Rebuild Master Error

I am performing a Rebiuld of the Master database using the REBUILDM utility on a SQL 2000 SP3 database which is clustered.
The utility starts off correclty, copying the correct MDF and LDF files to the hard drive, and the configuration bar goes across the screen 4 times, before giving the following error "Rebuild master failed with error -1".

I can't find anything on microsoft. I followed KB-298568 to perform this process, but the SQL Service will now not start as it cannot find the master, as it did not get rebuilt properly.

I have included screen shots of the error, in the zipped up word doc.It seems to be strange that it does it 4 times. Did you check whether the .mdf and .ldf were in the right directory?|||Originally posted by joejcheng
It seems to be strange that it does it 4 times. Did you check whether the .mdf and .ldf were in the right directory?

Yes, they appear in the correct directory, and are the correct size.|||When you run any sql utility or upgrade, a log file will be generated. In there, you can find detailed information regarding the error that you encountered. Check the directory \program files\microsoft sql server\mssql\install\.|||Also, try to copy the source to a local drive and run it from there rather than from a UNC location.|||I copied the files locally, and still got error -1|||Originally posted by joejcheng
When you run any sql utility or upgrade, a log file will be generated. In there, you can find detailed information regarding the error that you encountered. Check the directory \program files\microsoft sql server\mssql\install\.

There are not log files in this folder - only *.txt files that correspond to the *.gif files used for the Northwing and Pubs databases.|||I did some more investigation and found the cause of the problem.

When I initially installed SQL Server, I then used KB224071 to move the log files for the system databases to another drive, specifically for log files.

The location of the Master database files are written to the registry under HKLM\Software\Microsoft\MSSQLServer\MSSQLServer\Pa rameters.

When Rebuildm runs it places all the files in the initial install location, and then tries to start the MSSQL Service, and fails as the path the the master database in the registry no longer matches the location of the log files where Rebuildm placed them - Hence error -1.

I manually moved the log file flat files to the correct drive, started the MSSQL Service and it all started up OK.|||Well, it would have been nice to know that you did move log files of systems databases to a different location :) Looks like we did all this brain-storming for nothing.|||Hi you fellow database teasers,

I think he did that in order to seperate data and log -- Performance.

But as I think it is not recommended to separate them for system databases.

Reasons why DBCC INDEXDEFRAG would not work

I am performing DBCC INDEXDEFRAG on my indexes in a table because I have
really bad extent scan fragmentation. After I run it though nothing has
seemingly changed. Can someone explain some reasons why this would be
happening?What index id are you looking at? Don't look at index id 0, as this is the d
ata in a heap table
(table without clustered index). In such, there is no order between the rows
, so the value is
meaningless.
If you are looking at an index (index id between 1 and 250), what does logic
al scan fragmentation
say?
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Andre" <Andre@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3D1ADA79-7827-48CD-BC51-0AEB4D54F164@.microsoft.com...
>I am performing DBCC INDEXDEFRAG on my indexes in a table because I have
> really bad extent scan fragmentation. After I run it though nothing has
> seemingly changed. Can someone explain some reasons why this would be
> happening?|||In addition to what Tibor stated if you have multiple files in your
filegroup you should pay attention to the Logical Fragmentation.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Andre" <Andre@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3D1ADA79-7827-48CD-BC51-0AEB4D54F164@.microsoft.com...
>I am performing DBCC INDEXDEFRAG on my indexes in a table because I have
> really bad extent scan fragmentation. After I run it though nothing has
> seemingly changed. Can someone explain some reasons why this would be
> happening?|||Run INDEXDEFRAG again in QA, output to text and paste it here.
"Andre" <Andre@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3D1ADA79-7827-48CD-BC51-0AEB4D54F164@.microsoft.com...
>I am performing DBCC INDEXDEFRAG on my indexes in a table because I have
> really bad extent scan fragmentation. After I run it though nothing has
> seemingly changed. Can someone explain some reasons why this would be
> happening?|||I think you mean DBCC SHOWCONTIG?
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"JT" <someone@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:OPK0LivjFHA.3936@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Run INDEXDEFRAG again in QA, output to text and paste it here.
> "Andre" <Andre@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:3D1ADA79-7827-48CD-BC51-0AEB4D54F164@.microsoft.com...
>|||Here is the output of DBCC SHOWCONTIG (Faxes) with all_indexes
DBCC SHOWCONTIG scanning 'Faxes' table...
Table: 'Faxes' (1893581784); index ID: 1, database ID: 5
TABLE level scan performed.
- Pages Scanned........................: 31251
- Extents Scanned.......................: 3921
- Extent Switches.......................: 3929
- Avg. Pages per Extent..................: 8.0
- Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count]......: 99.41% [3907:3930]
- Logical Scan Fragmentation ..............: 0.04%
- Extent Scan Fragmentation ...............: 0.51%
- Avg. Bytes Free per Page................: 748.9
- Avg. Page Density (full)................: 90.75%
DBCC SHOWCONTIG scanning 'Faxes' table...
Table: 'Faxes' (1893581784); index ID: 2, database ID: 5
LEAF level scan performed.
- Pages Scanned........................: 5482
- Extents Scanned.......................: 696
- Extent Switches.......................: 704
- Avg. Pages per Extent..................: 7.9
- Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count]......: 97.30% [686:705]
- Logical Scan Fragmentation ..............: 0.29%
- Extent Scan Fragmentation ...............: 1.44%
- Avg. Bytes Free per Page................: 822.8
- Avg. Page Density (full)................: 89.83%
DBCC SHOWCONTIG scanning 'Faxes' table...
Table: 'Faxes' (1893581784); index ID: 3, database ID: 5
LEAF level scan performed.
- Pages Scanned........................: 10091
- Extents Scanned.......................: 1276
- Extent Switches.......................: 1353
- Avg. Pages per Extent..................: 7.9
- Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count]......: 93.21% [1262:1354]
- Logical Scan Fragmentation ..............: 0.50%
- Extent Scan Fragmentation ...............: 1.18%
- Avg. Bytes Free per Page................: 800.6
- Avg. Page Density (full)................: 90.11%
DBCC SHOWCONTIG scanning 'Faxes' table...
Table: 'Faxes' (1893581784); index ID: 4, database ID: 5
LEAF level scan performed.
- Pages Scanned........................: 6900
- Extents Scanned.......................: 873
- Extent Switches.......................: 974
- Avg. Pages per Extent..................: 7.9
- Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count]......: 88.51% [863:975]
- Logical Scan Fragmentation ..............: 0.96%
- Extent Scan Fragmentation ...............: 2.75%
- Avg. Bytes Free per Page................: 867.0
- Avg. Page Density (full)................: 89.29%
DBCC SHOWCONTIG scanning 'Faxes' table...
Table: 'Faxes' (1893581784); index ID: 5, database ID: 5
LEAF level scan performed.
- Pages Scanned........................: 7654
- Extents Scanned.......................: 966
- Extent Switches.......................: 1071
- Avg. Pages per Extent..................: 7.9
- Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count]......: 89.27% [957:1072]
- Logical Scan Fragmentation ..............: 0.78%
- Extent Scan Fragmentation ...............: 2.17%
- Avg. Bytes Free per Page................: 855.0
- Avg. Page Density (full)................: 89.44%
DBCC SHOWCONTIG scanning 'Faxes' table...
Table: 'Faxes' (1893581784); index ID: 6, database ID: 5
LEAF level scan performed.
- Pages Scanned........................: 9499
- Extents Scanned.......................: 1197
- Extent Switches.......................: 1325
- Avg. Pages per Extent..................: 7.9
- Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count]......: 89.59% [1188:1326]
- Logical Scan Fragmentation ..............: 0.88%
- Extent Scan Fragmentation ...............: 38.43%
- Avg. Bytes Free per Page................: 851.5
- Avg. Page Density (full)................: 89.48%
DBCC SHOWCONTIG scanning 'Faxes' table...
Table: 'Faxes' (1893581784); index ID: 7, database ID: 5
LEAF level scan performed.
- Pages Scanned........................: 7911
- Extents Scanned.......................: 999
- Extent Switches.......................: 1088
- Avg. Pages per Extent..................: 7.9
- Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count]......: 90.82% [989:1089]
- Logical Scan Fragmentation ..............: 0.70%
- Extent Scan Fragmentation ...............: 60.26%
- Avg. Bytes Free per Page................: 856.8
- Avg. Page Density (full)................: 89.41%
DBCC SHOWCONTIG scanning 'Faxes' table...
Table: 'Faxes' (1893581784); index ID: 8, database ID: 5
LEAF level scan performed.
- Pages Scanned........................: 8900
- Extents Scanned.......................: 1124
- Extent Switches.......................: 1249
- Avg. Pages per Extent..................: 7.9
- Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count]......: 89.04% [1113:1250]
- Logical Scan Fragmentation ..............: 0.79%
- Extent Scan Fragmentation ...............: 58.19%
- Avg. Bytes Free per Page................: 836.1
- Avg. Page Density (full)................: 89.67%
DBCC execution completed. If DBCC printed error messages, contact your
system administrator.
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:

> What index id are you looking at? Don't look at index id 0, as this is the
data in a heap table
> (table without clustered index). In such, there is no order between the ro
ws, so the value is
> meaningless.
> If you are looking at an index (index id between 1 and 250), what does log
ical scan fragmentation
> say?
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "Andre" <Andre@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:3D1ADA79-7827-48CD-BC51-0AEB4D54F164@.microsoft.com...
>|||That too.
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:OBNVykvjFHA.3064@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>I think you mean DBCC SHOWCONTIG?
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "JT" <someone@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:OPK0LivjFHA.3936@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>|||Your Logical fragmentation is fine and is what you should be concerned with.
I suspect you have more than 1 file in that filegroup and that is what is
causing the higher numbers of Physical Fragmentation. Is that true? What
does sp_helpdb 'yourDB' show? By the way do you really need 8 indexes on a
Fax table?
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Andre" <Andre@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A8CFC75C-77C5-4A61-857F-DA43BA4FC451@.microsoft.com...
> Here is the output of DBCC SHOWCONTIG (Faxes) with all_indexes
> DBCC SHOWCONTIG scanning 'Faxes' table...
> Table: 'Faxes' (1893581784); index ID: 1, database ID: 5
> TABLE level scan performed.
> - Pages Scanned........................: 31251
> - Extents Scanned.......................: 3921
> - Extent Switches.......................: 3929
> - Avg. Pages per Extent..................: 8.0
> - Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count]......: 99.41% [3907:3930]
> - Logical Scan Fragmentation ..............: 0.04%
> - Extent Scan Fragmentation ...............: 0.51%
> - Avg. Bytes Free per Page................: 748.9
> - Avg. Page Density (full)................: 90.75%
> DBCC SHOWCONTIG scanning 'Faxes' table...
> Table: 'Faxes' (1893581784); index ID: 2, database ID: 5
> LEAF level scan performed.
> - Pages Scanned........................: 5482
> - Extents Scanned.......................: 696
> - Extent Switches.......................: 704
> - Avg. Pages per Extent..................: 7.9
> - Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count]......: 97.30% [686:705]
> - Logical Scan Fragmentation ..............: 0.29%
> - Extent Scan Fragmentation ...............: 1.44%
> - Avg. Bytes Free per Page................: 822.8
> - Avg. Page Density (full)................: 89.83%
> DBCC SHOWCONTIG scanning 'Faxes' table...
> Table: 'Faxes' (1893581784); index ID: 3, database ID: 5
> LEAF level scan performed.
> - Pages Scanned........................: 10091
> - Extents Scanned.......................: 1276
> - Extent Switches.......................: 1353
> - Avg. Pages per Extent..................: 7.9
> - Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count]......: 93.21% [1262:1354]
> - Logical Scan Fragmentation ..............: 0.50%
> - Extent Scan Fragmentation ...............: 1.18%
> - Avg. Bytes Free per Page................: 800.6
> - Avg. Page Density (full)................: 90.11%
> DBCC SHOWCONTIG scanning 'Faxes' table...
> Table: 'Faxes' (1893581784); index ID: 4, database ID: 5
> LEAF level scan performed.
> - Pages Scanned........................: 6900
> - Extents Scanned.......................: 873
> - Extent Switches.......................: 974
> - Avg. Pages per Extent..................: 7.9
> - Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count]......: 88.51% [863:975]
> - Logical Scan Fragmentation ..............: 0.96%
> - Extent Scan Fragmentation ...............: 2.75%
> - Avg. Bytes Free per Page................: 867.0
> - Avg. Page Density (full)................: 89.29%
> DBCC SHOWCONTIG scanning 'Faxes' table...
> Table: 'Faxes' (1893581784); index ID: 5, database ID: 5
> LEAF level scan performed.
> - Pages Scanned........................: 7654
> - Extents Scanned.......................: 966
> - Extent Switches.......................: 1071
> - Avg. Pages per Extent..................: 7.9
> - Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count]......: 89.27% [957:1072]
> - Logical Scan Fragmentation ..............: 0.78%
> - Extent Scan Fragmentation ...............: 2.17%
> - Avg. Bytes Free per Page................: 855.0
> - Avg. Page Density (full)................: 89.44%
> DBCC SHOWCONTIG scanning 'Faxes' table...
> Table: 'Faxes' (1893581784); index ID: 6, database ID: 5
> LEAF level scan performed.
> - Pages Scanned........................: 9499
> - Extents Scanned.......................: 1197
> - Extent Switches.......................: 1325
> - Avg. Pages per Extent..................: 7.9
> - Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count]......: 89.59% [1188:1326]
> - Logical Scan Fragmentation ..............: 0.88%
> - Extent Scan Fragmentation ...............: 38.43%
> - Avg. Bytes Free per Page................: 851.5
> - Avg. Page Density (full)................: 89.48%
> DBCC SHOWCONTIG scanning 'Faxes' table...
> Table: 'Faxes' (1893581784); index ID: 7, database ID: 5
> LEAF level scan performed.
> - Pages Scanned........................: 7911
> - Extents Scanned.......................: 999
> - Extent Switches.......................: 1088
> - Avg. Pages per Extent..................: 7.9
> - Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count]......: 90.82% [989:1089]
> - Logical Scan Fragmentation ..............: 0.70%
> - Extent Scan Fragmentation ...............: 60.26%
> - Avg. Bytes Free per Page................: 856.8
> - Avg. Page Density (full)................: 89.41%
> DBCC SHOWCONTIG scanning 'Faxes' table...
> Table: 'Faxes' (1893581784); index ID: 8, database ID: 5
> LEAF level scan performed.
> - Pages Scanned........................: 8900
> - Extents Scanned.......................: 1124
> - Extent Switches.......................: 1249
> - Avg. Pages per Extent..................: 7.9
> - Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count]......: 89.04% [1113:1250]
> - Logical Scan Fragmentation ..............: 0.79%
> - Extent Scan Fragmentation ...............: 58.19%
> - Avg. Bytes Free per Page................: 836.1
> - Avg. Page Density (full)................: 89.67%
> DBCC execution completed. If DBCC printed error messages, contact your
> system administrator.
> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
>|||No. I have a primary file group with one file and an index file group with
one file.
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

> Your Logical fragmentation is fine and is what you should be concerned wit
h.
> I suspect you have more than 1 file in that filegroup and that is what is
> causing the higher numbers of Physical Fragmentation. Is that true? What
> does sp_helpdb 'yourDB' show? By the way do you really need 8 indexes on
a
> Fax table?
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Andre" <Andre@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:A8CFC75C-77C5-4A61-857F-DA43BA4FC451@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||I just realized you are using INDEXDEFRAG. Have you tried using DBCC
DBREINDEX instead? In either case I wouldn't worry too much about it and
concentrate on the logical fragmentation instead.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Andre" <Andre@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:578E75D1-9A3B-434C-8166-4871D498FB91@.microsoft.com...
> No. I have a primary file group with one file and an index file group
> with
> one file.
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>