ASE 12.0.0.4 Error 216 followed by Error 1204

I am running on ASE 12.0.0.4 EBF 10048, on AIX 4.3.3.

Last week I received a Error 216 (temp table failed to clean up) and from
that point on occassional out of lock messages (error 1204), even though I
have 90K locks configured.

The number of locks had been increase from 40K to 90K quite awhile ago for a
previous out of lock support case. (It wasn't the problem, but I couldn't
get tech support to look any further into my issue without increasing the
number of locks. The actual error was caused by the LPM manager, but as the
memory used by the extra locks is small, I went ahead and increased that
value.)

After getting the 216 error this last time, I increase the number of locks
to 120K (sledge hammer approach) and set the 3703 trace flag in the run file
(trying to avoid the 216 errors to start with).

Scheduled a server restart, to enable the new trace flag and number of
locks, and sure enough 2 hours later I get the same symptoms.

Prior to this EBF I was running on 12.0.0.3 EBF 9774 for over 4 months with
no lock or temp table problems (no traceflag 3703 and #locks=90K)

I have opened a tech support case, but I was curious if anyone else has had
this problem ?


0
Dennis
5/3/2002 5:04:41 PM
sybase.ase.general 8655 articles. 0 followers. Follow

5 Replies
664 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 26

dennis.sullivan@corp.honeywell.com wrote...
> I am running on ASE 12.0.0.4 EBF 10048, on AIX 4.3.3.
> 
> Last week I received a Error 216 (temp table failed to clean up) and from
> that point on occassional out of lock messages (error 1204), even though I
> have 90K locks configured.
> 
> The number of locks had been increase from 40K to 90K quite awhile ago for a
> previous out of lock support case. (It wasn't the problem, but I couldn't
> get tech support to look any further into my issue without increasing the
> number of locks. The actual error was caused by the LPM manager, but as the
> memory used by the extra locks is small, I went ahead and increased that
> value.)
> 
> After getting the 216 error this last time, I increase the number of locks
> to 120K (sledge hammer approach) and set the 3703 trace flag in the run file
> (trying to avoid the 216 errors to start with).
> 
> Scheduled a server restart, to enable the new trace flag and number of
> locks, and sure enough 2 hours later I get the same symptoms.
> 
> Prior to this EBF I was running on 12.0.0.3 EBF 9774 for over 4 months with
> no lock or temp table problems (no traceflag 3703 and #locks=90K)
> 
> I have opened a tech support case, but I was curious if anyone else has had
> this problem ?

Check to make sure you are not running out of open object or open indexes.  When this 
happens you can get some odd behavior that is difficult to trace back to it.  Are you sure 
you were supposed to use trace flag 3703?  I found a case where it is indicated that 3703 
isn't necessary past 12.0.0.3.
-- 
Jim Egan [TeamSybase]
Senior Consultant
Sybase Professional Services
0
Jim
5/4/2002 3:39:47 AM
"Jim Egan" <dontspam.dbaguru@eganomics.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.173d05efdad5c72698bdda@forums.sybase.com...
> dennis.sullivan@corp.honeywell.com wrote...
>
> Check to make sure you are not running out of open object or open indexes.
When this
> happens you can get some odd behavior that is difficult to trace back to
it.  Are you sure
> you were supposed to use trace flag 3703?  I found a case where it is
indicated that 3703
> isn't necessary past 12.0.0.3.

I'm ok on open objects, I have 5000 configured and the max used since boot
is 1391
for the open indexs I have 3000 configure with the max used since boot = 903
(Waisting a little memory, but not enough to worry about)

I agree with your 12.0.0.3 comment, as I had turned off that trace flag when
I upgraded to 12.0.0.4.
Tech support, recommended turning it back on, as well as the 5303 parallel
sorting tempdb traceflag (I don't have parallel sorting turned on for this
server, but to stop any arguement/discussion about wether it's being caused
by this I turned that one on as well.).

This is the verbage I have gotten back so far from tech support:

I did research and found that you are hitting Sybase
bug #239389,229561,218487 and may be hitting more.
I am sending the explanation of these bugs. I know you
already tried incresing number of locks and set trace
flag -T3703 for EBF 9774 and I will open a sub case so
that a senior product engineer her at sybase will take
a closer look at this case.

Possible bug, CR # 239389 : -

Description:
parallel select into + deadlock may lead to errors
3702 and 216 It is well known that in rel119x/rel120x we may
deadlock between slicers and unslicers tasks that execute a select-into
#table command in parallel.
Such a command internally first slices/partitions the
target #table,then inserts into it the data from the source(s)
tables in parallel,and at the end of the day unslices/unpartitions the
#target table.During slicing/unslicing based on the fact that the
lock ordering protocol regarding system tables is violated we gonna most
likely deadlock.

Normally trace flag 5303 should be used by the customer otherwise
these deadlocks won't go away.? We do a better job in 12.5.
We have however decided to not backport the relevant
changes since rather complex and risky.? For history refer to CRs
226571-1, 228517-1,
and 220851-1.

229561
The ASE problems:
The 216 and stack trace errors are associated with CR#
229561
"216 errors after pss->pextattn bit set. pss-
>plasterror = 3702
A 216 error, "Attempt to automatically drop temporary
table failed" may
be
reported

? Workaround
???? Boot the server with trace flag 3703
? Syntax:
???? -T3703






0
Dennis
5/6/2002 4:23:33 PM
dennis.sullivan@corp.honeywell.com wrote...
> "Jim Egan" <dontspam.dbaguru@eganomics.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.173d05efdad5c72698bdda@forums.sybase.com...
> > dennis.sullivan@corp.honeywell.com wrote...
> >
> > Check to make sure you are not running out of open object or open indexes.
> When this
> > happens you can get some odd behavior that is difficult to trace back to
> it.  Are you sure
> > you were supposed to use trace flag 3703?  I found a case where it is
> indicated that 3703
> > isn't necessary past 12.0.0.3.
> 
> I'm ok on open objects, I have 5000 configured and the max used since boot
> is 1391
> for the open indexs I have 3000 configure with the max used since boot = 903
> (Waisting a little memory, but not enough to worry about)
> 
> I agree with your 12.0.0.3 comment, as I had turned off that trace flag when
> I upgraded to 12.0.0.4.
> Tech support, recommended turning it back on, as well as the 5303 parallel
> sorting tempdb traceflag (I don't have parallel sorting turned on for this
> server, but to stop any arguement/discussion about wether it's being caused
> by this I turned that one on as well.).
> 
> This is the verbage I have gotten back so far from tech support:
> 
> I did research and found that you are hitting Sybase
> bug #239389,229561,218487 and may be hitting more.
> I am sending the explanation of these bugs. I know you
> already tried incresing number of locks and set trace
> flag -T3703 for EBF 9774 and I will open a sub case so
> that a senior product engineer her at sybase will take
> a closer look at this case.
> 
> Possible bug, CR # 239389 : -
> 
> Description:
> parallel select into + deadlock may lead to errors
> 3702 and 216 It is well known that in rel119x/rel120x we may
> deadlock between slicers and unslicers tasks that execute a select-into
> #table command in parallel.
> Such a command internally first slices/partitions the
> target #table,then inserts into it the data from the source(s)
> tables in parallel,and at the end of the day unslices/unpartitions the
> #target table.During slicing/unslicing based on the fact that the
> lock ordering protocol regarding system tables is violated we gonna most
> likely deadlock.
> 
> Normally trace flag 5303 should be used by the customer otherwise
> these deadlocks won't go away.? We do a better job in 12.5.
> We have however decided to not backport the relevant
> changes since rather complex and risky.? For history refer to CRs
> 226571-1, 228517-1,
> and 220851-1.
> 
> 229561
> The ASE problems:
> The 216 and stack trace errors are associated with CR#
> 229561
> "216 errors after pss->pextattn bit set. pss-
> >plasterror = 3702
> A 216 error, "Attempt to automatically drop temporary
> table failed" may
> be
> reported
> 
> ? Workaround
> ???? Boot the server with trace flag 3703
> ? Syntax:
> ???? -T3703

I know this is an on-going problem and there are active investigations.  The trace flags 
haven't helped?
-- 
Jim Egan [TeamSybase]
Senior Consultant
Sybase Professional Services
0
Jim
5/7/2002 6:15:54 PM
No, I get the error even with the trace flags set:

Originally I had a stored proc that wasn't performing as well as it used to
after the stat's were updated, (due to a coding error [wrong precision of a
passed parameter {smallint vs int}], the system was chosing a non-clustered
index over the 1st col of the clustered index.). During this time the proc
would naturally have high io and execution times, increasing the risk of
dead locks. Also the 216 error would happen at least once a day. After the
proc's coding error was corrected, the system would use col1 and 2 of the
clustered index and performance returned to normal. Since that change the
frequency of the 216 error dropped to once every 3-4 days (Since one of the
write ups mentioned that the handling of the deadlocks was one of the
'triggers' for this problem. I am taking the assumption that that is why the
frequency has reduced.).

For reference:
I also had updated the stat's again, so the system would pick the clustered
index col1 over the non-clustered index, even with the coding error. Our
density stat's for the 1st col of a multi column'ed clustered index are very
close to a single column'ed non-clustered index, so anytime I update the
stat's  there would have been a chance that which index was more selective
could have switched. But with the coding error fixed, obviously the combo of
the 1st & 2nd column of the clustered index selectivity blows away the
selectivity of the non-clustered index.


00:00000:00000:2002/05/03 08:13:21.75 kernel  engine 0, os pid 26330  online
00:00000:00000:2002/05/03 08:13:21.77 server  Active traceflags: 3703, 5303


00:00000:00000:2002/05/03 08:14:11.92 kernel  ncheck: Network 30027688
online
02:00000:00200:2002/05/03 08:48:11.01 server  Error: 216, Severity: 20,
State: 3
02:00000:00200:2002/05/03 08:48:11.01 server  Attempt to automatically drop
temporary table failed.
03:00000:00200:2002/05/03 08:48:11.05 server  Error: 216, Severity: 20,
State: 3
03:00000:00200:2002/05/03 08:48:11.05 server  Attempt to automatically drop
temporary table failed.
03:00000:00200:2002/05/03 08:48:11.05 kernel
************************************
03:00000:00200:2002/05/03 08:48:11.05 kernel  SQL causing error : exec
ma_sv_get_alog 2537107,0,0,0,1,0,"","","",-32767
03:00000:00200:2002/05/03 08:48:11.05 kernel
************************************
03:00000:00200:2002/05/03 08:48:11.05 server  SQL Text: exec ma_sv_get_alog
2537107,0,0,0,1,0,"","","",-32767
03:00000:00200:2002/05/03 08:48:11.08 kernel  curdb = 10 pstat = 0x10000
lasterror = 216
03:00000:00200:2002/05/03 08:48:11.08 kernel  preverror = 0 transtate = 3
03:00000:00200:2002/05/03 08:48:11.08 kernel  curcmd = 193 program =
03:00000:00200:2002/05/03 08:48:11.18 kernel  pc: 0x101c9474
..pcstkwalk+0x3c()
03:00000:00200:2002/05/03 08:48:11.18 kernel  pc: 0x101c9a98
..ucstkgentrace+0x12c()
03:00000:00200:2002/05/03 08:48:11.18 kernel  pc: 0x101c8738
..ucbacktrace+0x64()
03:00000:00200:2002/05/03 08:48:11.18 kernel  pc: 0x10195a20
..terminate_process[4]+0x74c()
03:00000:00200:2002/05/03 08:48:11.18 kernel  pc: 0x1018957c
..close_network+0x18()
03:00000:00200:2002/05/03 08:48:11.18 kernel  pc: 0x10189394
..hdl_default+0x44()
03:00000:00200:2002/05/03 08:48:11.22 kernel  pc: 0x105b0fd0
..s_handle[1]+0x69c()
03:00000:00200:2002/05/03 08:48:11.22 kernel  pc: 0x10150d30
..ex_raise[1]+0x50()
03:00000:00200:2002/05/03 08:48:11.22 kernel  pc: 0x105b259c
..s_free[11]+0x94()
03:00000:00200:2002/05/03 08:48:11.27 kernel  pc: 0x1002e360 .s_pop+0x18()
03:00000:00200:2002/05/03 08:48:11.27 kernel  pc: 0x100c9f8c
..s_cleanframe[1]+0x6c()
03:00000:00200:2002/05/03 08:48:11.28 kernel  pc: 0x1013ee58
..s_handle+0x264()
03:00000:00200:2002/05/03 08:48:11.28 kernel  pc: 0x10150d30
..ex_raise[1]+0x50()
03:00000:00200:2002/05/03 08:48:11.28 kernel  pc: 0x101990d0
..lock__fillcache+0x33c()
03:00000:00200:2002/05/03 08:48:11.28 kernel  pc: 0x101a3128
..lock_multiple[15]+0x6c()
03:00000:00200:2002/05/03 08:48:11.30 kernel  pc: 0x10007788
..s_lockstmt[1]+0x18()
03:00000:00200:2002/05/03 08:48:11.30 kernel  pc: 0x10007f94
..lock_multiple+0x27c()
03:00000:00200:2002/05/03 08:48:11.30 kernel  [Handler pc: 0x1013ebf4
..s_handle installed by the following function:-]
03:00000:00200:2002/05/03 08:48:11.32 kernel  pc: 0x10028fd4
..sequencer[1]+0x134()
03:00000:00200:2002/05/03 08:48:11.32 kernel  pc: 0x1002da9c
..execproc[1]+0x90()
03:00000:00200:2002/05/03 08:48:11.32 kernel  pc: 0x1009791c
..s_execute[28]+0x7c()
03:00000:00200:2002/05/03 08:48:11.32 kernel  [Handler pc: 0x1013ebf4
..s_handle installed by the following function:-]
03:00000:00200:2002/05/03 08:48:11.32 kernel  pc: 0x10028fd4
..sequencer[1]+0x134()
03:00000:00200:2002/05/03 08:48:11.36 kernel  pc: 0x1008f310
..tdsrecv_language[1]+0x10()
03:00000:00200:2002/05/03 08:48:11.36 kernel  [Handler pc: 0x1015f76c
..hdl_backout installed by the following function:-
]
03:00000:00200:2002/05/03 08:48:11.36 kernel  [Handler pc: 0x1024b060
..ut_handle installed by the following function:-]
03:00000:00200:2002/05/03 08:48:11.36 kernel  [Handler pc: 0x1024b060
..ut_handle installed by the following function:-]
03:00000:00200:2002/05/03 08:48:11.36 kernel  pc: 0x100cc034
..conn_hdlr[6]+0xc()
03:00000:00200:2002/05/03 08:48:11.36 kernel  pc: 0x1001070c
..kpcoldstart+0x1c()
03:00000:00200:2002/05/03 08:48:11.36 kernel  end of stack trace, spid 200,
kpid 92143818, suid 705
03:00000:00184:2002/05/03 08:48:11.39 server  login: Process with spid 184
could not connect to the SQL Server which has temporarily run out of locks.

"Jim Egan" <dontspam.dbaguru@eganomics.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1741c7c88646d9cc98bde9@forums.sybase.com...
> dennis.sullivan@corp.honeywell.com wrote...
> > "Jim Egan" <dontspam.dbaguru@eganomics.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.173d05efdad5c72698bdda@forums.sybase.com...
> > > dennis.sullivan@corp.honeywell.com wrote...
> > >
> > > Check to make sure you are not running out of open object or open
indexes.
> > When this
> > > happens you can get some odd behavior that is difficult to trace back
to
> > it.  Are you sure
> > > you were supposed to use trace flag 3703?  I found a case where it is
> > indicated that 3703
> > > isn't necessary past 12.0.0.3.
> >
> > I'm ok on open objects, I have 5000 configured and the max used since
boot
> > is 1391
> > for the open indexs I have 3000 configure with the max used since boot =
903
> > (Waisting a little memory, but not enough to worry about)
> >
> > I agree with your 12.0.0.3 comment, as I had turned off that trace flag
when
> > I upgraded to 12.0.0.4.
> > Tech support, recommended turning it back on, as well as the 5303
parallel
> > sorting tempdb traceflag (I don't have parallel sorting turned on for
this
> > server, but to stop any arguement/discussion about wether it's being
caused
> > by this I turned that one on as well.).
> >
> > This is the verbage I have gotten back so far from tech support:
> >
> > I did research and found that you are hitting Sybase
> > bug #239389,229561,218487 and may be hitting more.
> > I am sending the explanation of these bugs. I know you
> > already tried incresing number of locks and set trace
> > flag -T3703 for EBF 9774 and I will open a sub case so
> > that a senior product engineer her at sybase will take
> > a closer look at this case.
> >
> > Possible bug, CR # 239389 : -
> >
> > Description:
> > parallel select into + deadlock may lead to errors
> > 3702 and 216 It is well known that in rel119x/rel120x we may
> > deadlock between slicers and unslicers tasks that execute a select-into
> > #table command in parallel.
> > Such a command internally first slices/partitions the
> > target #table,then inserts into it the data from the source(s)
> > tables in parallel,and at the end of the day unslices/unpartitions the
> > #target table.During slicing/unslicing based on the fact that the
> > lock ordering protocol regarding system tables is violated we gonna most
> > likely deadlock.
> >
> > Normally trace flag 5303 should be used by the customer otherwise
> > these deadlocks won't go away.? We do a better job in 12.5.
> > We have however decided to not backport the relevant
> > changes since rather complex and risky.? For history refer to CRs
> > 226571-1, 228517-1,
> > and 220851-1.
> >
> > 229561
> > The ASE problems:
> > The 216 and stack trace errors are associated with CR#
> > 229561
> > "216 errors after pss->pextattn bit set. pss-
> > >plasterror = 3702
> > A 216 error, "Attempt to automatically drop temporary
> > table failed" may
> > be
> > reported
> >
> > ? Workaround
> > ???? Boot the server with trace flag 3703
> > ? Syntax:
> > ???? -T3703
>
> I know this is an on-going problem and there are active investigations.
The trace flags
> haven't helped?
> --
> Jim Egan [TeamSybase]
> Senior Consultant
> Sybase Professional Services


0
Dennis
5/10/2002 2:09:12 PM
It looks like you're going to have to continue to follow up with Tech Support on this one.
-- 
Jim Egan [TeamSybase]
Senior Consultant
Sybase Professional Services
0
Jim
5/10/2002 3:54:38 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

Upgrade ASE 12.0.0.4 to 12.0.0.8
I upgraded my ASE to version 12.0.0.8. Now one of the application get a permanent error: "Not enough procedure cache". I increased the proc cache to 40% (total memory: 1 GB) - no success. When I rolled back to 12.0.0.4 everything works fine (with less procedure cache). The ASE is running on Solaris 7. The application connects thru the Merant ODBC driver. I gave the application already back to development to check. Any help how this can be avoided by a change on the host/server is appreciated. Bernd I always recommend dropping/recreating all of the stored...

Error Installing ASE 12.0 On Windows NT 4.0
After the unloading process, the server reboots and begins to install ASE and it's components. During this process ASE prompts me to enter information stored on the SSAM Certificate. Immediately following this process, an error displays stating that "sybcpnin.exe - Unable to locate DLL". It also shows "The dynamic link library CLUSAPI.dll could not be found in the specified path. Not really sure what to do now. Please advise John Rambert email: jrambert@cpg.org I see this same problem, and have been unable to pinpoint the cause. Anyone have an answer? ...

ASE 12.0.0.4 Error 2628 then timeslice current process infected
Have any ASE 12.5.x sites observed Error: 2628 Sev: 21 State: 3 (page n is linked forward to page x, but that page is linked backward to page y) followed by timeslice -1501 current process is infected? This was apparently observed in 11.9.2 per Case Id:10799223 - but has any attempt been made to fix it? Its not clear to me if the case is open or closed! If it does not manifest in ASE 12.5, I might start a putsch to upgrade to try and get out of this bind (the server chokes in a big way and the SHTF). All comments gratefully received. Cheers Frank. ...

ASE 12.0.0.0 / SWR 8775 UPGRADE TO ASE 12.0.0.6/EBF 10628 PERFORMANCE PROBLEM
Hi All, We recently upgraded ASE 12.0.0.0/SWR 8775 to ASE 12.0.0.6/EBF 10628. Some queries stopped returning resultsets. Recompiled the stored procs which fixed the issue. But the queries are running slower now. The overall performance of the app has become sluggish. The CPU is generally running higher as well! Have also set LD_LIBRARY_PATH_64 to include the new Solaris 8 threads library. Anybody any insights into this? How can we get back to the pre-upgrade performance levels short of rolling back the EBF. Regards Perry Perry, I guess 12.0.0.6 requires some Solaris ...

Error 11051 on ASE 12.0.0.3 NT
When I try to execute this command: alter table tablename modify birthday null I get this error: Server Message: Number 11051, Severity 16 ALTER TABLE 'documentos_extraviados' failed. Table is currently being used by one or more other tasks. I'm find in manuals, web, forums and I'm can get information. Whats happends? Is this on a system that is currently being used? Shawn Torkelson EGR wrote: > When I try to execute this command: > > alter table tablename modify birthday null > > I get this error: > > Server Message: ...

Exception: SQLException Error After Upgrade from ASE 12.5.0.3 to 12.5.4
After we upgraded ASE on SUN Solaris from 12.5.0.3 to 12.5.4, our web application gives us the following error... Exception: SQLException: Fail on select Invalid column name 'JGUTCHER'. It appears to me that the sql is being interpreted wrong. We have a database table that all the users are stored in for the app. As you can see by the error message, it seems to be treating the user as a column name??? The only thing in our environment that changed is the ASE version. DId sql syntax change between these versions? Thanks for the help, Jeff. Hello, SQL syntax do...

Can't construct query plan in ASE 12.0
Error 325 is being returned when trying to execute a stored procedure on version : Adaptive Server Enterprise/12.0/P/SWR 8773 ESD 1/RS6000/AIX 4.3.2/1580/64bit/FBO/Tue Dec 7 03:29:32 1999 ... this is the code causing the error when running on version listed above... it's a sub-query within a stored proc AND SBSB.HIST_ROW_ID = (select MAX(SBSB2.HIST_ROW_ID) FROM Massive_db.audit.CMC_SBSB_SUBSC SBSB2 WHERE SBSB2.SBSB_CK = SBSB.SBSB_CK AND CONVERT(CHAR(10),SBEL.SBEL_INSQ_DT,101) = CONVERT(CHAR 10),SBSB2.HIST_CREATE_DTM,101)) When executing same stored procedure on AS...

PB 8 and ASE 12.0.0.3. return error
We currently are using powerscript to execute a stored proc in sybase and don't appear to be getting any results back from the database. If we run the stored proc through another tool, we get the results expected. Through powerbuilder we are getting a return value of 0 for anything we check coming back from the stored proc. sqlca.sqlcode sqlca.sqldbcode Also here is our declaration, are we doing something wrong? ----------------------------------------------------------------- DECLARE DeleteCartonHdr PROCEDURE FOR @return_value = pldDeleteCartonHdr @carton_id ...

ASE 12.0.0.6 to ASE 12.5 and Rep Server 12.1
We are planning the upgrade of our ASE 12.0.0.6 64bit on AIX 4.3.3 to ASE 12.5 64bit on AIX 4.3.3. We are also using Rep Server 12.1 with these two servers. My question is do I need to upgrade Rep Server as well, or will 12.1 Rep Server Work with ASE 12.5. Also, we will be upgrading AIX to 5.1 as well. Any advice is appreciated. Thanks, Troy It will work, however you wont be able to use any of the 12.5 new datatypes, and the rep_agents will spit out annoying error/warning messages everytime they are restarted. Our production system has been running that way for about ye...

Error 691 occuring on a 75GB ASE 12.0.0.1 database
As part of a stress and performance exercise, I have been requested to create a 75GB database on an ASE12 Intel server. O/S = Windows 2000 sp4, quad p3's, 3GB RAM DB version = Adaptive Server Enterprise/12.0.0.1/P/SWR 9271 ESD 3/NT (IX86)/OS 4.0/1629/32bit/OPT/Wed Sep 06 14:53:20 2000 ASE installs as normal. I then created the database on 38 2G device fragments (disk is SAN based). Once the database has been loaded with a copy of Prod (only 2GB data), the Stress/Performance test begins. In the middle of testing, database corruption occurs with error 691 being written to...

Error 4720 (ASE 12.0 on AIX 4.3x)
Hi, What is the explanation for this error? I'm getting this error in two temp tables and the troubleshootomg manual only says "Retry your command later." 4720 16 Cannot truncate table '%.*s' because there are one or more isolation level 0 scans, or REORG command, active on the table. Explanation: Retry your command later. Thanks!! ~Luis ASE thinks there are other processes using the table, because a counter in the object descriptor memory structure has a value larger than 1. Either there really are other processes accessing the table or the coun...

Error 4720 (ASE 12.0 on AIX 4.3x)
Hi, What is the explanation for this error? I'm getting this error in two temp tables and the troubleshootomg manual only says "Retry your command later." 4720 16 Cannot truncate table '%.*s' because there are one or more isolation level 0 scans, or REORG command, active on the table. Explanation: Retry your command later. Thanks!! ~Luis -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Luis Porras wrote: | Hi, | | What is the explanation for this error? I'm getting this error in two temp | tables and the troubleshootomg manual only says &...

Async I/O Error -- ASE 12.0.0.3 on Sun Solaris 8
I've installed ASE 12.0.0.3 on a Sunv480 with 4x900MHz CPU 8GB of memory and 2x36GB SCSI drives. The server is connected to a HDS SAN array with dedicated LUN containing 180GB of disk space via 2Gbit fibre. Running Sun Solaris 8, with the latest kernel patch (29). Incorporating SQS with ASE, version 342. Every so often when running a spatial query I encounter the following error (doesn't appear in the error log, so it's safe to say the OS is doing the complaining). > aio_alloc_stack: mprotect 1: Invalid argument > AIO PANIC (LWP = 1): aio_req_add: add wo...

Error 8009 for dump database after upgrading ASE from 11.5 to 12.0.0.2
Hi, I've upgraded my ASE from 11.5 to 12.0.0.2 SWR 9442 ESD 1. When I try to make a dump database I get the following error messages: Backup Server session id is: 5. Use this value when executing the 'sp_volchanged' system stored procedure after fulfilling any volume change request from the Backup Server. Backup Server: 4.141.2.67: [0] The 'ReadFile' call failed for device 'F:\Backup\omitrans.dat' with error number 109 (Die Pipe wurde beendet). Refer to your operating system documentation for further details. Backup Server Internal Error: 4.62.3....

Web resources about - ASE 12.0.0.4 Error 216 followed by Error 1204 - sybase.ase.general

Donald Trump Calls Ted Cruz ‘A Little Bit Of A Maniac’ After Slipping In Iowa Poll: “I Have Far Better ...
Donald Trump says that he will run as an independent candidate if he continues to receive backlash after his Muslim ban comments, The Guardian ...

Climate deal: the pistol has fired, so why aren’t we running? - Bill McKibben - Opinion - The Guardian ...
There can be no complacency after the Paris talks. Hitting even the 1.5C target will need drastic, rapid action

Harrison Ford Sneaks Into ‘Star Wars: The Force Awakens’ Event, Surprises Fans
The Force — and the surprise — is strong with this one. Harrison Ford sneaked into an Australian fan event for “Star Wars: The Force Awakens,” ...

Russia warning shot: Putin's forces fire at Turkey vessel in Aegean sea - Latest News - Breaking UK News ...
VLADIMIR Putin's forces have fired a warning shot at a Turkish vessel in the Aegean sea.

After beating Aldo, McGregor wants to hold a second UFC belt
LAS VEGAS (AP) — Gab is just one of Conor McGregor's many gifts.

Apple Music wins exclusive video deal with Taylor Swift
(Reuters) – Pop star Taylor Swift’s “1989 World Tour Live” concert video will be available exclusively on Apple Inc’s music streaming service, ...

Initial Results Show First Female Politicians Elected In Saudi Arabia
Huffington Post Initial Results Show First Female Politicians Elected In Saudi Arabia Huffington Post RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) At least five ...

Los Angeles Lakers News: Kobe Bryant Talks Relationship With Dwight Howard
After being on the losing end of a lopsided 126-97 loss to the Houston Rockets, Los Angeles Lakers’ legend and the soon-to-be retired Kobe Bryant ...

French elections: seven regions for centre right, none for Front National – as it happened
Marine Le Pen’s party defeated by tactical voting and an increase in turnout after record showing in first round

How The Warriors Streak Ended
24 wins in a row is as impressive of a streak as you’ll ever see to start an NBA season, but the Warriors were close to a different, sneakily ...

Resources last updated: 12/13/2015 11:13:47 PM