> ) cannot be found. "
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan Guzman wrote:
>

Checking a database for physical damage

Hi,
Today I had one disk of my server array crashed, it is on raid 5 with
hot spare disks.
SQL Server reported some errors on event logger but apparently the hot
spare disks were used correctly since it is working right now.
So far is fine, but just in case I ran this command:
DBCC CHECKDB (MyProd) WITH ALL_ERRORMSGS
And it showed no errors.
Are there any other commands that I can run to check for integrity in a
database in a case like this?If the CHECKDB was clean, you are in good shape. You might also include
DBCC CHECKCATALOG as part of your scheduled integrity checks but it unlikely
that a hardware error will introduce catalog problems.
You mention SQL Server errors but SQL Server should be oblivious to the
problem, assuming the controller gracefully handles such errors. If the
errors are due to the I/O subsystem become sluggish during the rebuild,
check to see if your array controller allows you to configure the rebuild
priority.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
<craigkenisston@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165648156.056709.236200@.f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
> Today I had one disk of my server array crashed, it is on raid 5 with
> hot spare disks.
> SQL Server reported some errors on event logger but apparently the hot
> spare disks were used correctly since it is working right now.
> So far is fine, but just in case I ran this command:
> DBCC CHECKDB (MyProd) WITH ALL_ERRORMSGS
> And it showed no errors.
> Are there any other commands that I can run to check for integrity in a
> database in a case like this?
>|||Dan,
Thank for your comment. I did not expect to have SQL Server errors
either. But they were.
I guess as you suggest, the problem went during the rebuild, not
directly because the failure.
The errors I had were:
18052 :
Error: 3624, Severity: 20, State: 1.
And this:
17066 :
SQL Server Assertion: File:
<p:\sql\ntdbms\storeng\drs\include\record.inl>, line=1447
Failed Assertion = 'm_SizeRec > 0 && m_SizeRec <= MAXDATAROW'.
I also had other errores, but the only message they have is about
telling "The description for Event ID ( XXXX ) in Source ( MSSQLSERVER
) cannot be found. "
Regards,
Dan Guzman wrote:
> If the CHECKDB was clean, you are in good shape. You might also include
> DBCC CHECKCATALOG as part of your scheduled integrity checks but it unlikely
> that a hardware error will introduce catalog problems.
> You mention SQL Server errors but SQL Server should be oblivious to the
> problem, assuming the controller gracefully handles such errors. If the
> errors are due to the I/O subsystem become sluggish during the rebuild,
> check to see if your array controller allows you to configure the rebuild
> priority.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> <craigkenisston@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1165648156.056709.236200@.f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > Today I had one disk of my server array crashed, it is on raid 5 with
> > hot spare disks.
> > SQL Server reported some errors on event logger but apparently the hot
> > spare disks were used correctly since it is working right now.
> >
> > So far is fine, but just in case I ran this command:
> > DBCC CHECKDB (MyProd) WITH ALL_ERRORMSGS
> >
> > And it showed no errors.
> > Are there any other commands that I can run to check for integrity in a
> > database in a case like this?
> >|||The assertion error indicates garbage was returned to SQL Server. I find it
strange that the controller would return bad data during the rebuild. Even
during the rebuild, the controller ought to be able to reconstruct the
original data and return it to SQL, albeit more slowly than a healthy array.
Anyway, I'm glad your DBCCs are clean and you are out of the woods.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
<craigkenisston@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165681327.852727.312450@.f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Dan,
> Thank for your comment. I did not expect to have SQL Server errors
> either. But they were.
> I guess as you suggest, the problem went during the rebuild, not
> directly because the failure.
> The errors I had were:
> 18052 :
> Error: 3624, Severity: 20, State: 1.
> And this:
> 17066 :
> SQL Server Assertion: File:
> <p:\sql\ntdbms\storeng\drs\include\record.inl>, line=1447
> Failed Assertion = 'm_SizeRec > 0 && m_SizeRec <= MAXDATAROW'.
>
> I also had other errores, but the only message they have is about
> telling "The description for Event ID ( XXXX ) in Source ( MSSQLSERVER
> ) cannot be found. "
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan Guzman wrote:
>> If the CHECKDB was clean, you are in good shape. You might also include
>> DBCC CHECKCATALOG as part of your scheduled integrity checks but it
>> unlikely
>> that a hardware error will introduce catalog problems.
>> You mention SQL Server errors but SQL Server should be oblivious to the
>> problem, assuming the controller gracefully handles such errors. If the
>> errors are due to the I/O subsystem become sluggish during the rebuild,
>> check to see if your array controller allows you to configure the rebuild
>> priority.
>> --
>> Hope this helps.
>> Dan Guzman
>> SQL Server MVP
>> <craigkenisston@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1165648156.056709.236200@.f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Today I had one disk of my server array crashed, it is on raid 5 with
>> > hot spare disks.
>> > SQL Server reported some errors on event logger but apparently the hot
>> > spare disks were used correctly since it is working right now.
>> >
>> > So far is fine, but just in case I ran this command:
>> > DBCC CHECKDB (MyProd) WITH ALL_ERRORMSGS
>> >
>> > And it showed no errors.
>> > Are there any other commands that I can run to check for integrity in a
>> > database in a case like this?
>> >
>

Checking a database for physical damage

Hi,
Today I had one disk of my server array crashed, it is on raid 5 with
hot spare disks.
SQL Server reported some errors on event logger but apparently the hot
spare disks were used correctly since it is working right now.
So far is fine, but just in case I ran this command:
DBCC CHECKDB (MyProd) WITH ALL_ERRORMSGS
And it showed no errors.
Are there any other commands that I can run to check for integrity in a
database in a case like this?If the CHECKDB was clean, you are in good shape. You might also include
DBCC CHECKCATALOG as part of your scheduled integrity checks but it unlikely
that a hardware error will introduce catalog problems.
You mention SQL Server errors but SQL Server should be oblivious to the
problem, assuming the controller gracefully handles such errors. If the
errors are due to the I/O subsystem become sluggish during the rebuild,
check to see if your array controller allows you to configure the rebuild
priority.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
<craigkenisston@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165648156.056709.236200@.f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
> Today I had one disk of my server array crashed, it is on raid 5 with
> hot spare disks.
> SQL Server reported some errors on event logger but apparently the hot
> spare disks were used correctly since it is working right now.
> So far is fine, but just in case I ran this command:
> DBCC CHECKDB (MyProd) WITH ALL_ERRORMSGS
> And it showed no errors.
> Are there any other commands that I can run to check for integrity in a
> database in a case like this?
>|||Dan,
Thank for your comment. I did not expect to have SQL Server errors
either. But they were.
I guess as you suggest, the problem went during the rebuild, not
directly because the failure.
The errors I had were:
18052 :
Error: 3624, Severity: 20, State: 1.
And this:
17066 :
SQL Server Assertion: File:
< p:\sql\ntdbms\storeng\drs\include\record
.inl>, line=1447
Failed Assertion = 'm_SizeRec > 0 && m_SizeRec <= MAXDATAROW'.
I also had other errores, but the only message they have is about
telling "The description for Event ID ( XXXX ) in Source ( MSSQLSERVER
) cannot be found. "
Regards,
Dan Guzman wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> If the CHECKDB was clean, you are in good shape. You might also include
> DBCC CHECKCATALOG as part of your scheduled integrity checks but it unlike
ly
> that a hardware error will introduce catalog problems.
> You mention SQL Server errors but SQL Server should be oblivious to the
> problem, assuming the controller gracefully handles such errors. If the
> errors are due to the I/O subsystem become sluggish during the rebuild,
> check to see if your array controller allows you to configure the rebuild
> priority.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> <craigkenisston@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1165648156.056709.236200@.f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...|||The assertion error indicates garbage was returned to SQL Server. I find it
strange that the controller would return bad data during the rebuild. Even
during the rebuild, the controller ought to be able to reconstruct the
original data and return it to SQL, albeit more slowly than a healthy array.
Anyway, I'm glad your DBCCs are clean and you are out of the woods.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
<craigkenisston@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165681327.852727.312450@.f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Dan,
> Thank for your comment. I did not expect to have SQL Server errors
> either. But they were.
> I guess as you suggest, the problem went during the rebuild, not
> directly because the failure.
> The errors I had were:
> 18052 :
> Error: 3624, Severity: 20, State: 1.
> And this:
> 17066 :
> SQL Server Assertion: File:
> < p:\sql\ntdbms\storeng\drs\include\record
.inl>, line=1447
> Failed Assertion = 'm_SizeRec > 0 && m_SizeRec <= MAXDATAROW'.
>
> I also had other errores, but the only message they have is about
> telling "The description for Event ID ( XXXX ) in Source ( MSSQLSERVER
> ) cannot be found. "
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan Guzman wrote:
>