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 data

I am not sure where to put this but correct me if i'm in the wrong forum.

I've been working on this database for some time now. It's an Access 2003 database with a SQL backend. Everything was going well until one of the users noticed her data was disappearing after she send an email. The database has a memo field that gets pasted in the body of an email when it is created. Sometimes, when the user sends an email and goes back into the record, the memo field is blank. I know the field has data in it at the time of the email because it will give you an error if the field is null and you won't be able to send it. And, it goes into a history table with everything the user does with each record. I've checked this history table and it shows that all records in question, an email was sent. I have no idea why the data would disappear in this field. It does not happen all the time. I've performed the same steps and I can't duplicate the problem. There's no code associated with the memo field that deletes it after sending the email. Can anyone think of anything that would cause this?

I guess the user is doing STRG-X instead of STRG-C ?! Although I also had the feeling that Access sometimes eats up the data in the past, there was always a possible explanation why the data was lost.

HTH, Jens K. Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de|||I don't know what that is?|||Hi,

you mentioned that the data from the record is pasted into an email, this sounds like manual work for me, so i suggested that they do that on their own and not doing it automatically with an application. Therefore I assumed that they might not copied the data (STRG-C) from the memo field as they cut the data (STRG-X) from the memo field to paste it (STRG-V) within the email. Did I understand you right, or what is the actual problem ?

HTH, Jens K. Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

Disabled job continues to run

Thinks sounds a little crazy, and please tell me I'm wrong, but I thought
when you disable a scheduled job, it would no longer run. Do you really have
to disable the schedule inside of the job in order to keep the job from
running and not just disable the job itself?
Thanks,
Jon
Disabling the job should be fine. Can you check the history and see who is
invoking it? Could it be that there's another job that runs this job using
sp_start_job?
Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
SQL Server Articles and Code Samples @. http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
"Jon Goughnour" <JonGoughnour@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DC301B21-E312-44F4-8B72-EF883EF19913@.microsoft.com...
> Thinks sounds a little crazy, and please tell me I'm wrong, but I thought
> when you disable a scheduled job, it would no longer run. Do you really
have
> to disable the schedule inside of the job in order to keep the job from
> running and not just disable the job itself?
> Thanks,
> Jon
|||Yes, I was thinking that may be the case also but I can find no evidence of
anyone or anything that was invoking the job other than its own schedule.
Once I disabled the schedule it stopped.
"Narayana Vyas Kondreddi" wrote:

> Disabling the job should be fine. Can you check the history and see who is
> invoking it? Could it be that there's another job that runs this job using
> sp_start_job?
> --
> Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
> SQL Server Articles and Code Samples @. http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
>
> "Jon Goughnour" <JonGoughnour@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:DC301B21-E312-44F4-8B72-EF883EF19913@.microsoft.com...
> have
>
>
|||Hi,
After you have disabled the job, probably you could have checked "enabled"
column in sysjobs against this particular job, to see if its really been
disabled.
But its quite strange though.....
- - - - - - - - -
Thanks
Yogish
"Jon Goughnour" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yes, I was thinking that may be the case also but I can find no evidence of
> anyone or anything that was invoking the job other than its own schedule.
> Once I disabled the schedule it stopped.
> "Narayana Vyas Kondreddi" wrote:
|||Yes, quite strange. I wish I would've thought to check sysjobs but
unfortunately I didn't. I'm going to play around with this a little more on
a test server. Thanks.
"Yogish" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi,
> After you have disabled the job, probably you could have checked "enabled"
> column in sysjobs against this particular job, to see if its really been
> disabled.
> But its quite strange though.....
> --
> - - - - - - - - -
> Thanks
> Yogish
>
> "Jon Goughnour" wrote:

Disabled job continues to run

Thinks sounds a little crazy, and please tell me I'm wrong, but I thought
when you disable a scheduled job, it would no longer run. Do you really hav
e
to disable the schedule inside of the job in order to keep the job from
running and not just disable the job itself?
Thanks,
JonDisabling the job should be fine. Can you check the history and see who is
invoking it? Could it be that there's another job that runs this job using
sp_start_job?
--
Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
SQL Server Articles and Code Samples @. http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
"Jon Goughnour" <JonGoughnour@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DC301B21-E312-44F4-8B72-EF883EF19913@.microsoft.com...
> Thinks sounds a little crazy, and please tell me I'm wrong, but I thought
> when you disable a scheduled job, it would no longer run. Do you really
have
> to disable the schedule inside of the job in order to keep the job from
> running and not just disable the job itself?
> Thanks,
> Jon|||Yes, I was thinking that may be the case also but I can find no evidence of
anyone or anything that was invoking the job other than its own schedule.
Once I disabled the schedule it stopped.
"Narayana Vyas Kondreddi" wrote:

> Disabling the job should be fine. Can you check the history and see who is
> invoking it? Could it be that there's another job that runs this job using
> sp_start_job?
> --
> Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
> SQL Server Articles and Code Samples @. http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
>
> "Jon Goughnour" <JonGoughnour@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:DC301B21-E312-44F4-8B72-EF883EF19913@.microsoft.com...
> have
>
>|||Hi,
After you have disabled the job, probably you could have checked "enabled"
column in sysjobs against this particular job, to see if its really been
disabled.
But its quite strange though.....
- - - - - - - - -
Thanks
Yogish
"Jon Goughnour" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yes, I was thinking that may be the case also but I can find no evidence o
f
> anyone or anything that was invoking the job other than its own schedule.
> Once I disabled the schedule it stopped.
> "Narayana Vyas Kondreddi" wrote:
>|||Yes, quite strange. I wish I would've thought to check sysjobs but
unfortunately I didn't. I'm going to play around with this a little more on
a test server. Thanks.
"Yogish" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi,
> After you have disabled the job, probably you could have checked "enabled"
> column in sysjobs against this particular job, to see if its really been
> disabled.
> But its quite strange though.....
> --
> - - - - - - - - -
> Thanks
> Yogish
>
> "Jon Goughnour" wrote:
>

Disabled job continues to run

Thinks sounds a little crazy, and please tell me I'm wrong, but I thought
when you disable a scheduled job, it would no longer run. Do you really have
to disable the schedule inside of the job in order to keep the job from
running and not just disable the job itself?
Thanks,
JonDisabling the job should be fine. Can you check the history and see who is
invoking it? Could it be that there's another job that runs this job using
sp_start_job?
--
Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
SQL Server Articles and Code Samples @. http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
"Jon Goughnour" <JonGoughnour@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DC301B21-E312-44F4-8B72-EF883EF19913@.microsoft.com...
> Thinks sounds a little crazy, and please tell me I'm wrong, but I thought
> when you disable a scheduled job, it would no longer run. Do you really
have
> to disable the schedule inside of the job in order to keep the job from
> running and not just disable the job itself?
> Thanks,
> Jon|||Yes, I was thinking that may be the case also but I can find no evidence of
anyone or anything that was invoking the job other than its own schedule.
Once I disabled the schedule it stopped.
"Narayana Vyas Kondreddi" wrote:
> Disabling the job should be fine. Can you check the history and see who is
> invoking it? Could it be that there's another job that runs this job using
> sp_start_job?
> --
> Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
> SQL Server Articles and Code Samples @. http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
>
> "Jon Goughnour" <JonGoughnour@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:DC301B21-E312-44F4-8B72-EF883EF19913@.microsoft.com...
> > Thinks sounds a little crazy, and please tell me I'm wrong, but I thought
> > when you disable a scheduled job, it would no longer run. Do you really
> have
> > to disable the schedule inside of the job in order to keep the job from
> > running and not just disable the job itself?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jon
>
>|||Hi,
After you have disabled the job, probably you could have checked "enabled"
column in sysjobs against this particular job, to see if its really been
disabled.
But its quite strange though.....
--
- - - - - - - - -
Thanks
Yogish
"Jon Goughnour" wrote:
> Yes, I was thinking that may be the case also but I can find no evidence of
> anyone or anything that was invoking the job other than its own schedule.
> Once I disabled the schedule it stopped.
> "Narayana Vyas Kondreddi" wrote:
> > Disabling the job should be fine. Can you check the history and see who is
> > invoking it? Could it be that there's another job that runs this job using
> > sp_start_job?
> > --
> > Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
> > SQL Server Articles and Code Samples @. http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
> >
> >
> > "Jon Goughnour" <JonGoughnour@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:DC301B21-E312-44F4-8B72-EF883EF19913@.microsoft.com...
> > > Thinks sounds a little crazy, and please tell me I'm wrong, but I thought
> > > when you disable a scheduled job, it would no longer run. Do you really
> > have
> > > to disable the schedule inside of the job in order to keep the job from
> > > running and not just disable the job itself?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Jon
> >
> >
> >|||Yes, quite strange. I wish I would've thought to check sysjobs but
unfortunately I didn't. I'm going to play around with this a little more on
a test server. Thanks.
"Yogish" wrote:
> Hi,
> After you have disabled the job, probably you could have checked "enabled"
> column in sysjobs against this particular job, to see if its really been
> disabled.
> But its quite strange though.....
> --
> - - - - - - - - -
> Thanks
> Yogish
>
> "Jon Goughnour" wrote:
> > Yes, I was thinking that may be the case also but I can find no evidence of
> > anyone or anything that was invoking the job other than its own schedule.
> > Once I disabled the schedule it stopped.
> >
> > "Narayana Vyas Kondreddi" wrote:
> >
> > > Disabling the job should be fine. Can you check the history and see who is
> > > invoking it? Could it be that there's another job that runs this job using
> > > sp_start_job?
> > > --
> > > Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
> > > SQL Server Articles and Code Samples @. http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
> > >
> > >
> > > "Jon Goughnour" <JonGoughnour@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > news:DC301B21-E312-44F4-8B72-EF883EF19913@.microsoft.com...
> > > > Thinks sounds a little crazy, and please tell me I'm wrong, but I thought
> > > > when you disable a scheduled job, it would no longer run. Do you really
> > > have
> > > > to disable the schedule inside of the job in order to keep the job from
> > > > running and not just disable the job itself?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Jon
> > >
> > >
> > >