Consistency error in sql2000

Hi,
I just found a lot of these errors in the errorlog and eventlog:
2006-04-01 20:55:13.84 spid83 Error: 605, Severity: 21, State: 1
2006-04-01 20:55:13.84 spid83 Attempt to fetch logical page (1:420416)
in database 'confirm' belongs to object '6488161', not to object 'XXXXX'..
I did as the BOL suggests and ran a dbcc checktable ('XXXXX') (with no
repair option). This returned:
There are 4889992 rows in 70072 pages for object 'XXXXX'.
CHECKTABLE found 0 allocation errors and 1 consistency errors in table
'XXXXX' (object ID 1781581385).
repair_allow_data_loss is the minimum repair level for the errors found by
DBCC CHECKTABLE (XXXXXX ).
Not looking good at all.
Then I ran a dbcc checkdb ('yyyyy') with this result
...
...
CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 0 consistency errors in database
'yyyyy'.
A new dbcc checktable reported no errors.
How could this be. Was this a transient error after all?
Any insight is appreciated.
TIA
It is quite possible to run into transient DBCC errors in SQL2000, though
it's pretty rare. If your database is not huge, I'd re-run DBCC CHECKDB when
there isn't much activity. If that returns clean, you are probably okay.
Transient errors are more lickly when there are heavy activities.
Linchi
"Gurba" wrote:

> Hi,
> I just found a lot of these errors in the errorlog and eventlog:
> 2006-04-01 20:55:13.84 spid83 Error: 605, Severity: 21, State: 1
> 2006-04-01 20:55:13.84 spid83 Attempt to fetch logical page (1:420416)
> in database 'confirm' belongs to object '6488161', not to object 'XXXXX'..
> I did as the BOL suggests and ran a dbcc checktable ('XXXXX') (with no
> repair option). This returned:
> There are 4889992 rows in 70072 pages for object 'XXXXX'.
> CHECKTABLE found 0 allocation errors and 1 consistency errors in table
> 'XXXXX' (object ID 1781581385).
> repair_allow_data_loss is the minimum repair level for the errors found by
> DBCC CHECKTABLE (XXXXXX ).
> Not looking good at all.
> Then I ran a dbcc checkdb ('yyyyy') with this result
> ...
> ...
> CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 0 consistency errors in database
> 'yyyyy'.
> A new dbcc checktable reported no errors.
> How could this be. Was this a transient error after all?
> Any insight is appreciated.
> TIA
>

Consistency error in sql2000

Hi,
I just found a lot of these errors in the errorlog and eventlog:
2006-04-01 20:55:13.84 spid83 Error: 605, Severity: 21, State: 1
2006-04-01 20:55:13.84 spid83 Attempt to fetch logical page (1:420416)
in database 'confirm' belongs to object '6488161', not to object 'XXXXX'..
I did as the BOL suggests and ran a dbcc checktable ('XXXXX') (with no
repair option). This returned:
There are 4889992 rows in 70072 pages for object 'XXXXX'.
CHECKTABLE found 0 allocation errors and 1 consistency errors in table
'XXXXX' (object ID 1781581385).
repair_allow_data_loss is the minimum repair level for the errors found by
DBCC CHECKTABLE (XXXXXX ).
Not looking good at all.
Then I ran a dbcc checkdb ('yyyyy') with this result
...
...
CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 0 consistency errors in database
'yyyyy'.
A new dbcc checktable reported no errors.
How could this be. Was this a transient error after all?
Any insight is appreciated.
TIAIt is quite possible to run into transient DBCC errors in SQL2000, though
it's pretty rare. If your database is not huge, I'd re-run DBCC CHECKDB when
there isn't much activity. If that returns clean, you are probably okay.
Transient errors are more lickly when there are heavy activities.
Linchi
"Gurba" wrote:

> Hi,
> I just found a lot of these errors in the errorlog and eventlog:
> 2006-04-01 20:55:13.84 spid83 Error: 605, Severity: 21, State: 1
> 2006-04-01 20:55:13.84 spid83 Attempt to fetch logical page (1:420416)
> in database 'confirm' belongs to object '6488161', not to object 'XXXXX'..
> I did as the BOL suggests and ran a dbcc checktable ('XXXXX') (with no
> repair option). This returned:
> There are 4889992 rows in 70072 pages for object 'XXXXX'.
> CHECKTABLE found 0 allocation errors and 1 consistency errors in table
> 'XXXXX' (object ID 1781581385).
> repair_allow_data_loss is the minimum repair level for the errors found by
> DBCC CHECKTABLE (XXXXXX ).
> Not looking good at all.
> Then I ran a dbcc checkdb ('yyyyy') with this result
> ...
> ...
> CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 0 consistency errors in database
> 'yyyyy'.
> A new dbcc checktable reported no errors.
> How could this be. Was this a transient error after all?
> Any insight is appreciated.
> TIA
>

Consistency error in sql2000

Hi,
I just found a lot of these errors in the errorlog and eventlog:
2006-04-01 20:55:13.84 spid83 Error: 605, Severity: 21, State: 1
2006-04-01 20:55:13.84 spid83 Attempt to fetch logical page (1:420416)
in database 'confirm' belongs to object '6488161', not to object 'XXXXX'..
I did as the BOL suggests and ran a dbcc checktable ('XXXXX') (with no
repair option). This returned:
There are 4889992 rows in 70072 pages for object 'XXXXX'.
CHECKTABLE found 0 allocation errors and 1 consistency errors in table
'XXXXX' (object ID 1781581385).
repair_allow_data_loss is the minimum repair level for the errors found by
DBCC CHECKTABLE (XXXXXX ).
Not looking good at all.
Then I ran a dbcc checkdb ('yyyyy') with this result
...
...
CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 0 consistency errors in database
'yyyyy'.
A new dbcc checktable reported no errors.
How could this be. Was this a transient error after all?
Any insight is appreciated.
TIAIt is quite possible to run into transient DBCC errors in SQL2000, though
it's pretty rare. If your database is not huge, I'd re-run DBCC CHECKDB when
there isn't much activity. If that returns clean, you are probably okay.
Transient errors are more lickly when there are heavy activities.
Linchi
"Gurba" wrote:
> Hi,
> I just found a lot of these errors in the errorlog and eventlog:
> 2006-04-01 20:55:13.84 spid83 Error: 605, Severity: 21, State: 1
> 2006-04-01 20:55:13.84 spid83 Attempt to fetch logical page (1:420416)
> in database 'confirm' belongs to object '6488161', not to object 'XXXXX'..
> I did as the BOL suggests and ran a dbcc checktable ('XXXXX') (with no
> repair option). This returned:
> There are 4889992 rows in 70072 pages for object 'XXXXX'.
> CHECKTABLE found 0 allocation errors and 1 consistency errors in table
> 'XXXXX' (object ID 1781581385).
> repair_allow_data_loss is the minimum repair level for the errors found by
> DBCC CHECKTABLE (XXXXXX ).
> Not looking good at all.
> Then I ran a dbcc checkdb ('yyyyy') with this result
> ...
> ...
> CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 0 consistency errors in database
> 'yyyyy'.
> A new dbcc checktable reported no errors.
> How could this be. Was this a transient error after all?
> Any insight is appreciated.
> TIA
>sqlsql

Connection Timed Out Error

hello all,
can any one explain sql State HYT00
im getting this as a part of the connection timed out message, while connecting from my node to sql server 2000 instance running on windows 2000 server.
thanks in advancepresume the connection is there and you can ping the other server?

How are you attempting to connect?

Has it just stopped? Have you ever had connection? have you checked that the correct protocols are enabled on the target server?

Jim|||YES JIM

I CAN PING THE MACHINE

IVE CONFIGURED THE CLIENT NETWORK UTILITY TO USE TCP

PROTOCOL TO LISTEN TO THE DEFAULT PORT 1433. THE SERVER

NETWORK UTILITY IS ALSO CONFIGURED

I COULD CONNECT TO THE SERVER BEFORE, BUT IT DROPS ALL OF A
SUDDEN,AND DISPLAYS THE 'CONNECTION TIMED OUT' MESSAGE

IM GETTING THIS MESSAGE WHILE ATTEMTPTING AN ODBC CREATION.|||http://vyaskn.tripod.com/sql_odbc_timeout_expired.htm to resolve the issue.

HTH

Connection Problem with Remote Server

If I do this:
select * from tblAmcareDetail
I get my records back but as soon as try to specify column names I get:
Server: Msg 207, Level 16, State 3, Line 1
[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Invalid column name
'apexorderid'.
I think it must be a connection problem because I don't have this problem on
local servers. The server is registered by it's ip address and I'm running
the query under the servers sa account.
Can anyone help?Doesn't sound like a connection problem.
Are you sure the table on the server.database you're connecting to has
this column?
Is the server/db/table you're connecting to perhaps setup with a
case-sensitive collation? If so, you'll need to query using the case of
column names as in the table definition.
Spike wrote:
> If I do this:
> select * from tblAmcareDetail
> I get my records back but as soon as try to specify column names I get:
> Server: Msg 207, Level 16, State 3, Line 1
> [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Invalid column name
> 'apexorderid'.
> I think it must be a connection problem because I don't have this problem
on
> local servers. The server is registered by it's ip address and I'm runnin
g
> the query under the servers sa account.
> Can anyone help?
>