"sp_cursor" error while printing web report using Reporting Servic

Hi there,
We're using MS SQL 2000 with MS Server 2003. It's a Xeon ( single processor)
based Server with 1GB RAM.
We also use 'Reporting Services' to generate web reports.
The problem is , our application will have problem writing ( ie. INSERT
INTO) to the transaction database if the web reporting is printing data from
the same transaction table.
Following errors were captured in our application.
_sp_cursor:_The_cursor_identifier_value_provided_(xxxxxxx)_is_not_valid
where xxxxxx cpuld be some kind of hex codes , for example 'abcdf08'
,'abcdf03' etc.
Could the MS SQL Server not able to cope during high traffic?
Pls. help.
Thanks.
CD MooHi
This sounds like you may have blocking/deadlocking which rolls back the
reporting services connection. To monitor this check out
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/271509/EN-US/. If you do not need to report
on the currently live data, then you would be better creating a copy
periodically and point the reports to that. If you need more up-to-date data
you may want to check out log shipping. With SQL 2005 you could use database
snapshots for this purpose.
John
"CD Moo" wrote:
> Hi there,
> We're using MS SQL 2000 with MS Server 2003. It's a Xeon ( single processor)
> based Server with 1GB RAM.
> We also use 'Reporting Services' to generate web reports.
> The problem is , our application will have problem writing ( ie. INSERT
> INTO) to the transaction database if the web reporting is printing data from
> the same transaction table.
> Following errors were captured in our application.
> _sp_cursor:_The_cursor_identifier_value_provided_(xxxxxxx)_is_not_valid
> where xxxxxx cpuld be some kind of hex codes , for example 'abcdf08'
> ,'abcdf03' etc.
> Could the MS SQL Server not able to cope during high traffic?
> Pls. help.
> Thanks.
> CD Moo
>|||Hi there,
We're using SQL Server 2000 with the latest service pack.
I have 2 SQL Servers, Server1 & Server2.
I created a table named Trade in Server1.
Created a view named vwTrade in Server2.
At first, I can see the data from vwTrade. Then I deleted the content of
Trade. Uploaded it with a new set of data using DTS from a foxpro database.
but after that, it is can no longer be seen in vwTrade. If I create another
view named vwTrade2 in Server1, it works fine. But when the view is
recreated in Server2, it just give and empty rowset.
Regards,
Jefrey

"sp_cursor" error while printing web report using Reporting Servic

Hi there,
We're using MS SQL 2000 with MS Server 2003. It's a Xeon ( single processor)
based Server with 1GB RAM.
We also use 'Reporting Services' to generate web reports.
The problem is , our application will have problem writing ( ie. INSERT
INTO) to the transaction database if the web reporting is printing data from
the same transaction table.
Following errors were captured in our application.
_sp_cursor:_The_cursor_identifier_value_
provided_(xxxxxxx)_is_not_valid
where xxxxxx cpuld be some kind of hex codes , for example 'abcdf08'
,'abcdf03' etc.
Could the MS SQL Server not able to cope during high traffic?
Pls. help.
Thanks.
CD MooHi
This sounds like you may have blocking/deadlocking which rolls back the
reporting services connection. To monitor this check out
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/271509/EN-US/. If you do not need to report
on the currently live data, then you would be better creating a copy
periodically and point the reports to that. If you need more up-to-date data
you may want to check out log shipping. With SQL 2005 you could use database
snapshots for this purpose.
John
"CD Moo" wrote:

> Hi there,
> We're using MS SQL 2000 with MS Server 2003. It's a Xeon ( single processo
r)
> based Server with 1GB RAM.
> We also use 'Reporting Services' to generate web reports.
> The problem is , our application will have problem writing ( ie. INSERT
> INTO) to the transaction database if the web reporting is printing data fr
om
> the same transaction table.
> Following errors were captured in our application.
> _sp_cursor:_The_cursor_identifier_value_
provided_(xxxxxxx)_is_not_valid
> where xxxxxx cpuld be some kind of hex codes , for example 'abcdf08'
> ,'abcdf03' etc.
> Could the MS SQL Server not able to cope during high traffic?
> Pls. help.
> Thanks.
> CD Moo
>

"Maximum Memory" setting in SQL Server properties

I have inherrited a sql 2k standard server running Win2K standard Ed with 3.5
gb RAM (!?!) on a raid 5 (!?!). The server is dedicated for SQL only and has
4 CPUs.
The "maximum memory" setting is set to 3500 MB and SQL is using around 1.75
GB of physical ram and 1.75 GB of Virtual Memory (total:3500 MB). Any inputs
on if the "maximum memory" setting should be left to 3500mb or should it be
reduced to 2000 MB so SQL uses only the physical ram? I am aware that the
transaction log should not be on a raid 5 for performance reasons and I know
that SQL 2k Standard + Win2k standard will not let me use more than 2 GB of
RAM for SQL. The average Physical Disk (_total) activity is 56% which is
considered very high.
Any inputs would be appreciated on this setting while we order the SQL2K
Enterprise on Win2K Advanced Ed. and add an extra controller and 15 RPM
drives...Hi
SQL Server Standard Edition is limited to 2GB of RAM. If you have more, it
will not use it. You need to install SQL Server Expertise Edition to use
more RAM (and set /3GB switch in your boot.ini). SQL Server knows it must
leave space for the OS, so the .25 is left for the OS in the sub 2GB memory
area.
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/
"Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E5260014-1A9E-47AF-9247-0F8F5B25F8DF@.microsoft.com...
> I have inherrited a sql 2k standard server running Win2K standard Ed with
3.5
> gb RAM (!?!) on a raid 5 (!?!). The server is dedicated for SQL only and
has
> 4 CPUs.
> The "maximum memory" setting is set to 3500 MB and SQL is using around
1.75
> GB of physical ram and 1.75 GB of Virtual Memory (total:3500 MB). Any
inputs
> on if the "maximum memory" setting should be left to 3500mb or should it
be
> reduced to 2000 MB so SQL uses only the physical ram? I am aware that the
> transaction log should not be on a raid 5 for performance reasons and I
know
> that SQL 2k Standard + Win2k standard will not let me use more than 2 GB
of
> RAM for SQL. The average Physical Disk (_total) activity is 56% which is
> considered very high.
> Any inputs would be appreciated on this setting while we order the SQL2K
> Enterprise on Win2K Advanced Ed. and add an extra controller and 15 RPM
> drives...
>|||Thanks for your reply.
I fully understand what you are saying (as it was also statement in my
request). I am interested to know about he virtual memory portion of it.
Thanks again
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> SQL Server Standard Edition is limited to 2GB of RAM. If you have more, it
> will not use it. You need to install SQL Server Expertise Edition to use
> more RAM (and set /3GB switch in your boot.ini). SQL Server knows it must
> leave space for the OS, so the .25 is left for the OS in the sub 2GB memory
> area.
> 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/
> "Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E5260014-1A9E-47AF-9247-0F8F5B25F8DF@.microsoft.com...
> > I have inherrited a sql 2k standard server running Win2K standard Ed with
> 3.5
> > gb RAM (!?!) on a raid 5 (!?!). The server is dedicated for SQL only and
> has
> > 4 CPUs.
> >
> > The "maximum memory" setting is set to 3500 MB and SQL is using around
> 1.75
> > GB of physical ram and 1.75 GB of Virtual Memory (total:3500 MB). Any
> inputs
> > on if the "maximum memory" setting should be left to 3500mb or should it
> be
> > reduced to 2000 MB so SQL uses only the physical ram? I am aware that the
> > transaction log should not be on a raid 5 for performance reasons and I
> know
> > that SQL 2k Standard + Win2k standard will not let me use more than 2 GB
> of
> > RAM for SQL. The average Physical Disk (_total) activity is 56% which is
> > considered very high.
> >
> > Any inputs would be appreciated on this setting while we order the SQL2K
> > Enterprise on Win2K Advanced Ed. and add an extra controller and 15 RPM
> > drives...
> >
> >
>
>|||"Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1D46A3CC-2D84-4FAA-AA97-24DDA8A27443@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks for your reply.
> I fully understand what you are saying (as it was also statement in my
> request). I am interested to know about he virtual memory portion of it.
From the application's point of view physical and virtual memory are just
the same. You must not sum them up. Physical mem in TaskMGR shows the
portion of the application that's actually in main memory while virtual
mem shows the total allocated size. Your case is optimal with regard to
swapping: the process is completely in physical mem.
As Mike said, your SQL Server will never use more than what it uses at the
moment unless you install enterprise edition.
You should use perfmon to determine what causes the high disk activity.
Regards
robert
> Thanks again
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > SQL Server Standard Edition is limited to 2GB of RAM. If you have
more, it
> > will not use it. You need to install SQL Server Expertise Edition to
use
> > more RAM (and set /3GB switch in your boot.ini). SQL Server knows it
must
> > leave space for the OS, so the .25 is left for the OS in the sub 2GB
memory
> > area.
> >
> > 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/
> >
> > "Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:E5260014-1A9E-47AF-9247-0F8F5B25F8DF@.microsoft.com...
> > > I have inherrited a sql 2k standard server running Win2K standard Ed
with
> > 3.5
> > > gb RAM (!?!) on a raid 5 (!?!). The server is dedicated for SQL
only and
> > has
> > > 4 CPUs.
> > >
> > > The "maximum memory" setting is set to 3500 MB and SQL is using
around
> > 1.75
> > > GB of physical ram and 1.75 GB of Virtual Memory (total:3500 MB).
Any
> > inputs
> > > on if the "maximum memory" setting should be left to 3500mb or
should it
> > be
> > > reduced to 2000 MB so SQL uses only the physical ram? I am aware
that the
> > > transaction log should not be on a raid 5 for performance reasons
and I
> > know
> > > that SQL 2k Standard + Win2k standard will not let me use more than
2 GB
> > of
> > > RAM for SQL. The average Physical Disk (_total) activity is 56%
which is
> > > considered very high.
> > >
> > > Any inputs would be appreciated on this setting while we order the
SQL2K
> > > Enterprise on Win2K Advanced Ed. and add an extra controller and 15
RPM
> > > drives...
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >

"Maximum Memory" setting in SQL Server properties

I have inherrited a sql 2k standard server running Win2K standard Ed with 3.5
gb RAM (!?!) on a raid 5 (!?!). The server is dedicated for SQL only and has
4 CPUs.
The "maximum memory" setting is set to 3500 MB and SQL is using around 1.75
GB of physical ram and 1.75 GB of Virtual Memory (total:3500 MB). Any inputs
on if the "maximum memory" setting should be left to 3500mb or should it be
reduced to 2000 MB so SQL uses only the physical ram? I am aware that the
transaction log should not be on a raid 5 for performance reasons and I know
that SQL 2k Standard + Win2k standard will not let me use more than 2 GB of
RAM for SQL. The average Physical Disk (_total) activity is 56% which is
considered very high.
Any inputs would be appreciated on this setting while we order the SQL2K
Enterprise on Win2K Advanced Ed. and add an extra controller and 15 RPM
drives...
Hi
SQL Server Standard Edition is limited to 2GB of RAM. If you have more, it
will not use it. You need to install SQL Server Expertise Edition to use
more RAM (and set /3GB switch in your boot.ini). SQL Server knows it must
leave space for the OS, so the .25 is left for the OS in the sub 2GB memory
area.
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/
"Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E5260014-1A9E-47AF-9247-0F8F5B25F8DF@.microsoft.com...
> I have inherrited a sql 2k standard server running Win2K standard Ed with
3.5
> gb RAM (!?!) on a raid 5 (!?!). The server is dedicated for SQL only and
has
> 4 CPUs.
> The "maximum memory" setting is set to 3500 MB and SQL is using around
1.75
> GB of physical ram and 1.75 GB of Virtual Memory (total:3500 MB). Any
inputs
> on if the "maximum memory" setting should be left to 3500mb or should it
be
> reduced to 2000 MB so SQL uses only the physical ram? I am aware that the
> transaction log should not be on a raid 5 for performance reasons and I
know
> that SQL 2k Standard + Win2k standard will not let me use more than 2 GB
of
> RAM for SQL. The average Physical Disk (_total) activity is 56% which is
> considered very high.
> Any inputs would be appreciated on this setting while we order the SQL2K
> Enterprise on Win2K Advanced Ed. and add an extra controller and 15 RPM
> drives...
>
|||Thanks for your reply.
I fully understand what you are saying (as it was also statement in my
request). I am interested to know about he virtual memory portion of it.
Thanks again
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:

> Hi
> SQL Server Standard Edition is limited to 2GB of RAM. If you have more, it
> will not use it. You need to install SQL Server Expertise Edition to use
> more RAM (and set /3GB switch in your boot.ini). SQL Server knows it must
> leave space for the OS, so the .25 is left for the OS in the sub 2GB memory
> area.
> 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/
> "Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E5260014-1A9E-47AF-9247-0F8F5B25F8DF@.microsoft.com...
> 3.5
> has
> 1.75
> inputs
> be
> know
> of
>
>
|||"Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1D46A3CC-2D84-4FAA-AA97-24DDA8A27443@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks for your reply.
> I fully understand what you are saying (as it was also statement in my
> request). I am interested to know about he virtual memory portion of it.
From the application's point of view physical and virtual memory are just
the same. You must not sum them up. Physical mem in TaskMGR shows the
portion of the application that's actually in main memory while virtual
mem shows the total allocated size. Your case is optimal with regard to
swapping: the process is completely in physical mem.
As Mike said, your SQL Server will never use more than what it uses at the
moment unless you install enterprise edition.
You should use perfmon to determine what causes the high disk activity.
Regards
robert
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks again
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
more, it[vbcol=seagreen]
use[vbcol=seagreen]
must[vbcol=seagreen]
memory[vbcol=seagreen]
with[vbcol=seagreen]
only and[vbcol=seagreen]
around[vbcol=seagreen]
Any[vbcol=seagreen]
should it[vbcol=seagreen]
that the[vbcol=seagreen]
and I[vbcol=seagreen]
2 GB[vbcol=seagreen]
which is[vbcol=seagreen]
SQL2K[vbcol=seagreen]
RPM[vbcol=seagreen]

"Maximum Memory" setting in SQL Server properties

I have inherrited a sql 2k standard server running Win2K standard Ed with 3.
5
gb RAM (!?!) on a raid 5 (!?!). The server is dedicated for SQL only and ha
s
4 CPUs.
The "maximum memory" setting is set to 3500 MB and SQL is using around 1.75
GB of physical ram and 1.75 GB of Virtual Memory (total:3500 MB). Any inputs
on if the "maximum memory" setting should be left to 3500mb or should it be
reduced to 2000 MB so SQL uses only the physical ram? I am aware that the
transaction log should not be on a raid 5 for performance reasons and I know
that SQL 2k Standard + Win2k standard will not let me use more than 2 GB of
RAM for SQL. The average Physical Disk (_total) activity is 56% which is
considered very high.
Any inputs would be appreciated on this setting while we order the SQL2K
Enterprise on Win2K Advanced Ed. and add an extra controller and 15 RPM
drives...Hi
SQL Server Standard Edition is limited to 2GB of RAM. If you have more, it
will not use it. You need to install SQL Server Expertise Edition to use
more RAM (and set /3GB switch in your boot.ini). SQL Server knows it must
leave space for the OS, so the .25 is left for the OS in the sub 2GB memory
area.
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/
"Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E5260014-1A9E-47AF-9247-0F8F5B25F8DF@.microsoft.com...
> I have inherrited a sql 2k standard server running Win2K standard Ed with
3.5
> gb RAM (!?!) on a raid 5 (!?!). The server is dedicated for SQL only and
has
> 4 CPUs.
> The "maximum memory" setting is set to 3500 MB and SQL is using around
1.75
> GB of physical ram and 1.75 GB of Virtual Memory (total:3500 MB). Any
inputs
> on if the "maximum memory" setting should be left to 3500mb or should it
be
> reduced to 2000 MB so SQL uses only the physical ram? I am aware that the
> transaction log should not be on a raid 5 for performance reasons and I
know
> that SQL 2k Standard + Win2k standard will not let me use more than 2 GB
of
> RAM for SQL. The average Physical Disk (_total) activity is 56% which is
> considered very high.
> Any inputs would be appreciated on this setting while we order the SQL2K
> Enterprise on Win2K Advanced Ed. and add an extra controller and 15 RPM
> drives...
>|||Thanks for your reply.
I fully understand what you are saying (as it was also statement in my
request). I am interested to know about he virtual memory portion of it.
Thanks again
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:

> Hi
> SQL Server Standard Edition is limited to 2GB of RAM. If you have more, it
> will not use it. You need to install SQL Server Expertise Edition to use
> more RAM (and set /3GB switch in your boot.ini). SQL Server knows it must
> leave space for the OS, so the .25 is left for the OS in the sub 2GB memor
y
> area.
> 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/
> "Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E5260014-1A9E-47AF-9247-0F8F5B25F8DF@.microsoft.com...
> 3.5
> has
> 1.75
> inputs
> be
> know
> of
>
>|||"Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1D46A3CC-2D84-4FAA-AA97-24DDA8A27443@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks for your reply.
> I fully understand what you are saying (as it was also statement in my
> request). I am interested to know about he virtual memory portion of it.
From the application's point of view physical and virtual memory are just
the same. You must not sum them up. Physical mem in TaskMGR shows the
portion of the application that's actually in main memory while virtual
mem shows the total allocated size. Your case is optimal with regard to
swapping: the process is completely in physical mem.
As Mike said, your SQL Server will never use more than what it uses at the
moment unless you install enterprise edition.
You should use perfmon to determine what causes the high disk activity.
Regards
robert
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks again
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
>
more, it[vbcol=seagreen]
use[vbcol=seagreen]
must[vbcol=seagreen]
memory[vbcol=seagreen]
with[vbcol=seagreen]
only and[vbcol=seagreen]
around[vbcol=seagreen]
Any[vbcol=seagreen]
should it[vbcol=seagreen]
that the[vbcol=seagreen]
and I[vbcol=seagreen]
2 GB[vbcol=seagreen]
which is[vbcol=seagreen]
SQL2K[vbcol=seagreen]
RPM[vbcol=seagreen]