November 19, 2010 at 8:28 am
We have a 1.2TB wharehouse database running in simple mode. The log file filled up the other day to the max limit set at 50GB.
We did a backup log dbname with truncate_only to clear it out.
We are watching it and it continues to grow. When we run DBCC OPENTRAN it returns nothing!
I thought in simple recovery as long as there are no "long running transactions" it should checkpoint at 70% full?
Anyone else had this happen? What did you do to resolve it?
Should we set up a jobs to do CHECKPOINTS or backup log dbname WITH NO_LOG?
thanks,
November 19, 2010 at 9:08 am
There must be an open transaction running on the database which is filling up the database. Try running the below query to check if there are any running transactions.
SELECT * FROM sysprocesses where dbid = db_id('DBName')
Pradeep Adiga
Blog: sqldbadiaries.com
Twitter: @pradeepadiga
November 19, 2010 at 10:02 am
I'm assuming you've double-checked the recovery model and nobody has "accidentally" changed it. Right?
I saw that once, and since "everyone knows it's in Simple mode", there was a lot of head-scratching about the growing log file, till someone thought to look, and found it had been changed to Full by someone who thought he knew better.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
November 19, 2010 at 10:16 am
Yes, the database is in 'SIMPLE' recovery mode still. I did check that.
The following code returns no open transactions or processes:
DBCC OPENTRAN
or
SELECT * FROM sysprocesses where dbid = db_id('DBName')
DBCC OPENTRAN does return one entry, and when I run DBCC OPENTRAN again the entry is gone. So transactions appear to be ending (no long running transactions).
Subsequent runs of DBCC OPENTRAN return a different SPID each time I run it so there are no long running transactions.
November 21, 2010 at 6:58 pm
There's no long running transaction right now... it sounds to me like someone wrote an accidental cross join (inner join with many-to-many relationship... same affect as cross join).
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply