float point error

We are still seeing this error:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;818899
on the latest version of sqlserver2k :
select @.@.version
--
Microsoft SQL Server 2000 - 8.00.760 (Intel X86) Dec 17 2002 14:22:05
Copyright (c) 1988-2003 Microsoft Corporation Enterprise Edition on Windows
NT 5.0 (Build 2195: Service Pack 4)
Does anyone know when MS will release an official patch. Suposedly, the
have a dll then can give you but nothing official. This is kindof a pretty
bad bug to leave open.> We are still seeing this error:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;818899
Well, did you follow the instructions in the article, by contacting
Microsoft product support and obtaining the .807 hotfix (which is later than
the "latest version" of .760)? There is no fee for the call or the hotfix
itself if you demonstrate to them that you are affected by the issue the
hotfix fixes.
Otherwise, you can try to find later patches (e.g. see
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms03-031.mspx which
updates you to .818).
Barring those two actions, you will have to wait for SP4.
> This is kindof a pretty bad bug to leave open.
Well, that really depends on how many users it has affected, doesn't it?
--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)|||As you know, SQL Server QFEs are cumulative. The fix described in this
article is Build 2000.00.0807. The latest publicly available hot fix is
Build .0878, which would include a fix for this error.
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=838166
Also know that SP4 is currently in Beta testing and will include builds up
to .0972.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:OrJl5DOAFHA.824@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> We are still seeing this error:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;818899
Well, did you follow the instructions in the article, by contacting
Microsoft product support and obtaining the .807 hotfix (which is later than
the "latest version" of .760)? There is no fee for the call or the hotfix
itself if you demonstrate to them that you are affected by the issue the
hotfix fixes.
Otherwise, you can try to find later patches (e.g. see
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms03-031.mspx which
updates you to .818).
Barring those two actions, you will have to wait for SP4.
> This is kindof a pretty bad bug to leave open.
Well, that really depends on how many users it has affected, doesn't it?
--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)|||> As you know, SQL Server QFEs are cumulative.
That is true until .977. For example, to install .993 on .760, you first
need to get to the .977 hotfix installer -- .993 won't install on < .977 (it
will complain about missing prerequisites).
> The fix described in this
> article is Build 2000.00.0807. The latest publicly available hot fix is
> Build .0878, which would include a fix for this error.
However, it is not always the best to just install the latest. He may
prefer to go through PSS, demonstrate that .807 is his issue, and fix that.
.878 might bring about other problems that he doesn't have time to fully
test. Sure, it might be more convenient to get a patch that is publicly
available, but I don't jump to the conclusion that it is absolutely the best
answer.
> Also know that SP4 is currently in Beta testing and will include builds up
> to .0972.
And then the numbering scheme jumps significantly (SP4 beta is .2026, yet
there are several .973+ hotfixes already available).
I'm still curious why they chose to break at .977 to use the new hotfix
installer, breaking the chain of cumulative hotfixes. It would have been a
much more logical break, IMHO, to wait for SP4 -- introduce the new hotfix
installer at a stable, fully tested service pack... <shrug>
A|||Yes, I found this out with .0859. The biggest reason I jumped on .0878, it
seemed more stable.
I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +. So,
I'm not sure how a Build including only fixes to the 972 level could be
labeled 2026. That's got me stumped. Not to mention that it bombs the
replication if you've already applied 878. I've got that thread running in
the Beta newsgroup.
Now, I wouldn't want to slam PSS, because they've been very helpful,
especially in crash circumstances; however, they have been known to push hot
fixes a little too eagerly as well. I figure once it has gone public, at
least, it has somewhat stabilized. But yes, I realize, that even SP level
code bases can introduce new bugs.
As always, thanks for your insight.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:%23zfCiKbAFHA.3940@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> As you know, SQL Server QFEs are cumulative.
That is true until .977. For example, to install .993 on .760, you first
need to get to the .977 hotfix installer -- .993 won't install on < .977 (it
will complain about missing prerequisites).
> The fix described in this
> article is Build 2000.00.0807. The latest publicly available hot fix is
> Build .0878, which would include a fix for this error.
However, it is not always the best to just install the latest. He may
prefer to go through PSS, demonstrate that .807 is his issue, and fix that.
.878 might bring about other problems that he doesn't have time to fully
test. Sure, it might be more convenient to get a patch that is publicly
available, but I don't jump to the conclusion that it is absolutely the best
answer.
> Also know that SP4 is currently in Beta testing and will include builds up
> to .0972.
And then the numbering scheme jumps significantly (SP4 beta is .2026, yet
there are several .973+ hotfixes already available).
I'm still curious why they chose to break at .977 to use the new hotfix
installer, breaking the chain of cumulative hotfixes. It would have been a
much more logical break, IMHO, to wait for SP4 -- introduce the new hotfix
installer at a stable, fully tested service pack... <shrug>
A|||> Yes, I found this out with .0859. The biggest reason I jumped on .0878,
it
> seemed more stable.
I've heard many similar complaints.
> I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
> However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
> fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +.
I'm not sure how they're going to deal with this (other than slip the other
fixes in before release). BTW, can you share any articles that are 1000+?
The highest I can find is .993 (and not using the pitiful on-again off-again
search at support.microsoft.com).|||> I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
> However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
> fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +.
So,
> I'm not sure how a Build including only fixes to the 972 level could be
> labeled 2026. That's got me stumped.
My guess is that the hotfixes that have been pushed since December 9th (when
2026 was forged) have been worked into both branches, and will be included
in SP4 when it goes live... what that means for the beta process, I'm not
sure... clearly we can't be testing everything right up to the point of
release, and we're already using a build that's behind on at least 6 unique
hotfixes so far.
A|||Yea, I agree; they have to cut the beta release off at some point. I've
asked about the build number with no response though. I think it was a goof
but until I hear otherwise, we'll have to take it as they put it.
Anthony Thomas
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:%23c8UxPcAFHA.3264@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
> However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
> fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +.
So,
> I'm not sure how a Build including only fixes to the 972 level could be
> labeled 2026. That's got me stumped.
My guess is that the hotfixes that have been pushed since December 9th (when
2026 was forged) have been worked into both branches, and will be included
in SP4 when it goes live... what that means for the beta process, I'm not
sure... clearly we can't be testing everything right up to the point of
release, and we're already using a build that's behind on at least 6 unique
hotfixes so far.
A|||Yea, that's why I said .1000 +, I know I came across one article that listed
a .1193 or something like that and have been searching ever since but no
luck...yet.
I also came across a slip-steamed install for MSDE for the new, free MS ADS
(?) server. It's an SUS system for deploying patches to Server Systems. It
had a build of 8.00.0880 but can't find a build description or why it was
inserted into this installation. MS also slip-streamed SP3a, of course, and
MS03-031, individually, like 880 wouldn't install without it.
Anthony Thomas
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:uCtTUMcAFHA.3088@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Yes, I found this out with .0859. The biggest reason I jumped on .0878,
it
> seemed more stable.
I've heard many similar complaints.
> I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
> However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
> fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +.
I'm not sure how they're going to deal with this (other than slip the other
fixes in before release). BTW, can you share any articles that are 1000+?
The highest I can find is .993 (and not using the pitiful on-again off-again
search at support.microsoft.com).

Flight Sample Debate

Hi All,

I found the Flight Sample Description at http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms160946(d=ide).aspx .

I installed the file SQLServerSamples.msi which is in C:\Program

Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Tools\Samples by default.

I followed the steps strictly.

Every thing was OK except:

- I didn't have any response in the Notifications folder which by

default resides in C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Samples\Notification

Services\Flight

- I didn't understand what happened exactly

So:

- What are the probable causes of not getting a result?

- I want some documentation about what happens in the example.

Thanks in advance,

Bishoy

Anything in the Event Viewer?

Try turning on Verbose logging to see if that helps point you in the right direction.

|||

1- That all what is found in Event Viewer:

Event Type: Information
Event Source: Service Control Manager
Event

Category: None
Event ID: 7035
Date: 8/11/2006
Time: 6:13:43

PM
User: BISHOYLAPTOP\Bishoy
Computer: BISHOYLAPTOP
Description:
The

NS$FlightInstance service was successfully sent a start control.

For more information, see Help and Support Center at http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/events.asp.

> but still there is nothing appeared in the Notifications Folder

2- What is Verbose login

3- I want documentation source about that Flight Sample.

Thank you.

Bishoy

|||

I found where the error was:

There should be one strong name key for both the

AddSubscribers and AddSubscription projects.

The signing for both projects is ..\..\..\SampleKey.snk which I could never

make myself.

Now I have the following questions or inquires:

1- I want some documentations about what happened in that example.

2- How to sign a project to present key in above folder like

..\..\..\SampleKey.snk (because browse button copy the key to the project

folder)?

3- What is the output meaning in the Notifications folder which is

FileNotifications.txt file?

Many Thanks and Best Regards.

Bishoy

|||

Hi Bishoy -

Rather than continuing with two parallel conversations, I've posted replies to the NewsGroup.

http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.sqlserver.notificationsvcs/browse_frm/thread/24e8f2b998118394/013718ab4d063ff3?hl=en#013718ab4d063ff3

HTH...

Joe

Flag -T1118, "Concurrency enhancements for the tempdb database", is it required with SQL 2

Hi:
Is the flag -T1118 required to solve the problem described in
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/328551, when you have SQL Server 2000 with
Service Pack 4, or it's unecessary?
I'm not sure if this is unecessary. I didn't see, anywhere, something
like "Hey, man, apply SP4, create multiple files for tempdb, and forget
the -T1118 flag, it's not required anymore...". The documentation says, in a
shy way, that's the problem is solved on SP4, but I've found places that
says to always create multiple files for tempdb.
What's the correct? Should I always have -T1118 applied or it's not
required?
TIA,
--
Ravi Wallau
nospam@.nospam.orgYou might want to do a feedback on that KB asking for clarification. Here's what is going on:
Trace flag 1118 will mean no allocations from mixed extents (except from IAM pages). This can
increase concurrency on your tempdb as it will decrease hit on the SGAM page.
The fix in the KB mean that several files for tempdb will be used in a round-robin fashion,
essentially spreading out SGAM hit over several files.
You can combine one with the other. Since eliminating mixed extents for data will mean increased
storage utilization, I recommend you go for the KB fix to start with. If you still feel you have
resource contention of the tempdb SGAM page, try adding trace flag 1118 as well.
We recently had a discussion in the MVP group on how the article is worded, but I have a feeling
that the discussion didn't trigger a re-wording in the article...
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Ravi Ambros Wallau" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:OykXgqtRGHA.5900@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi:
> Is the flag -T1118 required to solve the problem described in
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/328551, when you have SQL Server 2000 with Service Pack 4, or it's
> unecessary?
> I'm not sure if this is unecessary. I didn't see, anywhere, something like "Hey, man, apply
> SP4, create multiple files for tempdb, and forget the -T1118 flag, it's not required anymore...".
> The documentation says, in a shy way, that's the problem is solved on SP4, but I've found places
> that says to always create multiple files for tempdb.
> What's the correct? Should I always have -T1118 applied or it's not required?
> TIA,
> --
> Ravi Wallau
> nospam@.nospam.org
>sql

Firefox Issues in 2005...

Can someone please verify that the following items are not supported in Firefox. Our app issues an http request to the report server (url access). The following differences are seen between IE and FF:

1) The message "Report is being generated" does not disply in FF during report generation.

2) The printer icon does not appear in the toolbar.

3) Is there any plan to support search functionality within the report in the future?

Thanks.

I'm not sure about #1 or #3, but for #2, client side print is only supported in IE. This is because the client side printing is done via an ActiveX control.

|||Thanks Daniel. I'm recommending to my clients that the IE Tab add-on be installed in Firefox; it solves the problems with the search bar and also displays the "Report is being generated" message. I understand why the search bar functionality is not available in vanilla FF but I'm not sure why the Report generation message with the twirly doesn't appear.