I've got a 2000 server (2G usable RAM) where we just
installed SP2. Immediately after installation I began
getting the below error:
The SQL Server cannot obtain a LOCK resource at this time.
Rerun your statement when there are fewer active users or
ask the system administrator to check the SQL Server lock
and memory configuration.
Error: 1204, Severity: 19, State: 1
I've got the default configuration setting for locks of 0
and nothing has changed on this server that I know except
for SP2. Furthermore, I've been monitoring the total
number of locks at any given time and I'm not seeing
anything that should cause problems. The most locks I've
seen is about 40,000.
The last time we got this error msg in the error log, I
had two index defrag jobs going and there was bulk load
and/or delete job running.
Is this simply memory related? Is there anything with SP2
that might cause this (especially if it uses extra memory
for index defrags)?
Any insight would be much appreciated?!Hi Curt.
What is your configuration for locks? Run this to find out:
exec sp_configure 'locks'
Perhaps it got set to 40000 maximum during SP2 installation somehow?
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
"CurtM" <cndmoyer@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:127e01c391b1$29933ce0$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> I've got a 2000 server (2G usable RAM) where we just
> installed SP2. Immediately after installation I began
> getting the below error:
> The SQL Server cannot obtain a LOCK resource at this time.
> Rerun your statement when there are fewer active users or
> ask the system administrator to check the SQL Server lock
> and memory configuration.
> Error: 1204, Severity: 19, State: 1
> I've got the default configuration setting for locks of 0
> and nothing has changed on this server that I know except
> for SP2. Furthermore, I've been monitoring the total
> number of locks at any given time and I'm not seeing
> anything that should cause problems. The most locks I've
> seen is about 40,000.
> The last time we got this error msg in the error log, I
> had two index defrag jobs going and there was bulk load
> and/or delete job running.
> Is this simply memory related? Is there anything with SP2
> that might cause this (especially if it uses extra memory
> for index defrags)?
> Any insight would be much appreciated?!
>|||It is set to 0 for run and config value (which I am sure
it was pre-SP2 as well).
>--Original Message--
>Hi Curt.
>What is your configuration for locks? Run this to find
out:
>exec sp_configure 'locks'
>Perhaps it got set to 40000 maximum during SP2
installation somehow?
>Regards,
>Greg Linwood
>SQL Server MVP
>"CurtM" <cndmoyer@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:127e01c391b1$29933ce0$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
>> I've got a 2000 server (2G usable RAM) where we just
>> installed SP2. Immediately after installation I began
>> getting the below error:
>> The SQL Server cannot obtain a LOCK resource at this
time.
>> Rerun your statement when there are fewer active users
or
>> ask the system administrator to check the SQL Server
lock
>> and memory configuration.
>> Error: 1204, Severity: 19, State: 1
>> I've got the default configuration setting for locks of
0
>> and nothing has changed on this server that I know
except
>> for SP2. Furthermore, I've been monitoring the total
>> number of locks at any given time and I'm not seeing
>> anything that should cause problems. The most locks
I've
>> seen is about 40,000.
>> The last time we got this error msg in the error log, I
>> had two index defrag jobs going and there was bulk load
>> and/or delete job running.
>> Is this simply memory related? Is there anything with
SP2
>> that might cause this (especially if it uses extra
memory
>> for index defrags)?
>> Any insight would be much appreciated?!
>
>.
>|||At this point it is just memory issue and you may have a lot of low
granularity locks such as RID or Key. You may want to escalate if possible
using hints for the problematic query
"CurtM" <cndmoyer@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:08c201c391c9$77b35000$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> It is set to 0 for run and config value (which I am sure
> it was pre-SP2 as well).
> >--Original Message--
> >Hi Curt.
> >
> >What is your configuration for locks? Run this to find
> out:
> >
> >exec sp_configure 'locks'
> >
> >Perhaps it got set to 40000 maximum during SP2
> installation somehow?
> >
> >Regards,
> >Greg Linwood
> >SQL Server MVP
> >
> >"CurtM" <cndmoyer@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:127e01c391b1$29933ce0$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> >> I've got a 2000 server (2G usable RAM) where we just
> >> installed SP2. Immediately after installation I began
> >> getting the below error:
> >>
> >> The SQL Server cannot obtain a LOCK resource at this
> time.
> >> Rerun your statement when there are fewer active users
> or
> >> ask the system administrator to check the SQL Server
> lock
> >> and memory configuration.
> >>
> >> Error: 1204, Severity: 19, State: 1
> >>
> >> I've got the default configuration setting for locks of
> 0
> >> and nothing has changed on this server that I know
> except
> >> for SP2. Furthermore, I've been monitoring the total
> >> number of locks at any given time and I'm not seeing
> >> anything that should cause problems. The most locks
> I've
> >> seen is about 40,000.
> >>
> >> The last time we got this error msg in the error log, I
> >> had two index defrag jobs going and there was bulk load
> >> and/or delete job running.
> >>
> >> Is this simply memory related? Is there anything with
> SP2
> >> that might cause this (especially if it uses extra
> memory
> >> for index defrags)?
> >>
> >> Any insight would be much appreciated?!
> >>
> >
> >
> >.
> >
Showing posts with label sp2. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sp2. Show all posts
Friday, March 23, 2012
Friday, March 9, 2012
Local user XP -> remote XP
HI Guys,
Got the following scenario:
Client machine: Windows XP Pro (SP2), logged in as local user
Server machine: Windows XP Pro (SP2), running SQL Server 2000
both machines in same Domain.
I am attempting to connect from the client to the server using SQL
Server authentication, which is definitely enabled as an option on the
remote machine. SQL Client Network lists TCP/IP and Named Pipes
enabled, with TCP/IP highest. Neither connecting through TCP/IP nor
name pipes (using isql) succeeds, and I get a generic "SQL Server does
not exist" type message through query analyzer.
This started with a problem running an ASP.NET website against a remote
database, but I've verified I can 1) Connect to the server using
Windows Authentication, when I'm logged in as a domain user, 2) Connect
using the SQL Server credentials, when I'm logged in as a domain user.
I wouldn't be surprised for NP to fail when I'm a local user, but
TCP/IP shouldn't be affected by who's logged in, should it?
Okay, normal bits now of "this used to work, and I'm sure I haven't
changed anything". Only thing I have done recently was install the
latest MS updates as delivered through Automatic Updates. I'm not sure
if anything has changed on the server, since it's another devs
development machine, but I wouldn't expect him to have been "playing"
in this area.
I was initially unconcerned by this problem, since our live webserver
talks directly to a local instance of SQL, so all should be well. Until
I remembered that as part of the next rollout, we plan to move the
databases onto a separate box. So I'd like to understand this problem
in the development area in case it happens on live as well.
Sorry for rambling on. And I've probably forgotten something important
too. Thanks in advance for any help.
DamienHi,
I guess secuzrity is blocking your request on the other machine. YOu
have to open the ports of SQL Server on the hosting machine that the
client can connect to an instance. The default port of SQL Server is
1433, but that can be different on your machine if you changed another
one on installation time. For more information about Windows XP SP2 and
SQL Server read the following article.
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;841249
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
--|||Jens wrote:
> Hi,
> I guess secuzrity is blocking your request on the other machine. YOu
> have to open the ports of SQL Server on the hosting machine that the
> client can connect to an instance. The default port of SQL Server is
> 1433, but that can be different on your machine if you changed another
> one on installation time. For more information about Windows XP SP2 and
> SQL Server read the following article.
> http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;841249
> HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
> --
> http://www.sqlserver2005.de
> --
Doh! The thing I forgot to do was... Check that TCP connections worked
directly. Turned out that all my previous succesful connections were NP
connections. So I'll be looking at the firewall then...
Cheers,
Damien
Got the following scenario:
Client machine: Windows XP Pro (SP2), logged in as local user
Server machine: Windows XP Pro (SP2), running SQL Server 2000
both machines in same Domain.
I am attempting to connect from the client to the server using SQL
Server authentication, which is definitely enabled as an option on the
remote machine. SQL Client Network lists TCP/IP and Named Pipes
enabled, with TCP/IP highest. Neither connecting through TCP/IP nor
name pipes (using isql) succeeds, and I get a generic "SQL Server does
not exist" type message through query analyzer.
This started with a problem running an ASP.NET website against a remote
database, but I've verified I can 1) Connect to the server using
Windows Authentication, when I'm logged in as a domain user, 2) Connect
using the SQL Server credentials, when I'm logged in as a domain user.
I wouldn't be surprised for NP to fail when I'm a local user, but
TCP/IP shouldn't be affected by who's logged in, should it?
Okay, normal bits now of "this used to work, and I'm sure I haven't
changed anything". Only thing I have done recently was install the
latest MS updates as delivered through Automatic Updates. I'm not sure
if anything has changed on the server, since it's another devs
development machine, but I wouldn't expect him to have been "playing"
in this area.
I was initially unconcerned by this problem, since our live webserver
talks directly to a local instance of SQL, so all should be well. Until
I remembered that as part of the next rollout, we plan to move the
databases onto a separate box. So I'd like to understand this problem
in the development area in case it happens on live as well.
Sorry for rambling on. And I've probably forgotten something important
too. Thanks in advance for any help.
DamienHi,
I guess secuzrity is blocking your request on the other machine. YOu
have to open the ports of SQL Server on the hosting machine that the
client can connect to an instance. The default port of SQL Server is
1433, but that can be different on your machine if you changed another
one on installation time. For more information about Windows XP SP2 and
SQL Server read the following article.
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;841249
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
--|||Jens wrote:
> Hi,
> I guess secuzrity is blocking your request on the other machine. YOu
> have to open the ports of SQL Server on the hosting machine that the
> client can connect to an instance. The default port of SQL Server is
> 1433, but that can be different on your machine if you changed another
> one on installation time. For more information about Windows XP SP2 and
> SQL Server read the following article.
> http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;841249
> HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
> --
> http://www.sqlserver2005.de
> --
Doh! The thing I forgot to do was... Check that TCP connections worked
directly. Turned out that all my previous succesful connections were NP
connections. So I'll be looking at the firewall then...
Cheers,
Damien
Friday, February 24, 2012
Local connection failure: please help
I Have SQL Server 2000 local installed on a Windows XP SP2 machine,
Dutch version.
SQL Server first connected fine via the default settings 'Use Windows
Authentication'. I use it to test VB.Net practices, which went fine
for a while. I am busy preparing for the 70-310 exam.
Then I had problems with a VB.Net (a webservice) application
connecting to SQL server local. Via a newsgroup someone advised me to
change the login to 'Use SQL Server Authentication'. I used the
default password 'sa' and no password. I couldn't get any connection.
I tried with 'Administrator', but no connection.
When I tried to set it back to 'Use Windows Authentication' I get the
message Connection Failed, check SQL Server registration properties.
When I tried to open the properties of the local SQL Server (LOCAL)
(Windows NT) via the Enterprise Manager I get error 1069. I tried
several usernames, nothing helps. I didn't change the default, so it
should be 'sa' without a password?
Please help, I am stuck for days now.
RoyWell, the only solution was to re-install SQL Server and restore the
databases...
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:16:09 +0200, RC <roycoumans@.hotmail.com> wrote:
>I Have SQL Server 2000 local installed on a Windows XP SP2 machine,
>Dutch version.
>SQL Server first connected fine via the default settings 'Use Windows
>Authentication'. I use it to test VB.Net practices, which went fine
>for a while. I am busy preparing for the 70-310 exam.
>Then I had problems with a VB.Net (a webservice) application
>connecting to SQL server local. Via a newsgroup someone advised me to
>change the login to 'Use SQL Server Authentication'. I used the
>default password 'sa' and no password. I couldn't get any connection.
>I tried with 'Administrator', but no connection.
>When I tried to set it back to 'Use Windows Authentication' I get the
>message Connection Failed, check SQL Server registration properties.
>When I tried to open the properties of the local SQL Server (LOCAL)
>(Windows NT) via the Enterprise Manager I get error 1069. I tried
>several usernames, nothing helps. I didn't change the default, so it
>should be 'sa' without a password?
>Please help, I am stuck for days now.
>Roy
Dutch version.
SQL Server first connected fine via the default settings 'Use Windows
Authentication'. I use it to test VB.Net practices, which went fine
for a while. I am busy preparing for the 70-310 exam.
Then I had problems with a VB.Net (a webservice) application
connecting to SQL server local. Via a newsgroup someone advised me to
change the login to 'Use SQL Server Authentication'. I used the
default password 'sa' and no password. I couldn't get any connection.
I tried with 'Administrator', but no connection.
When I tried to set it back to 'Use Windows Authentication' I get the
message Connection Failed, check SQL Server registration properties.
When I tried to open the properties of the local SQL Server (LOCAL)
(Windows NT) via the Enterprise Manager I get error 1069. I tried
several usernames, nothing helps. I didn't change the default, so it
should be 'sa' without a password?
Please help, I am stuck for days now.
RoyWell, the only solution was to re-install SQL Server and restore the
databases...
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:16:09 +0200, RC <roycoumans@.hotmail.com> wrote:
>I Have SQL Server 2000 local installed on a Windows XP SP2 machine,
>Dutch version.
>SQL Server first connected fine via the default settings 'Use Windows
>Authentication'. I use it to test VB.Net practices, which went fine
>for a while. I am busy preparing for the 70-310 exam.
>Then I had problems with a VB.Net (a webservice) application
>connecting to SQL server local. Via a newsgroup someone advised me to
>change the login to 'Use SQL Server Authentication'. I used the
>default password 'sa' and no password. I couldn't get any connection.
>I tried with 'Administrator', but no connection.
>When I tried to set it back to 'Use Windows Authentication' I get the
>message Connection Failed, check SQL Server registration properties.
>When I tried to open the properties of the local SQL Server (LOCAL)
>(Windows NT) via the Enterprise Manager I get error 1069. I tried
>several usernames, nothing helps. I didn't change the default, so it
>should be 'sa' without a password?
>Please help, I am stuck for days now.
>Roy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)