rebuild indexes on replicated db

Ive rebuild the Indexes on a Replicated db weekly. However, it makes the Log
Reader Agent blow up with "cannot exec sp_replcmds" error. It doesnt restart
until done manually. Any ideas on how to fix?
SQL2K SP3
TIA, ChrisR
Stop the log reader. Run dbcc reindex. After rebuilding the indexes, restart
the log reader agent.
The problem is that the rebuilding of the indexes is a logged operation and
this interferes with the log reader.
--
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
"ChrisR" <bla@.noemail.com> wrote in message
news:%23sUKEPM0EHA.1404@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Ive rebuild the Indexes on a Replicated db weekly. However, it makes the
> Log
> Reader Agent blow up with "cannot exec sp_replcmds" error. It doesnt
> restart
> until done manually. Any ideas on how to fix?
> --
> SQL2K SP3
> TIA, ChrisR
>

Reasons to restore individual file groups.

Hi,
I'm making the decision to not backup file groups and only backup databases (with backkup exec.
I don't see any reason I would have to resore individual file groups.
Does anyone know why I should backup file groups or in what situation I would need to restore individual file groups?Dont know your situation. If a user drops a table(which
typically the cant) you could restore it by itself if its
in its own filegroup.
>--Original Message--
>Hi,
>I'm making the decision to not backup file groups and
only backup databases (with backkup exec.)
>I don't see any reason I would have to resore individual
file groups.
>Does anyone know why I should backup file groups or in
what situation I would need to restore individual file
groups?
>.
>|||Chris,
I assume that you mean that the filegroup restore would help to restore only
that table to an earlier point in time? That is not possible as when you
restore a filegroup, you also have to apply all subsequent transaction log
backups.
However, I should hasten to add, in SQL2K, you can do a PARTIAL restore into
a new database and move that table to the production database. There are
restriction, however, like the primary filegroup has top be part of the
backup.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
"chris" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:b15301c3ecc9$e7651950$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> Dont know your situation. If a user drops a table(which
> typically the cant) you could restore it by itself if its
> in its own filegroup.
>
> >--Original Message--
> >Hi,
> >I'm making the decision to not backup file groups and
> only backup databases (with backkup exec.)
> >I don't see any reason I would have to resore individual
> file groups.
> >Does anyone know why I should backup file groups or in
> what situation I would need to restore individual file
> groups?
> >.
> >|||Mannie,
The way I look at filegroup backup and restore is that I prefer to avoid it
if I can. If I have a database too large to handle with "regular" backup
methods, then I consider it. Just the fact that your database is toast if
you are missing one log backup taken after the filegroup you have restore
feel a bit scary to me.
I prefer to keep things as simple as possible. You can still use filegroups
and even do filegroup restore from a full backup (possibly using the PARTIAL
option of applicable).
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
"mannie" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:53DEF63A-8C4A-45A9-A48A-88A19688217D@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I'm making the decision to not backup file groups and only backup
databases (with backkup exec.)
> I don't see any reason I would have to resore individual file groups.
> Does anyone know why I should backup file groups or in what situation I
would need to restore individual file groups?

Reasons to restore individual file groups.

Hi,
I'm making the decision to not backup file groups and only backup databases
(with backkup exec.)
I don't see any reason I would have to resore individual file groups.
Does anyone know why I should backup file groups or in what situation I woul
d need to restore individual file groups?Mannie,
The way I look at filegroup backup and restore is that I prefer to avoid it
if I can. If I have a database too large to handle with "regular" backup
methods, then I consider it. Just the fact that your database is toast if
you are missing one log backup taken after the filegroup you have restore
feel a bit scary to me.
I prefer to keep things as simple as possible. You can still use filegroups
and even do filegroup restore from a full backup (possibly using the PARTIAL
option of applicable).
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=...ublic.sqlserver
"mannie" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:53DEF63A-8C4A-45A9-A48A-88A19688217D@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I'm making the decision to not backup file groups and only backup
databases (with backkup exec.)
> I don't see any reason I would have to resore individual file groups.
> Does anyone know why I should backup file groups or in what situation I
would need to restore individual file groups?

Really interesting behaviour of ADO

Hell all,
I am inserting record with times when SP begins and ends
and I log times when ADO.command.exec starts and ends
I've noticed that there are situations where SP reports 13 ms from begin to end
and ADO reports 3 seconds from begin to end. It happens about 3 times per 2000 tries.
Note: There are no resultsets, only OUTPUT params.
SO it looks to me either ADO glitch or network or what?
Does someone had something like this?
Are you accounting for the time it takes to open a connection to the
database, and then get results back from SQL Server?
HTH,
Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
Is .NET important for a database professional?
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/poll.htm
"Ruslan Osmonov" <Ruslan Osmonov@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C6C63E47-DD24-449E-9885-68663277B034@.microsoft.com...
Hell all,
I am inserting record with times when SP begins and ends
and I log times when ADO.command.exec starts and ends
I've noticed that there are situations where SP reports 13 ms from begin to
end
and ADO reports 3 seconds from begin to end. It happens about 3 times per
2000 tries.
Note: There are no resultsets, only OUTPUT params.
SO it looks to me either ADO glitch or network or what?
Does someone had something like this?
|||1. No I do not, I have connection open, it is just straight execute of SP.
2. There are no resultsets back to client, only OUTPUT Params, the rest 1998 cases have SP and ADO with almost the same time.
"Narayana Vyas Kondreddi" wrote:

> Are you accounting for the time it takes to open a connection to the
> database, and then get results back from SQL Server?
> --
> HTH,
> Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
> http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
> Is .NET important for a database professional?
> http://vyaskn.tripod.com/poll.htm
>
> "Ruslan Osmonov" <Ruslan Osmonov@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C6C63E47-DD24-449E-9885-68663277B034@.microsoft.com...
> Hell all,
> I am inserting record with times when SP begins and ends
> and I log times when ADO.command.exec starts and ends
> I've noticed that there are situations where SP reports 13 ms from begin to
> end
> and ADO reports 3 seconds from begin to end. It happens about 3 times per
> 2000 tries.
> Note: There are no resultsets, only OUTPUT params.
> SO it looks to me either ADO glitch or network or what?
> Does someone had something like this?
>
>
|||Are you accounting for the time it takes to open a connection to the
database, and then get results back from SQL Server?
HTH,
Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
Is .NET important for a database professional?
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/poll.htm
"Ruslan Osmonov" <Ruslan Osmonov@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C6C63E47-DD24-449E-9885-68663277B034@.microsoft.com...
Hell all,
I am inserting record with times when SP begins and ends
and I log times when ADO.command.exec starts and ends
I've noticed that there are situations where SP reports 13 ms from begin to
end
and ADO reports 3 seconds from begin to end. It happens about 3 times per
2000 tries.
Note: There are no resultsets, only OUTPUT params.
SO it looks to me either ADO glitch or network or what?
Does someone had something like this?
|||1. No I do not, I have connection open, it is just straight execute of SP.
2. There are no resultsets back to client, only OUTPUT Params, the rest 1998 cases have SP and ADO with almost the same time.
"Narayana Vyas Kondreddi" wrote:

> Are you accounting for the time it takes to open a connection to the
> database, and then get results back from SQL Server?
> --
> HTH,
> Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
> http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
> Is .NET important for a database professional?
> http://vyaskn.tripod.com/poll.htm
>
> "Ruslan Osmonov" <Ruslan Osmonov@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C6C63E47-DD24-449E-9885-68663277B034@.microsoft.com...
> Hell all,
> I am inserting record with times when SP begins and ends
> and I log times when ADO.command.exec starts and ends
> I've noticed that there are situations where SP reports 13 ms from begin to
> end
> and ADO reports 3 seconds from begin to end. It happens about 3 times per
> 2000 tries.
> Note: There are no resultsets, only OUTPUT params.
> SO it looks to me either ADO glitch or network or what?
> Does someone had something like this?
>
>

Really interesting behaviour of ADO

Hell all,
I am inserting record with times when SP begins and ends
and I log times when ADO.command.exec starts and ends
I've noticed that there are situations where SP reports 13 ms from begin to
end
and ADO reports 3 seconds from begin to end. It happens about 3 times per 20
00 tries.
Note: There are no resultsets, only OUTPUT params.
SO it looks to me either ADO glitch or network or what?
Does someone had something like this?Are you accounting for the time it takes to open a connection to the
database, and then get results back from SQL Server?
--
HTH,
Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
Is .NET important for a database professional?
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/poll.htm
"Ruslan Osmonov" <Ruslan Osmonov@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C6C63E47-DD24-449E-9885-68663277B034@.microsoft.com...
Hell all,
I am inserting record with times when SP begins and ends
and I log times when ADO.command.exec starts and ends
I've noticed that there are situations where SP reports 13 ms from begin to
end
and ADO reports 3 seconds from begin to end. It happens about 3 times per
2000 tries.
Note: There are no resultsets, only OUTPUT params.
SO it looks to me either ADO glitch or network or what?
Does someone had something like this?|||1. No I do not, I have connection open, it is just straight execute of SP.
2. There are no resultsets back to client, only OUTPUT Params, the rest 199
8 cases have SP and ADO with almost the same time.
"Narayana Vyas Kondreddi" wrote:

> Are you accounting for the time it takes to open a connection to the
> database, and then get results back from SQL Server?
> --
> HTH,
> Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
> http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
> Is .NET important for a database professional?
> http://vyaskn.tripod.com/poll.htm
>
> "Ruslan Osmonov" <Ruslan Osmonov@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in messa
ge
> news:C6C63E47-DD24-449E-9885-68663277B034@.microsoft.com...
> Hell all,
> I am inserting record with times when SP begins and ends
> and I log times when ADO.command.exec starts and ends
> I've noticed that there are situations where SP reports 13 ms from begin t
o
> end
> and ADO reports 3 seconds from begin to end. It happens about 3 times per
> 2000 tries.
> Note: There are no resultsets, only OUTPUT params.
> SO it looks to me either ADO glitch or network or what?
> Does someone had something like this?
>
>