March 10, 2011 at 11:35 am
Hi
I got this error the other day when building some indexes in an instance of SQL 2008 R2 Standard:
The operating system returned error 1450(failed to retrieve text for this error. Reason: 15100) to SQL Server during a write at offset 0x000003195e0000 in file 'E:\SQL\Data\xxxxx.mdf'. Additional messages in the SQL Server error log and system event log may provide more detail. This is a severe system-level error condition that threatens database integrity and must be corrected immediately. Complete a full database consistency check (DBCC CHECKDB). This error can be caused by many factors; for more information, see SQL Server Books Online.
The index builds stopped, and each time I restarted them the error reoccurred after a short while. I couldn't find anything specifically relevant to this on the web. Although there's some stuff about sparse files, it doesn't apply in this case.
The memory usage seemed quite high in that SQL had only left 47MB free. I therefore set a value for the max and min server memory in order to leave plenty free for the OS, and the error has not happened since.
I've run CHECKDB and done a consistency check on the RAID5 array which houses drive E, and all seems fine.
So, before I replace an existing (old, but functioning) server with this new one, does it seem reasonable that the memory was the cause of the issue? Only I've never seen this error before, and on servers with far less memory than this one which has 32GB.
Thanks
Duncan
March 13, 2011 at 11:28 pm
Can you re-produce the problem with adjusting memory setting to it's original values? If you can re-produce it, it may be related to memory setting (but I don't know why and hope someone else will be able to answer it).
March 24, 2011 at 9:34 am
John.Liu (3/13/2011)
Can you re-produce the problem with adjusting memory setting to it's original values? If you can re-produce it, it may be related to memory setting (but I don't know why and hope someone else will be able to answer it).
Well the problem hasn't recurred, but I've not been able to do any serious testing of the system with the memory settings put back to the default. I'm going to leave it as it is for the time being, as I don't want it failing during any important processes, but may get a chance to retest at a later date.
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply