InstantForum.NET v2.9.0SQLServerCentralhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/notifications@sqlservercentral.comThu, 23 May 2013 13:41:25 GMT20http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic616254-266-1.aspx[quote][b]-- Cranfield (12/12/2008)[/b][hr]yip. I'll save NYSE the cash. btw - I was at your Surviving Corruption session at PASS. It was the best session I attended. As you can see I still struggle interpretting DBCC output but am much more confident now with running them.[/quote]Excellent - thank you. That was the whole point - increasing confidence and awareness.CheersFri, 12 Dec 2008 09:58:36 GMTPaul Randalhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic616254-266-1.aspxMost of the frontline support folks know less than many people here...Fri, 12 Dec 2008 09:38:01 GMTPaul Randalhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic616254-266-1.aspxIt's not so much that they give different advice, that if you decide to go and restore pages or work through the corruption, the $250 is a cheap few hours of consulting from experts that can double check your work if you're not experienced doing this or not completely comfortable.Fri, 12 Dec 2008 09:18:30 GMTSteve Jones - SSC Editorhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic616254-266-1.aspxyip. I'll save NYSE the cash. btw - I was at your Surviving Corruption session at PASS. It was the best session I attended. As you can see I still struggle interpretting DBCC output but am much more confident now with running them.Fri, 12 Dec 2008 02:05:16 GMTSQL_EXPAThttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic616254-266-1.aspx[quote][b]Steve Jones - Editor (12/10/2008)[/b][hr]You might want to call MS support and work through this, checking to see if you might have hardware issues.[/quote]Not much point - they're not going to say anything different or have any better insight than what's been said on the thread so far - and it will cost $250+ for the extra non-advice.Thu, 11 Dec 2008 07:57:54 GMTPaul Randalhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic616254-266-1.aspxGreat tip. It would be nice to also get a warning in the error log if a CHECKDB has [i]never[/i] been run against the databases.Alan CranfieldThu, 11 Dec 2008 02:09:19 GMTSQL_EXPAThttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic616254-266-1.aspxYou might want to call MS support and work through this, checking to see if you might have hardware issues.Wed, 10 Dec 2008 21:30:27 GMTSteve Jones - SSC Editorhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic616254-266-1.aspxthis is an old server where we weren't running regular DBCCs but from now on I will. :(Wed, 10 Dec 2008 08:43:35 GMTSQL_EXPAThttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic616254-266-1.aspxMeans that the corruption was present in that backup. Do you run checkDB regularly?If this is 2005, check the error log for the startup messages. As SQL brings the DBs online, it will print a message to the error log saying when CheckDB last ran without errorsWed, 10 Dec 2008 05:35:59 GMTGilaMonsterhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic616254-266-1.aspxHi Gail and PaulThanks for the reply. I restored from our backup and ran DBCC CHECKDB with NO_INFOMSGS again and we still have corruption:Msg 8909, Level 16, State 1, Line 1Table error: Object ID 0, index ID 0, page ID (1:1515894). The PageId in the page header = (0:2).CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 1 consistency errors not associated with any single object.Msg 8928, Level 16, State 1, Line 1Object ID 181575685, index ID 255: Page (1:1515893) could not be processed. See other errors for details.Msg 8939, Level 16, State 98, Line 1Table error: Object ID 181575685, index ID 255, page (1:1515893). Test (IS_ON (BUF_IOERR, bp->bstat) && bp->berrcode) failed. Values are 2057 and -1.Msg 8928, Level 16, State 1, Line 1Object ID 181575685, index ID 255: Page (1:1515894) could not be processed. See other errors for details.CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 3 consistency errors in table 'cq.attachments_blob' (object ID 181575685).CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 4 consistency errors in database 'sysdevcq'.repair_allow_data_loss is the minimum repair level for the errors found by DBCC CHECKDB (sysdevcq ).I will now go back to tape to get an earlier backup. In the meantime I'm going to attempt a repair on the current DB.cheersWed, 10 Dec 2008 02:30:54 GMTSQL_EXPAThttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic616254-266-1.aspxRepairing here would have lost two pages of table data - but I might still have been tempted to restore the backups and see if those two pages were in the backup with the data on - then run repair to deallocate the pages in the corrupt database and pull over the deleted data from the restored copy.Restore *is* usually the way to recover with no data-loss, but a more severe downtime SLA might trump the data-loss SLA and force a repair rather than a restore... especially if the backup strategy doesn't support targetted restores. Shame you're on 2000 - you might have been able to use single-page restore to get through this.Certainly looks like I/O subsystem corruption to me - possibly a RAID controller having stale-read problems?ThanksTue, 09 Dec 2008 13:55:39 GMTPaul Randalhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic616254-266-1.aspxPaul will probably be along in a few hours. Or he might be on vacation.Restore is always the preferred option. Repair is, in most cases, for when you can't restore because you have no clean backup (or no backup at all).If you have backups and the DB's in full recovery, then you can restore with absolutely no loss of work. Back up the tail of the log, restore the full backup, restore all the logs, in order. If you had repaired, you would have lost two pages of the table cq.history, plus the LOB data for those rows.Have you checked the windows event log and any RAID/SAN logs that you have? Typically corruption's a hardware issue.Tue, 09 Dec 2008 11:01:30 GMTGilaMonsterhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic616254-266-1.aspxI have gone with the RESTORE. Data loss was not option. cheersTue, 09 Dec 2008 10:15:12 GMTSQL_EXPAThttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic616254-266-1.aspxplease note this is a SQL2000 instance - I posted to the wrong forum. sorry.Tue, 09 Dec 2008 09:33:53 GMTSQL_EXPAThttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic616254-266-1.aspxI have a dept who would prefer I repair instead of restore else they'll lose 4 hours of work:DBCC CHECKDB with PHYSICAL_only output:DBCC results for 'sysdevcq'.Msg 8909, Level 16, State 1, Line 2Table error: Object ID 0, index ID 0, page ID (1:1515894). The PageId in the page header = (0:2).CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 1 consistency errors not associated with any single object.Msg 8928, Level 16, State 1, Line 2Object ID 181575685, index ID 255: Page (1:1515893) could not be processed. See other errors for details.Msg 8939, Level 16, State 98, Line 2Table error: Object ID 181575685, index ID 255, page (1:1515893). Test (IS_ON (BUF_IOERR, bp->bstat) && bp->berrcode) failed. Values are 2057 and -1.Msg 8928, Level 16, State 1, Line 2Object ID 181575685, index ID 255: Page (1:1515894) could not be processed. See other errors for details.There are 0 rows in 0 pages for object 'cq.attachments_blob'.CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 3 consistency errors in table 'cq.attachments_blob' (object ID 181575685).Msg 8928, Level 16, State 1, Line 2Object ID 629577281, index ID 0: Page (1:2085142) could not be processed. See other errors for details.Msg 8941, Level 16, State 102, Line 2Table error: Object ID 629577281, index ID 0, page (1:2085142). Test (sorted [i].offset <= m_freeData) failed. Slot 3, offset 0x202c is invalid.There are 0 rows in 0 pages for object 'cq.history'.CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 2 consistency errors in table 'cq.history' (object ID 629577281).CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 6 consistency errors in database 'sysdevcq'.repair_allow_data_loss is the minimum repair level for the errors found by DBCC CHECKDB (sysdevcq ).DBCC execution completed. If DBCC printed error messages, contact your system administrator.Can I repair or shall I restore? Where is Paul Randall when I need him.... :)cheersTue, 09 Dec 2008 09:18:35 GMTSQL_EXPAT