Error 18456 Severity: 14 State 11 problem

I am installing diskeeper administrator on one server with at database on our sql2005 server. When I am trying to connect to the database the diskeeper software says verify username and password. I try to connect using windows authentication .And in the serverlog this error occurs

2006-11-27 15:04:56.01 Logon Login failed for user 'NB\Servername$'. [CLIENT: "Ipadress"]

2006-11-27 15:04:56.01 Logon Error: 18456, Severity: 14, State: 11.

When i try to connect with Sql server authentication, this error occurs in the log:

2006-11-27 15:48:35.46 Logon Login failed for user 'NB\SERVERNAME$'. [CLIENT: ipadress

]2006-11-27 16:04:22.94 Logon Error: 18456, Severity: 14, State: 16.

I have tried to disable filesharing, and run installation of diskeepper as the domain administrator. But the same error occurs.

Can anyone help me with this

Regards Oyvind

State 11 indicates an error determining the database to be used after authentication. This could happen if the database cannot be accessed for some reason. You could try to connect to the master database initially, to see if that works, then change context to the database that you normally use and see what error you encounter, if any.

However, I am not familiar with the diskeeper software and I don't understand its relation with SQL Server, so I'm not sure how to help you further.

Thanks
Laurentiu

|||

Diskeeper do not have any link with SQL Server in this case, and also it is no use in running for linked server related error.

What is the privilege for the account used on the linked server?

Refer to KBA http://support.microsoft.com/kb/889646 fyi.

|||

The privilege for the account is sysadmin.

The default database is master.

I also tried to connect with odbc, but the same error occurs

Regards

Oyvind

|||have you contacted the vendor in this case?|||

Correction to my previous post: the state discussion applies to state 16, not to state 11.

State 11 indicates a different problem.

What is strange is that, while you mention using Windows and SQL authentication, both connections appear to be attempted via Windows authentication, using the machine account credentials.

Best thing would be to check with the diskeeper customer support.

Error 18456 Severity 14 State 16

I am getting the following error in my Sql logs and in my Application Event
viewer:
03/16/2007 07:56:00,Logon,Unknown,Login failed for user
'CTPC\Administrator'. [CLIENT: <local machine>]
03/16/2007 07:56:00,Logon,Unknown,Error: 18456<c/> Severity: 14<c/> State: 1
6.
0000: 18 48 00 00 0e 00 00 00 .H.....
0008: 09 00 00 00 49 00 4e 00 ...I.N.
0010: 54 00 52 00 41 00 4e 00 T.R.A.N.
0018: 45 00 54 00 00 00 07 00 E.T....
0020: 00 00 6d 00 61 00 73 00 ..m.a.s.
0028: 74 00 65 00 72 00 00 00 t.e.r...
I have tried figure out what process is trying to hit this database but to
no avail, how should I go about troubleshooting this? It logs this every on
e
minute and it is on our Portal server.
Thanks,
RobYou can run a trace or Profiler when a login fails and see
what shows up for the application name when auditing the
Login Failures.
It's on the same box as SQL Server so you could also check
what services may be running under the local administrator
account.The security logs may have more information as well
if you track the logins and details for the logins.
-Sue
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 06:02:16 -0700, Rob
<Rob@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>I am getting the following error in my Sql logs and in my Application Event
>viewer:
>03/16/2007 07:56:00,Logon,Unknown,Login failed for user
>'CTPC\Administrator'. [CLIENT: <local machine>]
>03/16/2007 07:56:00,Logon,Unknown,Error: 18456<c/> Severity: 14<c/> State:
16.
>0000: 18 48 00 00 0e 00 00 00 .H.....
>0008: 09 00 00 00 49 00 4e 00 ...I.N.
>0010: 54 00 52 00 41 00 4e 00 T.R.A.N.
>0018: 45 00 54 00 00 00 07 00 E.T....
>0020: 00 00 6d 00 61 00 73 00 ..m.a.s.
>0028: 74 00 65 00 72 00 00 00 t.e.r...
>I have tried figure out what process is trying to hit this database but to
>no avail, how should I go about troubleshooting this? It logs this every o
ne
>minute and it is on our Portal server.
>Thanks,
>Rob

Error 18456

Hello I am getting:
"login failed" (Error 18456) error messages in SQL Server 2005 Error is
18456, Severity: 14, State: 8.
I have tried to logon to other databases and this isnt possible. I get the
same error message. Creating new logins, and triple-checking the passwords
did not help. The database engine will not allow any logons to any
database. The other engines seem to be fine.
This still means that I do not have permissions for any of the databases.
This is using any of the local or domain accounts. I cannot log onto any of
the databases. I have tried to attach using SQLCMD and I cannot get logged
in to the database.
The log files show success from earlier in the day and week for these same
accounts.
I created this problem by detaching one database running on the server. I
went to connect the datafiles and now I cannot get into the server at all.
I am using SQL2005, Sharepoint services and a Windows 2003 server.
I would appreciate any insight or suggestions.State 8 is an invalid password.
Passwords in SQL Server 2005 are case sensitive so make sure
you are checking that as well. If you can't log in at all
and no one can log in, try logging in as local administrator
on the box and then log into SQL Server using windows
authentication.
-Sue
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 19:34:00 -0600, "JimS"
<noholycowsspam@.ya_NoJunk_hoo.com> wrote:

>Hello I am getting:
>"login failed" (Error 18456) error messages in SQL Server 2005 Error is
>18456, Severity: 14, State: 8.
>I have tried to logon to other databases and this isnt possible. I get th
e
>same error message. Creating new logins, and triple-checking the passwords
>did not help. The database engine will not allow any logons to any
>database. The other engines seem to be fine.
>This still means that I do not have permissions for any of the databases.
>This is using any of the local or domain accounts. I cannot log onto any o
f
>the databases. I have tried to attach using SQLCMD and I cannot get logged
>in to the database.
>The log files show success from earlier in the day and week for these same
>accounts.
>I created this problem by detaching one database running on the server. I
>went to connect the datafiles and now I cannot get into the server at all.
>I am using SQL2005, Sharepoint services and a Windows 2003 server.
>I would appreciate any insight or suggestions.
>|||Thanks for the help....
We detached a database in order to copy the files. When I detached the
database it seemed to lock all users with access to that database out any
access to this SQL2005 server.
I was able to use SQLCMD to gain access and rebuild access for my database
admin account. I was then able to use this account to reattach the detached
database. When I did this the database and all user access to SQL2005 was
back to normal. I am not sure why this happened. We have about ten other
databases on this SQL server. The same users had access to these tables as
well as the detached table so the detached table was not the only table for
which they had access. The detached table was just a table of 'production'
data. I will try and see if I can recreate the problem but will wait for
the weekend to try that!
Thanks
"JimS" <noholycowsspam@.ya_NoJunk_hoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23EnC0mJSGHA.1576@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Hello I am getting:
"login failed" (Error 18456) error messages in SQL Server 2005 Error is
18456, Severity: 14, State: 8.
I have tried to logon to other databases and this isnt possible. I get the
same error message. Creating new logins, and triple-checking the passwords
did not help. The database engine will not allow any logons to any
database. The other engines seem to be fine.
This still means that I do not have permissions for any of the databases.
This is using any of the local or domain accounts. I cannot log onto any of
the databases. I have tried to attach using SQLCMD and I cannot get logged
in to the database.
The log files show success from earlier in the day and week for these same
accounts.
I created this problem by detaching one database running on the server. I
went to connect the datafiles and now I cannot get into the server at all.
I am using SQL2005, Sharepoint services and a Windows 2003 server.
I would appreciate any insight or suggestions.

Error 17883 - Scheduler appears to be hung - related to linked server or HT??

We have been getting the following errors on our production environment
lately.
Error: 17883, Severity: 1, State: 0
The Scheduler 0 appears to be hung. SPID 0, ECID 0, UMS Context 0x021B55C0
It appears that this error shows whenever we run a query with a linked
server. This error appears concurrently with an application popup on the
SQL server.
Application popup: SQL Server OLEDB provider support error : Unable to load
SQL Server OLEDB provider resource DLL. The application cannot continue.
We had this issue earlier with another machine which had parallelization
turned on. We turned it off because we believed the Hyperthreading w/
Parallelization was confusing this. Our old servers never had these issues
and were not HT enabled. The one box that was experiencing the problems
was/is behaving normally. However another box (same CPU, same no
parallelization settings) is having the issue when running a query using a
linked server to another SQL Server.
Our servers are SQL Server 2000 SP3, on Windows2000 SP4. With 2 3.2Ghz, HT
Enabled and 1.5GB RAM.
Thanks,
DanWe've seen the 17883 happen for a variety of reasons and symptoms.
It almost always comes down to disk i/o - contention issues. We had a
msde show this after being bombarded with query requests and with an 8
concurrent query limit.
Check to make sure that SQL Server is the ONLY one messing with
its' files. Make sure that on-access virus scan is off. As well as
backups or anything that might be going after the data and log files.
The last time this happened was because of virus scan and a policy set
that kept re-enabling on access scan.
Frankm
dan wrote:
> We have been getting the following errors on our production environment
> lately.
> Error: 17883, Severity: 1, State: 0
> The Scheduler 0 appears to be hung. SPID 0, ECID 0, UMS Context 0x021B55C0
> It appears that this error shows whenever we run a query with a linked
> server. This error appears concurrently with an application popup on the
> SQL server.
> Application popup: SQL Server OLEDB provider support error : Unable to load
> SQL Server OLEDB provider resource DLL. The application cannot continue.
> We had this issue earlier with another machine which had parallelization
> turned on. We turned it off because we believed the Hyperthreading w/
> Parallelization was confusing this. Our old servers never had these issues
> and were not HT enabled. The one box that was experiencing the problems
> was/is behaving normally. However another box (same CPU, same no
> parallelization settings) is having the issue when running a query using a
> linked server to another SQL Server.
> Our servers are SQL Server 2000 SP3, on Windows2000 SP4. With 2 3.2Ghz, HT
> Enabled and 1.5GB RAM.
> Thanks,
> Dan
>|||Hey Dan,
Your problem is almost exactly what we are facing.
I did not know you had posted your question when I posted
mine ( I usually do a search before posting questions, but
I missed doing it this time). Check out 'my' thread on the
21st & 22nd with 17883 in the subject line.
Did you resolve your problem?
Did you go through any of the suggestions in my thread?
Hotfix to get a more precise indication?
Thanks very much.
Sam
>--Original Message--
>We have been getting the following errors on our
production environment
>lately.
>Error: 17883, Severity: 1, State: 0
>The Scheduler 0 appears to be hung. SPID 0, ECID 0, UMS
Context 0x021B55C0
>It appears that this error shows whenever we run a query
with a linked
>server. This error appears concurrently with an
application popup on the
>SQL server.
>Application popup: SQL Server OLEDB provider support
error : Unable to load
>SQL Server OLEDB provider resource DLL. The application
cannot continue.
>We had this issue earlier with another machine which had
parallelization
>turned on. We turned it off because we believed the
Hyperthreading w/
>Parallelization was confusing this. Our old servers
never had these issues
>and were not HT enabled. The one box that was
experiencing the problems
>was/is behaving normally. However another box (same CPU,
same no
>parallelization settings) is having the issue when
running a query using a
>linked server to another SQL Server.
>Our servers are SQL Server 2000 SP3, on Windows2000 SP4.
With 2 3.2Ghz, HT
>Enabled and 1.5GB RAM.
>Thanks,
>Dan
>
>.
>

error 17883

Im getting
The Scheduler 0 appears to be hung. SPID 6, ECID 0, UMS Context 0x03D15418.
Error: 17883, Severity: 1, State: 0
Dont know about other compliants and no performance issues so far.
The server is mssql 2000,multiinstance&multidatabase on w2k3. One of dbs is
ARCServe
In most of the cases this error appears just after the start&finish of
ARCServe jobs. Ideas how to fix the problem will be appreciated. Thanks.
What service pack/hotfix level?
Please run Select @.@.versionin Query Analyzer and post back
Kevin Hill
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
"Eli Milkova" <EliMilkova@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5C63197D-3BB5-4140-97A8-02A5B6CA5278@.microsoft.com...
> Im getting
> The Scheduler 0 appears to be hung. SPID 6, ECID 0, UMS Context
> 0x03D15418.
> Error: 17883, Severity: 1, State: 0
> Dont know about other compliants and no performance issues so far.
> The server is mssql 2000,multiinstance&multidatabase on w2k3. One of dbs
> is
> ARCServe
> In most of the cases this error appears just after the start&finish of
> ARCServe jobs. Ideas how to fix the problem will be appreciated. Thanks.
>
|||all instances there are with SP3a 8.00.760. Not all dbs on the server are SP4
compliant.
I dont know what exactly to expect in future...problem escalation?!?
"Kevin3NF" wrote:

> What service pack/hotfix level?
> Please run Select @.@.versionin Query Analyzer and post back
> --
> Kevin Hill
> 3NF Consulting
> www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
>
> "Eli Milkova" <EliMilkova@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:5C63197D-3BB5-4140-97A8-02A5B6CA5278@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||SP4
!!!! only fix!!!!
If you are enterprise using AWE memory, be sure to install the memory
hotifx.
d.
"Eli Milkova" <EliMilkova@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5C63197D-3BB5-4140-97A8-02A5B6CA5278@.microsoft.com...
> Im getting
> The Scheduler 0 appears to be hung. SPID 6, ECID 0, UMS Context
0x03D15418.
> Error: 17883, Severity: 1, State: 0
> Dont know about other compliants and no performance issues so far.
> The server is mssql 2000,multiinstance&multidatabase on w2k3. One of dbs
is
> ARCServe
> In most of the cases this error appears just after the start&finish of
> ARCServe jobs. Ideas how to fix the problem will be appreciated. Thanks.
>
|||sp4 fix the issue completely
"d" wrote:

> SP4
> !!!! only fix!!!!
> If you are enterprise using AWE memory, be sure to install the memory
> hotifx.
> d.
> "Eli Milkova" <EliMilkova@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:5C63197D-3BB5-4140-97A8-02A5B6CA5278@.microsoft.com...
> 0x03D15418.
> is
>
>
|||Hi Eli,
Did installing SQL 2000 SP4 fix your issue? WE have SP4 installed on
all of our databases and still getting database corruption.
Thanks!
Louise.
Eli Milkova wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> sp4 fix the issue completely
> "d" wrote:

error 17883

Im getting
The Scheduler 0 appears to be hung. SPID 6, ECID 0, UMS Context 0x03D15418.
Error: 17883, Severity: 1, State: 0
Dont know about other compliants and no performance issues so far.
The server is mssql 2000,multiinstance&multidatabase on w2k3. One of dbs is
ARCServe
In most of the cases this error appears just after the start&finish of
ARCServe jobs. Ideas how to fix the problem will be appreciated. Thanks.What service pack/hotfix level?
Please run Select @.@.versionin Query Analyzer and post back
Kevin Hill
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
"Eli Milkova" <EliMilkova@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5C63197D-3BB5-4140-97A8-02A5B6CA5278@.microsoft.com...
> Im getting
> The Scheduler 0 appears to be hung. SPID 6, ECID 0, UMS Context
> 0x03D15418.
> Error: 17883, Severity: 1, State: 0
> Dont know about other compliants and no performance issues so far.
> The server is mssql 2000,multiinstance&multidatabase on w2k3. One of dbs
> is
> ARCServe
> In most of the cases this error appears just after the start&finish of
> ARCServe jobs. Ideas how to fix the problem will be appreciated. Thanks.
>|||all instances there are with SP3a 8.00.760. Not all dbs on the server are SP
4
compliant.
I dont know what exactly to expect in future...problem escalation?!?
"Kevin3NF" wrote:

> What service pack/hotfix level?
> Please run Select @.@.versionin Query Analyzer and post back
> --
> Kevin Hill
> 3NF Consulting
> www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
>
> "Eli Milkova" <EliMilkova@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:5C63197D-3BB5-4140-97A8-02A5B6CA5278@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||SP4
!!!! only fix!!!!
If you are enterprise using AWE memory, be sure to install the memory
hotifx.
d.
"Eli Milkova" <EliMilkova@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5C63197D-3BB5-4140-97A8-02A5B6CA5278@.microsoft.com...
> Im getting
> The Scheduler 0 appears to be hung. SPID 6, ECID 0, UMS Context
0x03D15418.
> Error: 17883, Severity: 1, State: 0
> Dont know about other compliants and no performance issues so far.
> The server is mssql 2000,multiinstance&multidatabase on w2k3. One of dbs
is
> ARCServe
> In most of the cases this error appears just after the start&finish of
> ARCServe jobs. Ideas how to fix the problem will be appreciated. Thanks.
>|||sp4 fix the issue completely
"d" wrote:

> SP4
> !!!! only fix!!!!
> If you are enterprise using AWE memory, be sure to install the memory
> hotifx.
> d.
> "Eli Milkova" <EliMilkova@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:5C63197D-3BB5-4140-97A8-02A5B6CA5278@.microsoft.com...
> 0x03D15418.
> is
>
>|||Hi Eli,
Did installing SQL 2000 SP4 fix your issue? WE have SP4 installed on
all of our databases and still getting database corruption.
Thanks!
Louise.
Eli Milkova wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> sp4 fix the issue completely
> "d" wrote:
>

error 17883

Im getting
The Scheduler 0 appears to be hung. SPID 6, ECID 0, UMS Context 0x03D15418.
Error: 17883, Severity: 1, State: 0
Dont know about other compliants and no performance issues so far.
The server is mssql 2000,multiinstance&multidatabase on w2k3. One of dbs is
ARCServe
In most of the cases this error appears just after the start&finish of
ARCServe jobs. Ideas how to fix the problem will be appreciated. Thanks.What service pack/hotfix level?
Please run Select @.@.versionin Query Analyzer and post back
--
Kevin Hill
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
"Eli Milkova" <EliMilkova@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5C63197D-3BB5-4140-97A8-02A5B6CA5278@.microsoft.com...
> Im getting
> The Scheduler 0 appears to be hung. SPID 6, ECID 0, UMS Context
> 0x03D15418.
> Error: 17883, Severity: 1, State: 0
> Dont know about other compliants and no performance issues so far.
> The server is mssql 2000,multiinstance&multidatabase on w2k3. One of dbs
> is
> ARCServe
> In most of the cases this error appears just after the start&finish of
> ARCServe jobs. Ideas how to fix the problem will be appreciated. Thanks.
>|||all instances there are with SP3a 8.00.760. Not all dbs on the server are SP4
compliant.
I dont know what exactly to expect in future...problem escalation?!?
"Kevin3NF" wrote:
> What service pack/hotfix level?
> Please run Select @.@.versionin Query Analyzer and post back
> --
> Kevin Hill
> 3NF Consulting
> www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
>
> "Eli Milkova" <EliMilkova@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:5C63197D-3BB5-4140-97A8-02A5B6CA5278@.microsoft.com...
> > Im getting
> > The Scheduler 0 appears to be hung. SPID 6, ECID 0, UMS Context
> > 0x03D15418.
> > Error: 17883, Severity: 1, State: 0
> > Dont know about other compliants and no performance issues so far.
> > The server is mssql 2000,multiinstance&multidatabase on w2k3. One of dbs
> > is
> > ARCServe
> > In most of the cases this error appears just after the start&finish of
> > ARCServe jobs. Ideas how to fix the problem will be appreciated. Thanks.
> >
>
>|||SP4
!!!! only fix!!!!
If you are enterprise using AWE memory, be sure to install the memory
hotifx.
d.
"Eli Milkova" <EliMilkova@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5C63197D-3BB5-4140-97A8-02A5B6CA5278@.microsoft.com...
> Im getting
> The Scheduler 0 appears to be hung. SPID 6, ECID 0, UMS Context
0x03D15418.
> Error: 17883, Severity: 1, State: 0
> Dont know about other compliants and no performance issues so far.
> The server is mssql 2000,multiinstance&multidatabase on w2k3. One of dbs
is
> ARCServe
> In most of the cases this error appears just after the start&finish of
> ARCServe jobs. Ideas how to fix the problem will be appreciated. Thanks.
>|||sp4 fix the issue completely
"d" wrote:
> SP4
> !!!! only fix!!!!
> If you are enterprise using AWE memory, be sure to install the memory
> hotifx.
> d.
> "Eli Milkova" <EliMilkova@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:5C63197D-3BB5-4140-97A8-02A5B6CA5278@.microsoft.com...
> > Im getting
> > The Scheduler 0 appears to be hung. SPID 6, ECID 0, UMS Context
> 0x03D15418.
> > Error: 17883, Severity: 1, State: 0
> > Dont know about other compliants and no performance issues so far.
> > The server is mssql 2000,multiinstance&multidatabase on w2k3. One of dbs
> is
> > ARCServe
> > In most of the cases this error appears just after the start&finish of
> > ARCServe jobs. Ideas how to fix the problem will be appreciated. Thanks.
> >
>
>|||Hi Eli,
Did installing SQL 2000 SP4 fix your issue? WE have SP4 installed on
all of our databases and still getting database corruption.
Thanks!
Louise.
Eli Milkova wrote:
> sp4 fix the issue completely
> "d" wrote:
> > SP4
> > !!!! only fix!!!!
> >
> > If you are enterprise using AWE memory, be sure to install the memory
> > hotifx.
> >
> > d.
> > "Eli Milkova" <EliMilkova@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:5C63197D-3BB5-4140-97A8-02A5B6CA5278@.microsoft.com...
> > > Im getting
> > > The Scheduler 0 appears to be hung. SPID 6, ECID 0, UMS Context
> > 0x03D15418.
> > > Error: 17883, Severity: 1, State: 0
> > > Dont know about other compliants and no performance issues so far.
> > > The server is mssql 2000,multiinstance&multidatabase on w2k3. One of dbs
> > is
> > > ARCServe
> > > In most of the cases this error appears just after the start&finish of
> > > ARCServe jobs. Ideas how to fix the problem will be appreciated. Thanks.
> > >
> >
> >
> >

Error 17883

Hi,
We have a SQL server 2000 enterprise edition on SP3 on windows NT, and got
the following error recently:
Error: 17883, Severity: 1, State: 0
The Scheduler 0 appears to be hung. SPID 0, ECID 0, UMS Context 0x0233C8D8.
Error: 17883, Severity: 1, State: 0
The Scheduler 0 appears to be hung. SPID 0, ECID 0, UMS Context 0x0233B4F0.
Error: 17883, Severity: 1, State: 0
The Scheduler 0 appears to be hung. SPID 0, ECID 0, UMS Context 0x0233B8E0.
Error: 17883, Severity: 1, State: 0
The Scheduler 1 appears to be hung. SPID 0, ECID 0, UMS Context 0x023339C0.
SQL server contains databases that are used by Crystal Reports which in turn
is used by an application.
Any suggestions or comments are welcome.
Thanks!Hello Sharman!
This is a known issue by Microsoft and they have a Fix document about this.
You may want to read it from the following address:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/815056
Ekrem Ã?nsoy
"sharman" <sharman@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:03F33925-3ED7-4BDF-9502-7953C4C11857@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> We have a SQL server 2000 enterprise edition on SP3 on windows NT, and got
> the following error recently:
> Error: 17883, Severity: 1, State: 0
> The Scheduler 0 appears to be hung. SPID 0, ECID 0, UMS Context
> 0x0233C8D8.
> Error: 17883, Severity: 1, State: 0
> The Scheduler 0 appears to be hung. SPID 0, ECID 0, UMS Context
> 0x0233B4F0.
> Error: 17883, Severity: 1, State: 0
> The Scheduler 0 appears to be hung. SPID 0, ECID 0, UMS Context
> 0x0233B8E0.
> Error: 17883, Severity: 1, State: 0
> The Scheduler 1 appears to be hung. SPID 0, ECID 0, UMS Context
> 0x023339C0.
> SQL server contains databases that are used by Crystal Reports which in
> turn
> is used by an application.
> Any suggestions or comments are welcome.
> Thanks!
>sql

Error 17805

Error 17805 Severity 20 State 3 Invalid Buffer received
from client, logged in SQL Server (2K) Log.
Please help.Hi Allan,
I have SQL Server 2K with Service Pack 3 running on WIN
2K Advanced Server Plus Service Pack 3. The server is
accessed by clients over the internet.(Database engine
for an e-commerce site.)
The Error 17805 Severity 20 State 3 invalid buffer
recieved from client suggest the client is sending a
corrupt packet to the SQL server(only a guess).
Please help.
Regards
>--Original Message--
>I have no idea when you are seeing this as you do not
say but if it is after
>trying to pass data to SQL Server through a client app
then make sure that
>things like parameter definitions to stored procs etc
are the correct type
>i.e
>varchar not nvarchar etc etc
>
>
>--
>--
>Allan Mitchell (Microsoft SQL Server MVP)
>MCSE,MCDBA
>www.SQLDTS.com
>I support PASS - the definitive, global community
>for SQL Server professionals - http://www.sqlpass.org
>
>"Olutimi" <Olutimi@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:09c001c366f6$c95ed850$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
>> Error 17805 Severity 20 State 3 Invalid Buffer received
>> from client, logged in SQL Server (2K) Log.
>> Please help.
>
>.
>|||You could also try making sure the clients are communicating through the
same API. Where I have seen mention of this error before is as I said in
command parameter (ADO) datatype mismatches
--
--
Allan Mitchell (Microsoft SQL Server MVP)
MCSE,MCDBA
www.SQLDTS.com
I support PASS - the definitive, global community
for SQL Server professionals - http://www.sqlpass.org
"Olutimi" <olutimi@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0a0801c366fc$f930e9f0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi Allan,
> I have SQL Server 2K with Service Pack 3 running on WIN
> 2K Advanced Server Plus Service Pack 3. The server is
> accessed by clients over the internet.(Database engine
> for an e-commerce site.)
> The Error 17805 Severity 20 State 3 invalid buffer
> recieved from client suggest the client is sending a
> corrupt packet to the SQL server(only a guess).
> Please help.
> Regards
>
> >--Original Message--
> >I have no idea when you are seeing this as you do not
> say but if it is after
> >trying to pass data to SQL Server through a client app
> then make sure that
> >things like parameter definitions to stored procs etc
> are the correct type
> >i.e
> >
> >varchar not nvarchar etc etc
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >
> >--
> >Allan Mitchell (Microsoft SQL Server MVP)
> >MCSE,MCDBA
> >www.SQLDTS.com
> >I support PASS - the definitive, global community
> >for SQL Server professionals - http://www.sqlpass.org
> >
> >
> >
> >"Olutimi" <Olutimi@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:09c001c366f6$c95ed850$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> >> Error 17805 Severity 20 State 3 Invalid Buffer received
> >> from client, logged in SQL Server (2K) Log.
> >> Please help.
> >
> >
> >.
> >

Error 17803, Severity: 20, State: 12

This is an annoying one.
I have 4 test boxes running our application. The application is a wervice
using ADO.Net to connect to SQL Server. The machines are all P4, 2.8GHZ CPU.
Windows Server 2003 Std. Edition, w/ all current patches (as of 10/13/04)
running SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition. SP3a. The machines are also
runnign Share Point Services and BIz Talk 2004, although neither of those are
doing anything at this time. Two of the machines have 1GB physical memory, 2
have 2GB.
We have one test case where have to process a 50MB message (SOAP post with
50MB payload). The problem, interestingly enough occurs on both of the
machines with 2GB. With a default install of SQL Server, configured to
dynamically allocate memory, the insert saving the 50MB message fails. SQL
Server logs "Error: 17803, Severity 20, State:12 Insufficient memory
available." Monitoring physical memory it doesn't appear that the box is
even close to out of memory. If I change the SQL server configuration to use
a fixed or minimum amount of memory (1GB) the insert works 8 out of 9 times,
but it still occasionally fails logging the same error. It makes no sense,
especially where it works 100% of the time on the two boxes with less memory.
Any help here would be appreciated.
Hi GGould,
The answer to your question lies in the the way SQL allocates memory.
Every process (on a 32bits machine) gets and 4 GB Virtual address space in
this address space 2 GB is devote to user, 2 GB for kernel allocations.
SQL server, when it starts with the default memory configuration will map
his executable and dlls into this 2 GB virtual user address space and will
allocate all physical memory in the system to it's Bpool data "cache" of 8K
buffers, leaving 256 MB of his virtual address space for his so called mem to
leave which ican be used for all memory allocations > 8 KB.
On a system with 2 GB SQL will allocate ~1.7 GB physical memory for its
bpool and .exe/dlls. Mapping all this into the virtual address space exactlu
leaves ~256 mb for the mem to leave area
On a s system with 1 GB, SQL will allocate ~.7 GB physical mmeory for bpool
and .exe/dlls. Mapping this memory into the virtual address space leaves
~1.256 mb for allocations ending up in the mem to leave area.
As for your action it's required to allocate a >8kb block SQL will allocate
such block and map it in to the memto leave area.
If you need a memory block > can fit in mem to leave area you get the
insufficient memory error.
To workaround on the 2 GB system you can use the -gxxx startup parametera nd
specify > 256 for xxx . At startup SQL will leave more space for the mem to
leave area at the cost of Bpool
Ab othe options is if you have a enterprice edition of the OS to use the
/3GB. take care however wjen using terminal server and make sure the machine
is a dedicated SQL server else don't use /3gb in the boot.ini.
Regards,
Jago
> This is an annoying one.
> I have 4 test boxes running our application. The application is a wervice
> using ADO.Net to connect to SQL Server. The machines are all P4, 2.8GHZ CPU.
> Windows Server 2003 Std. Edition, w/ all current patches (as of 10/13/04)
> running SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition. SP3a. The machines are also
> runnign Share Point Services and BIz Talk 2004, although neither of those are
> doing anything at this time. Two of the machines have 1GB physical memory, 2
> have 2GB.
> We have one test case where have to process a 50MB message (SOAP post with
> 50MB payload). The problem, interestingly enough occurs on both of the
> machines with 2GB. With a default install of SQL Server, configured to
> dynamically allocate memory, the insert saving the 50MB message fails. SQL
> Server logs "Error: 17803, Severity 20, State:12 Insufficient memory
> available." Monitoring physical memory it doesn't appear that the box is
> even close to out of memory. If I change the SQL server configuration to use
> a fixed or minimum amount of memory (1GB) the insert works 8 out of 9 times,
> but it still occasionally fails logging the same error. It makes no sense,
> especially where it works 100% of the time on the two boxes with less memory.
> Any help here would be appreciated.
|||Thanks,
That seems to have taken care of it.
"Jago" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi GGould,
> The answer to your question lies in the the way SQL allocates memory.
> Every process (on a 32bits machine) gets and 4 GB Virtual address space in
> this address space 2 GB is devote to user, 2 GB for kernel allocations.
> SQL server, when it starts with the default memory configuration will map
> his executable and dlls into this 2 GB virtual user address space and will
> allocate all physical memory in the system to it's Bpool data "cache" of 8K
> buffers, leaving 256 MB of his virtual address space for his so called mem to
> leave which ican be used for all memory allocations > 8 KB.
> On a system with 2 GB SQL will allocate ~1.7 GB physical memory for its
> bpool and .exe/dlls. Mapping all this into the virtual address space exactlu
> leaves ~256 mb for the mem to leave area
> On a s system with 1 GB, SQL will allocate ~.7 GB physical mmeory for bpool
> and .exe/dlls. Mapping this memory into the virtual address space leaves
> ~1.256 mb for allocations ending up in the mem to leave area.
> As for your action it's required to allocate a >8kb block SQL will allocate
> such block and map it in to the memto leave area.
> If you need a memory block > can fit in mem to leave area you get the
> insufficient memory error.
> To workaround on the 2 GB system you can use the -gxxx startup parametera nd
> specify > 256 for xxx . At startup SQL will leave more space for the mem to
> leave area at the cost of Bpool
> Ab othe options is if you have a enterprice edition of the OS to use the
> /3GB. take care however wjen using terminal server and make sure the machine
> is a dedicated SQL server else don't use /3gb in the boot.ini.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jago
sql

Error 17803, Severity: 20, State: 12

This is an annoying one.
I have 4 test boxes running our application. The application is a wervice
using ADO.Net to connect to SQL Server. The machines are all P4, 2.8GHZ CPU
.
Windows Server 2003 Std. Edition, w/ all current patches (as of 10/13/04)
running SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition. SP3a. The machines are also
runnign Share Point Services and BIz Talk 2004, although neither of those ar
e
doing anything at this time. Two of the machines have 1GB physical memory,
2
have 2GB.
We have one test case where have to process a 50MB message (SOAP post with
50MB payload). The problem, interestingly enough occurs on both of the
machines with 2GB. With a default install of SQL Server, configured to
dynamically allocate memory, the insert saving the 50MB message fails. SQL
Server logs "Error: 17803, Severity 20, State:12 Insufficient memory
available." Monitoring physical memory it doesn't appear that the box is
even close to out of memory. If I change the SQL server configuration to us
e
a fixed or minimum amount of memory (1GB) the insert works 8 out of 9 times,
but it still occasionally fails logging the same error. It makes no sense,
especially where it works 100% of the time on the two boxes with less memory
.
Any help here would be appreciated.Hi GGould,
The answer to your question lies in the the way SQL allocates memory.
Every process (on a 32bits machine) gets and 4 GB Virtual address space in
this address space 2 GB is devote to user, 2 GB for kernel allocations.
SQL server, when it starts with the default memory configuration will map
his executable and dlls into this 2 GB virtual user address space and will
allocate all physical memory in the system to it's Bpool data "cache" of 8K
buffers, leaving 256 MB of his virtual address space for his so called mem t
o
leave which ican be used for all memory allocations > 8 KB.
On a system with 2 GB SQL will allocate ~1.7 GB physical memory for its
bpool and .exe/dlls. Mapping all this into the virtual address space exactlu
leaves ~256 mb for the mem to leave area
On a s system with 1 GB, SQL will allocate ~.7 GB physical mmeory for bpool
and .exe/dlls. Mapping this memory into the virtual address space leaves
~1.256 mb for allocations ending up in the mem to leave area.
As for your action it's required to allocate a >8kb block SQL will allocate
such block and map it in to the memto leave area.
If you need a memory block > can fit in mem to leave area you get the
insufficient memory error.
To workaround on the 2 GB system you can use the -gxxx startup parametera nd
specify > 256 for xxx . At startup SQL will leave more space for the mem to
leave area at the cost of Bpool
Ab othe options is if you have a enterprice edition of the OS to use the
/3GB. take care however wjen using terminal server and make sure the machine
is a dedicated SQL server else don't use /3gb in the boot.ini.
Regards,
Jago
> This is an annoying one.
> I have 4 test boxes running our application. The application is a wervice
> using ADO.Net to connect to SQL Server. The machines are all P4, 2.8GHZ C
PU.
> Windows Server 2003 Std. Edition, w/ all current patches (as of 10/13/04)
> running SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition. SP3a. The machines are also
> runnign Share Point Services and BIz Talk 2004, although neither of those
are
> doing anything at this time. Two of the machines have 1GB physical memory
, 2
> have 2GB.
> We have one test case where have to process a 50MB message (SOAP post with
> 50MB payload). The problem, interestingly enough occurs on both of the
> machines with 2GB. With a default install of SQL Server, configured to
> dynamically allocate memory, the insert saving the 50MB message fails. SQ
L
> Server logs "Error: 17803, Severity 20, State:12 Insufficient memory
> available." Monitoring physical memory it doesn't appear that the box is
> even close to out of memory. If I change the SQL server configuration to
use
> a fixed or minimum amount of memory (1GB) the insert works 8 out of 9 time
s,
> but it still occasionally fails logging the same error. It makes no sense
,
> especially where it works 100% of the time on the two boxes with less memo
ry.
> Any help here would be appreciated.|||Thanks,
That seems to have taken care of it.
"Jago" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi GGould,
> The answer to your question lies in the the way SQL allocates memory.
> Every process (on a 32bits machine) gets and 4 GB Virtual address space in
> this address space 2 GB is devote to user, 2 GB for kernel allocations.
> SQL server, when it starts with the default memory configuration will map
> his executable and dlls into this 2 GB virtual user address space and will
> allocate all physical memory in the system to it's Bpool data "cache" of 8
K
> buffers, leaving 256 MB of his virtual address space for his so called mem
to
> leave which ican be used for all memory allocations > 8 KB.
> On a system with 2 GB SQL will allocate ~1.7 GB physical memory for its
> bpool and .exe/dlls. Mapping all this into the virtual address space exact
lu
> leaves ~256 mb for the mem to leave area
> On a s system with 1 GB, SQL will allocate ~.7 GB physical mmeory for bpoo
l
> and .exe/dlls. Mapping this memory into the virtual address space leaves
> ~1.256 mb for allocations ending up in the mem to leave area.
> As for your action it's required to allocate a >8kb block SQL will allocat
e
> such block and map it in to the memto leave area.
> If you need a memory block > can fit in mem to leave area you get the
> insufficient memory error.
> To workaround on the 2 GB system you can use the -gxxx startup parametera
nd
> specify > 256 for xxx . At startup SQL will leave more space for the mem t
o
> leave area at the cost of Bpool
> Ab othe options is if you have a enterprice edition of the OS to use the
> /3GB. take care however wjen using terminal server and make sure the machi
ne
> is a dedicated SQL server else don't use /3gb in the boot.ini.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jago

Error 17803, Severity: 20, State: 12

This is an annoying one.
I have 4 test boxes running our application. The application is a wervice
using ADO.Net to connect to SQL Server. The machines are all P4, 2.8GHZ CPU.
Windows Server 2003 Std. Edition, w/ all current patches (as of 10/13/04)
running SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition. SP3a. The machines are also
runnign Share Point Services and BIz Talk 2004, although neither of those are
doing anything at this time. Two of the machines have 1GB physical memory, 2
have 2GB.
We have one test case where have to process a 50MB message (SOAP post with
50MB payload). The problem, interestingly enough occurs on both of the
machines with 2GB. With a default install of SQL Server, configured to
dynamically allocate memory, the insert saving the 50MB message fails. SQL
Server logs "Error: 17803, Severity 20, State:12 Insufficient memory
available." Monitoring physical memory it doesn't appear that the box is
even close to out of memory. If I change the SQL server configuration to use
a fixed or minimum amount of memory (1GB) the insert works 8 out of 9 times,
but it still occasionally fails logging the same error. It makes no sense,
especially where it works 100% of the time on the two boxes with less memory.
Any help here would be appreciated.Hi GGould,
The answer to your question lies in the the way SQL allocates memory.
Every process (on a 32bits machine) gets and 4 GB Virtual address space in
this address space 2 GB is devote to user, 2 GB for kernel allocations.
SQL server, when it starts with the default memory configuration will map
his executable and dlls into this 2 GB virtual user address space and will
allocate all physical memory in the system to it's Bpool data "cache" of 8K
buffers, leaving 256 MB of his virtual address space for his so called mem to
leave which ican be used for all memory allocations > 8 KB.
On a system with 2 GB SQL will allocate ~1.7 GB physical memory for its
bpool and .exe/dlls. Mapping all this into the virtual address space exactlu
leaves ~256 mb for the mem to leave area
On a s system with 1 GB, SQL will allocate ~.7 GB physical mmeory for bpool
and .exe/dlls. Mapping this memory into the virtual address space leaves
~1.256 mb for allocations ending up in the mem to leave area.
As for your action it's required to allocate a >8kb block SQL will allocate
such block and map it in to the memto leave area.
If you need a memory block > can fit in mem to leave area you get the
insufficient memory error.
To workaround on the 2 GB system you can use the -gxxx startup parametera nd
specify > 256 for xxx . At startup SQL will leave more space for the mem to
leave area at the cost of Bpool
Ab othe options is if you have a enterprice edition of the OS to use the
/3GB. take care however wjen using terminal server and make sure the machine
is a dedicated SQL server else don't use /3gb in the boot.ini.
Regards,
Jago
> This is an annoying one.
> I have 4 test boxes running our application. The application is a wervice
> using ADO.Net to connect to SQL Server. The machines are all P4, 2.8GHZ CPU.
> Windows Server 2003 Std. Edition, w/ all current patches (as of 10/13/04)
> running SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition. SP3a. The machines are also
> runnign Share Point Services and BIz Talk 2004, although neither of those are
> doing anything at this time. Two of the machines have 1GB physical memory, 2
> have 2GB.
> We have one test case where have to process a 50MB message (SOAP post with
> 50MB payload). The problem, interestingly enough occurs on both of the
> machines with 2GB. With a default install of SQL Server, configured to
> dynamically allocate memory, the insert saving the 50MB message fails. SQL
> Server logs "Error: 17803, Severity 20, State:12 Insufficient memory
> available." Monitoring physical memory it doesn't appear that the box is
> even close to out of memory. If I change the SQL server configuration to use
> a fixed or minimum amount of memory (1GB) the insert works 8 out of 9 times,
> but it still occasionally fails logging the same error. It makes no sense,
> especially where it works 100% of the time on the two boxes with less memory.
> Any help here would be appreciated.|||Thanks,
That seems to have taken care of it.
"Jago" wrote:
> Hi GGould,
> The answer to your question lies in the the way SQL allocates memory.
> Every process (on a 32bits machine) gets and 4 GB Virtual address space in
> this address space 2 GB is devote to user, 2 GB for kernel allocations.
> SQL server, when it starts with the default memory configuration will map
> his executable and dlls into this 2 GB virtual user address space and will
> allocate all physical memory in the system to it's Bpool data "cache" of 8K
> buffers, leaving 256 MB of his virtual address space for his so called mem to
> leave which ican be used for all memory allocations > 8 KB.
> On a system with 2 GB SQL will allocate ~1.7 GB physical memory for its
> bpool and .exe/dlls. Mapping all this into the virtual address space exactlu
> leaves ~256 mb for the mem to leave area
> On a s system with 1 GB, SQL will allocate ~.7 GB physical mmeory for bpool
> and .exe/dlls. Mapping this memory into the virtual address space leaves
> ~1.256 mb for allocations ending up in the mem to leave area.
> As for your action it's required to allocate a >8kb block SQL will allocate
> such block and map it in to the memto leave area.
> If you need a memory block > can fit in mem to leave area you get the
> insufficient memory error.
> To workaround on the 2 GB system you can use the -gxxx startup parametera nd
> specify > 256 for xxx . At startup SQL will leave more space for the mem to
> leave area at the cost of Bpool
> Ab othe options is if you have a enterprice edition of the OS to use the
> /3GB. take care however wjen using terminal server and make sure the machine
> is a dedicated SQL server else don't use /3gb in the boot.ini.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jago
> > This is an annoying one.
> > I have 4 test boxes running our application. The application is a wervice
> > using ADO.Net to connect to SQL Server. The machines are all P4, 2.8GHZ CPU.
> > Windows Server 2003 Std. Edition, w/ all current patches (as of 10/13/04)
> > running SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition. SP3a. The machines are also
> > runnign Share Point Services and BIz Talk 2004, although neither of those are
> > doing anything at this time. Two of the machines have 1GB physical memory, 2
> > have 2GB.
> > We have one test case where have to process a 50MB message (SOAP post with
> > 50MB payload). The problem, interestingly enough occurs on both of the
> > machines with 2GB. With a default install of SQL Server, configured to
> > dynamically allocate memory, the insert saving the 50MB message fails. SQL
> > Server logs "Error: 17803, Severity 20, State:12 Insufficient memory
> > available." Monitoring physical memory it doesn't appear that the box is
> > even close to out of memory. If I change the SQL server configuration to use
> > a fixed or minimum amount of memory (1GB) the insert works 8 out of 9 times,
> > but it still occasionally fails logging the same error. It makes no sense,
> > especially where it works 100% of the time on the two boxes with less memory.
> > Any help here would be appreciated.

Error 17066

In the last week we are seeing several occurrences of the following error:
Error 602, Severity 21, State 30:
Could not find an entry for table or index with partitionID 189907171868672 in database 2.

This is always followed by a stack dump and this error:
SQL Server Assertion: File: <qxcntxt.cpp>, line = 1069 Failed Assertion = 'cref == 0'.

I have run checkdb on tempdb and no errors are reported. Additionally, we have dropped and recreated the sp indicated in the stack dump. The errors continue.

We are running 64 bit SQL 2005 with sp2.

HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stack dump normally means a bug in sqlserver. It's best to contact PSS to get it resolved.

error 17052

Error: 644, Severity: 21, State: 3
Could not find the index entry for
RID '36100101406d0610730740650720' in index page (1:257),
index ID 0, database 'master'.
Any help or direction would be greatly appreciated.
ThanksHave you run a dbcc checkdb on the master database?
You can run this with the repair option and see if it
fixes your problem.
>--Original Message--
>Error: 644, Severity: 21, State: 3
>Could not find the index entry for
>RID '36100101406d0610730740650720' in index page (1:257),
>index ID 0, database 'master'.
>Any help or direction would be greatly appreciated.
>Thanks
>.
>|||I have not. I can not get the sql server service to start.
This might help:
2003-11-19 09:30:58.55 server Microsoft SQL Server
2000 - 8.00.760 (Intel X86)
Dec 17 2002 14:22:05
Copyright (c) 1988-2003 Microsoft Corporation
Standard Edition on Windows NT 5.0 (Build 2195:
Service Pack 4)
2003-11-19 09:30:58.55 server Copyright (C) 1988-2002
Microsoft Corporation.
2003-11-19 09:30:58.55 server All rights reserved.
2003-11-19 09:30:58.55 server Server Process ID is
2416.
2003-11-19 09:30:58.55 server Logging SQL Server
messages in file 'd:\sqlroot\MSSQL\log\ERRORLOG'.
2003-11-19 09:30:58.57 server SQL Server is starting
at priority class 'normal'(4 CPUs detected).
2003-11-19 09:30:58.66 server SQL Server configured
for thread mode processing.
2003-11-19 09:30:58.66 server Using dynamic lock
allocation. [2500] Lock Blocks, [5000] Lock Owner Blocks.
2003-11-19 09:30:58.74 server Attempting to initialize
Distributed Transaction Coordinator.
2003-11-19 09:31:00.79 spid3 Starting up
database 'master'.
2003-11-19 09:31:00.93 spid3 0 transactions rolled
back in database 'master' (1).
2003-11-19 09:31:00.93 spid3 Recovery is
checkpointing database 'master' (1)
2003-11-19 09:31:00.94 spid3 Error: 644, Severity:
21, State: 3
2003-11-19 09:31:00.94 spid3 Could not find the index
entry for RID '36100101406d0610730740650720' in index
page (1:257), index ID 0, database 'master'..
2003-11-19 09:31:00.94 spid3 Cannot recover the
master database. Exiting.
>--Original Message--
>Error: 644, Severity: 21, State: 3
>Could not find the index entry for
>RID '36100101406d0610730740650720' in index page
(1:257),
>index ID 0, database 'master'.
>Any help or direction would be greatly appreciated.
>Thanks
>.
>|||Read about rebuilding the master database (rebuildm.exe). That will clear out all system databases,
so after that you need to restore master and msdb in order to get that stuff back.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
"eric" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:021201c3aed1$375103c0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have not. I can not get the sql server service to start.
>
> This might help:
> 2003-11-19 09:30:58.55 server Microsoft SQL Server
> 2000 - 8.00.760 (Intel X86)
> Dec 17 2002 14:22:05
> Copyright (c) 1988-2003 Microsoft Corporation
> Standard Edition on Windows NT 5.0 (Build 2195:
> Service Pack 4)
> 2003-11-19 09:30:58.55 server Copyright (C) 1988-2002
> Microsoft Corporation.
> 2003-11-19 09:30:58.55 server All rights reserved.
> 2003-11-19 09:30:58.55 server Server Process ID is
> 2416.
> 2003-11-19 09:30:58.55 server Logging SQL Server
> messages in file 'd:\sqlroot\MSSQL\log\ERRORLOG'.
> 2003-11-19 09:30:58.57 server SQL Server is starting
> at priority class 'normal'(4 CPUs detected).
> 2003-11-19 09:30:58.66 server SQL Server configured
> for thread mode processing.
> 2003-11-19 09:30:58.66 server Using dynamic lock
> allocation. [2500] Lock Blocks, [5000] Lock Owner Blocks.
> 2003-11-19 09:30:58.74 server Attempting to initialize
> Distributed Transaction Coordinator.
> 2003-11-19 09:31:00.79 spid3 Starting up
> database 'master'.
> 2003-11-19 09:31:00.93 spid3 0 transactions rolled
> back in database 'master' (1).
> 2003-11-19 09:31:00.93 spid3 Recovery is
> checkpointing database 'master' (1)
> 2003-11-19 09:31:00.94 spid3 Error: 644, Severity:
> 21, State: 3
> 2003-11-19 09:31:00.94 spid3 Could not find the index
> entry for RID '36100101406d0610730740650720' in index
> page (1:257), index ID 0, database 'master'..
> 2003-11-19 09:31:00.94 spid3 Cannot recover the
> master database. Exiting.
> >--Original Message--
> >Error: 644, Severity: 21, State: 3
> >Could not find the index entry for
> >RID '36100101406d0610730740650720' in index page
> (1:257),
> >index ID 0, database 'master'.
> >
> >Any help or direction would be greatly appreciated.
> >
> >Thanks
> >.
> >|||On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 08:21:35 -0800, "eric"
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Error: 644, Severity: 21, State: 3
>Could not find the index entry for
>RID '36100101406d0610730740650720' in index page (1:257),
>index ID 0, database 'master'.
hi Eric,
we encountered the same issue on a freshly install of an
active/passive cluster Windows 2000 AS SP4 with SQLServer 2000 SP3.
the issue comes out when we try to move related cluster services from
node A to node B.
apart of fixing the master table, I'd be interested on knowing the
cause of such index curruption.
have you got any ideas?
thank you.
--
Francesco "Matro" Martire
available at www.realpopup.it:
RealPopup, the freeware winpopup replacer
RealAccount, freeware plugin for MS Outlook XP
MaTreo, freeware frontscreen for your Treo and PalmOS devices

Error 169 rebulding Index.

Anyone ever got this error ?

Error 169. Severity 15. A column has been specified more
than once in the order by list. Columns in the order by
list must be unique.

I am trying to rebuild a clustered index on a table and it
generates this error. I copied the table to another server and rebuild the index without any problems, I then made a copy of the table with a different name on the same server and rebuilt the index without any hassles. The error doesn't make sense given the context. I figured it must be a data corruption issue but I cannot find the problem. Any ideas ?

YorkieQ1 Any ideas ?

A1 What results do you get running:

dbcc Checktable (ProblemTableName) WITH ALL_ERRORMSGS

-- in single user Mode

dbcc Checktable (ProblemTableName, REPAIR_ALLOW_DATA_LOSS ) WITH ALL_ERRORMSGS

-- And if that turns up nothing:

dbcc CheckDB (ProblemTableName) WITH ALL_ERRORMSGS

-- in single user Mode
dbcc CheckDB (ProblemTableName, REPAIR_ALLOW_DATA_LOSS ) WITH ALL_ERRORMSGS|||I have tried some of your suggestions, I cannot at this stage run the single user mode queries but so far nothing has turned up.|||RE: So far nothing has turned up.

You might want to try scheduling the rebuild of the clustered index for a time when no-one would be accessing it (or check to see if any locks related to user activity that involves the table may be causing the behavior).|||The current table that my live application is using is fine, it doesn't have the error however in the process of finding the error I renamed the dud table and made a copy that is now the live table. The system is working but I need to try and find the cause of the problem.

We have some maintenance applications that do cleanup on the table to keep the system running smooth and they were the ones that started to crash, somehow I though of rebuilding the index on the table and that is how I found the problem. If I copied the table and created identical indexes on the new table then I had no problems but if I tried to rebuild the indexes on the dud table I got the errors, I still do.

Problem is that you cannot rebuild the indexes on the table without having the error, in future I know what to look for if the same errors start occuring but rebuilding indexes daily can be a costly exercise on busy tables?|||RE: Problem is that you cannot rebuild the indexes on the table without having the error, in future I know what to look for if the same errors start occuring but rebuilding indexes daily can be a costly exercise on busy tables?

True enough, I'd be concerned about the cause, locus, timing and frequency as well. DBCC INDEXDEFRAG is fairly gentle and may be of help. (It might fail on the bad page and provide some additional clues as well. From there maybe use dbcc page to investigate further?)

Does this happen often?|||To my knowledge this was the first time we caught it, we have had strange hassles before but because of the obscurity of the error I hadn't looked there before. The database is a big one, 20GB, well it's big in my experience and we move about 250 000 records through this table everyday, so it can be very busy. I have the feeling that this is the first time this problem has occured because in the past the other issues have resolved themselves but this one could not be fixed by just rebuilding an index.

I will run the index defrag on the dud table and see what turns up. One more thing which is strange is that even when I ran a insert (into another table) and delete on this 'dud' table is came up with the error 169. Go figure?

Is it worth putting sp3 on windows2000 with SQL2000 sp2?|||Also, I forgot to mention, use dbcc showcontig with dbcc indexdefrag (to provide a measure that lets one get to know when defragging is probably going to be useful).

How fragmented is the EvilClusteredIndex if you run showcontig? For example

Use Pubs
Go

DBCC SHOWCONTIG (Authors, UPKCL_auidind) WITH TABLERESULTS, ALL_LEVELS

DBCC SHOWCONTIG WITH TABLERESULTS, ALL_INDEXES, ALL_LEVELS|||To my knowledge this was the first time we caught it, we have had strange hassles before but because of the obscurity of the error I hadn't looked there before. The database is a big one, 20GB, well it's big in my experience and we move about 250 000 records through this table everyday, so it can be very busy. I have the feeling that this is the first time this problem has occured because in the past the other issues have resolved themselves but this one could not be fixed by just rebuilding an index.

I will run the index defrag on the dud table and see what turns up. Good.

One more thing which is strange is that even when I ran a insert (into another table) and delete on this 'dud' table is came up with the error 169. Go figure? An interesting clue.
Is it worth putting sp3 on windows2000 with SQL2000 sp2?
The servers I run are there (some are also running the hotfix) but I don't think that will address your issue.|||Not defragmented at all, It might have been before I originally tried to recreate the index but I will never know now. When I run the query it scans 2054 pages and moves no pages. This is seriously one of those ghost in the machine stories, the one when you start a job as some who does not have a superstitious bone in your body and everyday you think evermore that the SQL box is after you. Superstitious Queerie Language. Still running tests.|||Not defragmented at all, It might have been before I originally tried to recreate the index but I will never know now.

I guess you droped i.e.(Drop EvilIndex or Alter Table drop index) and tried a fresh Create already?|||Had to. It was the last option I had. I still have the table with the evil index and it still produces the error when I try and rebuild the index so I can keep playing with it but fortunately I have another identical table without the error running live. Using DTS I copied the table and using query analyser I scripted the indexes on the old onto the new table, works like a dream, same data, no problem with index. Might be a bad spot on a disk? Wouldn't know where though because the filegroup is spread accross a few drives.|||I still have the table with the evil index and it still produces the error when I try and rebuild the index so I can keep playing with it but fortunately I have another identical table without the error running live.

Clearly corruption of some form, (though apparently undetectable by dbcc etc.), very unusual indeed; if you find out more please let us know.sql

error 1203,severity 20, state 1

hi
im getting the below erro
error 1203,severity 20, state
i was running my interest calculation procedures..its a abanking site..and it updates around 1-2 million records.
profiler is showing this error as exception..but when i saw sysprocess ..that spid is runnable and i can see cpu and io values updated.
wot can be the source of error.
thanks
sanjayHi.
On BOOKS ONLINE:
Error 1203
Severity Level 20
Message Text
Process ID %d attempting to unlock unowned resource %.*ls.
Explanation
This error occurs when Microsoft=AE SQL ServerT is engaged in some activity other than normal post-processing cleanup and it finds that a particular page it is attempting to unlock is already unlocked. The underlying cause for this error may be related to structural problems within the affected database. SQL Server manages the acquisition and release of pages to maintain concurrency control in the multi-user environment. This mechanism is maintained through the use of various internal lock structures that identify the page and the type of lock present. Locks are acquired for processing of affected pages and released when the processing is completed.
Action
Execute DBCC CHECKDB against the database in which the object belongs. If DBCC CHECKDB reports no errors, attempt to reestablish the connection and execute the command
>--Original Message--
>hi,
> im getting the below error
> error 1203,severity 20, state 1
>i was running my interest calculation procedures..its a abanking site..and it updates around 1-2 million records..
>profiler is showing this error as exception..but when i saw sysprocess ..that spid is runnable and i can see cpu and io values updated..
>wot can be the source of error..
>thanks >sanjay
>.
>|||thnks for reply..
i tried but same error..

Error 1203

I am finding Error 1203 Severity 20 periodically in my trace.
This seems to correlate with intermittent failed insert statements performed
by a stored procedure. The stored procedure is executed shortly before this
error is recorded.
Nothing is written to the SQL Server log.
The error is occurring on SQL Server 2000 Enterprise, SP 2, build 2195,
running on W2K server.
The same error occurs in a test database on SQL Server 2000 Standard, no
service packs, build 3790.
I found one reference to it in response to a question on winnetmag.com:
What is error msg 1203, "attempting to unlock unowned resource "?
Answered: This error indicates a bug in SQL Server. Several bugs that caused
this error were fixed in SQL Server 2000, service pack 1. If you can create
a script that will allow anyone to reproduce this problem, you should send
it in to Microsoft SQL Server support.
I can't reproduce this except in our database. dbcc checkdb indicates no
errors.
I am concerned about data loss without any error to detect it. Can anyone
help me with this?
Thanks
Bill
Hi
Error 1203 is bad. Process ID %d attempting to unlock unowned resource %.*ls.
There are a number of KB articles indicating that it occurs up to version
8.00.661 (KB 326999). SP3a is 8.00.760. Get your servers to at least SQL
Server sp3a and see if the error still occurs. Plus, if you are not on SQL
Server 2000 sp3a, you are exposed to the Slammer virus.
Regards
Mike
"bill" wrote:

> I am finding Error 1203 Severity 20 periodically in my trace.
> This seems to correlate with intermittent failed insert statements performed
> by a stored procedure. The stored procedure is executed shortly before this
> error is recorded.
> Nothing is written to the SQL Server log.
> The error is occurring on SQL Server 2000 Enterprise, SP 2, build 2195,
> running on W2K server.
> The same error occurs in a test database on SQL Server 2000 Standard, no
> service packs, build 3790.
> I found one reference to it in response to a question on winnetmag.com:
> What is error msg 1203, "attempting to unlock unowned resource "?
> Answered: This error indicates a bug in SQL Server. Several bugs that caused
> this error were fixed in SQL Server 2000, service pack 1. If you can create
> a script that will allow anyone to reproduce this problem, you should send
> it in to Microsoft SQL Server support.
> I can't reproduce this except in our database. dbcc checkdb indicates no
> errors.
> I am concerned about data loss without any error to detect it. Can anyone
> help me with this?
> Thanks
> Bill
>
>
|||Mike:
SQL Server SP3a DOES NOT contain the fix for the "Slammer Worm" virus,
MS03-031. This was originally launched as build 817 but caused a but in the
DtsGui.dll. This fix replaced the previous edition to build 818. This
release caused a password issue when using SEM. This fix is build 819.
SP3a is build 760.
The newly released SQL Server 2000 Release A is a slipstream of the pre SP3a
release code. If one uses this, then only SP3a need to be applied.
Build 818:
http://support.microsoft.com/?scid=k...852&sid=global
Build 819:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/826161
Release A:
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;826818
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas

"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:94447A54-2C1F-483F-8D71-1584645C4BCA@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> Error 1203 is bad. Process ID %d attempting to unlock unowned resource
%.*ls.[vbcol=seagreen]
> There are a number of KB articles indicating that it occurs up to version
> 8.00.661 (KB 326999). SP3a is 8.00.760. Get your servers to at least SQL
> Server sp3a and see if the error still occurs. Plus, if you are not on SQL
> Server 2000 sp3a, you are exposed to the Slammer virus.
> Regards
> Mike
>
> "bill" wrote:
performed[vbcol=seagreen]
this[vbcol=seagreen]
caused[vbcol=seagreen]
create[vbcol=seagreen]
send[vbcol=seagreen]
no[vbcol=seagreen]
anyone[vbcol=seagreen]
|||Anthony,
SQL Server 2000 Service Pack 3a does protect against Slammer. The
original patch to protect against Slammer was MS02-039. SQL Server
SP3a, available at
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...isplaylang=en,
"corrects vulnerabilities including the Slammer (W32.slammer) virus."
It will not remove Slammer if it is present, and the page says "SQL 2000
Servers infected by the "Slammer" worm virus should follow instructions
on the Microsoft TechNet Web site before installing SP3a."
According to
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...isplayLang=en,
"Instances of SQL Server 2000 with Service Pack 2 (SP2) and security
patch MS02-039, MS02-043, MS02-056, or MS02-061, or instances with SP3
or later, are not vulnerable to the slammer worm."
Release A also protects against Slammer, but does not contain other
fixes from SP3a.
Steve Kass
Drew University
AnthonyThomas wrote:

>Mike:
>SQL Server SP3a DOES NOT contain the fix for the "Slammer Worm" virus,
>MS03-031. This was originally launched as build 817 but caused a but in the
>DtsGui.dll. This fix replaced the previous edition to build 818. This
>release caused a password issue when using SEM. This fix is build 819.
>SP3a is build 760.
>The newly released SQL Server 2000 Release A is a slipstream of the pre SP3a
>release code. If one uses this, then only SP3a need to be applied.
>Build 818:
>http://support.microsoft.com/?scid=k...852&sid=global
>
>Build 819:
>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/826161
>
>Release A:
>http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;826818
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Anthony Thomas
>
>
|||Then why the need for MS03-031 for post SP3 or SP3a, both of which are only the 760 builds, while the MS03-031 was originally 817, then 818, closely followed by 819? Since the hot fixes and service packs are cumulative, why didn't the post SP2 hot fixes make it into the SP3(a) releases? Again, if they did, then why the need for the 817 through 819 builds?
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas

"Steve Kass" <skass@.drew.edu> wrote in message news:%23qrsygtyEHA.1300@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
Anthony,
SQL Server 2000 Service Pack 3a does protect against Slammer. The
original patch to protect against Slammer was MS02-039. SQL Server
SP3a, available at
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...isplaylang=en,
"corrects vulnerabilities including the Slammer (W32.slammer) virus."
It will not remove Slammer if it is present, and the page says "SQL 2000
Servers infected by the "Slammer" worm virus should follow instructions
on the Microsoft TechNet Web site before installing SP3a."
According to
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...isplayLang=en,
"Instances of SQL Server 2000 with Service Pack 2 (SP2) and security
patch MS02-039, MS02-043, MS02-056, or MS02-061, or instances with SP3
or later, are not vulnerable to the slammer worm."
Release A also protects against Slammer, but does not contain other
fixes from SP3a.
Steve Kass
Drew University
AnthonyThomas wrote:

>Mike:
>
>SQL Server SP3a DOES NOT contain the fix for the "Slammer Worm" virus,
>MS03-031. This was originally launched as build 817 but caused a but in the
>DtsGui.dll. This fix replaced the previous edition to build 818. This
>release caused a password issue when using SEM. This fix is build 819.
>SP3a is build 760.
>
>The newly released SQL Server 2000 Release A is a slipstream of the pre SP3a
>release code. If one uses this, then only SP3a need to be applied.
>
>Build 818:
>
>http://support.microsoft.com/?scid=k...852&sid=global
>
>
>Build 819:
>
>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/826161
>
>
>Release A:
>
>http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;826818
>
>
>Sincerely,
>
>
>Anthony Thomas
>
>
>
>|||I don't understand your question at all. Here's what I said:
Anthony,
SQL Server 2000 Service Pack 3a does protect against Slammer. The
original patch to protect against Slammer was MS02-039. SQL Server
SP3a, available at
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...isplaylang=en,
"corrects vulnerabilities including the Slammer (W32.slammer)
virus." It will not remove Slammer if it is present, and the page
says "SQL 2000 Servers infected by the "Slammer" worm virus should
follow instructions on the Microsoft TechNet Web site before
installing SP3a."
According to
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...isplayLang=en,
"Instances of SQL Server 2000 with Service Pack 2 (SP2) and security
patch MS02-039, MS02-043, MS02-056, or MS02-061, or instances with
SP3 or later, are not vulnerable to the slammer worm."
Release A also protects against Slammer, but does not contain other
fixes from SP3a.
Steve Kass
Drew University
You had incorrectly stated "SQL Server SP3a DOES NOT contain the fix for
the "Slammer Worm" virus MS03-031," and I corrected your misstatement.
It does. SQL Server build 818 appeared after Service Pack 3 (Service
Pack 3/3a is build 760), and build 818 corrected three post-Slammer
security vulnerabilities identified in MS03-031.
Slammer appeared after sp3 had been released, and it did not affect
anyone who had already installed sp3, or who had installed the even
early post-sp2 fix correcting the vulnerability ultimately exploited by
Slammer (pre-Slammer, pre-sp2 bulletin MS02-039). Everything to do with
Slammer (recognition of the vulnerability, the security bulletin, the
patch, the service pack that contained the patch, and finally the
exploit) happened well before the later and unrelated bulletin MS03-031
(build 818, which was post-sp3, not pre-sp3).
SK
AnthonyThomas wrote:

>Then why the need for MS03-031 for post SP3 or SP3a, both of which are only the 760 builds, while the MS03-031 was originally 817, then 818, closely followed by 819? Since the hot fixes and service packs are cumulative, why didn't the post SP2 hot fixes
make it into the SP3(a) releases? Again, if they did, then why the need for the 817 through 819 builds?
>Sincerely,
>
>Anthony Thomas
>
>

Error 1203

I am finding Error 1203 Severity 20 periodically in my trace.
This seems to correlate with intermittent failed insert statements performed
by a stored procedure. The stored procedure is executed shortly before this
error is recorded.
Nothing is written to the SQL Server log.
The error is occurring on SQL Server 2000 Enterprise, SP 2, build 2195,
running on W2K server.
The same error occurs in a test database on SQL Server 2000 Standard, no
service packs, build 3790.
I found one reference to it in response to a question on winnetmag.com:
What is error msg 1203, "attempting to unlock unowned resource "?
Answered: This error indicates a bug in SQL Server. Several bugs that caused
this error were fixed in SQL Server 2000, service pack 1. If you can create
a script that will allow anyone to reproduce this problem, you should send
it in to Microsoft SQL Server support.
I can't reproduce this except in our database. dbcc checkdb indicates no
errors.
I am concerned about data loss without any error to detect it. Can anyone
help me with this?
Thanks
BillHi
Error 1203 is bad. Process ID %d attempting to unlock unowned resource %.*ls.
There are a number of KB articles indicating that it occurs up to version
8.00.661 (KB 326999). SP3a is 8.00.760. Get your servers to at least SQL
Server sp3a and see if the error still occurs. Plus, if you are not on SQL
Server 2000 sp3a, you are exposed to the Slammer virus.
Regards
Mike
"bill" wrote:
> I am finding Error 1203 Severity 20 periodically in my trace.
> This seems to correlate with intermittent failed insert statements performed
> by a stored procedure. The stored procedure is executed shortly before this
> error is recorded.
> Nothing is written to the SQL Server log.
> The error is occurring on SQL Server 2000 Enterprise, SP 2, build 2195,
> running on W2K server.
> The same error occurs in a test database on SQL Server 2000 Standard, no
> service packs, build 3790.
> I found one reference to it in response to a question on winnetmag.com:
> What is error msg 1203, "attempting to unlock unowned resource "?
> Answered: This error indicates a bug in SQL Server. Several bugs that caused
> this error were fixed in SQL Server 2000, service pack 1. If you can create
> a script that will allow anyone to reproduce this problem, you should send
> it in to Microsoft SQL Server support.
> I can't reproduce this except in our database. dbcc checkdb indicates no
> errors.
> I am concerned about data loss without any error to detect it. Can anyone
> help me with this?
> Thanks
> Bill
>
>|||Mike:
SQL Server SP3a DOES NOT contain the fix for the "Slammer Worm" virus,
MS03-031. This was originally launched as build 817 but caused a but in the
DtsGui.dll. This fix replaced the previous edition to build 818. This
release caused a password issue when using SEM. This fix is build 819.
SP3a is build 760.
The newly released SQL Server 2000 Release A is a slipstream of the pre SP3a
release code. If one uses this, then only SP3a need to be applied.
Build 818:
http://support.microsoft.com/?scid=kb;en-us;821277&spid=2852&sid=global
Build 819:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/826161
Release A:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;826818
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:94447A54-2C1F-483F-8D71-1584645C4BCA@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> Error 1203 is bad. Process ID %d attempting to unlock unowned resource
%.*ls.
> There are a number of KB articles indicating that it occurs up to version
> 8.00.661 (KB 326999). SP3a is 8.00.760. Get your servers to at least SQL
> Server sp3a and see if the error still occurs. Plus, if you are not on SQL
> Server 2000 sp3a, you are exposed to the Slammer virus.
> Regards
> Mike
>
> "bill" wrote:
> > I am finding Error 1203 Severity 20 periodically in my trace.
> >
> > This seems to correlate with intermittent failed insert statements
performed
> > by a stored procedure. The stored procedure is executed shortly before
this
> > error is recorded.
> >
> > Nothing is written to the SQL Server log.
> >
> > The error is occurring on SQL Server 2000 Enterprise, SP 2, build 2195,
> > running on W2K server.
> >
> > The same error occurs in a test database on SQL Server 2000 Standard, no
> > service packs, build 3790.
> >
> > I found one reference to it in response to a question on winnetmag.com:
> >
> > What is error msg 1203, "attempting to unlock unowned resource "?
> > Answered: This error indicates a bug in SQL Server. Several bugs that
caused
> > this error were fixed in SQL Server 2000, service pack 1. If you can
create
> > a script that will allow anyone to reproduce this problem, you should
send
> > it in to Microsoft SQL Server support.
> >
> > I can't reproduce this except in our database. dbcc checkdb indicates
no
> > errors.
> >
> > I am concerned about data loss without any error to detect it. Can
anyone
> > help me with this?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Bill
> >
> >
> >
> >|||Anthony,
SQL Server 2000 Service Pack 3a does protect against Slammer. The
original patch to protect against Slammer was MS02-039. SQL Server
SP3a, available at
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=90dcd52c-0488-4e46-afbf-acace5369fa3&displaylang=en,
"corrects vulnerabilities including the Slammer (W32.slammer) virus."
It will not remove Slammer if it is present, and the page says "SQL 2000
Servers infected by the "Slammer" worm virus should follow instructions
on the Microsoft TechNet Web site before installing SP3a."
According to
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=9552d43b-04eb-4af9-9e24-6cde4d933600&DisplayLang=en,
"Instances of SQL Server 2000 with Service Pack 2 (SP2) and security
patch MS02-039, MS02-043, MS02-056, or MS02-061, or instances with SP3
or later, are not vulnerable to the slammer worm."
Release A also protects against Slammer, but does not contain other
fixes from SP3a.
Steve Kass
Drew University
AnthonyThomas wrote:
>Mike:
>SQL Server SP3a DOES NOT contain the fix for the "Slammer Worm" virus,
>MS03-031. This was originally launched as build 817 but caused a but in the
>DtsGui.dll. This fix replaced the previous edition to build 818. This
>release caused a password issue when using SEM. This fix is build 819.
>SP3a is build 760.
>The newly released SQL Server 2000 Release A is a slipstream of the pre SP3a
>release code. If one uses this, then only SP3a need to be applied.
>Build 818:
>http://support.microsoft.com/?scid=kb;en-us;821277&spid=2852&sid=global
>
>Build 819:
>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/826161
>
>Release A:
>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;826818
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Anthony Thomas
>
>|||I don't understand your question at all. Here's what I said:
Anthony,
SQL Server 2000 Service Pack 3a does protect against Slammer. The
original patch to protect against Slammer was MS02-039. SQL Server
SP3a, available at
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=90dcd52c-0488-4e46-afbf-acace5369fa3&displaylang=en,
"corrects vulnerabilities including the Slammer (W32.slammer)
virus." It will not remove Slammer if it is present, and the page
says "SQL 2000 Servers infected by the "Slammer" worm virus should
follow instructions on the Microsoft TechNet Web site before
installing SP3a."
According to
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=9552d43b-04eb-4af9-9e24-6cde4d933600&DisplayLang=en,
"Instances of SQL Server 2000 with Service Pack 2 (SP2) and security
patch MS02-039, MS02-043, MS02-056, or MS02-061, or instances with
SP3 or later, are not vulnerable to the slammer worm."
Release A also protects against Slammer, but does not contain other
fixes from SP3a.
Steve Kass
Drew University
You had incorrectly stated "SQL Server SP3a DOES NOT contain the fix for
the "Slammer Worm" virus MS03-031," and I corrected your misstatement.
It does. SQL Server build 818 appeared after Service Pack 3 (Service
Pack 3/3a is build 760), and build 818 corrected three post-Slammer
security vulnerabilities identified in MS03-031.
Slammer appeared after sp3 had been released, and it did not affect
anyone who had already installed sp3, or who had installed the even
early post-sp2 fix correcting the vulnerability ultimately exploited by
Slammer (pre-Slammer, pre-sp2 bulletin MS02-039). Everything to do with
Slammer (recognition of the vulnerability, the security bulletin, the
patch, the service pack that contained the patch, and finally the
exploit) happened well before the later and unrelated bulletin MS03-031
(build 818, which was post-sp3, not pre-sp3).
SK
AnthonyThomas wrote:
>Then why the need for MS03-031 for post SP3 or SP3a, both of which are only the 760 builds, while the MS03-031 was originally 817, then 818, closely followed by 819? Since the hot fixes and service packs are cumulative, why didn't the post SP2 hot fixes make it into the SP3(a) releases? Again, if they did, then why the need for the 817 through 819 builds?
>Sincerely,
>
>Anthony Thomas
>
>

Error 1203

I am finding Error 1203 Severity 20 periodically in my trace.
This seems to correlate with intermittent failed insert statements performed
by a stored procedure. The stored procedure is executed shortly before this
error is recorded.
Nothing is written to the SQL Server log.
The error is occurring on SQL Server 2000 Enterprise, SP 2, build 2195,
running on W2K server.
The same error occurs in a test database on SQL Server 2000 Standard, no
service packs, build 3790.
I found one reference to it in response to a question on winnetmag.com:
What is error msg 1203, "attempting to unlock unowned resource "?
Answered: This error indicates a bug in SQL Server. Several bugs that caused
this error were fixed in SQL Server 2000, service pack 1. If you can create
a script that will allow anyone to reproduce this problem, you should send
it in to Microsoft SQL Server support.
I can't reproduce this except in our database. dbcc checkdb indicates no
errors.
I am concerned about data loss without any error to detect it. Can anyone
help me with this?
Thanks
BillHi
Error 1203 is bad. Process ID %d attempting to unlock unowned resource %.*ls
.
There are a number of KB articles indicating that it occurs up to version
8.00.661 (KB 326999). SP3a is 8.00.760. Get your servers to at least SQL
Server sp3a and see if the error still occurs. Plus, if you are not on SQL
Server 2000 sp3a, you are exposed to the Slammer virus.
Regards
Mike
"bill" wrote:

> I am finding Error 1203 Severity 20 periodically in my trace.
> This seems to correlate with intermittent failed insert statements perform
ed
> by a stored procedure. The stored procedure is executed shortly before th
is
> error is recorded.
> Nothing is written to the SQL Server log.
> The error is occurring on SQL Server 2000 Enterprise, SP 2, build 2195,
> running on W2K server.
> The same error occurs in a test database on SQL Server 2000 Standard, no
> service packs, build 3790.
> I found one reference to it in response to a question on winnetmag.com:
> What is error msg 1203, "attempting to unlock unowned resource "?
> Answered: This error indicates a bug in SQL Server. Several bugs that caus
ed
> this error were fixed in SQL Server 2000, service pack 1. If you can creat
e
> a script that will allow anyone to reproduce this problem, you should send
> it in to Microsoft SQL Server support.
> I can't reproduce this except in our database. dbcc checkdb indicates no
> errors.
> I am concerned about data loss without any error to detect it. Can anyone
> help me with this?
> Thanks
> Bill
>
>|||Mike:
SQL Server SP3a DOES NOT contain the fix for the "Slammer Worm" virus,
MS03-031. This was originally launched as build 817 but caused a but in the
DtsGui.dll. This fix replaced the previous edition to build 818. This
release caused a password issue when using SEM. This fix is build 819.
SP3a is build 760.
The newly released SQL Server 2000 Release A is a slipstream of the pre SP3a
release code. If one uses this, then only SP3a need to be applied.
Build 818:
http://support.microsoft.com/?scid=...2852&sid=global
Build 819:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/826161
Release A:
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;826818
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:94447A54-2C1F-483F-8D71-1584645C4BCA@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> Error 1203 is bad. Process ID %d attempting to unlock unowned resource
%.*ls.[vbcol=seagreen]
> There are a number of KB articles indicating that it occurs up to version
> 8.00.661 (KB 326999). SP3a is 8.00.760. Get your servers to at least SQL
> Server sp3a and see if the error still occurs. Plus, if you are not on SQL
> Server 2000 sp3a, you are exposed to the Slammer virus.
> Regards
> Mike
>
> "bill" wrote:
>
performed[vbcol=seagreen]
this[vbcol=seagreen]
caused[vbcol=seagreen]
create[vbcol=seagreen]
send[vbcol=seagreen]
no[vbcol=seagreen]
anyone[vbcol=seagreen]|||Anthony,
SQL Server 2000 Service Pack 3a does protect against Slammer. The
original patch to protect against Slammer was MS02-039. SQL Server
SP3a, available at
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...displaylang=en,
"corrects vulnerabilities including the Slammer (W32.slammer) virus."
It will not remove Slammer if it is present, and the page says "SQL 2000
Servers infected by the "Slammer" worm virus should follow instructions
on the Microsoft technet Web site before installing SP3a."
According to
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...DisplayLang=en,
"Instances of SQL Server 2000 with Service Pack 2 (SP2) and security
patch MS02-039, MS02-043, MS02-056, or MS02-061, or instances with SP3
or later, are not vulnerable to the slammer worm."
Release A also protects against Slammer, but does not contain other
fixes from SP3a.
Steve Kass
Drew University
AnthonyThomas wrote:

>Mike:
>SQL Server SP3a DOES NOT contain the fix for the "Slammer Worm" virus,
>MS03-031. This was originally launched as build 817 but caused a but in th
e
>DtsGui.dll. This fix replaced the previous edition to build 818. This
>release caused a password issue when using SEM. This fix is build 819.
>SP3a is build 760.
>The newly released SQL Server 2000 Release A is a slipstream of the pre SP3
a
>release code. If one uses this, then only SP3a need to be applied.
>Build 818:
>http://support.microsoft.com/?scid=...2852&sid=global
>
>Build 819:
>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/826161
>
>Release A:
>http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;826818
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Anthony Thomas
>
>|||Then why the need for MS03-031 for post SP3 or SP3a, both of which are only
the 760 builds, while the MS03-031 was originally 817, then 818, closely fol
lowed by 819? Since the hot fixes and service packs are cumulative, why did
n't the post SP2 hot fixes make it into the SP3(a) releases? Again, if they
did, then why the need for the 817 through 819 builds?
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
--
"Steve Kass" <skass@.drew.edu> wrote in message news:%23qrsygtyEHA.1300@.TK2
MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
Anthony,
SQL Server 2000 Service Pack 3a does protect against Slammer. The
original patch to protect against Slammer was MS02-039. SQL Server
SP3a, available at
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...displaylang=en,
"corrects vulnerabilities including the Slammer (W32.slammer) virus."
It will not remove Slammer if it is present, and the page says "SQL 2000
Servers infected by the "Slammer" worm virus should follow instructions
on the Microsoft technet Web site before installing SP3a."
According to
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...DisplayLang=en,
"Instances of SQL Server 2000 with Service Pack 2 (SP2) and security
patch MS02-039, MS02-043, MS02-056, or MS02-061, or instances with SP3
or later, are not vulnerable to the slammer worm."
Release A also protects against Slammer, but does not contain other
fixes from SP3a.
Steve Kass
Drew University
AnthonyThomas wrote:

>Mike:
>
>SQL Server SP3a DOES NOT contain the fix for the "Slammer Worm" virus,
>MS03-031. This was originally launched as build 817 but caused a but in
the
>DtsGui.dll. This fix replaced the previous edition to build 818. This
>release caused a password issue when using SEM. This fix is build 819.
>SP3a is build 760.
>
>The newly released SQL Server 2000 Release A is a slipstream of the pre S
P3a
>release code. If one uses this, then only SP3a need to be applied.
>
>Build 818:
>
>http://support.microsoft.com/?scid=...2852&sid=global
>
>
>Build 819:
>
>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/826161
>
>
>Release A:
>
>http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;826818
>
>
>Sincerely,
>
>
>Anthony Thomas
>
>
>
>|||I don't understand your question at all. Here's what I said:
Anthony,
SQL Server 2000 Service Pack 3a does protect against Slammer. The
original patch to protect against Slammer was MS02-039. SQL Server
SP3a, available at
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...displaylang=en,
"corrects vulnerabilities including the Slammer (W32.slammer)
virus." It will not remove Slammer if it is present, and the page
says "SQL 2000 Servers infected by the "Slammer" worm virus should
follow instructions on the Microsoft technet Web site before
installing SP3a."
According to
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...DisplayLang=en,
"Instances of SQL Server 2000 with Service Pack 2 (SP2) and security
patch MS02-039, MS02-043, MS02-056, or MS02-061, or instances with
SP3 or later, are not vulnerable to the slammer worm."
Release A also protects against Slammer, but does not contain other
fixes from SP3a.
Steve Kass
Drew University
You had incorrectly stated "SQL Server SP3a DOES NOT contain the fix for
the "Slammer Worm" virus MS03-031," and I corrected your misstatement.
It does. SQL Server build 818 appeared after Service Pack 3 (Service
Pack 3/3a is build 760), and build 818 corrected three post-Slammer
security vulnerabilities identified in MS03-031.
Slammer appeared after sp3 had been released, and it did not affect
anyone who had already installed sp3, or who had installed the even
early post-sp2 fix correcting the vulnerability ultimately exploited by
Slammer (pre-Slammer, pre-sp2 bulletin MS02-039). Everything to do with
Slammer (recognition of the vulnerability, the security bulletin, the
patch, the service pack that contained the patch, and finally the
exploit) happened well before the later and unrelated bulletin MS03-031
(build 818, which was post-sp3, not pre-sp3).
SK
AnthonyThomas wrote:

>Then why the need for MS03-031 for post SP3 or SP3a, both of which are only the 760
builds, while the MS03-031 was originally 817, then 818, closely followed by 819?
Since the hot fixes and service packs are cumulative, why didn't the post SP2 hot fi
xes
make it into the SP3(a) releases? Again, if they did, then why the need for the 817 through
819 builds?
>Sincerely,
>
>Anthony Thomas
>
>