Showing posts with label management. Show all posts
Showing posts with label management. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

MSDCT Volumes not available for SQL Install

There on and accessable through Explorer and Disk Management. However when I
try to install SQL as a new virtual instance I only have access to my Quorum
Resources.
Installing Sql2000 on 2003 server Active /Passive.
One instance is already installed and running. Has been for several months.
If I remember right for each SQL Instance you would need new spindles as
they cannot be shared between SQL Instances on a MSCS.
"dibblm" <dibblm@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u1cRduCIFHA.2456@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> There on and accessable through Explorer and Disk Management. However when
> I try to install SQL as a new virtual instance I only have access to my
> Quorum Resources.
> Installing Sql2000 on 2003 server Active /Passive.
> One instance is already installed and running. Has been for several
> months.
>
|||Correct.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"wasonce" <mike@.ntadmins.org> wrote in message
news:OzISmIQIFHA.576@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> If I remember right for each SQL Instance you would need new spindles as
> they cannot be shared between SQL Instances on a MSCS.
> "dibblm" <dibblm@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:u1cRduCIFHA.2456@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
|||I dont understand what you mean as far as new spindles.
I have 3 columes in a 6TB SAN. I have SQL installed to one. With the datbase
on another and the log files on another. Thus utilizing 3 seperate volumes
for disaster management and recovery. What do you mean as far as needing a
new spindle?
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:ekNy3YQIFHA.3364@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Correct.
> Cheers,
> Rod
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
> http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
> "wasonce" <mike@.ntadmins.org> wrote in message
> news:OzISmIQIFHA.576@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
|||This article
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/colu...youbuyasan.asp
gives you great examples. More disks, more spindles.
Here is a pretty explanation of what a spindle is
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/s/spindle.html.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"dibblm" <dibblm@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eSgSrfzIFHA.588@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>I dont understand what you mean as far as new spindles.
> I have 3 columes in a 6TB SAN. I have SQL installed to one. With the
> datbase on another and the log files on another. Thus utilizing 3 seperate
> volumes for disaster management and recovery. What do you mean as far as
> needing a new spindle?
>
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
> message news:ekNy3YQIFHA.3364@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>
|||I personally think this isn't my issues. I have 42 Drives (Or spindles) I
have plenty of room. The problem is with Sql itself on the install.
Something is hosed in the os where the SQL install doesnt even see the
resources.
Let me get you a little closer to the problem.
You state the sql setup.
You can shoose either local, remote or virtual. ( I choose virtual)
then you have to assign ip's and so on
once you get to the area where you pick where you want to install the
instance to.......... My only resource is the Quorum resource itself. I
do not even see my other resources that contain other volumes.
My initial install showed as follows
<Quorum>
<<<<<Q:
<<<<<F: ( left over storage that wasnt needed)
<MSDTC>
<<<<<G: ( About 2 TB of storage)
<<<<<H: (About 2 TB of storage)
<<<<<I: (About 2 TB of storage)
<WEB IP's>
<<<<<Resource of a list of clustered IP;s I use for internal web
addreses
Now when I re-intall or try to install a new instance...
I only see my Quorum resource. My other 2 resources arent even showing.. Yes
they are running , Yes they are on the same node in which I am installing
from. No I cannot see them from the other node when I move them and try to
install from the 2nd node ( as a test)
Everything works normal, I have a 1.5 TB Database that is growing daily that
works great, Clustered resources work and failover as planned.
Now after further explination. Do you still think that this is a spindle
issue when I have plenty of room to work with still?
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:OVLes8zIFHA.1280@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> This article
> http://www.sqlservercentral.com/colu...youbuyasan.asp
> gives you great examples. More disks, more spindles.
> Here is a pretty explanation of what a spindle is
> http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/s/spindle.html.
> Cheers,
> Rod
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
> http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
> "dibblm" <dibblm@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eSgSrfzIFHA.588@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
|||It sounds like you have configured the SAN as one drive to the OS, but with
multiple partitions. Clustering can only talk to drives, all parturitions
are treated as the same thing. Is this the case?
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"dibblm" <dibblm@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uS2K8L$IFHA.2784@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> I personally think this isn't my issues. I have 42 Drives (Or spindles) I
> have plenty of room. The problem is with Sql itself on the install.
> Something is hosed in the os where the SQL install doesnt even see the
> resources.
> Let me get you a little closer to the problem.
> You state the sql setup.
> You can shoose either local, remote or virtual. ( I choose virtual)
> then you have to assign ip's and so on
> once you get to the area where you pick where you want to install the
> instance to.......... My only resource is the Quorum resource itself. I
> do not even see my other resources that contain other volumes.
> My initial install showed as follows
> <Quorum>
> <<<<<Q:
> <<<<<F: ( left over storage that wasnt needed)
> <MSDTC>
> <<<<<G: ( About 2 TB of storage)
> <<<<<H: (About 2 TB of storage)
> <<<<<I: (About 2 TB of storage)
> <WEB IP's>
> <<<<<Resource of a list of clustered IP;s I use for internal web
> addreses
> Now when I re-intall or try to install a new instance...
> I only see my Quorum resource. My other 2 resources arent even showing..
> Yes they are running , Yes they are on the same node in which I am
> installing from. No I cannot see them from the other node when I move them
> and try to install from the 2nd node ( as a test)
> Everything works normal, I have a 1.5 TB Database that is growing daily
> that works great, Clustered resources work and failover as planned.
> Now after further explination. Do you still think that this is a spindle
> issue when I have plenty of room to work with still?
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
> message news:OVLes8zIFHA.1280@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
|||Not at all.
I have 6 mounted volumes.
C: (2 - 36 gig drives in a mirror 0+1 (Operating System))
D: CD Rom
F: (See quorum)
G: (14 - 146 Gig DRives. raid 5 with 1 HOT online spare( 2 TB))
H: (14 - 146 Gig DRives raid 5 with 1 HOT online spare( 2 TB))
I : (14 - 146 Gig DRives raid 5 with 1 HOT online spare( 2 TB))
QQuorum Drive - 2 36 Gig Drives 0+1 Mirror. 2 partitions. Q for Quorum 10
Gig - F for left over.)
SQL Was originally Installed to G Holding the data with H holding the log
files and I holding the backups.
Again,, When I install now to create a new virtual instance, I dont even see
the G, H, and I drives that are in the MSDTC Resource. I dont even see the
Resource. I will do another install today and priovide a screen capture of
my scenario. I will also Provide a screen capture of the mounted Volu mes.
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:O6qswCAJFHA.3788@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> It sounds like you have configured the SAN as one drive to the OS, but
> with multiple partitions. Clustering can only talk to drives, all
> parturitions are treated as the same thing. Is this the case?
> Cheers,
> Rod
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
> http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
> "dibblm" <dibblm@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uS2K8L$IFHA.2784@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
|||Ok, cause its just not adding up yet.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"dibblm" <dibblm@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:esFdXNXJFHA.2772@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Not at all.
> I have 6 mounted volumes.
> C: (2 - 36 gig drives in a mirror 0+1 (Operating System))
> D: CD Rom
> F: (See quorum)
> G: (14 - 146 Gig DRives. raid 5 with 1 HOT online spare( 2 TB))
> H: (14 - 146 Gig DRives raid 5 with 1 HOT online spare( 2 TB))
> I : (14 - 146 Gig DRives raid 5 with 1 HOT online spare( 2 TB))
> QQuorum Drive - 2 36 Gig Drives 0+1 Mirror. 2 partitions. Q for Quorum
> 10 Gig - F for left over.)
> SQL Was originally Installed to G Holding the data with H holding the log
> files and I holding the backups.
> Again,, When I install now to create a new virtual instance, I dont even
> see the G, H, and I drives that are in the MSDTC Resource. I dont even see
> the Resource. I will do another install today and priovide a screen
> capture of my scenario. I will also Provide a screen capture of the
> mounted Volu mes.
>
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
> message news:O6qswCAJFHA.3788@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>
|||Just to clarify you have what appears to your cluster as six physical disks
C: (2 - 36 gig drives in a mirror 0+1 (Operating System))
D: CD Rom
F: (See quorum)
G: (14 - 146 Gig DRives. raid 5 with 1 HOT online spare( 2 TB))
H: (14 - 146 Gig DRives raid 5 with 1 HOT online spare( 2 TB))
I : (14 - 146 Gig DRives raid 5 with 1 HOT online spare( 2 TB))
QQuorum Drive - 2 36 Gig Drives 0+1 Mirror. 2 partitions. Q for Quorum 10
Gig - F for left over.)
Based on this that would allow you to use disks G:, H: and I: as possible
SQL Server disks
you stated that "SQL Was originally Installed to G Holding the data with H
holding the log
files and I holding the backups."
That would leave you with only the Quorum drives Q:, F: as possible disks
Once you added the H: and I: drives to the existing SQL Server they are no
longer available for use with another instance of SQL Server.
Each SQL Server instance will require its own group, name, IP address and
phyiscal disk
Simple way to look at this is any disk in the group with an existing
instance of SQL Server will not be available and sharing of resources in a
group between multiple groups is not possible.
Dave Whitney
SQL Support

Saturday, February 25, 2012

msdb sysmail_attachments_transfer - very large, but 0 records

Our SQL server 2005 has a system table in the MSDB database called
sysmail_attachments_transfer. The management console summary report
shows almost 5 GB of data for the table with 0 records.
Table Name # Records Reserved Data
Indexes Unused
dbo.sysmail_attachments 1533 6178008 KB 6174160 KB 8
KB 3840 KB
dbo.sysmail_attachments_transfer 0 4936816 KB 4935864 KB 8
KB 944 KB
This is puzzling. I would like to know more about this system table,
and to get back some of the space used, if possible. Does anyone know
anything about this? There doesn't seem to be any documentation
anywhere on it.
Rob Fisch
Kaz, Inc.
Hi
This looks like it holds the results of queries that are attached see
http://www.elsasoft.org/SUMMER.msdb/sp_dbospsenddbmail.htm but I have not
found much more than this.
What does sp_spaceused give for this table?
Although this information should be correct you may want to try DBCC
UPDATEUSAGE to see if anything changes.
John
"rfisch@.gmail.com" wrote:

> Our SQL server 2005 has a system table in the MSDB database called
> sysmail_attachments_transfer. The management console summary report
> shows almost 5 GB of data for the table with 0 records.
> Table Name # Records Reserved Data
> Indexes Unused
> ----
> dbo.sysmail_attachments 1533 6178008 KB 6174160 KB 8
> KB 3840 KB
> dbo.sysmail_attachments_transfer 0 4936816 KB 4935864 KB 8
> KB 944 KB
> This is puzzling. I would like to know more about this system table,
> and to get back some of the space used, if possible. Does anyone know
> anything about this? There doesn't seem to be any documentation
> anywhere on it.
> Rob Fisch
> Kaz, Inc.
>
|||Hi John,
sp_spaceused gave the same reading as the summary report.
DBCC UPDATEUSAGE didn't change anything to speak of.
Thanks for the link. It was interesting. There may be some clues in
there, but nothing jumps out at me.
Thanks for giving it a stab.
Rob
John Bell wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> This looks like it holds the results of queries that are attached see
> http://www.elsasoft.org/SUMMER.msdb/sp_dbospsenddbmail.htm but I have not
> found much more than this.
> What does sp_spaceused give for this table?
> Although this information should be correct you may want to try DBCC
> UPDATEUSAGE to see if anything changes.
> John
>
> "rfisch@.gmail.com" wrote:
|||Hi
I am not sure what has caused this. Have you tried DBCC CHECKDB?
John
On Nov 4, 1:55 am, "Rob Fisch" <rfi...@.gmail.com> wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi John,
> sp_spaceused gave the same reading as the summary report.
> DBCC UPDATEUSAGE didn't change anything to speak of.
> Thanks for the link. It was interesting. There may be some clues in
> there, but nothing jumps out at me.
> Thanks for giving it a stab.
> Rob
>
> John Bell wrote:
>
>
>
>
|||Well I guess the good news is that DBCC CHECKDB reports "CHECKDB found
0 allocation errors and 0 consistency errors ".
John Bell wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> I am not sure what has caused this. Have you tried DBCC CHECKDB?
> John
> On Nov 4, 1:55 am, "Rob Fisch" <rfi...@.gmail.com> wrote:
|||Hi ROb
What version are you using (SELECT @.@.VERSION) ?
I guess you could try manually deleting from/truncating the table even
though it is reporting no rows.
"Rob Fisch" wrote:

> Well I guess the good news is that DBCC CHECKDB reports "CHECKDB found
> 0 allocation errors and 0 consistency errors ".
>
>
> John Bell wrote:
>

msdb sysmail_attachments_transfer - very large, but 0 records

Our SQL server 2005 has a system table in the MSDB database called
sysmail_attachments_transfer. The management console summary report
shows almost 5 GB of data for the table with 0 records.
Table Name # Records Reserved Data
Indexes Unused
----
dbo.sysmail_attachments 1533 6178008 KB 6174160 KB 8
KB 3840 KB
dbo.sysmail_attachments_transfer 0 4936816 KB 4935864 KB 8
KB 944 KB
This is puzzling. I would like to know more about this system table,
and to get back some of the space used, if possible. Does anyone know
anything about this? There doesn't seem to be any documentation
anywhere on it.
Rob Fisch
Kaz, Inc.Hi
This looks like it holds the results of queries that are attached see
http://www.elsasoft.org/SUMMER.msdb/sp_dbospsenddbmail.htm but I have not
found much more than this.
What does sp_spaceused give for this table?
Although this information should be correct you may want to try DBCC
UPDATEUSAGE to see if anything changes.
John
"rfisch@.gmail.com" wrote:
> Our SQL server 2005 has a system table in the MSDB database called
> sysmail_attachments_transfer. The management console summary report
> shows almost 5 GB of data for the table with 0 records.
> Table Name # Records Reserved Data
> Indexes Unused
> ----
> dbo.sysmail_attachments 1533 6178008 KB 6174160 KB 8
> KB 3840 KB
> dbo.sysmail_attachments_transfer 0 4936816 KB 4935864 KB 8
> KB 944 KB
> This is puzzling. I would like to know more about this system table,
> and to get back some of the space used, if possible. Does anyone know
> anything about this? There doesn't seem to be any documentation
> anywhere on it.
> Rob Fisch
> Kaz, Inc.
>|||Hi John,
sp_spaceused gave the same reading as the summary report.
DBCC UPDATEUSAGE didn't change anything to speak of.
Thanks for the link. It was interesting. There may be some clues in
there, but nothing jumps out at me.
Thanks for giving it a stab.
Rob
John Bell wrote:
> Hi
> This looks like it holds the results of queries that are attached see
> http://www.elsasoft.org/SUMMER.msdb/sp_dbospsenddbmail.htm but I have not
> found much more than this.
> What does sp_spaceused give for this table?
> Although this information should be correct you may want to try DBCC
> UPDATEUSAGE to see if anything changes.
> John
>
> "rfisch@.gmail.com" wrote:
> > Our SQL server 2005 has a system table in the MSDB database called
> > sysmail_attachments_transfer. The management console summary report
> > shows almost 5 GB of data for the table with 0 records.
> >
> > Table Name # Records Reserved Data
> > Indexes Unused
> > ----
> > dbo.sysmail_attachments 1533 6178008 KB 6174160 KB 8
> > KB 3840 KB
> > dbo.sysmail_attachments_transfer 0 4936816 KB 4935864 KB 8
> > KB 944 KB
> >
> > This is puzzling. I would like to know more about this system table,
> > and to get back some of the space used, if possible. Does anyone know
> > anything about this? There doesn't seem to be any documentation
> > anywhere on it.
> >
> > Rob Fisch
> > Kaz, Inc.
> >
> >|||Hi
I am not sure what has caused this. Have you tried DBCC CHECKDB?
John
On Nov 4, 1:55 am, "Rob Fisch" <rfi...@.gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi John,
> sp_spaceused gave the same reading as the summary report.
> DBCC UPDATEUSAGE didn't change anything to speak of.
> Thanks for the link. It was interesting. There may be some clues in
> there, but nothing jumps out at me.
> Thanks for giving it a stab.
> Rob
>
> John Bell wrote:
> > Hi
> > This looks like it holds the results of queries that are attached see
> >http://www.elsasoft.org/SUMMER.msdb/sp_dbospsenddbmail.htmbut I have not
> > found much more than this.
> > What does sp_spaceused give for this table?
> > Although this information should be correct you may want to try DBCC
> > UPDATEUSAGE to see if anything changes.
> > John
> > "rfi...@.gmail.com" wrote:
> > > Our SQL server 2005 has a system table in the MSDB database called
> > > sysmail_attachments_transfer. The management console summary report
> > > shows almost 5 GB of data for the table with 0 records.
> > > Table Name # Records Reserved Data
> > > Indexes Unused
> > > ----
> > > dbo.sysmail_attachments 1533 6178008 KB 6174160 KB 8
> > > KB 3840 KB
> > > dbo.sysmail_attachments_transfer 0 4936816 KB 4935864 KB 8
> > > KB 944 KB
> > > This is puzzling. I would like to know more about this system table,
> > > and to get back some of the space used, if possible. Does anyone know
> > > anything about this? There doesn't seem to be any documentation
> > > anywhere on it.
> > > Rob Fisch
> > > Kaz, Inc.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -|||Well I guess the good news is that DBCC CHECKDB reports "CHECKDB found
0 allocation errors and 0 consistency errors ".
John Bell wrote:
> Hi
> I am not sure what has caused this. Have you tried DBCC CHECKDB?
> John
> On Nov 4, 1:55 am, "Rob Fisch" <rfi...@.gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi John,
> >
> > sp_spaceused gave the same reading as the summary report.
> > DBCC UPDATEUSAGE didn't change anything to speak of.
> >
> > Thanks for the link. It was interesting. There may be some clues in
> > there, but nothing jumps out at me.
> >
> > Thanks for giving it a stab.
> > Rob
> >
> >
> >
> > John Bell wrote:
> > > Hi
> >
> > > This looks like it holds the results of queries that are attached see
> > >http://www.elsasoft.org/SUMMER.msdb/sp_dbospsenddbmail.htmbut I have not
> > > found much more than this.
> >
> > > What does sp_spaceused give for this table?
> > > Although this information should be correct you may want to try DBCC
> > > UPDATEUSAGE to see if anything changes.
> >
> > > John
> >
> > > "rfi...@.gmail.com" wrote:
> >
> > > > Our SQL server 2005 has a system table in the MSDB database called
> > > > sysmail_attachments_transfer. The management console summary report
> > > > shows almost 5 GB of data for the table with 0 records.
> >
> > > > Table Name # Records Reserved Data
> > > > Indexes Unused
> > > > ----
> > > > dbo.sysmail_attachments 1533 6178008 KB 6174160 KB 8
> > > > KB 3840 KB
> > > > dbo.sysmail_attachments_transfer 0 4936816 KB 4935864 KB 8
> > > > KB 944 KB
> >
> > > > This is puzzling. I would like to know more about this system table,
> > > > and to get back some of the space used, if possible. Does anyone know
> > > > anything about this? There doesn't seem to be any documentation
> > > > anywhere on it.
> >
> > > > Rob Fisch
> > > > Kaz, Inc.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -|||Hi ROb
What version are you using (SELECT @.@.VERSION) ?
I guess you could try manually deleting from/truncating the table even
though it is reporting no rows.
"Rob Fisch" wrote:
> Well I guess the good news is that DBCC CHECKDB reports "CHECKDB found
> 0 allocation errors and 0 consistency errors ".
>
>
> John Bell wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > I am not sure what has caused this. Have you tried DBCC CHECKDB?
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Nov 4, 1:55 am, "Rob Fisch" <rfi...@.gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi John,
> > >
> > > sp_spaceused gave the same reading as the summary report.
> > > DBCC UPDATEUSAGE didn't change anything to speak of.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the link. It was interesting. There may be some clues in
> > > there, but nothing jumps out at me.
> > >
> > > Thanks for giving it a stab.
> > > Rob
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > John Bell wrote:
> > > > Hi
> > >
> > > > This looks like it holds the results of queries that are attached see
> > > >http://www.elsasoft.org/SUMMER.msdb/sp_dbospsenddbmail.htmbut I have not
> > > > found much more than this.
> > >
> > > > What does sp_spaceused give for this table?
> > > > Although this information should be correct you may want to try DBCC
> > > > UPDATEUSAGE to see if anything changes.
> > >
> > > > John
> > >
> > > > "rfi...@.gmail.com" wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Our SQL server 2005 has a system table in the MSDB database called
> > > > > sysmail_attachments_transfer. The management console summary report
> > > > > shows almost 5 GB of data for the table with 0 records.
> > >
> > > > > Table Name # Records Reserved Data
> > > > > Indexes Unused
> > > > > ----
> > > > > dbo.sysmail_attachments 1533 6178008 KB 6174160 KB 8
> > > > > KB 3840 KB
> > > > > dbo.sysmail_attachments_transfer 0 4936816 KB 4935864 KB 8
> > > > > KB 944 KB
> > >
> > > > > This is puzzling. I would like to know more about this system table,
> > > > > and to get back some of the space used, if possible. Does anyone know
> > > > > anything about this? There doesn't seem to be any documentation
> > > > > anywhere on it.
> > >
> > > > > Rob Fisch
> > > > > Kaz, Inc.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
>|||Or perhaps ALTER INDEX with REORGANIZE and LOB_COMPACTION? I don't deal that much with blobs, and
I'd guess that compaction shouldn't be necessary in this case, but it might be worth a try?
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9406A927-93E5-4E82-B52F-745E6AE4CD6E@.microsoft.com...
> Hi ROb
> What version are you using (SELECT @.@.VERSION) ?
> I guess you could try manually deleting from/truncating the table even
> though it is reporting no rows.
> "Rob Fisch" wrote:
>> Well I guess the good news is that DBCC CHECKDB reports "CHECKDB found
>> 0 allocation errors and 0 consistency errors ".
>>
>>
>> John Bell wrote:
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > I am not sure what has caused this. Have you tried DBCC CHECKDB?
>> >
>> > John
>> >
>> > On Nov 4, 1:55 am, "Rob Fisch" <rfi...@.gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > Hi John,
>> > >
>> > > sp_spaceused gave the same reading as the summary report.
>> > > DBCC UPDATEUSAGE didn't change anything to speak of.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks for the link. It was interesting. There may be some clues in
>> > > there, but nothing jumps out at me.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks for giving it a stab.
>> > > Rob
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > John Bell wrote:
>> > > > Hi
>> > >
>> > > > This looks like it holds the results of queries that are attached see
>> > > >http://www.elsasoft.org/SUMMER.msdb/sp_dbospsenddbmail.htmbut I have not
>> > > > found much more than this.
>> > >
>> > > > What does sp_spaceused give for this table?
>> > > > Although this information should be correct you may want to try DBCC
>> > > > UPDATEUSAGE to see if anything changes.
>> > >
>> > > > John
>> > >
>> > > > "rfi...@.gmail.com" wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > > Our SQL server 2005 has a system table in the MSDB database called
>> > > > > sysmail_attachments_transfer. The management console summary report
>> > > > > shows almost 5 GB of data for the table with 0 records.
>> > >
>> > > > > Table Name # Records Reserved Data
>> > > > > Indexes Unused
>> > > > > ----
>> > > > > dbo.sysmail_attachments 1533 6178008 KB 6174160 KB 8
>> > > > > KB 3840 KB
>> > > > > dbo.sysmail_attachments_transfer 0 4936816 KB 4935864 KB 8
>> > > > > KB 944 KB
>> > >
>> > > > > This is puzzling. I would like to know more about this system table,
>> > > > > and to get back some of the space used, if possible. Does anyone know
>> > > > > anything about this? There doesn't seem to be any documentation
>> > > > > anywhere on it.
>> > >
>> > > > > Rob Fisch
>> > > > > Kaz, Inc.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
>>

msdb sysmail_attachments_transfer - very large, but 0 records

Our SQL server 2005 has a system table in the MSDB database called
sysmail_attachments_transfer. The management console summary report
shows almost 5 GB of data for the table with 0 records.
Table Name # Records Reserved Data
Indexes Unused
----
dbo.sysmail_attachments 1533 6178008 KB 6174160 KB 8
KB 3840 KB
dbo.sysmail_attachments_transfer 0 4936816 KB 4935864 KB 8
KB 944 KB
This is puzzling. I would like to know more about this system table,
and to get back some of the space used, if possible. Does anyone know
anything about this? There doesn't seem to be any documentation
anywhere on it.
Rob Fisch
Kaz, Inc.Hi
This looks like it holds the results of queries that are attached see
http://www.elsasoft.org/SUMMER.msdb...psenddbmail.htm but I have not
found much more than this.
What does sp_spaceused give for this table?
Although this information should be correct you may want to try DBCC
UPDATEUSAGE to see if anything changes.
John
"rfisch@.gmail.com" wrote:

> Our SQL server 2005 has a system table in the MSDB database called
> sysmail_attachments_transfer. The management console summary report
> shows almost 5 GB of data for the table with 0 records.
> Table Name # Records Reserved Data
> Indexes Unused
> ----
> dbo.sysmail_attachments 1533 6178008 KB 6174160 KB 8
> KB 3840 KB
> dbo.sysmail_attachments_transfer 0 4936816 KB 4935864 KB 8
> KB 944 KB
> This is puzzling. I would like to know more about this system table,
> and to get back some of the space used, if possible. Does anyone know
> anything about this? There doesn't seem to be any documentation
> anywhere on it.
> Rob Fisch
> Kaz, Inc.
>|||Hi John,
sp_spaceused gave the same reading as the summary report.
DBCC UPDATEUSAGE didn't change anything to speak of.
Thanks for the link. It was interesting. There may be some clues in
there, but nothing jumps out at me.
Thanks for giving it a stab.
Rob
John Bell wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> This looks like it holds the results of queries that are attached see
> http://www.elsasoft.org/SUMMER.msdb...psenddbmail.htm but I have not
> found much more than this.
> What does sp_spaceused give for this table?
> Although this information should be correct you may want to try DBCC
> UPDATEUSAGE to see if anything changes.
> John
>
> "rfisch@.gmail.com" wrote:
>|||Hi
I am not sure what has caused this. Have you tried DBCC CHECKDB?
John
On Nov 4, 1:55 am, "Rob Fisch" <rfi...@.gmail.com> wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi John,
> sp_spaceused gave the same reading as the summary report.
> DBCC UPDATEUSAGE didn't change anything to speak of.
> Thanks for the link. It was interesting. There may be some clues in
> there, but nothing jumps out at me.
> Thanks for giving it a stab.
> Rob
>
> John Bell wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>|||Well I guess the good news is that DBCC CHECKDB reports "CHECKDB found
0 allocation errors and 0 consistency errors ".
John Bell wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> I am not sure what has caused this. Have you tried DBCC CHECKDB?
> John
> On Nov 4, 1:55 am, "Rob Fisch" <rfi...@.gmail.com> wrote:|||Hi ROb
What version are you using (SELECT @.@.VERSION) ?
I guess you could try manually deleting from/truncating the table even
though it is reporting no rows.
"Rob Fisch" wrote:

> Well I guess the good news is that DBCC CHECKDB reports "CHECKDB found
> 0 allocation errors and 0 consistency errors ".
>
>
> John Bell wrote:
>|||Or perhaps ALTER INDEX with REORGANIZE and LOB_COMPACTION? I don't deal that
much with blobs, and
I'd guess that compaction shouldn't be necessary in this case, but it might
be worth a try?
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9406A927-93E5-4E82-B52F-745E6AE4CD6E@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi ROb
> What version are you using (SELECT @.@.VERSION) ?
> I guess you could try manually deleting from/truncating the table even
> though it is reporting no rows.
> "Rob Fisch" wrote:
>

msdb marked as suspect

Hi All,
Following error message is displayed whenever i open the Sql Server
Management Studio
Database 'msdb' cannot be opened. It has been marked SUSPECT by recovery.
See the SQL Server errorlog for more information. (.Net SqlClient Data
Provider)
I am using Sql Server 2005 with single instance
-Regards,Seems you are in for a restore of your msdb database:
http://www.karaszi.com/SQLServer/info_corrupt_suspect_db.asp
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Kallu" <Kallu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:75BDFAB6-C334-475E-B60F-6327C32C4E8D@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> Following error message is displayed whenever i open the Sql Server
> Management Studio
> Database 'msdb' cannot be opened. It has been marked SUSPECT by recovery.
> See the SQL Server errorlog for more information. (.Net SqlClient Data
> Provider)
> I am using Sql Server 2005 with single instance
> -Regards,
>