Error 207: latest

Showing posts with label latest. Show all posts

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Error 946: Cannot open database upgrade the database to the latest

I am trying to move a database from SQL Server 70 @. 70 compatibility level to
SQL Server 2000 @. 70 compatibility level.
But when execute restore stmt (cmd), I keep getting the errors:
Server: Msg 9002, Level 17, State 6, Line 2
The log file for database 'my_db' is full. Back up the transaction log for
the database to free up some log space.
Server: Msg 3013, Level 16, State 1, Line 2
RESTORE DATABASE is terminating abnormally.
Converting database 'my_db' from version 515 to the current version 539.
Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 515 to version 524.
Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 524 to version 525.
Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 525 to version 526.
Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 526 to version 527.
Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 527 to version 528.
Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 528 to version 529.
Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 529 to version 530.
Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 530 to version 531.
Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 531 to version 532.
Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 532 to version 533.
Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 533 to version 534.
Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 534 to version 535.
Error 946: Cannot open database upgrade the database to the latest version
Any idea, how I can restore w/o errors?Hi,
Looks like you do not have enough room in your hard disk in which the LDF
file resides. Could you identify the drive with more space and use
RESTORE DATABASE command with MOVE options to restore the database. See
Restore with Move option in Books online.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Pari" <Pari@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C74D6B5B-436D-4288-ABF3-31C835CC236B@.microsoft.com...
>I am trying to move a database from SQL Server 70 @. 70 compatibility level
>to
> SQL Server 2000 @. 70 compatibility level.
> But when execute restore stmt (cmd), I keep getting the errors:
> Server: Msg 9002, Level 17, State 6, Line 2
> The log file for database 'my_db' is full. Back up the transaction log for
> the database to free up some log space.
> Server: Msg 3013, Level 16, State 1, Line 2
> RESTORE DATABASE is terminating abnormally.
> Converting database 'my_db' from version 515 to the current version 539.
> Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 515 to version 524.
> Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 524 to version 525.
> Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 525 to version 526.
> Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 526 to version 527.
> Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 527 to version 528.
> Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 528 to version 529.
> Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 529 to version 530.
> Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 530 to version 531.
> Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 531 to version 532.
> Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 532 to version 533.
> Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 533 to version 534.
> Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 534 to version 535.
> Error 946: Cannot open database upgrade the database to the latest version
>
> Any idea, how I can restore w/o errors?|||Hi
For an Upgrade, SQL Server needs space in the transaction log to work. You
don't have enough.
On the SQL Server 7.0, before you make the backup, dump the log, grow the
transaction log to at least 10% of the database size, then do the backup and
then the restore the SQL Server 2000.
Regards
Mike
"Pari" wrote:
> I am trying to move a database from SQL Server 70 @. 70 compatibility level to
> SQL Server 2000 @. 70 compatibility level.
> But when execute restore stmt (cmd), I keep getting the errors:
> Server: Msg 9002, Level 17, State 6, Line 2
> The log file for database 'my_db' is full. Back up the transaction log for
> the database to free up some log space.
> Server: Msg 3013, Level 16, State 1, Line 2
> RESTORE DATABASE is terminating abnormally.
> Converting database 'my_db' from version 515 to the current version 539.
> Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 515 to version 524.
> Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 524 to version 525.
> Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 525 to version 526.
> Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 526 to version 527.
> Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 527 to version 528.
> Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 528 to version 529.
> Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 529 to version 530.
> Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 530 to version 531.
> Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 531 to version 532.
> Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 532 to version 533.
> Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 533 to version 534.
> Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 534 to version 535.
> Error 946: Cannot open database upgrade the database to the latest version
>
> Any idea, how I can restore w/o errors?|||Hi, you are right my log file did not have enough space, however, do you know
what these messages mean?
> > Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 524 to version 525.
> > Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 525 to version 526.
> > Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 526 to version 527.
> > Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 527 to version 528.
> > Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 528 to version 529.
Does it mean its upgrading the DB from 70 compatibility to 80'
Thanks
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> For an Upgrade, SQL Server needs space in the transaction log to work. You
> don't have enough.
> On the SQL Server 7.0, before you make the backup, dump the log, grow the
> transaction log to at least 10% of the database size, then do the backup and
> then the restore the SQL Server 2000.
> Regards
> Mike
> "Pari" wrote:
> > I am trying to move a database from SQL Server 70 @. 70 compatibility level to
> > SQL Server 2000 @. 70 compatibility level.
> >
> > But when execute restore stmt (cmd), I keep getting the errors:
> >
> > Server: Msg 9002, Level 17, State 6, Line 2
> > The log file for database 'my_db' is full. Back up the transaction log for
> > the database to free up some log space.
> > Server: Msg 3013, Level 16, State 1, Line 2
> > RESTORE DATABASE is terminating abnormally.
> > Converting database 'my_db' from version 515 to the current version 539.
> > Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 515 to version 524.
> > Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 524 to version 525.
> > Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 525 to version 526.
> > Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 526 to version 527.
> > Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 527 to version 528.
> > Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 528 to version 529.
> > Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 529 to version 530.
> > Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 530 to version 531.
> > Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 531 to version 532.
> > Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 532 to version 533.
> > Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 533 to version 534.
> > Database 'my_db' running the upgrade step from version 534 to version 535.
> > Error 946: Cannot open database upgrade the database to the latest version
> >
> >
> > Any idea, how I can restore w/o errors?

Error 946: Cannot open database upgrade the database to the latest

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Error 8525: Distributed transaction completed. Either enlist this session ... PROBLEM!

Hi there,
Fun problem for a Monday morning (NOT!). Running a stored procedure on
one server (SQL 2000, with latest patches), which is similar to the
example below, in connecting to a linked server to archive data out
from 'SERVER2' to a database on 'SERVER1' (the code below is obviously
a simplified part of the actual code to illustrate the functionality).
The stored procedure is run via a job on 'SERVER1'
This was OK, but recently we upgraded to a new clustered server and
are getting these problems now and again. The DBA informs me all looks
OK for the MSDTC and the Component Services is looking OK. Are there
any tips out there'
Thanks for any ideas.
Rob
--Running on SERVER1
CREATE TABLE #RecordsToDelete
(RefId varchar(100) NOT NULL)
INSERT INTO #RecordsToDelete
SELECT RefID FROM SERVER2.MyDB.dbo.MyTable
WHERE [name] = 'Jo Bloggs'
BEGIN DISTRIBUTED TRAN
INSERT INTO HISTORY.dbo.MyTable mt
SELECT * FROM SERVER2.MyDB.dbo.MyTable mt
JOIN #RecordsToDelete rtd ON rtd.RefID = mt.RefID
DELETE FROM SERVER2.MyDB.dbo.MyTable
WHERE RefID IN (SELECT RefId FROM #RecordsToDelete)
COMMIT> Fun problem for a Monday morning (NOT!). Running a stored procedure on
> one server (SQL 2000, with latest patches), which is similar to the
> example below, in connecting to a linked server to archive data out
> from 'SERVER2' to a database on 'SERVER1' (the code below is obviously
> a simplified part of the actual code to illustrate the functionality).
> The stored procedure is run via a job on 'SERVER1'
If the other server is 7.0, then this article might help:
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...b;en-us;834849.
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
Associate Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
More than just Training
www.SolidQualityLearning.com|||"Dejan Sarka" <dejan_please_reply_to_newsgroups.sarka@.avtenta.si> wrote in m
essage news:<e90GmTCsEHA.1164@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>...

> If the other server is 7.0, then this article might help:
> http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...b;en-us;834849.
No, they are both SQL Server 2000, which makes it confusing as the
only explanation/docmentation on this problem is to do with one server
being SQL Server 7.0!
Regards
Rob

Error 8525: Distributed transaction completed. Either enlist this session ... PROBLEM!

Hi there,
Fun problem for a Monday morning (NOT!). Running a stored procedure on
one server (SQL 2000, with latest patches), which is similar to the
example below, in connecting to a linked server to archive data out
from 'SERVER2' to a database on 'SERVER1' (the code below is obviously
a simplified part of the actual code to illustrate the functionality).
The stored procedure is run via a job on 'SERVER1'
This was OK, but recently we upgraded to a new clustered server and
are getting these problems now and again. The DBA informs me all looks
OK for the MSDTC and the Component Services is looking OK. Are there
any tips out there?
Thanks for any ideas.
Rob
--Running on SERVER1
CREATE TABLE #RecordsToDelete
(RefIdvarchar(100) NOT NULL)
INSERT INTO #RecordsToDelete
SELECT RefID FROM SERVER2.MyDB.dbo.MyTable
WHERE [name] = 'Jo Bloggs'
BEGIN DISTRIBUTED TRAN
INSERT INTO HISTORY.dbo.MyTable mt
SELECT * FROM SERVER2.MyDB.dbo.MyTable mt
JOIN #RecordsToDelete rtd ON rtd.RefID = mt.RefID
DELETE FROM SERVER2.MyDB.dbo.MyTable
WHERE RefID IN (SELECT RefId FROM #RecordsToDelete)
COMMIT
> Fun problem for a Monday morning (NOT!). Running a stored procedure on
> one server (SQL 2000, with latest patches), which is similar to the
> example below, in connecting to a linked server to archive data out
> from 'SERVER2' to a database on 'SERVER1' (the code below is obviously
> a simplified part of the actual code to illustrate the functionality).
> The stored procedure is run via a job on 'SERVER1'
If the other server is 7.0, then this article might help:
http://support.microsoft.com/default...;en-us;834849.
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
Associate Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
More than just Training
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
|||"Dejan Sarka" <dejan_please_reply_to_newsgroups.sarka@.avtenta.si > wrote in message news:<e90GmTCsEHA.1164@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>...

> If the other server is 7.0, then this article might help:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...;en-us;834849.
No, they are both SQL Server 2000, which makes it confusing as the
only explanation/docmentation on this problem is to do with one server
being SQL Server 7.0!
Regards
Rob

Error 8525: Distributed transaction completed. Either enlist this session ... PROBLEM!

Hi there,
Fun problem for a Monday morning (NOT!). Running a stored procedure on
one server (SQL 2000, with latest patches), which is similar to the
example below, in connecting to a linked server to archive data out
from 'SERVER2' to a database on 'SERVER1' (the code below is obviously
a simplified part of the actual code to illustrate the functionality).
The stored procedure is run via a job on 'SERVER1'
This was OK, but recently we upgraded to a new clustered server and
are getting these problems now and again. The DBA informs me all looks
OK for the MSDTC and the Component Services is looking OK. Are there
any tips out there'
Thanks for any ideas.
Rob
--Running on SERVER1
CREATE TABLE #RecordsToDelete
(RefId varchar(100) NOT NULL)
INSERT INTO #RecordsToDelete
SELECT RefID FROM SERVER2.MyDB.dbo.MyTable
WHERE [name] = 'Jo Bloggs'
BEGIN DISTRIBUTED TRAN
INSERT INTO HISTORY.dbo.MyTable mt
SELECT * FROM SERVER2.MyDB.dbo.MyTable mt
JOIN #RecordsToDelete rtd ON rtd.RefID = mt.RefID
DELETE FROM SERVER2.MyDB.dbo.MyTable
WHERE RefID IN (SELECT RefId FROM #RecordsToDelete)
COMMIT> Fun problem for a Monday morning (NOT!). Running a stored procedure on
> one server (SQL 2000, with latest patches), which is similar to the
> example below, in connecting to a linked server to archive data out
> from 'SERVER2' to a database on 'SERVER1' (the code below is obviously
> a simplified part of the actual code to illustrate the functionality).
> The stored procedure is run via a job on 'SERVER1'
If the other server is 7.0, then this article might help:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;834849.
--
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
Associate Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
More than just Training
www.SolidQualityLearning.com|||"Dejan Sarka" <dejan_please_reply_to_newsgroups.sarka@.avtenta.si> wrote in message news:<e90GmTCsEHA.1164@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>...
> If the other server is 7.0, then this article might help:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;834849.
No, they are both SQL Server 2000, which makes it confusing as the
only explanation/docmentation on this problem is to do with one server
being SQL Server 7.0!
Regards
Rob

Sunday, February 26, 2012

Error 3409 when trying to link to SQL Server table

Hi,
We are using SQL Server 2000 (latest SP) on Windows Server 2003.
Recently we made database changes where we deleted a number of columns from
the highest level table in our database hierarchy (every other table is
either a child or grandchild of this table).
Since we did that we can no linker establish links from Access 2003 to this
table. When we try, we get the following error message:
Invalid field definition <STAMP1> in definition of index or relationship.
(Error 3409)
STAMP1 is our Primary Key field.
None of the fields we deleted were index fields, and none were keys. We have
been racking our brains trying to find the issue but to no avail. Please
help. Thank you.A long time ago with access 2003 I ran into a similar problem. What I
had to do was to go into the Access application, delete all of the
linked tables, check the queries/reports, and finally relink the
tables given the names used in the queries and reports. After a
meticulous going over, it worked. I know from using it though, it
seems like everytime you make a change to the strcture (an index, PK,
etc) you have to relink the tables from Access.
Let me know what you find out.
-Sean
On Feb 29, 1:09=A0pm, Berean <Ber...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> We are using SQL Server 2000 (latest SP) on Windows Server 2003.
> Recently we made database changes where we deleted a number of columns fro=m
> the highest level table in our database hierarchy (every other table is
> either a child or grandchild of this table).
> Since we did that we can no linker establish links from Access 2003 to thi=s
> table. When we try, we get the following error message:
> Invalid field definition <STAMP1> in definition of index or relationship.
> (Error 3409)
> STAMP1 is our Primary Key field.
> None of the fields we deleted were index fields, and none were keys. We ha=ve
> been racking our brains trying to find the issue but to no avail. Please
> help. Thank you.|||Hi Sean,
The effect is happening when anyone tries to link to the SQL Server table,
whether the link was preexisting or not. Even new link attempts generate the
same error.
We have tried rebuilding the indexes on SQL Server and even tried making a
dummy table with the data but no indexes. We could link to the dummy but not
to the one with indexes.
"Berean" wrote:
> Hi,
> We are using SQL Server 2000 (latest SP) on Windows Server 2003.
> Recently we made database changes where we deleted a number of columns from
> the highest level table in our database hierarchy (every other table is
> either a child or grandchild of this table).
> Since we did that we can no linker establish links from Access 2003 to this
> table. When we try, we get the following error message:
> Invalid field definition <STAMP1> in definition of index or relationship.
> (Error 3409)
> STAMP1 is our Primary Key field.
> None of the fields we deleted were index fields, and none were keys. We have
> been racking our brains trying to find the issue but to no avail. Please
> help. Thank you.|||We recently tried rebuilding and renaming all indexes, and are receiving the
same error.
To restate, this is occuring whether we open existing links to Access or try
to build new ones, and only happens on the table we dropped some columns
from.
"Berean" wrote:
> Hi Sean,
> The effect is happening when anyone tries to link to the SQL Server table,
> whether the link was preexisting or not. Even new link attempts generate the
> same error.
> We have tried rebuilding the indexes on SQL Server and even tried making a
> dummy table with the data but no indexes. We could link to the dummy but not
> to the one with indexes.
> "Berean" wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We are using SQL Server 2000 (latest SP) on Windows Server 2003.
> >
> > Recently we made database changes where we deleted a number of columns from
> > the highest level table in our database hierarchy (every other table is
> > either a child or grandchild of this table).
> >
> > Since we did that we can no linker establish links from Access 2003 to this
> > table. When we try, we get the following error message:
> >
> > Invalid field definition <STAMP1> in definition of index or relationship.
> > (Error 3409)
> >
> > STAMP1 is our Primary Key field.
> >
> > None of the fields we deleted were index fields, and none were keys. We have
> > been racking our brains trying to find the issue but to no avail. Please
> > help. Thank you.

Error 3409 when trying to link to SQL Server table

Hi,
We are using SQL Server 2000 (latest SP) on Windows Server 2003.
Recently we made database changes where we deleted a number of columns from
the highest level table in our database hierarchy (every other table is
either a child or grandchild of this table).
Since we did that we can no linker establish links from Access 2003 to this
table. When we try, we get the following error message:
Invalid field definition <STAMP1> in definition of index or relationship.
(Error 3409)
STAMP1 is our Primary Key field.
None of the fields we deleted were index fields, and none were keys. We have
been racking our brains trying to find the issue but to no avail. Please
help. Thank you.
A long time ago with access 2003 I ran into a similar problem. What I
had to do was to go into the Access application, delete all of the
linked tables, check the queries/reports, and finally relink the
tables given the names used in the queries and reports. After a
meticulous going over, it worked. I know from using it though, it
seems like everytime you make a change to the strcture (an index, PK,
etc) you have to relink the tables from Access.
Let me know what you find out.
-Sean
On Feb 29, 1:09Xpm, Berean <Ber...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> We are using SQL Server 2000 (latest SP) on Windows Server 2003.
> Recently we made database changes where we deleted a number of columns from
> the highest level table in our database hierarchy (every other table is
> either a child or grandchild of this table).
> Since we did that we can no linker establish links from Access 2003 to this
> table. When we try, we get the following error message:
> Invalid field definition <STAMP1> in definition of index or relationship.
> (Error 3409)
> STAMP1 is our Primary Key field.
> None of the fields we deleted were index fields, and none were keys. We have
> been racking our brains trying to find the issue but to no avail. Please
> help. Thank you.
|||Hi Sean,
The effect is happening when anyone tries to link to the SQL Server table,
whether the link was preexisting or not. Even new link attempts generate the
same error.
We have tried rebuilding the indexes on SQL Server and even tried making a
dummy table with the data but no indexes. We could link to the dummy but not
to the one with indexes.
"Berean" wrote:

> Hi,
> We are using SQL Server 2000 (latest SP) on Windows Server 2003.
> Recently we made database changes where we deleted a number of columns from
> the highest level table in our database hierarchy (every other table is
> either a child or grandchild of this table).
> Since we did that we can no linker establish links from Access 2003 to this
> table. When we try, we get the following error message:
> Invalid field definition <STAMP1> in definition of index or relationship.
> (Error 3409)
> STAMP1 is our Primary Key field.
> None of the fields we deleted were index fields, and none were keys. We have
> been racking our brains trying to find the issue but to no avail. Please
> help. Thank you.
|||We recently tried rebuilding and renaming all indexes, and are receiving the
same error.
To restate, this is occuring whether we open existing links to Access or try
to build new ones, and only happens on the table we dropped some columns
from.
"Berean" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Sean,
> The effect is happening when anyone tries to link to the SQL Server table,
> whether the link was preexisting or not. Even new link attempts generate the
> same error.
> We have tried rebuilding the indexes on SQL Server and even tried making a
> dummy table with the data but no indexes. We could link to the dummy but not
> to the one with indexes.
> "Berean" wrote:

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Error 946: Cannot open database upgrade the database to the latest

Error 946: Cannot open database upgrade the database to the latest

Error 946: Cannot open database upgrade the database to the latest

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Error 8525: Distributed transaction completed. Either enlist this session ... PROBLEM!

Error 8525: Distributed transaction completed. Either enlist this session ... PROBLEM!

Error 8525: Distributed transaction completed. Either enlist this session ... PROBLEM!

Sunday, February 26, 2012

Error 3409 when trying to link to SQL Server table

Error 3409 when trying to link to SQL Server table

Error 207

Blog Archive

About Me