Hi all and I appreciate any help
I recently been assigned to a project that has an ms-access front end and sql server 2000 sp4 as the database engine.
The database was replicated (merge replication) but for some reason they drop replication and when they tried to put it back on they got allot of problems and so they paused it.
My task now is to make it work again. After allot of reading I desided to clean the database and start from the beginning. Using some scripts and instructions on a copy of the database I cleaned all the tables related to merge replication but when I went back to ms-access to update a record I got an error
"invalid column name 'rowguid'" . I checked all my tables in my database but I find not such column as it was dropped using the scripts.
Any ideas that I can use?
Thanks allot,
Georgehi ahain
Some more information
My version is:
Microsoft SQL Server 2000 - 8.00.2039 (Intel X86)
May 3 2005 23:18:38 Copyright (c) 1988-2003
Microsoft Corporation Personal Edition on Windows NT 5.1
(Build 2600: Service Pack 2)
SP4
The database I was given had a pull subscription on it that I removed. There is no table column rowguid in the ms-access code as I debuged and checked and there are no rowguid columns in the tables because they were cleaned.
My quess is that this message is an sql server exception.
If you need more information please ask me as these problem cannot let me move on.
I can try to clean the merge replication again if I' given some understantable guidance.
The database I'm working on has a pull merge subscription on it.
Thanks allot.
Showing posts with label sp4. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sp4. Show all posts
Monday, March 12, 2012
Friday, March 9, 2012
Invalid buffer received from client.
I'm having seriouos trouble after installing SP4. I have an application writ
ten in ASP.NET 1.1 which worked fine with SQL 2000 SP3, but after upgrading
to SP4, the application totally crashed while trying to access the database.
It gives an error saying a
severe error has occued on the server. The
event log on the server has the following logged:
Error: 17805, Severity: 20, State: 3
Invalid buffer received from client.
For more information, see Help and Support Center at http://go.microsoft.com/fwlin
k/events.asp.
I'm sure it's SP4 because after I reinstalled SQL Server with SP3, everythin
g worked fine again. The server is running Windows 2003 SP1.
Anyone else having this problem or have a solution?Sp4 reduces the network packet size to 32767. Consider adjusting your app to
avoid the error.
<quote>
In SP4, the maximum value for the network packet size option (set using
sp_configure) is 32767. This is slightly less than half the previous maximum
of 65536. During upgrade, existing values larger than 32767 will
automatically be adjusted to 32767. If a script attempts to use sp_configure
to set a value larger than 32767 but less than or equal to 65536, the value
will also be set to 32767. Setting the network packet size to a value larger
than 65536 results in an error.
</quote>
There's used to be a bug even when the network packet size was set to
65535...
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/875411
-oj
"Watery" <waterydan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42813312@.duster.adelaide.on.net...
> I'm having seriouos trouble after installing SP4. I have an application
> written in ASP.NET 1.1 which worked fine with SQL 2000 SP3, but after
> upgrading to SP4, the application totally crashed while trying to access
> the database. It gives an error saying a severe error has occued on the
> server. The event log on the server has the following logged:
> Error: 17805, Severity: 20, State: 3
> Invalid buffer received from client.
> For more information, see Help and Support Center at
> http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/events.asp.
> I'm sure it's SP4 because after I reinstalled SQL Server with SP3,
> everything worked fine again. The server is running Windows 2003 SP1.
> Anyone else having this problem or have a solution?|||Thanks oj...
Do you have an example of how to change the packet size to 32767 - is it thr
ough the connection string? At the moment, it has packet size set to 4096.
oj wrote:
> Sp4 reduces the network packet size to 32767. Consider adjusting your app
to
> avoid the error.
> <quote>
> In SP4, the maximum value for the network packet size option (set using
> sp_configure) is 32767. This is slightly less than half the previous maxim
um
> of 65536. During upgrade, existing values larger than 32767 will
> automatically be adjusted to 32767. If a script attempts to use sp_configu
re
> to set a value larger than 32767 but less than or equal to 65536, the valu
e
> will also be set to 32767. Setting the network packet size to a value larg
er
> than 65536 results in an error.
> </quote>
> There's used to be a bug even when the network packet size was set to
> 65535...
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/875411
>|||Yes. You want to specify the "Packet Size=xxx" in your connectionstring.
According to the article, you might want to limit each of your insert batch
to 32767 rows.
-oj
"Watery" <waterydan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42817d1b$1@.duster.adelaide.on.net...
> Thanks oj...
> Do you have an example of how to change the packet size to 32767 - is it
> through the connection string? At the moment, it has packet size set to
> 4096.
> oj wrote:|||I tried what you suggested but with no vail.
Here's my connection string:
UID=user;PWD=password;Initial Catalog=DatabaseName;Data Source=ServerName;Pa
cket Size=4096;
I tried the packet size 2048, 1024, 768 but they all return the same error.
Any help is greatly appreciated!
oj wrote:
> Yes. You want to specify the "Packet Size=xxx" in your connectionstring.
> According to the article, you might want to limit each of your insert batc
h
> to 32767 rows.
>|||Perhaps, you want to explicitly define the sqldbtype for the sqlparameter
and be sure the length is not exceeding the allowable for the specified
type.
If you post your code (.Net call + sql), someone will take a closer look.
-oj
"Watery" <waterydan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:428293aa$1@.duster.adelaide.on.net...
>I tried what you suggested but with no vail.
> Here's my connection string:
> UID=user;PWD=password;Initial Catalog=DatabaseName;Data
> Source=ServerName;Packet Size=4096;
> I tried the packet size 2048, 1024, 768 but they all return the same
> error.
> Any help is greatly appreciated!
> oj wrote:|||Thanks oj... I changed my code as you suggested and it is now working! :)
But now it runs extremely slow and frequently timeout. Any solution to this
problem as well?
oj wrote:
> Perhaps, you want to explicitly define the sqldbtype for the sqlparameter
> and be sure the length is not exceeding the allowable for the specified
> type.
> If you post your code (.Net call + sql), someone will take a closer look.
>|||Double check your sql to make sure proper indexes installed. Check out these
to see if they help:
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=308049
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/224587/
-oj
"Watery" <waterydan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4282bc9e@.duster.adelaide.on.net...
> Thanks oj... I changed my code as you suggested and it is now working! :)
> But now it runs extremely slow and frequently timeout. Any solution to
> this problem as well?
>
> oj wrote:|||Thanks oj... It's working fine now...
The problem was caused by creating an SQL parameter using DbType instead of
SqlDbType. I was trying to create a generic data provider that connects to b
oth Oracle and SQL Server. Now I think I have to map the individual DbType t
o SqlDbType.
Anyway, thanks for your help!! Much appreciated!
oj wrote:
> Double check your sql to make sure proper indexes installed. Check out the
se
> to see if they help:
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=308049
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/224587/
>|||You're very welcome.
-oj
"Watery" <waterydan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4282ce51@.duster.adelaide.on.net...
> Thanks oj... It's working fine now...
> The problem was caused by creating an SQL parameter using DbType instead
> of SqlDbType. I was trying to create a generic data provider that connects
> to both Oracle and SQL Server. Now I think I have to map the individual
> DbType to SqlDbType.
> Anyway, thanks for your help!! Much appreciated!
> oj wrote:
ten in ASP.NET 1.1 which worked fine with SQL 2000 SP3, but after upgrading
to SP4, the application totally crashed while trying to access the database.
It gives an error saying a
severe error has occued on the server. The
event log on the server has the following logged:
Error: 17805, Severity: 20, State: 3
Invalid buffer received from client.
For more information, see Help and Support Center at http://go.microsoft.com/fwlin
k/events.asp.
I'm sure it's SP4 because after I reinstalled SQL Server with SP3, everythin
g worked fine again. The server is running Windows 2003 SP1.
Anyone else having this problem or have a solution?Sp4 reduces the network packet size to 32767. Consider adjusting your app to
avoid the error.
<quote>
In SP4, the maximum value for the network packet size option (set using
sp_configure) is 32767. This is slightly less than half the previous maximum
of 65536. During upgrade, existing values larger than 32767 will
automatically be adjusted to 32767. If a script attempts to use sp_configure
to set a value larger than 32767 but less than or equal to 65536, the value
will also be set to 32767. Setting the network packet size to a value larger
than 65536 results in an error.
</quote>
There's used to be a bug even when the network packet size was set to
65535...
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/875411
-oj
"Watery" <waterydan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42813312@.duster.adelaide.on.net...
> I'm having seriouos trouble after installing SP4. I have an application
> written in ASP.NET 1.1 which worked fine with SQL 2000 SP3, but after
> upgrading to SP4, the application totally crashed while trying to access
> the database. It gives an error saying a severe error has occued on the
> server. The event log on the server has the following logged:
> Error: 17805, Severity: 20, State: 3
> Invalid buffer received from client.
> For more information, see Help and Support Center at
> http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/events.asp.
> I'm sure it's SP4 because after I reinstalled SQL Server with SP3,
> everything worked fine again. The server is running Windows 2003 SP1.
> Anyone else having this problem or have a solution?|||Thanks oj...
Do you have an example of how to change the packet size to 32767 - is it thr
ough the connection string? At the moment, it has packet size set to 4096.
oj wrote:
> Sp4 reduces the network packet size to 32767. Consider adjusting your app
to
> avoid the error.
> <quote>
> In SP4, the maximum value for the network packet size option (set using
> sp_configure) is 32767. This is slightly less than half the previous maxim
um
> of 65536. During upgrade, existing values larger than 32767 will
> automatically be adjusted to 32767. If a script attempts to use sp_configu
re
> to set a value larger than 32767 but less than or equal to 65536, the valu
e
> will also be set to 32767. Setting the network packet size to a value larg
er
> than 65536 results in an error.
> </quote>
> There's used to be a bug even when the network packet size was set to
> 65535...
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/875411
>|||Yes. You want to specify the "Packet Size=xxx" in your connectionstring.
According to the article, you might want to limit each of your insert batch
to 32767 rows.
-oj
"Watery" <waterydan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42817d1b$1@.duster.adelaide.on.net...
> Thanks oj...
> Do you have an example of how to change the packet size to 32767 - is it
> through the connection string? At the moment, it has packet size set to
> 4096.
> oj wrote:|||I tried what you suggested but with no vail.
Here's my connection string:
UID=user;PWD=password;Initial Catalog=DatabaseName;Data Source=ServerName;Pa
cket Size=4096;
I tried the packet size 2048, 1024, 768 but they all return the same error.
Any help is greatly appreciated!
oj wrote:
> Yes. You want to specify the "Packet Size=xxx" in your connectionstring.
> According to the article, you might want to limit each of your insert batc
h
> to 32767 rows.
>|||Perhaps, you want to explicitly define the sqldbtype for the sqlparameter
and be sure the length is not exceeding the allowable for the specified
type.
If you post your code (.Net call + sql), someone will take a closer look.
-oj
"Watery" <waterydan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:428293aa$1@.duster.adelaide.on.net...
>I tried what you suggested but with no vail.
> Here's my connection string:
> UID=user;PWD=password;Initial Catalog=DatabaseName;Data
> Source=ServerName;Packet Size=4096;
> I tried the packet size 2048, 1024, 768 but they all return the same
> error.
> Any help is greatly appreciated!
> oj wrote:|||Thanks oj... I changed my code as you suggested and it is now working! :)
But now it runs extremely slow and frequently timeout. Any solution to this
problem as well?
oj wrote:
> Perhaps, you want to explicitly define the sqldbtype for the sqlparameter
> and be sure the length is not exceeding the allowable for the specified
> type.
> If you post your code (.Net call + sql), someone will take a closer look.
>|||Double check your sql to make sure proper indexes installed. Check out these
to see if they help:
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=308049
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/224587/
-oj
"Watery" <waterydan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4282bc9e@.duster.adelaide.on.net...
> Thanks oj... I changed my code as you suggested and it is now working! :)
> But now it runs extremely slow and frequently timeout. Any solution to
> this problem as well?
>
> oj wrote:|||Thanks oj... It's working fine now...
The problem was caused by creating an SQL parameter using DbType instead of
SqlDbType. I was trying to create a generic data provider that connects to b
oth Oracle and SQL Server. Now I think I have to map the individual DbType t
o SqlDbType.
Anyway, thanks for your help!! Much appreciated!
oj wrote:
> Double check your sql to make sure proper indexes installed. Check out the
se
> to see if they help:
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=308049
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/224587/
>|||You're very welcome.
-oj
"Watery" <waterydan@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4282ce51@.duster.adelaide.on.net...
> Thanks oj... It's working fine now...
> The problem was caused by creating an SQL parameter using DbType instead
> of SqlDbType. I was trying to create a generic data provider that connects
> to both Oracle and SQL Server. Now I think I have to map the individual
> DbType to SqlDbType.
> Anyway, thanks for your help!! Much appreciated!
> oj wrote:
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Intra-query parallelism bug fix for SQL Server 2000 SP4?
Hello,
We are running SQL Server 2000 SP4 on a server with dual-core CPU.
Recently we have noticed the following error message:
"Intra-query parallelism caused your server command (process ID #52) to
deadlock. Rerun the query ..."
I wonder if there is a fix available for that problem.
Thanks.You could try adding OPTION (MAXDOP 1) to the offending query.
--
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
"miline" <miline@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E8AAEB66-94B8-4A9E-BC5D-49EC773543B1@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> We are running SQL Server 2000 SP4 on a server with dual-core CPU.
> Recently we have noticed the following error message:
> "Intra-query parallelism caused your server command (process ID #52) to
> deadlock. Rerun the query ..."
> I wonder if there is a fix available for that problem.
> Thanks.
>|||Thank you for response.
Unfortunately I can not modify the application query. I can disable
parallelism for the whole server but that can decrease performance of the
production server. I am specifically looking for a fix from Microsoft if it
is available.
Regards,
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> You could try adding OPTION (MAXDOP 1) to the offending query.
> --
> Aaron Bertrand
> SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "miline" <miline@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E8AAEB66-94B8-4A9E-BC5D-49EC773543B1@.microsoft.com...
> > Hello,
> > We are running SQL Server 2000 SP4 on a server with dual-core CPU.
> > Recently we have noticed the following error message:
> >
> > "Intra-query parallelism caused your server command (process ID #52) to
> > deadlock. Rerun the query ..."
> >
> > I wonder if there is a fix available for that problem.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
>
>|||> Unfortunately I can not modify the application query. I can disable
> parallelism for the whole server but that can decrease performance of the
> production server. I am specifically looking for a fix from Microsoft if
> it
> is available.
Some other workarounds here:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/837983
Also see
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/317821
(Just don't try to follow the three KB articles mentioned at the bottom;
they've all been pulled.)
--
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
> Regards,
> "Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
>> You could try adding OPTION (MAXDOP 1) to the offending query.
>> --
>> Aaron Bertrand
>> SQL Server MVP
>>
>>
>> "miline" <miline@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:E8AAEB66-94B8-4A9E-BC5D-49EC773543B1@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hello,
>> > We are running SQL Server 2000 SP4 on a server with dual-core CPU.
>> > Recently we have noticed the following error message:
>> >
>> > "Intra-query parallelism caused your server command (process ID #52) to
>> > deadlock. Rerun the query ..."
>> >
>> > I wonder if there is a fix available for that problem.
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> >
>>|||Thanks. I already saw that.
According to it, the only remaining option would be "enable the pre-SQL
Server 2000 SP3 parallel scan behavior" by setting trace flag 683 on (I would
not like to disable multi-processor support unless very necessary). It is not
quite clear what does it mean "pre-SQL Server 2000 SP3"; I do have SQL Server
2000 SP4. And the trace flag 683 is not mentioned in BOL, not sure if it will
help with SP4. That error message does not appear very often; I can not test
it immediatelly.
Regards,
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> > Unfortunately I can not modify the application query. I can disable
> > parallelism for the whole server but that can decrease performance of the
> > production server. I am specifically looking for a fix from Microsoft if
> > it
> > is available.
> Some other workarounds here:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/837983
> Also see
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/317821
> (Just don't try to follow the three KB articles mentioned at the bottom;
> they've all been pulled.)
> --
> Aaron Bertrand
> SQL Server MVP
>
>
>
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > "Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> >
> >> You could try adding OPTION (MAXDOP 1) to the offending query.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Aaron Bertrand
> >> SQL Server MVP
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "miline" <miline@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:E8AAEB66-94B8-4A9E-BC5D-49EC773543B1@.microsoft.com...
> >> > Hello,
> >> > We are running SQL Server 2000 SP4 on a server with dual-core CPU.
> >> > Recently we have noticed the following error message:
> >> >
> >> > "Intra-query parallelism caused your server command (process ID #52) to
> >> > deadlock. Rerun the query ..."
> >> >
> >> > I wonder if there is a fix available for that problem.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>|||> Also see
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/317821
> (Just don't try to follow the three KB articles mentioned at the bottom;
> they've all been pulled.)
Actually the URLs were just broken due to a misplaced space. The article
will be corrected shortly.|||Thanks.
It is similar, they recommend to supress parallel execution as a workaround
there.
Regards,
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> > Also see
> > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/317821
> > (Just don't try to follow the three KB articles mentioned at the bottom;
> > they've all been pulled.)
> Actually the URLs were just broken due to a misplaced space. The article
> will be corrected shortly.
>
>
We are running SQL Server 2000 SP4 on a server with dual-core CPU.
Recently we have noticed the following error message:
"Intra-query parallelism caused your server command (process ID #52) to
deadlock. Rerun the query ..."
I wonder if there is a fix available for that problem.
Thanks.You could try adding OPTION (MAXDOP 1) to the offending query.
--
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
"miline" <miline@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E8AAEB66-94B8-4A9E-BC5D-49EC773543B1@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> We are running SQL Server 2000 SP4 on a server with dual-core CPU.
> Recently we have noticed the following error message:
> "Intra-query parallelism caused your server command (process ID #52) to
> deadlock. Rerun the query ..."
> I wonder if there is a fix available for that problem.
> Thanks.
>|||Thank you for response.
Unfortunately I can not modify the application query. I can disable
parallelism for the whole server but that can decrease performance of the
production server. I am specifically looking for a fix from Microsoft if it
is available.
Regards,
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> You could try adding OPTION (MAXDOP 1) to the offending query.
> --
> Aaron Bertrand
> SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "miline" <miline@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E8AAEB66-94B8-4A9E-BC5D-49EC773543B1@.microsoft.com...
> > Hello,
> > We are running SQL Server 2000 SP4 on a server with dual-core CPU.
> > Recently we have noticed the following error message:
> >
> > "Intra-query parallelism caused your server command (process ID #52) to
> > deadlock. Rerun the query ..."
> >
> > I wonder if there is a fix available for that problem.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
>
>|||> Unfortunately I can not modify the application query. I can disable
> parallelism for the whole server but that can decrease performance of the
> production server. I am specifically looking for a fix from Microsoft if
> it
> is available.
Some other workarounds here:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/837983
Also see
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/317821
(Just don't try to follow the three KB articles mentioned at the bottom;
they've all been pulled.)
--
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
> Regards,
> "Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
>> You could try adding OPTION (MAXDOP 1) to the offending query.
>> --
>> Aaron Bertrand
>> SQL Server MVP
>>
>>
>> "miline" <miline@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:E8AAEB66-94B8-4A9E-BC5D-49EC773543B1@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hello,
>> > We are running SQL Server 2000 SP4 on a server with dual-core CPU.
>> > Recently we have noticed the following error message:
>> >
>> > "Intra-query parallelism caused your server command (process ID #52) to
>> > deadlock. Rerun the query ..."
>> >
>> > I wonder if there is a fix available for that problem.
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> >
>>|||Thanks. I already saw that.
According to it, the only remaining option would be "enable the pre-SQL
Server 2000 SP3 parallel scan behavior" by setting trace flag 683 on (I would
not like to disable multi-processor support unless very necessary). It is not
quite clear what does it mean "pre-SQL Server 2000 SP3"; I do have SQL Server
2000 SP4. And the trace flag 683 is not mentioned in BOL, not sure if it will
help with SP4. That error message does not appear very often; I can not test
it immediatelly.
Regards,
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> > Unfortunately I can not modify the application query. I can disable
> > parallelism for the whole server but that can decrease performance of the
> > production server. I am specifically looking for a fix from Microsoft if
> > it
> > is available.
> Some other workarounds here:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/837983
> Also see
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/317821
> (Just don't try to follow the three KB articles mentioned at the bottom;
> they've all been pulled.)
> --
> Aaron Bertrand
> SQL Server MVP
>
>
>
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > "Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> >
> >> You could try adding OPTION (MAXDOP 1) to the offending query.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Aaron Bertrand
> >> SQL Server MVP
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "miline" <miline@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:E8AAEB66-94B8-4A9E-BC5D-49EC773543B1@.microsoft.com...
> >> > Hello,
> >> > We are running SQL Server 2000 SP4 on a server with dual-core CPU.
> >> > Recently we have noticed the following error message:
> >> >
> >> > "Intra-query parallelism caused your server command (process ID #52) to
> >> > deadlock. Rerun the query ..."
> >> >
> >> > I wonder if there is a fix available for that problem.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>|||> Also see
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/317821
> (Just don't try to follow the three KB articles mentioned at the bottom;
> they've all been pulled.)
Actually the URLs were just broken due to a misplaced space. The article
will be corrected shortly.|||Thanks.
It is similar, they recommend to supress parallel execution as a workaround
there.
Regards,
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> > Also see
> > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/317821
> > (Just don't try to follow the three KB articles mentioned at the bottom;
> > they've all been pulled.)
> Actually the URLs were just broken due to a misplaced space. The article
> will be corrected shortly.
>
>
Intra-query parallelism bug fix for SQL Server 2000 SP4?
Hello,
We are running SQL Server 2000 SP4 on a server with dual-core CPU.
Recently we have noticed the following error message:
"Intra-query parallelism caused your server command (process ID #52) to
deadlock. Rerun the query ..."
I wonder if there is a fix available for that problem.
Thanks.You could try adding OPTION (MAXDOP 1) to the offending query.
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
"miline" <miline@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E8AAEB66-94B8-4A9E-BC5D-49EC773543B1@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> We are running SQL Server 2000 SP4 on a server with dual-core CPU.
> Recently we have noticed the following error message:
> "Intra-query parallelism caused your server command (process ID #52) to
> deadlock. Rerun the query ..."
> I wonder if there is a fix available for that problem.
> Thanks.
>|||Thank you for response.
Unfortunately I can not modify the application query. I can disable
parallelism for the whole server but that can decrease performance of the
production server. I am specifically looking for a fix from Microsoft if it
is available.
Regards,
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> You could try adding OPTION (MAXDOP 1) to the offending query.
> --
> Aaron Bertrand
> SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "miline" <miline@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E8AAEB66-94B8-4A9E-BC5D-49EC773543B1@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||> Unfortunately I can not modify the application query. I can disable
> parallelism for the whole server but that can decrease performance of the
> production server. I am specifically looking for a fix from Microsoft if
> it
> is available.
Some other workarounds here:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/837983
Also see
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/317821
(Just don't try to follow the three KB articles mentioned at the bottom;
they've all been pulled.)
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Regards,
> "Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
>|||Thanks. I already saw that.
According to it, the only remaining option would be "enable the pre-SQL
Server 2000 SP3 parallel scan behavior" by setting trace flag 683 on (I woul
d
not like to disable multi-processor support unless very necessary). It is no
t
quite clear what does it mean "pre-SQL Server 2000 SP3"; I do have SQL Serve
r
2000 SP4. And the trace flag 683 is not mentioned in BOL, not sure if it wil
l
help with SP4. That error message does not appear very often; I can not test
it immediatelly.
Regards,
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> Some other workarounds here:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/837983
> Also see
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/317821
> (Just don't try to follow the three KB articles mentioned at the bottom;
> they've all been pulled.)
> --
> Aaron Bertrand
> SQL Server MVP
>
>
>
>
>|||> Also see
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/317821
> (Just don't try to follow the three KB articles mentioned at the bottom;
> they've all been pulled.)
Actually the URLs were just broken due to a misplaced space. The article
will be corrected shortly.|||Thanks.
It is similar, they recommend to supress parallel execution as a workaround
there.
Regards,
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> Actually the URLs were just broken due to a misplaced space. The article
> will be corrected shortly.
>
>
We are running SQL Server 2000 SP4 on a server with dual-core CPU.
Recently we have noticed the following error message:
"Intra-query parallelism caused your server command (process ID #52) to
deadlock. Rerun the query ..."
I wonder if there is a fix available for that problem.
Thanks.You could try adding OPTION (MAXDOP 1) to the offending query.
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
"miline" <miline@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E8AAEB66-94B8-4A9E-BC5D-49EC773543B1@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> We are running SQL Server 2000 SP4 on a server with dual-core CPU.
> Recently we have noticed the following error message:
> "Intra-query parallelism caused your server command (process ID #52) to
> deadlock. Rerun the query ..."
> I wonder if there is a fix available for that problem.
> Thanks.
>|||Thank you for response.
Unfortunately I can not modify the application query. I can disable
parallelism for the whole server but that can decrease performance of the
production server. I am specifically looking for a fix from Microsoft if it
is available.
Regards,
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> You could try adding OPTION (MAXDOP 1) to the offending query.
> --
> Aaron Bertrand
> SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "miline" <miline@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E8AAEB66-94B8-4A9E-BC5D-49EC773543B1@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||> Unfortunately I can not modify the application query. I can disable
> parallelism for the whole server but that can decrease performance of the
> production server. I am specifically looking for a fix from Microsoft if
> it
> is available.
Some other workarounds here:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/837983
Also see
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/317821
(Just don't try to follow the three KB articles mentioned at the bottom;
they've all been pulled.)
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Regards,
> "Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
>|||Thanks. I already saw that.
According to it, the only remaining option would be "enable the pre-SQL
Server 2000 SP3 parallel scan behavior" by setting trace flag 683 on (I woul
d
not like to disable multi-processor support unless very necessary). It is no
t
quite clear what does it mean "pre-SQL Server 2000 SP3"; I do have SQL Serve
r
2000 SP4. And the trace flag 683 is not mentioned in BOL, not sure if it wil
l
help with SP4. That error message does not appear very often; I can not test
it immediatelly.
Regards,
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> Some other workarounds here:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/837983
> Also see
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/317821
> (Just don't try to follow the three KB articles mentioned at the bottom;
> they've all been pulled.)
> --
> Aaron Bertrand
> SQL Server MVP
>
>
>
>
>|||> Also see
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/317821
> (Just don't try to follow the three KB articles mentioned at the bottom;
> they've all been pulled.)
Actually the URLs were just broken due to a misplaced space. The article
will be corrected shortly.|||Thanks.
It is similar, they recommend to supress parallel execution as a workaround
there.
Regards,
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> Actually the URLs were just broken due to a misplaced space. The article
> will be corrected shortly.
>
>
Intra-query parallelism bug fix for SQL Server 2000 SP4?
Hello,
We are running SQL Server 2000 SP4 on a server with dual-core CPU.
Recently we have noticed the following error message:
"Intra-query parallelism caused your server command (process ID #52) to
deadlock. Rerun the query ..."
I wonder if there is a fix available for that problem.
Thanks.
You could try adding OPTION (MAXDOP 1) to the offending query.
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
"miline" <miline@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E8AAEB66-94B8-4A9E-BC5D-49EC773543B1@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> We are running SQL Server 2000 SP4 on a server with dual-core CPU.
> Recently we have noticed the following error message:
> "Intra-query parallelism caused your server command (process ID #52) to
> deadlock. Rerun the query ..."
> I wonder if there is a fix available for that problem.
> Thanks.
>
|||Thank you for response.
Unfortunately I can not modify the application query. I can disable
parallelism for the whole server but that can decrease performance of the
production server. I am specifically looking for a fix from Microsoft if it
is available.
Regards,
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> You could try adding OPTION (MAXDOP 1) to the offending query.
> --
> Aaron Bertrand
> SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "miline" <miline@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E8AAEB66-94B8-4A9E-BC5D-49EC773543B1@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||> Unfortunately I can not modify the application query. I can disable
> parallelism for the whole server but that can decrease performance of the
> production server. I am specifically looking for a fix from Microsoft if
> it
> is available.
Some other workarounds here:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/837983
Also see
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/317821
(Just don't try to follow the three KB articles mentioned at the bottom;
they've all been pulled.)
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Regards,
> "Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
|||Thanks. I already saw that.
According to it, the only remaining option would be "enable the pre-SQL
Server 2000 SP3 parallel scan behavior" by setting trace flag 683 on (I would
not like to disable multi-processor support unless very necessary). It is not
quite clear what does it mean "pre-SQL Server 2000 SP3"; I do have SQL Server
2000 SP4. And the trace flag 683 is not mentioned in BOL, not sure if it will
help with SP4. That error message does not appear very often; I can not test
it immediatelly.
Regards,
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> Some other workarounds here:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/837983
> Also see
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/317821
> (Just don't try to follow the three KB articles mentioned at the bottom;
> they've all been pulled.)
> --
> Aaron Bertrand
> SQL Server MVP
>
>
>
>
>
|||> Also see
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/317821
> (Just don't try to follow the three KB articles mentioned at the bottom;
> they've all been pulled.)
Actually the URLs were just broken due to a misplaced space. The article
will be corrected shortly.
|||Thanks.
It is similar, they recommend to supress parallel execution as a workaround
there.
Regards,
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> Actually the URLs were just broken due to a misplaced space. The article
> will be corrected shortly.
>
>
We are running SQL Server 2000 SP4 on a server with dual-core CPU.
Recently we have noticed the following error message:
"Intra-query parallelism caused your server command (process ID #52) to
deadlock. Rerun the query ..."
I wonder if there is a fix available for that problem.
Thanks.
You could try adding OPTION (MAXDOP 1) to the offending query.
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
"miline" <miline@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E8AAEB66-94B8-4A9E-BC5D-49EC773543B1@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> We are running SQL Server 2000 SP4 on a server with dual-core CPU.
> Recently we have noticed the following error message:
> "Intra-query parallelism caused your server command (process ID #52) to
> deadlock. Rerun the query ..."
> I wonder if there is a fix available for that problem.
> Thanks.
>
|||Thank you for response.
Unfortunately I can not modify the application query. I can disable
parallelism for the whole server but that can decrease performance of the
production server. I am specifically looking for a fix from Microsoft if it
is available.
Regards,
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> You could try adding OPTION (MAXDOP 1) to the offending query.
> --
> Aaron Bertrand
> SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "miline" <miline@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E8AAEB66-94B8-4A9E-BC5D-49EC773543B1@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||> Unfortunately I can not modify the application query. I can disable
> parallelism for the whole server but that can decrease performance of the
> production server. I am specifically looking for a fix from Microsoft if
> it
> is available.
Some other workarounds here:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/837983
Also see
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/317821
(Just don't try to follow the three KB articles mentioned at the bottom;
they've all been pulled.)
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Regards,
> "Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
|||Thanks. I already saw that.
According to it, the only remaining option would be "enable the pre-SQL
Server 2000 SP3 parallel scan behavior" by setting trace flag 683 on (I would
not like to disable multi-processor support unless very necessary). It is not
quite clear what does it mean "pre-SQL Server 2000 SP3"; I do have SQL Server
2000 SP4. And the trace flag 683 is not mentioned in BOL, not sure if it will
help with SP4. That error message does not appear very often; I can not test
it immediatelly.
Regards,
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> Some other workarounds here:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/837983
> Also see
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/317821
> (Just don't try to follow the three KB articles mentioned at the bottom;
> they've all been pulled.)
> --
> Aaron Bertrand
> SQL Server MVP
>
>
>
>
>
|||> Also see
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/317821
> (Just don't try to follow the three KB articles mentioned at the bottom;
> they've all been pulled.)
Actually the URLs were just broken due to a misplaced space. The article
will be corrected shortly.
|||Thanks.
It is similar, they recommend to supress parallel execution as a workaround
there.
Regards,
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> Actually the URLs were just broken due to a misplaced space. The article
> will be corrected shortly.
>
>
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Interpreting WaitResource on SysProcesses
I have a blocking issue, running SQL 2000, SP4, on Windows 2003.
The SPID at the head of the blocking chain = 226. SPID 226 has the following
from SYSPROCESSES:
Open_Tran = 2
WaitResource = 40:1:41356
WaitType = 0x0000
cmd = INSERT
LastWaitType = PAGELATCH_SH
The SPID getting blocked = 394. SPID 394 has the following from SYSPROCESSES:
Open_Tran = 2
WaitResource = TAB: 40:514100872
WaitType = 0x0008
cmd = INSERT
LastWaitType = LCK_M_IX
From the above, do I interpret:
The WaitResource on SPID 226 to be [DBID:INDEXID:PAGEID]?
The WaitResource on SPID 394 to be [DBID:OBJECTID]?
If the WaitResource on SPID 394 is [DBID:OBJECTID], is the object in this
case the locked object?
--
Message posted via SQLMonster.com
http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200611/1Does anyone want to take a stab at this?
cbrichards wrote:
>I have a blocking issue, running SQL 2000, SP4, on Windows 2003.
>The SPID at the head of the blocking chain = 226. SPID 226 has the following
>from SYSPROCESSES:
>Open_Tran = 2
>WaitResource = 40:1:41356
>WaitType = 0x0000
>cmd = INSERT
>LastWaitType = PAGELATCH_SH
>The SPID getting blocked = 394. SPID 394 has the following from SYSPROCESSES:
>Open_Tran = 2
>WaitResource = TAB: 40:514100872
>WaitType = 0x0008
>cmd = INSERT
>LastWaitType = LCK_M_IX
>From the above, do I interpret:
>The WaitResource on SPID 226 to be [DBID:INDEXID:PAGEID]?
>The WaitResource on SPID 394 to be [DBID:OBJECTID]?
>If the WaitResource on SPID 394 is [DBID:OBJECTID], is the object in this
>case the locked object?
--
Message posted via SQLMonster.com
http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200611/1
The SPID at the head of the blocking chain = 226. SPID 226 has the following
from SYSPROCESSES:
Open_Tran = 2
WaitResource = 40:1:41356
WaitType = 0x0000
cmd = INSERT
LastWaitType = PAGELATCH_SH
The SPID getting blocked = 394. SPID 394 has the following from SYSPROCESSES:
Open_Tran = 2
WaitResource = TAB: 40:514100872
WaitType = 0x0008
cmd = INSERT
LastWaitType = LCK_M_IX
From the above, do I interpret:
The WaitResource on SPID 226 to be [DBID:INDEXID:PAGEID]?
The WaitResource on SPID 394 to be [DBID:OBJECTID]?
If the WaitResource on SPID 394 is [DBID:OBJECTID], is the object in this
case the locked object?
--
Message posted via SQLMonster.com
http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200611/1Does anyone want to take a stab at this?
cbrichards wrote:
>I have a blocking issue, running SQL 2000, SP4, on Windows 2003.
>The SPID at the head of the blocking chain = 226. SPID 226 has the following
>from SYSPROCESSES:
>Open_Tran = 2
>WaitResource = 40:1:41356
>WaitType = 0x0000
>cmd = INSERT
>LastWaitType = PAGELATCH_SH
>The SPID getting blocked = 394. SPID 394 has the following from SYSPROCESSES:
>Open_Tran = 2
>WaitResource = TAB: 40:514100872
>WaitType = 0x0008
>cmd = INSERT
>LastWaitType = LCK_M_IX
>From the above, do I interpret:
>The WaitResource on SPID 226 to be [DBID:INDEXID:PAGEID]?
>The WaitResource on SPID 394 to be [DBID:OBJECTID]?
>If the WaitResource on SPID 394 is [DBID:OBJECTID], is the object in this
>case the locked object?
--
Message posted via SQLMonster.com
http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200611/1
Interpreting WaitResource on SysProcesses
I have a blocking issue, running SQL 2000, SP4, on Windows 2003.
The SPID at the head of the blocking chain = 226. SPID 226 has the following
from SYSPROCESSES:
Open_Tran = 2
WaitResource = 40:1:41356
WaitType = 0x0000
cmd = INSERT
LastWaitType = PAGELATCH_SH
The SPID getting blocked = 394. SPID 394 has the following from SYSPROCESSES
:
Open_Tran = 2
WaitResource = TAB: 40:514100872
WaitType = 0x0008
cmd = INSERT
LastWaitType = LCK_M_IX
From the above, do I interpret:
The WaitResource on SPID 226 to be [DBID:INDEXID:PAGEID]?
The WaitResource on SPID 394 to be [DBID:OBJECTID]?
If the WaitResource on SPID 394 is [DBID:OBJECTID], is the object in thi
s
case the locked object?
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forum...server/200611/1Does anyone want to take a stab at this?
cbrichards wrote:
>I have a blocking issue, running SQL 2000, SP4, on Windows 2003.
>The SPID at the head of the blocking chain = 226. SPID 226 has the followin
g
>from SYSPROCESSES:
>Open_Tran = 2
>WaitResource = 40:1:41356
>WaitType = 0x0000
>cmd = INSERT
>LastWaitType = PAGELATCH_SH
>The SPID getting blocked = 394. SPID 394 has the following from SYSPROCESSE
S:
>Open_Tran = 2
>WaitResource = TAB: 40:514100872
>WaitType = 0x0008
>cmd = INSERT
>LastWaitType = LCK_M_IX
>From the above, do I interpret:
>The WaitResource on SPID 226 to be [DBID:INDEXID:PAGEID]?
>The WaitResource on SPID 394 to be [DBID:OBJECTID]?
>If the WaitResource on SPID 394 is [DBID:OBJECTID], is the object in th
is
>case the locked object?
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forum...server/200611/1
The SPID at the head of the blocking chain = 226. SPID 226 has the following
from SYSPROCESSES:
Open_Tran = 2
WaitResource = 40:1:41356
WaitType = 0x0000
cmd = INSERT
LastWaitType = PAGELATCH_SH
The SPID getting blocked = 394. SPID 394 has the following from SYSPROCESSES
:
Open_Tran = 2
WaitResource = TAB: 40:514100872
WaitType = 0x0008
cmd = INSERT
LastWaitType = LCK_M_IX
From the above, do I interpret:
The WaitResource on SPID 226 to be [DBID:INDEXID:PAGEID]?
The WaitResource on SPID 394 to be [DBID:OBJECTID]?
If the WaitResource on SPID 394 is [DBID:OBJECTID], is the object in thi
s
case the locked object?
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forum...server/200611/1Does anyone want to take a stab at this?
cbrichards wrote:
>I have a blocking issue, running SQL 2000, SP4, on Windows 2003.
>The SPID at the head of the blocking chain = 226. SPID 226 has the followin
g
>from SYSPROCESSES:
>Open_Tran = 2
>WaitResource = 40:1:41356
>WaitType = 0x0000
>cmd = INSERT
>LastWaitType = PAGELATCH_SH
>The SPID getting blocked = 394. SPID 394 has the following from SYSPROCESSE
S:
>Open_Tran = 2
>WaitResource = TAB: 40:514100872
>WaitType = 0x0008
>cmd = INSERT
>LastWaitType = LCK_M_IX
>From the above, do I interpret:
>The WaitResource on SPID 226 to be [DBID:INDEXID:PAGEID]?
>The WaitResource on SPID 394 to be [DBID:OBJECTID]?
>If the WaitResource on SPID 394 is [DBID:OBJECTID], is the object in th
is
>case the locked object?
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forum...server/200611/1
Interpreting WaitResource on SysProcesses
I have a blocking issue, running SQL 2000, SP4, on Windows 2003.
The SPID at the head of the blocking chain = 226. SPID 226 has the following
from SYSPROCESSES:
Open_Tran = 2
WaitResource = 40:1:41356
WaitType = 0x0000
cmd = INSERT
LastWaitType = PAGELATCH_SH
The SPID getting blocked = 394. SPID 394 has the following from SYSPROCESSES:
Open_Tran = 2
WaitResource = TAB: 40:514100872
WaitType = 0x0008
cmd = INSERT
LastWaitType = LCK_M_IX
From the above, do I interpret:
The WaitResource on SPID 226 to be [DBID:INDEXID:PAGEID]?
The WaitResource on SPID 394 to be [DBID:OBJECTID]?
If the WaitResource on SPID 394 is [DBID:OBJECTID], is the object in this
case the locked object?
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200611/1
Does anyone want to take a stab at this?
cbrichards wrote:
>I have a blocking issue, running SQL 2000, SP4, on Windows 2003.
>The SPID at the head of the blocking chain = 226. SPID 226 has the following
>from SYSPROCESSES:
>Open_Tran = 2
>WaitResource = 40:1:41356
>WaitType = 0x0000
>cmd = INSERT
>LastWaitType = PAGELATCH_SH
>The SPID getting blocked = 394. SPID 394 has the following from SYSPROCESSES:
>Open_Tran = 2
>WaitResource = TAB: 40:514100872
>WaitType = 0x0008
>cmd = INSERT
>LastWaitType = LCK_M_IX
>From the above, do I interpret:
>The WaitResource on SPID 226 to be [DBID:INDEXID:PAGEID]?
>The WaitResource on SPID 394 to be [DBID:OBJECTID]?
>If the WaitResource on SPID 394 is [DBID:OBJECTID], is the object in this
>case the locked object?
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200611/1
The SPID at the head of the blocking chain = 226. SPID 226 has the following
from SYSPROCESSES:
Open_Tran = 2
WaitResource = 40:1:41356
WaitType = 0x0000
cmd = INSERT
LastWaitType = PAGELATCH_SH
The SPID getting blocked = 394. SPID 394 has the following from SYSPROCESSES:
Open_Tran = 2
WaitResource = TAB: 40:514100872
WaitType = 0x0008
cmd = INSERT
LastWaitType = LCK_M_IX
From the above, do I interpret:
The WaitResource on SPID 226 to be [DBID:INDEXID:PAGEID]?
The WaitResource on SPID 394 to be [DBID:OBJECTID]?
If the WaitResource on SPID 394 is [DBID:OBJECTID], is the object in this
case the locked object?
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200611/1
Does anyone want to take a stab at this?
cbrichards wrote:
>I have a blocking issue, running SQL 2000, SP4, on Windows 2003.
>The SPID at the head of the blocking chain = 226. SPID 226 has the following
>from SYSPROCESSES:
>Open_Tran = 2
>WaitResource = 40:1:41356
>WaitType = 0x0000
>cmd = INSERT
>LastWaitType = PAGELATCH_SH
>The SPID getting blocked = 394. SPID 394 has the following from SYSPROCESSES:
>Open_Tran = 2
>WaitResource = TAB: 40:514100872
>WaitType = 0x0008
>cmd = INSERT
>LastWaitType = LCK_M_IX
>From the above, do I interpret:
>The WaitResource on SPID 226 to be [DBID:INDEXID:PAGEID]?
>The WaitResource on SPID 394 to be [DBID:OBJECTID]?
>If the WaitResource on SPID 394 is [DBID:OBJECTID], is the object in this
>case the locked object?
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200611/1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)