Abnormal user connection increased on SQL server

The error which we are facing these days is related to the abnormal
performance of SQL server, and sometimes also got the error ‘SQL Run-time
error 2147217911(80040e09)’ sometimes on the client ends.
As per our detailed observation it is observed that our SQL server database
response sometimes get dead slow and that is why all the related application
and website responses gets slow as well.
This delay of responses is not always but rarely and the unusual things
noticed are that user connection on the SQL server and on our web server
increases dynamically, which really seems to be faking not actual. And when
these user connections drops all the SQL related activities are back to
normal. Just to add more we are using windows 2003 server enterprise edition
of 64bit and SQL server 2000 enterprise edition of 64bit as well.”
Memory utilisation is also increased i.e. used more than normal.
"JS" wrote:

> The error which we are facing these days is related to the abnormal
> performance of SQL server, and sometimes also got the error ‘SQL Run-time
> error 2147217911(80040e09)’ sometimes on the client ends.
> As per our detailed observation it is observed that our SQL server database
> response sometimes get dead slow and that is why all the related application
> and website responses gets slow as well.
> This delay of responses is not always but rarely and the unusual things
> noticed are that user connection on the SQL server and on our web server
> increases dynamically, which really seems to be faking not actual. And when
> these user connections drops all the SQL related activities are back to
> normal. Just to add more we are using windows 2003 server enterprise edition
> of 64bit and SQL server 2000 enterprise edition of 64bit as well.”
>
>
>

Abnormal user connection increased on SQL server

The error which we are facing these days is related to the abnormal
performance of SQL server, and sometimes also got the error ‘SQL Run-time
error 2147217911(80040e09)’ sometimes on the client ends.
As per our detailed observation it is observed that our SQL server database
response sometimes get dead slow and that is why all the related application
and website responses gets slow as well.
This delay of responses is not always but rarely and the unusual things
noticed are that user connection on the SQL server and on our web server
increases dynamically, which really seems to be faking not actual. And when
these user connections drops all the SQL related activities are back to
normal. Just to add more we are using windows 2003 server enterprise edition
of 64bit and SQL server 2000 enterprise edition of 64bit as well.”Memory utilisation is also increased i.e. used more than normal.
"JS" wrote:

> The error which we are facing these days is related to the abnormal
> performance of SQL server, and sometimes also got the error ‘SQL Run-tim
e
> error 2147217911(80040e09)’ sometimes on the client ends.
> As per our detailed observation it is observed that our SQL server databas
e
> response sometimes get dead slow and that is why all the related applicati
on
> and website responses gets slow as well.
> This delay of responses is not always but rarely and the unusual things
> noticed are that user connection on the SQL server and on our web server
> increases dynamically, which really seems to be faking not actual. And whe
n
> these user connections drops all the SQL related activities are back to
> normal. Just to add more we are using windows 2003 server enterprise editi
on
> of 64bit and SQL server 2000 enterprise edition of 64bit as well.”
>
>
>

Abnormal user connection increased on SQL server

The error which we are facing these days is related to the abnormal
performance of SQL server, and sometimes also got the error â'SQL Run-time
error 2147217911(80040e09)â' sometimes on the client ends.
As per our detailed observation it is observed that our SQL server database
response sometimes get dead slow and that is why all the related application
and website responses gets slow as well.
This delay of responses is not always but rarely and the unusual things
noticed are that user connection on the SQL server and on our web server
increases dynamically, which really seems to be faking not actual. And when
these user connections drops all the SQL related activities are back to
normal. Just to add more we are using windows 2003 server enterprise edition
of 64bit and SQL server 2000 enterprise edition of 64bit as well.â'Memory utilisation is also increased i.e. used more than normal.
"JS" wrote:
> The error which we are facing these days is related to the abnormal
> performance of SQL server, and sometimes also got the error â'SQL Run-time
> error 2147217911(80040e09)â' sometimes on the client ends.
> As per our detailed observation it is observed that our SQL server database
> response sometimes get dead slow and that is why all the related application
> and website responses gets slow as well.
> This delay of responses is not always but rarely and the unusual things
> noticed are that user connection on the SQL server and on our web server
> increases dynamically, which really seems to be faking not actual. And when
> these user connections drops all the SQL related activities are back to
> normal. Just to add more we are using windows 2003 server enterprise edition
> of 64bit and SQL server 2000 enterprise edition of 64bit as well.â'
>
>
>sql

ABNORMAL Transactional Replication behaviour

Actually i have set up a transactional replication with one publisher
and 1 subscriber (planning, then, to add other 6 subscribers later on).
The point is that after setting everything up, the replication works
really fine for some minutes and then just stops without any warning or
error!! The system is composed by this replication and some others
applications that writes on some tables on the subscriber. This app
starts writting data... everything works fine and then, BANG!, without
any reason data is not sent to the publisher anymore! SQL server doesn't
seems to notice that!
The replication has itself some filters and some tables have numeric
counters with identity YES (also the one that is written by the
application i mentioned before) . But, when i set up the publication i
assign a range to this counters and the replication blocks itself before
reaching the 1 % of the range i assing to this field!!
Anyone has an idea of what is happening?
Please... somebody help me!!
F.P.
what does sp_browsereplcmds reveal? Run this in the distribution database to
see if commands are pooling there.
If they aren't run sp_repltrans in your publication database.
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
"newsgroup" <fabio.pliger@.siavr.it> wrote in message
news:nVn4f.10530$65.287427@.twister1.libero.it...
> Actually i have set up a transactional replication with one publisher and
> 1 subscriber (planning, then, to add other 6 subscribers later on). The
> point is that after setting everything up, the replication works really
> fine for some minutes and then just stops without any warning or error!!
> The system is composed by this replication and some others applications
> that writes on some tables on the subscriber. This app starts writting
> data... everything works fine and then, BANG!, without any reason data is
> not sent to the publisher anymore! SQL server doesn't seems to notice
> that!
> The replication has itself some filters and some tables have numeric
> counters with identity YES (also the one that is written by the
> application i mentioned before) . But, when i set up the publication i
> assign a range to this counters and the replication blocks itself before
> reaching the 1 % of the range i assing to this field!!
> Anyone has an idea of what is happening?
> Please... somebody help me!!
> F.P.
|||Thanks Hilary for the advice, but sp_browsereplcmds reveals only that
the last command was the one for the last record send from the
subscriber to the published database(no cmds for the records in the
subscriber and not replicated to the publisher). Then i tried to run
sp_repltrans on my publication db but it returns me no results... All
the agents continue "working" without any error, but no more records are
replicated (neither from pubisher to subscriber or vice-versa). Wherelse
can i search for the transactions failed? I mean...
Any other idea? The main thing that upsets me is that i'm not able to
see what's going wrong!! I'll try changing some configurations... I'm
using a push subscription... is it better to use a pull one?
I really need some help...
thanks...
Hilary Cotter ha scritto:
> what does ? Run this in the distribution database to
> see if commands are pooling there.
> If they aren't run sp_repltrans in your publication database.
>

Abnormal Timeout Issue on Production System

Hi all,
My production system is experiencing abnormal timeouts during posting of
transaction. The abnormal part is:
System usually works fine for about 6 ws; but one unlucky day, suddenly
for no apparent reason, system experiences massive timeout for about 2 - 3
hours; after that everything is fine again.
A background on the production system:
? It is a sales and stock control system. With a fair number (nothing
massive) of sales transactions every operation days
? Approx 50 client users
? Developed using VB .Net, VS 2003
? Running on .Net Framework 2.0
? Running on SQL Server database
? Supports multi-user, single database
It is also running on a pretty high-end server (from what I was told) with
spec:
? HP ML 530 G2 machine
? 2-processors, each 3 GHz, running Xeon HT
? 4 GB ECC RAM
? HDD running RAID 0 and RAID 1; Total disk space 200 GB, with 72 GB free
? SQL Server 2003 standard edition with sp3
? Windows 2003 Server standard edition
? Running other s/w, mainly Norton Anti-Virus 9.0 corp. version and Verita
s
9.1
USUALLY DURING THE FINE DAYS…
System works fine during both peak and off-peak hours with very rare
timeouts. Those timeouts are caused mainly by updating of "constant" tables,
such as stock when two customers are buying the same item at the same time.
That is acceptable as data integrity on those kinds of tables must be
maintained.
Database maintenance plan is in-placed to reorganized data and index pages,
scheduled to run once a w, during non-operation hours.
HDD defragmentation is scheduled to run twice a w, also during
non-operation hours.
The codes for the frequently used sales modules have been optimized to
ensure that transaction control is well handled, and unnecessary queries
removed.
HOWEVER WHEN THE UNLUCKY DAY OCCURRED…
Timeout occurs when user posts a sales transaction during the peak hours.
But the volume of transaction is similar to other peak hours during other
fine days!
I tried restarting the server and the client machines and applications but
the posting still timeout.
I even tried having only one user posting a transaction but that also timeou
t!
I checked the Profiler and it reveals that SQL Server is “stuck” while
attempting to insert some rows into a few tables at the start of the
transaction. These tables have small number of rows, from 10K to 200K each.
I
repeated the same test for only one user, and SQL Server remains “stuck”
as
well. BUT during fine days, SQL Server never has problem with those tables.
It can even insert data quickly into big tables with 2M+ rows!
I also checked the SQL EM Current Activities, and can find no tables being
blocked when only one user is posting. Tables are only blocked when more tha
n
one user is posting, and that is understandable coz SQL Server is “stuck
on
the 1st user’s transaction, thus blocking everyone else.
The SQL Server just become spastic, obsessed with the 1st (or only) user
transaction, never wanting to finish it off that I know it can.
And the weird thing is after 2-3 hours, everything goes back to normal, with
SQL Server at its best again.
PUZZLED…
The server specs is top-end; The program should be well optimized as far as
the frequently used sales modules are concerned; Maintenance Plans and
defragmentation scheduled tasks are in place; Heavy jobs such as Veritas
backup are only done during non-operation hours; It works fine for about
six-w, then it gets “stuck” on a few small tables, only to “unstuck
” after
2-3 hours break; The weirdest of all, it even timeouts when only one user
(having all the server and database resources to him /herself) is posting a
sales transaction!
Can anyone please kindly advice what are the possible causes and resolutions
for this anomalies be? Can the hardware spec affect it, even though it is
supposed to be high-end? Could other applications such as Veritas co-exist
with the SQL Server? Is SQL Server running any system jobs, e.g. Ghost
Cleanup, that can slow down its performance?
TQ in advance.Hi
The fact that it is stuck sounds like blocking issues.
If the application does not finish it's transaction on a specific set of
row(s) in a table, and another one comes in to work on the same row(s), the
2nd one has to wait.
When this happens, run sp_who2 and see what is blocking what.
Look up "blocks, avoiding" in books online.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"HardKhor" <HardKhor@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B1960834-C93C-458E-BC88-792045D88F2C@.microsoft.com...
> Hi all,
> My production system is experiencing abnormal timeouts during posting of
> transaction. The abnormal part is:
> System usually works fine for about 6 ws; but one unlucky day, suddenly
> for no apparent reason, system experiences massive timeout for about 2 - 3
> hours; after that everything is fine again.
>
> A background on the production system:
> . It is a sales and stock control system. With a fair number (nothing
> massive) of sales transactions every operation days
> . Approx 50 client users
> . Developed using VB .Net, VS 2003
> . Running on .Net Framework 2.0
> . Running on SQL Server database
> . Supports multi-user, single database
> It is also running on a pretty high-end server (from what I was told) with
> spec:
> . HP ML 530 G2 machine
> . 2-processors, each 3 GHz, running Xeon HT
> . 4 GB ECC RAM
> . HDD running RAID 0 and RAID 1; Total disk space 200 GB, with 72 GB free
> . SQL Server 2003 standard edition with sp3
> . Windows 2003 Server standard edition
> . Running other s/w, mainly Norton Anti-Virus 9.0 corp. version and
> Veritas
> 9.1
>
> USUALLY DURING THE FINE DAYS.
> System works fine during both peak and off-peak hours with very rare
> timeouts. Those timeouts are caused mainly by updating of "constant"
> tables,
> such as stock when two customers are buying the same item at the same
> time.
> That is acceptable as data integrity on those kinds of tables must be
> maintained.
> Database maintenance plan is in-placed to reorganized data and index
> pages,
> scheduled to run once a w, during non-operation hours.
> HDD defragmentation is scheduled to run twice a w, also during
> non-operation hours.
> The codes for the frequently used sales modules have been optimized to
> ensure that transaction control is well handled, and unnecessary queries
> removed.
>
> HOWEVER WHEN THE UNLUCKY DAY OCCURRED.
> Timeout occurs when user posts a sales transaction during the peak hours.
> But the volume of transaction is similar to other peak hours during other
> fine days!
> I tried restarting the server and the client machines and applications but
> the posting still timeout.
> I even tried having only one user posting a transaction but that also
> timeout!
> I checked the Profiler and it reveals that SQL Server is "stuck" while
> attempting to insert some rows into a few tables at the start of the
> transaction. These tables have small number of rows, from 10K to 200K
> each. I
> repeated the same test for only one user, and SQL Server remains "stuck"
> as
> well. BUT during fine days, SQL Server never has problem with those
> tables.
> It can even insert data quickly into big tables with 2M+ rows!
> I also checked the SQL EM Current Activities, and can find no tables being
> blocked when only one user is posting. Tables are only blocked when more
> than
> one user is posting, and that is understandable coz SQL Server is "stuck"
> on
> the 1st user's transaction, thus blocking everyone else.
> The SQL Server just become spastic, obsessed with the 1st (or only) user
> transaction, never wanting to finish it off that I know it can.
> And the weird thing is after 2-3 hours, everything goes back to normal,
> with
> SQL Server at its best again.
>
> PUZZLED.
> The server specs is top-end; The program should be well optimized as far
> as
> the frequently used sales modules are concerned; Maintenance Plans and
> defragmentation scheduled tasks are in place; Heavy jobs such as Veritas
> backup are only done during non-operation hours; It works fine for about
> six-w, then it gets "stuck" on a few small tables, only to "unstuck"
> after
> 2-3 hours break; The weirdest of all, it even timeouts when only one user
> (having all the server and database resources to him /herself) is posting
> a
> sales transaction!
> Can anyone please kindly advice what are the possible causes and
> resolutions
> for this anomalies be? Can the hardware spec affect it, even though it is
> supposed to be high-end? Could other applications such as Veritas co-exist
> with the SQL Server? Is SQL Server running any system jobs, e.g. Ghost
> Cleanup, that can slow down its performance?
> TQ in advance.|||Hi,
TQ for reply.
I don't think it is a blocking issue coz EM Current Activities shows no
blocks, no locks and whatsoever, and the codes have been optimized to handle
transaction properly. And as mentioned, weird things like why everything
works fine for about six ws, but fails for 3 hours; and even
one-and-only-one user gets timeout during posting. The system just degraded
for no apparent reason.
TQ for the sp_who2 thou. Will try it out (fingers crossed) in abt six ws
time! ;)
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:

> Hi
> The fact that it is stuck sounds like blocking issues.
> If the application does not finish it's transaction on a specific set of
> row(s) in a table, and another one comes in to work on the same row(s), th
e
> 2nd one has to wait.
> When this happens, run sp_who2 and see what is blocking what.
> Look up "blocks, avoiding" in books online.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "HardKhor" <HardKhor@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:B1960834-C93C-458E-BC88-792045D88F2C@.microsoft.com...
>
>

Abnormal RDA.pull termination

Hi ,.

I am facing some issues with my RDA app.

The process of events are something like below:

1) The program shows a set of options in a combobox.Then navigate to the next page . After some processes, it should come back to the form with combobox.

2)The datasource of combobox is a table which is pu

lled down eachtime when the page is loaded.

The program works fine when the page is loaded for the first time.But on second time , exactly on rda.Pull mthod it terminates even without an error message.

The local db is deleted before each pull operation.

if(File.Exists("\\My Documents\\Rda.sdf"))

File.Delete(\\My Documents\\Rda.sdf);

The rda pull line is :

rda.Pull("Stores", "select * from Stores", rdaOleDbConnectString, RdaTrackOption.TrackingOff);

rda.Dispose();

Can anyone tell me what is going wrong....?

Hi,

I found the answer.

The issue was with the RDA object that was created in the original form.

Initially I forgot to dispose the rda object after pull. i.e,

rda.Dispose();

When I am returning to the same form this object reference was in conflict with the new one during the second RDA pull method.

When I added the RDA dispose code , all was working well.

Thank you!

abnormal message when performing restore on 2005

Hi!
I have performed a full, differential and translog backup of my database.
Now when I try to restore the full backup it I get this message
Msg 3159, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
The tail of the log for the database "userdb" has not been backed up. Use
BACKUP LOG WITH NORECOVERY to backup the log if it contains work you do not
want to lose. Use the WITH REPLACE or WITH STOPAT clause of the RESTORE
statement to just overwrite the contents of the log.
Msg 3013, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
RESTORE DATABASE is terminating abnormally.
I then used this command
restore database userdb from disk='X:\backups\userfulldev.bak' with replace
and it restored the information correctly...
But im a bit curious exactly what I did wrong. Usually I never have to use
the "with replace" option when I restore my databases...
your thoughts?
/henrikThat is a new "error" message designed to keep you from erasing potentially
useful data. It applies when the following conditions are al true
You are restoring over an existing database
The database is in full recovery mode
There are active log segments (segments that have not been backed up).
The assumption is that the database contains useful transactions that must
be preserved.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Henrik Nordgren" <HenrikNordgren@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:84A018FB-0A32-4991-BC94-BD875EAB553B@.microsoft.com...
> Hi!
> I have performed a full, differential and translog backup of my database.
> Now when I try to restore the full backup it I get this message
> Msg 3159, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> The tail of the log for the database "userdb" has not been backed up. Use
> BACKUP LOG WITH NORECOVERY to backup the log if it contains work you do
> not
> want to lose. Use the WITH REPLACE or WITH STOPAT clause of the RESTORE
> statement to just overwrite the contents of the log.
> Msg 3013, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> RESTORE DATABASE is terminating abnormally.
>
> I then used this command
> restore database userdb from disk='X:\backups\userfulldev.bak' with
> replace
> and it restored the information correctly...
> But im a bit curious exactly what I did wrong. Usually I never have to use
> the "with replace" option when I restore my databases...
> your thoughts?
> /henrik
>|||On Feb 14, 1:47 pm, Henrik Nordgren
<HenrikNordg...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> Hi!
> I have performed a full, differential and translog backup of my database.
> Now when I try to restore the full backup it I get this message
> Msg 3159, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> The tail of the log for the database "userdb" has not been backed up. Use
> BACKUP LOG WITH NORECOVERY to backup the log if it contains work you do not
> want to lose. Use the WITH REPLACE or WITH STOPAT clause of the RESTORE
> statement to just overwrite the contents of the log.
> Msg 3013, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> RESTORE DATABASE is terminating abnormally.
> I then used this command
> restore database userdb from disk='X:\backups\userfulldev.bak' with replace
> and it restored the information correctly...
> But im a bit curious exactly what I did wrong. Usually I never have to use
> the "with replace" option when I restore my databases...
> your thoughts?
> /henrik
This is telling you that something modified your database after your
last log backup was done. There are "new" transactions in the log
that you will lose if you proceed with the restore...

abnormal message when performing restore on 2005

Hi!
I have performed a full, differential and translog backup of my database.
Now when I try to restore the full backup it I get this message
Msg 3159, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
The tail of the log for the database "userdb" has not been backed up. Use
BACKUP LOG WITH NORECOVERY to backup the log if it contains work you do not
want to lose. Use the WITH REPLACE or WITH STOPAT clause of the RESTORE
statement to just overwrite the contents of the log.
Msg 3013, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
RESTORE DATABASE is terminating abnormally.
I then used this command
restore database userdb from disk='X:\backups\userfulldev.bak' with replace
and it restored the information correctly...
But im a bit curious exactly what I did wrong. Usually I never have to use
the "with replace" option when I restore my databases...
your thoughts?
/henrik
That is a new "error" message designed to keep you from erasing potentially
useful data. It applies when the following conditions are al true
You are restoring over an existing database
The database is in full recovery mode
There are active log segments (segments that have not been backed up).
The assumption is that the database contains useful transactions that must
be preserved.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Henrik Nordgren" <HenrikNordgren@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:84A018FB-0A32-4991-BC94-BD875EAB553B@.microsoft.com...
> Hi!
> I have performed a full, differential and translog backup of my database.
> Now when I try to restore the full backup it I get this message
> Msg 3159, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> The tail of the log for the database "userdb" has not been backed up. Use
> BACKUP LOG WITH NORECOVERY to backup the log if it contains work you do
> not
> want to lose. Use the WITH REPLACE or WITH STOPAT clause of the RESTORE
> statement to just overwrite the contents of the log.
> Msg 3013, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> RESTORE DATABASE is terminating abnormally.
>
> I then used this command
> restore database userdb from disk='X:\backups\userfulldev.bak' with
> replace
> and it restored the information correctly...
> But im a bit curious exactly what I did wrong. Usually I never have to use
> the "with replace" option when I restore my databases...
> your thoughts?
> /henrik
>
|||On Feb 14, 1:47 pm, Henrik Nordgren
<HenrikNordg...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> Hi!
> I have performed a full, differential and translog backup of my database.
> Now when I try to restore the full backup it I get this message
> Msg 3159, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> The tail of the log for the database "userdb" has not been backed up. Use
> BACKUP LOG WITH NORECOVERY to backup the log if it contains work you do not
> want to lose. Use the WITH REPLACE or WITH STOPAT clause of the RESTORE
> statement to just overwrite the contents of the log.
> Msg 3013, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> RESTORE DATABASE is terminating abnormally.
> I then used this command
> restore database userdb from disk='X:\backups\userfulldev.bak' with replace
> and it restored the information correctly...
> But im a bit curious exactly what I did wrong. Usually I never have to use
> the "with replace" option when I restore my databases...
> your thoughts?
> /henrik
This is telling you that something modified your database after your
last log backup was done. There are "new" transactions in the log
that you will lose if you proceed with the restore...
sql

abnormal message when performing restore on 2005

Hi!
I have performed a full, differential and translog backup of my database.
Now when I try to restore the full backup it I get this message
Msg 3159, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
The tail of the log for the database "userdb" has not been backed up. Use
BACKUP LOG WITH NORECOVERY to backup the log if it contains work you do not
want to lose. Use the WITH REPLACE or WITH STOPAT clause of the RESTORE
statement to just overwrite the contents of the log.
Msg 3013, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
RESTORE DATABASE is terminating abnormally.
I then used this command
restore database userdb from disk='X:\backups\userfulldev.bak' with replace
and it restored the information correctly...
But im a bit curious exactly what I did wrong. Usually I never have to use
the "with replace" option when I restore my databases...
your thoughts?
/henrikThat is a new "error" message designed to keep you from erasing potentially
useful data. It applies when the following conditions are al true
You are restoring over an existing database
The database is in full recovery mode
There are active log segments (segments that have not been backed up).
The assumption is that the database contains useful transactions that must
be preserved.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Henrik Nordgren" <HenrikNordgren@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:84A018FB-0A32-4991-BC94-BD875EAB553B@.microsoft.com...
> Hi!
> I have performed a full, differential and translog backup of my database.
> Now when I try to restore the full backup it I get this message
> Msg 3159, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> The tail of the log for the database "userdb" has not been backed up. Use
> BACKUP LOG WITH NORECOVERY to backup the log if it contains work you do
> not
> want to lose. Use the WITH REPLACE or WITH STOPAT clause of the RESTORE
> statement to just overwrite the contents of the log.
> Msg 3013, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> RESTORE DATABASE is terminating abnormally.
>
> I then used this command
> restore database userdb from disk='X:\backups\userfulldev.bak' with
> replace
> and it restored the information correctly...
> But im a bit curious exactly what I did wrong. Usually I never have to use
> the "with replace" option when I restore my databases...
> your thoughts?
> /henrik
>|||On Feb 14, 1:47 pm, Henrik Nordgren
<HenrikNordg...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> Hi!
> I have performed a full, differential and translog backup of my database.
> Now when I try to restore the full backup it I get this message
> Msg 3159, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> The tail of the log for the database "userdb" has not been backed up. Use
> BACKUP LOG WITH NORECOVERY to backup the log if it contains work you do no
t
> want to lose. Use the WITH REPLACE or WITH STOPAT clause of the RESTORE
> statement to just overwrite the contents of the log.
> Msg 3013, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> RESTORE DATABASE is terminating abnormally.
> I then used this command
> restore database userdb from disk='X:\backups\userfulldev.bak' with replac
e
> and it restored the information correctly...
> But im a bit curious exactly what I did wrong. Usually I never have to use
> the "with replace" option when I restore my databases...
> your thoughts?
> /henrik
This is telling you that something modified your database after your
last log backup was done. There are "new" transactions in the log
that you will lose if you proceed with the restore...