Is there a way to stop a hung restore ?
Here are some error logs:
2003-12-09 12:35:20.94 server Microsoft SQL Server 2000 - 8.00.760 (Intel
X86)
Dec 17 2002 14:22:05
Copyright (c) 1988-2003 Microsoft Corporation
Standard Edition on Windows NT 5.0 (Build 2195: Service Pack 4)
2003-12-09 12:35:20.94 server Copyright (C) 1988-2002 Microsoft Corporation.
2003-12-09 12:35:20.94 server All rights reserved.
2003-12-09 12:35:20.94 server Server Process ID is 3984.
2003-12-09 12:35:20.94 server Logging SQL Server messages in file
'e:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\log\ERRORLOG'.
2003-12-09 12:35:20.96 server SQL Server is starting at priority class
'normal'(4 CPUs detected).
2003-12-09 12:35:21.10 server SQL Server configured for thread mode
processing.
2003-12-09 12:35:21.10 server Using dynamic lock allocation. [2500] Lock
Blocks, [5000] Lock Owner Blocks.
2003-12-09 12:35:21.17 server Attempting to initialize Distributed
Transaction Coordinator.
2003-12-09 12:35:23.25 spid3 Starting up database 'master'.
2003-12-09 12:35:23.32 server Using 'SSNETLIB.DLL' version '8.0.760'.
2003-12-09 12:35:23.32 spid5 Starting up database 'model'.
2003-12-09 12:35:23.32 spid3 Server name is 'W2KSVR'.
2003-12-09 12:35:23.32 spid8 Starting up database 'msdb'.
2003-12-09 12:35:23.32 spid9 Starting up database 'pubs'.
2003-12-09 12:35:23.32 spid10 Starting up database 'Northwind'.
2003-12-09 12:35:23.32 spid11 Starting up database 'StarBldr'.
2003-12-09 12:35:23.32 spid12 Starting up database 'SurfControl_WebFilter'.
2003-12-09 12:35:23.32 spid13 Starting up database 'BRCS'.
2003-12-09 12:35:23.32 spid14 Starting up database 'BEDB'.
2003-12-09 12:35:23.33 spid11 Bypassing recovery for database 'StarBldr'
because it is marked IN LOAD.
2003-12-09 12:35:23.33 spid5 Bypassing recovery for database 'model' because
it is marked IN LOAD.
2003-12-09 12:35:23.33 spid5 Database 'model' cannot be opened. It is in the
middle of a restore.
2003-12-09 12:35:23.33 spid13 Bypassing recovery for database 'BRCS' because
it is marked IN LOAD.
HERE IS THE ERRORLOG.1 file:
2003-12-09 12:33:19.02 server Microsoft SQL Server 2000 - 8.00.760 (Intel
X86)
Dec 17 2002 14:22:05
Copyright (c) 1988-2003 Microsoft Corporation
Standard Edition on Windows NT 5.0 (Build 2195: Service Pack 4)
2003-12-09 12:33:19.02 server Copyright (C) 1988-2002 Microsoft Corporation.
2003-12-09 12:33:19.02 server All rights reserved.
2003-12-09 12:33:19.02 server Server Process ID is 4364.
2003-12-09 12:33:19.02 server Logging SQL Server messages in file
'e:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\log\ERRORLOG'.
2003-12-09 12:33:19.02 server SQL Server is starting at priority class
'normal'(4 CPUs detected).
2003-12-09 12:33:19.16 server SQL Server configured for thread mode
processing.
2003-12-09 12:33:19.16 server Using dynamic lock allocation. [2500] Lock
Blocks, [5000] Lock Owner Blocks.
2003-12-09 12:33:19.24 server Attempting to initialize Distributed
Transaction Coordinator.
2003-12-09 12:33:21.30 spid3 Starting up database 'master'.
2003-12-09 12:33:21.35 server Using 'SSNETLIB.DLL' version '8.0.760'.
2003-12-09 12:33:21.35 spid5 Starting up database 'model'.
2003-12-09 12:33:21.36 spid3 Server name is 'W2KSVR'.
2003-12-09 12:33:21.36 spid8 Starting up database 'msdb'.
2003-12-09 12:33:21.36 spid9 Starting up database 'pubs'.
2003-12-09 12:33:21.36 spid10 Starting up database 'Northwind'.
2003-12-09 12:33:21.36 spid11 Starting up database 'StarBldr'.
2003-12-09 12:33:21.36 spid13 Starting up database 'BRCS'.
2003-12-09 12:33:21.36 spid12 Starting up database 'SurfControl_WebFilter'.
2003-12-09 12:33:21.36 spid14 Starting up database 'BEDB'.
2003-12-09 12:33:21.36 spid11 Bypassing recovery for database 'StarBldr'
because it is marked IN LOAD.
2003-12-09 12:33:21.36 spid5 Bypassing recovery for database 'model' because
it is marked IN LOAD.
2003-12-09 12:33:21.36 spid13 Bypassing recovery for database 'BRCS' because
it is marked IN LOAD.
2003-12-09 12:33:21.38 spid5 Database 'model' cannot be opened. It is in the
middle of a restore.
Any help would be grateful... Thanks
TIASee my other reply.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
"_M_" <here@.gone.com> wrote in message
news:OI34LpovDHA.3116@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Is there a way to stop a hung restore ?
> Here are some error logs:
> 2003-12-09 12:35:20.94 server Microsoft SQL Server 2000 - 8.00.760 (Intel
> X86)
> Dec 17 2002 14:22:05
> Copyright (c) 1988-2003 Microsoft Corporation
> Standard Edition on Windows NT 5.0 (Build 2195: Service Pack 4)
> 2003-12-09 12:35:20.94 server Copyright (C) 1988-2002 Microsoft
Corporation.
> 2003-12-09 12:35:20.94 server All rights reserved.
> 2003-12-09 12:35:20.94 server Server Process ID is 3984.
> 2003-12-09 12:35:20.94 server Logging SQL Server messages in file
> 'e:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\log\ERRORLOG'.
> 2003-12-09 12:35:20.96 server SQL Server is starting at priority class
> 'normal'(4 CPUs detected).
> 2003-12-09 12:35:21.10 server SQL Server configured for thread mode
> processing.
> 2003-12-09 12:35:21.10 server Using dynamic lock allocation. [2500] Lock
> Blocks, [5000] Lock Owner Blocks.
> 2003-12-09 12:35:21.17 server Attempting to initialize Distributed
> Transaction Coordinator.
> 2003-12-09 12:35:23.25 spid3 Starting up database 'master'.
> 2003-12-09 12:35:23.32 server Using 'SSNETLIB.DLL' version '8.0.760'.
> 2003-12-09 12:35:23.32 spid5 Starting up database 'model'.
> 2003-12-09 12:35:23.32 spid3 Server name is 'W2KSVR'.
> 2003-12-09 12:35:23.32 spid8 Starting up database 'msdb'.
> 2003-12-09 12:35:23.32 spid9 Starting up database 'pubs'.
> 2003-12-09 12:35:23.32 spid10 Starting up database 'Northwind'.
> 2003-12-09 12:35:23.32 spid11 Starting up database 'StarBldr'.
> 2003-12-09 12:35:23.32 spid12 Starting up database
'SurfControl_WebFilter'.
> 2003-12-09 12:35:23.32 spid13 Starting up database 'BRCS'.
> 2003-12-09 12:35:23.32 spid14 Starting up database 'BEDB'.
> 2003-12-09 12:35:23.33 spid11 Bypassing recovery for database 'StarBldr'
> because it is marked IN LOAD.
> 2003-12-09 12:35:23.33 spid5 Bypassing recovery for database 'model'
because
> it is marked IN LOAD.
> 2003-12-09 12:35:23.33 spid5 Database 'model' cannot be opened. It is in
the
> middle of a restore.
> 2003-12-09 12:35:23.33 spid13 Bypassing recovery for database 'BRCS'
because
> it is marked IN LOAD.
> HERE IS THE ERRORLOG.1 file:
> 2003-12-09 12:33:19.02 server Microsoft SQL Server 2000 - 8.00.760 (Intel
> X86)
> Dec 17 2002 14:22:05
> Copyright (c) 1988-2003 Microsoft Corporation
> Standard Edition on Windows NT 5.0 (Build 2195: Service Pack 4)
> 2003-12-09 12:33:19.02 server Copyright (C) 1988-2002 Microsoft
Corporation.
> 2003-12-09 12:33:19.02 server All rights reserved.
> 2003-12-09 12:33:19.02 server Server Process ID is 4364.
> 2003-12-09 12:33:19.02 server Logging SQL Server messages in file
> 'e:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\log\ERRORLOG'.
> 2003-12-09 12:33:19.02 server SQL Server is starting at priority class
> 'normal'(4 CPUs detected).
> 2003-12-09 12:33:19.16 server SQL Server configured for thread mode
> processing.
> 2003-12-09 12:33:19.16 server Using dynamic lock allocation. [2500] Lock
> Blocks, [5000] Lock Owner Blocks.
> 2003-12-09 12:33:19.24 server Attempting to initialize Distributed
> Transaction Coordinator.
> 2003-12-09 12:33:21.30 spid3 Starting up database 'master'.
> 2003-12-09 12:33:21.35 server Using 'SSNETLIB.DLL' version '8.0.760'.
> 2003-12-09 12:33:21.35 spid5 Starting up database 'model'.
> 2003-12-09 12:33:21.36 spid3 Server name is 'W2KSVR'.
> 2003-12-09 12:33:21.36 spid8 Starting up database 'msdb'.
> 2003-12-09 12:33:21.36 spid9 Starting up database 'pubs'.
> 2003-12-09 12:33:21.36 spid10 Starting up database 'Northwind'.
> 2003-12-09 12:33:21.36 spid11 Starting up database 'StarBldr'.
> 2003-12-09 12:33:21.36 spid13 Starting up database 'BRCS'.
> 2003-12-09 12:33:21.36 spid12 Starting up database
'SurfControl_WebFilter'.
> 2003-12-09 12:33:21.36 spid14 Starting up database 'BEDB'.
> 2003-12-09 12:33:21.36 spid11 Bypassing recovery for database 'StarBldr'
> because it is marked IN LOAD.
> 2003-12-09 12:33:21.36 spid5 Bypassing recovery for database 'model'
because
> it is marked IN LOAD.
> 2003-12-09 12:33:21.36 spid13 Bypassing recovery for database 'BRCS'
because
> it is marked IN LOAD.
> 2003-12-09 12:33:21.38 spid5 Database 'model' cannot be opened. It is in
the
> middle of a restore.
> Any help would be grateful... Thanks
> TIA
>
Showing posts with label x86. Show all posts
Showing posts with label x86. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Monday, March 19, 2012
Mixed environment x64 and x86 (compatibility)
I have all sql servers running 32bit. We need another SQL cluster and I would
like to install SQL2005 x64. My concerns are the compatibility between
SQL2000 32bit, SQL2005 32bit and the new one:
questions:
can I restore a x64 database to a 32bit SQL Server?
Anyone has had compatibility issues using a mixed environment?
If there is no difference, why there are different AdventureWorks versions
(x64 and x86) to download?
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=E719ECF7-9F46-4312-AF89-6AD8702E4E6E&displaylang=en
Microsoft says there is no problem, but I would like to hear some real
experience ..
thanks
Julio M
Hi
"Julio Mattos" wrote:
> I have all sql servers running 32bit. We need another SQL cluster and I would
> like to install SQL2005 x64. My concerns are the compatibility between
> SQL2000 32bit, SQL2005 32bit and the new one:
> questions:
> can I restore a x64 database to a 32bit SQL Server?
The backup file format is the same on both machines. The database file
format has not changed either, therefore you can move these from one platform
to the next without issues.
> Anyone has had compatibility issues using a mixed environment?
> If there is no difference, why there are different AdventureWorks versions
> (x64 and x86) to download?
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=E719ECF7-9F46-4312-AF89-6AD8702E4E6E&displaylang=en
This is probably because of the samples being deployed on different platforms.
> Microsoft says there is no problem, but I would like to hear some real
> experience ..
You should deploy this because you need a platform that is better suited for
the 64 bit environment i.e. better memory usage, better processors etc.
> thanks
> Julio M
>
John
like to install SQL2005 x64. My concerns are the compatibility between
SQL2000 32bit, SQL2005 32bit and the new one:
questions:
can I restore a x64 database to a 32bit SQL Server?
Anyone has had compatibility issues using a mixed environment?
If there is no difference, why there are different AdventureWorks versions
(x64 and x86) to download?
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=E719ECF7-9F46-4312-AF89-6AD8702E4E6E&displaylang=en
Microsoft says there is no problem, but I would like to hear some real
experience ..
thanks
Julio M
Hi
"Julio Mattos" wrote:
> I have all sql servers running 32bit. We need another SQL cluster and I would
> like to install SQL2005 x64. My concerns are the compatibility between
> SQL2000 32bit, SQL2005 32bit and the new one:
> questions:
> can I restore a x64 database to a 32bit SQL Server?
The backup file format is the same on both machines. The database file
format has not changed either, therefore you can move these from one platform
to the next without issues.
> Anyone has had compatibility issues using a mixed environment?
> If there is no difference, why there are different AdventureWorks versions
> (x64 and x86) to download?
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=E719ECF7-9F46-4312-AF89-6AD8702E4E6E&displaylang=en
This is probably because of the samples being deployed on different platforms.
> Microsoft says there is no problem, but I would like to hear some real
> experience ..
You should deploy this because you need a platform that is better suited for
the 64 bit environment i.e. better memory usage, better processors etc.
> thanks
> Julio M
>
John
Mixed environment x64 and x86 (compatibility)
I have all sql servers running 32bit. We need another SQL cluster and I would
like to install SQL2005 x64. My concerns are the compatibility between
SQL2000 32bit, SQL2005 32bit and the new one:
questions:
can I restore a x64 database to a 32bit SQL Server?
Anyone has had compatibility issues using a mixed environment?
If there is no difference, why there are different AdventureWorks versions
(x64 and x86) to download?
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=E719ECF7-9F46-4312-AF89-6AD8702E4E6E&displaylang=en
Microsoft says there is no problem, but I would like to hear some real
experience ..
thanks
Julio MHi
"Julio Mattos" wrote:
> I have all sql servers running 32bit. We need another SQL cluster and I would
> like to install SQL2005 x64. My concerns are the compatibility between
> SQL2000 32bit, SQL2005 32bit and the new one:
> questions:
> can I restore a x64 database to a 32bit SQL Server?
The backup file format is the same on both machines. The database file
format has not changed either, therefore you can move these from one platform
to the next without issues.
> Anyone has had compatibility issues using a mixed environment?
> If there is no difference, why there are different AdventureWorks versions
> (x64 and x86) to download?
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=E719ECF7-9F46-4312-AF89-6AD8702E4E6E&displaylang=en
This is probably because of the samples being deployed on different platforms.
> Microsoft says there is no problem, but I would like to hear some real
> experience ..
You should deploy this because you need a platform that is better suited for
the 64 bit environment i.e. better memory usage, better processors etc.
> thanks
> Julio M
>
John
like to install SQL2005 x64. My concerns are the compatibility between
SQL2000 32bit, SQL2005 32bit and the new one:
questions:
can I restore a x64 database to a 32bit SQL Server?
Anyone has had compatibility issues using a mixed environment?
If there is no difference, why there are different AdventureWorks versions
(x64 and x86) to download?
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=E719ECF7-9F46-4312-AF89-6AD8702E4E6E&displaylang=en
Microsoft says there is no problem, but I would like to hear some real
experience ..
thanks
Julio MHi
"Julio Mattos" wrote:
> I have all sql servers running 32bit. We need another SQL cluster and I would
> like to install SQL2005 x64. My concerns are the compatibility between
> SQL2000 32bit, SQL2005 32bit and the new one:
> questions:
> can I restore a x64 database to a 32bit SQL Server?
The backup file format is the same on both machines. The database file
format has not changed either, therefore you can move these from one platform
to the next without issues.
> Anyone has had compatibility issues using a mixed environment?
> If there is no difference, why there are different AdventureWorks versions
> (x64 and x86) to download?
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=E719ECF7-9F46-4312-AF89-6AD8702E4E6E&displaylang=en
This is probably because of the samples being deployed on different platforms.
> Microsoft says there is no problem, but I would like to hear some real
> experience ..
You should deploy this because you need a platform that is better suited for
the 64 bit environment i.e. better memory usage, better processors etc.
> thanks
> Julio M
>
John
Mixed environment x64 and x86 (compatibility)
I have all sql servers running 32bit. We need another SQL cluster and I woul
d
like to install SQL2005 x64. My concerns are the compatibility between
SQL2000 32bit, SQL2005 32bit and the new one:
questions:
can I restore a x64 database to a 32bit SQL Server?
Anyone has had compatibility issues using a mixed environment?
If there is no difference, why there are different AdventureWorks versions
(x64 and x86) to download?
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...&displaylang=en
Microsoft says there is no problem, but I would like to hear some real
experience ..
thanks
Julio MHi
"Julio Mattos" wrote:
> I have all sql servers running 32bit. We need another SQL cluster and I wo
uld
> like to install SQL2005 x64. My concerns are the compatibility between
> SQL2000 32bit, SQL2005 32bit and the new one:
> questions:
> can I restore a x64 database to a 32bit SQL Server?
The backup file format is the same on both machines. The database file
format has not changed either, therefore you can move these from one platfor
m
to the next without issues.
> Anyone has had compatibility issues using a mixed environment?
> If there is no difference, why there are different AdventureWorks versions
> (x64 and x86) to download?
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...&displaylang=en
This is probably because of the samples being deployed on different platform
s.
> Microsoft says there is no problem, but I would like to hear some real
> experience ..
You should deploy this because you need a platform that is better suited for
the 64 bit environment i.e. better memory usage, better processors etc.
> thanks
> Julio M
>
John
d
like to install SQL2005 x64. My concerns are the compatibility between
SQL2000 32bit, SQL2005 32bit and the new one:
questions:
can I restore a x64 database to a 32bit SQL Server?
Anyone has had compatibility issues using a mixed environment?
If there is no difference, why there are different AdventureWorks versions
(x64 and x86) to download?
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...&displaylang=en
Microsoft says there is no problem, but I would like to hear some real
experience ..
thanks
Julio MHi
"Julio Mattos" wrote:
> I have all sql servers running 32bit. We need another SQL cluster and I wo
uld
> like to install SQL2005 x64. My concerns are the compatibility between
> SQL2000 32bit, SQL2005 32bit and the new one:
> questions:
> can I restore a x64 database to a 32bit SQL Server?
The backup file format is the same on both machines. The database file
format has not changed either, therefore you can move these from one platfor
m
to the next without issues.
> Anyone has had compatibility issues using a mixed environment?
> If there is no difference, why there are different AdventureWorks versions
> (x64 and x86) to download?
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...&displaylang=en
This is probably because of the samples being deployed on different platform
s.
> Microsoft says there is no problem, but I would like to hear some real
> experience ..
You should deploy this because you need a platform that is better suited for
the 64 bit environment i.e. better memory usage, better processors etc.
> thanks
> Julio M
>
John
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)