Prev: WITH FILLFACTOR is missing when snapshot recreates indexes
Next: possible resolution
From: LPR-3rd on 18 Jan 2010 16:15
I received this error message from one of my SQL 2005 Servers
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SQL Server detected a logical consistency-based I/O error: incorrect
checksum (expected: 0x334e4db8; actual: 0x174eeacc). It occurred
during a read of page (1:22084) in database ID 12 at offset
0x0000000ac88000 in file 'D:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL.
1\MSSQL\DATA\STOREMAIN.mdf'. Additional messages in the SQL Server
error log or system event log may provide more detail. This is a
severe error condition that threatens database integrity and must be
corrected immediately. Complete a full database consistency check
(DBCC CHECKDB). This error can be caused by many factors; for more
information, see SQL Server Books Online.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When I run DBCC CHECKDB the following is reported for one of the
tables
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Msg 8928, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Object ID 845246066, index ID 0, partition ID 72057594245939200, alloc
unit ID 72057594250592256 (type In-row data): Page (1:22084) could not
be processed. See other errors for details.
Msg 8939, Level 16, State 98, Line 1
Table error: Object ID 845246066, index ID 0, partition ID
72057594245939200, alloc unit ID 72057594250592256 (type In-row data),
page (1:22084). Test (IS_OFF (BUF_IOERR, pBUF->bstat)) failed. Values
are 12716041 and -4.
Msg 8928, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Object ID 845246066, index ID 0, partition ID 72057594245939200, alloc
unit ID 72057594250592256 (type In-row data): Page (1:22085) could not
be processed. See other errors for details.
Msg 8939, Level 16, State 106, Line 1
Table error: Object ID 845246066, index ID 0, partition ID
72057594245939200, alloc unit ID 72057594250592256 (type In-row data),
page (1:22085). Test (m_freeCnt == freeCnt) failed. Values are 4132
and 8072.
Msg 8928, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Object ID 845246066, index ID 0, partition ID 72057594245939200, alloc
unit ID 72057594250592256 (type In-row data): Page (1:22086) could not
be processed. See other errors for details.
Msg 8941, Level 16, State 2, Line 1
Table error: Object ID 845246066, index ID 0, partition ID
72057594245939200, alloc unit ID 72057594250592256 (type In-row data),
page (1:22086). Test (sorted [i].offset <= m_freeData) failed. Slot 0,
offset 0x19a4 is invalid.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


HELP!!!!!

Larry...
From: LPR-3rd on 18 Jan 2010 16:37
SOLUTION....


USE master
GO
ALTER DATABASE storemain
SET SINGLE_USER
GO

USE storemain
GO

DBCC CHECKTABLE('PCVITMP',REPAIR_ALLOW_DATA_LOSS )

USE master
GO
ALTER DATABASE storemain
SET MULTI_USER
From: Erland Sommarskog on 18 Jan 2010 18:04
LPR-3rd (lreames(a)gmail.com) writes:
> SOLUTION....
>
>
> USE master
> GO
> ALTER DATABASE storemain
> SET SINGLE_USER
> GO
>
> USE storemain
> GO
>
> DBCC CHECKTABLE('PCVITMP',REPAIR_ALLOW_DATA_LOSS )
>
> USE master
> GO
> ALTER DATABASE storemain
> SET MULTI_USER

First, I hope you understand what data loss is.

Next, corruption errors rarely comes out of thin air, but often
indicate that there are hardware problems. There is all reason to
examine what the cause may be, and if the system is mission-critical
you may consider to migrate the system to new hardware, before a real
disaster strikes.

A better option when you get this error is to restore from a known good
backup.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel(a)sommarskog.se

Links for SQL Server Books Online:
SQL 2008: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/sqlserver/cc514207.aspx
SQL 2005: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/sqlserver/bb895970.aspx
SQL 2000: http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx

From: LPR-3rd on 21 Jan 2010 15:31
Thanks Erland,

The problem occurred after the server locked up & was unaccessible
remotely, so we had someone restart the box. Not the best
alternative, but the only one we had.

thanks,
Larry...
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: WITH FILLFACTOR is missing when snapshot recreates indexes
Next: possible resolution