All,
SQL 2000, sp3, Server 2000 sp4
I have 3 servers, they are all set up as linked servers. The link to the
other servers works then all of a sudden you can't see the other
servers. Has anyone ever seen this?
I have even deleted the info in the client network utility and tried to
re-register the servers, to no avail.
Please help.
Thanks All,
snyper
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!hi,
mostly linked to physical network factor.
check that part out.
thanks
rahul
>--Original Message--
>All,
>SQL 2000, sp3, Server 2000 sp4
>I have 3 servers, they are all set up as linked servers.
The link to the
>other servers works then all of a sudden you can't see
the other
>servers. Has anyone ever seen this?
>I have even deleted the info in the client network
utility and tried to
>re-register the servers, to no avail.
>Please help.
>Thanks All,
>snyper
>*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com
***
>Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
>.
>sql
Showing posts with label servers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label servers. Show all posts
Friday, March 30, 2012
Losing server means data loss even when transaction log is unhurt?
Hi,
I have log shipping with two MS SQL Servers 2000 SP3. The BOL say that it is
possible to switch over to the secondary log shipping server and recover up
to the point of failure when the primary data file has failed. But what
happens in all the other failure scenarios when the production log shipping
server is gone, the transaction log file is still available but it's
impossible to backup the last transaction log with the NO_TRUNCATE option
(since the server itself isn't running and probably the master database is
damaged)? Am I bound to lose all the transactions since the last transaction
log backup?
-- Thanks, Oskar.
Oscar
If you cannot run BACKUP LOG on production , you will have to run something
like that
RESTORE DATABASE database_name WITH RECOVERY
EXEC SP_DBOPTION 'database_name', 'read only', 'false'
"Oskar" <Oskar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BCCD71E3-BB89-4BEE-B601-03E58ECBFA79@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I have log shipping with two MS SQL Servers 2000 SP3. The BOL say that it
> is
> possible to switch over to the secondary log shipping server and recover
> up
> to the point of failure when the primary data file has failed. But what
> happens in all the other failure scenarios when the production log
> shipping
> server is gone, the transaction log file is still available but it's
> impossible to backup the last transaction log with the NO_TRUNCATE option
> (since the server itself isn't running and probably the master database is
> damaged)? Am I bound to lose all the transactions since the last
> transaction
> log backup?
> -- Thanks, Oskar.
>
|||Oskar wrote:
> Hi,
> I have log shipping with two MS SQL Servers 2000 SP3. The BOL say that it is
> possible to switch over to the secondary log shipping server and recover up
> to the point of failure when the primary data file has failed. But what
> happens in all the other failure scenarios when the production log shipping
> server is gone, the transaction log file is still available but it's
> impossible to backup the last transaction log with the NO_TRUNCATE option
> (since the server itself isn't running and probably the master database is
> damaged)? Am I bound to lose all the transactions since the last transaction
> log backup?
> -- Thanks, Oskar.
>
Yes, you will lose anything that occurred after the last log backup.
Backup as frequently as necessary to minimize the damage - if you can't
afford to lose 15 minutes of data, backup every 5 minutes.
Bringing the standby database online is as simple as running
RESTORE DATABASE standbyDBName WITH RECOVERY
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com
|||I think this will answer some of you questions (if I understand the issue
correctly)
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms179314.aspx
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"Oskar" <Oskar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BCCD71E3-BB89-4BEE-B601-03E58ECBFA79@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I have log shipping with two MS SQL Servers 2000 SP3. The BOL say that it
> is
> possible to switch over to the secondary log shipping server and recover
> up
> to the point of failure when the primary data file has failed. But what
> happens in all the other failure scenarios when the production log
> shipping
> server is gone, the transaction log file is still available but it's
> impossible to backup the last transaction log with the NO_TRUNCATE option
> (since the server itself isn't running and probably the master database is
> damaged)? Am I bound to lose all the transactions since the last
> transaction
> log backup?
> -- Thanks, Oskar.
>
|||Roger, thank you. Unfortunately this isn't what I'm after. Basically I wanted
to know if it's still possible to recover up to the point of failure in cases
when primary data file of a database and the server to which it was attached
are gone but the transaction log of the database is still intact. If that
happens there is no way I can issue a BACKUP LOG ... WITH NO_TRUNCATE (or any
other command) on the server because it's gone. Also mind that I don't have
MS SQL Server 2005 but 2000.
-- Thanks, Oskar
"Roger Wolter[MSFT]" wrote:
> I think this will answer some of you questions (if I understand the issue
> correctly)
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms179314.aspx
>
> --
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
> http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
> "Oskar" <Oskar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:BCCD71E3-BB89-4BEE-B601-03E58ECBFA79@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||But you must have a server someplace right? Your log shipping destination?
Can't you do the backup log command from there? Maybe I'm missing something
here.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"Oskar" <Oskar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DCD111CF-E527-4C22-81EE-E84027ADDCD2@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Roger, thank you. Unfortunately this isn't what I'm after. Basically I
> wanted
> to know if it's still possible to recover up to the point of failure in
> cases
> when primary data file of a database and the server to which it was
> attached
> are gone but the transaction log of the database is still intact. If that
> happens there is no way I can issue a BACKUP LOG ... WITH NO_TRUNCATE (or
> any
> other command) on the server because it's gone. Also mind that I don't
> have
> MS SQL Server 2005 but 2000.
> -- Thanks, Oskar
> "Roger Wolter[MSFT]" wrote:
|||Here's the KB http://support.microsoft.com/kb/253817/en-us
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:OJr4L3yOHHA.4644@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Yes, that should be possible:
> On some healthy SQL Server, you create a new database. Stop that SQL
> Server. Delete the two database files. "Slide" in your log file (ldf) from
> the production SQL Server where the log file were for this newly created
> database. Start this new SQL Server. Do the log backup (with NO_TRUNCATE).
> I believe that there's a KB describing this (search and you should find),
> but the steps are pretty straight forward.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Oskar" <Oskar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:DCD111CF-E527-4C22-81EE-E84027ADDCD2@.microsoft.com...
>
|||Roger,
Log shipping destination of course would be available and I would be able to
do log backups there. The point is that log shipping destination would be
behind log shipping source (i.e. production database) in regard to the latest
transactions that happened between the time last backup was made on the
source and copied to the destination and the time of failure of the source.
So if the source is lost and I'm not able to make the last backup of those
transactions (with NO_TRUNCATE option), because the server itself is also
nonfunctional, then I'm losing those transactions which is unacceptable.
Sorry Roger, I can't explain it any better. Tibor seems to have got the point.
-- Thanks, Oskar.
"Roger Wolter[MSFT]" wrote:
> But you must have a server someplace right? Your log shipping destination?
> Can't you do the backup log command from there? Maybe I'm missing something
> here.
> --
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
> http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
> "Oskar" <Oskar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:DCD111CF-E527-4C22-81EE-E84027ADDCD2@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Thanks Roger. I think this is the one.
"Roger Wolter[MSFT]" wrote:
> Here's the KB http://support.microsoft.com/kb/253817/en-us
> --
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
> http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
> message news:OJr4L3yOHHA.4644@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
>
sql
I have log shipping with two MS SQL Servers 2000 SP3. The BOL say that it is
possible to switch over to the secondary log shipping server and recover up
to the point of failure when the primary data file has failed. But what
happens in all the other failure scenarios when the production log shipping
server is gone, the transaction log file is still available but it's
impossible to backup the last transaction log with the NO_TRUNCATE option
(since the server itself isn't running and probably the master database is
damaged)? Am I bound to lose all the transactions since the last transaction
log backup?
-- Thanks, Oskar.
Oscar
If you cannot run BACKUP LOG on production , you will have to run something
like that
RESTORE DATABASE database_name WITH RECOVERY
EXEC SP_DBOPTION 'database_name', 'read only', 'false'
"Oskar" <Oskar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BCCD71E3-BB89-4BEE-B601-03E58ECBFA79@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I have log shipping with two MS SQL Servers 2000 SP3. The BOL say that it
> is
> possible to switch over to the secondary log shipping server and recover
> up
> to the point of failure when the primary data file has failed. But what
> happens in all the other failure scenarios when the production log
> shipping
> server is gone, the transaction log file is still available but it's
> impossible to backup the last transaction log with the NO_TRUNCATE option
> (since the server itself isn't running and probably the master database is
> damaged)? Am I bound to lose all the transactions since the last
> transaction
> log backup?
> -- Thanks, Oskar.
>
|||Oskar wrote:
> Hi,
> I have log shipping with two MS SQL Servers 2000 SP3. The BOL say that it is
> possible to switch over to the secondary log shipping server and recover up
> to the point of failure when the primary data file has failed. But what
> happens in all the other failure scenarios when the production log shipping
> server is gone, the transaction log file is still available but it's
> impossible to backup the last transaction log with the NO_TRUNCATE option
> (since the server itself isn't running and probably the master database is
> damaged)? Am I bound to lose all the transactions since the last transaction
> log backup?
> -- Thanks, Oskar.
>
Yes, you will lose anything that occurred after the last log backup.
Backup as frequently as necessary to minimize the damage - if you can't
afford to lose 15 minutes of data, backup every 5 minutes.
Bringing the standby database online is as simple as running
RESTORE DATABASE standbyDBName WITH RECOVERY
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com
|||I think this will answer some of you questions (if I understand the issue
correctly)
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms179314.aspx
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"Oskar" <Oskar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BCCD71E3-BB89-4BEE-B601-03E58ECBFA79@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I have log shipping with two MS SQL Servers 2000 SP3. The BOL say that it
> is
> possible to switch over to the secondary log shipping server and recover
> up
> to the point of failure when the primary data file has failed. But what
> happens in all the other failure scenarios when the production log
> shipping
> server is gone, the transaction log file is still available but it's
> impossible to backup the last transaction log with the NO_TRUNCATE option
> (since the server itself isn't running and probably the master database is
> damaged)? Am I bound to lose all the transactions since the last
> transaction
> log backup?
> -- Thanks, Oskar.
>
|||Roger, thank you. Unfortunately this isn't what I'm after. Basically I wanted
to know if it's still possible to recover up to the point of failure in cases
when primary data file of a database and the server to which it was attached
are gone but the transaction log of the database is still intact. If that
happens there is no way I can issue a BACKUP LOG ... WITH NO_TRUNCATE (or any
other command) on the server because it's gone. Also mind that I don't have
MS SQL Server 2005 but 2000.
-- Thanks, Oskar
"Roger Wolter[MSFT]" wrote:
> I think this will answer some of you questions (if I understand the issue
> correctly)
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms179314.aspx
>
> --
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
> http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
> "Oskar" <Oskar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:BCCD71E3-BB89-4BEE-B601-03E58ECBFA79@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||But you must have a server someplace right? Your log shipping destination?
Can't you do the backup log command from there? Maybe I'm missing something
here.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"Oskar" <Oskar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DCD111CF-E527-4C22-81EE-E84027ADDCD2@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Roger, thank you. Unfortunately this isn't what I'm after. Basically I
> wanted
> to know if it's still possible to recover up to the point of failure in
> cases
> when primary data file of a database and the server to which it was
> attached
> are gone but the transaction log of the database is still intact. If that
> happens there is no way I can issue a BACKUP LOG ... WITH NO_TRUNCATE (or
> any
> other command) on the server because it's gone. Also mind that I don't
> have
> MS SQL Server 2005 but 2000.
> -- Thanks, Oskar
> "Roger Wolter[MSFT]" wrote:
|||Here's the KB http://support.microsoft.com/kb/253817/en-us
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:OJr4L3yOHHA.4644@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Yes, that should be possible:
> On some healthy SQL Server, you create a new database. Stop that SQL
> Server. Delete the two database files. "Slide" in your log file (ldf) from
> the production SQL Server where the log file were for this newly created
> database. Start this new SQL Server. Do the log backup (with NO_TRUNCATE).
> I believe that there's a KB describing this (search and you should find),
> but the steps are pretty straight forward.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Oskar" <Oskar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:DCD111CF-E527-4C22-81EE-E84027ADDCD2@.microsoft.com...
>
|||Roger,
Log shipping destination of course would be available and I would be able to
do log backups there. The point is that log shipping destination would be
behind log shipping source (i.e. production database) in regard to the latest
transactions that happened between the time last backup was made on the
source and copied to the destination and the time of failure of the source.
So if the source is lost and I'm not able to make the last backup of those
transactions (with NO_TRUNCATE option), because the server itself is also
nonfunctional, then I'm losing those transactions which is unacceptable.
Sorry Roger, I can't explain it any better. Tibor seems to have got the point.
-- Thanks, Oskar.
"Roger Wolter[MSFT]" wrote:
> But you must have a server someplace right? Your log shipping destination?
> Can't you do the backup log command from there? Maybe I'm missing something
> here.
> --
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
> http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
> "Oskar" <Oskar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:DCD111CF-E527-4C22-81EE-E84027ADDCD2@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Thanks Roger. I think this is the one.
"Roger Wolter[MSFT]" wrote:
> Here's the KB http://support.microsoft.com/kb/253817/en-us
> --
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
> http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
> message news:OJr4L3yOHHA.4644@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
>
sql
Losing server means data loss even when transaction log is unhurt?
Hi,
I have log shipping with two MS SQL Servers 2000 SP3. The BOL say that it is
possible to switch over to the secondary log shipping server and recover up
to the point of failure when the primary data file has failed. But what
happens in all the other failure scenarios when the production log shipping
server is gone, the transaction log file is still available but it's
impossible to backup the last transaction log with the NO_TRUNCATE option
(since the server itself isn't running and probably the master database is
damaged)? Am I bound to lose all the transactions since the last transaction
log backup?
-- Thanks, Oskar.Oscar
If you cannot run BACKUP LOG on production , you will have to run something
like that
RESTORE DATABASE database_name WITH RECOVERY
EXEC SP_DBOPTION 'database_name', 'read only', 'false'
"Oskar" <Oskar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BCCD71E3-BB89-4BEE-B601-03E58ECBFA79@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I have log shipping with two MS SQL Servers 2000 SP3. The BOL say that it
> is
> possible to switch over to the secondary log shipping server and recover
> up
> to the point of failure when the primary data file has failed. But what
> happens in all the other failure scenarios when the production log
> shipping
> server is gone, the transaction log file is still available but it's
> impossible to backup the last transaction log with the NO_TRUNCATE option
> (since the server itself isn't running and probably the master database is
> damaged)? Am I bound to lose all the transactions since the last
> transaction
> log backup?
> -- Thanks, Oskar.
>|||Oskar wrote:
> Hi,
> I have log shipping with two MS SQL Servers 2000 SP3. The BOL say that it
is
> possible to switch over to the secondary log shipping server and recover u
p
> to the point of failure when the primary data file has failed. But what
> happens in all the other failure scenarios when the production log shippin
g
> server is gone, the transaction log file is still available but it's
> impossible to backup the last transaction log with the NO_TRUNCATE option
> (since the server itself isn't running and probably the master database is
> damaged)? Am I bound to lose all the transactions since the last transacti
on
> log backup?
> -- Thanks, Oskar.
>
Yes, you will lose anything that occurred after the last log backup.
Backup as frequently as necessary to minimize the damage - if you can't
afford to lose 15 minutes of data, backup every 5 minutes.
Bringing the standby database online is as simple as running
RESTORE DATABASE standbyDBName WITH RECOVERY
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com|||I think this will answer some of you questions (if I understand the issue
correctly)
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms179314.aspx
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"Oskar" <Oskar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BCCD71E3-BB89-4BEE-B601-03E58ECBFA79@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I have log shipping with two MS SQL Servers 2000 SP3. The BOL say that it
> is
> possible to switch over to the secondary log shipping server and recover
> up
> to the point of failure when the primary data file has failed. But what
> happens in all the other failure scenarios when the production log
> shipping
> server is gone, the transaction log file is still available but it's
> impossible to backup the last transaction log with the NO_TRUNCATE option
> (since the server itself isn't running and probably the master database is
> damaged)? Am I bound to lose all the transactions since the last
> transaction
> log backup?
> -- Thanks, Oskar.
>
I have log shipping with two MS SQL Servers 2000 SP3. The BOL say that it is
possible to switch over to the secondary log shipping server and recover up
to the point of failure when the primary data file has failed. But what
happens in all the other failure scenarios when the production log shipping
server is gone, the transaction log file is still available but it's
impossible to backup the last transaction log with the NO_TRUNCATE option
(since the server itself isn't running and probably the master database is
damaged)? Am I bound to lose all the transactions since the last transaction
log backup?
-- Thanks, Oskar.Oscar
If you cannot run BACKUP LOG on production , you will have to run something
like that
RESTORE DATABASE database_name WITH RECOVERY
EXEC SP_DBOPTION 'database_name', 'read only', 'false'
"Oskar" <Oskar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BCCD71E3-BB89-4BEE-B601-03E58ECBFA79@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I have log shipping with two MS SQL Servers 2000 SP3. The BOL say that it
> is
> possible to switch over to the secondary log shipping server and recover
> up
> to the point of failure when the primary data file has failed. But what
> happens in all the other failure scenarios when the production log
> shipping
> server is gone, the transaction log file is still available but it's
> impossible to backup the last transaction log with the NO_TRUNCATE option
> (since the server itself isn't running and probably the master database is
> damaged)? Am I bound to lose all the transactions since the last
> transaction
> log backup?
> -- Thanks, Oskar.
>|||Oskar wrote:
> Hi,
> I have log shipping with two MS SQL Servers 2000 SP3. The BOL say that it
is
> possible to switch over to the secondary log shipping server and recover u
p
> to the point of failure when the primary data file has failed. But what
> happens in all the other failure scenarios when the production log shippin
g
> server is gone, the transaction log file is still available but it's
> impossible to backup the last transaction log with the NO_TRUNCATE option
> (since the server itself isn't running and probably the master database is
> damaged)? Am I bound to lose all the transactions since the last transacti
on
> log backup?
> -- Thanks, Oskar.
>
Yes, you will lose anything that occurred after the last log backup.
Backup as frequently as necessary to minimize the damage - if you can't
afford to lose 15 minutes of data, backup every 5 minutes.
Bringing the standby database online is as simple as running
RESTORE DATABASE standbyDBName WITH RECOVERY
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com|||I think this will answer some of you questions (if I understand the issue
correctly)
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms179314.aspx
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"Oskar" <Oskar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BCCD71E3-BB89-4BEE-B601-03E58ECBFA79@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I have log shipping with two MS SQL Servers 2000 SP3. The BOL say that it
> is
> possible to switch over to the secondary log shipping server and recover
> up
> to the point of failure when the primary data file has failed. But what
> happens in all the other failure scenarios when the production log
> shipping
> server is gone, the transaction log file is still available but it's
> impossible to backup the last transaction log with the NO_TRUNCATE option
> (since the server itself isn't running and probably the master database is
> damaged)? Am I bound to lose all the transactions since the last
> transaction
> log backup?
> -- Thanks, Oskar.
>
Friday, March 23, 2012
Loopback linked servers cannot be used in a distributed transactions? This worked in Sql20
I recently did an upgrade to SQL 2005 and there's some odd behavior
that I'm seeing.
Given the following SQL:
Use MyDB1
go
create table #test (a int)
insert into #test
exec [MyServer].MyDB2.dbo.SP_RETURNS_INT
where MyServer is a linked server that points back to itself. This
SQL works under SQL2000 but does not work in SQL2005. The error
returned in SQL 2005 is:
Msg 3910, Level 16, State 2, Line 1
Transaction context in use by another session.
In this whitepaper (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/
ms188716.aspx) i see the following warning:
"Loopback linked servers cannot be used in a distributed transaction.
Trying a distributed query against a loopback linked server from
within a distributed transaction causes an error, such as error 3910:
"[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Transaction context in
use by another session."
The reason for the loopback linked server here is that in my live
enviornment, the linked server points to a different machine, (MyDB1
and MyDB2 are on different physical servers) but for my development
enviornment MyDB1 and MyDB2 are on the same physical server. I'd like
to be able to keep that configuration without having to change code
when promoting stored procedures from the development branch to QA and
LIVE. Any way to get around this?You should be able to get around it by running a second instance in
your development environment, one instance for each of the production
systems.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 07:27:06 -0700, MS <spilich@.gmail.com> wrote:
>I recently did an upgrade to SQL 2005 and there's some odd behavior
>that I'm seeing.
>Given the following SQL:
>Use MyDB1
>go
>create table #test (a int)
>insert into #test
>exec [MyServer].MyDB2.dbo.SP_RETURNS_INT
>where MyServer is a linked server that points back to itself. This
>SQL works under SQL2000 but does not work in SQL2005. The error
>returned in SQL 2005 is:
>Msg 3910, Level 16, State 2, Line 1
>Transaction context in use by another session.
>In this whitepaper (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/
>ms188716.aspx) i see the following warning:
>"Loopback linked servers cannot be used in a distributed transaction.
>Trying a distributed query against a loopback linked server from
>within a distributed transaction causes an error, such as error 3910:
>"[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Transaction context in
>use by another session."
>The reason for the loopback linked server here is that in my live
>enviornment, the linked server points to a different machine, (MyDB1
>and MyDB2 are on different physical servers) but for my development
>enviornment MyDB1 and MyDB2 are on the same physical server. I'd like
>to be able to keep that configuration without having to change code
>when promoting stored procedures from the development branch to QA and
>LIVE. Any way to get around this?|||On Aug 15, 10:53 am, Roy Harvey <roy_har...@.snet.net> wrote:
> You should be able to get around it by running a second instance in
> your development environment, one instance for each of the production
> systems.
> Roy Harvey
> Beacon Falls, CT
>
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 07:27:06 -0700, MS <spil...@.gmail.com> wrote:
> >I recently did an upgrade to SQL 2005 and there's some odd behavior
> >that I'm seeing.
> >Given the following SQL:
> >Use MyDB1
> >go
> >create table #test (a int)
> >insert into #test
> >exec [MyServer].MyDB2.dbo.SP_RETURNS_INT
> >where MyServer is a linked server that points back to itself. This
> >SQL works under SQL2000 but does not work in SQL2005. The error
> >returned in SQL 2005 is:
> >Msg 3910, Level 16, State 2, Line 1
> >Transaction context in use by another session.
> >In this whitepaper (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/
> >ms188716.aspx) i see the following warning:
> >"Loopback linked servers cannot be used in a distributed transaction.
> >Trying a distributed query against a loopback linked server from
> >within a distributed transaction causes an error, such as error 3910:
> >"[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Transaction context in
> >use by another session."
> >The reason for the loopback linked server here is that in my live
> >enviornment, the linked server points to a different machine, (MyDB1
> >and MyDB2 are on different physical servers) but for my development
> >enviornment MyDB1 and MyDB2 are on the same physical server. I'd like
> >to be able to keep that configuration without having to change code
> >when promoting stored procedures from the development branch to QA and
> >LIVE. Any way to get around this... Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, you are correct, that works and I am aware of this. I was hoping
not to go this route because I already have multiple instances already
defined to allow different branches of development to run in
parallel. So, I have a DEV01, DEV02, and DEV03 instances to allow
three parallel branches of development. I'd have to effectively
double the number of instances (so i would have a DEV01a, DEV01b,
DEV02a DEV02b, DEV03a, DEV03b instance). I was hoping to not have to
manage this many instances on a single server. Sounds like I need to
acquire additional hardware. Is anyone aware of a way to get around
this error? Why does it work in 2000 and not in 2005?
Thanks
that I'm seeing.
Given the following SQL:
Use MyDB1
go
create table #test (a int)
insert into #test
exec [MyServer].MyDB2.dbo.SP_RETURNS_INT
where MyServer is a linked server that points back to itself. This
SQL works under SQL2000 but does not work in SQL2005. The error
returned in SQL 2005 is:
Msg 3910, Level 16, State 2, Line 1
Transaction context in use by another session.
In this whitepaper (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/
ms188716.aspx) i see the following warning:
"Loopback linked servers cannot be used in a distributed transaction.
Trying a distributed query against a loopback linked server from
within a distributed transaction causes an error, such as error 3910:
"[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Transaction context in
use by another session."
The reason for the loopback linked server here is that in my live
enviornment, the linked server points to a different machine, (MyDB1
and MyDB2 are on different physical servers) but for my development
enviornment MyDB1 and MyDB2 are on the same physical server. I'd like
to be able to keep that configuration without having to change code
when promoting stored procedures from the development branch to QA and
LIVE. Any way to get around this?You should be able to get around it by running a second instance in
your development environment, one instance for each of the production
systems.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 07:27:06 -0700, MS <spilich@.gmail.com> wrote:
>I recently did an upgrade to SQL 2005 and there's some odd behavior
>that I'm seeing.
>Given the following SQL:
>Use MyDB1
>go
>create table #test (a int)
>insert into #test
>exec [MyServer].MyDB2.dbo.SP_RETURNS_INT
>where MyServer is a linked server that points back to itself. This
>SQL works under SQL2000 but does not work in SQL2005. The error
>returned in SQL 2005 is:
>Msg 3910, Level 16, State 2, Line 1
>Transaction context in use by another session.
>In this whitepaper (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/
>ms188716.aspx) i see the following warning:
>"Loopback linked servers cannot be used in a distributed transaction.
>Trying a distributed query against a loopback linked server from
>within a distributed transaction causes an error, such as error 3910:
>"[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Transaction context in
>use by another session."
>The reason for the loopback linked server here is that in my live
>enviornment, the linked server points to a different machine, (MyDB1
>and MyDB2 are on different physical servers) but for my development
>enviornment MyDB1 and MyDB2 are on the same physical server. I'd like
>to be able to keep that configuration without having to change code
>when promoting stored procedures from the development branch to QA and
>LIVE. Any way to get around this?|||On Aug 15, 10:53 am, Roy Harvey <roy_har...@.snet.net> wrote:
> You should be able to get around it by running a second instance in
> your development environment, one instance for each of the production
> systems.
> Roy Harvey
> Beacon Falls, CT
>
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 07:27:06 -0700, MS <spil...@.gmail.com> wrote:
> >I recently did an upgrade to SQL 2005 and there's some odd behavior
> >that I'm seeing.
> >Given the following SQL:
> >Use MyDB1
> >go
> >create table #test (a int)
> >insert into #test
> >exec [MyServer].MyDB2.dbo.SP_RETURNS_INT
> >where MyServer is a linked server that points back to itself. This
> >SQL works under SQL2000 but does not work in SQL2005. The error
> >returned in SQL 2005 is:
> >Msg 3910, Level 16, State 2, Line 1
> >Transaction context in use by another session.
> >In this whitepaper (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/
> >ms188716.aspx) i see the following warning:
> >"Loopback linked servers cannot be used in a distributed transaction.
> >Trying a distributed query against a loopback linked server from
> >within a distributed transaction causes an error, such as error 3910:
> >"[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Transaction context in
> >use by another session."
> >The reason for the loopback linked server here is that in my live
> >enviornment, the linked server points to a different machine, (MyDB1
> >and MyDB2 are on different physical servers) but for my development
> >enviornment MyDB1 and MyDB2 are on the same physical server. I'd like
> >to be able to keep that configuration without having to change code
> >when promoting stored procedures from the development branch to QA and
> >LIVE. Any way to get around this... Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, you are correct, that works and I am aware of this. I was hoping
not to go this route because I already have multiple instances already
defined to allow different branches of development to run in
parallel. So, I have a DEV01, DEV02, and DEV03 instances to allow
three parallel branches of development. I'd have to effectively
double the number of instances (so i would have a DEV01a, DEV01b,
DEV02a DEV02b, DEV03a, DEV03b instance). I was hoping to not have to
manage this many instances on a single server. Sounds like I need to
acquire additional hardware. Is anyone aware of a way to get around
this error? Why does it work in 2000 and not in 2005?
Thanks
Loopback linked servers cannot be used in a distributed transactions? This worked in Sql20
I recently did an upgrade to SQL 2005 and there's some odd behavior
that I'm seeing.
Given the following SQL:
Use MyDB1
go
create table #test (a int)
insert into #test
exec [MyServer].MyDB2.dbo.SP_RETURNS_INT
where MyServer is a linked server that points back to itself. This
SQL works under SQL2000 but does not work in SQL2005. The error
returned in SQL 2005 is:
Msg 3910, Level 16, State 2, Line 1
Transaction context in use by another session.
In this whitepaper (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/
ms188716.aspx) i see the following warning:
"Loopback linked servers cannot be used in a distributed transaction.
Trying a distributed query against a loopback linked server from
within a distributed transaction causes an error, such as error 3910:
"[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Transaction context in
use by another session."
The reason for the loopback linked server here is that in my live
enviornment, the linked server points to a different machine, (MyDB1
and MyDB2 are on different physical servers) but for my development
enviornment MyDB1 and MyDB2 are on the same physical server. I'd like
to be able to keep that configuration without having to change code
when promoting stored procedures from the development branch to QA and
LIVE. Any way to get around this?
You should be able to get around it by running a second instance in
your development environment, one instance for each of the production
systems.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 07:27:06 -0700, MS <spilich@.gmail.com> wrote:
>I recently did an upgrade to SQL 2005 and there's some odd behavior
>that I'm seeing.
>Given the following SQL:
>Use MyDB1
>go
>create table #test (a int)
>insert into #test
>exec [MyServer].MyDB2.dbo.SP_RETURNS_INT
>where MyServer is a linked server that points back to itself. This
>SQL works under SQL2000 but does not work in SQL2005. The error
>returned in SQL 2005 is:
>Msg 3910, Level 16, State 2, Line 1
>Transaction context in use by another session.
>In this whitepaper (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/
>ms188716.aspx) i see the following warning:
>"Loopback linked servers cannot be used in a distributed transaction.
>Trying a distributed query against a loopback linked server from
>within a distributed transaction causes an error, such as error 3910:
>"[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Transaction context in
>use by another session."
>The reason for the loopback linked server here is that in my live
>enviornment, the linked server points to a different machine, (MyDB1
>and MyDB2 are on different physical servers) but for my development
>enviornment MyDB1 and MyDB2 are on the same physical server. I'd like
>to be able to keep that configuration without having to change code
>when promoting stored procedures from the development branch to QA and
>LIVE. Any way to get around this?
|||On Aug 15, 10:53 am, Roy Harvey <roy_har...@.snet.net> wrote:
> You should be able to get around it by running a second instance in
> your development environment, one instance for each of the production
> systems.
> Roy Harvey
> Beacon Falls, CT
>
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 07:27:06 -0700, MS <spil...@.gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, you are correct, that works and I am aware of this. I was hoping
not to go this route because I already have multiple instances already
defined to allow different branches of development to run in
parallel. So, I have a DEV01, DEV02, and DEV03 instances to allow
three parallel branches of development. I'd have to effectively
double the number of instances (so i would have a DEV01a, DEV01b,
DEV02a DEV02b, DEV03a, DEV03b instance). I was hoping to not have to
manage this many instances on a single server. Sounds like I need to
acquire additional hardware. Is anyone aware of a way to get around
this error? Why does it work in 2000 and not in 2005?
Thanks
sql
that I'm seeing.
Given the following SQL:
Use MyDB1
go
create table #test (a int)
insert into #test
exec [MyServer].MyDB2.dbo.SP_RETURNS_INT
where MyServer is a linked server that points back to itself. This
SQL works under SQL2000 but does not work in SQL2005. The error
returned in SQL 2005 is:
Msg 3910, Level 16, State 2, Line 1
Transaction context in use by another session.
In this whitepaper (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/
ms188716.aspx) i see the following warning:
"Loopback linked servers cannot be used in a distributed transaction.
Trying a distributed query against a loopback linked server from
within a distributed transaction causes an error, such as error 3910:
"[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Transaction context in
use by another session."
The reason for the loopback linked server here is that in my live
enviornment, the linked server points to a different machine, (MyDB1
and MyDB2 are on different physical servers) but for my development
enviornment MyDB1 and MyDB2 are on the same physical server. I'd like
to be able to keep that configuration without having to change code
when promoting stored procedures from the development branch to QA and
LIVE. Any way to get around this?
You should be able to get around it by running a second instance in
your development environment, one instance for each of the production
systems.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 07:27:06 -0700, MS <spilich@.gmail.com> wrote:
>I recently did an upgrade to SQL 2005 and there's some odd behavior
>that I'm seeing.
>Given the following SQL:
>Use MyDB1
>go
>create table #test (a int)
>insert into #test
>exec [MyServer].MyDB2.dbo.SP_RETURNS_INT
>where MyServer is a linked server that points back to itself. This
>SQL works under SQL2000 but does not work in SQL2005. The error
>returned in SQL 2005 is:
>Msg 3910, Level 16, State 2, Line 1
>Transaction context in use by another session.
>In this whitepaper (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/
>ms188716.aspx) i see the following warning:
>"Loopback linked servers cannot be used in a distributed transaction.
>Trying a distributed query against a loopback linked server from
>within a distributed transaction causes an error, such as error 3910:
>"[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Transaction context in
>use by another session."
>The reason for the loopback linked server here is that in my live
>enviornment, the linked server points to a different machine, (MyDB1
>and MyDB2 are on different physical servers) but for my development
>enviornment MyDB1 and MyDB2 are on the same physical server. I'd like
>to be able to keep that configuration without having to change code
>when promoting stored procedures from the development branch to QA and
>LIVE. Any way to get around this?
|||On Aug 15, 10:53 am, Roy Harvey <roy_har...@.snet.net> wrote:
> You should be able to get around it by running a second instance in
> your development environment, one instance for each of the production
> systems.
> Roy Harvey
> Beacon Falls, CT
>
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 07:27:06 -0700, MS <spil...@.gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, you are correct, that works and I am aware of this. I was hoping
not to go this route because I already have multiple instances already
defined to allow different branches of development to run in
parallel. So, I have a DEV01, DEV02, and DEV03 instances to allow
three parallel branches of development. I'd have to effectively
double the number of instances (so i would have a DEV01a, DEV01b,
DEV02a DEV02b, DEV03a, DEV03b instance). I was hoping to not have to
manage this many instances on a single server. Sounds like I need to
acquire additional hardware. Is anyone aware of a way to get around
this error? Why does it work in 2000 and not in 2005?
Thanks
sql
Loopback linked servers
I want to set a server up to be able to reference itself
via an alias in a 4-part name. Let us call the server
SQLSERVER and its alias BILLING. The motive for this is
to be able to, move the so-referenced databases to another
server when I want to and reference that truely remote
server by the BILLING alias.
I have the alias set-up correctly and the server linked
via that alias with the proper security contexts.
When I query:
select * from [billing].master.dbo.sysdatabases
I get the resultset I want.
When I query:
begin tran
select * from [billing].master.dbo.sysdatabases
rollback tran
I get the following error:
Server: Msg 7391, Level 16, State 1, Line 2
The operation could not be performed because the OLE DB
provider 'SQLOLEDB' was unable to begin a distributed
transaction.
[OLE/DB provider returned message: New transaction cannot
enlist in the specified transaction coordinator. ]
OLE DB error trace [OLE/DB Provider 'SQLOLEDB'
ITransactionJoin::JoinTransaction returned 0x8004d00a].
If I use BILLING to alias another server (a truely remote
server), the transactioned query works without error.
I've came to understand this as a loopback linked server limitation
in that loopback linked servers cannot enlist in a distributed transaction.
But, I made a table, x, on sqlserver.Master with one int column, x
I made a stored proc, spx, on sqlserver.Master that takes one parameter
and inserts it's value into table x
On Sql Server I did the following
Use Master
go
if @.@.Trancount = 0 begin tran
exec [BILLING].Master.dbo.spx 1
select @.@.Trancount TranCount
if @.@.trancount != 0 commit tran
select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
-- Saw 1 and no errors so transaction worked.
go
if @.@.Trancount = 0 begin tran
exec [BILLING].Master.dbo.spx 2
select @.@.Trancount TranCount
if @.@.trancount != 0 rollback tran
select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
-- Saw 2 and no errors so transaction worked.
go
begin tran
select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
-- Saw same error as cited above as expected.
if @.@.trancount != 0 rollback tran
What is going on? Transactions should have failed in stored proc usage
as well as a direct query if this were a loopback failure to enlist a
distributed transaction, shouldn't they?Hi
There are problems with loopbacks within implicit, explicit or distributed
transactions see http://tinyurl.com/5dlnq
John
"de_corum" <de_corum@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:unv3GUGiEHA.2880@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I want to set a server up to be able to reference itself
> via an alias in a 4-part name. Let us call the server
> SQLSERVER and its alias BILLING. The motive for this is
> to be able to, move the so-referenced databases to another
> server when I want to and reference that truely remote
> server by the BILLING alias.
> I have the alias set-up correctly and the server linked
> via that alias with the proper security contexts.
> When I query:
> select * from [billing].master.dbo.sysdatabases
> I get the resultset I want.
> When I query:
> begin tran
> select * from [billing].master.dbo.sysdatabases
> rollback tran
> I get the following error:
> Server: Msg 7391, Level 16, State 1, Line 2
> The operation could not be performed because the OLE DB
> provider 'SQLOLEDB' was unable to begin a distributed
> transaction.
> [OLE/DB provider returned message: New transaction cannot
> enlist in the specified transaction coordinator. ]
> OLE DB error trace [OLE/DB Provider 'SQLOLEDB'
> ITransactionJoin::JoinTransaction returned 0x8004d00a].
> If I use BILLING to alias another server (a truely remote
> server), the transactioned query works without error.
> I've came to understand this as a loopback linked server limitation
> in that loopback linked servers cannot enlist in a distributed
transaction.
> But, I made a table, x, on sqlserver.Master with one int column, x
> I made a stored proc, spx, on sqlserver.Master that takes one parameter
> and inserts it's value into table x
> On Sql Server I did the following
> Use Master
> go
> if @.@.Trancount = 0 begin tran
> exec [BILLING].Master.dbo.spx 1
> select @.@.Trancount TranCount
> if @.@.trancount != 0 commit tran
> select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
> -- Saw 1 and no errors so transaction worked.
> go
> if @.@.Trancount = 0 begin tran
> exec [BILLING].Master.dbo.spx 2
> select @.@.Trancount TranCount
> if @.@.trancount != 0 rollback tran
> select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
> -- Saw 2 and no errors so transaction worked.
> go
> begin tran
> select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
> -- Saw same error as cited above as expected.
> if @.@.trancount != 0 rollback tran
> What is going on? Transactions should have failed in stored proc usage
> as well as a direct query if this were a loopback failure to enlist a
> distributed transaction, shouldn't they?
>
>|||Ok, but why does it work when I am executing stored procs against the
loopback server and not when I am directly querying the tables?
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ue4HnKHiEHA.3476@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> There are problems with loopbacks within implicit, explicit or distributed
> transactions see http://tinyurl.com/5dlnq
> John
> "de_corum" <de_corum@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:unv3GUGiEHA.2880@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > I want to set a server up to be able to reference itself
> > via an alias in a 4-part name. Let us call the server
> > SQLSERVER and its alias BILLING. The motive for this is
> > to be able to, move the so-referenced databases to another
> > server when I want to and reference that truely remote
> > server by the BILLING alias.
> >
> > I have the alias set-up correctly and the server linked
> > via that alias with the proper security contexts.
> >
> > When I query:
> >
> > select * from [billing].master.dbo.sysdatabases
> >
> > I get the resultset I want.
> >
> > When I query:
> >
> > begin tran
> > select * from [billing].master.dbo.sysdatabases
> > rollback tran
> >
> > I get the following error:
> >
> > Server: Msg 7391, Level 16, State 1, Line 2
> > The operation could not be performed because the OLE DB
> > provider 'SQLOLEDB' was unable to begin a distributed
> > transaction.
> > [OLE/DB provider returned message: New transaction cannot
> > enlist in the specified transaction coordinator. ]
> > OLE DB error trace [OLE/DB Provider 'SQLOLEDB'
> > ITransactionJoin::JoinTransaction returned 0x8004d00a].
> >
> > If I use BILLING to alias another server (a truely remote
> > server), the transactioned query works without error.
> >
> > I've came to understand this as a loopback linked server limitation
> > in that loopback linked servers cannot enlist in a distributed
> transaction.
> >
> > But, I made a table, x, on sqlserver.Master with one int column, x
> > I made a stored proc, spx, on sqlserver.Master that takes one parameter
> > and inserts it's value into table x
> >
> > On Sql Server I did the following
> >
> > Use Master
> > go
> > if @.@.Trancount = 0 begin tran
> > exec [BILLING].Master.dbo.spx 1
> > select @.@.Trancount TranCount
> > if @.@.trancount != 0 commit tran
> >
> > select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
> > -- Saw 1 and no errors so transaction worked.
> > go
> >
> > if @.@.Trancount = 0 begin tran
> > exec [BILLING].Master.dbo.spx 2
> > select @.@.Trancount TranCount
> > if @.@.trancount != 0 rollback tran
> >
> > select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
> > -- Saw 2 and no errors so transaction worked.
> > go
> >
> > begin tran
> > select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
> > -- Saw same error as cited above as expected.
> > if @.@.trancount != 0 rollback tran
> >
> > What is going on? Transactions should have failed in stored proc usage
> > as well as a direct query if this were a loopback failure to enlist a
> > distributed transaction, shouldn't they?
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
via an alias in a 4-part name. Let us call the server
SQLSERVER and its alias BILLING. The motive for this is
to be able to, move the so-referenced databases to another
server when I want to and reference that truely remote
server by the BILLING alias.
I have the alias set-up correctly and the server linked
via that alias with the proper security contexts.
When I query:
select * from [billing].master.dbo.sysdatabases
I get the resultset I want.
When I query:
begin tran
select * from [billing].master.dbo.sysdatabases
rollback tran
I get the following error:
Server: Msg 7391, Level 16, State 1, Line 2
The operation could not be performed because the OLE DB
provider 'SQLOLEDB' was unable to begin a distributed
transaction.
[OLE/DB provider returned message: New transaction cannot
enlist in the specified transaction coordinator. ]
OLE DB error trace [OLE/DB Provider 'SQLOLEDB'
ITransactionJoin::JoinTransaction returned 0x8004d00a].
If I use BILLING to alias another server (a truely remote
server), the transactioned query works without error.
I've came to understand this as a loopback linked server limitation
in that loopback linked servers cannot enlist in a distributed transaction.
But, I made a table, x, on sqlserver.Master with one int column, x
I made a stored proc, spx, on sqlserver.Master that takes one parameter
and inserts it's value into table x
On Sql Server I did the following
Use Master
go
if @.@.Trancount = 0 begin tran
exec [BILLING].Master.dbo.spx 1
select @.@.Trancount TranCount
if @.@.trancount != 0 commit tran
select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
-- Saw 1 and no errors so transaction worked.
go
if @.@.Trancount = 0 begin tran
exec [BILLING].Master.dbo.spx 2
select @.@.Trancount TranCount
if @.@.trancount != 0 rollback tran
select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
-- Saw 2 and no errors so transaction worked.
go
begin tran
select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
-- Saw same error as cited above as expected.
if @.@.trancount != 0 rollback tran
What is going on? Transactions should have failed in stored proc usage
as well as a direct query if this were a loopback failure to enlist a
distributed transaction, shouldn't they?Hi
There are problems with loopbacks within implicit, explicit or distributed
transactions see http://tinyurl.com/5dlnq
John
"de_corum" <de_corum@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:unv3GUGiEHA.2880@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I want to set a server up to be able to reference itself
> via an alias in a 4-part name. Let us call the server
> SQLSERVER and its alias BILLING. The motive for this is
> to be able to, move the so-referenced databases to another
> server when I want to and reference that truely remote
> server by the BILLING alias.
> I have the alias set-up correctly and the server linked
> via that alias with the proper security contexts.
> When I query:
> select * from [billing].master.dbo.sysdatabases
> I get the resultset I want.
> When I query:
> begin tran
> select * from [billing].master.dbo.sysdatabases
> rollback tran
> I get the following error:
> Server: Msg 7391, Level 16, State 1, Line 2
> The operation could not be performed because the OLE DB
> provider 'SQLOLEDB' was unable to begin a distributed
> transaction.
> [OLE/DB provider returned message: New transaction cannot
> enlist in the specified transaction coordinator. ]
> OLE DB error trace [OLE/DB Provider 'SQLOLEDB'
> ITransactionJoin::JoinTransaction returned 0x8004d00a].
> If I use BILLING to alias another server (a truely remote
> server), the transactioned query works without error.
> I've came to understand this as a loopback linked server limitation
> in that loopback linked servers cannot enlist in a distributed
transaction.
> But, I made a table, x, on sqlserver.Master with one int column, x
> I made a stored proc, spx, on sqlserver.Master that takes one parameter
> and inserts it's value into table x
> On Sql Server I did the following
> Use Master
> go
> if @.@.Trancount = 0 begin tran
> exec [BILLING].Master.dbo.spx 1
> select @.@.Trancount TranCount
> if @.@.trancount != 0 commit tran
> select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
> -- Saw 1 and no errors so transaction worked.
> go
> if @.@.Trancount = 0 begin tran
> exec [BILLING].Master.dbo.spx 2
> select @.@.Trancount TranCount
> if @.@.trancount != 0 rollback tran
> select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
> -- Saw 2 and no errors so transaction worked.
> go
> begin tran
> select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
> -- Saw same error as cited above as expected.
> if @.@.trancount != 0 rollback tran
> What is going on? Transactions should have failed in stored proc usage
> as well as a direct query if this were a loopback failure to enlist a
> distributed transaction, shouldn't they?
>
>|||Ok, but why does it work when I am executing stored procs against the
loopback server and not when I am directly querying the tables?
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ue4HnKHiEHA.3476@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> There are problems with loopbacks within implicit, explicit or distributed
> transactions see http://tinyurl.com/5dlnq
> John
> "de_corum" <de_corum@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:unv3GUGiEHA.2880@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > I want to set a server up to be able to reference itself
> > via an alias in a 4-part name. Let us call the server
> > SQLSERVER and its alias BILLING. The motive for this is
> > to be able to, move the so-referenced databases to another
> > server when I want to and reference that truely remote
> > server by the BILLING alias.
> >
> > I have the alias set-up correctly and the server linked
> > via that alias with the proper security contexts.
> >
> > When I query:
> >
> > select * from [billing].master.dbo.sysdatabases
> >
> > I get the resultset I want.
> >
> > When I query:
> >
> > begin tran
> > select * from [billing].master.dbo.sysdatabases
> > rollback tran
> >
> > I get the following error:
> >
> > Server: Msg 7391, Level 16, State 1, Line 2
> > The operation could not be performed because the OLE DB
> > provider 'SQLOLEDB' was unable to begin a distributed
> > transaction.
> > [OLE/DB provider returned message: New transaction cannot
> > enlist in the specified transaction coordinator. ]
> > OLE DB error trace [OLE/DB Provider 'SQLOLEDB'
> > ITransactionJoin::JoinTransaction returned 0x8004d00a].
> >
> > If I use BILLING to alias another server (a truely remote
> > server), the transactioned query works without error.
> >
> > I've came to understand this as a loopback linked server limitation
> > in that loopback linked servers cannot enlist in a distributed
> transaction.
> >
> > But, I made a table, x, on sqlserver.Master with one int column, x
> > I made a stored proc, spx, on sqlserver.Master that takes one parameter
> > and inserts it's value into table x
> >
> > On Sql Server I did the following
> >
> > Use Master
> > go
> > if @.@.Trancount = 0 begin tran
> > exec [BILLING].Master.dbo.spx 1
> > select @.@.Trancount TranCount
> > if @.@.trancount != 0 commit tran
> >
> > select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
> > -- Saw 1 and no errors so transaction worked.
> > go
> >
> > if @.@.Trancount = 0 begin tran
> > exec [BILLING].Master.dbo.spx 2
> > select @.@.Trancount TranCount
> > if @.@.trancount != 0 rollback tran
> >
> > select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
> > -- Saw 2 and no errors so transaction worked.
> > go
> >
> > begin tran
> > select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
> > -- Saw same error as cited above as expected.
> > if @.@.trancount != 0 rollback tran
> >
> > What is going on? Transactions should have failed in stored proc usage
> > as well as a direct query if this were a loopback failure to enlist a
> > distributed transaction, shouldn't they?
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Loopback linked servers
I want to set a server up to be able to reference itself
via an alias in a 4-part name. Let us call the server
SQLSERVER and its alias BILLING. The motive for this is
to be able to, move the so-referenced databases to another
server when I want to and reference that truely remote
server by the BILLING alias.
I have the alias set-up correctly and the server linked
via that alias with the proper security contexts.
When I query:
select * from [billing].master.dbo.sysdatabases
I get the resultset I want.
When I query:
begin tran
select * from [billing].master.dbo.sysdatabases
rollback tran
I get the following error:
Server: Msg 7391, Level 16, State 1, Line 2
The operation could not be performed because the OLE DB
provider 'SQLOLEDB' was unable to begin a distributed
transaction.
[OLE/DB provider returned message: New transaction cannot
enlist in the specified transaction coordinator. ]
OLE DB error trace [OLE/DB Provider 'SQLOLEDB'
ITransactionJoin::JoinTransaction returned 0x8004d00a].
If I use BILLING to alias another server (a truely remote
server), the transactioned query works without error.
I've came to understand this as a loopback linked server limitation
in that loopback linked servers cannot enlist in a distributed transaction.
But, I made a table, x, on sqlserver.Master with one int column, x
I made a stored proc, spx, on sqlserver.Master that takes one parameter
and inserts it's value into table x
On Sql Server I did the following
Use Master
go
if @.@.Trancount = 0 begin tran
exec [BILLING].Master.dbo.spx 1
select @.@.Trancount TranCount
if @.@.trancount != 0 commit tran
select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
-- Saw 1 and no errors so transaction worked.
go
if @.@.Trancount = 0 begin tran
exec [BILLING].Master.dbo.spx 2
select @.@.Trancount TranCount
if @.@.trancount != 0 rollback tran
select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
-- Saw 2 and no errors so transaction worked.
go
begin tran
select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
-- Saw same error as cited above as expected.
if @.@.trancount != 0 rollback tran
What is going on? Transactions should have failed in stored proc usage
as well as a direct query if this were a loopback failure to enlist a
distributed transaction, shouldn't they?
Hi
There are problems with loopbacks within implicit, explicit or distributed
transactions see http://tinyurl.com/5dlnq
John
"de_corum" <de_corum@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:unv3GUGiEHA.2880@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I want to set a server up to be able to reference itself
> via an alias in a 4-part name. Let us call the server
> SQLSERVER and its alias BILLING. The motive for this is
> to be able to, move the so-referenced databases to another
> server when I want to and reference that truely remote
> server by the BILLING alias.
> I have the alias set-up correctly and the server linked
> via that alias with the proper security contexts.
> When I query:
> select * from [billing].master.dbo.sysdatabases
> I get the resultset I want.
> When I query:
> begin tran
> select * from [billing].master.dbo.sysdatabases
> rollback tran
> I get the following error:
> Server: Msg 7391, Level 16, State 1, Line 2
> The operation could not be performed because the OLE DB
> provider 'SQLOLEDB' was unable to begin a distributed
> transaction.
> [OLE/DB provider returned message: New transaction cannot
> enlist in the specified transaction coordinator. ]
> OLE DB error trace [OLE/DB Provider 'SQLOLEDB'
> ITransactionJoin::JoinTransaction returned 0x8004d00a].
> If I use BILLING to alias another server (a truely remote
> server), the transactioned query works without error.
> I've came to understand this as a loopback linked server limitation
> in that loopback linked servers cannot enlist in a distributed
transaction.
> But, I made a table, x, on sqlserver.Master with one int column, x
> I made a stored proc, spx, on sqlserver.Master that takes one parameter
> and inserts it's value into table x
> On Sql Server I did the following
> Use Master
> go
> if @.@.Trancount = 0 begin tran
> exec [BILLING].Master.dbo.spx 1
> select @.@.Trancount TranCount
> if @.@.trancount != 0 commit tran
> select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
> -- Saw 1 and no errors so transaction worked.
> go
> if @.@.Trancount = 0 begin tran
> exec [BILLING].Master.dbo.spx 2
> select @.@.Trancount TranCount
> if @.@.trancount != 0 rollback tran
> select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
> -- Saw 2 and no errors so transaction worked.
> go
> begin tran
> select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
> -- Saw same error as cited above as expected.
> if @.@.trancount != 0 rollback tran
> What is going on? Transactions should have failed in stored proc usage
> as well as a direct query if this were a loopback failure to enlist a
> distributed transaction, shouldn't they?
>
>
|||Ok, but why does it work when I am executing stored procs against the
loopback server and not when I am directly querying the tables?
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ue4HnKHiEHA.3476@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> There are problems with loopbacks within implicit, explicit or distributed
> transactions see http://tinyurl.com/5dlnq
> John
> "de_corum" <de_corum@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:unv3GUGiEHA.2880@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> transaction.
>
via an alias in a 4-part name. Let us call the server
SQLSERVER and its alias BILLING. The motive for this is
to be able to, move the so-referenced databases to another
server when I want to and reference that truely remote
server by the BILLING alias.
I have the alias set-up correctly and the server linked
via that alias with the proper security contexts.
When I query:
select * from [billing].master.dbo.sysdatabases
I get the resultset I want.
When I query:
begin tran
select * from [billing].master.dbo.sysdatabases
rollback tran
I get the following error:
Server: Msg 7391, Level 16, State 1, Line 2
The operation could not be performed because the OLE DB
provider 'SQLOLEDB' was unable to begin a distributed
transaction.
[OLE/DB provider returned message: New transaction cannot
enlist in the specified transaction coordinator. ]
OLE DB error trace [OLE/DB Provider 'SQLOLEDB'
ITransactionJoin::JoinTransaction returned 0x8004d00a].
If I use BILLING to alias another server (a truely remote
server), the transactioned query works without error.
I've came to understand this as a loopback linked server limitation
in that loopback linked servers cannot enlist in a distributed transaction.
But, I made a table, x, on sqlserver.Master with one int column, x
I made a stored proc, spx, on sqlserver.Master that takes one parameter
and inserts it's value into table x
On Sql Server I did the following
Use Master
go
if @.@.Trancount = 0 begin tran
exec [BILLING].Master.dbo.spx 1
select @.@.Trancount TranCount
if @.@.trancount != 0 commit tran
select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
-- Saw 1 and no errors so transaction worked.
go
if @.@.Trancount = 0 begin tran
exec [BILLING].Master.dbo.spx 2
select @.@.Trancount TranCount
if @.@.trancount != 0 rollback tran
select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
-- Saw 2 and no errors so transaction worked.
go
begin tran
select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
-- Saw same error as cited above as expected.
if @.@.trancount != 0 rollback tran
What is going on? Transactions should have failed in stored proc usage
as well as a direct query if this were a loopback failure to enlist a
distributed transaction, shouldn't they?
Hi
There are problems with loopbacks within implicit, explicit or distributed
transactions see http://tinyurl.com/5dlnq
John
"de_corum" <de_corum@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:unv3GUGiEHA.2880@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I want to set a server up to be able to reference itself
> via an alias in a 4-part name. Let us call the server
> SQLSERVER and its alias BILLING. The motive for this is
> to be able to, move the so-referenced databases to another
> server when I want to and reference that truely remote
> server by the BILLING alias.
> I have the alias set-up correctly and the server linked
> via that alias with the proper security contexts.
> When I query:
> select * from [billing].master.dbo.sysdatabases
> I get the resultset I want.
> When I query:
> begin tran
> select * from [billing].master.dbo.sysdatabases
> rollback tran
> I get the following error:
> Server: Msg 7391, Level 16, State 1, Line 2
> The operation could not be performed because the OLE DB
> provider 'SQLOLEDB' was unable to begin a distributed
> transaction.
> [OLE/DB provider returned message: New transaction cannot
> enlist in the specified transaction coordinator. ]
> OLE DB error trace [OLE/DB Provider 'SQLOLEDB'
> ITransactionJoin::JoinTransaction returned 0x8004d00a].
> If I use BILLING to alias another server (a truely remote
> server), the transactioned query works without error.
> I've came to understand this as a loopback linked server limitation
> in that loopback linked servers cannot enlist in a distributed
transaction.
> But, I made a table, x, on sqlserver.Master with one int column, x
> I made a stored proc, spx, on sqlserver.Master that takes one parameter
> and inserts it's value into table x
> On Sql Server I did the following
> Use Master
> go
> if @.@.Trancount = 0 begin tran
> exec [BILLING].Master.dbo.spx 1
> select @.@.Trancount TranCount
> if @.@.trancount != 0 commit tran
> select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
> -- Saw 1 and no errors so transaction worked.
> go
> if @.@.Trancount = 0 begin tran
> exec [BILLING].Master.dbo.spx 2
> select @.@.Trancount TranCount
> if @.@.trancount != 0 rollback tran
> select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
> -- Saw 2 and no errors so transaction worked.
> go
> begin tran
> select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
> -- Saw same error as cited above as expected.
> if @.@.trancount != 0 rollback tran
> What is going on? Transactions should have failed in stored proc usage
> as well as a direct query if this were a loopback failure to enlist a
> distributed transaction, shouldn't they?
>
>
|||Ok, but why does it work when I am executing stored procs against the
loopback server and not when I am directly querying the tables?
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ue4HnKHiEHA.3476@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> There are problems with loopbacks within implicit, explicit or distributed
> transactions see http://tinyurl.com/5dlnq
> John
> "de_corum" <de_corum@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:unv3GUGiEHA.2880@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> transaction.
>
Loopback linked servers
I want to set a server up to be able to reference itself
via an alias in a 4-part name. Let us call the server
SQLSERVER and its alias BILLING. The motive for this is
to be able to, move the so-referenced databases to another
server when I want to and reference that truely remote
server by the BILLING alias.
I have the alias set-up correctly and the server linked
via that alias with the proper security contexts.
When I query:
select * from [billing].master.dbo.sysdatabases
I get the resultset I want.
When I query:
begin tran
select * from [billing].master.dbo.sysdatabases
rollback tran
I get the following error:
Server: Msg 7391, Level 16, State 1, Line 2
The operation could not be performed because the OLE DB
provider 'SQLOLEDB' was unable to begin a distributed
transaction.
[OLE/DB provider returned message: New transaction cannot
enlist in the specified transaction coordinator. ]
OLE DB error trace [OLE/DB Provider 'SQLOLEDB'
ITransactionJoin::JoinTransaction returned 0x8004d00a].
If I use BILLING to alias another server (a truely remote
server), the transactioned query works without error.
I've came to understand this as a loopback linked server limitation
in that loopback linked servers cannot enlist in a distributed transaction.
But, I made a table, x, on sqlserver.Master with one int column, x
I made a stored proc, spx, on sqlserver.Master that takes one parameter
and inserts it's value into table x
On Sql Server I did the following
Use Master
go
if @.@.Trancount = 0 begin tran
exec [BILLING].Master.dbo.spx 1
select @.@.Trancount TranCount
if @.@.trancount != 0 commit tran
select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
-- Saw 1 and no errors so transaction worked.
go
if @.@.Trancount = 0 begin tran
exec [BILLING].Master.dbo.spx 2
select @.@.Trancount TranCount
if @.@.trancount != 0 rollback tran
select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
-- Saw 2 and no errors so transaction worked.
go
begin tran
select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
-- Saw same error as cited above as expected.
if @.@.trancount != 0 rollback tran
What is going on? Transactions should have failed in stored proc usage
as well as a direct query if this were a loopback failure to enlist a
distributed transaction, shouldn't they?Hi
There are problems with loopbacks within implicit, explicit or distributed
transactions see http://tinyurl.com/5dlnq
John
"de_corum" <de_corum@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:unv3GUGiEHA.2880@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I want to set a server up to be able to reference itself
> via an alias in a 4-part name. Let us call the server
> SQLSERVER and its alias BILLING. The motive for this is
> to be able to, move the so-referenced databases to another
> server when I want to and reference that truely remote
> server by the BILLING alias.
> I have the alias set-up correctly and the server linked
> via that alias with the proper security contexts.
> When I query:
> select * from [billing].master.dbo.sysdatabases
> I get the resultset I want.
> When I query:
> begin tran
> select * from [billing].master.dbo.sysdatabases
> rollback tran
> I get the following error:
> Server: Msg 7391, Level 16, State 1, Line 2
> The operation could not be performed because the OLE DB
> provider 'SQLOLEDB' was unable to begin a distributed
> transaction.
> [OLE/DB provider returned message: New transaction cannot
> enlist in the specified transaction coordinator. ]
> OLE DB error trace [OLE/DB Provider 'SQLOLEDB'
> ITransactionJoin::JoinTransaction returned 0x8004d00a].
> If I use BILLING to alias another server (a truely remote
> server), the transactioned query works without error.
> I've came to understand this as a loopback linked server limitation
> in that loopback linked servers cannot enlist in a distributed
transaction.
> But, I made a table, x, on sqlserver.Master with one int column, x
> I made a stored proc, spx, on sqlserver.Master that takes one parameter
> and inserts it's value into table x
> On Sql Server I did the following
> Use Master
> go
> if @.@.Trancount = 0 begin tran
> exec [BILLING].Master.dbo.spx 1
> select @.@.Trancount TranCount
> if @.@.trancount != 0 commit tran
> select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
> -- Saw 1 and no errors so transaction worked.
> go
> if @.@.Trancount = 0 begin tran
> exec [BILLING].Master.dbo.spx 2
> select @.@.Trancount TranCount
> if @.@.trancount != 0 rollback tran
> select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
> -- Saw 2 and no errors so transaction worked.
> go
> begin tran
> select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
> -- Saw same error as cited above as expected.
> if @.@.trancount != 0 rollback tran
> What is going on? Transactions should have failed in stored proc usage
> as well as a direct query if this were a loopback failure to enlist a
> distributed transaction, shouldn't they?
>
>|||Ok, but why does it work when I am executing stored procs against the
loopback server and not when I am directly querying the tables?
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ue4HnKHiEHA.3476@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> There are problems with loopbacks within implicit, explicit or distributed
> transactions see http://tinyurl.com/5dlnq
> John
> "de_corum" <de_corum@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:unv3GUGiEHA.2880@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> transaction.
>
via an alias in a 4-part name. Let us call the server
SQLSERVER and its alias BILLING. The motive for this is
to be able to, move the so-referenced databases to another
server when I want to and reference that truely remote
server by the BILLING alias.
I have the alias set-up correctly and the server linked
via that alias with the proper security contexts.
When I query:
select * from [billing].master.dbo.sysdatabases
I get the resultset I want.
When I query:
begin tran
select * from [billing].master.dbo.sysdatabases
rollback tran
I get the following error:
Server: Msg 7391, Level 16, State 1, Line 2
The operation could not be performed because the OLE DB
provider 'SQLOLEDB' was unable to begin a distributed
transaction.
[OLE/DB provider returned message: New transaction cannot
enlist in the specified transaction coordinator. ]
OLE DB error trace [OLE/DB Provider 'SQLOLEDB'
ITransactionJoin::JoinTransaction returned 0x8004d00a].
If I use BILLING to alias another server (a truely remote
server), the transactioned query works without error.
I've came to understand this as a loopback linked server limitation
in that loopback linked servers cannot enlist in a distributed transaction.
But, I made a table, x, on sqlserver.Master with one int column, x
I made a stored proc, spx, on sqlserver.Master that takes one parameter
and inserts it's value into table x
On Sql Server I did the following
Use Master
go
if @.@.Trancount = 0 begin tran
exec [BILLING].Master.dbo.spx 1
select @.@.Trancount TranCount
if @.@.trancount != 0 commit tran
select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
-- Saw 1 and no errors so transaction worked.
go
if @.@.Trancount = 0 begin tran
exec [BILLING].Master.dbo.spx 2
select @.@.Trancount TranCount
if @.@.trancount != 0 rollback tran
select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
-- Saw 2 and no errors so transaction worked.
go
begin tran
select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
-- Saw same error as cited above as expected.
if @.@.trancount != 0 rollback tran
What is going on? Transactions should have failed in stored proc usage
as well as a direct query if this were a loopback failure to enlist a
distributed transaction, shouldn't they?Hi
There are problems with loopbacks within implicit, explicit or distributed
transactions see http://tinyurl.com/5dlnq
John
"de_corum" <de_corum@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:unv3GUGiEHA.2880@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I want to set a server up to be able to reference itself
> via an alias in a 4-part name. Let us call the server
> SQLSERVER and its alias BILLING. The motive for this is
> to be able to, move the so-referenced databases to another
> server when I want to and reference that truely remote
> server by the BILLING alias.
> I have the alias set-up correctly and the server linked
> via that alias with the proper security contexts.
> When I query:
> select * from [billing].master.dbo.sysdatabases
> I get the resultset I want.
> When I query:
> begin tran
> select * from [billing].master.dbo.sysdatabases
> rollback tran
> I get the following error:
> Server: Msg 7391, Level 16, State 1, Line 2
> The operation could not be performed because the OLE DB
> provider 'SQLOLEDB' was unable to begin a distributed
> transaction.
> [OLE/DB provider returned message: New transaction cannot
> enlist in the specified transaction coordinator. ]
> OLE DB error trace [OLE/DB Provider 'SQLOLEDB'
> ITransactionJoin::JoinTransaction returned 0x8004d00a].
> If I use BILLING to alias another server (a truely remote
> server), the transactioned query works without error.
> I've came to understand this as a loopback linked server limitation
> in that loopback linked servers cannot enlist in a distributed
transaction.
> But, I made a table, x, on sqlserver.Master with one int column, x
> I made a stored proc, spx, on sqlserver.Master that takes one parameter
> and inserts it's value into table x
> On Sql Server I did the following
> Use Master
> go
> if @.@.Trancount = 0 begin tran
> exec [BILLING].Master.dbo.spx 1
> select @.@.Trancount TranCount
> if @.@.trancount != 0 commit tran
> select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
> -- Saw 1 and no errors so transaction worked.
> go
> if @.@.Trancount = 0 begin tran
> exec [BILLING].Master.dbo.spx 2
> select @.@.Trancount TranCount
> if @.@.trancount != 0 rollback tran
> select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
> -- Saw 2 and no errors so transaction worked.
> go
> begin tran
> select * from [BILLING].Master.dbo.x
> -- Saw same error as cited above as expected.
> if @.@.trancount != 0 rollback tran
> What is going on? Transactions should have failed in stored proc usage
> as well as a direct query if this were a loopback failure to enlist a
> distributed transaction, shouldn't they?
>
>|||Ok, but why does it work when I am executing stored procs against the
loopback server and not when I am directly querying the tables?
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ue4HnKHiEHA.3476@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> There are problems with loopbacks within implicit, explicit or distributed
> transactions see http://tinyurl.com/5dlnq
> John
> "de_corum" <de_corum@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:unv3GUGiEHA.2880@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> transaction.
>
Loopback Adapter Hides Instance Names
I have laptops that require the loopback adapter when they are not
connected. However when they connect back to the network the networked
servers display just the computer name not the / instancename. Any
ideas? It only happens on network instances. The local instances are
correct. This happens in Enterprise Manager, Access connection tool
and using SQL-DMO.
Gary Shane LimIn message <ogfj31dfgdq76mvs61hj3aofv0k6vpg1j0@.4ax.com>, Shane Lim
<gslim@.blizzardice.com> writes
>I have laptops that require the loopback adapter when they are not
>connected. However when they connect back to the network the networked
>servers display just the computer name not the / instancename. Any
>ideas? It only happens on network instances. The local instances are
>correct. This happens in Enterprise Manager, Access connection tool
>and using SQL-DMO.
>Gary Shane Lim
Have you tried Bridging the Loopback Adapter to your main Lan Adapter.
This way your network settings remain the same whether on the network or
not.
--
Andrew D. Newbould E-Mail: newsgroups@.NOSPAMzadsoft.com
ZAD Software Systems Web : www.zadsoft.com
connected. However when they connect back to the network the networked
servers display just the computer name not the / instancename. Any
ideas? It only happens on network instances. The local instances are
correct. This happens in Enterprise Manager, Access connection tool
and using SQL-DMO.
Gary Shane LimIn message <ogfj31dfgdq76mvs61hj3aofv0k6vpg1j0@.4ax.com>, Shane Lim
<gslim@.blizzardice.com> writes
>I have laptops that require the loopback adapter when they are not
>connected. However when they connect back to the network the networked
>servers display just the computer name not the / instancename. Any
>ideas? It only happens on network instances. The local instances are
>correct. This happens in Enterprise Manager, Access connection tool
>and using SQL-DMO.
>Gary Shane Lim
Have you tried Bridging the Loopback Adapter to your main Lan Adapter.
This way your network settings remain the same whether on the network or
not.
--
Andrew D. Newbould E-Mail: newsgroups@.NOSPAMzadsoft.com
ZAD Software Systems Web : www.zadsoft.com
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Looooong Delays Connecting with Enterprise Mgr
Ever since upgrading to SQL Server 2000, connecting to the DB servers with
Enterprise Manager results in multi-minute delays while the database list
populates.
Is there something that can be done to make the connection process faster?Hi,
I think this will be the problem with one machine. Can you try with a
diffrent PC incase if it is faster then you can,
1. backup the OS login profile you are using
2. Delete the profile
3. Restore the profile back.
I had the same problem before and got solved after performing the above
steps.
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"R.MacLean" <zzz@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:WSq2c.29720$aZ3.25484@.fed1read04...
> Ever since upgrading to SQL Server 2000, connecting to the DB servers with
> Enterprise Manager results in multi-minute delays while the database list
> populates.
> Is there something that can be done to make the connection process faster?
>|||Check the version of SQL 2000 that you are running. Verify that the
problem still occurs with SQL sp3a installed.
Thanks,
Kevin McDonnell
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||I have two machines here that connect to 8 different SQL Server machines.
No real difference between them -- looong delays after clicking to open the
Databases folder after connecting, regardless of which client machine or
which server I'm connecting to.
(I think I was able to reduce the delay connecting to one of the local
servers by taking most of the DBs offline.)
I suspect that SQL Server 2000 returns the stats for ALL of the DBs upon
opening the Databases folder, where SQL Server 7 didn't return the stats for
ANY of the DBs until you attempted to open the DB. 2000 lets you click
around between DBs more quickly after the DB info is returned, but this is
far inferior to the older system.
"Hari Prasad" <hari_prasad_k@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OBrnvP$AEHA.212@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I think this will be the problem with one machine. Can you try with a
> diffrent PC incase if it is faster then you can,
> 1. backup the OS login profile you are using
> 2. Delete the profile
> 3. Restore the profile back.
> I had the same problem before and got solved after performing the above
> steps.
> Thanks
> Hari
> MCDBA
>
> "R.MacLean" <zzz@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:WSq2c.29720$aZ3.25484@.fed1read04...
with
list
faster?
>
Enterprise Manager results in multi-minute delays while the database list
populates.
Is there something that can be done to make the connection process faster?Hi,
I think this will be the problem with one machine. Can you try with a
diffrent PC incase if it is faster then you can,
1. backup the OS login profile you are using
2. Delete the profile
3. Restore the profile back.
I had the same problem before and got solved after performing the above
steps.
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"R.MacLean" <zzz@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:WSq2c.29720$aZ3.25484@.fed1read04...
> Ever since upgrading to SQL Server 2000, connecting to the DB servers with
> Enterprise Manager results in multi-minute delays while the database list
> populates.
> Is there something that can be done to make the connection process faster?
>|||Check the version of SQL 2000 that you are running. Verify that the
problem still occurs with SQL sp3a installed.
Thanks,
Kevin McDonnell
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||I have two machines here that connect to 8 different SQL Server machines.
No real difference between them -- looong delays after clicking to open the
Databases folder after connecting, regardless of which client machine or
which server I'm connecting to.
(I think I was able to reduce the delay connecting to one of the local
servers by taking most of the DBs offline.)
I suspect that SQL Server 2000 returns the stats for ALL of the DBs upon
opening the Databases folder, where SQL Server 7 didn't return the stats for
ANY of the DBs until you attempted to open the DB. 2000 lets you click
around between DBs more quickly after the DB info is returned, but this is
far inferior to the older system.
"Hari Prasad" <hari_prasad_k@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OBrnvP$AEHA.212@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I think this will be the problem with one machine. Can you try with a
> diffrent PC incase if it is faster then you can,
> 1. backup the OS login profile you are using
> 2. Delete the profile
> 3. Restore the profile back.
> I had the same problem before and got solved after performing the above
> steps.
> Thanks
> Hari
> MCDBA
>
> "R.MacLean" <zzz@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:WSq2c.29720$aZ3.25484@.fed1read04...
with
list
faster?
>
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Looking for SQL perf analyzing tool
Can anyone recommend a good all-in-one application for analyzing the
performance of 25+ sql servers. We are looking for something that requires
minimal training and implementation time and will tell us which databases
are using the most resources and clearly indicates where tuning and hardware
is needed. Specifically we have more $ than time and dba expertise.
Thanks,
jim
Hi
SQL profiler is the tool that comes with SQL Server that can be used to
analyse this sort of thing, and there are many enhancements in SQL 2005 that
make it even more useful. Failing that you may want to look at products such
as those from Quest http://www.quest.com/sql_server/ or Embarcadero
http://www.embarcadero.com/products/...ter/index.html
John
"Jims" wrote:
> Can anyone recommend a good all-in-one application for analyzing the
> performance of 25+ sql servers. We are looking for something that requires
> minimal training and implementation time and will tell us which databases
> are using the most resources and clearly indicates where tuning and hardware
> is needed. Specifically we have more $ than time and dba expertise.
> Thanks,
> jim
>
>
|||Thanks - these are exactly what I'm looking for.
jim
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:56EEB7AC-2036-4534-9D16-5E6191EA4729@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> SQL profiler is the tool that comes with SQL Server that can be used to
> analyse this sort of thing, and there are many enhancements in SQL 2005
> that
> make it even more useful. Failing that you may want to look at products
> such
> as those from Quest http://www.quest.com/sql_server/ or Embarcadero
> http://www.embarcadero.com/products/...ter/index.html
> John
>
> "Jims" wrote:
performance of 25+ sql servers. We are looking for something that requires
minimal training and implementation time and will tell us which databases
are using the most resources and clearly indicates where tuning and hardware
is needed. Specifically we have more $ than time and dba expertise.
Thanks,
jim
Hi
SQL profiler is the tool that comes with SQL Server that can be used to
analyse this sort of thing, and there are many enhancements in SQL 2005 that
make it even more useful. Failing that you may want to look at products such
as those from Quest http://www.quest.com/sql_server/ or Embarcadero
http://www.embarcadero.com/products/...ter/index.html
John
"Jims" wrote:
> Can anyone recommend a good all-in-one application for analyzing the
> performance of 25+ sql servers. We are looking for something that requires
> minimal training and implementation time and will tell us which databases
> are using the most resources and clearly indicates where tuning and hardware
> is needed. Specifically we have more $ than time and dba expertise.
> Thanks,
> jim
>
>
|||Thanks - these are exactly what I'm looking for.
jim
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:56EEB7AC-2036-4534-9D16-5E6191EA4729@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> SQL profiler is the tool that comes with SQL Server that can be used to
> analyse this sort of thing, and there are many enhancements in SQL 2005
> that
> make it even more useful. Failing that you may want to look at products
> such
> as those from Quest http://www.quest.com/sql_server/ or Embarcadero
> http://www.embarcadero.com/products/...ter/index.html
> John
>
> "Jims" wrote:
Looking for SQL perf analyzing tool
Can anyone recommend a good all-in-one application for analyzing the
performance of 25+ sql servers. We are looking for something that requires
minimal training and implementation time and will tell us which databases
are using the most resources and clearly indicates where tuning and hardware
is needed. Specifically we have more $ than time and dba expertise.
Thanks,
jimHi
SQL profiler is the tool that comes with SQL Server that can be used to
analyse this sort of thing, and there are many enhancements in SQL 2005 that
make it even more useful. Failing that you may want to look at products such
as those from Quest http://www.quest.com/sql_server/ or Embarcadero
http://www.embarcadero.com/products/performancecenter/index.html
John
"Jims" wrote:
> Can anyone recommend a good all-in-one application for analyzing the
> performance of 25+ sql servers. We are looking for something that requires
> minimal training and implementation time and will tell us which databases
> are using the most resources and clearly indicates where tuning and hardware
> is needed. Specifically we have more $ than time and dba expertise.
> Thanks,
> jim
>
>|||Thanks - these are exactly what I'm looking for.
jim
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:56EEB7AC-2036-4534-9D16-5E6191EA4729@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> SQL profiler is the tool that comes with SQL Server that can be used to
> analyse this sort of thing, and there are many enhancements in SQL 2005
> that
> make it even more useful. Failing that you may want to look at products
> such
> as those from Quest http://www.quest.com/sql_server/ or Embarcadero
> http://www.embarcadero.com/products/performancecenter/index.html
> John
>
> "Jims" wrote:
>> Can anyone recommend a good all-in-one application for analyzing the
>> performance of 25+ sql servers. We are looking for something that
>> requires
>> minimal training and implementation time and will tell us which databases
>> are using the most resources and clearly indicates where tuning and
>> hardware
>> is needed. Specifically we have more $ than time and dba expertise.
>> Thanks,
>> jim
>>
performance of 25+ sql servers. We are looking for something that requires
minimal training and implementation time and will tell us which databases
are using the most resources and clearly indicates where tuning and hardware
is needed. Specifically we have more $ than time and dba expertise.
Thanks,
jimHi
SQL profiler is the tool that comes with SQL Server that can be used to
analyse this sort of thing, and there are many enhancements in SQL 2005 that
make it even more useful. Failing that you may want to look at products such
as those from Quest http://www.quest.com/sql_server/ or Embarcadero
http://www.embarcadero.com/products/performancecenter/index.html
John
"Jims" wrote:
> Can anyone recommend a good all-in-one application for analyzing the
> performance of 25+ sql servers. We are looking for something that requires
> minimal training and implementation time and will tell us which databases
> are using the most resources and clearly indicates where tuning and hardware
> is needed. Specifically we have more $ than time and dba expertise.
> Thanks,
> jim
>
>|||Thanks - these are exactly what I'm looking for.
jim
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:56EEB7AC-2036-4534-9D16-5E6191EA4729@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> SQL profiler is the tool that comes with SQL Server that can be used to
> analyse this sort of thing, and there are many enhancements in SQL 2005
> that
> make it even more useful. Failing that you may want to look at products
> such
> as those from Quest http://www.quest.com/sql_server/ or Embarcadero
> http://www.embarcadero.com/products/performancecenter/index.html
> John
>
> "Jims" wrote:
>> Can anyone recommend a good all-in-one application for analyzing the
>> performance of 25+ sql servers. We are looking for something that
>> requires
>> minimal training and implementation time and will tell us which databases
>> are using the most resources and clearly indicates where tuning and
>> hardware
>> is needed. Specifically we have more $ than time and dba expertise.
>> Thanks,
>> jim
>>
Looking for SQL perf analyzing tool
Can anyone recommend a good all-in-one application for analyzing the
performance of 25+ sql servers. We are looking for something that requires
minimal training and implementation time and will tell us which databases
are using the most resources and clearly indicates where tuning and hardware
is needed. Specifically we have more $ than time and dba expertise.
Thanks,
jimHi
SQL profiler is the tool that comes with SQL Server that can be used to
analyse this sort of thing, and there are many enhancements in SQL 2005 that
make it even more useful. Failing that you may want to look at products such
as those from Quest http://www.quest.com/sql_server/ or Embarcadero
http://www.embarcadero.com/products...nter/index.html
John
"Jims" wrote:
> Can anyone recommend a good all-in-one application for analyzing the
> performance of 25+ sql servers. We are looking for something that require
s
> minimal training and implementation time and will tell us which databases
> are using the most resources and clearly indicates where tuning and hardwa
re
> is needed. Specifically we have more $ than time and dba expertise.
> Thanks,
> jim
>
>|||Thanks - these are exactly what I'm looking for.
jim
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:56EEB7AC-2036-4534-9D16-5E6191EA4729@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> SQL profiler is the tool that comes with SQL Server that can be used to
> analyse this sort of thing, and there are many enhancements in SQL 2005
> that
> make it even more useful. Failing that you may want to look at products
> such
> as those from Quest http://www.quest.com/sql_server/ or Embarcadero
> http://www.embarcadero.com/products...nter/index.html
> John
>
> "Jims" wrote:
>
performance of 25+ sql servers. We are looking for something that requires
minimal training and implementation time and will tell us which databases
are using the most resources and clearly indicates where tuning and hardware
is needed. Specifically we have more $ than time and dba expertise.
Thanks,
jimHi
SQL profiler is the tool that comes with SQL Server that can be used to
analyse this sort of thing, and there are many enhancements in SQL 2005 that
make it even more useful. Failing that you may want to look at products such
as those from Quest http://www.quest.com/sql_server/ or Embarcadero
http://www.embarcadero.com/products...nter/index.html
John
"Jims" wrote:
> Can anyone recommend a good all-in-one application for analyzing the
> performance of 25+ sql servers. We are looking for something that require
s
> minimal training and implementation time and will tell us which databases
> are using the most resources and clearly indicates where tuning and hardwa
re
> is needed. Specifically we have more $ than time and dba expertise.
> Thanks,
> jim
>
>|||Thanks - these are exactly what I'm looking for.
jim
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:56EEB7AC-2036-4534-9D16-5E6191EA4729@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi
> SQL profiler is the tool that comes with SQL Server that can be used to
> analyse this sort of thing, and there are many enhancements in SQL 2005
> that
> make it even more useful. Failing that you may want to look at products
> such
> as those from Quest http://www.quest.com/sql_server/ or Embarcadero
> http://www.embarcadero.com/products...nter/index.html
> John
>
> "Jims" wrote:
>
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)