Hi!
I'm running MS Windows 2000 SP4 + SQL Server 2000 SP3a.
I've got a SQL Server Assertion: File:
<p:\sql\ntdbms\storeng\drs\include\record.inl>, line=1447
Failed Assertion = 'm_SizeRec > 0 && m_SizeRec <=
MAXDATAROW'. Error: 3624, Severity: 20, State: 1. The
CHECKDB of every DB on that server came up clean (0
allocation and 0 consistency errors). Could this
effectively mean that I've discovered a bug in SQL Server?
Thanks,
Osk
As you alluded to, this typically indicates corruption in your database.
However, there is a potential for in-memory kinds of corruption events in
which the page in memory is corrupted, but the image on disk is not. That
is most often caused by hardware issues. I would recommend that you open a
case with Microsoft PSS (http://support.microsoft.com) after you have
verified that you have no hardware issues.
Ryan Stonecipher
Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine, DBCC
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Osk" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:243401c50d2a$2000fb90$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi!
> I'm running MS Windows 2000 SP4 + SQL Server 2000 SP3a.
> I've got a SQL Server Assertion: File:
> <p:\sql\ntdbms\storeng\drs\include\record.inl>, line=1447
> Failed Assertion = 'm_SizeRec > 0 && m_SizeRec <=
> MAXDATAROW'. Error: 3624, Severity: 20, State: 1. The
> CHECKDB of every DB on that server came up clean (0
> allocation and 0 consistency errors). Could this
> effectively mean that I've discovered a bug in SQL Server?
> --
> Thanks,
> Osk
>
Showing posts with label sp3a. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sp3a. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
A bug in SQL Server 2000?
Hi!
I'm running MS Windows 2000 SP4 + SQL Server 2000 SP3a.
I've got a SQL Server Assertion: File:
< p:\sql\ntdbms\storeng\drs\include\record
.inl>, line=1447
Failed Assertion = 'm_SizeRec > 0 && m_SizeRec <=
MAXDATAROW'. Error: 3624, Severity: 20, State: 1. The
CHECKDB of every DB on that server came up clean (0
allocation and 0 consistency errors). Could this
effectively mean that I've discovered a bug in SQL Server?
Thanks,
OskAs you alluded to, this typically indicates corruption in your database.
However, there is a potential for in-memory kinds of corruption events in
which the page in memory is corrupted, but the image on disk is not. That
is most often caused by hardware issues. I would recommend that you open a
case with Microsoft PSS (http://support.microsoft.com) after you have
verified that you have no hardware issues.
Ryan Stonecipher
Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine, DBCC
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Osk" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:243401c50d2a$2000fb90$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi!
> I'm running MS Windows 2000 SP4 + SQL Server 2000 SP3a.
> I've got a SQL Server Assertion: File:
> < p:\sql\ntdbms\storeng\drs\include\record
.inl>, line=1447
> Failed Assertion = 'm_SizeRec > 0 && m_SizeRec <=
> MAXDATAROW'. Error: 3624, Severity: 20, State: 1. The
> CHECKDB of every DB on that server came up clean (0
> allocation and 0 consistency errors). Could this
> effectively mean that I've discovered a bug in SQL Server?
> --
> Thanks,
> Osk
>sql
I'm running MS Windows 2000 SP4 + SQL Server 2000 SP3a.
I've got a SQL Server Assertion: File:
< p:\sql\ntdbms\storeng\drs\include\record
.inl>, line=1447
Failed Assertion = 'm_SizeRec > 0 && m_SizeRec <=
MAXDATAROW'. Error: 3624, Severity: 20, State: 1. The
CHECKDB of every DB on that server came up clean (0
allocation and 0 consistency errors). Could this
effectively mean that I've discovered a bug in SQL Server?
Thanks,
OskAs you alluded to, this typically indicates corruption in your database.
However, there is a potential for in-memory kinds of corruption events in
which the page in memory is corrupted, but the image on disk is not. That
is most often caused by hardware issues. I would recommend that you open a
case with Microsoft PSS (http://support.microsoft.com) after you have
verified that you have no hardware issues.
Ryan Stonecipher
Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine, DBCC
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Osk" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:243401c50d2a$2000fb90$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi!
> I'm running MS Windows 2000 SP4 + SQL Server 2000 SP3a.
> I've got a SQL Server Assertion: File:
> < p:\sql\ntdbms\storeng\drs\include\record
.inl>, line=1447
> Failed Assertion = 'm_SizeRec > 0 && m_SizeRec <=
> MAXDATAROW'. Error: 3624, Severity: 20, State: 1. The
> CHECKDB of every DB on that server came up clean (0
> allocation and 0 consistency errors). Could this
> effectively mean that I've discovered a bug in SQL Server?
> --
> Thanks,
> Osk
>sql
A bug in SQL Server 2000?
Hi!
I'm running MS Windows 2000 SP4 + SQL Server 2000 SP3a.
I've got a SQL Server Assertion: File:
<p:\sql\ntdbms\storeng\drs\include\record.inl>, line=1447
Failed Assertion = 'm_SizeRec > 0 && m_SizeRec <= MAXDATAROW'. Error: 3624, Severity: 20, State: 1. The
CHECKDB of every DB on that server came up clean (0
allocation and 0 consistency errors). Could this
effectively mean that I've discovered a bug in SQL Server?
--
Thanks,
OskAs you alluded to, this typically indicates corruption in your database.
However, there is a potential for in-memory kinds of corruption events in
which the page in memory is corrupted, but the image on disk is not. That
is most often caused by hardware issues. I would recommend that you open a
case with Microsoft PSS (http://support.microsoft.com) after you have
verified that you have no hardware issues.
--
Ryan Stonecipher
Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine, DBCC
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Osk" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:243401c50d2a$2000fb90$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi!
> I'm running MS Windows 2000 SP4 + SQL Server 2000 SP3a.
> I've got a SQL Server Assertion: File:
> <p:\sql\ntdbms\storeng\drs\include\record.inl>, line=1447
> Failed Assertion = 'm_SizeRec > 0 && m_SizeRec <=> MAXDATAROW'. Error: 3624, Severity: 20, State: 1. The
> CHECKDB of every DB on that server came up clean (0
> allocation and 0 consistency errors). Could this
> effectively mean that I've discovered a bug in SQL Server?
> --
> Thanks,
> Osk
>
I'm running MS Windows 2000 SP4 + SQL Server 2000 SP3a.
I've got a SQL Server Assertion: File:
<p:\sql\ntdbms\storeng\drs\include\record.inl>, line=1447
Failed Assertion = 'm_SizeRec > 0 && m_SizeRec <= MAXDATAROW'. Error: 3624, Severity: 20, State: 1. The
CHECKDB of every DB on that server came up clean (0
allocation and 0 consistency errors). Could this
effectively mean that I've discovered a bug in SQL Server?
--
Thanks,
OskAs you alluded to, this typically indicates corruption in your database.
However, there is a potential for in-memory kinds of corruption events in
which the page in memory is corrupted, but the image on disk is not. That
is most often caused by hardware issues. I would recommend that you open a
case with Microsoft PSS (http://support.microsoft.com) after you have
verified that you have no hardware issues.
--
Ryan Stonecipher
Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine, DBCC
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Osk" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:243401c50d2a$2000fb90$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi!
> I'm running MS Windows 2000 SP4 + SQL Server 2000 SP3a.
> I've got a SQL Server Assertion: File:
> <p:\sql\ntdbms\storeng\drs\include\record.inl>, line=1447
> Failed Assertion = 'm_SizeRec > 0 && m_SizeRec <=> MAXDATAROW'. Error: 3624, Severity: 20, State: 1. The
> CHECKDB of every DB on that server came up clean (0
> allocation and 0 consistency errors). Could this
> effectively mean that I've discovered a bug in SQL Server?
> --
> Thanks,
> Osk
>
Monday, March 19, 2012
98 Clients not seeing all the data
I have Sql 2k SP3A. When my Windows 98 Clients connect through a
Powerbuilder 9.0 Application, there are some Windows were data is not
displayed. Windows XP and Windows 2K Operating Systems work fine. Using
TCP/IP on everything.
After rebooting a production server everything was fine. Tried rebooting
the Test Server and still having a problem.
Not sure exactly when this started but I have been using Windows 98 Clients
for 2 years on SQL 2K and the same for PowerBuilder 9.0.
Any ideas would be great.PB does not officially support any OS prior to Win2K. You are operating on
borrowed time. That said, it would help to know what the exact query is -
profiler can be used to trace the server side and PB can be used to trace
the client side. It may also be worthwhile to explore using a different
interface to connect (mss, odbc, oledb).
"Mike" <mdunlap@.nospambennettcompany.com> wrote in message
news:Onky$AREEHA.3176@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> I have Sql 2k SP3A. When my Windows 98 Clients connect through a
> Powerbuilder 9.0 Application, there are some Windows were data is not
> displayed. Windows XP and Windows 2K Operating Systems work fine. Using
> TCP/IP on everything.
> After rebooting a production server everything was fine. Tried rebooting
> the Test Server and still having a problem.
> Not sure exactly when this started but I have been using Windows 98
Clients
> for 2 years on SQL 2K and the same for PowerBuilder 9.0.
> Any ideas would be great.
>|||Thanks very much for the info. Fuel to have my Manager approve OS upgrades.
Is this PB support also considered for the runtime? I have been running
Windows 98 clients with PB 9.0 runtime for 8 months and can't believe it
just stopped. I will try what you suggested on debugging.
"Scott Morris" <bogus@.bogus.com> wrote in message
news:eQtP3PREEHA.3412@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> PB does not officially support any OS prior to Win2K. You are operating
on
> borrowed time. That said, it would help to know what the exact query is -
> profiler can be used to trace the server side and PB can be used to trace
> the client side. It may also be worthwhile to explore using a different
> interface to connect (mss, odbc, oledb).
> "Mike" <mdunlap@.nospambennettcompany.com> wrote in message
> news:Onky$AREEHA.3176@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
rebooting
> Clients
>|||It just a lucky coincidence that you were able to do so. I believe that the
latest builds (9.01 and later) actually make calls that are not supported by
the unsupported OSes - perhaps related to the memory management changes in
9.01?
"Mike" <mdunlap@.nospambennettcompany.com> wrote in message
news:ewtVS8REEHA.2564@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Thanks very much for the info. Fuel to have my Manager approve OS
upgrades.
> Is this PB support also considered for the runtime? I have been running
> Windows 98 clients with PB 9.0 runtime for 8 months and can't believe it
> just stopped. I will try what you suggested on debugging.
>
> "Scott Morris" <bogus@.bogus.com> wrote in message
> news:eQtP3PREEHA.3412@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> on
is -
trace
Using
> rebooting
>
Powerbuilder 9.0 Application, there are some Windows were data is not
displayed. Windows XP and Windows 2K Operating Systems work fine. Using
TCP/IP on everything.
After rebooting a production server everything was fine. Tried rebooting
the Test Server and still having a problem.
Not sure exactly when this started but I have been using Windows 98 Clients
for 2 years on SQL 2K and the same for PowerBuilder 9.0.
Any ideas would be great.PB does not officially support any OS prior to Win2K. You are operating on
borrowed time. That said, it would help to know what the exact query is -
profiler can be used to trace the server side and PB can be used to trace
the client side. It may also be worthwhile to explore using a different
interface to connect (mss, odbc, oledb).
"Mike" <mdunlap@.nospambennettcompany.com> wrote in message
news:Onky$AREEHA.3176@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> I have Sql 2k SP3A. When my Windows 98 Clients connect through a
> Powerbuilder 9.0 Application, there are some Windows were data is not
> displayed. Windows XP and Windows 2K Operating Systems work fine. Using
> TCP/IP on everything.
> After rebooting a production server everything was fine. Tried rebooting
> the Test Server and still having a problem.
> Not sure exactly when this started but I have been using Windows 98
Clients
> for 2 years on SQL 2K and the same for PowerBuilder 9.0.
> Any ideas would be great.
>|||Thanks very much for the info. Fuel to have my Manager approve OS upgrades.
Is this PB support also considered for the runtime? I have been running
Windows 98 clients with PB 9.0 runtime for 8 months and can't believe it
just stopped. I will try what you suggested on debugging.
"Scott Morris" <bogus@.bogus.com> wrote in message
news:eQtP3PREEHA.3412@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> PB does not officially support any OS prior to Win2K. You are operating
on
> borrowed time. That said, it would help to know what the exact query is -
> profiler can be used to trace the server side and PB can be used to trace
> the client side. It may also be worthwhile to explore using a different
> interface to connect (mss, odbc, oledb).
> "Mike" <mdunlap@.nospambennettcompany.com> wrote in message
> news:Onky$AREEHA.3176@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
rebooting
> Clients
>|||It just a lucky coincidence that you were able to do so. I believe that the
latest builds (9.01 and later) actually make calls that are not supported by
the unsupported OSes - perhaps related to the memory management changes in
9.01?
"Mike" <mdunlap@.nospambennettcompany.com> wrote in message
news:ewtVS8REEHA.2564@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Thanks very much for the info. Fuel to have my Manager approve OS
upgrades.
> Is this PB support also considered for the runtime? I have been running
> Windows 98 clients with PB 9.0 runtime for 8 months and can't believe it
> just stopped. I will try what you suggested on debugging.
>
> "Scott Morris" <bogus@.bogus.com> wrote in message
> news:eQtP3PREEHA.3412@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> on
is -
trace
Using
> rebooting
>
837 patch and MS03-031
Hello
We're about to apply the MS03-031 security rollup patch to upgrade our 90
SQL Servers from SP3a (760) to (818).
Problem is we have applied a hotfix already to a couple of boxes which
ugraded SQL to version (837).
What will happen when we apply MS03-031 to these boxes with the hotfix? Will
it fail and if so whats the solution?
thank you
-- cranfield, DBA
Hi
It will run, but is clever enough not to run older scripts against the newer
build. It does binary file version checking so it won't overwrite newer
binaries.
Have you considered hotfix 878?
When I tried to run 818 against a 952 server, I got the following:
=== Version check on sqlservr.exe 8.0.952 shows different major build of
sqlservr.exe than hotfix build number 8.00.818
=== NOT RUNNING SCRIPTS
The build number of SQLSERVR.EXE and HotFix package did not match. This
happens
when SQLSERVR.EXE was not replaced because the version was higher than the
Hotfix build.
In these cases Hotfix will not run any scripts and return error code
ERROR_BAD_ENVIRONMENT
Error message: Error running SQL script. Please view the log file for details.
INSTALL FAILURE: Hotfix failed to apply the patches on instance MSSQLSERVER,
the error code returned was: 10
<EndFunc Name='DoSQLHotFix' Return='10' GetLastError='0'>
Regards
Mike
"cranfield" wrote:
> Hello
> We're about to apply the MS03-031 security rollup patch to upgrade our 90
> SQL Servers from SP3a (760) to (818).
> Problem is we have applied a hotfix already to a couple of boxes which
> ugraded SQL to version (837).
> What will happen when we apply MS03-031 to these boxes with the hotfix? Will
> it fail and if so whats the solution?
> thank you
> -- cranfield, DBA
|||Hi Mike
Why do you ask if I have considered hotfix 878? We applied the 837 hotfix i
an attempt to sort out some Exception errors we were having on our 4-node
cluster.
We're just looking at bringing up our servers to an accepted level and our
testers have only tested up to 818, MS02-031.
regards
Alan Cranfield
DBA Support
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> It will run, but is clever enough not to run older scripts against the newer
> build. It does binary file version checking so it won't overwrite newer
> binaries.
> Have you considered hotfix 878?
> When I tried to run 818 against a 952 server, I got the following:
> === Version check on sqlservr.exe 8.0.952 shows different major build of
> sqlservr.exe than hotfix build number 8.00.818
>
> === NOT RUNNING SCRIPTS
> The build number of SQLSERVR.EXE and HotFix package did not match. This
> happens
> when SQLSERVR.EXE was not replaced because the version was higher than the
> Hotfix build.
> In these cases Hotfix will not run any scripts and return error code
> ERROR_BAD_ENVIRONMENT
> Error message: Error running SQL script. Please view the log file for details.
> INSTALL FAILURE: Hotfix failed to apply the patches on instance MSSQLSERVER,
> the error code returned was: 10
> <EndFunc Name='DoSQLHotFix' Return='10' GetLastError='0'>
> Regards
> Mike
> "cranfield" wrote:
|||Hi
878 is the highest publicly available hotfix, that is fully supported by PSS.
We encountered quite a few problems with hotfixes in the 820 to 850 range,
and those issues were fixed after 850.
(regression bugs etc)
Regards
Mike
"Cranfield" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Mike
> Why do you ask if I have considered hotfix 878? We applied the 837 hotfix i
> an attempt to sort out some Exception errors we were having on our 4-node
> cluster.
> We're just looking at bringing up our servers to an accepted level and our
> testers have only tested up to 818, MS02-031.
> regards
> Alan Cranfield
> DBA Support
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
|||I suspect applying MS03-031 to the servers that are already at
8.00.837 will do nothing - it shouldn't overwrite files with
earlier versions, and you can compare the file information in the KB
article http://support.microsoft.com/kb/821277 with what's on your
servers.
Is there a reason you think MS03-31 contains something that is
not already installed as part of the 837 hotfix on the hotfixed boxes?
Usually these things are cumulative, and especially since 818 was a
security issue, I'd be surprised if MSFT gave out something numbered
8.00.837 that didn't fix prior security issues.
Steve Kass
Drew University
cranfield wrote:
>Hello
>We're about to apply the MS03-031 security rollup patch to upgrade our 90
>SQL Servers from SP3a (760) to (818).
>Problem is we have applied a hotfix already to a couple of boxes which
>ugraded SQL to version (837).
>What will happen when we apply MS03-031 to these boxes with the hotfix? Will
>it fail and if so whats the solution?
>thank you
>-- cranfield, DBA
>
|||This is exactly what i want to know. Can I safely assume that I don't have to
patch the 837 servers as they will already be up to 818 level?
thanks
alan
"Steve Kass" wrote:
> I suspect applying MS03-031 to the servers that are already at
> 8.00.837 will do nothing - it shouldn't overwrite files with
> earlier versions, and you can compare the file information in the KB
> article http://support.microsoft.com/kb/821277 with what's on your
> servers.
> Is there a reason you think MS03-31 contains something that is
> not already installed as part of the 837 hotfix on the hotfixed boxes?
> Usually these things are cumulative, and especially since 818 was a
> security issue, I'd be surprised if MSFT gave out something numbered
> 8.00.837 that didn't fix prior security issues.
> Steve Kass
> Drew University
> cranfield wrote:
>
We're about to apply the MS03-031 security rollup patch to upgrade our 90
SQL Servers from SP3a (760) to (818).
Problem is we have applied a hotfix already to a couple of boxes which
ugraded SQL to version (837).
What will happen when we apply MS03-031 to these boxes with the hotfix? Will
it fail and if so whats the solution?
thank you
-- cranfield, DBA
Hi
It will run, but is clever enough not to run older scripts against the newer
build. It does binary file version checking so it won't overwrite newer
binaries.
Have you considered hotfix 878?
When I tried to run 818 against a 952 server, I got the following:
=== Version check on sqlservr.exe 8.0.952 shows different major build of
sqlservr.exe than hotfix build number 8.00.818
=== NOT RUNNING SCRIPTS
The build number of SQLSERVR.EXE and HotFix package did not match. This
happens
when SQLSERVR.EXE was not replaced because the version was higher than the
Hotfix build.
In these cases Hotfix will not run any scripts and return error code
ERROR_BAD_ENVIRONMENT
Error message: Error running SQL script. Please view the log file for details.
INSTALL FAILURE: Hotfix failed to apply the patches on instance MSSQLSERVER,
the error code returned was: 10
<EndFunc Name='DoSQLHotFix' Return='10' GetLastError='0'>
Regards
Mike
"cranfield" wrote:
> Hello
> We're about to apply the MS03-031 security rollup patch to upgrade our 90
> SQL Servers from SP3a (760) to (818).
> Problem is we have applied a hotfix already to a couple of boxes which
> ugraded SQL to version (837).
> What will happen when we apply MS03-031 to these boxes with the hotfix? Will
> it fail and if so whats the solution?
> thank you
> -- cranfield, DBA
|||Hi Mike
Why do you ask if I have considered hotfix 878? We applied the 837 hotfix i
an attempt to sort out some Exception errors we were having on our 4-node
cluster.
We're just looking at bringing up our servers to an accepted level and our
testers have only tested up to 818, MS02-031.
regards
Alan Cranfield
DBA Support
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> It will run, but is clever enough not to run older scripts against the newer
> build. It does binary file version checking so it won't overwrite newer
> binaries.
> Have you considered hotfix 878?
> When I tried to run 818 against a 952 server, I got the following:
> === Version check on sqlservr.exe 8.0.952 shows different major build of
> sqlservr.exe than hotfix build number 8.00.818
>
> === NOT RUNNING SCRIPTS
> The build number of SQLSERVR.EXE and HotFix package did not match. This
> happens
> when SQLSERVR.EXE was not replaced because the version was higher than the
> Hotfix build.
> In these cases Hotfix will not run any scripts and return error code
> ERROR_BAD_ENVIRONMENT
> Error message: Error running SQL script. Please view the log file for details.
> INSTALL FAILURE: Hotfix failed to apply the patches on instance MSSQLSERVER,
> the error code returned was: 10
> <EndFunc Name='DoSQLHotFix' Return='10' GetLastError='0'>
> Regards
> Mike
> "cranfield" wrote:
|||Hi
878 is the highest publicly available hotfix, that is fully supported by PSS.
We encountered quite a few problems with hotfixes in the 820 to 850 range,
and those issues were fixed after 850.
(regression bugs etc)
Regards
Mike
"Cranfield" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Mike
> Why do you ask if I have considered hotfix 878? We applied the 837 hotfix i
> an attempt to sort out some Exception errors we were having on our 4-node
> cluster.
> We're just looking at bringing up our servers to an accepted level and our
> testers have only tested up to 818, MS02-031.
> regards
> Alan Cranfield
> DBA Support
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
|||I suspect applying MS03-031 to the servers that are already at
8.00.837 will do nothing - it shouldn't overwrite files with
earlier versions, and you can compare the file information in the KB
article http://support.microsoft.com/kb/821277 with what's on your
servers.
Is there a reason you think MS03-31 contains something that is
not already installed as part of the 837 hotfix on the hotfixed boxes?
Usually these things are cumulative, and especially since 818 was a
security issue, I'd be surprised if MSFT gave out something numbered
8.00.837 that didn't fix prior security issues.
Steve Kass
Drew University
cranfield wrote:
>Hello
>We're about to apply the MS03-031 security rollup patch to upgrade our 90
>SQL Servers from SP3a (760) to (818).
>Problem is we have applied a hotfix already to a couple of boxes which
>ugraded SQL to version (837).
>What will happen when we apply MS03-031 to these boxes with the hotfix? Will
>it fail and if so whats the solution?
>thank you
>-- cranfield, DBA
>
|||This is exactly what i want to know. Can I safely assume that I don't have to
patch the 837 servers as they will already be up to 818 level?
thanks
alan
"Steve Kass" wrote:
> I suspect applying MS03-031 to the servers that are already at
> 8.00.837 will do nothing - it shouldn't overwrite files with
> earlier versions, and you can compare the file information in the KB
> article http://support.microsoft.com/kb/821277 with what's on your
> servers.
> Is there a reason you think MS03-31 contains something that is
> not already installed as part of the 837 hotfix on the hotfixed boxes?
> Usually these things are cumulative, and especially since 818 was a
> security issue, I'd be surprised if MSFT gave out something numbered
> 8.00.837 that didn't fix prior security issues.
> Steve Kass
> Drew University
> cranfield wrote:
>
837 patch and MS03-031
Hello
We're about to apply the MS03-031 security rollup patch to upgrade our 90
SQL Servers from SP3a (760) to (818).
Problem is we have applied a hotfix already to a couple of boxes which
ugraded SQL to version (837).
What will happen when we apply MS03-031 to these boxes with the hotfix? Will
it fail and if so whats the solution?
thank you
-- cranfield, DBAHi
It will run, but is clever enough not to run older scripts against the newer
build. It does binary file version checking so it won't overwrite newer
binaries.
Have you considered hotfix 878?
When I tried to run 818 against a 952 server, I got the following:
=== Version check on sqlservr.exe 8.0.952 shows different major build of
sqlservr.exe than hotfix build number 8.00.818
=== NOT RUNNING SCRIPTS
The build number of SQLSERVR.EXE and HotFix package did not match. This
happens
when SQLSERVR.EXE was not replaced because the version was higher than the
Hotfix build.
In these cases Hotfix will not run any scripts and return error code
ERROR_BAD_ENVIRONMENT
Error message: Error running SQL script. Please view the log file for detail
s.
INSTALL FAILURE: Hotfix failed to apply the patches on instance MSSQLSERVER,
the error code returned was: 10
<EndFunc Name='DoSQLHotFix' Return='10' GetLastError='0'>
Regards
Mike
"cranfield" wrote:
> Hello
> We're about to apply the MS03-031 security rollup patch to upgrade our 90
> SQL Servers from SP3a (760) to (818).
> Problem is we have applied a hotfix already to a couple of boxes which
> ugraded SQL to version (837).
> What will happen when we apply MS03-031 to these boxes with the hotfix? Wi
ll
> it fail and if so whats the solution?
> thank you
> -- cranfield, DBA|||Hi Mike
Why do you ask if I have considered hotfix 878? We applied the 837 hotfix i
an attempt to sort out some Exception errors we were having on our 4-node
cluster.
We're just looking at bringing up our servers to an accepted level and our
testers have only tested up to 818, MS02-031.
regards
Alan Cranfield
DBA Support
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> It will run, but is clever enough not to run older scripts against the new
er
> build. It does binary file version checking so it won't overwrite newer
> binaries.
> Have you considered hotfix 878?
> When I tried to run 818 against a 952 server, I got the following:
> === Version check on sqlservr.exe 8.0.952 shows different major build of
> sqlservr.exe than hotfix build number 8.00.818
>
> === NOT RUNNING SCRIPTS
> The build number of SQLSERVR.EXE and HotFix package did not match. This
> happens
> when SQLSERVR.EXE was not replaced because the version was higher than the
> Hotfix build.
> In these cases Hotfix will not run any scripts and return error code
> ERROR_BAD_ENVIRONMENT
> Error message: Error running SQL script. Please view the log file for deta
ils.
> INSTALL FAILURE: Hotfix failed to apply the patches on instance MSSQLSERVE
R,
> the error code returned was: 10
> <EndFunc Name='DoSQLHotFix' Return='10' GetLastError='0'>
> Regards
> Mike
> "cranfield" wrote:
>|||Hi
878 is the highest publicly available hotfix, that is fully supported by PSS
.
We encountered quite a few problems with hotfixes in the 820 to 850 range,
and those issues were fixed after 850.
(regression bugs etc)
Regards
Mike
"Cranfield" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Mike
> Why do you ask if I have considered hotfix 878? We applied the 837 hotfix
i
> an attempt to sort out some Exception errors we were having on our 4-node
> cluster.
> We're just looking at bringing up our servers to an accepted level and our
> testers have only tested up to 818, MS02-031.
> regards
> Alan Cranfield
> DBA Support
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
>|||I suspect applying MS03-031 to the servers that are already at
8.00.837 will do nothing - it shouldn't overwrite files with
earlier versions, and you can compare the file information in the KB
article http://support.microsoft.com/kb/821277 with what's on your
servers.
Is there a reason you think MS03-31 contains something that is
not already installed as part of the 837 hotfix on the hotfixed boxes?
Usually these things are cumulative, and especially since 818 was a
security issue, I'd be surprised if MSFT gave out something numbered
8.00.837 that didn't fix prior security issues.
Steve Kass
Drew University
cranfield wrote:
>Hello
>We're about to apply the MS03-031 security rollup patch to upgrade our 90
>SQL Servers from SP3a (760) to (818).
>Problem is we have applied a hotfix already to a couple of boxes which
>ugraded SQL to version (837).
>What will happen when we apply MS03-031 to these boxes with the hotfix? Wil
l
>it fail and if so whats the solution?
>thank you
>-- cranfield, DBA
>|||This is exactly what i want to know. Can I safely assume that I don't have t
o
patch the 837 servers as they will already be up to 818 level?
thanks
alan
"Steve Kass" wrote:
> I suspect applying MS03-031 to the servers that are already at
> 8.00.837 will do nothing - it shouldn't overwrite files with
> earlier versions, and you can compare the file information in the KB
> article http://support.microsoft.com/kb/821277 with what's on your
> servers.
> Is there a reason you think MS03-31 contains something that is
> not already installed as part of the 837 hotfix on the hotfixed boxes?
> Usually these things are cumulative, and especially since 818 was a
> security issue, I'd be surprised if MSFT gave out something numbered
> 8.00.837 that didn't fix prior security issues.
> Steve Kass
> Drew University
> cranfield wrote:
>
>
We're about to apply the MS03-031 security rollup patch to upgrade our 90
SQL Servers from SP3a (760) to (818).
Problem is we have applied a hotfix already to a couple of boxes which
ugraded SQL to version (837).
What will happen when we apply MS03-031 to these boxes with the hotfix? Will
it fail and if so whats the solution?
thank you
-- cranfield, DBAHi
It will run, but is clever enough not to run older scripts against the newer
build. It does binary file version checking so it won't overwrite newer
binaries.
Have you considered hotfix 878?
When I tried to run 818 against a 952 server, I got the following:
=== Version check on sqlservr.exe 8.0.952 shows different major build of
sqlservr.exe than hotfix build number 8.00.818
=== NOT RUNNING SCRIPTS
The build number of SQLSERVR.EXE and HotFix package did not match. This
happens
when SQLSERVR.EXE was not replaced because the version was higher than the
Hotfix build.
In these cases Hotfix will not run any scripts and return error code
ERROR_BAD_ENVIRONMENT
Error message: Error running SQL script. Please view the log file for detail
s.
INSTALL FAILURE: Hotfix failed to apply the patches on instance MSSQLSERVER,
the error code returned was: 10
<EndFunc Name='DoSQLHotFix' Return='10' GetLastError='0'>
Regards
Mike
"cranfield" wrote:
> Hello
> We're about to apply the MS03-031 security rollup patch to upgrade our 90
> SQL Servers from SP3a (760) to (818).
> Problem is we have applied a hotfix already to a couple of boxes which
> ugraded SQL to version (837).
> What will happen when we apply MS03-031 to these boxes with the hotfix? Wi
ll
> it fail and if so whats the solution?
> thank you
> -- cranfield, DBA|||Hi Mike
Why do you ask if I have considered hotfix 878? We applied the 837 hotfix i
an attempt to sort out some Exception errors we were having on our 4-node
cluster.
We're just looking at bringing up our servers to an accepted level and our
testers have only tested up to 818, MS02-031.
regards
Alan Cranfield
DBA Support
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> It will run, but is clever enough not to run older scripts against the new
er
> build. It does binary file version checking so it won't overwrite newer
> binaries.
> Have you considered hotfix 878?
> When I tried to run 818 against a 952 server, I got the following:
> === Version check on sqlservr.exe 8.0.952 shows different major build of
> sqlservr.exe than hotfix build number 8.00.818
>
> === NOT RUNNING SCRIPTS
> The build number of SQLSERVR.EXE and HotFix package did not match. This
> happens
> when SQLSERVR.EXE was not replaced because the version was higher than the
> Hotfix build.
> In these cases Hotfix will not run any scripts and return error code
> ERROR_BAD_ENVIRONMENT
> Error message: Error running SQL script. Please view the log file for deta
ils.
> INSTALL FAILURE: Hotfix failed to apply the patches on instance MSSQLSERVE
R,
> the error code returned was: 10
> <EndFunc Name='DoSQLHotFix' Return='10' GetLastError='0'>
> Regards
> Mike
> "cranfield" wrote:
>|||Hi
878 is the highest publicly available hotfix, that is fully supported by PSS
.
We encountered quite a few problems with hotfixes in the 820 to 850 range,
and those issues were fixed after 850.
(regression bugs etc)
Regards
Mike
"Cranfield" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Mike
> Why do you ask if I have considered hotfix 878? We applied the 837 hotfix
i
> an attempt to sort out some Exception errors we were having on our 4-node
> cluster.
> We're just looking at bringing up our servers to an accepted level and our
> testers have only tested up to 818, MS02-031.
> regards
> Alan Cranfield
> DBA Support
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
>|||I suspect applying MS03-031 to the servers that are already at
8.00.837 will do nothing - it shouldn't overwrite files with
earlier versions, and you can compare the file information in the KB
article http://support.microsoft.com/kb/821277 with what's on your
servers.
Is there a reason you think MS03-31 contains something that is
not already installed as part of the 837 hotfix on the hotfixed boxes?
Usually these things are cumulative, and especially since 818 was a
security issue, I'd be surprised if MSFT gave out something numbered
8.00.837 that didn't fix prior security issues.
Steve Kass
Drew University
cranfield wrote:
>Hello
>We're about to apply the MS03-031 security rollup patch to upgrade our 90
>SQL Servers from SP3a (760) to (818).
>Problem is we have applied a hotfix already to a couple of boxes which
>ugraded SQL to version (837).
>What will happen when we apply MS03-031 to these boxes with the hotfix? Wil
l
>it fail and if so whats the solution?
>thank you
>-- cranfield, DBA
>|||This is exactly what i want to know. Can I safely assume that I don't have t
o
patch the 837 servers as they will already be up to 818 level?
thanks
alan
"Steve Kass" wrote:
> I suspect applying MS03-031 to the servers that are already at
> 8.00.837 will do nothing - it shouldn't overwrite files with
> earlier versions, and you can compare the file information in the KB
> article http://support.microsoft.com/kb/821277 with what's on your
> servers.
> Is there a reason you think MS03-31 contains something that is
> not already installed as part of the 837 hotfix on the hotfixed boxes?
> Usually these things are cumulative, and especially since 818 was a
> security issue, I'd be surprised if MSFT gave out something numbered
> 8.00.837 that didn't fix prior security issues.
> Steve Kass
> Drew University
> cranfield wrote:
>
>
837 patch and MS03-031
Hello
We're about to apply the MS03-031 security rollup patch to upgrade our 90
SQL Servers from SP3a (760) to (818).
Problem is we have applied a hotfix already to a couple of boxes which
ugraded SQL to version (837).
What will happen when we apply MS03-031 to these boxes with the hotfix? Will
it fail and if so whats the solution?
thank you
-- cranfield, DBAHi
It will run, but is clever enough not to run older scripts against the newer
build. It does binary file version checking so it won't overwrite newer
binaries.
Have you considered hotfix 878?
When I tried to run 818 against a 952 server, I got the following:
=== Version check on sqlservr.exe 8.0.952 shows different major build of
sqlservr.exe than hotfix build number 8.00.818
=== NOT RUNNING SCRIPTS
The build number of SQLSERVR.EXE and HotFix package did not match. This
happens
when SQLSERVR.EXE was not replaced because the version was higher than the
Hotfix build.
In these cases Hotfix will not run any scripts and return error code
ERROR_BAD_ENVIRONMENT
Error message: Error running SQL script. Please view the log file for details.
INSTALL FAILURE: Hotfix failed to apply the patches on instance MSSQLSERVER,
the error code returned was: 10
<EndFunc Name='DoSQLHotFix' Return='10' GetLastError='0'>
Regards
Mike
"cranfield" wrote:
> Hello
> We're about to apply the MS03-031 security rollup patch to upgrade our 90
> SQL Servers from SP3a (760) to (818).
> Problem is we have applied a hotfix already to a couple of boxes which
> ugraded SQL to version (837).
> What will happen when we apply MS03-031 to these boxes with the hotfix? Will
> it fail and if so whats the solution?
> thank you
> -- cranfield, DBA|||Hi Mike
Why do you ask if I have considered hotfix 878? We applied the 837 hotfix i
an attempt to sort out some Exception errors we were having on our 4-node
cluster.
We're just looking at bringing up our servers to an accepted level and our
testers have only tested up to 818, MS02-031.
regards
Alan Cranfield
DBA Support
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> It will run, but is clever enough not to run older scripts against the newer
> build. It does binary file version checking so it won't overwrite newer
> binaries.
> Have you considered hotfix 878?
> When I tried to run 818 against a 952 server, I got the following:
> === Version check on sqlservr.exe 8.0.952 shows different major build of
> sqlservr.exe than hotfix build number 8.00.818
>
> === NOT RUNNING SCRIPTS
> The build number of SQLSERVR.EXE and HotFix package did not match. This
> happens
> when SQLSERVR.EXE was not replaced because the version was higher than the
> Hotfix build.
> In these cases Hotfix will not run any scripts and return error code
> ERROR_BAD_ENVIRONMENT
> Error message: Error running SQL script. Please view the log file for details.
> INSTALL FAILURE: Hotfix failed to apply the patches on instance MSSQLSERVER,
> the error code returned was: 10
> <EndFunc Name='DoSQLHotFix' Return='10' GetLastError='0'>
> Regards
> Mike
> "cranfield" wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > We're about to apply the MS03-031 security rollup patch to upgrade our 90
> > SQL Servers from SP3a (760) to (818).
> >
> > Problem is we have applied a hotfix already to a couple of boxes which
> > ugraded SQL to version (837).
> >
> > What will happen when we apply MS03-031 to these boxes with the hotfix? Will
> > it fail and if so whats the solution?
> >
> > thank you
> >
> > -- cranfield, DBA|||Hi
878 is the highest publicly available hotfix, that is fully supported by PSS.
We encountered quite a few problems with hotfixes in the 820 to 850 range,
and those issues were fixed after 850.
(regression bugs etc)
Regards
Mike
"Cranfield" wrote:
> Hi Mike
> Why do you ask if I have considered hotfix 878? We applied the 837 hotfix i
> an attempt to sort out some Exception errors we were having on our 4-node
> cluster.
> We're just looking at bringing up our servers to an accepted level and our
> testers have only tested up to 818, MS02-031.
> regards
> Alan Cranfield
> DBA Support
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > It will run, but is clever enough not to run older scripts against the newer
> > build. It does binary file version checking so it won't overwrite newer
> > binaries.
> >
> > Have you considered hotfix 878?
> >
> > When I tried to run 818 against a 952 server, I got the following:
> >
> > === Version check on sqlservr.exe 8.0.952 shows different major build of
> > sqlservr.exe than hotfix build number 8.00.818
> >
> >
> > === NOT RUNNING SCRIPTS
> > The build number of SQLSERVR.EXE and HotFix package did not match. This
> > happens
> > when SQLSERVR.EXE was not replaced because the version was higher than the
> > Hotfix build.
> > In these cases Hotfix will not run any scripts and return error code
> > ERROR_BAD_ENVIRONMENT
> >
> > Error message: Error running SQL script. Please view the log file for details.
> > INSTALL FAILURE: Hotfix failed to apply the patches on instance MSSQLSERVER,
> > the error code returned was: 10
> > <EndFunc Name='DoSQLHotFix' Return='10' GetLastError='0'>
> >
> > Regards
> > Mike
> >
> > "cranfield" wrote:
> >
> > > Hello
> > >
> > > We're about to apply the MS03-031 security rollup patch to upgrade our 90
> > > SQL Servers from SP3a (760) to (818).
> > >
> > > Problem is we have applied a hotfix already to a couple of boxes which
> > > ugraded SQL to version (837).
> > >
> > > What will happen when we apply MS03-031 to these boxes with the hotfix? Will
> > > it fail and if so whats the solution?
> > >
> > > thank you
> > >
> > > -- cranfield, DBA|||I suspect applying MS03-031 to the servers that are already at
8.00.837 will do nothing - it shouldn't overwrite files with
earlier versions, and you can compare the file information in the KB
article http://support.microsoft.com/kb/821277 with what's on your
servers.
Is there a reason you think MS03-31 contains something that is
not already installed as part of the 837 hotfix on the hotfixed boxes?
Usually these things are cumulative, and especially since 818 was a
security issue, I'd be surprised if MSFT gave out something numbered
8.00.837 that didn't fix prior security issues.
Steve Kass
Drew University
cranfield wrote:
>Hello
>We're about to apply the MS03-031 security rollup patch to upgrade our 90
>SQL Servers from SP3a (760) to (818).
>Problem is we have applied a hotfix already to a couple of boxes which
>ugraded SQL to version (837).
>What will happen when we apply MS03-031 to these boxes with the hotfix? Will
>it fail and if so whats the solution?
>thank you
>-- cranfield, DBA
>|||This is exactly what i want to know. Can I safely assume that I don't have to
patch the 837 servers as they will already be up to 818 level?
thanks
alan
"Steve Kass" wrote:
> I suspect applying MS03-031 to the servers that are already at
> 8.00.837 will do nothing - it shouldn't overwrite files with
> earlier versions, and you can compare the file information in the KB
> article http://support.microsoft.com/kb/821277 with what's on your
> servers.
> Is there a reason you think MS03-31 contains something that is
> not already installed as part of the 837 hotfix on the hotfixed boxes?
> Usually these things are cumulative, and especially since 818 was a
> security issue, I'd be surprised if MSFT gave out something numbered
> 8.00.837 that didn't fix prior security issues.
> Steve Kass
> Drew University
> cranfield wrote:
> >Hello
> >
> >We're about to apply the MS03-031 security rollup patch to upgrade our 90
> >SQL Servers from SP3a (760) to (818).
> >
> >Problem is we have applied a hotfix already to a couple of boxes which
> >ugraded SQL to version (837).
> >
> >What will happen when we apply MS03-031 to these boxes with the hotfix? Will
> >it fail and if so whats the solution?
> >
> >thank you
> >
> >-- cranfield, DBA
> >
> >
>
We're about to apply the MS03-031 security rollup patch to upgrade our 90
SQL Servers from SP3a (760) to (818).
Problem is we have applied a hotfix already to a couple of boxes which
ugraded SQL to version (837).
What will happen when we apply MS03-031 to these boxes with the hotfix? Will
it fail and if so whats the solution?
thank you
-- cranfield, DBAHi
It will run, but is clever enough not to run older scripts against the newer
build. It does binary file version checking so it won't overwrite newer
binaries.
Have you considered hotfix 878?
When I tried to run 818 against a 952 server, I got the following:
=== Version check on sqlservr.exe 8.0.952 shows different major build of
sqlservr.exe than hotfix build number 8.00.818
=== NOT RUNNING SCRIPTS
The build number of SQLSERVR.EXE and HotFix package did not match. This
happens
when SQLSERVR.EXE was not replaced because the version was higher than the
Hotfix build.
In these cases Hotfix will not run any scripts and return error code
ERROR_BAD_ENVIRONMENT
Error message: Error running SQL script. Please view the log file for details.
INSTALL FAILURE: Hotfix failed to apply the patches on instance MSSQLSERVER,
the error code returned was: 10
<EndFunc Name='DoSQLHotFix' Return='10' GetLastError='0'>
Regards
Mike
"cranfield" wrote:
> Hello
> We're about to apply the MS03-031 security rollup patch to upgrade our 90
> SQL Servers from SP3a (760) to (818).
> Problem is we have applied a hotfix already to a couple of boxes which
> ugraded SQL to version (837).
> What will happen when we apply MS03-031 to these boxes with the hotfix? Will
> it fail and if so whats the solution?
> thank you
> -- cranfield, DBA|||Hi Mike
Why do you ask if I have considered hotfix 878? We applied the 837 hotfix i
an attempt to sort out some Exception errors we were having on our 4-node
cluster.
We're just looking at bringing up our servers to an accepted level and our
testers have only tested up to 818, MS02-031.
regards
Alan Cranfield
DBA Support
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> It will run, but is clever enough not to run older scripts against the newer
> build. It does binary file version checking so it won't overwrite newer
> binaries.
> Have you considered hotfix 878?
> When I tried to run 818 against a 952 server, I got the following:
> === Version check on sqlservr.exe 8.0.952 shows different major build of
> sqlservr.exe than hotfix build number 8.00.818
>
> === NOT RUNNING SCRIPTS
> The build number of SQLSERVR.EXE and HotFix package did not match. This
> happens
> when SQLSERVR.EXE was not replaced because the version was higher than the
> Hotfix build.
> In these cases Hotfix will not run any scripts and return error code
> ERROR_BAD_ENVIRONMENT
> Error message: Error running SQL script. Please view the log file for details.
> INSTALL FAILURE: Hotfix failed to apply the patches on instance MSSQLSERVER,
> the error code returned was: 10
> <EndFunc Name='DoSQLHotFix' Return='10' GetLastError='0'>
> Regards
> Mike
> "cranfield" wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > We're about to apply the MS03-031 security rollup patch to upgrade our 90
> > SQL Servers from SP3a (760) to (818).
> >
> > Problem is we have applied a hotfix already to a couple of boxes which
> > ugraded SQL to version (837).
> >
> > What will happen when we apply MS03-031 to these boxes with the hotfix? Will
> > it fail and if so whats the solution?
> >
> > thank you
> >
> > -- cranfield, DBA|||Hi
878 is the highest publicly available hotfix, that is fully supported by PSS.
We encountered quite a few problems with hotfixes in the 820 to 850 range,
and those issues were fixed after 850.
(regression bugs etc)
Regards
Mike
"Cranfield" wrote:
> Hi Mike
> Why do you ask if I have considered hotfix 878? We applied the 837 hotfix i
> an attempt to sort out some Exception errors we were having on our 4-node
> cluster.
> We're just looking at bringing up our servers to an accepted level and our
> testers have only tested up to 818, MS02-031.
> regards
> Alan Cranfield
> DBA Support
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > It will run, but is clever enough not to run older scripts against the newer
> > build. It does binary file version checking so it won't overwrite newer
> > binaries.
> >
> > Have you considered hotfix 878?
> >
> > When I tried to run 818 against a 952 server, I got the following:
> >
> > === Version check on sqlservr.exe 8.0.952 shows different major build of
> > sqlservr.exe than hotfix build number 8.00.818
> >
> >
> > === NOT RUNNING SCRIPTS
> > The build number of SQLSERVR.EXE and HotFix package did not match. This
> > happens
> > when SQLSERVR.EXE was not replaced because the version was higher than the
> > Hotfix build.
> > In these cases Hotfix will not run any scripts and return error code
> > ERROR_BAD_ENVIRONMENT
> >
> > Error message: Error running SQL script. Please view the log file for details.
> > INSTALL FAILURE: Hotfix failed to apply the patches on instance MSSQLSERVER,
> > the error code returned was: 10
> > <EndFunc Name='DoSQLHotFix' Return='10' GetLastError='0'>
> >
> > Regards
> > Mike
> >
> > "cranfield" wrote:
> >
> > > Hello
> > >
> > > We're about to apply the MS03-031 security rollup patch to upgrade our 90
> > > SQL Servers from SP3a (760) to (818).
> > >
> > > Problem is we have applied a hotfix already to a couple of boxes which
> > > ugraded SQL to version (837).
> > >
> > > What will happen when we apply MS03-031 to these boxes with the hotfix? Will
> > > it fail and if so whats the solution?
> > >
> > > thank you
> > >
> > > -- cranfield, DBA|||I suspect applying MS03-031 to the servers that are already at
8.00.837 will do nothing - it shouldn't overwrite files with
earlier versions, and you can compare the file information in the KB
article http://support.microsoft.com/kb/821277 with what's on your
servers.
Is there a reason you think MS03-31 contains something that is
not already installed as part of the 837 hotfix on the hotfixed boxes?
Usually these things are cumulative, and especially since 818 was a
security issue, I'd be surprised if MSFT gave out something numbered
8.00.837 that didn't fix prior security issues.
Steve Kass
Drew University
cranfield wrote:
>Hello
>We're about to apply the MS03-031 security rollup patch to upgrade our 90
>SQL Servers from SP3a (760) to (818).
>Problem is we have applied a hotfix already to a couple of boxes which
>ugraded SQL to version (837).
>What will happen when we apply MS03-031 to these boxes with the hotfix? Will
>it fail and if so whats the solution?
>thank you
>-- cranfield, DBA
>|||This is exactly what i want to know. Can I safely assume that I don't have to
patch the 837 servers as they will already be up to 818 level?
thanks
alan
"Steve Kass" wrote:
> I suspect applying MS03-031 to the servers that are already at
> 8.00.837 will do nothing - it shouldn't overwrite files with
> earlier versions, and you can compare the file information in the KB
> article http://support.microsoft.com/kb/821277 with what's on your
> servers.
> Is there a reason you think MS03-31 contains something that is
> not already installed as part of the 837 hotfix on the hotfixed boxes?
> Usually these things are cumulative, and especially since 818 was a
> security issue, I'd be surprised if MSFT gave out something numbered
> 8.00.837 that didn't fix prior security issues.
> Steve Kass
> Drew University
> cranfield wrote:
> >Hello
> >
> >We're about to apply the MS03-031 security rollup patch to upgrade our 90
> >SQL Servers from SP3a (760) to (818).
> >
> >Problem is we have applied a hotfix already to a couple of boxes which
> >ugraded SQL to version (837).
> >
> >What will happen when we apply MS03-031 to these boxes with the hotfix? Will
> >it fail and if so whats the solution?
> >
> >thank you
> >
> >-- cranfield, DBA
> >
> >
>
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
64-bit SQL Server, Any patches needed?
Is there a specific service pack for the 64-bit version of
SQL 2000? Should I apply the SP3a or is that only for the
32-bit version? I can't find any info about SP3a with
respect to applying it to the 64-bit version.
Karl Renaut, CIO
FDN Communications.I'd like to know this as well. I just downloaded the
MSDN Version and need to know if there are any
precautions to protect SQL Server from Slammer, etc.
Thanks,
Mike
>--Original Message--
>Is there a specific service pack for the 64-bit version
of
>SQL 2000? Should I apply the SP3a or is that only for
the
>32-bit version? I can't find any info about SP3a with
>respect to applying it to the 64-bit version.
>Karl Renaut, CIO
>FDN Communications.
>.
>
SQL 2000? Should I apply the SP3a or is that only for the
32-bit version? I can't find any info about SP3a with
respect to applying it to the 64-bit version.
Karl Renaut, CIO
FDN Communications.I'd like to know this as well. I just downloaded the
MSDN Version and need to know if there are any
precautions to protect SQL Server from Slammer, etc.
Thanks,
Mike
>--Original Message--
>Is there a specific service pack for the 64-bit version
of
>SQL 2000? Should I apply the SP3a or is that only for
the
>32-bit version? I can't find any info about SP3a with
>respect to applying it to the 64-bit version.
>Karl Renaut, CIO
>FDN Communications.
>.
>
64-bit restore with error
Hi all,
I am testing SQL Server 2000 64-bit on Itanium2 and have hit a problem.
Our current production system is running SQL Server 2000 32-bit SP3a. I
backed up the database (about 200+ GB) and restored it on SQL Server 2000
64-bit. After the restore was completed, I did a dbcc_checkdb and it came
back with various errors (see below for sample). I repeated the restore from
the same backup on another 32-bit box and dbcc checkdb came out clean. Any
idea what's causing the errors in dbcc checkdb on the 64-bit restore?
They're fixable using the repair option but it takes a long time and it
isn't really inspiring confidence in our management.
Btw, OS on both is Windows Server 2003 Enterprise SP1.
Any help will be much appreciated.
Thanks!
aK.
Small snippet of error messages:
Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
Extra or invalid key for the keys:
Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Index row (1:4242635:76) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833475 and
WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4869 and ? = NULL) points to the
data row identified by ().
Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
Extra or invalid key for the keys:
Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Index row (1:4242635:77) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833476 and
WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4870 and ? = NULL) points to the
data row identified by ().
Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
Extra or invalid key for the keys:
Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Index row (1:4242635:78) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833477 and
WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4869 and ? = 1) points to the data
row identified by ().
Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
Extra or invalid key for the keys:
Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Index row (1:4242635:79) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833478 and
WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4870 and ? = 1) points to the data
row identified by ().
Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index 'DetailActivityCur.akActivityDtime'
(ID 1218103380) (index ID 4). Extra or invalid key for the keys:
Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Index row (1:4447340:155) with values (ActivityDtime = Jul 14 2005 4:47PM
and WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4868 and ? = NULL) points to the
data row identified by ().
Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index 'DetailActivityCur.akActivityDtime'
(ID 1218103380) (index ID 4). Extra or invalid key for the keys:
Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Index row (1:4447340:160) with values (ActivityDtime = Jul 14 2005 4:47PM
and WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4868 and ? = 1) points to the
data row identified by ().
Server: Msg 8945, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Object ID 1218103380, index ID 5 will be rebuilt.
Hi
This looks like:
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;884856
You may want to upgrade the 32 bit edition to SP4 and then migrate (to the
same version).
John
"Angie" <NoSpam_angie_kong@.hotmail.NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:OPpLxmYwFHA.908@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> I am testing SQL Server 2000 64-bit on Itanium2 and have hit a problem.
> Our current production system is running SQL Server 2000 32-bit SP3a. I
> backed up the database (about 200+ GB) and restored it on SQL Server 2000
> 64-bit. After the restore was completed, I did a dbcc_checkdb and it came
> back with various errors (see below for sample). I repeated the restore
> from the same backup on another 32-bit box and dbcc checkdb came out
> clean. Any idea what's causing the errors in dbcc checkdb on the 64-bit
> restore? They're fixable using the repair option but it takes a long time
> and it isn't really inspiring confidence in our management.
> Btw, OS on both is Windows Server 2003 Enterprise SP1.
> Any help will be much appreciated.
> Thanks!
> aK.
>
> Small snippet of error messages:
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:76) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833475 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4869 and ? = NULL) points to the
> data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:77) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833476 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4870 and ? = NULL) points to the
> data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:78) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833477 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4869 and ? = 1) points to the data
> row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:79) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833478 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4870 and ? = 1) points to the data
> row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index 'DetailActivityCur.akActivityDtime'
> (ID 1218103380) (index ID 4). Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4447340:155) with values (ActivityDtime = Jul 14 2005 4:47PM
> and WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4868 and ? = NULL) points to
> the data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index 'DetailActivityCur.akActivityDtime'
> (ID 1218103380) (index ID 4). Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4447340:160) with values (ActivityDtime = Jul 14 2005 4:47PM
> and WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4868 and ? = 1) points to the
> data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8945, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Object ID 1218103380, index ID 5 will be rebuilt.
>
|||This should process should work fine. What builds are the servers on? SP3a
or above and having the same build number on both servers will probably make
these go away.
"Angie" <NoSpam_angie_kong@.hotmail.NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:OPpLxmYwFHA.908@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> I am testing SQL Server 2000 64-bit on Itanium2 and have hit a problem.
> Our current production system is running SQL Server 2000 32-bit SP3a. I
> backed up the database (about 200+ GB) and restored it on SQL Server 2000
> 64-bit. After the restore was completed, I did a dbcc_checkdb and it came
> back with various errors (see below for sample). I repeated the restore
> from the same backup on another 32-bit box and dbcc checkdb came out
> clean. Any idea what's causing the errors in dbcc checkdb on the 64-bit
> restore? They're fixable using the repair option but it takes a long time
> and it isn't really inspiring confidence in our management.
> Btw, OS on both is Windows Server 2003 Enterprise SP1.
> Any help will be much appreciated.
> Thanks!
> aK.
>
> Small snippet of error messages:
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:76) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833475 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4869 and ? = NULL) points to the
> data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:77) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833476 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4870 and ? = NULL) points to the
> data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:78) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833477 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4869 and ? = 1) points to the data
> row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:79) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833478 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4870 and ? = 1) points to the data
> row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index 'DetailActivityCur.akActivityDtime'
> (ID 1218103380) (index ID 4). Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4447340:155) with values (ActivityDtime = Jul 14 2005 4:47PM
> and WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4868 and ? = NULL) points to
> the data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index 'DetailActivityCur.akActivityDtime'
> (ID 1218103380) (index ID 4). Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4447340:160) with values (ActivityDtime = Jul 14 2005 4:47PM
> and WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4868 and ? = 1) points to the
> data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8945, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Object ID 1218103380, index ID 5 will be rebuilt.
>
I am testing SQL Server 2000 64-bit on Itanium2 and have hit a problem.
Our current production system is running SQL Server 2000 32-bit SP3a. I
backed up the database (about 200+ GB) and restored it on SQL Server 2000
64-bit. After the restore was completed, I did a dbcc_checkdb and it came
back with various errors (see below for sample). I repeated the restore from
the same backup on another 32-bit box and dbcc checkdb came out clean. Any
idea what's causing the errors in dbcc checkdb on the 64-bit restore?
They're fixable using the repair option but it takes a long time and it
isn't really inspiring confidence in our management.
Btw, OS on both is Windows Server 2003 Enterprise SP1.
Any help will be much appreciated.
Thanks!
aK.
Small snippet of error messages:
Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
Extra or invalid key for the keys:
Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Index row (1:4242635:76) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833475 and
WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4869 and ? = NULL) points to the
data row identified by ().
Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
Extra or invalid key for the keys:
Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Index row (1:4242635:77) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833476 and
WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4870 and ? = NULL) points to the
data row identified by ().
Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
Extra or invalid key for the keys:
Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Index row (1:4242635:78) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833477 and
WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4869 and ? = 1) points to the data
row identified by ().
Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
Extra or invalid key for the keys:
Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Index row (1:4242635:79) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833478 and
WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4870 and ? = 1) points to the data
row identified by ().
Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index 'DetailActivityCur.akActivityDtime'
(ID 1218103380) (index ID 4). Extra or invalid key for the keys:
Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Index row (1:4447340:155) with values (ActivityDtime = Jul 14 2005 4:47PM
and WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4868 and ? = NULL) points to the
data row identified by ().
Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index 'DetailActivityCur.akActivityDtime'
(ID 1218103380) (index ID 4). Extra or invalid key for the keys:
Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Index row (1:4447340:160) with values (ActivityDtime = Jul 14 2005 4:47PM
and WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4868 and ? = 1) points to the
data row identified by ().
Server: Msg 8945, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Object ID 1218103380, index ID 5 will be rebuilt.
Hi
This looks like:
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;884856
You may want to upgrade the 32 bit edition to SP4 and then migrate (to the
same version).
John
"Angie" <NoSpam_angie_kong@.hotmail.NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:OPpLxmYwFHA.908@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> I am testing SQL Server 2000 64-bit on Itanium2 and have hit a problem.
> Our current production system is running SQL Server 2000 32-bit SP3a. I
> backed up the database (about 200+ GB) and restored it on SQL Server 2000
> 64-bit. After the restore was completed, I did a dbcc_checkdb and it came
> back with various errors (see below for sample). I repeated the restore
> from the same backup on another 32-bit box and dbcc checkdb came out
> clean. Any idea what's causing the errors in dbcc checkdb on the 64-bit
> restore? They're fixable using the repair option but it takes a long time
> and it isn't really inspiring confidence in our management.
> Btw, OS on both is Windows Server 2003 Enterprise SP1.
> Any help will be much appreciated.
> Thanks!
> aK.
>
> Small snippet of error messages:
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:76) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833475 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4869 and ? = NULL) points to the
> data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:77) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833476 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4870 and ? = NULL) points to the
> data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:78) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833477 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4869 and ? = 1) points to the data
> row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:79) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833478 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4870 and ? = 1) points to the data
> row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index 'DetailActivityCur.akActivityDtime'
> (ID 1218103380) (index ID 4). Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4447340:155) with values (ActivityDtime = Jul 14 2005 4:47PM
> and WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4868 and ? = NULL) points to
> the data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index 'DetailActivityCur.akActivityDtime'
> (ID 1218103380) (index ID 4). Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4447340:160) with values (ActivityDtime = Jul 14 2005 4:47PM
> and WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4868 and ? = 1) points to the
> data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8945, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Object ID 1218103380, index ID 5 will be rebuilt.
>
|||This should process should work fine. What builds are the servers on? SP3a
or above and having the same build number on both servers will probably make
these go away.
"Angie" <NoSpam_angie_kong@.hotmail.NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:OPpLxmYwFHA.908@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> I am testing SQL Server 2000 64-bit on Itanium2 and have hit a problem.
> Our current production system is running SQL Server 2000 32-bit SP3a. I
> backed up the database (about 200+ GB) and restored it on SQL Server 2000
> 64-bit. After the restore was completed, I did a dbcc_checkdb and it came
> back with various errors (see below for sample). I repeated the restore
> from the same backup on another 32-bit box and dbcc checkdb came out
> clean. Any idea what's causing the errors in dbcc checkdb on the 64-bit
> restore? They're fixable using the repair option but it takes a long time
> and it isn't really inspiring confidence in our management.
> Btw, OS on both is Windows Server 2003 Enterprise SP1.
> Any help will be much appreciated.
> Thanks!
> aK.
>
> Small snippet of error messages:
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:76) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833475 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4869 and ? = NULL) points to the
> data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:77) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833476 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4870 and ? = NULL) points to the
> data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:78) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833477 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4869 and ? = 1) points to the data
> row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:79) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833478 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4870 and ? = 1) points to the data
> row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index 'DetailActivityCur.akActivityDtime'
> (ID 1218103380) (index ID 4). Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4447340:155) with values (ActivityDtime = Jul 14 2005 4:47PM
> and WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4868 and ? = NULL) points to
> the data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index 'DetailActivityCur.akActivityDtime'
> (ID 1218103380) (index ID 4). Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4447340:160) with values (ActivityDtime = Jul 14 2005 4:47PM
> and WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4868 and ? = 1) points to the
> data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8945, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Object ID 1218103380, index ID 5 will be rebuilt.
>
64-bit restore with error
Hi all,
I am testing SQL Server 2000 64-bit on Itanium2 and have hit a problem.
Our current production system is running SQL Server 2000 32-bit SP3a. I
backed up the database (about 200+ GB) and restored it on SQL Server 2000
64-bit. After the restore was completed, I did a dbcc_checkdb and it came
back with various errors (see below for sample). I repeated the restore from
the same backup on another 32-bit box and dbcc checkdb came out clean. Any
idea what's causing the errors in dbcc checkdb on the 64-bit restore?
They're fixable using the repair option but it takes a long time and it
isn't really inspiring confidence in our management.
Btw, OS on both is Windows Server 2003 Enterprise SP1.
Any help will be much appreciated.
Thanks!
aK.
Small snippet of error messages:
Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
Extra or invalid key for the keys:
Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Index row (1:4242635:76) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833475 and
WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4869 and ? = NULL) points to the
data row identified by ().
Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
Extra or invalid key for the keys:
Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Index row (1:4242635:77) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833476 and
WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4870 and ? = NULL) points to the
data row identified by ().
Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
Extra or invalid key for the keys:
Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Index row (1:4242635:78) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833477 and
WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4869 and ? = 1) points to the data
row identified by ().
Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
Extra or invalid key for the keys:
Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Index row (1:4242635:79) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833478 and
WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4870 and ? = 1) points to the data
row identified by ().
Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index 'DetailActivityCur.akActivityDtime'
(ID 1218103380) (index ID 4). Extra or invalid key for the keys:
Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Index row (1:4447340:155) with values (ActivityDtime = Jul 14 2005 4:47PM
and WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4868 and ? = NULL) points to the
data row identified by ().
Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index 'DetailActivityCur.akActivityDtime'
(ID 1218103380) (index ID 4). Extra or invalid key for the keys:
Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Index row (1:4447340:160) with values (ActivityDtime = Jul 14 2005 4:47PM
and WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4868 and ? = 1) points to the
data row identified by ().
Server: Msg 8945, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Object ID 1218103380, index ID 5 will be rebuilt.Hi
This looks like:
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;884856
You may want to upgrade the 32 bit edition to SP4 and then migrate (to the
same version).
John
"Angie" <NoSpam_angie_kong@.hotmail.NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:OPpLxmYwFHA.908@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> I am testing SQL Server 2000 64-bit on Itanium2 and have hit a problem.
> Our current production system is running SQL Server 2000 32-bit SP3a. I
> backed up the database (about 200+ GB) and restored it on SQL Server 2000
> 64-bit. After the restore was completed, I did a dbcc_checkdb and it came
> back with various errors (see below for sample). I repeated the restore
> from the same backup on another 32-bit box and dbcc checkdb came out
> clean. Any idea what's causing the errors in dbcc checkdb on the 64-bit
> restore? They're fixable using the repair option but it takes a long time
> and it isn't really inspiring confidence in our management.
> Btw, OS on both is Windows Server 2003 Enterprise SP1.
> Any help will be much appreciated.
> Thanks!
> aK.
>
> Small snippet of error messages:
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:76) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833475 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4869 and ? = NULL) points to the
> data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:77) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833476 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4870 and ? = NULL) points to the
> data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:78) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833477 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4869 and ? = 1) points to the data
> row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:79) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833478 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4870 and ? = 1) points to the data
> row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index 'DetailActivityCur.akActivityDtime'
> (ID 1218103380) (index ID 4). Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4447340:155) with values (ActivityDtime = Jul 14 2005 4:47PM
> and WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4868 and ? = NULL) points to
> the data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index 'DetailActivityCur.akActivityDtime'
> (ID 1218103380) (index ID 4). Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4447340:160) with values (ActivityDtime = Jul 14 2005 4:47PM
> and WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4868 and ? = 1) points to the
> data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8945, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Object ID 1218103380, index ID 5 will be rebuilt.
>|||This should process should work fine. What builds are the servers on? SP3a
or above and having the same build number on both servers will probably make
these go away.
"Angie" <NoSpam_angie_kong@.hotmail.NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:OPpLxmYwFHA.908@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> I am testing SQL Server 2000 64-bit on Itanium2 and have hit a problem.
> Our current production system is running SQL Server 2000 32-bit SP3a. I
> backed up the database (about 200+ GB) and restored it on SQL Server 2000
> 64-bit. After the restore was completed, I did a dbcc_checkdb and it came
> back with various errors (see below for sample). I repeated the restore
> from the same backup on another 32-bit box and dbcc checkdb came out
> clean. Any idea what's causing the errors in dbcc checkdb on the 64-bit
> restore? They're fixable using the repair option but it takes a long time
> and it isn't really inspiring confidence in our management.
> Btw, OS on both is Windows Server 2003 Enterprise SP1.
> Any help will be much appreciated.
> Thanks!
> aK.
>
> Small snippet of error messages:
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:76) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833475 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4869 and ? = NULL) points to the
> data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:77) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833476 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4870 and ? = NULL) points to the
> data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:78) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833477 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4869 and ? = 1) points to the data
> row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:79) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833478 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4870 and ? = 1) points to the data
> row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index 'DetailActivityCur.akActivityDtime'
> (ID 1218103380) (index ID 4). Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4447340:155) with values (ActivityDtime = Jul 14 2005 4:47PM
> and WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4868 and ? = NULL) points to
> the data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index 'DetailActivityCur.akActivityDtime'
> (ID 1218103380) (index ID 4). Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4447340:160) with values (ActivityDtime = Jul 14 2005 4:47PM
> and WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4868 and ? = 1) points to the
> data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8945, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Object ID 1218103380, index ID 5 will be rebuilt.
>
I am testing SQL Server 2000 64-bit on Itanium2 and have hit a problem.
Our current production system is running SQL Server 2000 32-bit SP3a. I
backed up the database (about 200+ GB) and restored it on SQL Server 2000
64-bit. After the restore was completed, I did a dbcc_checkdb and it came
back with various errors (see below for sample). I repeated the restore from
the same backup on another 32-bit box and dbcc checkdb came out clean. Any
idea what's causing the errors in dbcc checkdb on the 64-bit restore?
They're fixable using the repair option but it takes a long time and it
isn't really inspiring confidence in our management.
Btw, OS on both is Windows Server 2003 Enterprise SP1.
Any help will be much appreciated.
Thanks!
aK.
Small snippet of error messages:
Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
Extra or invalid key for the keys:
Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Index row (1:4242635:76) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833475 and
WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4869 and ? = NULL) points to the
data row identified by ().
Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
Extra or invalid key for the keys:
Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Index row (1:4242635:77) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833476 and
WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4870 and ? = NULL) points to the
data row identified by ().
Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
Extra or invalid key for the keys:
Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Index row (1:4242635:78) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833477 and
WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4869 and ? = 1) points to the data
row identified by ().
Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
Extra or invalid key for the keys:
Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Index row (1:4242635:79) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833478 and
WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4870 and ? = 1) points to the data
row identified by ().
Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index 'DetailActivityCur.akActivityDtime'
(ID 1218103380) (index ID 4). Extra or invalid key for the keys:
Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Index row (1:4447340:155) with values (ActivityDtime = Jul 14 2005 4:47PM
and WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4868 and ? = NULL) points to the
data row identified by ().
Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index 'DetailActivityCur.akActivityDtime'
(ID 1218103380) (index ID 4). Extra or invalid key for the keys:
Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Index row (1:4447340:160) with values (ActivityDtime = Jul 14 2005 4:47PM
and WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4868 and ? = 1) points to the
data row identified by ().
Server: Msg 8945, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Object ID 1218103380, index ID 5 will be rebuilt.Hi
This looks like:
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;884856
You may want to upgrade the 32 bit edition to SP4 and then migrate (to the
same version).
John
"Angie" <NoSpam_angie_kong@.hotmail.NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:OPpLxmYwFHA.908@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> I am testing SQL Server 2000 64-bit on Itanium2 and have hit a problem.
> Our current production system is running SQL Server 2000 32-bit SP3a. I
> backed up the database (about 200+ GB) and restored it on SQL Server 2000
> 64-bit. After the restore was completed, I did a dbcc_checkdb and it came
> back with various errors (see below for sample). I repeated the restore
> from the same backup on another 32-bit box and dbcc checkdb came out
> clean. Any idea what's causing the errors in dbcc checkdb on the 64-bit
> restore? They're fixable using the repair option but it takes a long time
> and it isn't really inspiring confidence in our management.
> Btw, OS on both is Windows Server 2003 Enterprise SP1.
> Any help will be much appreciated.
> Thanks!
> aK.
>
> Small snippet of error messages:
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:76) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833475 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4869 and ? = NULL) points to the
> data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:77) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833476 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4870 and ? = NULL) points to the
> data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:78) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833477 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4869 and ? = 1) points to the data
> row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:79) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833478 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4870 and ? = 1) points to the data
> row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index 'DetailActivityCur.akActivityDtime'
> (ID 1218103380) (index ID 4). Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4447340:155) with values (ActivityDtime = Jul 14 2005 4:47PM
> and WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4868 and ? = NULL) points to
> the data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index 'DetailActivityCur.akActivityDtime'
> (ID 1218103380) (index ID 4). Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4447340:160) with values (ActivityDtime = Jul 14 2005 4:47PM
> and WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4868 and ? = 1) points to the
> data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8945, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Object ID 1218103380, index ID 5 will be rebuilt.
>|||This should process should work fine. What builds are the servers on? SP3a
or above and having the same build number on both servers will probably make
these go away.
"Angie" <NoSpam_angie_kong@.hotmail.NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:OPpLxmYwFHA.908@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> I am testing SQL Server 2000 64-bit on Itanium2 and have hit a problem.
> Our current production system is running SQL Server 2000 32-bit SP3a. I
> backed up the database (about 200+ GB) and restored it on SQL Server 2000
> 64-bit. After the restore was completed, I did a dbcc_checkdb and it came
> back with various errors (see below for sample). I repeated the restore
> from the same backup on another 32-bit box and dbcc checkdb came out
> clean. Any idea what's causing the errors in dbcc checkdb on the 64-bit
> restore? They're fixable using the repair option but it takes a long time
> and it isn't really inspiring confidence in our management.
> Btw, OS on both is Windows Server 2003 Enterprise SP1.
> Any help will be much appreciated.
> Thanks!
> aK.
>
> Small snippet of error messages:
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:76) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833475 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4869 and ? = NULL) points to the
> data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:77) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833476 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4870 and ? = NULL) points to the
> data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:78) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833477 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4869 and ? = 1) points to the data
> row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:79) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833478 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4870 and ? = 1) points to the data
> row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index 'DetailActivityCur.akActivityDtime'
> (ID 1218103380) (index ID 4). Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4447340:155) with values (ActivityDtime = Jul 14 2005 4:47PM
> and WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4868 and ? = NULL) points to
> the data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index 'DetailActivityCur.akActivityDtime'
> (ID 1218103380) (index ID 4). Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4447340:160) with values (ActivityDtime = Jul 14 2005 4:47PM
> and WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4868 and ? = 1) points to the
> data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8945, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Object ID 1218103380, index ID 5 will be rebuilt.
>
64-bit restore with error
Hi all,
I am testing SQL Server 2000 64-bit on Itanium2 and have hit a problem.
Our current production system is running SQL Server 2000 32-bit SP3a. I
backed up the database (about 200+ GB) and restored it on SQL Server 2000
64-bit. After the restore was completed, I did a dbcc_checkdb and it came
back with various errors (see below for sample). I repeated the restore from
the same backup on another 32-bit box and dbcc checkdb came out clean. Any
idea what's causing the errors in dbcc checkdb on the 64-bit restore?
They're fixable using the repair option but it takes a long time and it
isn't really inspiring confidence in our management.
Btw, OS on both is Windows Server 2003 Enterprise SP1.
Any help will be much appreciated.
Thanks!
aK.
Small snippet of error messages:
Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
Extra or invalid key for the keys:
Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Index row (1:4242635:76) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833475 and
WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4869 and ? = NULL) points to the
data row identified by ().
Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
Extra or invalid key for the keys:
Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Index row (1:4242635:77) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833476 and
WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4870 and ? = NULL) points to the
data row identified by ().
Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
Extra or invalid key for the keys:
Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Index row (1:4242635:78) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833477 and
WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4869 and ? = 1) points to the data
row identified by ().
Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
Extra or invalid key for the keys:
Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Index row (1:4242635:79) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833478 and
WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4870 and ? = 1) points to the data
row identified by ().
Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index 'DetailActivityCur.akActivityDtime'
(ID 1218103380) (index ID 4). Extra or invalid key for the keys:
Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Index row (1:4447340:155) with values (ActivityDtime = Jul 14 2005 4:47PM
and WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4868 and ? = NULL) points to the
data row identified by ().
Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index 'DetailActivityCur.akActivityDtime'
(ID 1218103380) (index ID 4). Extra or invalid key for the keys:
Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Index row (1:4447340:160) with values (ActivityDtime = Jul 14 2005 4:47PM
and WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4868 and ? = 1) points to the
data row identified by ().
Server: Msg 8945, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Object ID 1218103380, index ID 5 will be rebuilt.Hi
This looks like:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;884856
You may want to upgrade the 32 bit edition to SP4 and then migrate (to the
same version).
John
"Angie" <NoSpam_angie_kong@.hotmail.NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:OPpLxmYwFHA.908@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> I am testing SQL Server 2000 64-bit on Itanium2 and have hit a problem.
> Our current production system is running SQL Server 2000 32-bit SP3a. I
> backed up the database (about 200+ GB) and restored it on SQL Server 2000
> 64-bit. After the restore was completed, I did a dbcc_checkdb and it came
> back with various errors (see below for sample). I repeated the restore
> from the same backup on another 32-bit box and dbcc checkdb came out
> clean. Any idea what's causing the errors in dbcc checkdb on the 64-bit
> restore? They're fixable using the repair option but it takes a long time
> and it isn't really inspiring confidence in our management.
> Btw, OS on both is Windows Server 2003 Enterprise SP1.
> Any help will be much appreciated.
> Thanks!
> aK.
>
> Small snippet of error messages:
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:76) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833475 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4869 and ? = NULL) points to the
> data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:77) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833476 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4870 and ? = NULL) points to the
> data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:78) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833477 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4869 and ? = 1) points to the data
> row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:79) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833478 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4870 and ? = 1) points to the data
> row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index 'DetailActivityCur.akActivityDtime'
> (ID 1218103380) (index ID 4). Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4447340:155) with values (ActivityDtime = Jul 14 2005 4:47PM
> and WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4868 and ? = NULL) points to
> the data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index 'DetailActivityCur.akActivityDtime'
> (ID 1218103380) (index ID 4). Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4447340:160) with values (ActivityDtime = Jul 14 2005 4:47PM
> and WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4868 and ? = 1) points to the
> data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8945, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Object ID 1218103380, index ID 5 will be rebuilt.
>|||This should process should work fine. What builds are the servers on? SP3a
or above and having the same build number on both servers will probably make
these go away.
"Angie" <NoSpam_angie_kong@.hotmail.NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:OPpLxmYwFHA.908@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> I am testing SQL Server 2000 64-bit on Itanium2 and have hit a problem.
> Our current production system is running SQL Server 2000 32-bit SP3a. I
> backed up the database (about 200+ GB) and restored it on SQL Server 2000
> 64-bit. After the restore was completed, I did a dbcc_checkdb and it came
> back with various errors (see below for sample). I repeated the restore
> from the same backup on another 32-bit box and dbcc checkdb came out
> clean. Any idea what's causing the errors in dbcc checkdb on the 64-bit
> restore? They're fixable using the repair option but it takes a long time
> and it isn't really inspiring confidence in our management.
> Btw, OS on both is Windows Server 2003 Enterprise SP1.
> Any help will be much appreciated.
> Thanks!
> aK.
>
> Small snippet of error messages:
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:76) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833475 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4869 and ? = NULL) points to the
> data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:77) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833476 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4870 and ? = NULL) points to the
> data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:78) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833477 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4869 and ? = 1) points to the data
> row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:79) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833478 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4870 and ? = 1) points to the data
> row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index 'DetailActivityCur.akActivityDtime'
> (ID 1218103380) (index ID 4). Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4447340:155) with values (ActivityDtime = Jul 14 2005 4:47PM
> and WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4868 and ? = NULL) points to
> the data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index 'DetailActivityCur.akActivityDtime'
> (ID 1218103380) (index ID 4). Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4447340:160) with values (ActivityDtime = Jul 14 2005 4:47PM
> and WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4868 and ? = 1) points to the
> data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8945, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Object ID 1218103380, index ID 5 will be rebuilt.
>
I am testing SQL Server 2000 64-bit on Itanium2 and have hit a problem.
Our current production system is running SQL Server 2000 32-bit SP3a. I
backed up the database (about 200+ GB) and restored it on SQL Server 2000
64-bit. After the restore was completed, I did a dbcc_checkdb and it came
back with various errors (see below for sample). I repeated the restore from
the same backup on another 32-bit box and dbcc checkdb came out clean. Any
idea what's causing the errors in dbcc checkdb on the 64-bit restore?
They're fixable using the repair option but it takes a long time and it
isn't really inspiring confidence in our management.
Btw, OS on both is Windows Server 2003 Enterprise SP1.
Any help will be much appreciated.
Thanks!
aK.
Small snippet of error messages:
Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
Extra or invalid key for the keys:
Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Index row (1:4242635:76) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833475 and
WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4869 and ? = NULL) points to the
data row identified by ().
Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
Extra or invalid key for the keys:
Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Index row (1:4242635:77) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833476 and
WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4870 and ? = NULL) points to the
data row identified by ().
Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
Extra or invalid key for the keys:
Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Index row (1:4242635:78) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833477 and
WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4869 and ? = 1) points to the data
row identified by ().
Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
Extra or invalid key for the keys:
Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Index row (1:4242635:79) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833478 and
WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4870 and ? = 1) points to the data
row identified by ().
Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index 'DetailActivityCur.akActivityDtime'
(ID 1218103380) (index ID 4). Extra or invalid key for the keys:
Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Index row (1:4447340:155) with values (ActivityDtime = Jul 14 2005 4:47PM
and WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4868 and ? = NULL) points to the
data row identified by ().
Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index 'DetailActivityCur.akActivityDtime'
(ID 1218103380) (index ID 4). Extra or invalid key for the keys:
Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Index row (1:4447340:160) with values (ActivityDtime = Jul 14 2005 4:47PM
and WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4868 and ? = 1) points to the
data row identified by ().
Server: Msg 8945, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: Object ID 1218103380, index ID 5 will be rebuilt.Hi
This looks like:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;884856
You may want to upgrade the 32 bit edition to SP4 and then migrate (to the
same version).
John
"Angie" <NoSpam_angie_kong@.hotmail.NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:OPpLxmYwFHA.908@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> I am testing SQL Server 2000 64-bit on Itanium2 and have hit a problem.
> Our current production system is running SQL Server 2000 32-bit SP3a. I
> backed up the database (about 200+ GB) and restored it on SQL Server 2000
> 64-bit. After the restore was completed, I did a dbcc_checkdb and it came
> back with various errors (see below for sample). I repeated the restore
> from the same backup on another 32-bit box and dbcc checkdb came out
> clean. Any idea what's causing the errors in dbcc checkdb on the 64-bit
> restore? They're fixable using the repair option but it takes a long time
> and it isn't really inspiring confidence in our management.
> Btw, OS on both is Windows Server 2003 Enterprise SP1.
> Any help will be much appreciated.
> Thanks!
> aK.
>
> Small snippet of error messages:
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:76) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833475 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4869 and ? = NULL) points to the
> data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:77) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833476 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4870 and ? = NULL) points to the
> data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:78) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833477 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4869 and ? = 1) points to the data
> row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:79) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833478 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4870 and ? = 1) points to the data
> row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index 'DetailActivityCur.akActivityDtime'
> (ID 1218103380) (index ID 4). Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4447340:155) with values (ActivityDtime = Jul 14 2005 4:47PM
> and WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4868 and ? = NULL) points to
> the data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index 'DetailActivityCur.akActivityDtime'
> (ID 1218103380) (index ID 4). Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4447340:160) with values (ActivityDtime = Jul 14 2005 4:47PM
> and WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4868 and ? = 1) points to the
> data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8945, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Object ID 1218103380, index ID 5 will be rebuilt.
>|||This should process should work fine. What builds are the servers on? SP3a
or above and having the same build number on both servers will probably make
these go away.
"Angie" <NoSpam_angie_kong@.hotmail.NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:OPpLxmYwFHA.908@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> I am testing SQL Server 2000 64-bit on Itanium2 and have hit a problem.
> Our current production system is running SQL Server 2000 32-bit SP3a. I
> backed up the database (about 200+ GB) and restored it on SQL Server 2000
> 64-bit. After the restore was completed, I did a dbcc_checkdb and it came
> back with various errors (see below for sample). I repeated the restore
> from the same backup on another 32-bit box and dbcc checkdb came out
> clean. Any idea what's causing the errors in dbcc checkdb on the 64-bit
> restore? They're fixable using the repair option but it takes a long time
> and it isn't really inspiring confidence in our management.
> Btw, OS on both is Windows Server 2003 Enterprise SP1.
> Any help will be much appreciated.
> Thanks!
> aK.
>
> Small snippet of error messages:
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:76) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833475 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4869 and ? = NULL) points to the
> data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:77) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833476 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4870 and ? = NULL) points to the
> data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:78) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833477 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4869 and ? = 1) points to the data
> row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index
> 'DetailActivityCur.pkDetailActivityCur_ID' (ID 1218103380) (index ID 2).
> Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4242635:79) with values (DetailActivityCurID = 55833478 and
> WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4870 and ? = 1) points to the data
> row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index 'DetailActivityCur.akActivityDtime'
> (ID 1218103380) (index ID 4). Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4447340:155) with values (ActivityDtime = Jul 14 2005 4:47PM
> and WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4868 and ? = NULL) points to
> the data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8952, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Database 'RSTBL1', index 'DetailActivityCur.akActivityDtime'
> (ID 1218103380) (index ID 4). Extra or invalid key for the keys:
> Server: Msg 8956, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Index row (1:4447340:160) with values (ActivityDtime = Jul 14 2005 4:47PM
> and WorkorderCurID = 316630 and SetTypeID = 4868 and ? = 1) points to the
> data row identified by ().
> Server: Msg 8945, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Table error: Object ID 1218103380, index ID 5 will be rebuilt.
>
64bit patch question
I know 64bit SQL Server has sp3a rolled into the install and I know that
there is a 64bit MS03-031 patch.
Do the rest of the patches (pss and otherwise) work for 64bit or is MS03-031
the last and only one beyond the install?
Thanks in advance
frankmHi
There are quite a few fixes for 64-bit after MS03-31
If you search Microsoft.com for "kbfix kbbug sql 64-bit", you will get quite
a few hits.
Unless you are encountering one of the problems, it is best to wait for SP4
which is currently in beta (and if you have a test environment, you can beta
test it (http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/betanominations.asp).
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"frankm" <frankm@.nospam.postalias> wrote in message
news:OZ6G7TeFFHA.228@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> I know 64bit SQL Server has sp3a rolled into the install and I know that
> there is a 64bit MS03-031 patch.
> Do the rest of the patches (pss and otherwise) work for 64bit or is
MS03-031
> the last and only one beyond the install?
> Thanks in advance
> frankm
>|||How do identify a 64bit hotfix from a 32bit hotfix?
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:OyDcFPgFFHA.3732@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> There are quite a few fixes for 64-bit after MS03-31
> If you search Microsoft.com for "kbfix kbbug sql 64-bit", you will get
quite
> a few hits.
> Unless you are encountering one of the problems, it is best to wait for
SP4
> which is currently in beta (and if you have a test environment, you can
beta
> test it (http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/betanominations.asp).
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "frankm" <frankm@.nospam.postalias> wrote in message
> news:OZ6G7TeFFHA.228@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > I know 64bit SQL Server has sp3a rolled into the install and I know that
> > there is a 64bit MS03-031 patch.
> > Do the rest of the patches (pss and otherwise) work for 64bit or is
> MS03-031
> > the last and only one beyond the install?
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> > frankm
> >
> >
>|||Hi
In KB, it gives the 32 bit and/or 64 bit binary versions that are included
in the hotfix. If 64 bit is not specified, it does not apply to it.
In the SP4 beta documentation, there is a list of fixes that are rolling
with SP4. On that list you can also see what are 64bit Fixes.
Most of the time. the downloadable file from MS does not specify 32 or 64
bit, except when you look up the KB article that is in the file name.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"frankm" <frankm@.nospam.postalias> wrote in message
news:OJwITUvFFHA.3608@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> How do identify a 64bit hotfix from a 32bit hotfix?
>
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
> news:OyDcFPgFFHA.3732@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> > Hi
> >
> > There are quite a few fixes for 64-bit after MS03-31
> > If you search Microsoft.com for "kbfix kbbug sql 64-bit", you will get
> quite
> > a few hits.
> >
> > Unless you are encountering one of the problems, it is best to wait for
> SP4
> > which is currently in beta (and if you have a test environment, you can
> beta
> > test it (http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/betanominations.asp).
> >
> > Regards
> > --
> > Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> > Zurich, Switzerland
> >
> > IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> >
> > MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> >
> > Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> >
> > "frankm" <frankm@.nospam.postalias> wrote in message
> > news:OZ6G7TeFFHA.228@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > > I know 64bit SQL Server has sp3a rolled into the install and I know
that
> > > there is a 64bit MS03-031 patch.
> > > Do the rest of the patches (pss and otherwise) work for 64bit or is
> > MS03-031
> > > the last and only one beyond the install?
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance
> > > frankm
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
there is a 64bit MS03-031 patch.
Do the rest of the patches (pss and otherwise) work for 64bit or is MS03-031
the last and only one beyond the install?
Thanks in advance
frankmHi
There are quite a few fixes for 64-bit after MS03-31
If you search Microsoft.com for "kbfix kbbug sql 64-bit", you will get quite
a few hits.
Unless you are encountering one of the problems, it is best to wait for SP4
which is currently in beta (and if you have a test environment, you can beta
test it (http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/betanominations.asp).
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"frankm" <frankm@.nospam.postalias> wrote in message
news:OZ6G7TeFFHA.228@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> I know 64bit SQL Server has sp3a rolled into the install and I know that
> there is a 64bit MS03-031 patch.
> Do the rest of the patches (pss and otherwise) work for 64bit or is
MS03-031
> the last and only one beyond the install?
> Thanks in advance
> frankm
>|||How do identify a 64bit hotfix from a 32bit hotfix?
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:OyDcFPgFFHA.3732@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> There are quite a few fixes for 64-bit after MS03-31
> If you search Microsoft.com for "kbfix kbbug sql 64-bit", you will get
quite
> a few hits.
> Unless you are encountering one of the problems, it is best to wait for
SP4
> which is currently in beta (and if you have a test environment, you can
beta
> test it (http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/betanominations.asp).
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "frankm" <frankm@.nospam.postalias> wrote in message
> news:OZ6G7TeFFHA.228@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > I know 64bit SQL Server has sp3a rolled into the install and I know that
> > there is a 64bit MS03-031 patch.
> > Do the rest of the patches (pss and otherwise) work for 64bit or is
> MS03-031
> > the last and only one beyond the install?
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> > frankm
> >
> >
>|||Hi
In KB, it gives the 32 bit and/or 64 bit binary versions that are included
in the hotfix. If 64 bit is not specified, it does not apply to it.
In the SP4 beta documentation, there is a list of fixes that are rolling
with SP4. On that list you can also see what are 64bit Fixes.
Most of the time. the downloadable file from MS does not specify 32 or 64
bit, except when you look up the KB article that is in the file name.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"frankm" <frankm@.nospam.postalias> wrote in message
news:OJwITUvFFHA.3608@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> How do identify a 64bit hotfix from a 32bit hotfix?
>
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
> news:OyDcFPgFFHA.3732@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> > Hi
> >
> > There are quite a few fixes for 64-bit after MS03-31
> > If you search Microsoft.com for "kbfix kbbug sql 64-bit", you will get
> quite
> > a few hits.
> >
> > Unless you are encountering one of the problems, it is best to wait for
> SP4
> > which is currently in beta (and if you have a test environment, you can
> beta
> > test it (http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/betanominations.asp).
> >
> > Regards
> > --
> > Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> > Zurich, Switzerland
> >
> > IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> >
> > MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> >
> > Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> >
> > "frankm" <frankm@.nospam.postalias> wrote in message
> > news:OZ6G7TeFFHA.228@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > > I know 64bit SQL Server has sp3a rolled into the install and I know
that
> > > there is a 64bit MS03-031 patch.
> > > Do the rest of the patches (pss and otherwise) work for 64bit or is
> > MS03-031
> > > the last and only one beyond the install?
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance
> > > frankm
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
64bit patch question
I know 64bit SQL Server has sp3a rolled into the install and I know that
there is a 64bit MS03-031 patch.
Do the rest of the patches (pss and otherwise) work for 64bit or is MS03-031
the last and only one beyond the install?
Thanks in advance
frankmHi
There are quite a few fixes for 64-bit after MS03-31
If you search Microsoft.com for "kbfix kbbug sql 64-bit", you will get quite
a few hits.
Unless you are encountering one of the problems, it is best to wait for SP4
which is currently in beta (and if you have a test environment, you can beta
test it (http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evalua...nominations.asp).
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"frankm" <frankm@.nospam.postalias> wrote in message
news:OZ6G7TeFFHA.228@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> I know 64bit SQL Server has sp3a rolled into the install and I know that
> there is a 64bit MS03-031 patch.
> Do the rest of the patches (pss and otherwise) work for 64bit or is
MS03-031
> the last and only one beyond the install?
> Thanks in advance
> frankm
>|||How do identify a 64bit hotfix from a 32bit hotfix?
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:OyDcFPgFFHA.3732@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> There are quite a few fixes for 64-bit after MS03-31
> If you search Microsoft.com for "kbfix kbbug sql 64-bit", you will get
quite
> a few hits.
> Unless you are encountering one of the problems, it is best to wait for
SP4
> which is currently in beta (and if you have a test environment, you can
beta
> test it (http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evalua...nominations.asp).
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "frankm" <frankm@.nospam.postalias> wrote in message
> news:OZ6G7TeFFHA.228@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> MS03-031
>|||Hi
In KB, it gives the 32 bit and/or 64 bit binary versions that are included
in the hotfix. If 64 bit is not specified, it does not apply to it.
In the SP4 beta documentation, there is a list of fixes that are rolling
with SP4. On that list you can also see what are 64bit Fixes.
Most of the time. the downloadable file from MS does not specify 32 or 64
bit, except when you look up the KB article that is in the file name.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"frankm" <frankm@.nospam.postalias> wrote in message
news:OJwITUvFFHA.3608@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> How do identify a 64bit hotfix from a 32bit hotfix?
>
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
> news:OyDcFPgFFHA.3732@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> quite
> SP4
> beta
that[vbcol=seagreen]
>
there is a 64bit MS03-031 patch.
Do the rest of the patches (pss and otherwise) work for 64bit or is MS03-031
the last and only one beyond the install?
Thanks in advance
frankmHi
There are quite a few fixes for 64-bit after MS03-31
If you search Microsoft.com for "kbfix kbbug sql 64-bit", you will get quite
a few hits.
Unless you are encountering one of the problems, it is best to wait for SP4
which is currently in beta (and if you have a test environment, you can beta
test it (http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evalua...nominations.asp).
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"frankm" <frankm@.nospam.postalias> wrote in message
news:OZ6G7TeFFHA.228@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> I know 64bit SQL Server has sp3a rolled into the install and I know that
> there is a 64bit MS03-031 patch.
> Do the rest of the patches (pss and otherwise) work for 64bit or is
MS03-031
> the last and only one beyond the install?
> Thanks in advance
> frankm
>|||How do identify a 64bit hotfix from a 32bit hotfix?
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:OyDcFPgFFHA.3732@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> There are quite a few fixes for 64-bit after MS03-31
> If you search Microsoft.com for "kbfix kbbug sql 64-bit", you will get
quite
> a few hits.
> Unless you are encountering one of the problems, it is best to wait for
SP4
> which is currently in beta (and if you have a test environment, you can
beta
> test it (http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evalua...nominations.asp).
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "frankm" <frankm@.nospam.postalias> wrote in message
> news:OZ6G7TeFFHA.228@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> MS03-031
>|||Hi
In KB, it gives the 32 bit and/or 64 bit binary versions that are included
in the hotfix. If 64 bit is not specified, it does not apply to it.
In the SP4 beta documentation, there is a list of fixes that are rolling
with SP4. On that list you can also see what are 64bit Fixes.
Most of the time. the downloadable file from MS does not specify 32 or 64
bit, except when you look up the KB article that is in the file name.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"frankm" <frankm@.nospam.postalias> wrote in message
news:OJwITUvFFHA.3608@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> How do identify a 64bit hotfix from a 32bit hotfix?
>
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
> news:OyDcFPgFFHA.3732@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> quite
> SP4
> beta
that[vbcol=seagreen]
>
64bit patch question
I know 64bit SQL Server has sp3a rolled into the install and I know that
there is a 64bit MS03-031 patch.
Do the rest of the patches (pss and otherwise) work for 64bit or is MS03-031
the last and only one beyond the install?
Thanks in advance
frankm
Hi
There are quite a few fixes for 64-bit after MS03-31
If you search Microsoft.com for "kbfix kbbug sql 64-bit", you will get quite
a few hits.
Unless you are encountering one of the problems, it is best to wait for SP4
which is currently in beta (and if you have a test environment, you can beta
test it (http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluat...ominations.asp).
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"frankm" <frankm@.nospam.postalias> wrote in message
news:OZ6G7TeFFHA.228@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> I know 64bit SQL Server has sp3a rolled into the install and I know that
> there is a 64bit MS03-031 patch.
> Do the rest of the patches (pss and otherwise) work for 64bit or is
MS03-031
> the last and only one beyond the install?
> Thanks in advance
> frankm
>
|||How do identify a 64bit hotfix from a 32bit hotfix?
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:OyDcFPgFFHA.3732@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> There are quite a few fixes for 64-bit after MS03-31
> If you search Microsoft.com for "kbfix kbbug sql 64-bit", you will get
quite
> a few hits.
> Unless you are encountering one of the problems, it is best to wait for
SP4
> which is currently in beta (and if you have a test environment, you can
beta
> test it (http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluat...ominations.asp).
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "frankm" <frankm@.nospam.postalias> wrote in message
> news:OZ6G7TeFFHA.228@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> MS03-031
>
|||Hi
In KB, it gives the 32 bit and/or 64 bit binary versions that are included
in the hotfix. If 64 bit is not specified, it does not apply to it.
In the SP4 beta documentation, there is a list of fixes that are rolling
with SP4. On that list you can also see what are 64bit Fixes.
Most of the time. the downloadable file from MS does not specify 32 or 64
bit, except when you look up the KB article that is in the file name.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"frankm" <frankm@.nospam.postalias> wrote in message
news:OJwITUvFFHA.3608@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> How do identify a 64bit hotfix from a 32bit hotfix?
>
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
> news:OyDcFPgFFHA.3732@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> quite
> SP4
> beta
that
>
there is a 64bit MS03-031 patch.
Do the rest of the patches (pss and otherwise) work for 64bit or is MS03-031
the last and only one beyond the install?
Thanks in advance
frankm
Hi
There are quite a few fixes for 64-bit after MS03-31
If you search Microsoft.com for "kbfix kbbug sql 64-bit", you will get quite
a few hits.
Unless you are encountering one of the problems, it is best to wait for SP4
which is currently in beta (and if you have a test environment, you can beta
test it (http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluat...ominations.asp).
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"frankm" <frankm@.nospam.postalias> wrote in message
news:OZ6G7TeFFHA.228@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> I know 64bit SQL Server has sp3a rolled into the install and I know that
> there is a 64bit MS03-031 patch.
> Do the rest of the patches (pss and otherwise) work for 64bit or is
MS03-031
> the last and only one beyond the install?
> Thanks in advance
> frankm
>
|||How do identify a 64bit hotfix from a 32bit hotfix?
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:OyDcFPgFFHA.3732@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> There are quite a few fixes for 64-bit after MS03-31
> If you search Microsoft.com for "kbfix kbbug sql 64-bit", you will get
quite
> a few hits.
> Unless you are encountering one of the problems, it is best to wait for
SP4
> which is currently in beta (and if you have a test environment, you can
beta
> test it (http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluat...ominations.asp).
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "frankm" <frankm@.nospam.postalias> wrote in message
> news:OZ6G7TeFFHA.228@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> MS03-031
>
|||Hi
In KB, it gives the 32 bit and/or 64 bit binary versions that are included
in the hotfix. If 64 bit is not specified, it does not apply to it.
In the SP4 beta documentation, there is a list of fixes that are rolling
with SP4. On that list you can also see what are 64bit Fixes.
Most of the time. the downloadable file from MS does not specify 32 or 64
bit, except when you look up the KB article that is in the file name.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"frankm" <frankm@.nospam.postalias> wrote in message
news:OJwITUvFFHA.3608@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> How do identify a 64bit hotfix from a 32bit hotfix?
>
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
> news:OyDcFPgFFHA.3732@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> quite
> SP4
> beta
that
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)