internal consistency error

I am getting the following error when I am trying to
restore a database/differential backup. Any ideas about
what is going on ? I can not do DBCC CHECKDB on the
production server. I will do it on the backup server if I
can restore it of course.
An internal consistency error occurred. Contact technical
support for assistance. RESTORE DATABASE is terminating
abnormally.
Thanks.
Hi,
Could you please confirm that the SQL Server is up and running and the database in question is online.
And you are unable to run DBCC CHECKDB(<db name>)
On doing so what error you get? On running DBCC CHECKDB does it shows some inconsistency and allocation error on the second last line of output...
Also look for errors in the SQL Server error log for this database.
Regards
Abid
|||Why can't you run checkdb on your production server?
Paul Randal
Dev Lead, Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Tony" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:f56601c43dca$1cce0b50$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> I am getting the following error when I am trying to
> restore a database/differential backup. Any ideas about
> what is going on ? I can not do DBCC CHECKDB on the
> production server. I will do it on the backup server if I
> can restore it of course.
> An internal consistency error occurred. Contact technical
> support for assistance. RESTORE DATABASE is terminating
> abnormally.
> Thanks.
|||Are you sure that you have a complete, valid .bak file?
|||Production database is heavyly transaction oriented and I
don't want to run into performance issues while all the
users are in. The size of the DB is ~45 GB.
Thanks.

>--Original Message--
>Why can't you run checkdb on your production server?
>--
>Paul Randal
>Dev Lead, Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
>This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no rights.
>"Tony" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message[vbcol=seagreen]
>news:f56601c43dca$1cce0b50$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
I[vbcol=seagreen]
technical
>
>.
>
|||Yes I do. Actually, I am getting the error when I am
restoring the Differential backup. And NO, there is no
other backup after the differential backup.
I have the FULL backup from sunday and the differential
backup from last night. Both backups were completed
successfully.

>--Original Message--
>Are you sure that you have a complete, valid .bak file?
>.
>
sql

internal consistency error

I am getting the following error when I am trying to
restore a database/differential backup. Any ideas about
what is going on ' I can not do DBCC CHECKDB on the
production server. I will do it on the backup server if I
can restore it of course.
An internal consistency error occurred. Contact technical
support for assistance. RESTORE DATABASE is terminating
abnormally.
Thanks.Hi,
Could you please confirm that the SQL Server is up and running and the datab
ase in question is online.
And you are unable to run DBCC CHECKDB(<db name> )
On doing so what error you get? On running DBCC CHECKDB does it shows some i
nconsistency and allocation error on the second last line of output...
Also look for errors in the SQL Server error log for this database.
Regards
Abid|||Why can't you run checkdb on your production server?
Paul Randal
Dev Lead, Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Tony" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:f56601c43dca$1cce0b50$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> I am getting the following error when I am trying to
> restore a database/differential backup. Any ideas about
> what is going on ' I can not do DBCC CHECKDB on the
> production server. I will do it on the backup server if I
> can restore it of course.
> An internal consistency error occurred. Contact technical
> support for assistance. RESTORE DATABASE is terminating
> abnormally.
> Thanks.|||Are you sure that you have a complete, valid .bak file?|||Production database is heavyly transaction oriented and I
don't want to run into performance issues while all the
users are in. The size of the DB is ~45 GB.
Thanks.

>--Original Message--
>Why can't you run checkdb on your production server?
>--
>Paul Randal
>Dev Lead, Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
>This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no rights.
>"Tony" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
>news:f56601c43dca$1cce0b50$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
I[vbcol=seagreen]
technical[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>.
>|||Yes I do. Actually, I am getting the error when I am
restoring the Differential backup. And NO, there is no
other backup after the differential backup.
I have the FULL backup from sunday and the differential
backup from last night. Both backups were completed
successfully.

>--Original Message--
>Are you sure that you have a complete, valid .bak file?
>.
>

internal consistency error

I am getting the following error when I am trying to
restore a database/differential backup. Any ideas about
what is going on ' I can not do DBCC CHECKDB on the
production server. I will do it on the backup server if I
can restore it of course.
An internal consistency error occurred. Contact technical
support for assistance. RESTORE DATABASE is terminating
abnormally.
Thanks.Why can't you run checkdb on your production server?
--
Paul Randal
Dev Lead, Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Tony" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:f56601c43dca$1cce0b50$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> I am getting the following error when I am trying to
> restore a database/differential backup. Any ideas about
> what is going on ' I can not do DBCC CHECKDB on the
> production server. I will do it on the backup server if I
> can restore it of course.
> An internal consistency error occurred. Contact technical
> support for assistance. RESTORE DATABASE is terminating
> abnormally.
> Thanks.|||Are you sure that you have a complete, valid .bak file?|||Production database is heavyly transaction oriented and I
don't want to run into performance issues while all the
users are in. The size of the DB is ~45 GB.
Thanks.
>--Original Message--
>Why can't you run checkdb on your production server?
>--
>Paul Randal
>Dev Lead, Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
>This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no rights.
>"Tony" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
>news:f56601c43dca$1cce0b50$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
>> I am getting the following error when I am trying to
>> restore a database/differential backup. Any ideas about
>> what is going on ' I can not do DBCC CHECKDB on the
>> production server. I will do it on the backup server if
I
>> can restore it of course.
>> An internal consistency error occurred. Contact
technical
>> support for assistance. RESTORE DATABASE is terminating
>> abnormally.
>> Thanks.
>
>.
>|||Yes I do. Actually, I am getting the error when I am
restoring the Differential backup. And NO, there is no
other backup after the differential backup.
I have the FULL backup from sunday and the differential
backup from last night. Both backups were completed
successfully.
>--Original Message--
>Are you sure that you have a complete, valid .bak file?
>.
>

Interface for SQL Server database

Comments and ideas for software tools (ActiveX components)
to make a user interface for database.Do a google search

Madhivanan

Petteri wrote:
> Comments and ideas for software tools (ActiveX components)
> to make a user interface for database.|||Like this ;-)

http://www.google.fi/search?hl=fi&q...ogle-haku&meta=

Thank You, it helps

"Madhivanan" <madhivanan2001@.gmail.com> kirjoitti
viestiss:1149240372.946923.100540@.i39g2000cwa.goo glegroups.com...
> Do a google search
> Madhivanan
> Petteri wrote:
>> Comments and ideas for software tools (ActiveX components)
>> to make a user interface for database.|||Petteri (peter.rinne@.elperi.fi) writes:
> Comments and ideas for software tools (ActiveX components)
> to make a user interface for database.

Not really sure what the question is about, but if you work with ActiveX,
the obvious choice of client API is ADO.

But why ActiveX in this day and age? Why not .Net? Then you can use
ADO .Net, which despite the name is radically different from ADO -
and a whole lot better.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspxsql

Interesting problem with table/filesystem growth

Any body have any ideas on this one?
Have an Sqlserver 2000 instance with SP3a on it and had a
problem where we had multiple data files within the
primary filegroup. An end user was adding rows into the
table and received an out of space error on the data
component. Checking the properties on the files the auto
extend option had been turned off , which was fine in our
environment, however, checking the space used in each of
these files showed that there was plenty of space
available for use in all. (No, it wasnt the trans log that
gave grief), I allowed the autoextend on each file and got
over the problem for the table in the short term , (and
saw one of the files extend.)
This lead me to do some thinking about the way Sqlserver
handles the growth of tables on multiple files. The good
book says that Sqlserver will allocate in a round robin
fashion the data pages to a table, however this doesnt
seem to be the case. Also, How does the table what file it
is on. I found this in the sysindexes table and decoding
the first value (Contains fileid and page id and row
offset).
Thats fine, however the major problem is, if Sqlserver
doesnt do the round robin allocation of datapages like it
should, then are all your free space calcs on the file
allocation valid?
Any thoughts' Any stored procedures about to handle this'
cheers
MikeWe've had an experience in the past, where the disks seemed to get overused
and reported an error similar to (unable to allocate space). Unfortunately,
I cannot
remember the specifics. We've had a problem where the auto-extend conflicts
with
an insert.
With regard to the round robin filling, sql server will fill the files using
a proporitional
algorithm. Therefore if you fill one file then add another, the 2nd file
will get filled. If
you create 2 files at the same time, then you will observe that each file is
filled with the
same amount of data each time. In short a 20GB insert will put 10GB in each
file.
HTH
"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1a9101c3e08e$548d4c70$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> Any body have any ideas on this one?
> Have an Sqlserver 2000 instance with SP3a on it and had a
> problem where we had multiple data files within the
> primary filegroup. An end user was adding rows into the
> table and received an out of space error on the data
> component. Checking the properties on the files the auto
> extend option had been turned off , which was fine in our
> environment, however, checking the space used in each of
> these files showed that there was plenty of space
> available for use in all. (No, it wasnt the trans log that
> gave grief), I allowed the autoextend on each file and got
> over the problem for the table in the short term , (and
> saw one of the files extend.)
> This lead me to do some thinking about the way Sqlserver
> handles the growth of tables on multiple files. The good
> book says that Sqlserver will allocate in a round robin
> fashion the data pages to a table, however this doesnt
> seem to be the case. Also, How does the table what file it
> is on. I found this in the sysindexes table and decoding
> the first value (Contains fileid and page id and row
> offset).
> Thats fine, however the major problem is, if Sqlserver
> doesnt do the round robin allocation of datapages like it
> should, then are all your free space calcs on the file
> allocation valid?
> Any thoughts' Any stored procedures about to handle this'
> cheers
> Mike|||Interesting,
still leads to the problem where you think you should have
space available because you tally the total of all file
systems and unfortunately one is full!!! Kind of makes one
stop and think about what level should your space
statistcs be collected at and how you manage them!
>--Original Message--
>We've had an experience in the past, where the disks
seemed to get overused
>and reported an error similar to (unable to allocate
space). Unfortunately,
>I cannot
>remember the specifics. We've had a problem where the
auto-extend conflicts
>with
>an insert.
>
>With regard to the round robin filling, sql server will
fill the files using
>a proporitional
>algorithm. Therefore if you fill one file then add
another, the 2nd file
>will get filled. If
>you create 2 files at the same time, then you will
observe that each file is
>filled with the
>same amount of data each time. In short a 20GB insert
will put 10GB in each
>file.
>HTH
>"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
>news:1a9101c3e08e$548d4c70$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
>> Any body have any ideas on this one?
>> Have an Sqlserver 2000 instance with SP3a on it and had
a
>> problem where we had multiple data files within the
>> primary filegroup. An end user was adding rows into the
>> table and received an out of space error on the data
>> component. Checking the properties on the files the auto
>> extend option had been turned off , which was fine in
our
>> environment, however, checking the space used in each of
>> these files showed that there was plenty of space
>> available for use in all. (No, it wasnt the trans log
that
>> gave grief), I allowed the autoextend on each file and
got
>> over the problem for the table in the short term , (and
>> saw one of the files extend.)
>> This lead me to do some thinking about the way Sqlserver
>> handles the growth of tables on multiple files. The good
>> book says that Sqlserver will allocate in a round robin
>> fashion the data pages to a table, however this doesnt
>> seem to be the case. Also, How does the table what file
it
>> is on. I found this in the sysindexes table and decoding
>> the first value (Contains fileid and page id and row
>> offset).
>> Thats fine, however the major problem is, if Sqlserver
>> doesnt do the round robin allocation of datapages like
it
>> should, then are all your free space calcs on the file
>> allocation valid?
>> Any thoughts' Any stored procedures about to handle
this'
>> cheers
>> Mike
>
>.
>

Interesting problem with table/filesystem growth

Any body have any ideas on this one?
Have an Sqlserver 2000 instance with SP3a on it and had a
problem where we had multiple data files within the
primary filegroup. An end user was adding rows into the
table and received an out of space error on the data
component. Checking the properties on the files the auto
extend option had been turned off , which was fine in our
environment, however, checking the space used in each of
these files showed that there was plenty of space
available for use in all. (No, it wasnt the trans log that
gave grief), I allowed the autoextend on each file and got
over the problem for the table in the short term , (and
saw one of the files extend.)
This lead me to do some thinking about the way Sqlserver
handles the growth of tables on multiple files. The good
book says that Sqlserver will allocate in a round robin
fashion the data pages to a table, however this doesnt
seem to be the case. Also, How does the table what file it
is on. I found this in the sysindexes table and decoding
the first value (Contains fileid and page id and row
offset).
Thats fine, however the major problem is, if Sqlserver
doesnt do the round robin allocation of datapages like it
should, then are all your free space calcs on the file
allocation valid?
Any thoughts' Any stored procedures about to handle this'
cheers
MikeWe've had an experience in the past, where the disks seemed to get overused
and reported an error similar to (unable to allocate space). Unfortunately,
I cannot
remember the specifics. We've had a problem where the auto-extend conflicts
with
an insert.
With regard to the round robin filling, sql server will fill the files using
a proporitional
algorithm. Therefore if you fill one file then add another, the 2nd file
will get filled. If
you create 2 files at the same time, then you will observe that each file is
filled with the
same amount of data each time. In short a 20GB insert will put 10GB in each
file.
HTH
"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1a9101c3e08e$548d4c70$a101280a@.phx.gbl...

quote:

---

> Any body have any ideas on this one?
> Have an Sqlserver 2000 instance with SP3a on it and had a
> problem where we had multiple data files within the
> primary filegroup. An end user was adding rows into the
> table and received an out of space error on the data
> component. Checking the properties on the files the auto
> extend option had been turned off , which was fine in our
> environment, however, checking the space used in each of
> these files showed that there was plenty of space
> available for use in all. (No, it wasnt the trans log that
> gave grief), I allowed the autoextend on each file and got
> over the problem for the table in the short term , (and
> saw one of the files extend.)
> This lead me to do some thinking about the way Sqlserver
> handles the growth of tables on multiple files. The good
> book says that Sqlserver will allocate in a round robin
> fashion the data pages to a table, however this doesnt
> seem to be the case. Also, How does the table what file it
> is on. I found this in the sysindexes table and decoding
> the first value (Contains fileid and page id and row
> offset).
> Thats fine, however the major problem is, if Sqlserver
> doesnt do the round robin allocation of datapages like it
> should, then are all your free space calcs on the file
> allocation valid?
> Any thoughts' Any stored procedures about to handle this'
> cheers
> Mike

---

|||Interesting,
still leads to the problem where you think you should have
space available because you tally the total of all file
systems and unfortunately one is full!!! Kind of makes one
stop and think about what level should your space
statistcs be collected at and how you manage them!

quote:

---

>--Original Message--
>We've had an experience in the past, where the disks

---

seemed to get overused

quote:

---

>and reported an error similar to (unable to allocate

---

space). Unfortunately,

quote:

---

>I cannot
>remember the specifics. We've had a problem where the

---

auto-extend conflicts

quote:

---

>with
>an insert.
>
>With regard to the round robin filling, sql server will

---

fill the files using

quote:

---

>a proporitional
>algorithm. Therefore if you fill one file then add

---

another, the 2nd file

quote:

---

>will get filled. If
>you create 2 files at the same time, then you will

---

observe that each file is

quote:

---

>filled with the
>same amount of data each time. In short a 20GB insert

---

will put 10GB in each

quote:

---

>file.
>HTH
>"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in

---

message

quote:

---

>news:1a9101c3e08e$548d4c70$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
a[QUOTE]
our[QUOTE]
that[QUOTE]
got[QUOTE]
it[QUOTE]
it[QUOTE]
this'[QUOTE]
>
>.
>

---

sql