Disk and Tape Backups

I have nightly backups that back up sql 2000 databases on disk. We also hav
e
third party software backups on tape. What happens occasionally is the tape
backup hangs on something, then disk backups don't complete because they are
waiting on the tape to complete. Can the tape backups grab the file backups
without requiring exclusive access to DBs? any other suggestion are
appreciated
ThanksSorry, I sent my reply to the wrong place.
"Niles" wrote:

> I have nightly backups that back up sql 2000 databases on disk. We also h
ave
> third party software backups on tape. What happens occasionally is the ta
pe
> backup hangs on something, then disk backups don't complete because they a
re
> waiting on the tape to complete. Can the tape backups grab the file backu
ps
> without requiring exclusive access to DBs? any other suggestion are
> appreciated
> Thanks|||Per BOL:
table variables used in stored procedures result in fewer recompilations of
the stored procedures than when temporary tables are used.
"Niles" wrote:

> I have nightly backups that back up sql 2000 databases on disk. We also h
ave
> third party software backups on tape. What happens occasionally is the ta
pe
> backup hangs on something, then disk backups don't complete because they a
re
> waiting on the tape to complete. Can the tape backups grab the file backu
ps
> without requiring exclusive access to DBs? any other suggestion are
> appreciated
> Thanks|||"Niles" <Niles@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:248F46BC-9AF6-4F94-8666-5BE954ABCC54@.microsoft.com...
> I have nightly backups that back up sql 2000 databases on disk. We also
have
> third party software backups on tape. What happens occasionally is the
tape
> backup hangs on something, then disk backups don't complete because they
are
> waiting on the tape to complete. Can the tape backups grab the file
backups
> without requiring exclusive access to DBs? any other suggestion are
> appreciated
I wouldn't bother with the tape backups.
Backup to disk and then backup THAT file to tape.

> Thanks

Disk and Tape Backups

I have nightly backups that back up sql 2000 databases on disk. We also have
third party software backups on tape. What happens occasionally is the tape
backup hangs on something, then disk backups don't complete because they are
waiting on the tape to complete. Can the tape backups grab the file backups
without requiring exclusive access to DBs? any other suggestion are
appreciated
Thanks
Sorry, I sent my reply to the wrong place.
"Niles" wrote:

> I have nightly backups that back up sql 2000 databases on disk. We also have
> third party software backups on tape. What happens occasionally is the tape
> backup hangs on something, then disk backups don't complete because they are
> waiting on the tape to complete. Can the tape backups grab the file backups
> without requiring exclusive access to DBs? any other suggestion are
> appreciated
> Thanks
|||Per BOL:
table variables used in stored procedures result in fewer recompilations of
the stored procedures than when temporary tables are used.
"Niles" wrote:

> I have nightly backups that back up sql 2000 databases on disk. We also have
> third party software backups on tape. What happens occasionally is the tape
> backup hangs on something, then disk backups don't complete because they are
> waiting on the tape to complete. Can the tape backups grab the file backups
> without requiring exclusive access to DBs? any other suggestion are
> appreciated
> Thanks
|||"Niles" <Niles@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:248F46BC-9AF6-4F94-8666-5BE954ABCC54@.microsoft.com...
> I have nightly backups that back up sql 2000 databases on disk. We also
have
> third party software backups on tape. What happens occasionally is the
tape
> backup hangs on something, then disk backups don't complete because they
are
> waiting on the tape to complete. Can the tape backups grab the file
backups
> without requiring exclusive access to DBs? any other suggestion are
> appreciated
I wouldn't bother with the tape backups.
Backup to disk and then backup THAT file to tape.

> Thanks
sql

Disk and Tape Backups

I have nightly backups that back up sql 2000 databases on disk. We also have
third party software backups on tape. What happens occasionally is the tape
backup hangs on something, then disk backups don't complete because they are
waiting on the tape to complete. Can the tape backups grab the file backups
without requiring exclusive access to DBs? any other suggestion are
appreciated
ThanksSorry, I sent my reply to the wrong place.
"Niles" wrote:
> I have nightly backups that back up sql 2000 databases on disk. We also have
> third party software backups on tape. What happens occasionally is the tape
> backup hangs on something, then disk backups don't complete because they are
> waiting on the tape to complete. Can the tape backups grab the file backups
> without requiring exclusive access to DBs? any other suggestion are
> appreciated
> Thanks|||Per BOL:
table variables used in stored procedures result in fewer recompilations of
the stored procedures than when temporary tables are used.
"Niles" wrote:
> I have nightly backups that back up sql 2000 databases on disk. We also have
> third party software backups on tape. What happens occasionally is the tape
> backup hangs on something, then disk backups don't complete because they are
> waiting on the tape to complete. Can the tape backups grab the file backups
> without requiring exclusive access to DBs? any other suggestion are
> appreciated
> Thanks|||"Niles" <Niles@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:248F46BC-9AF6-4F94-8666-5BE954ABCC54@.microsoft.com...
> I have nightly backups that back up sql 2000 databases on disk. We also
have
> third party software backups on tape. What happens occasionally is the
tape
> backup hangs on something, then disk backups don't complete because they
are
> waiting on the tape to complete. Can the tape backups grab the file
backups
> without requiring exclusive access to DBs? any other suggestion are
> appreciated
I wouldn't bother with the tape backups.
Backup to disk and then backup THAT file to tape.
> Thanks

Disaster Recovery: SQL Server 2000 on Win 2000 Server.

This past Monday, our Raid 5 array failed on our SQL 2000 server (standard edition). Long story short, we were able to get the data back, mostly. In SQL server Ent. Mgr., I had to restore 4 databases that were 'Suspect' and "greyed out". No problems there... I was able to restore them.

What was interesting was that the SQL Server Agent would not start. As it turned out, a few files were either corrupt or missing after we got the machine back up. We had to restore a few files from tape backup and now the SQL Server Agent starts... but now I have a new problem.

For some reason, my default SQL Server Agent "Job" that is scheduled to run once per day fails. It appears that all of the databases get backed up, but for some reason, the msdbdata.mdf database is NOT being backed up.

I have a few questions. Could my msdbdata.mdf be corrupt? I have a successful backup of the msdbdata.mdf table from 9/10/2007. Can I just restore from that? Will there be any repercussions to any of the other database tables if I do?

Furthermore, should I just restore the msdbdata.mdf, master.mdf and the model.mdf? I really have no idea what these tables do and the repercussions of modifying them. I am not a DBA (obviously) and I just don't want to make an mistakes.

Thanks, CFDev.
Can you pls provide the details of the job history if any ? I guess you mean to say that msdb database backup fails if i interpret it correctly and Yes you can go ahead and restore the msdb.bak dated 9/10/2007 and check........the only issue is that all the jobs,dts packages created since 9/10 will not be available if you restore it.........I don't think its needed its enough if you restore msdb no need to restore master or model dbs..........
|||The "Job" is part of the databases default "maintenance plan". It consists of four parts:
1. DB backup
2. Integrity checks
3. Optimizations
4. Transaction Log Backup

This should be familiar to you, no? Anyway, would be okay to restore the msdb database then? How about the model and master databases? No tables, stored procedures, dts packages or anything has been changed. I just want peace of mind that if I were to restore any of these database tables, it would not effect any of my website's database tables. Make sense?

|||

Yes i am familiar with it if you feel there is no change done in msdb after 9/10 you can go ahead and restore msdb. Master stores all the login information and model acts as
template for other dbs so just restore msdb as it contains all the jobs and dts packages....I dont think restoring msdb would affect your db tables.......

|||

It would also be a good idea to run checkdb on all databases to make sure that they're clean.

You haven't made changes since 9/10, but you'd really rather not trip across hidden problems later.

Disaster Recovery: SQL Server 2000 on Win 2000 Server.

This past Monday, our Raid 5 array failed on our SQL 2000 server (standard edition). Long story short, we were able to get the data back, mostly. In SQL server Ent. Mgr., I had to restore 4 databases that were 'Suspect' and "greyed out". No problems there... I was able to restore them.

What was interesting was that the SQL Server Agent would not start. As it turned out, a few files were either corrupt or missing after we got the machine back up. We had to restore a few files from tape backup and now the SQL Server Agent starts... but now I have a new problem.

For some reason, my default SQL Server Agent "Job" that is scheduled to run once per day fails. It appears that all of the databases get backed up, but for some reason, the msdbdata.mdf database is NOT being backed up.

I have a few questions. Could my msdbdata.mdf be corrupt? I have a successful backup of the msdbdata.mdf table from 9/10/2007. Can I just restore from that? Will there be any repercussions to any of the other database tables if I do?

Furthermore, should I just restore the msdbdata.mdf, master.mdf and the model.mdf? I really have no idea what these tables do and the repercussions of modifying them. I am not a DBA (obviously) and I just don't want to make an mistakes.

Thanks, CFDev.
Can you pls provide the details of the job history if any ? I guess you mean to say that msdb database backup fails if i interpret it correctly and Yes you can go ahead and restore the msdb.bak dated 9/10/2007 and check........the only issue is that all the jobs,dts packages created since 9/10 will not be available if you restore it.........I don't think its needed its enough if you restore msdb no need to restore master or model dbs..........
|||The "Job" is part of the databases default "maintenance plan". It consists of four parts:
1. DB backup
2. Integrity checks
3. Optimizations
4. Transaction Log Backup

This should be familiar to you, no? Anyway, would be okay to restore the msdb database then? How about the model and master databases? No tables, stored procedures, dts packages or anything has been changed. I just want peace of mind that if I were to restore any of these database tables, it would not effect any of my website's database tables. Make sense?

|||

Yes i am familiar with it if you feel there is no change done in msdb after 9/10 you can go ahead and restore msdb. Master stores all the login information and model acts as
template for other dbs so just restore msdb as it contains all the jobs and dts packages....I dont think restoring msdb would affect your db tables.......

|||

It would also be a good idea to run checkdb on all databases to make sure that they're clean.

You haven't made changes since 9/10, but you'd really rather not trip across hidden problems later.

Disaster Recovery - Failing over and back - Losing publications

Hello,
I am wondering what I am doing wrong or if what I am seeing is normal
behavior.
I have manual log shipping in place (via SQL LiteSpeed).
We have a replicated database log shipped to a DR server in another
location. When I fail over to the DR site, I can still see the publications
on both sites (however the DR site is not set up for replication). When I
fail back to the main site, I lose replication for the database and all of
my agents fail upon restarting them.
Has anyone run into this and come up with a solution?
We have to fail over to the DR site next weekend for building maintenance
and I don't want to have to rebuild replication.
Thanks so much.
~lb
You might want to restore your databases with the keep replication switch.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Lonnye Blake Bower" <lbower@.excellerx.com> wrote in message
news:eZclO86MFHA.4092@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I am wondering what I am doing wrong or if what I am seeing is normal
> behavior.
> I have manual log shipping in place (via SQL LiteSpeed).
> We have a replicated database log shipped to a DR server in another
> location. When I fail over to the DR site, I can still see the
publications
> on both sites (however the DR site is not set up for replication). When I
> fail back to the main site, I lose replication for the database and all of
> my agents fail upon restarting them.
> Has anyone run into this and come up with a solution?
> We have to fail over to the DR site next weekend for building maintenance
> and I don't want to have to rebuild replication.
> Thanks so much.
> ~lb
>

Disappearing Records

I am running an Access 2000 MDB against a SQL 7 back end, using ODBC linked
tables over a LAN and a WAN. The system has been operational for years with
relatively few problems.

Recently, WAN users have been reporting several hundred records disappearing
at a time. The records are all sequential, and they're in a table that
contains about 60,000 records. This all started last week at about the same
time (not sure if before or after) that the WAN went down for a couple of
hours for an unknown reason. Since then, every once in a while, a WAN user
will report that several hundred records in a block are just "missing."
Then, an hour or two later, they reappear.

Any ideas as to what's going on or what can be done to rectify this?

Thanks!

Neilhi Neil,

Neil wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Any ideas as to what's going on or what can be done to rectify this?

Bad WLAN performance, but the network stack is not aware of it. So your
session thinks it is okay, but it's not.

mfG
--stefan <--|||Any ideas on what can be done to rectify it?

"Stefan Hoffmann" <stefan.hoffmann@.explido.dewrote in message
news:OFe9nMmOHHA.2232@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

Quote:

Originally Posted by

hi Neil,
>
Neil wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>Any ideas as to what's going on or what can be done to rectify this?

Bad WLAN performance, but the network stack is not aware of it. So your
session thinks it is okay, but it's not.
>
>
mfG
--stefan <--

|||hi Neil,

Neil wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Any ideas on what can be done to rectify it?

Try using a permanent open recordset.
Use filterted recordsets.
Use serverside filters (views).

mfG
--stefan <--|||OK, thanks. I guess I was thinking that, since this system has been in place
for years without these problems; and since these problems just started last
week when the WAN went down for a few hours; that perhaps there was
something on the network end that can be done to rectify it. This has never
been a problem before, so something must have happened to cause it. The
database hasn't changed very much in years.

Thanks,

Neil

"Stefan Hoffmann" <stefan.hoffmann@.explido.dewrote in message
news:e3lZ9rmOHHA.3872@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

Quote:

Originally Posted by

hi Neil,
>
Neil wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>Any ideas on what can be done to rectify it?

Try using a permanent open recordset.
Use filterted recordsets.
Use serverside filters (views).
>
>
mfG
--stefan <--

|||"Neil" <nospam@.nospam.netwrote in message
news:XNvrh.12389$yx6.3307@.newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net...

Quote:

Originally Posted by

OK, thanks. I guess I was thinking that, since this system has been in
place for years without these problems; and since these problems just
started last week when the WAN went down for a few hours; that perhaps
there was something on the network end that can be done to rectify it.
This has never been a problem before, so something must have happened to
cause it. The database hasn't changed very much in years.

It is surprising how often only one record is needed for a particular
business function, if it exists, or none, if it does not. Limiting the
number of records retrieved by Query Criteria is a very good way to speed up
client-server performance, and you'll never "lose" several hundred records
on a one-record retrieval. A client-server application which retrieves
hundreds or thousands of records, or more, and then "finds" the one of
interest is not very efficient and effective.

That said, the "fix" is to correct the LAN/WAN problems. I once observed a
company who got a really noticeable improvement when they replaced about 95%
of their network support staff. {:-) or :-(, depending on whether you were
part of the new or the old staff} That said, because a LAN is totally
within control of the network support team, it's much easier to fix than a
WAN, which relies on external providers for some of its services.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP|||Larry,

I agree with what you wrote 100%. The application was inherited by me after
it was converted to an Access back end from an off-the-shelf product.
There's much that needs to be improved with it. One of the major changes
that we are looking to make is to change the way it works with records in
the way you describe. Bringing over tens of thousands of records is
ridiculous. I was considering giving the user options to work with small,
pre-defined sets of records based on business needs, with the additional
option of a custom set based on search criteria (with the sets being
compiled in the back end, of course, and then brought over). But your note
has made me rethink this. In what situations would the user need anything
*but* a custom set? So I'm rethinking that paradigm, and may just have the
user pull over whatever set of records they need. So thanks for that.

Getting back to the network situation, the problem only seems to manifest
itself in the WAN. The LAN users aren't experiencing this problem. And, as
noted, it only started about a week ago (after many years of the database
and WAN being up and running without this problem) and on the same day that
the WAN went down for several hours. So this tells me that SOMETHING
happened on that day that hasn't yet been rectified. But I know what the
network guy's going to say: everything's working fine now; he doesn't see
any problem with anything. And round and round we go.....

Thanks,

Neil

"Larry Linson" <bouncer@.localhost.notwrote in message
news:iMCrh.3792$E35.2163@.trnddc02...

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>
"Neil" <nospam@.nospam.netwrote in message
news:XNvrh.12389$yx6.3307@.newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net...

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>OK, thanks. I guess I was thinking that, since this system has been in
>place for years without these problems; and since these problems just
>started last week when the WAN went down for a few hours; that perhaps
>there was something on the network end that can be done to rectify it.
>This has never been a problem before, so something must have happened to
>cause it. The database hasn't changed very much in years.

>
It is surprising how often only one record is needed for a particular
business function, if it exists, or none, if it does not. Limiting the
number of records retrieved by Query Criteria is a very good way to speed
up client-server performance, and you'll never "lose" several hundred
records on a one-record retrieval. A client-server application which
retrieves hundreds or thousands of records, or more, and then "finds" the
one of interest is not very efficient and effective.
>
That said, the "fix" is to correct the LAN/WAN problems. I once observed a
company who got a really noticeable improvement when they replaced about
95% of their network support staff. {:-) or :-(, depending on whether you
were part of the new or the old staff} That said, because a LAN is
totally within control of the network support team, it's much easier to
fix than a WAN, which relies on external providers for some of its
services.
>
Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP
>
>

|||Neil wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Getting back to the network situation, the problem only seems to manifest
itself in the WAN. The LAN users aren't experiencing this problem. And, as
noted, it only started about a week ago (after many years of the database
and WAN being up and running without this problem) and on the same day that
the WAN went down for several hours. So this tells me that SOMETHING
happened on that day that hasn't yet been rectified. But I know what the
network guy's going to say: everything's working fine now; he doesn't see
any problem with anything. And round and round we go.....

Is he denying that the WAN outage is responsible for the problem, or is
he just claiming that the WAN outage was an isolated incident and he
doesn't know what caused it and thus he doesn't know how to prevent
future occurrences?

In the former case, you could test the issue by deliberately cutting a
workstation's WAN connection and seeing whether the problem recurs.|||As for what he believes, here's what he wrote:

"It sounds as if it is using cached information and not updating from the
database directly. We are having intermittent issues with the T1s,
but that has been going on for the last few months. Last week the T1s went
down for over two hours this issue was brought to my attention
right after that incident so I am not sure if it is related.

"When I get in this afternoon I'll start sniffing around on the network and
see if there is anything going on at the Network layer.
Later tonight I will reset both the routers and firewalls on both end as
well to see if that helps. I will let them run over the weekend to see what
kind of data we can collect on errors, interface resets etc."

Note that he says the issue was brought to his attention right after the T1s
went down; yet he still isn't sure if the two are related!

Re. testing for the problem, it's hard to do because the problem is very
intermittent. Also, the WAN computers get their data from the remote
location.

Thanks,

Neil

"Ed Murphy" <emurphy42@.socal.rr.comwrote in message
news:45afd262$0$5750$4c368faf@.roadrunner.com...

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Neil wrote:
>

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>Getting back to the network situation, the problem only seems to manifest
>itself in the WAN. The LAN users aren't experiencing this problem. And,
>as noted, it only started about a week ago (after many years of the
>database and WAN being up and running without this problem) and on the
>same day that the WAN went down for several hours. So this tells me that
>SOMETHING happened on that day that hasn't yet been rectified. But I know
>what the network guy's going to say: everything's working fine now; he
>doesn't see any problem with anything. And round and round we go.....

>
Is he denying that the WAN outage is responsible for the problem, or is
he just claiming that the WAN outage was an isolated incident and he
doesn't know what caused it and thus he doesn't know how to prevent
future occurrences?
>
In the former case, you could test the issue by deliberately cutting a
workstation's WAN connection and seeing whether the problem recurs.

Disappearing Records

I am running an Access 2000 MDB against a SQL 7 back end, using ODBC linked
tables over a LAN and a WAN. The system has been operational for years with
relatively few problems.
Recently, WAN users have been reporting several hundred records disappearing
at a time. The records are all sequential, and they're in a table that
contains about 60,000 records. This all started last week at about the same
time (not sure if before or after) that the WAN went down for a couple of
hours for an unknown reason. Since then, every once in a while, a WAN user
will report that several hundred records in a block are just "missing."
Then, an hour or two later, they reappear.
Any ideas as to what's going on or what can be done to rectify this?
Thanks!
Neilhi Neil,
Neil wrote:
> Any ideas as to what's going on or what can be done to rectify this?
Bad WLAN performance, but the network stack is not aware of it. So your
session thinks it is okay, but it's not.
mfG
--> stefan <--|||Any ideas on what can be done to rectify it?
"Stefan Hoffmann" <stefan.hoffmann@.explido.de> wrote in message
news:OFe9nMmOHHA.2232@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> hi Neil,
> Neil wrote:
>> Any ideas as to what's going on or what can be done to rectify this?
> Bad WLAN performance, but the network stack is not aware of it. So your
> session thinks it is okay, but it's not.
>
> mfG
> --> stefan <--|||hi Neil,
Neil wrote:
> Any ideas on what can be done to rectify it?
Try using a permanent open recordset.
Use filterted recordsets.
Use serverside filters (views).
mfG
--> stefan <--|||OK, thanks. I guess I was thinking that, since this system has been in place
for years without these problems; and since these problems just started last
week when the WAN went down for a few hours; that perhaps there was
something on the network end that can be done to rectify it. This has never
been a problem before, so something must have happened to cause it. The
database hasn't changed very much in years.
Thanks,
Neil
"Stefan Hoffmann" <stefan.hoffmann@.explido.de> wrote in message
news:e3lZ9rmOHHA.3872@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> hi Neil,
> Neil wrote:
>> Any ideas on what can be done to rectify it?
> Try using a permanent open recordset.
> Use filterted recordsets.
> Use serverside filters (views).
>
> mfG
> --> stefan <--|||"Neil" <nospam@.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:XNvrh.12389$yx6.3307@.newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> OK, thanks. I guess I was thinking that, since this system has been in
> place for years without these problems; and since these problems just
> started last week when the WAN went down for a few hours; that perhaps
> there was something on the network end that can be done to rectify it.
> This has never been a problem before, so something must have happened to
> cause it. The database hasn't changed very much in years.
It is surprising how often only one record is needed for a particular
business function, if it exists, or none, if it does not. Limiting the
number of records retrieved by Query Criteria is a very good way to speed up
client-server performance, and you'll never "lose" several hundred records
on a one-record retrieval. A client-server application which retrieves
hundreds or thousands of records, or more, and then "finds" the one of
interest is not very efficient and effective.
That said, the "fix" is to correct the LAN/WAN problems. I once observed a
company who got a really noticeable improvement when they replaced about 95%
of their network support staff. {:-) or :-(, depending on whether you were
part of the new or the old staff} That said, because a LAN is totally
within control of the network support team, it's much easier to fix than a
WAN, which relies on external providers for some of its services.
Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP|||Larry,
I agree with what you wrote 100%. The application was inherited by me after
it was converted to an Access back end from an off-the-shelf product.
There's much that needs to be improved with it. One of the major changes
that we are looking to make is to change the way it works with records in
the way you describe. Bringing over tens of thousands of records is
ridiculous. I was considering giving the user options to work with small,
pre-defined sets of records based on business needs, with the additional
option of a custom set based on search criteria (with the sets being
compiled in the back end, of course, and then brought over). But your note
has made me rethink this. In what situations would the user need anything
*but* a custom set? So I'm rethinking that paradigm, and may just have the
user pull over whatever set of records they need. So thanks for that.
Getting back to the network situation, the problem only seems to manifest
itself in the WAN. The LAN users aren't experiencing this problem. And, as
noted, it only started about a week ago (after many years of the database
and WAN being up and running without this problem) and on the same day that
the WAN went down for several hours. So this tells me that SOMETHING
happened on that day that hasn't yet been rectified. But I know what the
network guy's going to say: everything's working fine now; he doesn't see
any problem with anything. And round and round we go.....
Thanks,
Neil
"Larry Linson" <bouncer@.localhost.not> wrote in message
news:iMCrh.3792$E35.2163@.trnddc02...
> "Neil" <nospam@.nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:XNvrh.12389$yx6.3307@.newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> OK, thanks. I guess I was thinking that, since this system has been in
>> place for years without these problems; and since these problems just
>> started last week when the WAN went down for a few hours; that perhaps
>> there was something on the network end that can be done to rectify it.
>> This has never been a problem before, so something must have happened to
>> cause it. The database hasn't changed very much in years.
> It is surprising how often only one record is needed for a particular
> business function, if it exists, or none, if it does not. Limiting the
> number of records retrieved by Query Criteria is a very good way to speed
> up client-server performance, and you'll never "lose" several hundred
> records on a one-record retrieval. A client-server application which
> retrieves hundreds or thousands of records, or more, and then "finds" the
> one of interest is not very efficient and effective.
> That said, the "fix" is to correct the LAN/WAN problems. I once observed a
> company who got a really noticeable improvement when they replaced about
> 95% of their network support staff. {:-) or :-(, depending on whether you
> were part of the new or the old staff} That said, because a LAN is
> totally within control of the network support team, it's much easier to
> fix than a WAN, which relies on external providers for some of its
> services.
> Larry Linson
> Microsoft Access MVP
>|||Neil wrote:
> Getting back to the network situation, the problem only seems to manifest
> itself in the WAN. The LAN users aren't experiencing this problem. And, as
> noted, it only started about a week ago (after many years of the database
> and WAN being up and running without this problem) and on the same day that
> the WAN went down for several hours. So this tells me that SOMETHING
> happened on that day that hasn't yet been rectified. But I know what the
> network guy's going to say: everything's working fine now; he doesn't see
> any problem with anything. And round and round we go.....
Is he denying that the WAN outage is responsible for the problem, or is
he just claiming that the WAN outage was an isolated incident and he
doesn't know what caused it and thus he doesn't know how to prevent
future occurrences?
In the former case, you could test the issue by deliberately cutting a
workstation's WAN connection and seeing whether the problem recurs.|||As for what he believes, here's what he wrote:
"It sounds as if it is using cached information and not updating from the
database directly. We are having intermittent issues with the T1s,
but that has been going on for the last few months. Last week the T1s went
down for over two hours this issue was brought to my attention
right after that incident so I am not sure if it is related.
"When I get in this afternoon I'll start sniffing around on the network and
see if there is anything going on at the Network layer.
Later tonight I will reset both the routers and firewalls on both end as
well to see if that helps. I will let them run over the weekend to see what
kind of data we can collect on errors, interface resets etc."
Note that he says the issue was brought to his attention right after the T1s
went down; yet he still isn't sure if the two are related!
Re. testing for the problem, it's hard to do because the problem is very
intermittent. Also, the WAN computers get their data from the remote
location.
Thanks,
Neil
"Ed Murphy" <emurphy42@.socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:45afd262$0$5750$4c368faf@.roadrunner.com...
> Neil wrote:
>> Getting back to the network situation, the problem only seems to manifest
>> itself in the WAN. The LAN users aren't experiencing this problem. And,
>> as noted, it only started about a week ago (after many years of the
>> database and WAN being up and running without this problem) and on the
>> same day that the WAN went down for several hours. So this tells me that
>> SOMETHING happened on that day that hasn't yet been rectified. But I know
>> what the network guy's going to say: everything's working fine now; he
>> doesn't see any problem with anything. And round and round we go.....
> Is he denying that the WAN outage is responsible for the problem, or is
> he just claiming that the WAN outage was an isolated incident and he
> doesn't know what caused it and thus he doesn't know how to prevent
> future occurrences?
> In the former case, you could test the issue by deliberately cutting a
> workstation's WAN connection and seeing whether the problem recurs.

Disappearing Records

I am running an Access 2000 MDB against a SQL 7 back end, using ODBC linked
tables over a LAN and a WAN. The system has been operational for years with
relatively few problems.
Recently, WAN users have been reporting several hundred records disappearing
at a time. The records are all sequential, and they're in a table that
contains about 60,000 records. This all started last week at about the same
time (not sure if before or after) that the WAN went down for a couple of
hours for an unknown reason. Since then, every once in a while, a WAN user
will report that several hundred records in a block are just "missing."
Then, an hour or two later, they reappear.
Any ideas as to what's going on or what can be done to rectify this?
Thanks!
Neil
Any ideas on what can be done to rectify it?
"Stefan Hoffmann" <stefan.hoffmann@.explido.de> wrote in message
news:OFe9nMmOHHA.2232@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> hi Neil,
> Neil wrote:
> Bad WLAN performance, but the network stack is not aware of it. So your
> session thinks it is okay, but it's not.
>
> mfG
> --> stefan <--
|||OK, thanks. I guess I was thinking that, since this system has been in place
for years without these problems; and since these problems just started last
week when the WAN went down for a few hours; that perhaps there was
something on the network end that can be done to rectify it. This has never
been a problem before, so something must have happened to cause it. The
database hasn't changed very much in years.
Thanks,
Neil
"Stefan Hoffmann" <stefan.hoffmann@.explido.de> wrote in message
news:e3lZ9rmOHHA.3872@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> hi Neil,
> Neil wrote:
> Try using a permanent open recordset.
> Use filterted recordsets.
> Use serverside filters (views).
>
> mfG
> --> stefan <--
|||"Neil" <nospam@.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:XNvrh.12389$yx6.3307@.newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net...
> OK, thanks. I guess I was thinking that, since this system has been in
> place for years without these problems; and since these problems just
> started last week when the WAN went down for a few hours; that perhaps
> there was something on the network end that can be done to rectify it.
> This has never been a problem before, so something must have happened to
> cause it. The database hasn't changed very much in years.
It is surprising how often only one record is needed for a particular
business function, if it exists, or none, if it does not. Limiting the
number of records retrieved by Query Criteria is a very good way to speed up
client-server performance, and you'll never "lose" several hundred records
on a one-record retrieval. A client-server application which retrieves
hundreds or thousands of records, or more, and then "finds" the one of
interest is not very efficient and effective.
That said, the "fix" is to correct the LAN/WAN problems. I once observed a
company who got a really noticeable improvement when they replaced about 95%
of their network support staff. {:-) or :-(, depending on whether you were
part of the new or the old staff} That said, because a LAN is totally
within control of the network support team, it's much easier to fix than a
WAN, which relies on external providers for some of its services.
Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP
|||Larry,
I agree with what you wrote 100%. The application was inherited by me after
it was converted to an Access back end from an off-the-shelf product.
There's much that needs to be improved with it. One of the major changes
that we are looking to make is to change the way it works with records in
the way you describe. Bringing over tens of thousands of records is
ridiculous. I was considering giving the user options to work with small,
pre-defined sets of records based on business needs, with the additional
option of a custom set based on search criteria (with the sets being
compiled in the back end, of course, and then brought over). But your note
has made me rethink this. In what situations would the user need anything
*but* a custom set? So I'm rethinking that paradigm, and may just have the
user pull over whatever set of records they need. So thanks for that.
Getting back to the network situation, the problem only seems to manifest
itself in the WAN. The LAN users aren't experiencing this problem. And, as
noted, it only started about a week ago (after many years of the database
and WAN being up and running without this problem) and on the same day that
the WAN went down for several hours. So this tells me that SOMETHING
happened on that day that hasn't yet been rectified. But I know what the
network guy's going to say: everything's working fine now; he doesn't see
any problem with anything. And round and round we go.....
Thanks,
Neil
"Larry Linson" <bouncer@.localhost.not> wrote in message
news:iMCrh.3792$E35.2163@.trnddc02...
> "Neil" <nospam@.nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:XNvrh.12389$yx6.3307@.newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net...
> It is surprising how often only one record is needed for a particular
> business function, if it exists, or none, if it does not. Limiting the
> number of records retrieved by Query Criteria is a very good way to speed
> up client-server performance, and you'll never "lose" several hundred
> records on a one-record retrieval. A client-server application which
> retrieves hundreds or thousands of records, or more, and then "finds" the
> one of interest is not very efficient and effective.
> That said, the "fix" is to correct the LAN/WAN problems. I once observed a
> company who got a really noticeable improvement when they replaced about
> 95% of their network support staff. {:-) or :-(, depending on whether you
> were part of the new or the old staff} That said, because a LAN is
> totally within control of the network support team, it's much easier to
> fix than a WAN, which relies on external providers for some of its
> services.
> Larry Linson
> Microsoft Access MVP
>
|||Neil wrote:

> Getting back to the network situation, the problem only seems to manifest
> itself in the WAN. The LAN users aren't experiencing this problem. And, as
> noted, it only started about a week ago (after many years of the database
> and WAN being up and running without this problem) and on the same day that
> the WAN went down for several hours. So this tells me that SOMETHING
> happened on that day that hasn't yet been rectified. But I know what the
> network guy's going to say: everything's working fine now; he doesn't see
> any problem with anything. And round and round we go.....
Is he denying that the WAN outage is responsible for the problem, or is
he just claiming that the WAN outage was an isolated incident and he
doesn't know what caused it and thus he doesn't know how to prevent
future occurrences?
In the former case, you could test the issue by deliberately cutting a
workstation's WAN connection and seeing whether the problem recurs.
|||As for what he believes, here's what he wrote:
"It sounds as if it is using cached information and not updating from the
database directly. We are having intermittent issues with the T1s,
but that has been going on for the last few months. Last week the T1s went
down for over two hours this issue was brought to my attention
right after that incident so I am not sure if it is related.
"When I get in this afternoon I'll start sniffing around on the network and
see if there is anything going on at the Network layer.
Later tonight I will reset both the routers and firewalls on both end as
well to see if that helps. I will let them run over the weekend to see what
kind of data we can collect on errors, interface resets etc."
Note that he says the issue was brought to his attention right after the T1s
went down; yet he still isn't sure if the two are related!
Re. testing for the problem, it's hard to do because the problem is very
intermittent. Also, the WAN computers get their data from the remote
location.
Thanks,
Neil
"Ed Murphy" <emurphy42@.socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:45afd262$0$5750$4c368faf@.roadrunner.com...
> Neil wrote:
>
> Is he denying that the WAN outage is responsible for the problem, or is
> he just claiming that the WAN outage was an isolated incident and he
> doesn't know what caused it and thus he doesn't know how to prevent
> future occurrences?
> In the former case, you could test the issue by deliberately cutting a
> workstation's WAN connection and seeing whether the problem recurs.

Disappearing Records

I am running an Access 2000 MDB against a SQL 7 back end, using ODBC linked
tables over a LAN and a WAN. The system has been operational for years with
relatively few problems.
Recently, WAN users have been reporting several hundred records disappearing
at a time. The records are all sequential, and they're in a table that
contains about 60,000 records. This all started last week at about the same
time (not sure if before or after) that the WAN went down for a couple of
hours for an unknown reason. Since then, every once in a while, a WAN user
will report that several hundred records in a block are just "missing."
Then, an hour or two later, they reappear.
Any ideas as to what's going on or what can be done to rectify this?
Thanks!
Neilhi Neil,
Neil wrote:
> Any ideas as to what's going on or what can be done to rectify this?
Bad WLAN performance, but the network stack is not aware of it. So your
session thinks it is okay, but it's not.
mfG
--> stefan <--|||Any ideas on what can be done to rectify it?
"Stefan Hoffmann" <stefan.hoffmann@.explido.de> wrote in message
news:OFe9nMmOHHA.2232@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> hi Neil,
> Neil wrote:
> Bad WLAN performance, but the network stack is not aware of it. So your
> session thinks it is okay, but it's not.
>
> mfG
> --> stefan <--|||hi Neil,
Neil wrote:
> Any ideas on what can be done to rectify it?
Try using a permanent open recordset.
Use filterted recordsets.
Use serverside filters (views).
mfG
--> stefan <--|||OK, thanks. I guess I was thinking that, since this system has been in place
for years without these problems; and since these problems just started last
week when the WAN went down for a few hours; that perhaps there was
something on the network end that can be done to rectify it. This has never
been a problem before, so something must have happened to cause it. The
database hasn't changed very much in years.
Thanks,
Neil
"Stefan Hoffmann" <stefan.hoffmann@.explido.de> wrote in message
news:e3lZ9rmOHHA.3872@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> hi Neil,
> Neil wrote:
> Try using a permanent open recordset.
> Use filterted recordsets.
> Use serverside filters (views).
>
> mfG
> --> stefan <--|||"Neil" <nospam@.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:XNvrh.12389$yx6.3307@.newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> OK, thanks. I guess I was thinking that, since this system has been in
> place for years without these problems; and since these problems just
> started last week when the WAN went down for a few hours; that perhaps
> there was something on the network end that can be done to rectify it.
> This has never been a problem before, so something must have happened to
> cause it. The database hasn't changed very much in years.
It is surprising how often only one record is needed for a particular
business function, if it exists, or none, if it does not. Limiting the
number of records retrieved by Query Criteria is a very good way to speed up
client-server performance, and you'll never "lose" several hundred records
on a one-record retrieval. A client-server application which retrieves
hundreds or thousands of records, or more, and then "finds" the one of
interest is not very efficient and effective.
That said, the "fix" is to correct the LAN/WAN problems. I once observed a
company who got a really noticeable improvement when they replaced about 95%
of their network support staff. {:-) or :-(, depending on whether you w
ere
part of the new or the old staff} That said, because a LAN is totally
within control of the network support team, it's much easier to fix than a
WAN, which relies on external providers for some of its services.
Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP|||Larry,
I agree with what you wrote 100%. The application was inherited by me after
it was converted to an Access back end from an off-the-shelf product.
There's much that needs to be improved with it. One of the major changes
that we are looking to make is to change the way it works with records in
the way you describe. Bringing over tens of thousands of records is
ridiculous. I was considering giving the user options to work with small,
pre-defined sets of records based on business needs, with the additional
option of a custom set based on search criteria (with the sets being
compiled in the back end, of course, and then brought over). But your note
has made me rethink this. In what situations would the user need anything
*but* a custom set? So I'm rethinking that paradigm, and may just have the
user pull over whatever set of records they need. So thanks for that.
Getting back to the network situation, the problem only seems to manifest
itself in the WAN. The LAN users aren't experiencing this problem. And, as
noted, it only started about a week ago (after many years of the database
and WAN being up and running without this problem) and on the same day that
the WAN went down for several hours. So this tells me that SOMETHING
happened on that day that hasn't yet been rectified. But I know what the
network guy's going to say: everything's working fine now; he doesn't see
any problem with anything. And round and round we go.....
Thanks,
Neil
"Larry Linson" <bouncer@.localhost.not> wrote in message
news:iMCrh.3792$E35.2163@.trnddc02...
> "Neil" <nospam@.nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:XNvrh.12389$yx6.3307@.newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> It is surprising how often only one record is needed for a particular
> business function, if it exists, or none, if it does not. Limiting the
> number of records retrieved by Query Criteria is a very good way to speed
> up client-server performance, and you'll never "lose" several hundred
> records on a one-record retrieval. A client-server application which
> retrieves hundreds or thousands of records, or more, and then "finds" the
> one of interest is not very efficient and effective.
> That said, the "fix" is to correct the LAN/WAN problems. I once observed a
> company who got a really noticeable improvement when they replaced about
> 95% of their network support staff. {:-) or :-(, depending on whether
you
> were part of the new or the old staff} That said, because a LAN is
> totally within control of the network support team, it's much easier to
> fix than a WAN, which relies on external providers for some of its
> services.
> Larry Linson
> Microsoft Access MVP
>|||Neil wrote:

> Getting back to the network situation, the problem only seems to manifest
> itself in the WAN. The LAN users aren't experiencing this problem. And, as
> noted, it only started about a week ago (after many years of the database
> and WAN being up and running without this problem) and on the same day tha
t
> the WAN went down for several hours. So this tells me that SOMETHING
> happened on that day that hasn't yet been rectified. But I know what the
> network guy's going to say: everything's working fine now; he doesn't see
> any problem with anything. And round and round we go.....
Is he denying that the WAN outage is responsible for the problem, or is
he just claiming that the WAN outage was an isolated incident and he
doesn't know what caused it and thus he doesn't know how to prevent
future occurrences?
In the former case, you could test the issue by deliberately cutting a
workstation's WAN connection and seeing whether the problem recurs.|||As for what he believes, here's what he wrote:
"It sounds as if it is using cached information and not updating from the
database directly. We are having intermittent issues with the T1s,
but that has been going on for the last few months. Last week the T1s went
down for over two hours this issue was brought to my attention
right after that incident so I am not sure if it is related.
"When I get in this afternoon I'll start sniffing around on the network and
see if there is anything going on at the Network layer.
Later tonight I will reset both the routers and firewalls on both end as
well to see if that helps. I will let them run over the weekend to see what
kind of data we can collect on errors, interface resets etc."
Note that he says the issue was brought to his attention right after the T1s
went down; yet he still isn't sure if the two are related!
Re. testing for the problem, it's hard to do because the problem is very
intermittent. Also, the WAN computers get their data from the remote
location.
Thanks,
Neil
"Ed Murphy" <emurphy42@.socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:45afd262$0$5750$4c368faf@.roadrunner
.com...
> Neil wrote:
>
> Is he denying that the WAN outage is responsible for the problem, or is
> he just claiming that the WAN outage was an isolated incident and he
> doesn't know what caused it and thus he doesn't know how to prevent
> future occurrences?
> In the former case, you could test the issue by deliberately cutting a
> workstation's WAN connection and seeing whether the problem recurs.

Disabled Service Broker

I have a windows service that uses SqlDependency. It has been working fine until today where it has died. I have traced the problem back to the service broker being disabled, however I have not disabled the service broker. Is there anyway that the service broker can become disabled ?

Database restore and/or attach operations will leave the broker in the database disabled. You must manually enable it back after each restore operation.

Disable MSX Functionality

How do you stop an MSX server being an MSX server?
In other words, how do I get Enterprise Manager back to the state where
under SQL Server Agent\Jobs I don't get sub-folders of Local and
Remote, and I'm not allowed to target jobs at other servers?
Thanks.
DaveHi,
just force defection of all your target Servers. When the last target
server
is defected then your MSX functionality should stop automatically.
Regards
Bobby Henningsen
"Dave" <david.randall@.tradeweb.com> wrote in message
news:1132328870.648249.134860@.g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> How do you stop an MSX server being an MSX server?
> In other words, how do I get Enterprise Manager back to the state where
> under SQL Server Agent\Jobs I don't get sub-folders of Local and
> Remote, and I'm not allowed to target jobs at other servers?
> Thanks.
> Dave
>
---
Jeg beskyttes af den gratis SPAMfighter til privatbrugere.
Den har indtil videre sparet mig for at f? 712 spam-mails.
Betalende brugere f?r ikke denne besked i deres e-mails.
Hent gratis SPAMfighter her: www.spamfighter.dk|||Nice one, thanks!
Dave

Disable MSX Functionality

How do you stop an MSX server being an MSX server?
In other words, how do I get Enterprise Manager back to the state where
under SQL Server Agent\Jobs I don't get sub-folders of Local and
Remote, and I'm not allowed to target jobs at other servers?
Thanks.
DaveHi,
just force defection of all your target Servers. When the last target
server
is defected then your MSX functionality should stop automatically.
Regards :)
Bobby Henningsen
"Dave" <david.randall@.tradeweb.com> wrote in message
news:1132328870.648249.134860@.g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> How do you stop an MSX server being an MSX server?
> In other words, how do I get Enterprise Manager back to the state where
> under SQL Server Agent\Jobs I don't get sub-folders of Local and
> Remote, and I'm not allowed to target jobs at other servers?
> Thanks.
> Dave
>
---
Jeg beskyttes af den gratis SPAMfighter til privatbrugere.
Den har indtil videre sparet mig for at få 712 spam-mails.
Betalende brugere får ikke denne besked i deres e-mails.
Hent gratis SPAMfighter her: www.spamfighter.dk|||Nice one, thanks!
Dave

Disable MSX Functionality

How do you stop an MSX server being an MSX server?
In other words, how do I get Enterprise Manager back to the state where
under SQL Server Agent\Jobs I don't get sub-folders of Local and
Remote, and I'm not allowed to target jobs at other servers?
Thanks.
Dave
Hi,
just force defection of all your target Servers. When the last target
server
is defected then your MSX functionality should stop automatically.
Regards
Bobby Henningsen
"Dave" <david.randall@.tradeweb.com> wrote in message
news:1132328870.648249.134860@.g49g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> How do you stop an MSX server being an MSX server?
> In other words, how do I get Enterprise Manager back to the state where
> under SQL Server Agent\Jobs I don't get sub-folders of Local and
> Remote, and I'm not allowed to target jobs at other servers?
> Thanks.
> Dave
>
Jeg beskyttes af den gratis SPAMfighter til privatbrugere.
Den har indtil videre sparet mig for at f? 712 spam-mails.
Betalende brugere f?r ikke denne besked i deres e-mails.
Hent gratis SPAMfighter her: www.spamfighter.dk
|||Nice one, thanks!
Dave