Clean checkdb & checkcatalog - why is "Attempt to repair any minor problems" kicking in ?

A client was complaining that their DB Maint. plans ( on a server set
up by them )started failing.
Checked it out and once I turned the "Attempt to repair any minor
problems" off it was OK. I understand this is a known problem.
I never turn this option on myself so I am not familiar with it.
Integrity check should be running an DBCC CHECKDB, right?
So this option would probably be the equivalent of the REPAIR_FAST
option.
I did a dbcc checkdb and checkcatalog manually and both were clean.
Why is "auto repair" kicking in if everything is OK?
or
If there is a problem to fix why is it not showing up in DBCC?
Any suggestions?
Thanks
ZSeems like you assume that maint wiz first run DBCC CHECKDB without the repair option and if it find
a problem, it run again, using FAST_REPAIR. It doesn't. It just runs the command once, using the
FAST_REPAIR option. IMO, exposing this option in a wizard-like tool is bad design...
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"zoranlee" <zoranlee@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3842add9.0406161549.585ece6e@.posting.google.com...
> A client was complaining that their DB Maint. plans ( on a server set
> up by them )started failing.
> Checked it out and once I turned the "Attempt to repair any minor
> problems" off it was OK. I understand this is a known problem.
> I never turn this option on myself so I am not familiar with it.
> Integrity check should be running an DBCC CHECKDB, right?
> So this option would probably be the equivalent of the REPAIR_FAST
> option.
> I did a dbcc checkdb and checkcatalog manually and both were clean.
> Why is "auto repair" kicking in if everything is OK?
> or
> If there is a problem to fix why is it not showing up in DBCC?
> Any suggestions?
> Thanks
> Z|||Tibor, you mean REPAIR_FAST.
The command has to run in single_user mode and the maintenance job is
failing because of that. You shouldn't use that option and I've ensured its
been removed in SQL Server 2005.
Thanks
--
Paul Randal
Dev Lead, Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:OBWpvLDVEHA.2544@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Seems like you assume that maint wiz first run DBCC CHECKDB without the
repair option and if it find
> a problem, it run again, using FAST_REPAIR. It doesn't. It just runs the
command once, using the
> FAST_REPAIR option. IMO, exposing this option in a wizard-like tool is bad
design...
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "zoranlee" <zoranlee@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3842add9.0406161549.585ece6e@.posting.google.com...
> > A client was complaining that their DB Maint. plans ( on a server set
> > up by them )started failing.
> >
> > Checked it out and once I turned the "Attempt to repair any minor
> > problems" off it was OK. I understand this is a known problem.
> >
> > I never turn this option on myself so I am not familiar with it.
> > Integrity check should be running an DBCC CHECKDB, right?
> > So this option would probably be the equivalent of the REPAIR_FAST
> > option.
> >
> > I did a dbcc checkdb and checkcatalog manually and both were clean.
> >
> > Why is "auto repair" kicking in if everything is OK?
> > or
> > If there is a problem to fix why is it not showing up in DBCC?
> >
> > Any suggestions?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Z
>|||> Tibor, you mean REPAIR_FAST.
Indeed. Thanks for catching that.
> and I've ensured its
> been removed in SQL Server 2005.
I'm happy to hear that! :-)
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Paul S Randal [MS]" <prandal@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%233rYvdOVEHA.3420@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Tibor, you mean REPAIR_FAST.
> The command has to run in single_user mode and the maintenance job is
> failing because of that. You shouldn't use that option and I've ensured its
> been removed in SQL Server 2005.
> Thanks
> --
> Paul Randal
> Dev Lead, Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
> message news:OBWpvLDVEHA.2544@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > Seems like you assume that maint wiz first run DBCC CHECKDB without the
> repair option and if it find
> > a problem, it run again, using FAST_REPAIR. It doesn't. It just runs the
> command once, using the
> > FAST_REPAIR option. IMO, exposing this option in a wizard-like tool is bad
> design...
> >
> > --
> > Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> > http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> > http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> >
> >
> > "zoranlee" <zoranlee@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3842add9.0406161549.585ece6e@.posting.google.com...
> > > A client was complaining that their DB Maint. plans ( on a server set
> > > up by them )started failing.
> > >
> > > Checked it out and once I turned the "Attempt to repair any minor
> > > problems" off it was OK. I understand this is a known problem.
> > >
> > > I never turn this option on myself so I am not familiar with it.
> > > Integrity check should be running an DBCC CHECKDB, right?
> > > So this option would probably be the equivalent of the REPAIR_FAST
> > > option.
> > >
> > > I did a dbcc checkdb and checkcatalog manually and both were clean.
> > >
> > > Why is "auto repair" kicking in if everything is OK?
> > > or
> > > If there is a problem to fix why is it not showing up in DBCC?
> > >
> > > Any suggestions?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Z
> >
> >
>

CHECKDB finds consistency errors in table 'sysdepends'

I've tried to follow any kind of tips for the solution og this problem, but
I cannot use the repair tools because of the system table "sysdepends".
What can I do? The regular integrity check, database and transaction log
backups fail every single day!
The error, according to CHECKDB is:
"CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 1 consistency errors in table
'sysdepends' (object ID 12)."
(SQL 2000 SP3)
Any suggestions?
/Angelo
http://www.karaszi.com/SQLServer/inf...suspect_db.asp
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Angelo Brusati" <angelo@.intrasuite.net> wrote in message
news:unfjPEWBGHA.4076@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> I've tried to follow any kind of tips for the solution og this problem, but
> I cannot use the repair tools because of the system table "sysdepends".
> What can I do? The regular integrity check, database and transaction log
> backups fail every single day!
> The error, according to CHECKDB is:
> "CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 1 consistency errors in table
> 'sysdepends' (object ID 12)."
> (SQL 2000 SP3)
> Any suggestions?
>
> /Angelo
>
>
|||Tibor, thanks for your answer.
But has the article of your link something to do with my problem?
The database is not suspect and the hardware is OK, as well as the disks.
/Angelo
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:eja3qWZBGHA.272@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> http://www.karaszi.com/SQLServer/inf...suspect_db.asp
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "Angelo Brusati" <angelo@.intrasuite.net> wrote in message
> news:unfjPEWBGHA.4076@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
|||The DBCC message states that you have a corruption in your database. So the database isn't suspect,
but you still have a corruption in the database.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Angelo Brusati" <angelo@.intrasuite.net> wrote in message
news:%23u%231PugBGHA.3984@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Tibor, thanks for your answer.
> But has the article of your link something to do with my problem?
> The database is not suspect and the hardware is OK, as well as the disks.
> /Angelo
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:eja3qWZBGHA.272@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>