[SQLSTATE 01000] via Agent Job, but not Query Analyzer

I run a sproc through query analyzer, and all is fine, when I run the job via the SQL Agent, [SQLSTATE 01000] appears after every line in the "log" file, any ideas ?
This happens with the sp_help_revlogin procedure.
both are being run with sa.Known issue with the PRINT command in SQL Server.

[SQL 2005] backup Diff on MSDB doesnt work

Hello all,

I need help concerning a differential backup on a MSDB database.

I received this message when I tried to backup it

Log from Windows

Event Type: Error
Event Source: SQLVDI
Event Category: None
Event ID: 1
Date: 8/1/2007
Time: 2:03:37 PM
User: N/A
Computer: XXX

Description:
SQLVDI: Loc=SignalAbort. Desc=Client initiates abort. ErrorCode=(0). Process=9028. Thread=5928. Client. Instance=. VD=Global\Data Protector_(DEFAULT)_msdb_14_00_21.

Log from DataProtector

Normal] From: XXX "(DEFAULT)" Time: XXX
SQL statement:
BACKUP DATABASE [msdb] TO
VIRTUAL_DEVICE = "Data Protector_(DEFAULT)_msdb_06_00_14"
WITH NAME = 'Data Protector: 2007/08/01 0064', DIFFERENTIAL, BLOCKSIZE = 4096, MAXTRANSFERSIZE = 65536;

[Warning] From: XXX "(DEFAULT)" Time: XXX
Error has occurred while executing a SQL statement.
Error message: '<Microsoft SQL-DMO (ODBC SQLState: 42000):bdb>
[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Cannot perform a differential backup for database "msdb", because a current database backup does not exist. Perform a full database backup by reissuing BACKUP DATABASE, omitting the WITH DIFFERENTIAL option.
[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]BACKUP DATABASE is terminating abnormally.'

Ive tried to do a full followed straight after by a diff but doent help.

Thank you for your help

yes you can take differential but for master you can take only full backup ..........whats in the error log ? ? ? you need to take a full backup and then subsequently differential backup

|||

Yes we can, I do it for many servers

|||

The error is pretty explicit about what the problem is.

A differential backup is defined as the set of changes SINCE THE LAST FULL BACKUP.

If you've never done a full backup, there is nothing to base the differential on and it won't work.

Do a full backup of MSDB, and then your differentials should work.

|||

Hi thank you to replay.

That what I do, a full and after a diff, that why I don't understand why I doesnt find any base

Thank you

|||

Is the database recovery set to FULL? Simple won't do it (it actually reset the status field needed).

|||

FULL recovery model applies to log backups, not to differential backups.

In fact, there is no way to clear the differential base once it is set.

What you're attempting to do should work just fine.

Please try it from Management Studio query window and paste the commands and response.

Thanks,

Kevin

|||

Kevin Farlee wrote:

FULL recovery model applies to log backups, not to differential backups.

In fact, there is no way to clear the differential base once it is set.

Thanks for the correction. Somehow, I was thinking the OP wants to backup log for msdb (you can't 'cuz it's simple). Duh!

[SQL 2005] backup Diff on MSDB doesnt work

Hello all,

I need help concerning a differential backup on a MSDB database.

I received this message when I tried to backup it

Log from Windows

Event Type: Error
Event Source: SQLVDI
Event Category: None
Event ID: 1
Date: 8/1/2007
Time: 2:03:37 PM
User: N/A
Computer: XXX

Description:
SQLVDI: Loc=SignalAbort. Desc=Client initiates abort. ErrorCode=(0). Process=9028. Thread=5928. Client. Instance=. VD=Global\Data Protector_(DEFAULT)_msdb_14_00_21.

Log from DataProtector

Normal] From: XXX "(DEFAULT)" Time: XXX
SQL statement:
BACKUP DATABASE [msdb] TO
VIRTUAL_DEVICE = "Data Protector_(DEFAULT)_msdb_06_00_14"
WITH NAME = 'Data Protector: 2007/08/01 0064', DIFFERENTIAL, BLOCKSIZE = 4096, MAXTRANSFERSIZE = 65536;

[Warning] From: XXX "(DEFAULT)" Time: XXX
Error has occurred while executing a SQL statement.
Error message: '<Microsoft SQL-DMO (ODBC SQLState: 42000):bdb>
[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Cannot perform a differential backup for database "msdb", because a current database backup does not exist. Perform a full database backup by reissuing BACKUP DATABASE, omitting the WITH DIFFERENTIAL option.
[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]BACKUP DATABASE is terminating abnormally.'

Ive tried to do a full followed straight after by a diff but doent help.

Thank you for your help

yes you can take differential but for master you can take only full backup ..........whats in the error log ? ? ? you need to take a full backup and then subsequently differential backup

|||

Yes we can, I do it for many servers

|||

The error is pretty explicit about what the problem is.

A differential backup is defined as the set of changes SINCE THE LAST FULL BACKUP.

If you've never done a full backup, there is nothing to base the differential on and it won't work.

Do a full backup of MSDB, and then your differentials should work.

|||

Hi thank you to replay.

That what I do, a full and after a diff, that why I don't understand why I doesnt find any base

Thank you

|||

Is the database recovery set to FULL? Simple won't do it (it actually reset the status field needed).

|||

FULL recovery model applies to log backups, not to differential backups.

In fact, there is no way to clear the differential base once it is set.

What you're attempting to do should work just fine.

Please try it from Management Studio query window and paste the commands and response.

Thanks,

Kevin

|||

Kevin Farlee wrote:

FULL recovery model applies to log backups, not to differential backups.

In fact, there is no way to clear the differential base once it is set.

Thanks for the correction. Somehow, I was thinking the OP wants to backup log for msdb (you can't 'cuz it's simple). Duh!

[LOG] Unable to read local eventlog (reason: The parameter is incorrect) - FLOOD

[LOG] Unable to read local eventlog (reason: The parameter is incorrect)

I just had two seperate SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition machines suddently throw thousands of these errors within the last 24 hours. In both cases the the SQL agent and application event logs are just being flooded with a new entry every couple of seconds.

While the errors are being logged the Agent continues to run jobs (e.g. scheduled backups, etc.) without error.

A restart of the agent stops the errors and everything seems to be back to normal.

There is no commonality between the two machines, they are on different networks, domains, etc.

Both machines have been up >30 days and have not previously logged this error.

Anybody else seen this?

Thanks,

Joe

See this post Joe:

http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=124086&SiteID=1

HTH,

[howto] View Contents of log file

How to view contents of log file?
i found sp_helplog
however
sp_helplog is no longer supported.
help pleaseIf you want to read Transaction log file then better to use third party tools like Lumigent's log explorer or APEX SQL's tool which is better to understand the log.

DBCC LOGINFO is one statement but its hard to understand the contents.
FYI http://www.databasejournal.com/features/mssql/article.php/1460161
HTH

[help] SQL Error - I/O Error 2 (The system cannot find the file specified)

Windows 2000 Server SP4 + SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Editon SP3,RAID5.

the windows event log give the following error information:

I/O error 2(The system cannot find the file specified) detected during write at offset 0x0000010c6c4000 in file 'D:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\data\GJSZBANK_Data.MDF'.

I have searched microsoft knowledge base and got this article:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;828339

but don't understand some contents in the topic:

For example, if you encounter the following error message in the SQL Server Errorlog file, SQL Server encountered operating system error 2 when it uses a Windows API call to write to the tempdb primary database file:

Error: 823, Severity: 24, State: 4
I/O error 2(The system cannot find the file specified.) detected during write at offset 0x00000000284000 in file 'D:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\data\tempdb.mdf'

Because SQL Server has already successfully opened the file and did not receive an Invalid Handle error, the error is likely being raised in a lower-level kernel software component, such as the file system or a device driver. This problem does not indicate a problem in SQL Server, and it must be investigated as an issue with the file system or a device driver that is associated with the file.

Does that mean this is not a SQL Server error?
Does that mean something wrong with my operating system? or something wrong with my hard disk?Are there any errors in the SQL errorlog? Or is it only in the NT Event log?

[DBNETLIB] General Network Error - (I have included the event log dump.)

I have a MS MSDE 2000 database that is serving 3 database clients. Intermittently, randomly, and more important daily, my clients receive a "SQL Database Connection Error", and they are kicked out of the database. This appears to be correlated when they are writing/retrieving a record.

MS MSDE then writes the following error in it's event log.

----------
Source: SORules.Gateway.LogErrors
Process ID: 2328

Database connection lost
Error #-2147467259
[DBNETLIB][ConnectionWrite (send()).]General network error. Check your network documentation.
(Source: Microsoft OLE DB Provider for SQL Server)
(SQL State: 08S01)
(NativeError: 11)
No Help file available

OpenRsRead
System.Runtime.InteropServices.COMException (0x80004005): [DBNETLIB][ConnectionWrite (send()).]General network error. Check your network documentation.
at ADODB.RecordsetClass.Open(Object Source, Object ActiveConnection, CursorTypeEnum CursorType, LockTypeEnum LockType, Int32 Options)
at SORules.Gateway.OpenRsRead(Command& C, Boolean& ForwardOnlyCursor)
Stack trace:
at ADODB.RecordsetClass.Open(Object Source, Object ActiveConnection, CursorTypeEnum CursorType, LockTypeEnum LockType, Int32 Options)
at SORules.Gateway.OpenRsRead(Command& C, Boolean& ForwardOnlyCursor)
----------

Any help, suggestions, or thoughts would be greatly appreciated. This is for a small business line of business application that is critical for everyday business operations. These problems have resulted in lost work, short tempers, and a just frank frustration.

I am just getting started with MS SQL technologies and really need some quality help.

Thank you for your time, and have a great day.

Cheers,
MarkBasically this means that there is a "connection problem" between the client and server parts of the SQL Server software. The error isn't specific because there are way too many places for these kinds of problems to hide, most of which can't be found by the machine that notices the problem.

If the people are having regular network problems (slowness, problems reaching specific machines in their networks, web browsing issues, etc), then fixing those problems should also fix the SQL problem.

If they aren't having regular network problems, then you have to play a bit of Sherlock Holmes to track down the culprit. If I were in this situation, I'd check:

1. Visit the Windows Update site from each machine using SQL. Be sure to get the latest windows and driver patches.
2. Ping the database server from each machine, investigate any significant differences in ping times.
3. Check the Network Interface Card in each machine (including the server)
4. Check the network hardware (routers, etc)
5. Come back here if that doesn't help.

-PatP

'[380] Unable to start JobManager thread for job' appears in SQLAgent log.

The above message appears in the SQLAgent log. The job(s) in question don't run, it can affect all or only some of the jobs under that agent. Only solution is a restart of the SQLAgent. Can find no mention of JobManager in the online books
Anyone else experienced this?| The above message appears in the SQLAgent log. The job(s) in question
don't run,
| it can affect all or only some of the jobs under that agent. Only
solution is a restart of the
| SQLAgent. Can find no mention of JobManager in the online books.
|
| Anyone else experienced this?
--
This error indicates that you are unable to allocate more threads for
SQLAgent jobs. How many jobs are concurrently running when you hit this
error? You may need to reduce this amount.
Hope this helps,
--
Eric Cárdenas
SQL Server support|||The instance of SQL has approximately 40 jobs configured. Only 3 or 4 are active at one time. The rest are adhoc or run infrequently.||||
| The instance of SQL has approximately 40 jobs configured. Only
| 3 or 4 are active at one time. The rest are adhoc or run infrequently.
--
To confirm or dismiss that this error is a thread issue, setup performance
monitor logs on threads for SQL agent and see if you have an escalation of
threads.
If all else fails, I recommend raising a case with Microsoft product
support to assist you.
Hope this helps,
--
Eric Cárdenas
SQL Server support

[380] Unable to start JobManager thread for job ......

An error occurred on SQL Agent Error Log of my system as follows.
[380] Unable to start JobManager thread for job .....
I have two questions.
1. How can I increase the number of thread allocated to JobManager? Should I
only decrease the number of concurrent job?
2. Is the only solution to restart the SQL Agent service in this case? The
job was not executed after this error.
Thank you
Hanky
Do you know how many jobs are running concurrently ? It could be a thread
issue .. but thats usually another error message that clearly states that
its waiting for a thread... something like that.. It could be that your
server is busy ... You may also consider opening up a PSS case..
"??" <hanky74@.daum.net> wrote in message
news:uU4JWJDgEHA.2916@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> An error occurred on SQL Agent Error Log of my system as follows.
> [380] Unable to start JobManager thread for job .....
> I have two questions.
> 1. How can I increase the number of thread allocated to JobManager? Should
I
> only decrease the number of concurrent job?
> 2. Is the only solution to restart the SQL Agent service in this case? The
> job was not executed after this error.
> Thank you
> Hanky
>

[380] Unable to start JobManager thread for job ......

An error occurred on SQL Agent Error Log of my system as follows.
[380] Unable to start JobManager thread for job .....
I have two questions.
1. How can I increase the number of thread allocated to JobManager? Should I
only decrease the number of concurrent job?
2. Is the only solution to restart the SQL Agent service in this case? The
job was not executed after this error.
Thank you
HankyDo you know how many jobs are running concurrently ? It could be a thread
issue .. but thats usually another error message that clearly states that
its waiting for a thread... something like that.. It could be that your
server is busy ... You may also consider opening up a PSS case..
"??" <hanky74@.daum.net> wrote in message
news:uU4JWJDgEHA.2916@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> An error occurred on SQL Agent Error Log of my system as follows.
> [380] Unable to start JobManager thread for job .....
> I have two questions.
> 1. How can I increase the number of thread allocated to JobManager? Should
I
> only decrease the number of concurrent job?
> 2. Is the only solution to restart the SQL Agent service in this case? The
> job was not executed after this error.
> Thank you
> Hanky
>

[380] Unable to start JobManager thread for job ......

An error occurred on SQL Agent Error Log of my system as follows.
[380] Unable to start JobManager thread for job .....
I have two questions.
1. How can I increase the number of thread allocated to JobManager? Should I
only decrease the number of concurrent job?
2. Is the only solution to restart the SQL Agent service in this case? The
job was not executed after this error.
Thank you
HankyDo you know how many jobs are running concurrently ? It could be a thread
issue .. but thats usually another error message that clearly states that
its waiting for a thread... something like that.. It could be that your
server is busy ... You may also consider opening up a PSS case..
"Çѱ⿵" <hanky74@.daum.net> wrote in message
news:uU4JWJDgEHA.2916@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> An error occurred on SQL Agent Error Log of my system as follows.
> [380] Unable to start JobManager thread for job .....
> I have two questions.
> 1. How can I increase the number of thread allocated to JobManager? Should
I
> only decrease the number of concurrent job?
> 2. Is the only solution to restart the SQL Agent service in this case? The
> job was not executed after this error.
> Thank you
> Hanky
>

[165]ODBC Error 0 Timeout expired[SQLSTATE HYT00]

sql server 2000 8.00.194
Microsoft Windows 2000 Service Pack 2

I looked into my sqlserver agent log and found the following

ODBC Error 0 Timeout expired[SQLSTATE HYT00]
logon to server local '( failed)' (Job manager)

I have no idea what that means but it did keep out users for a minute or more.
The threads found on this forum almost all point to reccuring situations
mine is a sporadic one time issue.
Is it Ok to conclude it is a network error as I did?

TIA
VinceVincento Harris (wumutek@.yahoo.com) writes:
> sql server 2000 8.00.194

That's an SQL Server with no service pack. I strongly encouarge you to
download and install Service Pack 3.

> I looked into my sqlserver agent log and found the following
> ODBC Error 0 Timeout expired[SQLSTATE HYT00]
> logon to server local '( failed)' (Job manager)
> I have no idea what that means but it did keep out users for a minute or
> more. The threads found on this forum almost all point to reccuring
> situations mine is a sporadic one time issue.
> Is it Ok to conclude it is a network error as I did?

This may be a correct conclusion in the end, but it is not the most likely.

The ODBC error "Timeout expired" means that a query did not start to
return rows with the timeout period, which by default is 30 seconds.
The reason for this could be that the query itself needed longer time
to execute, because of large amounts of data to search and/or poor
indexing. It could also be that the query was blocked by another query,
and that query was long-running. In fact it does not have to be a query
as such that was blocking, but a process holding locks because of
an earlier abandoned query, which was not properly handled.

All this could have been started by some abnormal event like a
network glitch. However, it is much more likely that there was
some inappropriate SQL statement somewhere.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, sommar@.algonet.se

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp

[097] Memory leak detected [1260 bytes]

I have received the following error my SQL Server Agent Log.

[097] Memory leak detected [1260 bytes]

When this happens jobs will fail with the following error.
[000] Unable to retrieve steps for job Backup TLog - 1stComp (Increm)

My current work around is to stop and restart the SQL Server Agent services.

Has anyone seen this before? Is it corrected in the the 2153 hotfix?

What is the service pack level on SQL & Windows?

Also the memory leak errors seems to be hardware related too, might invole the Vendor to confirm the health state of hardware.

|||It's SQL Server 2005 SP1 64Bit Enterprise Edition.
The server is a Dell poweredge 6850 with 8 Physical CPU's 64 GB of RAM
Windows server version 5.2.3790 SP1 build 3790.

I should have encluded that in my original post.

@terminate param for log shipping stored procs

SQL BOL says that the @.terminate parameter for sp_change_primary_role
defaults to 0 while it defaults to 1 in sp_change_secondary_role. In both
cases, this param "Specifies that all pending transactions be immediately
rolled back" and puts the db in single user mode while the stored proc runs.
I'm wondering why each of these has it different default value. I presume
that in both cases a value of 1 = true, meaning that it would do the
rollback. Am I correct in assuming this? In order to help me understand this
better, I hope someone could tell me why I would use the default values, and
in what cirucumstance I might not use the default values.
archuleta37,
Your installation of the SQL Server 2000 Books Online needs to be updated.
There were documentation problems with these procedures. See:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/291160 Terminate Default
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/298093 Job Id
These KBs also have a link to a corrected version of the BOL:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/release.asp?ReleaseID=31343
RLF
"archuleta37" <archuleta37@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D0E72DDC-4147-4D25-AAE3-D83921D9A011@.microsoft.com...
> SQL BOL says that the @.terminate parameter for sp_change_primary_role
> defaults to 0 while it defaults to 1 in sp_change_secondary_role. In both
> cases, this param "Specifies that all pending transactions be immediately
> rolled back" and puts the db in single user mode while the stored proc
> runs.
> I'm wondering why each of these has it different default value. I presume
> that in both cases a value of 1 = true, meaning that it would do the
> rollback. Am I correct in assuming this? In order to help me understand
> this
> better, I hope someone could tell me why I would use the default values,
> and
> in what cirucumstance I might not use the default values.
|||Thank you Russell,
This helps clarify a lot. I found that the link to the updated BOL you sent
is no longer valid, but I was easily able to search and find it at
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=a6f79cb1-a420-445f-8a4b-bd77a7da194b&DisplayLang=en
The circumstance I'm testing assumes that the primary is completely
unavailable, yet when running sp_change_secondary_role there may be some
transaction log backups (.trn) files that are still loading. So I'm thinking
I should probably set the @.terminate param to 0. Would you agree with this
assessment or do you think I missing something in my reasoning?
"Russell Fields" wrote:

> archuleta37,
> Your installation of the SQL Server 2000 Books Online needs to be updated.
> There were documentation problems with these procedures. See:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/291160 Terminate Default
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/298093 Job Id
> These KBs also have a link to a corrected version of the BOL:
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/release.asp?ReleaseID=31343
> RLF
> "archuleta37" <archuleta37@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:D0E72DDC-4147-4D25-AAE3-D83921D9A011@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||archuleta37,
I am afraid that I am not log shipping handy, so perhaps someone who does
this will have a quick answer. However, in the SQL Server 2000 Books Online
is a topic titled "How to set up and perform a log shipping role change
(Transact-SQL)" that seems to answer your question.
Also, a FAQ is found at: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314515/en-us
RLF
"archuleta37" <archuleta37@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:509BEAF1-1B5D-4609-B92C-DF041A215B01@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thank you Russell,
> This helps clarify a lot. I found that the link to the updated BOL you
> sent
> is no longer valid, but I was easily able to search and find it at
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=a6f79cb1-a420-445f-8a4b-bd77a7da194b&DisplayLang=en
> The circumstance I'm testing assumes that the primary is completely
> unavailable, yet when running sp_change_secondary_role there may be some
> transaction log backups (.trn) files that are still loading. So I'm
> thinking
> I should probably set the @.terminate param to 0. Would you agree with this
> assessment or do you think I missing something in my reasoning?
>
> "Russell Fields" wrote:

@terminate param for log shipping stored procs

SQL BOL says that the @.terminate parameter for sp_change_primary_role
defaults to 0 while it defaults to 1 in sp_change_secondary_role. In both
cases, this param "Specifies that all pending transactions be immediately
rolled back" and puts the db in single user mode while the stored proc runs.
I'm wondering why each of these has it different default value. I presume
that in both cases a value of 1 = true, meaning that it would do the
rollback. Am I correct in assuming this? In order to help me understand this
better, I hope someone could tell me why I would use the default values, and
in what cirucumstance I might not use the default values.archuleta37,
Your installation of the SQL Server 2000 Books Online needs to be updated.
There were documentation problems with these procedures. See:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/291160 Terminate Default
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/298093 Job Id
These KBs also have a link to a corrected version of the BOL:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/release.asp?ReleaseID=31343
RLF
"archuleta37" <archuleta37@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D0E72DDC-4147-4D25-AAE3-D83921D9A011@.microsoft.com...
> SQL BOL says that the @.terminate parameter for sp_change_primary_role
> defaults to 0 while it defaults to 1 in sp_change_secondary_role. In both
> cases, this param "Specifies that all pending transactions be immediately
> rolled back" and puts the db in single user mode while the stored proc
> runs.
> I'm wondering why each of these has it different default value. I presume
> that in both cases a value of 1 = true, meaning that it would do the
> rollback. Am I correct in assuming this? In order to help me understand
> this
> better, I hope someone could tell me why I would use the default values,
> and
> in what cirucumstance I might not use the default values.|||Thank you Russell,
This helps clarify a lot. I found that the link to the updated BOL you sent
is no longer valid, but I was easily able to search and find it at
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=a6f79cb1-a420-445f-8a4b-bd77a7da194b&DisplayLang=en
The circumstance I'm testing assumes that the primary is completely
unavailable, yet when running sp_change_secondary_role there may be some
transaction log backups (.trn) files that are still loading. So I'm thinking
I should probably set the @.terminate param to 0. Would you agree with this
assessment or do you think I missing something in my reasoning?
"Russell Fields" wrote:
> archuleta37,
> Your installation of the SQL Server 2000 Books Online needs to be updated.
> There were documentation problems with these procedures. See:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/291160 Terminate Default
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/298093 Job Id
> These KBs also have a link to a corrected version of the BOL:
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/release.asp?ReleaseID=31343
> RLF
> "archuleta37" <archuleta37@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:D0E72DDC-4147-4D25-AAE3-D83921D9A011@.microsoft.com...
> > SQL BOL says that the @.terminate parameter for sp_change_primary_role
> > defaults to 0 while it defaults to 1 in sp_change_secondary_role. In both
> > cases, this param "Specifies that all pending transactions be immediately
> > rolled back" and puts the db in single user mode while the stored proc
> > runs.
> >
> > I'm wondering why each of these has it different default value. I presume
> > that in both cases a value of 1 = true, meaning that it would do the
> > rollback. Am I correct in assuming this? In order to help me understand
> > this
> > better, I hope someone could tell me why I would use the default values,
> > and
> > in what cirucumstance I might not use the default values.
>
>|||archuleta37,
I am afraid that I am not log shipping handy, so perhaps someone who does
this will have a quick answer. However, in the SQL Server 2000 Books Online
is a topic titled "How to set up and perform a log shipping role change
(Transact-SQL)" that seems to answer your question.
Also, a FAQ is found at: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314515/en-us
RLF
"archuleta37" <archuleta37@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:509BEAF1-1B5D-4609-B92C-DF041A215B01@.microsoft.com...
> Thank you Russell,
> This helps clarify a lot. I found that the link to the updated BOL you
> sent
> is no longer valid, but I was easily able to search and find it at
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=a6f79cb1-a420-445f-8a4b-bd77a7da194b&DisplayLang=en
> The circumstance I'm testing assumes that the primary is completely
> unavailable, yet when running sp_change_secondary_role there may be some
> transaction log backups (.trn) files that are still loading. So I'm
> thinking
> I should probably set the @.terminate param to 0. Would you agree with this
> assessment or do you think I missing something in my reasoning?
>
> "Russell Fields" wrote:
>> archuleta37,
>> Your installation of the SQL Server 2000 Books Online needs to be
>> updated.
>> There were documentation problems with these procedures. See:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/291160 Terminate Default
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/298093 Job Id
>> These KBs also have a link to a corrected version of the BOL:
>> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/release.asp?ReleaseID=31343
>> RLF
>> "archuleta37" <archuleta37@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:D0E72DDC-4147-4D25-AAE3-D83921D9A011@.microsoft.com...
>> > SQL BOL says that the @.terminate parameter for sp_change_primary_role
>> > defaults to 0 while it defaults to 1 in sp_change_secondary_role. In
>> > both
>> > cases, this param "Specifies that all pending transactions be
>> > immediately
>> > rolled back" and puts the db in single user mode while the stored proc
>> > runs.
>> >
>> > I'm wondering why each of these has it different default value. I
>> > presume
>> > that in both cases a value of 1 = true, meaning that it would do the
>> > rollback. Am I correct in assuming this? In order to help me understand
>> > this
>> > better, I hope someone could tell me why I would use the default
>> > values,
>> > and
>> > in what cirucumstance I might not use the default values.
>>

@terminate param for log shipping stored procs

SQL BOL says that the @.terminate parameter for sp_change_primary_role
defaults to 0 while it defaults to 1 in sp_change_secondary_role. In both
cases, this param "Specifies that all pending transactions be immediately
rolled back" and puts the db in single user mode while the stored proc runs.
I'm wondering why each of these has it different default value. I presume
that in both cases a value of 1 = true, meaning that it would do the
rollback. Am I correct in assuming this? In order to help me understand this
better, I hope someone could tell me why I would use the default values, and
in what cirucumstance I might not use the default values.archuleta37,
Your installation of the SQL Server 2000 Books Online needs to be updated.
There were documentation problems with these procedures. See:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/291160 Terminate Default
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/298093 Job Id
These KBs also have a link to a corrected version of the BOL:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...ReleaseID=31343
RLF
"archuleta37" <archuleta37@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D0E72DDC-4147-4D25-AAE3-D83921D9A011@.microsoft.com...
> SQL BOL says that the @.terminate parameter for sp_change_primary_role
> defaults to 0 while it defaults to 1 in sp_change_secondary_role. In both
> cases, this param "Specifies that all pending transactions be immediately
> rolled back" and puts the db in single user mode while the stored proc
> runs.
> I'm wondering why each of these has it different default value. I presume
> that in both cases a value of 1 = true, meaning that it would do the
> rollback. Am I correct in assuming this? In order to help me understand
> this
> better, I hope someone could tell me why I would use the default values,
> and
> in what cirucumstance I might not use the default values.|||Thank you Russell,
This helps clarify a lot. I found that the link to the updated BOL you sent
is no longer valid, but I was easily able to search and find it at
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...&DisplayLang=en
The circumstance I'm testing assumes that the primary is completely
unavailable, yet when running sp_change_secondary_role there may be some
transaction log backups (.trn) files that are still loading. So I'm thinking
I should probably set the @.terminate param to 0. Would you agree with this
assessment or do you think I missing something in my reasoning?
"Russell Fields" wrote:

> archuleta37,
> Your installation of the SQL Server 2000 Books Online needs to be updated.
> There were documentation problems with these procedures. See:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/291160 Terminate Default
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/298093 Job Id
> These KBs also have a link to a corrected version of the BOL:
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...ReleaseID=31343
> RLF
> "archuleta37" <archuleta37@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:D0E72DDC-4147-4D25-AAE3-D83921D9A011@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||archuleta37,
I am afraid that I am not log shipping handy, so perhaps someone who does
this will have a quick answer. However, in the SQL Server 2000 Books Online
is a topic titled "How to set up and perform a log shipping role change
(Transact-SQL)" that seems to answer your question.
Also, a FAQ is found at: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314515/en-us
RLF
"archuleta37" <archuleta37@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:509BEAF1-1B5D-4609-B92C-DF041A215B01@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thank you Russell,
> This helps clarify a lot. I found that the link to the updated BOL you
> sent
> is no longer valid, but I was easily able to search and find it at
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...&DisplayLang=en
> The circumstance I'm testing assumes that the primary is completely
> unavailable, yet when running sp_change_secondary_role there may be some
> transaction log backups (.trn) files that are still loading. So I'm
> thinking
> I should probably set the @.terminate param to 0. Would you agree with this
> assessment or do you think I missing something in my reasoning?
>
> "Russell Fields" wrote:
>