"Andy Siegel" <AndySie***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:34F98693-A646-400B-86EA-6B41157F26F5@microsoft.com...
> I'm not a DBA and this is all very new to me.  I looked through some
> previous
> posts, but didn't find what I was looking for, so I'm sorry if I
> just missed
> it.
>
> I just upgraded my SQL 2000 server to 2005.  I immediately started
> getting
> errors on my BackupExec logs stating that there were errors running
> dbcc on
> some of the databases.  I have it set to do a consistency check
> prior to
> backup doing a physical check.  I went into SQL and ran dbcc dbcheck
> on one
> of the databases got, "CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 1
> consistency
> errors in database 'databasename'.
>
> So it looks like it's not a BackupExec error, but an SQL error.  I
> didn't
> have any of these show up prior to the SQL upgrade and I doubt that
> the
> upgrade caused them.  What should I do to fix the error?  I'm
> guessing 'DBCC
> CHECKDB REPAIR_FAST' is my first choice, but I don't know how to do
> this.  Do
> I do this with the database online?  Is there any way to see what
> the error
> really is?  I really don't want to make matters worse.
>
> Thank you,
> Andy Siegel
> Dover, DE

"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:

> No, repair is not your first choice. My suggestion is that you hire
> somebody with SQL Server experience, since you might just have a
> corruption in a database. Alternatively, you can Google for Paul
> Randal and read what he has to say about DBCC CHECKDB (for instance
> http://www.sqlskills.com/BLOGS/PAUL/search.aspx?q=CHECKDB%20From%20Every%20Angle).
>
> Basically, you want to execute DBCC CHECKDB, read the error message,
> understand what it means and based on that determine what might be
> your best cause of action. If you post the actual error message here,
> we *might* just be able to give some advice.
>
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>
>
> "Andy Siegel" <AndySie***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:34F98693-A646-400B-86EA-6B41157F26F5@microsoft.com...
> > I'm not a DBA and this is all very new to me.  I looked through some
> > previous
> > posts, but didn't find what I was looking for, so I'm sorry if I
> > just missed
> > it.
> >
> > I just upgraded my SQL 2000 server to 2005.  I immediately started
> > getting
> > errors on my BackupExec logs stating that there were errors running
> > dbcc on
> > some of the databases.  I have it set to do a consistency check
> > prior to
> > backup doing a physical check.  I went into SQL and ran dbcc dbcheck
> > on one
> > of the databases got, "CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 1
> > consistency
> > errors in database 'databasename'.
> >
> > So it looks like it's not a BackupExec error, but an SQL error.  I
> > didn't
> > have any of these show up prior to the SQL upgrade and I doubt that
> > the
> > upgrade caused them.  What should I do to fix the error?  I'm
> > guessing 'DBCC
> > CHECKDB REPAIR_FAST' is my first choice, but I don't know how to do
> > this.  Do
> > I do this with the database online?  Is there any way to see what
> > the error
> > really is?  I really don't want to make matters worse.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Andy Siegel
> > Dover, DE
>
>

"Andy Siegel" <AndySie***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2A2392E9-3344-49C4-BE11-C931EA5E3C58@microsoft.com...
> Thank you for your quick response.  When I run the DBCC CHECKDB, the
> result
> includes this message in red:
> "The In-row data RSVD page count for object "M_UNITS", index ID 0,
> partition
> ID 36017078009856, alloc unit ID 36017078009856 (type In-row data)
> is
> incorrect. Run DBCC UPDATEUSAGE."
>
> If I run the DBCC UPDATEUSAGE, do I have to do anything special
> beforehand?
> Afterwards?
>
> At the bottom, it says:
> "CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 1 consistency errors in
> database
> 'ChapelMapping'.
> DBCC execution completed. If DBCC printed error messages, contact
> your
> system administrator."
>
> Again, Thanks!
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
>
>> No, repair is not your first choice. My suggestion is that you hire
>> somebody with SQL Server experience, since you might just have a
>> corruption in a database. Alternatively, you can Google for Paul
>> Randal and read what he has to say about DBCC CHECKDB (for instance
>> http://www.sqlskills.com/BLOGS/PAUL/search.aspx?q=CHECKDB%20From%20Every%20Angle).
>>
>> Basically, you want to execute DBCC CHECKDB, read the error
>> message,
>> understand what it means and based on that determine what might be
>> your best cause of action. If you post the actual error message
>> here,
>> we *might* just be able to give some advice.
>>
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>>
>>
>> "Andy Siegel" <AndySie***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>> message
>> news:34F98693-A646-400B-86EA-6B41157F26F5@microsoft.com...
>> > I'm not a DBA and this is all very new to me.  I looked through
>> > some
>> > previous
>> > posts, but didn't find what I was looking for, so I'm sorry if I
>> > just missed
>> > it.
>> >
>> > I just upgraded my SQL 2000 server to 2005.  I immediately
>> > started
>> > getting
>> > errors on my BackupExec logs stating that there were errors
>> > running
>> > dbcc on
>> > some of the databases.  I have it set to do a consistency check
>> > prior to
>> > backup doing a physical check.  I went into SQL and ran dbcc
>> > dbcheck
>> > on one
>> > of the databases got, "CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 1
>> > consistency
>> > errors in database 'databasename'.
>> >
>> > So it looks like it's not a BackupExec error, but an SQL error.
>> > I
>> > didn't
>> > have any of these show up prior to the SQL upgrade and I doubt
>> > that
>> > the
>> > upgrade caused them.  What should I do to fix the error?  I'm
>> > guessing 'DBCC
>> > CHECKDB REPAIR_FAST' is my first choice, but I don't know how to
>> > do
>> > this.  Do
>> > I do this with the database online?  Is there any way to see what
>> > the error
>> > really is?  I really don't want to make matters worse.
>> >
>> > Thank you,
>> > Andy Siegel
>> > Dover, DE
>>
>>