Log is full?

What would be the best way to have the database run the following command when the logfile reaches a certain size?
BACKUP LOG kingjohnor WITH TRUNCATE_ONLY
GO
USE kingjohnor
DBCC SHRINKFILE(kingjohnor_log,1)
Thanks in advance for help : )If you are not going to back uo the transaction log file, then why not change your recovery mode to simple? This way the trans log will not grow at all - it will only hold uncommitted transactions.

Log file of test database bloating

A test database that we used in one of our implementation pilots was
abandoned around 4 months back. The database when abandoned had a log
file size of less than 500MB. The log file has been steadily bloating
(just came to my attention) and has reached 8.5GB. The database has
not been used since abandoned 4 months back at 500MB. Considering the
fact that our live DB has a combined (data + log) file size of less
than 2GB I do not want to delete the database before exploring the
cause.

Any ideas? Thanks and appreciate your help

SQL Server 2000"Sanjay Asrani" <sasrani@.boathouse.com> wrote in message
news:26ae5f82.0410060618.352c931e@.posting.google.c om...
>A test database that we used in one of our implementation pilots was
> abandoned around 4 months back. The database when abandoned had a log
> file size of less than 500MB. The log file has been steadily bloating
> (just came to my attention) and has reached 8.5GB. The database has
> not been used since abandoned 4 months back at 500MB. Considering the
> fact that our live DB has a combined (data + log) file size of less
> than 2GB I do not want to delete the database before exploring the
> cause.
> Any ideas? Thanks and appreciate your help
> SQL Server 2000

This might be useful:

http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;EN-US;317375

If you believe the database should not be in use, you might want to run a
Profiler trace filtered on that particular database to see what's happening.

Simon

LOG File Maintenance

Hello! Hope everybody is doing OK.
I have a quick question. I use to run the command below to keep the Log
File of my database small.
BACKUP LOG FlexSol WITH NO_LOG
DBCC SHRINKDATABASE (FlexSol, 10)
The question is, now that I setup replication in this database, would I be
able to run this command without affecting the way replication works, if so,
then what are the steps to perform maintenance in the log file.
Thank you in advance for any input.
Marlene A. Roman
if the log reader has not read and commited transactions in the tlog to the distribution database, you will not be able to truncate this portion of the log.
So, truncate away, as replication will not be affected.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
|||(...and if the replication type is merge or snapshot, this will not be affected either).
Regards,
Paul Ibison
|||Thank you! :P
|||Paul, you are starting to making me look bad, and I don't need your help for
that
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message
news:8EB60E9B-6EA6-48B3-A51E-8D60B858A60B@.microsoft.com...
> (...and if the replication type is merge or snapshot, this will not be
affected either).
> Regards,
> Paul Ibison

log file for tempdb is full

I continue to get this message in event viewer for SQL Server 2000 "The log
file for database tempdb is full. Backup the transaction log for the
database to free up some log space."
How can I fix this problem?Check out this link
http://www.aspfaq.com/show.asp?id=2446
"Geoff" <cbsinc@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:FDgue.7507$hK3.787@.newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> I continue to get this message in event viewer for SQL Server 2000 "The
log
> file for database tempdb is full. Backup the transaction log for the
> database to free up some log space."
> How can I fix this problem?
>|||This indicates that you need to increaes the log file for a tempdb. The size
required depends on your application's use of tempdb.
--
Wei Xiao [MSFT]
SQL Server Storage Engine Development
http://blogs.msdn.com/weix
"Geoff" <cbsinc@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:FDgue.7507$hK3.787@.newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> I continue to get this message in event viewer for SQL Server 2000 "The
log
> file for database tempdb is full. Backup the transaction log for the
> database to free up some log space."
> How can I fix this problem?
>

log file for tempdb is full

I continue to get this message in event viewer for SQL Server 2000 "The log
file for database tempdb is full. Backup the transaction log for the
database to free up some log space."
How can I fix this problem?
Check out this link
http://www.aspfaq.com/show.asp?id=2446
"Geoff" <cbsinc@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:FDgue.7507$hK3.787@.newsread3.news.pas.earthli nk.net...
> I continue to get this message in event viewer for SQL Server 2000 "The
log
> file for database tempdb is full. Backup the transaction log for the
> database to free up some log space."
> How can I fix this problem?
>
|||This indicates that you need to increaes the log file for a tempdb. The size
required depends on your application's use of tempdb.
--
Wei Xiao [MSFT]
SQL Server Storage Engine Development
http://blogs.msdn.com/weix
"Geoff" <cbsinc@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:FDgue.7507$hK3.787@.newsread3.news.pas.earthli nk.net...
> I continue to get this message in event viewer for SQL Server 2000 "The
log
> file for database tempdb is full. Backup the transaction log for the
> database to free up some log space."
> How can I fix this problem?
>

Log Explorer

Is there any way to find out what is in the Database log
file without using a third party utility (Something from
SQL Server itself or Microsoft) ? Another words, track
the transactions in the log.....
Thanks.
AFAIK, Log Explorer from Lumigent is the only tool capable of doing such
thing...
-Argenis
"Rick" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:53f101c5232a$7c1d9800$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Is there any way to find out what is in the Database log
> file without using a third party utility (Something from
> SQL Server itself or Microsoft) ? Another words, track
> the transactions in the log.....
> Thanks.
|||I've listed three such tools on the links page on my web site (see my signature).
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
http://www.sqlug.se/
"Argenis Fernandez" <argenis@.spam.sucks.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uGJ7qwyIFHA.2648@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> AFAIK, Log Explorer from Lumigent is the only tool capable of doing such
> thing...
> -Argenis
> "Rick" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:53f101c5232a$7c1d9800$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
>
|||And LogPi (www.logpi.com)
Regards
Mike
"Argenis Fernandez" wrote:

> AFAIK, Log Explorer from Lumigent is the only tool capable of doing such
> thing...
> -Argenis
> "Rick" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:53f101c5232a$7c1d9800$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
>
>

Log Explorer

Is there any way to find out what is in the Database log
file without using a third party utility (Something from
SQL Server itself or Microsoft) ' Another words, track
the transactions in the log.....
Thanks.AFAIK, Log Explorer from Lumigent is the only tool capable of doing such
thing...
-Argenis
"Rick" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:53f101c5232a$7c1d9800$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Is there any way to find out what is in the Database log
> file without using a third party utility (Something from
> SQL Server itself or Microsoft) ' Another words, track
> the transactions in the log.....
> Thanks.|||I've listed three such tools on the links page on my web site (see my signat
ure).
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
http://www.sqlug.se/
"Argenis Fernandez" <argenis@.spam.sucks.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uGJ7qwyIFHA.2648@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> AFAIK, Log Explorer from Lumigent is the only tool capable of doing such
> thing...
> -Argenis
> "Rick" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:53f101c5232a$7c1d9800$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
>|||And LogPi (www.logpi.com)
Regards
Mike
"Argenis Fernandez" wrote:

> AFAIK, Log Explorer from Lumigent is the only tool capable of doing such
> thing...
> -Argenis
> "Rick" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:53f101c5232a$7c1d9800$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
>
>

Log and Data on the same RAID?

Maybe my question is too simple because I dont know much of RAID,
but I try:
What is probably "better": One RAID of 4 Disks, where datafile and logfile a
re
placed on, or Two RAIDs of each 2 Disks, where one RAID contains the datafil
e
and the other RAID contains the logfile?
JoachimAs all questions related to computers, the correct response is 'It depends'.
A mirror RAID drive would be good for the log file, a mirrored drive for the
datafile is less than optimal. If you only had 5 drives, you could mirror
the drive for the log and create a RAID 5 for the datafiles.
If have to work with only 4 drives, additional informational needs would
include: type of database (OLTP/OLAP), Number of users, amount of traffic,
concurrency of traffic, average size of queries, amount of INSERT/UPDATE
traffic, etc.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"Joachim Hofmann" <speicher@.freenet.de> wrote in message
news:4l8o3aFpta8U1@.individual.net...
> Maybe my question is too simple because I dont know much of RAID,
> but I try:
> What is probably "better": One RAID of 4 Disks, where datafile and logfile
> are
> placed on, or Two RAIDs of each 2 Disks, where one RAID contains the
> datafile
> and the other RAID contains the logfile?
> Joachim|||It depends on a lot of things but the biggest of which is how many reads to
writes you do. If you have mostly read only operations you may get better
read results by having a 4 disk Raid 10. If you have a lot of writes you may
need to separate the log file from the data files. If you only have 4 disks
you have little choice but to use two Raid 1's.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Joachim Hofmann" <speicher@.freenet.de> wrote in message
news:4l8o3aFpta8U1@.individual.net...
> Maybe my question is too simple because I dont know much of RAID,
> but I try:
> What is probably "better": One RAID of 4 Disks, where datafile and logfile
> are
> placed on, or Two RAIDs of each 2 Disks, where one RAID contains the
> datafile
> and the other RAID contains the logfile?
> Joachim|||I would add to that, IF the RAID array controller is suitable for
write caching (battery backed memory on the controller and other wise
certified for that sort of thing), then the write penalty for RAID5 is
somewhat minimized.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:25:44 -0700, "Arnie Rowland" <arnie@.1568.com>
wrote:

>As all questions related to computers, the correct response is 'It depends'
.
>A mirror RAID drive would be good for the log file, a mirrored drive for th
e
>datafile is less than optimal. If you only had 5 drives, you could mirror
>the drive for the log and create a RAID 5 for the datafiles.
>If have to work with only 4 drives, additional informational needs would
>include: type of database (OLTP/OLAP), Number of users, amount of traffic,
>concurrency of traffic, average size of queries, amount of INSERT/UPDATE
>traffic, etc.