Non-Yielding on Scheduler 0.

I have a server with Windows 2003 Server with SQL Server 2000 Cluster Server.
What could cause the error listed below with SQL Server 2000.
Thanks
Process 174:0 (cb8) UMS Context 0x000006FBFE8C88B1 appears to be
non-yielding on Scheduler 6
Process 140:0 (700) UMS Context 0x000006FBFE8A7230 appears to be
non-yielding on Scheduler 0.
Hi Joe K,
I once had a similar problem with SQL Server, in my case it was caused by
the fact that we used highend SAN’s that allocated disk space to quickly.
(Imagine that, problems caused by disks being to fast instead of to slow)
The KB article related to this problem is
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/810885.
Unfortunately your post didn’t contain the actual error code so I can’t
verify if the problem described in the KB article is the one you are
experiencing. However if the KB article does describe the problem you are
facing installing SQL Server 2000 SP4 would probably solve it.
Let me know if this helps,
Kind regards Leon Krancher.
P.s. Most Servers I know that use a high-end storage device contain more
than 4Gb of ram. If this is also the case in your scenario you might also
want to take a look at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761. This KB
article describes a problem with AWE on SQL Servers with SP4 installed and
points to the additional fix that has to be installed to cure this.
"Joe K." wrote:

> I have a server with Windows 2003 Server with SQL Server 2000 Cluster Server.
> What could cause the error listed below with SQL Server 2000.
> Thanks
> Process 174:0 (cb8) UMS Context 0x000006FBFE8C88B1 appears to be
> non-yielding on Scheduler 6
> Process 140:0 (700) UMS Context 0x000006FBFE8A7230 appears to be
> non-yielding on Scheduler 0.
|||And it's fixed in SP4
Nik Marshall-Blank MCSD/MCDBA
"Leon" <Leon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:92979375-B688-4CD1-9B67-3EE1EDAD273E@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Joe K,
> I once had a similar problem with SQL Server, in my case it was caused by
> the fact that we used highend SAN's that allocated disk space to quickly.
> (Imagine that, problems caused by disks being to fast instead of to slow)
> The KB article related to this problem is
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/810885.
> Unfortunately your post didn't contain the actual error code so I can't
> verify if the problem described in the KB article is the one you are
> experiencing. However if the KB article does describe the problem you are
> facing installing SQL Server 2000 SP4 would probably solve it.
> Let me know if this helps,
> Kind regards Leon Krancher.
> P.s. Most Servers I know that use a high-end storage device contain more
> than 4Gb of ram. If this is also the case in your scenario you might also
> want to take a look at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761. This KB
> article describes a problem with AWE on SQL Servers with SP4 installed and
> points to the additional fix that has to be installed to cure this.
>
> "Joe K." wrote:

Non-Yielding on Scheduler 0.

I have a server with Windows 2003 Server with SQL Server 2000 Cluster Server
.
What could cause the error listed below with SQL Server 2000.
Thanks
Process 174:0 (cb8) UMS Context 0x000006FBFE8C88B1 appears to be
non-yielding on Scheduler 6
Process 140:0 (700) UMS Context 0x000006FBFE8A7230 appears to be
non-yielding on Scheduler 0.Hi Joe K,
I once had a similar problem with SQL Server, in my case it was caused by
the fact that we used highend SAN’s that allocated disk space to quickly.
(Imagine that, problems caused by disks being to fast instead of to slow)
The KB article related to this problem is
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/810885.
Unfortunately your post didn’t contain the actual error code so I can’t
verify if the problem described in the KB article is the one you are
experiencing. However if the KB article does describe the problem you are
facing installing SQL Server 2000 SP4 would probably solve it.
Let me know if this helps,
Kind regards Leon Krancher.
P.s. Most Servers I know that use a high-end storage device contain more
than 4Gb of ram. If this is also the case in your scenario you might also
want to take a look at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761. This KB
article describes a problem with AWE on SQL Servers with SP4 installed and
points to the additional fix that has to be installed to cure this.
"Joe K." wrote:

> I have a server with Windows 2003 Server with SQL Server 2000 Cluster Serv
er.
> What could cause the error listed below with SQL Server 2000.
> Thanks
> Process 174:0 (cb8) UMS Context 0x000006FBFE8C88B1 appears to be
> non-yielding on Scheduler 6
> Process 140:0 (700) UMS Context 0x000006FBFE8A7230 appears to be
> non-yielding on Scheduler 0.|||And it's fixed in SP4
Nik Marshall-Blank MCSD/MCDBA
"Leon" <Leon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:92979375-B688-4CD1-9B67-3EE1EDAD273E@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Joe K,
> I once had a similar problem with SQL Server, in my case it was caused by
> the fact that we used highend SAN's that allocated disk space to quickly.
> (Imagine that, problems caused by disks being to fast instead of to slow)
> The KB article related to this problem is
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/810885.
> Unfortunately your post didn't contain the actual error code so I can't
> verify if the problem described in the KB article is the one you are
> experiencing. However if the KB article does describe the problem you are
> facing installing SQL Server 2000 SP4 would probably solve it.
> Let me know if this helps,
> Kind regards Leon Krancher.
> P.s. Most Servers I know that use a high-end storage device contain more
> than 4Gb of ram. If this is also the case in your scenario you might also
> want to take a look at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761. This KB
> article describes a problem with AWE on SQL Servers with SP4 installed and
> points to the additional fix that has to be installed to cure this.
>
> "Joe K." wrote:
>

Non-Yielding on Scheduler 0.

I have a server with Windows 2003 Server with SQL Server 2000 Cluster Server.
What could cause the error listed below with SQL Server 2000.
Thanks
Process 174:0 (cb8) UMS Context 0x000006FBFE8C88B1 appears to be
non-yielding on Scheduler 6
Process 140:0 (700) UMS Context 0x000006FBFE8A7230 appears to be
non-yielding on Scheduler 0.Hi Joe K,
I once had a similar problem with SQL Server, in my case it was caused by
the fact that we used highend SANâ's that allocated disk space to quickly.
(Imagine that, problems caused by disks being to fast instead of to slow)
The KB article related to this problem is
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/810885.
Unfortunately your post didnâ't contain the actual error code so I canâ't
verify if the problem described in the KB article is the one you are
experiencing. However if the KB article does describe the problem you are
facing installing SQL Server 2000 SP4 would probably solve it.
Let me know if this helps,
Kind regards Leon Krancher.
P.s. Most Servers I know that use a high-end storage device contain more
than 4Gb of ram. If this is also the case in your scenario you might also
want to take a look at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761. This KB
article describes a problem with AWE on SQL Servers with SP4 installed and
points to the additional fix that has to be installed to cure this.
"Joe K." wrote:
> I have a server with Windows 2003 Server with SQL Server 2000 Cluster Server.
> What could cause the error listed below with SQL Server 2000.
> Thanks
> Process 174:0 (cb8) UMS Context 0x000006FBFE8C88B1 appears to be
> non-yielding on Scheduler 6
> Process 140:0 (700) UMS Context 0x000006FBFE8A7230 appears to be
> non-yielding on Scheduler 0.|||And it's fixed in SP4
--
Nik Marshall-Blank MCSD/MCDBA
"Leon" <Leon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:92979375-B688-4CD1-9B67-3EE1EDAD273E@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Joe K,
> I once had a similar problem with SQL Server, in my case it was caused by
> the fact that we used highend SAN's that allocated disk space to quickly.
> (Imagine that, problems caused by disks being to fast instead of to slow)
> The KB article related to this problem is
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/810885.
> Unfortunately your post didn't contain the actual error code so I can't
> verify if the problem described in the KB article is the one you are
> experiencing. However if the KB article does describe the problem you are
> facing installing SQL Server 2000 SP4 would probably solve it.
> Let me know if this helps,
> Kind regards Leon Krancher.
> P.s. Most Servers I know that use a high-end storage device contain more
> than 4Gb of ram. If this is also the case in your scenario you might also
> want to take a look at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899761. This KB
> article describes a problem with AWE on SQL Servers with SP4 installed and
> points to the additional fix that has to be installed to cure this.
>
> "Joe K." wrote:
>> I have a server with Windows 2003 Server with SQL Server 2000 Cluster
>> Server.
>> What could cause the error listed below with SQL Server 2000.
>> Thanks
>> Process 174:0 (cb8) UMS Context 0x000006FBFE8C88B1 appears to be
>> non-yielding on Scheduler 6
>> Process 140:0 (700) UMS Context 0x000006FBFE8A7230 appears to be
>> non-yielding on Scheduler 0.sql

Non Clustered Index

Hi ,
When I creare a non clustered index , I get error as show below ,
Server: Msg 1904, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Cannot specify more than 16 column names for statistics or index key list.
21 specified.
SQL Server only support up to 16 key values ?
Travis Tan
First off, this question should be posted in
Microsoft.public.sqlserver.programming. Clustering is a technology which
allows individual computers to share the same data and back each other up to
prevent system failures. Clients connect to a virtual server, whose
resources float between nodes which form the cluster.
Clustered indexes are when the data is clustered or grouped in a predefined
format or order for rapid retrieval of ranges of data.
16 columns makes your index very large and I suspect inefficient. You may be
able to use an indexed view to group your data in different orders for your
particular usage. And yes, clustered indexes only support a maximum of 16
columns or keys in SQL 200x.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Travis" <Travis@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:79F89C55-B258-40D3-93EE-B02C12676125@.microsoft.com...
> Hi ,
> When I creare a non clustered index , I get error as show below ,
> Server: Msg 1904, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Cannot specify more than 16 column names for statistics or index key list.
> 21 specified.
> SQL Server only support up to 16 key values ?
> --
> Travis Tan
|||Yes. Why are you trying to create an index with 21 columns in it? That is
quite a bit beyond overkill.
Mike
Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
"Travis" <Travis@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:79F89C55-B258-40D3-93EE-B02C12676125@.microsoft.com...
> Hi ,
> When I creare a non clustered index , I get error as show below ,
> Server: Msg 1904, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Cannot specify more than 16 column names for statistics or index key list.
> 21 specified.
> SQL Server only support up to 16 key values ?
> --
> Travis Tan
|||Hi
Wrong newsgroup, crossposted to microsoft.public.sqlserver.programming
Why would you want to create a compound index of 16 or more columns? Your
query has to be very specific to be able to use it and the overhead
maintaining it will be high too.
If you have a table, with columns A-Z and you build and index on A, B, C, D
(in that column sequence), a where clause on A, B, C could use the index, a
query on column B can't, neither can a query on C, D. Column A always has to
be involved as it is the 1st sort sequence for the column.
Maybe the DB design is not optimal if you need to go to such extremes.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Travis" <Travis@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:79F89C55-B258-40D3-93EE-B02C12676125@.microsoft.com...
> Hi ,
> When I creare a non clustered index , I get error as show below ,
> Server: Msg 1904, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Cannot specify more than 16 column names for statistics or index key list.
> 21 specified.
> SQL Server only support up to 16 key values ?
> --
> Travis Tan