Bug with restricted file growth

Question

Bug with restricted file growth

sps-554505

Default port

Points: 1463
More actions
January 3, 2008 at 11:37 pm

#123094

Hi Friends,
We encountered a bug with restricted file growth on our MSSQL 2005 infrastructure. We're not able to configure the transaction log files for unrestricted growth after we configured restricted file growth. In other words, we cannot get rid of the restricted transaction log configuration once we have it. Do anyone knows why this happens
Please give your valubale informations

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply

Ramji29 Hall of Fame Points: 3832 More actions · Answer 1

Hi,

If any one know the reason the please let us know as after reading this post I tried it on on of our testing server and once I change it to restricted growth from unrestricted, I'm not able to revert it, and now its showing as "By 10 percent, restricted growth to 2097152 MB". My Server Details are as follows.

Product Version: Microsoft SQL Server Standard Edition

OS: Microsoft Windows NT 5.0 (2195)

Version: 9.00.1399.06

Thanks,

Rohit

ChiragNS One Orange Chip Points: 26137 More actions · Answer 2

Hi

do you mean that after changing to unrestricted file growth

it still shows restricted file growth to "2,097,152" MB ?

maximum log file size is 2 TB i.e "2,097,152" MB.

"Keep Trying"

Don Marlini SSC Enthusiast Points: 197 More actions · Answer 3

Hi,

I have the same problem with all my DBs in the production server. My @@version is 9.00.1399 standard edition. All databases appears like:

Check Enable Autogrowth

File Growth

Check In Percent 10

Maximum File Size

Check Restricted File Growth (MB) 2.097.152

I can't change the Maximum File Size to Unrestricted File Growth, it returns to:

Restricted File Growth (MB) 2.097.152

I can change the value 2.097.152 for any, but i need to change to Unrestricted

Thanks for any help.

Don Marlini SSC Enthusiast Points: 197 More actions · Answer 4

hi,

I found this page

http://www.exactsoftware.com/Docs/DocView.aspx?DocumentID=%7B2b24915c-66b5-4cec-a70b-e3cb414b8821%7D

Microsoft says is not a bug?

noeld SSC Guru Points: 96590 More actions · Answer 5

It is not a bug in "behavior" but (in my opinion) it is, in terms of what the UI shows 😀

* Noel

Chris Harshman SSC-Forever Points: 42192 More actions · Answer 6

Don Marlini (12/4/2008)
Microsoft says is not a bug?

...reminds me of the old joke: How many Microsoft programmers does it take to change a lightbulb? 0, they declare darkness the default! 😀

Anyway, if you're properly maintaining your database, have transaction log backups scheduled at an appropriate frequency for your system's environment, and use minnimal logging for bulk loads when possible then you'll probably never get anywhere near that 2 terabyte limit. If you are processing that much data that you need 2 terabyte transaction logs then you probably need a more robust relational database than SQL Server anyway.

Don Marlini SSC Enthusiast Points: 197 More actions · Answer 7

Don Marlini

SSC Enthusiast

Points: 197

December 5, 2008 at 8:03 pm

#908749

LOL, thanks for your help!

Dale Cunningham Old Hand Points: 357 More actions · Answer 8

Chris Harshman (12/4/2008)
Don Marlini (12/4/2008)
Microsoft says is not a bug?
...reminds me of the old joke: How many Microsoft programmers does it take to change a lightbulb? 0, they declare darkness the default! 😀
Anyway, if you're properly maintaining your database, have transaction log backups scheduled at an appropriate frequency for your system's environment, and use minnimal logging for bulk loads when possible then you'll probably never get anywhere near that 2 terabyte limit. If you are processing that much data that you need 2 terabyte transaction logs then you probably need a more robust relational database than SQL Server anyway.

Hello Chris, Just for my info, what kind of RDBMS is more robust that SQL Server? Please forgive my ignorance on this one, but I was under the impression that SQL Server was just as robust as Oracle, DB2, MySQL or anything else out there in the market place, even better than those.

Regards,

Dale

Gail Shaw SSC Guru Points: 1004504 More actions · Answer 9

Please note: 3 year old thread.

Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability

We walk in the dark places no others will enter
We stand on the bridge and no one may pass

yup SSCarpal Tunnel Points: 4490 More actions · Answer 10

For the restricted growth & all, one of my test boxes is holding a single LDF on sql 2005 sp4 (x64) which is currently @ 2.57 TB.

Believe the 2 TB limit is for MBR partitions & no holds bar for GPT.