A Dimension Attribute with Double DataType converts a zero member to "(blank)"

In one of our SSAS 2005 sp2 cubes, we have a Dimension sourced from an Oracle table, with an Attribute that has a DataType of Double. When we process the Dimension and browse the Attribute, we see the following members:

All

-.01

-.002

.00000000001

.0000000001

Unknown

Notice how its blank where the '0' (zero) member should be. The underlying Oracle table does have '0' (zero) values for this column (you can see them when you explore the data in the DSV). To make things even more confusing,

the Unique_Name for this blank member is: [Dimension].[Attribute].&[0]

its Member_Value is: 0

its Member_Caption is: Null

its Member_Key is: 0

Has anyone seen this behaviour before? If so, how do we fix it?

Thank you.

Hi,

Have you set the NameColumn to look at the same field? And is it a datatype of WChar?

Matt|||

Hi Matt,

Thanks for the reply. Yes, setting the NameColumn to the field was one of the things i tried. The database field is NUMERIC(15,9), the KeyColumn is a datatype of Double and the NameColumn is a datatype of WChar. Even with the NameColumn set to the same field, I still get a blank where the 0 value should be.

-Robbie

a database restore technique question...

background sql2k on nt4.
one of the disk stripe went bad during the weekend and our network admin
rebuilt the box and reinstalled sql2k w/ sp2 but he didnt' check what was
installed origionally. his restore is like this:
1. origional sql excutables and database files are located at d:\mssql\, he
renamed it to d:\mssql_x\
2. he reinstalled sql2k and system databases to d:\mssql\, after that he was
able to start the sql service again.
3. he then renamed d:\mssql\ to d:\mssql_y\, and renamed d:\mssql_x\ back to
d:\mssql\
but the sql service wouldn't start. he said that tenique worked a couple of
times at other occasions.
my questions:
1. what might go wrong this time?
2. what's wrong with this technique, there is no backup or restore involved.
almost sounds too easy to be true.
thank you.
What he should have done was copy over the old database files to the new
folder. It appears that perhaps the old executables got corrupted.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"Steve Lin" <lins@.nospam.portptld.com> wrote in message
news:%234$J1ViJEHA.1392@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
background sql2k on nt4.
one of the disk stripe went bad during the weekend and our network admin
rebuilt the box and reinstalled sql2k w/ sp2 but he didnt' check what was
installed origionally. his restore is like this:
1. origional sql excutables and database files are located at d:\mssql\, he
renamed it to d:\mssql_x\
2. he reinstalled sql2k and system databases to d:\mssql\, after that he was
able to start the sql service again.
3. he then renamed d:\mssql\ to d:\mssql_y\, and renamed d:\mssql_x\ back to
d:\mssql\
but the sql service wouldn't start. he said that tenique worked a couple of
times at other occasions.
my questions:
1. what might go wrong this time?
2. what's wrong with this technique, there is no backup or restore involved.
almost sounds too easy to be true.
thank you.
|||"...copy over the old database files to the new..."
does that include system files such as master, msdb and so on?
if that's the case, wouldn't you need to 'attach' all the databases?
his tenique simple renamed the original directory to the new directory.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:#cXyfpiJEHA.2412@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> What he should have done was copy over the old database files to the new
> folder. It appears that perhaps the old executables got corrupted.
> --
> Tom
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Steve Lin" <lins@.nospam.portptld.com> wrote in message
> news:%234$J1ViJEHA.1392@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> background sql2k on nt4.
> one of the disk stripe went bad during the weekend and our network admin
> rebuilt the box and reinstalled sql2k w/ sp2 but he didnt' check what was
> installed origionally. his restore is like this:
> 1. origional sql excutables and database files are located at d:\mssql\,
he
> renamed it to d:\mssql_x\
> 2. he reinstalled sql2k and system databases to d:\mssql\, after that he
was
> able to start the sql service again.
> 3. he then renamed d:\mssql\ to d:\mssql_y\, and renamed d:\mssql_x\ back
to
> d:\mssql\
> but the sql service wouldn't start. he said that tenique worked a couple
of
> times at other occasions.
> my questions:
> 1. what might go wrong this time?
> 2. what's wrong with this technique, there is no backup or restore
involved.
> almost sounds too easy to be true.
> thank you.
>
|||For everything to be in synch, then yes, you would have to move all
databases - assuming none were corrupted. Simply renaming the directory
would make it point to all of the old stuff - including the executables. If
the original SQL Server had been shut down properly, you wouldn't need to
attach anything.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"Steve Lin" <lins@.nospam.portptld.com> wrote in message
news:OsUOquiJEHA.228@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
"...copy over the old database files to the new..."
does that include system files such as master, msdb and so on?
if that's the case, wouldn't you need to 'attach' all the databases?
his tenique simple renamed the original directory to the new directory.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:#cXyfpiJEHA.2412@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> What he should have done was copy over the old database files to the new
> folder. It appears that perhaps the old executables got corrupted.
> --
> Tom
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Steve Lin" <lins@.nospam.portptld.com> wrote in message
> news:%234$J1ViJEHA.1392@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> background sql2k on nt4.
> one of the disk stripe went bad during the weekend and our network admin
> rebuilt the box and reinstalled sql2k w/ sp2 but he didnt' check what was
> installed origionally. his restore is like this:
> 1. origional sql excutables and database files are located at d:\mssql\,
he
> renamed it to d:\mssql_x\
> 2. he reinstalled sql2k and system databases to d:\mssql\, after that he
was
> able to start the sql service again.
> 3. he then renamed d:\mssql\ to d:\mssql_y\, and renamed d:\mssql_x\ back
to
> d:\mssql\
> but the sql service wouldn't start. he said that tenique worked a couple
of
> times at other occasions.
> my questions:
> 1. what might go wrong this time?
> 2. what's wrong with this technique, there is no backup or restore
involved.
> almost sounds too easy to be true.
> thank you.
>

a database restore technique question...

background sql2k on nt4.
one of the disk stripe went bad during the weekend and our network admin
rebuilt the box and reinstalled sql2k w/ sp2 but he didnt' check what was
installed origionally. his restore is like this:
1. origional sql excutables and database files are located at d:\mssql\, he
renamed it to d:\mssql_x\
2. he reinstalled sql2k and system databases to d:\mssql\, after that he was
able to start the sql service again.
3. he then renamed d:\mssql\ to d:\mssql_y\, and renamed d:\mssql_x\ back to
d:\mssql\
but the sql service wouldn't start. he said that tenique worked a couple of
times at other occasions.
my questions:
1. what might go wrong this time?
2. what's wrong with this technique, there is no backup or restore involved.
almost sounds too easy to be true.
thank you.What he should have done was copy over the old database files to the new
folder. It appears that perhaps the old executables got corrupted.
--
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"Steve Lin" <lins@.nospam.portptld.com> wrote in message
news:%234$J1ViJEHA.1392@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
background sql2k on nt4.
one of the disk stripe went bad during the weekend and our network admin
rebuilt the box and reinstalled sql2k w/ sp2 but he didnt' check what was
installed origionally. his restore is like this:
1. origional sql excutables and database files are located at d:\mssql\, he
renamed it to d:\mssql_x\
2. he reinstalled sql2k and system databases to d:\mssql\, after that he was
able to start the sql service again.
3. he then renamed d:\mssql\ to d:\mssql_y\, and renamed d:\mssql_x\ back to
d:\mssql\
but the sql service wouldn't start. he said that tenique worked a couple of
times at other occasions.
my questions:
1. what might go wrong this time?
2. what's wrong with this technique, there is no backup or restore involved.
almost sounds too easy to be true.
thank you.|||"...copy over the old database files to the new..."
does that include system files such as master, msdb and so on?
if that's the case, wouldn't you need to 'attach' all the databases?
his tenique simple renamed the original directory to the new directory.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:#cXyfpiJEHA.2412@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> What he should have done was copy over the old database files to the new
> folder. It appears that perhaps the old executables got corrupted.
> --
> Tom
> ---
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Steve Lin" <lins@.nospam.portptld.com> wrote in message
> news:%234$J1ViJEHA.1392@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> background sql2k on nt4.
> one of the disk stripe went bad during the weekend and our network admin
> rebuilt the box and reinstalled sql2k w/ sp2 but he didnt' check what was
> installed origionally. his restore is like this:
> 1. origional sql excutables and database files are located at d:\mssql\,
he
> renamed it to d:\mssql_x\
> 2. he reinstalled sql2k and system databases to d:\mssql\, after that he
was
> able to start the sql service again.
> 3. he then renamed d:\mssql\ to d:\mssql_y\, and renamed d:\mssql_x\ back
to
> d:\mssql\
> but the sql service wouldn't start. he said that tenique worked a couple
of
> times at other occasions.
> my questions:
> 1. what might go wrong this time?
> 2. what's wrong with this technique, there is no backup or restore
involved.
> almost sounds too easy to be true.
> thank you.
>|||For everything to be in synch, then yes, you would have to move all
databases - assuming none were corrupted. Simply renaming the directory
would make it point to all of the old stuff - including the executables. If
the original SQL Server had been shut down properly, you wouldn't need to
attach anything.
--
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"Steve Lin" <lins@.nospam.portptld.com> wrote in message
news:OsUOquiJEHA.228@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
"...copy over the old database files to the new..."
does that include system files such as master, msdb and so on?
if that's the case, wouldn't you need to 'attach' all the databases?
his tenique simple renamed the original directory to the new directory.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:#cXyfpiJEHA.2412@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> What he should have done was copy over the old database files to the new
> folder. It appears that perhaps the old executables got corrupted.
> --
> Tom
> ---
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Steve Lin" <lins@.nospam.portptld.com> wrote in message
> news:%234$J1ViJEHA.1392@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> background sql2k on nt4.
> one of the disk stripe went bad during the weekend and our network admin
> rebuilt the box and reinstalled sql2k w/ sp2 but he didnt' check what was
> installed origionally. his restore is like this:
> 1. origional sql excutables and database files are located at d:\mssql\,
he
> renamed it to d:\mssql_x\
> 2. he reinstalled sql2k and system databases to d:\mssql\, after that he
was
> able to start the sql service again.
> 3. he then renamed d:\mssql\ to d:\mssql_y\, and renamed d:\mssql_x\ back
to
> d:\mssql\
> but the sql service wouldn't start. he said that tenique worked a couple
of
> times at other occasions.
> my questions:
> 1. what might go wrong this time?
> 2. what's wrong with this technique, there is no backup or restore
involved.
> almost sounds too easy to be true.
> thank you.
>

a database restore technique question...

background sql2k on nt4.
one of the disk stripe went bad during the weekend and our network admin
rebuilt the box and reinstalled sql2k w/ sp2 but he didnt' check what was
installed origionally. his restore is like this:
1. origional sql excutables and database files are located at d:\mssql\, he
renamed it to d:\mssql_x\
2. he reinstalled sql2k and system databases to d:\mssql\, after that he was
able to start the sql service again.
3. he then renamed d:\mssql\ to d:\mssql_y\, and renamed d:\mssql_x\ back to
d:\mssql\
but the sql service wouldn't start. he said that tenique worked a couple of
times at other occasions.
my questions:
1. what might go wrong this time?
2. what's wrong with this technique, there is no backup or restore involved.
almost sounds too easy to be true.
thank you.What he should have done was copy over the old database files to the new
folder. It appears that perhaps the old executables got corrupted.
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"Steve Lin" <lins@.nospam.portptld.com> wrote in message
news:%234$J1ViJEHA.1392@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
background sql2k on nt4.
one of the disk stripe went bad during the weekend and our network admin
rebuilt the box and reinstalled sql2k w/ sp2 but he didnt' check what was
installed origionally. his restore is like this:
1. origional sql excutables and database files are located at d:\mssql\, he
renamed it to d:\mssql_x\
2. he reinstalled sql2k and system databases to d:\mssql\, after that he was
able to start the sql service again.
3. he then renamed d:\mssql\ to d:\mssql_y\, and renamed d:\mssql_x\ back to
d:\mssql\
but the sql service wouldn't start. he said that tenique worked a couple of
times at other occasions.
my questions:
1. what might go wrong this time?
2. what's wrong with this technique, there is no backup or restore involved.
almost sounds too easy to be true.
thank you.|||"...copy over the old database files to the new..."
does that include system files such as master, msdb and so on?
if that's the case, wouldn't you need to 'attach' all the databases?
his tenique simple renamed the original directory to the new directory.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:#cXyfpiJEHA.2412@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> What he should have done was copy over the old database files to the new
> folder. It appears that perhaps the old executables got corrupted.
> --
> Tom
> ---
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Steve Lin" <lins@.nospam.portptld.com> wrote in message
> news:%234$J1ViJEHA.1392@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> background sql2k on nt4.
> one of the disk stripe went bad during the weekend and our network admin
> rebuilt the box and reinstalled sql2k w/ sp2 but he didnt' check what was
> installed origionally. his restore is like this:
> 1. origional sql excutables and database files are located at d:\mssql\,
he
> renamed it to d:\mssql_x\
> 2. he reinstalled sql2k and system databases to d:\mssql\, after that he
was
> able to start the sql service again.
> 3. he then renamed d:\mssql\ to d:\mssql_y\, and renamed d:\mssql_x\ back
to
> d:\mssql\
> but the sql service wouldn't start. he said that tenique worked a couple
of
> times at other occasions.
> my questions:
> 1. what might go wrong this time?
> 2. what's wrong with this technique, there is no backup or restore
involved.
> almost sounds too easy to be true.
> thank you.
>|||For everything to be in synch, then yes, you would have to move all
databases - assuming none were corrupted. Simply renaming the directory
would make it point to all of the old stuff - including the executables. If
the original SQL Server had been shut down properly, you wouldn't need to
attach anything.
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"Steve Lin" <lins@.nospam.portptld.com> wrote in message
news:OsUOquiJEHA.228@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
"...copy over the old database files to the new..."
does that include system files such as master, msdb and so on?
if that's the case, wouldn't you need to 'attach' all the databases?
his tenique simple renamed the original directory to the new directory.
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:#cXyfpiJEHA.2412@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> What he should have done was copy over the old database files to the new
> folder. It appears that perhaps the old executables got corrupted.
> --
> Tom
> ---
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Steve Lin" <lins@.nospam.portptld.com> wrote in message
> news:%234$J1ViJEHA.1392@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> background sql2k on nt4.
> one of the disk stripe went bad during the weekend and our network admin
> rebuilt the box and reinstalled sql2k w/ sp2 but he didnt' check what was
> installed origionally. his restore is like this:
> 1. origional sql excutables and database files are located at d:\mssql\,
he
> renamed it to d:\mssql_x\
> 2. he reinstalled sql2k and system databases to d:\mssql\, after that he
was
> able to start the sql service again.
> 3. he then renamed d:\mssql\ to d:\mssql_y\, and renamed d:\mssql_x\ back
to
> d:\mssql\
> but the sql service wouldn't start. he said that tenique worked a couple
of
> times at other occasions.
> my questions:
> 1. what might go wrong this time?
> 2. what's wrong with this technique, there is no backup or restore
involved.
> almost sounds too easy to be true.
> thank you.
>

A connection could not be made with report server ...

I just installed SQL Server 2005 (Reporting Services) on my collegues laptop
(Windows XP, SP2) and when we try to deploy the reports we get the message:
"A connection could not be made with report server at
http://localhost/ReportServer"
Everything is running (green checks) in the Reporting Services configuration
manager. We get the error, "Page not found." when we just try to open
http://<machinename>/Reports or http://localhost/Reports. I see the virtual
directories in IIS, all services seem to be running correctly.
Please help! I have installed reporting services about 10 times and have
not run into this problem before. The only issue that we had initially was
that the IIS default web site would not run because there was a conflict on
TCP Port 80, so I switched that TCP Port to port 81 -- this shouldn't be a
problem should it.
Thank you,
Laurie
--
LaurieTWhat happens when you try going to http://localhost/?
Have you tried http://localhost:81/Reports, since that's what you changed
the port to?
Clint
"LaurieT" <LaurieT@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:75CE650E-D235-4DDC-9408-802E8AE9312A@.microsoft.com...
>I just installed SQL Server 2005 (Reporting Services) on my collegues
>laptop
> (Windows XP, SP2) and when we try to deploy the reports we get the
> message:
> "A connection could not be made with report server at
> http://localhost/ReportServer"
> Everything is running (green checks) in the Reporting Services
> configuration
> manager. We get the error, "Page not found." when we just try to open
> http://<machinename>/Reports or http://localhost/Reports. I see the
> virtual
> directories in IIS, all services seem to be running correctly.
> Please help! I have installed reporting services about 10 times and have
> not run into this problem before. The only issue that we had initially
> was
> that the IIS default web site would not run because there was a conflict
> on
> TCP Port 80, so I switched that TCP Port to port 81 -- this shouldn't be a
> problem should it.
> Thank you,
> Laurie
> --
> LaurieT|||Clint -- Thanks, I tried this and still got some errors (although different
than I was seeing before).
I got this error when trying http://localhost:81/Reports
"The XML page cannot be displayed
Cannot view XML input using XSL style sheet. Please correct the error and
then click the Refresh button, or try again later.
----
A name was started with an invalid character. Error processing resource
'http://localhost:81/Reports'. Line 1, Position 2
<%@. Page language="c#" Codebehind="Home.aspx.cs" AutoEventWireup="false"
Inherits="Microsoft.ReportingServices.UI.HomePag..."
Any ideas?
Thank you.
--
LaurieT
"Clint" wrote:
> What happens when you try going to http://localhost/?
> Have you tried http://localhost:81/Reports, since that's what you changed
> the port to?
> Clint
> "LaurieT" <LaurieT@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:75CE650E-D235-4DDC-9408-802E8AE9312A@.microsoft.com...
> >I just installed SQL Server 2005 (Reporting Services) on my collegues
> >laptop
> > (Windows XP, SP2) and when we try to deploy the reports we get the
> > message:
> > "A connection could not be made with report server at
> > http://localhost/ReportServer"
> >
> > Everything is running (green checks) in the Reporting Services
> > configuration
> > manager. We get the error, "Page not found." when we just try to open
> > http://<machinename>/Reports or http://localhost/Reports. I see the
> > virtual
> > directories in IIS, all services seem to be running correctly.
> >
> > Please help! I have installed reporting services about 10 times and have
> > not run into this problem before. The only issue that we had initially
> > was
> > that the IIS default web site would not run because there was a conflict
> > on
> > TCP Port 80, so I switched that TCP Port to port 81 -- this shouldn't be a
> > problem should it.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Laurie
> > --
> > LaurieT
>
>|||Sorry, I got nothing else. :) I'm pretty much an RS newbie. Hopefully
someone else can chime in for you.
Clint
"LaurieT" <LaurieT@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:71DB89B9-F5F4-445E-A480-95A635B73ECB@.microsoft.com...
> Clint -- Thanks, I tried this and still got some errors (although
> different
> than I was seeing before).
> I got this error when trying http://localhost:81/Reports
> "The XML page cannot be displayed
> Cannot view XML input using XSL style sheet. Please correct the error and
> then click the Refresh button, or try again later.
>
> ----
> A name was started with an invalid character. Error processing resource
> 'http://localhost:81/Reports'. Line 1, Position 2
> <%@. Page language="c#" Codebehind="Home.aspx.cs" AutoEventWireup="false"
> Inherits="Microsoft.ReportingServices.UI.HomePag..."
> Any ideas?
> Thank you.
> --
> LaurieT
>
> "Clint" wrote:
>> What happens when you try going to http://localhost/?
>> Have you tried http://localhost:81/Reports, since that's what you changed
>> the port to?
>> Clint
>> "LaurieT" <LaurieT@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:75CE650E-D235-4DDC-9408-802E8AE9312A@.microsoft.com...
>> >I just installed SQL Server 2005 (Reporting Services) on my collegues
>> >laptop
>> > (Windows XP, SP2) and when we try to deploy the reports we get the
>> > message:
>> > "A connection could not be made with report server at
>> > http://localhost/ReportServer"
>> >
>> > Everything is running (green checks) in the Reporting Services
>> > configuration
>> > manager. We get the error, "Page not found." when we just try to open
>> > http://<machinename>/Reports or http://localhost/Reports. I see the
>> > virtual
>> > directories in IIS, all services seem to be running correctly.
>> >
>> > Please help! I have installed reporting services about 10 times and
>> > have
>> > not run into this problem before. The only issue that we had initially
>> > was
>> > that the IIS default web site would not run because there was a
>> > conflict
>> > on
>> > TCP Port 80, so I switched that TCP Port to port 81 -- this shouldn't
>> > be a
>> > problem should it.
>> >
>> > Thank you,
>> > Laurie
>> > --
>> > LaurieT
>>|||laurie,
I had the same problem and Now it has been fixed.i looked online and
here is what i found:
1)The FIX
For IIS MMC: Right click My Computer...then click manage...under
services and applications....expand IIS
then right click the "reports" virtual directory, select property and
then under the
ASP.NET tab select asp.net version that belongs to the .NET framework
version 2.something. For some reason, after you installed reporting
services,
the version of the ASP.NET was removed from the asp.net tab. click ok
2)New Problem
Then you get this new problem when you go to http://localhost/Reports/
--my comment Failed to access IIS metabase.
Description: An unhandled exception occurred during the execution of
the current web request. Please review the stack trace for more
information about the error and where it originated in the code.
Exception Details: System.Web.Hosting.HostingEnvironmentException:
Failed to access IIS metabase.
The process account used to run ASP.NET must have read access to the
IIS metabase (e.g. IIS://servername/W3SVC). For information on
modifying metabase permissions, please see
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=267904 .
Source Error:
An unhandled exception was generated during the execution of the
current web request. Information regarding the origin and location of
the exception can be identified using the exception stack trace below.
Stack Trace:
[HostingEnvironmentException: Failed to access IIS metabase.]
System.Web.Hosting.HostingEnvironment.MapPathCaching(String path)
+3609369 System.Web.CachedPathData.GetPathData(String path) +406
System.Web.Configuration.RuntimeConfigLKG.GetInternalSection
(String sectionName, Type type, ResultsIndex index) +134
2) The FIX
To correct the problem To repair IIS mappings for ASP.NET, run the
Aspnet_regiis.exe utlity. To do so, follow these steps:
Click Start, and then click Run.
Type cmd, and then click OK.
At the command prompt, type the following command, and then press
ENTER:
"\<Windows folder>\Microsoft.NET\Framework\<Version
Number>\aspnet_regiis.exe" -i
NOTE:Replace <Windows folder> with the name of the directory where the
operating system is installed and replace <Version Number> with the
.NET Framework version installed on your computer. Or you could do a
seach for the .exe file and locate the directory
You can find the above reference at
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;325093
Now try going to http://computername/reports/
Hope it helps,
Sharan Doddakashi
LaurieT wrote:
> Clint -- Thanks, I tried this and still got some errors (although different
> than I was seeing before).
> I got this error when trying http://localhost:81/Reports
> "The XML page cannot be displayed
> Cannot view XML input using XSL style sheet. Please correct the error and
> then click the Refresh button, or try again later.
>
> ----
> A name was started with an invalid character. Error processing resource
> 'http://localhost:81/Reports'. Line 1, Position 2
> <%@. Page language="c#" Codebehind="Home.aspx.cs" AutoEventWireup="false"
> Inherits="Microsoft.ReportingServices.UI.HomePag..."
> Any ideas?
> Thank you.
> --
> LaurieT
>
> "Clint" wrote:
> > What happens when you try going to http://localhost/?
> >
> > Have you tried http://localhost:81/Reports, since that's what you changed
> > the port to?
> >
> > Clint
> >
> > "LaurieT" <LaurieT@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:75CE650E-D235-4DDC-9408-802E8AE9312A@.microsoft.com...
> > >I just installed SQL Server 2005 (Reporting Services) on my collegues
> > >laptop
> > > (Windows XP, SP2) and when we try to deploy the reports we get the
> > > message:
> > > "A connection could not be made with report server at
> > > http://localhost/ReportServer"
> > >
> > > Everything is running (green checks) in the Reporting Services
> > > configuration
> > > manager. We get the error, "Page not found." when we just try to open
> > > http://<machinename>/Reports or http://localhost/Reports. I see the
> > > virtual
> > > directories in IIS, all services seem to be running correctly.
> > >
> > > Please help! I have installed reporting services about 10 times and have
> > > not run into this problem before. The only issue that we had initially
> > > was
> > > that the IIS default web site would not run because there was a conflict
> > > on
> > > TCP Port 80, so I switched that TCP Port to port 81 -- this shouldn't be a
> > > problem should it.
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Laurie
> > > --
> > > LaurieT
> >
> >
> >|||Sharan,
Thanks for the valuable solution. That was very helpful, precisely to
the point and it solved the issue.
Good Work!
Shailesh
HELP wrote:
> laurie,
> I had the same problem and Now it has been fixed.i looked online and
> here is what i found:
> 1)The FIX
> For IIS MMC: Right click My Computer...then click manage...under
> services and applications....expand IIS
> then right click the "reports" virtual directory, select property and
> then under the
> ASP.NET tab select asp.net version that belongs to the .NET framework
> version 2.something. For some reason, after you installed reporting
> services,
> the version of the ASP.NET was removed from the asp.net tab. click ok
> 2)New Problem
> Then you get this new problem when you go to http://localhost/Reports/
> --my comment Failed to access IIS metabase.
> Description: An unhandled exception occurred during the execution of
> the current web request. Please review the stack trace for more
> information about the error and where it originated in the code.
> Exception Details: System.Web.Hosting.HostingEnvironmentException:
> Failed to access IIS metabase.
> The process account used to run ASP.NET must have read access to the
> IIS metabase (e.g. IIS://servername/W3SVC). For information on
> modifying metabase permissions, please see
> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=267904 .
> Source Error:
> An unhandled exception was generated during the execution of the
> current web request. Information regarding the origin and location of
> the exception can be identified using the exception stack trace below.
>
> Stack Trace:
> [HostingEnvironmentException: Failed to access IIS metabase.]
> System.Web.Hosting.HostingEnvironment.MapPathCaching(String path)
> +3609369 System.Web.CachedPathData.GetPathData(String path) +406
> System.Web.Configuration.RuntimeConfigLKG.GetInternalSection
> (String sectionName, Type type, ResultsIndex index) +134
>
> 2) The FIX
> To correct the problem To repair IIS mappings for ASP.NET, run the
> Aspnet_regiis.exe utlity. To do so, follow these steps:
> Click Start, and then click Run.
> Type cmd, and then click OK.
> At the command prompt, type the following command, and then press
> ENTER:
> "\<Windows folder>\Microsoft.NET\Framework\<Version
> Number>\aspnet_regiis.exe" -i
> NOTE:Replace <Windows folder> with the name of the directory where the
> operating system is installed and replace <Version Number> with the
> .NET Framework version installed on your computer. Or you could do a
> seach for the .exe file and locate the directory
> You can find the above reference at
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;325093
> Now try going to http://computername/reports/
> Hope it helps,
> Sharan Doddakashi
>
> LaurieT wrote:
> > Clint -- Thanks, I tried this and still got some errors (although different
> > than I was seeing before).
> >
> > I got this error when trying http://localhost:81/Reports
> >
> > "The XML page cannot be displayed
> > Cannot view XML input using XSL style sheet. Please correct the error and
> > then click the Refresh button, or try again later.
> >
> >
> > ----
> >
> > A name was started with an invalid character. Error processing resource
> > 'http://localhost:81/Reports'. Line 1, Position 2
> >
> > <%@. Page language="c#" Codebehind="Home.aspx.cs" AutoEventWireup="false"
> > Inherits="Microsoft.ReportingServices.UI.HomePag..."
> >
> > Any ideas?
> >
> > Thank you.
> > --
> > LaurieT
> >
> >
> > "Clint" wrote:
> >
> > > What happens when you try going to http://localhost/?
> > >
> > > Have you tried http://localhost:81/Reports, since that's what you changed
> > > the port to?
> > >
> > > Clint
> > >
> > > "LaurieT" <LaurieT@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > news:75CE650E-D235-4DDC-9408-802E8AE9312A@.microsoft.com...
> > > >I just installed SQL Server 2005 (Reporting Services) on my collegues
> > > >laptop
> > > > (Windows XP, SP2) and when we try to deploy the reports we get the
> > > > message:
> > > > "A connection could not be made with report server at
> > > > http://localhost/ReportServer"
> > > >
> > > > Everything is running (green checks) in the Reporting Services
> > > > configuration
> > > > manager. We get the error, "Page not found." when we just try to open
> > > > http://<machinename>/Reports or http://localhost/Reports. I see the
> > > > virtual
> > > > directories in IIS, all services seem to be running correctly.
> > > >
> > > > Please help! I have installed reporting services about 10 times and have
> > > > not run into this problem before. The only issue that we had initially
> > > > was
> > > > that the IIS default web site would not run because there was a conflict
> > > > on
> > > > TCP Port 80, so I switched that TCP Port to port 81 -- this shouldn't be a
> > > > problem should it.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you,
> > > > Laurie
> > > > --
> > > > LaurieT
> > >
> > >
> > >

64-bit server deployment from 32-bit workstations

Our workstations (XP SP2) and development servers (2003 R2) are all 32-bit.Our Staging and Production SQL Servers are 64-bit (2003 R2 x64).We have some VB SQLCLR assemblies we've developed.

My question is: Do we have to do anything special when deploying a CLR Assembly to a 64-bit box when it has been compiled on a 32-bit box?Are there any advantages to setting the Target CPU from "AnyCPU" to "x64"?Documentation and testing seems to indicate that the assembly will run in 64-bit mode if compiled to "AnyCPU".

Will it run "better" in 64-bit mode with the "x64" Target CPU type?

Thanks!
There is nothing special you have to for assemblies to run on both 32-bit and 64-bit without any changes. You just need to be sure you have not made the assemblies architecture specific accidentally. By default, assemblies are MSIL unless the user specifies an architecture, runs ngen on them, or uses PInvoke.

To verify what architecture your assemblies are, do select * from sys.assemblies in your database, and look at the clr_name for the assembly. If you see processorarchitecture=msil or it is missing, then the assembly is architecture independent.

In your case, there is no advantage to specifing Target CPU as x64 because it will make deployment more complicated as you will have compile different assemblies for development and production. The "x64" Target CPU type is only useful if you were using PInvoke or some other CLR feature that made your binary architecture specific. The JIT will optimize the code just fine for each archiecture from the MSIL version.|||Thanks!

64 bit windows 2003 sp2 SQL SERVER 2005 Linked server

The server is IBM XS 466.
The server is Windows 2003 R2 64 bit with SQL 2005 SP2 Enterprise Edition
(64bit),I want to create a linked server for Oracle,I have installed ORACLE
Client 10g(64bit) ,but I can't find any drivers about oracle in SQL SERVER
2005,i can't find 'MSDAORA',it caust i can't create linked server for
oracle.msbut I can find some drivers about oracle in ODBC,but must run
'c:\windows\system32\odbcad32.exe'
This proble puzzle me for some days
Standing on Shoulders of Giants
* fds2003 wrote, On 4-7-2007 12:32:
> The server is IBM XS 466.
> The server is Windows 2003 R2 64 bit with SQL 2005 SP2 Enterprise Edition
> (64bit),I want to create a linked server for Oracle,I have installed ORACLE
> Client 10g(64bit) ,but I can't find any drivers about oracle in SQL SERVER
> 2005,i can't find 'MSDAORA',it caust i can't create linked server for
> oracle.msbut I can find some drivers about oracle in ODBC,but must run
> 'c:\windows\system32\odbcad32.exe'
> This proble puzzle me for some days
My first guess is that the 64 version of SQL Server can only load 64-bit
drivers. This means the old OleDb driver and ODBC driver are not
compatible.
Either reinstall SQL server as 32-bit binaries or find a 64-bit
compatible driver for Oracle.
Jesse
|||* fds2003 wrote, On 4-7-2007 12:32:
> The server is IBM XS 466.
> The server is Windows 2003 R2 64 bit with SQL 2005 SP2 Enterprise Edition
> (64bit),I want to create a linked server for Oracle,I have installed ORACLE
> Client 10g(64bit) ,but I can't find any drivers about oracle in SQL SERVER
> 2005,i can't find 'MSDAORA',it caust i can't create linked server for
> oracle.msbut I can find some drivers about oracle in ODBC,but must run
> 'c:\windows\system32\odbcad32.exe'
> This proble puzzle me for some days
You can find the 64-bit OleDB Driver here:
http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/tech/windows/odpnet/64-bit/index.html
That should get things in working order.
Jesse
|||I haved installed 64bit Driver for Oracle,but the proble is the same,it has
other approach?
Standing on Shoulders of Giants
"Jesse Houwing" wrote:

> * fds2003 wrote, On 4-7-2007 12:32:
> You can find the 64-bit OleDB Driver here:
> http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/tech/windows/odpnet/64-bit/index.html
> That should get things in working order.
> Jesse
>

64 bit windows 2003 sp2 SQL SERVER 2005 Linked server

The server is IBM XS 466.
The server is Windows 2003 R2 64 bit with SQL 2005 SP2 Enterprise Edition
(64bit),I want to create a linked server for Oracle,I have installed ORACLE
Client 10g(64bit) ,but I can't find any drivers about oracle in SQL SERVER
2005,i can't find 'MSDAORA',it caust i can't create linked server for
oracle.msbut I can find some drivers about oracle in ODBC,but must run
'c:\windows\system32\odbcad32.exe'
This proble puzzle me for some days
--
Standing on Shoulders of Giants* fds2003 wrote, On 4-7-2007 12:32:
> The server is IBM XS 466.
> The server is Windows 2003 R2 64 bit with SQL 2005 SP2 Enterprise Edition
> (64bit),I want to create a linked server for Oracle,I have installed ORACL
E
> Client 10g(64bit) ,but I can't find any drivers about oracle in SQL SERVER
> 2005,i can't find 'MSDAORA',it caust i can't create linked server for
> oracle.msbut I can find some drivers about oracle in ODBC,but must run
> 'c:\windows\system32\odbcad32.exe'
> This proble puzzle me for some days
My first guess is that the 64 version of SQL Server can only load 64-bit
drivers. This means the old OleDb driver and ODBC driver are not
compatible.
Either reinstall SQL server as 32-bit binaries or find a 64-bit
compatible driver for Oracle.
Jesse|||* fds2003 wrote, On 4-7-2007 12:32:
> The server is IBM XS 466.
> The server is Windows 2003 R2 64 bit with SQL 2005 SP2 Enterprise Edition
> (64bit),I want to create a linked server for Oracle,I have installed ORACL
E
> Client 10g(64bit) ,but I can't find any drivers about oracle in SQL SERVER
> 2005,i can't find 'MSDAORA',it caust i can't create linked server for
> oracle.msbut I can find some drivers about oracle in ODBC,but must run
> 'c:\windows\system32\odbcad32.exe'
> This proble puzzle me for some days
You can find the 64-bit OleDB Driver here:
[url]http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/tech/windows/odpnet/64-bit/index.html[/u
rl]
That should get things in working order.
Jesse|||I haved installed 64bit Driver for Oracle,but the proble is the same,it has
other approach?
--
Standing on Shoulders of Giants
"Jesse Houwing" wrote:

> * fds2003 wrote, On 4-7-2007 12:32:
> You can find the 64-bit OleDB Driver here:
> [url]http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/tech/windows/odpnet/64-bit/index.html[
/url]
> That should get things in working order.
> Jesse
>

64 bit windows 2003 sp2 SQL SERVER 2005 Linked server

The server is IBM XS 466.
The server is Windows 2003 R2 64 bit with SQL 2005 SP2 Enterprise Edition
(64bit),I want to create a linked server for Oracle,I have installed ORACLE
Client 10g(64bit) ,but I can't find any drivers about oracle in SQL SERVER
2005,i can't find 'MSDAORA',it caust i can't create linked server for
oracle.msbut I can find some drivers about oracle in ODBC,but must run
'c:\windows\system32\odbcad32.exe'
This proble puzzle me for some days
--
Standing on Shoulders of Giants* fds2003 wrote, On 4-7-2007 12:32:
> The server is IBM XS 466.
> The server is Windows 2003 R2 64 bit with SQL 2005 SP2 Enterprise Edition
> (64bit),I want to create a linked server for Oracle,I have installed ORACLE
> Client 10g(64bit) ,but I can't find any drivers about oracle in SQL SERVER
> 2005,i can't find 'MSDAORA',it caust i can't create linked server for
> oracle.msbut I can find some drivers about oracle in ODBC,but must run
> 'c:\windows\system32\odbcad32.exe'
> This proble puzzle me for some days
My first guess is that the 64 version of SQL Server can only load 64-bit
drivers. This means the old OleDb driver and ODBC driver are not
compatible.
Either reinstall SQL server as 32-bit binaries or find a 64-bit
compatible driver for Oracle.
Jesse|||* fds2003 wrote, On 4-7-2007 12:32:
> The server is IBM XS 466.
> The server is Windows 2003 R2 64 bit with SQL 2005 SP2 Enterprise Edition
> (64bit),I want to create a linked server for Oracle,I have installed ORACLE
> Client 10g(64bit) ,but I can't find any drivers about oracle in SQL SERVER
> 2005,i can't find 'MSDAORA',it caust i can't create linked server for
> oracle.msbut I can find some drivers about oracle in ODBC,but must run
> 'c:\windows\system32\odbcad32.exe'
> This proble puzzle me for some days
You can find the 64-bit OleDB Driver here:
http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/tech/windows/odpnet/64-bit/index.html
That should get things in working order.
Jesse|||I haved installed 64bit Driver for Oracle,but the proble is the same,it has
other approach?
--
Standing on Shoulders of Giants
"Jesse Houwing" wrote:
> * fds2003 wrote, On 4-7-2007 12:32:
> > The server is IBM XS 466.
> > The server is Windows 2003 R2 64 bit with SQL 2005 SP2 Enterprise Edition
> > (64bit),I want to create a linked server for Oracle,I have installed ORACLE
> > Client 10g(64bit) ,but I can't find any drivers about oracle in SQL SERVER
> > 2005,i can't find 'MSDAORA',it caust i can't create linked server for
> > oracle.msbut I can find some drivers about oracle in ODBC,but must run
> > 'c:\windows\system32\odbcad32.exe'
> > This proble puzzle me for some days
> You can find the 64-bit OleDB Driver here:
> http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/tech/windows/odpnet/64-bit/index.html
> That should get things in working order.
> Jesse
>

64 bit max memory setting for SQL 2005

We have 32GB of RAM on x64 bit Windows 2003 SP2 and SQL 2005 SP2 64 bit as
well.
This box only serves for SQL Server application
So I have been receiving some mixed recommendations about max and min memory
settings
They are
1) Just leave it as default which is 0 for min and 2147483647 for max
2) Put a default of around 15 or 20GB for min and 2147483647 for max i.e. do
not set a max setting but set a min setting so that when SQL Server starts
up, it has enough memory committed at the beginning.
3) Leave the default of 0 for min but set max to say 28GB i.e. have a max
setting
Please let me know whats the best way to go about this.
Thanks
What is best for you may not be best for others but in general there is no
need to set a min setting if SQL Server is the only app on the server. But I
always set a MAX to ensure the OS and any other temporary processes such as
Term Services, Notepad, WinZip etc. that usually get run have enough all the
time. With 32GB I would set the MAX at 28 or 29 and see how that works out.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Hassan" <hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Op6o550PIHA.4712@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> We have 32GB of RAM on x64 bit Windows 2003 SP2 and SQL 2005 SP2 64 bit as
> well.
> This box only serves for SQL Server application
> So I have been receiving some mixed recommendations about max and min
> memory settings
> They are
> 1) Just leave it as default which is 0 for min and 2147483647 for max
> 2) Put a default of around 15 or 20GB for min and 2147483647 for max i.e.
> do not set a max setting but set a min setting so that when SQL Server
> starts up, it has enough memory committed at the beginning.
> 3) Leave the default of 0 for min but set max to say 28GB i.e. have a max
> setting
> Please let me know whats the best way to go about this.
> Thanks
>
|||Andrew,
What about leaving it to the default of 2147483647 ?
Would that cause SQL to use all 32 GB if it needs to ?
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:%23V2%23TM1PIHA.3676@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> What is best for you may not be best for others but in general there is no
> need to set a min setting if SQL Server is the only app on the server. But
> I always set a MAX to ensure the OS and any other temporary processes such
> as Term Services, Notepad, WinZip etc. that usually get run have enough
> all the time. With 32GB I would set the MAX at 28 or 29 and see how that
> works out.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> Solid Quality Mentors
>
> "Hassan" <hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Op6o550PIHA.4712@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
|||64 bit has less overhead than 32 bit when dealing with large amounts of
memory but the OS still needs x amount of memory to operate properly. Even
though the memory in 64 bit can be dynamic sql server can still get to a
point where it may want to fight with the OS for every last bit of memory.
If you have Lock Pages in Memory set (which you should) it can be slow to
respond. There is no need to put it into that situation.
http://blogs.msdn.com/slavao/archive/2006/11/13/q-a-does-sql-server-always-respond-to-memory-pressure.aspx
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Hassan" <hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OAsXbW1PIHA.4752@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Andrew,
> What about leaving it to the default of 2147483647 ?
> Would that cause SQL to use all 32 GB if it needs to ?
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:%23V2%23TM1PIHA.3676@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
|||I suggest you to read the following article, it'll make your mind clear
about min\max server memory options.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms180797.aspx
Ekrem nsoy
"Hassan" <hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Op6o550PIHA.4712@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> We have 32GB of RAM on x64 bit Windows 2003 SP2 and SQL 2005 SP2 64 bit as
> well.
> This box only serves for SQL Server application
> So I have been receiving some mixed recommendations about max and min
> memory settings
> They are
> 1) Just leave it as default which is 0 for min and 2147483647 for max
> 2) Put a default of around 15 or 20GB for min and 2147483647 for max i.e.
> do not set a max setting but set a min setting so that when SQL Server
> starts up, it has enough memory committed at the beginning.
> 3) Leave the default of 0 for min but set max to say 28GB i.e. have a max
> setting
> Please let me know whats the best way to go about this.
> Thanks
>

64 bit max memory setting for SQL 2005

We have 32GB of RAM on x64 bit Windows 2003 SP2 and SQL 2005 SP2 64 bit as
well.
This box only serves for SQL Server application
So I have been receiving some mixed recommendations about max and min memory
settings
They are
1) Just leave it as default which is 0 for min and 2147483647 for max
2) Put a default of around 15 or 20GB for min and 2147483647 for max i.e. do
not set a max setting but set a min setting so that when SQL Server starts
up, it has enough memory committed at the beginning.
3) Leave the default of 0 for min but set max to say 28GB i.e. have a max
setting
Please let me know whats the best way to go about this.
ThanksWhat is best for you may not be best for others but in general there is no
need to set a min setting if SQL Server is the only app on the server. But I
always set a MAX to ensure the OS and any other temporary processes such as
Term Services, Notepad, WinZip etc. that usually get run have enough all the
time. With 32GB I would set the MAX at 28 or 29 and see how that works out.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Hassan" <hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Op6o550PIHA.4712@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> We have 32GB of RAM on x64 bit Windows 2003 SP2 and SQL 2005 SP2 64 bit as
> well.
> This box only serves for SQL Server application
> So I have been receiving some mixed recommendations about max and min
> memory settings
> They are
> 1) Just leave it as default which is 0 for min and 2147483647 for max
> 2) Put a default of around 15 or 20GB for min and 2147483647 for max i.e.
> do not set a max setting but set a min setting so that when SQL Server
> starts up, it has enough memory committed at the beginning.
> 3) Leave the default of 0 for min but set max to say 28GB i.e. have a max
> setting
> Please let me know whats the best way to go about this.
> Thanks
>|||Andrew,
What about leaving it to the default of 2147483647 ?
Would that cause SQL to use all 32 GB if it needs to ?
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:%23V2%23TM1PIHA.3676@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> What is best for you may not be best for others but in general there is no
> need to set a min setting if SQL Server is the only app on the server. But
> I always set a MAX to ensure the OS and any other temporary processes such
> as Term Services, Notepad, WinZip etc. that usually get run have enough
> all the time. With 32GB I would set the MAX at 28 or 29 and see how that
> works out.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> Solid Quality Mentors
>
> "Hassan" <hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Op6o550PIHA.4712@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> We have 32GB of RAM on x64 bit Windows 2003 SP2 and SQL 2005 SP2 64 bit
>> as well.
>> This box only serves for SQL Server application
>> So I have been receiving some mixed recommendations about max and min
>> memory settings
>> They are
>> 1) Just leave it as default which is 0 for min and 2147483647 for max
>> 2) Put a default of around 15 or 20GB for min and 2147483647 for max i.e.
>> do not set a max setting but set a min setting so that when SQL Server
>> starts up, it has enough memory committed at the beginning.
>> 3) Leave the default of 0 for min but set max to say 28GB i.e. have a max
>> setting
>> Please let me know whats the best way to go about this.
>> Thanks
>>
>|||64 bit has less overhead than 32 bit when dealing with large amounts of
memory but the OS still needs x amount of memory to operate properly. Even
though the memory in 64 bit can be dynamic sql server can still get to a
point where it may want to fight with the OS for every last bit of memory.
If you have Lock Pages in Memory set (which you should) it can be slow to
respond. There is no need to put it into that situation.
http://blogs.msdn.com/slavao/archive/2006/11/13/q-a-does-sql-server-always-respond-to-memory-pressure.aspx
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Hassan" <hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OAsXbW1PIHA.4752@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Andrew,
> What about leaving it to the default of 2147483647 ?
> Would that cause SQL to use all 32 GB if it needs to ?
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:%23V2%23TM1PIHA.3676@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> What is best for you may not be best for others but in general there is
>> no need to set a min setting if SQL Server is the only app on the server.
>> But I always set a MAX to ensure the OS and any other temporary processes
>> such as Term Services, Notepad, WinZip etc. that usually get run have
>> enough all the time. With 32GB I would set the MAX at 28 or 29 and see
>> how that works out.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> Solid Quality Mentors
>>
>> "Hassan" <hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Op6o550PIHA.4712@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> We have 32GB of RAM on x64 bit Windows 2003 SP2 and SQL 2005 SP2 64 bit
>> as well.
>> This box only serves for SQL Server application
>> So I have been receiving some mixed recommendations about max and min
>> memory settings
>> They are
>> 1) Just leave it as default which is 0 for min and 2147483647 for max
>> 2) Put a default of around 15 or 20GB for min and 2147483647 for max
>> i.e. do not set a max setting but set a min setting so that when SQL
>> Server starts up, it has enough memory committed at the beginning.
>> 3) Leave the default of 0 for min but set max to say 28GB i.e. have a
>> max setting
>> Please let me know whats the best way to go about this.
>> Thanks
>>
>|||I suggest you to read the following article, it'll make your mind clear
about min\max server memory options.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms180797.aspx
--
Ekrem Önsoy
"Hassan" <hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Op6o550PIHA.4712@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> We have 32GB of RAM on x64 bit Windows 2003 SP2 and SQL 2005 SP2 64 bit as
> well.
> This box only serves for SQL Server application
> So I have been receiving some mixed recommendations about max and min
> memory settings
> They are
> 1) Just leave it as default which is 0 for min and 2147483647 for max
> 2) Put a default of around 15 or 20GB for min and 2147483647 for max i.e.
> do not set a max setting but set a min setting so that when SQL Server
> starts up, it has enough memory committed at the beginning.
> 3) Leave the default of 0 for min but set max to say 28GB i.e. have a max
> setting
> Please let me know whats the best way to go about this.
> Thanks
>

64 bit max memory setting for SQL 2005

We have 32GB of RAM on x64 bit Windows 2003 SP2 and SQL 2005 SP2 64 bit as
well.
This box only serves for SQL Server application
So I have been receiving some mixed recommendations about max and min memory
settings
They are
1) Just leave it as default which is 0 for min and 2147483647 for max
2) Put a default of around 15 or 20GB for min and 2147483647 for max i.e. do
not set a max setting but set a min setting so that when SQL Server starts
up, it has enough memory committed at the beginning.
3) Leave the default of 0 for min but set max to say 28GB i.e. have a max
setting
Please let me know whats the best way to go about this.
ThanksWhat is best for you may not be best for others but in general there is no
need to set a min setting if SQL Server is the only app on the server. But I
always set a MAX to ensure the OS and any other temporary processes such as
Term Services, Notepad, WinZip etc. that usually get run have enough all the
time. With 32GB I would set the MAX at 28 or 29 and see how that works out.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Hassan" <hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Op6o550PIHA.4712@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> We have 32GB of RAM on x64 bit Windows 2003 SP2 and SQL 2005 SP2 64 bit as
> well.
> This box only serves for SQL Server application
> So I have been receiving some mixed recommendations about max and min
> memory settings
> They are
> 1) Just leave it as default which is 0 for min and 2147483647 for max
> 2) Put a default of around 15 or 20GB for min and 2147483647 for max i.e.
> do not set a max setting but set a min setting so that when SQL Server
> starts up, it has enough memory committed at the beginning.
> 3) Leave the default of 0 for min but set max to say 28GB i.e. have a max
> setting
> Please let me know whats the best way to go about this.
> Thanks
>|||Andrew,
What about leaving it to the default of 2147483647 ?
Would that cause SQL to use all 32 GB if it needs to ?
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:%23V2%23TM1PIHA.3676@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> What is best for you may not be best for others but in general there is no
> need to set a min setting if SQL Server is the only app on the server. But
> I always set a MAX to ensure the OS and any other temporary processes such
> as Term Services, Notepad, WinZip etc. that usually get run have enough
> all the time. With 32GB I would set the MAX at 28 or 29 and see how that
> works out.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> Solid Quality Mentors
>
> "Hassan" <hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Op6o550PIHA.4712@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>|||64 bit has less overhead than 32 bit when dealing with large amounts of
memory but the OS still needs x amount of memory to operate properly. Even
though the memory in 64 bit can be dynamic sql server can still get to a
point where it may want to fight with the OS for every last bit of memory.
If you have Lock Pages in Memory set (which you should) it can be slow to
respond. There is no need to put it into that situation.
http://blogs.msdn.com/slavao/archiv...y-pressure.aspx
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Hassan" <hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OAsXbW1PIHA.4752@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Andrew,
> What about leaving it to the default of 2147483647 ?
> Would that cause SQL to use all 32 GB if it needs to ?
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:%23V2%23TM1PIHA.3676@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>|||I suggest you to read the following article, it'll make your mind clear
about min\max server memory options.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms180797.aspx
Ekrem nsoy
"Hassan" <hassan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Op6o550PIHA.4712@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> We have 32GB of RAM on x64 bit Windows 2003 SP2 and SQL 2005 SP2 64 bit as
> well.
> This box only serves for SQL Server application
> So I have been receiving some mixed recommendations about max and min
> memory settings
> They are
> 1) Just leave it as default which is 0 for min and 2147483647 for max
> 2) Put a default of around 15 or 20GB for min and 2147483647 for max i.e.
> do not set a max setting but set a min setting so that when SQL Server
> starts up, it has enough memory committed at the beginning.
> 3) Leave the default of 0 for min but set max to say 28GB i.e. have a max
> setting
> Please let me know whats the best way to go about this.
> Thanks
>

3701 Errors after installing SP2

Environment:
SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition SP2
Windows 2003 R2 x64 Enterprise
80+ Databases, all upgraded to compatibility 90
Since upgrading to SP2 for SQL Server 2005, my scheduled jobs based on
Maintenance Plans which include Statistics Updates, Index Rebuilding and
Index Reorganization tasks have reported failure. The failed job history
indicates the following: “The Execute method on the task returned error code
0x8007000E (Exception of type 'System.OutOfMemoryException' was thrown.).”
Although the job fails, I’m not convinced that it’s not also completing its
tasks. A trace on the activity of the SQL Agent while the jobs are running
indicates that these jobs are properly executing their Alter Table statements
without incident and the duration of execution seems to be roughly the same
as before.
The above seemed like an unsatisfactorily vague error, so I decided to run a
bit more extensive trace to see exactly what errors were being raised while
the job was run. Doing so revealed the following error: Event Class: User
Error Message; ApplicationName: Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio;
Error: 3701; TextData: “Cannot drop the table
'#tmp_sp_db_vardecimal_storage_format', because it does not exist or you do
not have permission.”
This error did not occur prior to the upgrade to SP2, and I’ve noticed
similar errors being trapped in traces run on my other SQL Servers post-SP2
when trying to do multi-database maintenance plans. I have expanded my trace
to trap all of the RPC and SQL textdata created by the SQL Agent when running
my jobs, looking in particular for the text
‘#tmp_sp_db_vardecimal_storage_format'. I found on several occasions (at
least 4 times for each database altered within the job) that a “drop table
#tmp_sp_db_vardecimal_storage_format” was being called within the maintenance
plan without any corresponding create table statement.
Though I don’t doubt that my maintenance plans are succeeding at some level,
I’m bothered by all of these unnecessary 3701 errors raised by the “drop
table #tmp_sp_db_vardecimal_storage_format” statements. I believe that this
is a bug in the post-SP2 Management Studio code and wonder if there’s some
kind of workaround to avoid this, or some patch on the near horizon.
Thanks,
Barb
Hi Barb
"Barb" wrote:

> Environment:
> SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition SP2
> Windows 2003 R2 x64 Enterprise
> 80+ Databases, all upgraded to compatibility 90
>
> Since upgrading to SP2 for SQL Server 2005, my scheduled jobs based on
> Maintenance Plans which include Statistics Updates, Index Rebuilding and
> Index Reorganization tasks have reported failure. The failed job history
> indicates the following: “The Execute method on the task returned error code
> 0x8007000E (Exception of type 'System.OutOfMemoryException' was thrown.).”
> Although the job fails, I’m not convinced that it’s not also completing its
> tasks. A trace on the activity of the SQL Agent while the jobs are running
> indicates that these jobs are properly executing their Alter Table statements
> without incident and the duration of execution seems to be roughly the same
> as before.
>
> The above seemed like an unsatisfactorily vague error, so I decided to run a
> bit more extensive trace to see exactly what errors were being raised while
> the job was run. Doing so revealed the following error: Event Class: User
> Error Message; ApplicationName: Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio;
> Error: 3701; TextData: “Cannot drop the table
> '#tmp_sp_db_vardecimal_storage_format', because it does not exist or you do
> not have permission.”
>
> This error did not occur prior to the upgrade to SP2, and I’ve noticed
> similar errors being trapped in traces run on my other SQL Servers post-SP2
> when trying to do multi-database maintenance plans. I have expanded my trace
> to trap all of the RPC and SQL textdata created by the SQL Agent when running
> my jobs, looking in particular for the text
> ‘#tmp_sp_db_vardecimal_storage_format'. I found on several occasions (at
> least 4 times for each database altered within the job) that a “drop table
> #tmp_sp_db_vardecimal_storage_format” was being called within the maintenance
> plan without any corresponding create table statement.
>
> Though I don’t doubt that my maintenance plans are succeeding at some level,
> I’m bothered by all of these unnecessary 3701 errors raised by the “drop
> table #tmp_sp_db_vardecimal_storage_format” statements. I believe that this
> is a bug in the post-SP2 Management Studio code and wonder if there’s some
> kind of workaround to avoid this, or some patch on the near horizon.
>
> Thanks,
> Barb
vardecimal is a new datatype introduced in SP2. Have you tried to run
sp_db_vardecimal_storage_format
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb326653.aspx
John
|||On Feb 27, 11:58 pm, John Bell <jbellnewspo...@.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Barb
>
>
> "Barb" wrote:
>
>
>
>
> vardecimal is a new datatype introduced inSP2. Have you tried to run
> sp_db_vardecimal_storage_formathttp://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb326653.aspx
> John- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
If you run a User Error Trace and look for 3701 errors, they pop up
not only when the packages are being run, but also when you're trying
to create Maint. jobs in SQL Server Management Studio. Whether
sp_db_vardecimal_storage_format is enabled or disabled for a database
makes no difference.
|||Hi,
Have you found any solution to this as I am also facing the similar problem
after updrading to SP2. Please let me know the solution as I am completely
stuck at this point.
MS

3701 Errors after installing SP2

Environment:
SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition SP2
Windows 2003 R2 x64 Enterprise
80+ Databases, all upgraded to compatibility 90
Since upgrading to SP2 for SQL Server 2005, my scheduled jobs based on
Maintenance Plans which include Statistics Updates, Index Rebuilding and
Index Reorganization tasks have reported failure. The failed job history
indicates the following: “The Execute method on the task returned error c
ode
0x8007000E (Exception of type 'System.OutOfMemoryException' was thrown.).”
Although the job fails, I’m not convinced that it’s not also completing
its
tasks. A trace on the activity of the SQL Agent while the jobs are running
indicates that these jobs are properly executing their Alter Table statement
s
without incident and the duration of execution seems to be roughly the same
as before.
The above seemed like an unsatisfactorily vague error, so I decided to run a
bit more extensive trace to see exactly what errors were being raised while
the job was run. Doing so revealed the following error: Event Class: User
Error Message; ApplicationName: Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio;
Error: 3701; TextData: “Cannot drop the table
'#tmp_sp_db_vardecimal_storage_format', because it does not exist or you do
not have permission.”
This error did not occur prior to the upgrade to SP2, and I’ve noticed
similar errors being trapped in traces run on my other SQL Servers post-SP2
when trying to do multi-database maintenance plans. I have expanded my trac
e
to trap all of the RPC and SQL textdata created by the SQL Agent when runnin
g
my jobs, looking in particular for the text
‘#tmp_sp_db_vardecimal_storage_format'
. I found on several occasions (at
least 4 times for each database altered within the job) that a “drop table
#tmp_sp_db_vardecimal_storage_format” was being called within the maintena
nce
plan without any corresponding create table statement.
Though I don’t doubt that my maintenance plans are succeeding at some leve
l,
I’m bothered by all of these unnecessary 3701 errors raised by the “drop
table #tmp_sp_db_vardecimal_storage_format” statements. I believe that th
is
is a bug in the post-SP2 Management Studio code and wonder if there’s some
kind of workaround to avoid this, or some patch on the near horizon.
Thanks,
BarbHi Barb
"Barb" wrote:

> Environment:
> SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition SP2
> Windows 2003 R2 x64 Enterprise
> 80+ Databases, all upgraded to compatibility 90
>
> Since upgrading to SP2 for SQL Server 2005, my scheduled jobs based on
> Maintenance Plans which include Statistics Updates, Index Rebuilding and
> Index Reorganization tasks have reported failure. The failed job history
> indicates the following: “The Execute method on the task returned error
code
> 0x8007000E (Exception of type 'System.OutOfMemoryException' was thrown.).
> Although the job fails, I’m not convinced that it’s not also completin
g its
> tasks. A trace on the activity of the SQL Agent while the jobs are runnin
g
> indicates that these jobs are properly executing their Alter Table stateme
nts
> without incident and the duration of execution seems to be roughly the sam
e
> as before.
>
> The above seemed like an unsatisfactorily vague error, so I decided to run
a
> bit more extensive trace to see exactly what errors were being raised whil
e
> the job was run. Doing so revealed the following error: Event Class: Us
er
> Error Message; ApplicationName: Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio;
> Error: 3701; TextData: “Cannot drop the table
> '#tmp_sp_db_vardecimal_storage_format', because it does not exist or you d
o
> not have permission.”
>
> This error did not occur prior to the upgrade to SP2, and I’ve noticed
> similar errors being trapped in traces run on my other SQL Servers post-SP
2
> when trying to do multi-database maintenance plans. I have expanded my tr
ace
> to trap all of the RPC and SQL textdata created by the SQL Agent when runn
ing
> my jobs, looking in particular for the text
> ‘#tmp_sp_db_vardecimal_storage_format'
. I found on several occasions (a
t
> least 4 times for each database altered within the job) that a “drop tab
le
> #tmp_sp_db_vardecimal_storage_format” was being called within the mainte
nance
> plan without any corresponding create table statement.
>
> Though I don’t doubt that my maintenance plans are succeeding at some le
vel,
> I’m bothered by all of these unnecessary 3701 errors raised by the “dr
op
> table #tmp_sp_db_vardecimal_storage_format” statements. I believe that
this
> is a bug in the post-SP2 Management Studio code and wonder if there’s so
me
> kind of workaround to avoid this, or some patch on the near horizon.
>
> Thanks,
> Barb
vardecimal is a new datatype introduced in SP2. Have you tried to run
sp_db_vardecimal_storage_format
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb326653.aspx
John|||On Feb 27, 11:58 pm, John Bell <jbellnewspo...@.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Barb
>
>
> "Barb" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> vardecimal is a new datatype introduced inSP2. Have you tried to run
> sp_db_vardecimal_storage_formathttp://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb
326653.aspx
> John- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
If you run a User Error Trace and look for 3701 errors, they pop up
not only when the packages are being run, but also when you're trying
to create Maint. jobs in SQL Server Management Studio. Whether
sp_db_vardecimal_storage_format is enabled or disabled for a database
makes no difference.|||Hi,
Have you found any solution to this as I am also facing the similar problem
after updrading to SP2. Please let me know the solution as I am completely
stuck at this point.
MS

3701 Errors after installing SP2

Environment:
SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition SP2
Windows 2003 R2 x64 Enterprise
80+ Databases, all upgraded to compatibility 90
Since upgrading to SP2 for SQL Server 2005, my scheduled jobs based on
Maintenance Plans which include Statistics Updates, Index Rebuilding and
Index Reorganization tasks have reported failure. The failed job history
indicates the following: â'The Execute method on the task returned error code
0x8007000E (Exception of type 'System.OutOfMemoryException' was thrown.).â'
Although the job fails, Iâ'm not convinced that itâ's not also completing its
tasks. A trace on the activity of the SQL Agent while the jobs are running
indicates that these jobs are properly executing their Alter Table statements
without incident and the duration of execution seems to be roughly the same
as before.
The above seemed like an unsatisfactorily vague error, so I decided to run a
bit more extensive trace to see exactly what errors were being raised while
the job was run. Doing so revealed the following error: Event Class: User
Error Message; ApplicationName: Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio;
Error: 3701; TextData: â'Cannot drop the table
'#tmp_sp_db_vardecimal_storage_format', because it does not exist or you do
not have permission.â'
This error did not occur prior to the upgrade to SP2, and Iâ've noticed
similar errors being trapped in traces run on my other SQL Servers post-SP2
when trying to do multi-database maintenance plans. I have expanded my trace
to trap all of the RPC and SQL textdata created by the SQL Agent when running
my jobs, looking in particular for the text
â'#tmp_sp_db_vardecimal_storage_format'. I found on several occasions (at
least 4 times for each database altered within the job) that a â'drop table
#tmp_sp_db_vardecimal_storage_formatâ' was being called within the maintenance
plan without any corresponding create table statement.
Though I donâ't doubt that my maintenance plans are succeeding at some level,
Iâ'm bothered by all of these unnecessary 3701 errors raised by the â'drop
table #tmp_sp_db_vardecimal_storage_formatâ' statements. I believe that this
is a bug in the post-SP2 Management Studio code and wonder if thereâ's some
kind of workaround to avoid this, or some patch on the near horizon.
Thanks,
BarbHi Barb
"Barb" wrote:
> Environment:
> SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition SP2
> Windows 2003 R2 x64 Enterprise
> 80+ Databases, all upgraded to compatibility 90
>
> Since upgrading to SP2 for SQL Server 2005, my scheduled jobs based on
> Maintenance Plans which include Statistics Updates, Index Rebuilding and
> Index Reorganization tasks have reported failure. The failed job history
> indicates the following: â'The Execute method on the task returned error code
> 0x8007000E (Exception of type 'System.OutOfMemoryException' was thrown.).â'
> Although the job fails, Iâ'm not convinced that itâ's not also completing its
> tasks. A trace on the activity of the SQL Agent while the jobs are running
> indicates that these jobs are properly executing their Alter Table statements
> without incident and the duration of execution seems to be roughly the same
> as before.
>
> The above seemed like an unsatisfactorily vague error, so I decided to run a
> bit more extensive trace to see exactly what errors were being raised while
> the job was run. Doing so revealed the following error: Event Class: User
> Error Message; ApplicationName: Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio;
> Error: 3701; TextData: â'Cannot drop the table
> '#tmp_sp_db_vardecimal_storage_format', because it does not exist or you do
> not have permission.â'
>
> This error did not occur prior to the upgrade to SP2, and Iâ've noticed
> similar errors being trapped in traces run on my other SQL Servers post-SP2
> when trying to do multi-database maintenance plans. I have expanded my trace
> to trap all of the RPC and SQL textdata created by the SQL Agent when running
> my jobs, looking in particular for the text
> â'#tmp_sp_db_vardecimal_storage_format'. I found on several occasions (at
> least 4 times for each database altered within the job) that a â'drop table
> #tmp_sp_db_vardecimal_storage_formatâ' was being called within the maintenance
> plan without any corresponding create table statement.
>
> Though I donâ't doubt that my maintenance plans are succeeding at some level,
> Iâ'm bothered by all of these unnecessary 3701 errors raised by the â'drop
> table #tmp_sp_db_vardecimal_storage_formatâ' statements. I believe that this
> is a bug in the post-SP2 Management Studio code and wonder if thereâ's some
> kind of workaround to avoid this, or some patch on the near horizon.
>
> Thanks,
> Barb
vardecimal is a new datatype introduced in SP2. Have you tried to run
sp_db_vardecimal_storage_format
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb326653.aspx
John|||On Feb 27, 11:58 pm, John Bell <jbellnewspo...@.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Barb
>
>
> "Barb" wrote:
> > Environment:
> > SQL Server 2005 Enterprise EditionSP2
> > Windows 2003 R2 x64 Enterprise
> > 80+ Databases, all upgraded to compatibility 90
> > Since upgrading toSP2for SQL Server 2005, my scheduled jobs based on
> > Maintenance Plans which include Statistics Updates, Index Rebuilding and
> > Index Reorganization tasks have reported failure. The failed job history
> > indicates the following: "The Execute method on the task returned error code
> > 0x8007000E (Exception of type 'System.OutOfMemoryException' was thrown.)."
> > Although the job fails, I'm not convinced that it's not also completing its
> > tasks. A trace on the activity of the SQL Agent while the jobs are running
> > indicates that these jobs are properly executing their Alter Table statements
> > without incident and the duration of execution seems to be roughly the same
> > as before.
> > The above seemed like an unsatisfactorily vague error, so I decided to run a
> > bit more extensive trace to see exactly what errors were being raised while
> > the job was run. Doing so revealed the following error: Event Class: User
> > Error Message; ApplicationName: Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio;
> > Error: 3701; TextData: "Cannot drop the table
> > '#tmp_sp_db_vardecimal_storage_format', because it does not exist or you do
> > not have permission."
> > This error did not occur prior to the upgrade toSP2, and I've noticed
> > similar errors being trapped in traces run on my other SQL Servers post-SP2
> > when trying to do multi-database maintenance plans. I have expanded my trace
> > to trap all of the RPC and SQL textdata created by the SQL Agent when running
> > my jobs, looking in particular for the text
> > '#tmp_sp_db_vardecimal_storage_format'. I found on several occasions (at
> > least 4 times for each database altered within the job) that a "drop table
> > #tmp_sp_db_vardecimal_storage_format" was being called within the maintenance
> > plan without any corresponding create table statement.
> > Though I don't doubt that my maintenance plans are succeeding at some level,
> > I'm bothered by all of these unnecessary 3701 errors raised by the "drop
> > table #tmp_sp_db_vardecimal_storage_format" statements. I believe that this
> > is a bug in the post-SP2Management Studio code and wonder if there's some
> > kind of workaround to avoid this, or some patch on the near horizon.
> > Thanks,
> > Barb
> vardecimal is a new datatype introduced inSP2. Have you tried to run
> sp_db_vardecimal_storage_formathttp://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb326653.aspx
> John- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
If you run a User Error Trace and look for 3701 errors, they pop up
not only when the packages are being run, but also when you're trying
to create Maint. jobs in SQL Server Management Studio. Whether
sp_db_vardecimal_storage_format is enabled or disabled for a database
makes no difference.|||Hi,
Have you found any solution to this as I am also facing the similar problem
after updrading to SP2. Please let me know the solution as I am completely
stuck at this point.
MS