jwcolby
jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com
Tue May 13 12:24:19 CDT 2008
Never mind! It seems I was using a different method. There are two ways you can do this. One Detaches the database, copies and reattaches. That is the method I have always used (and works). The other leaves the database attached and somehow does the copy (but does not work, at least on my system). I was trying the "leave attached" method which failed. I don't believe I had ever tried that method before, and did not really intend to do so this time. Hmm.... Anyway, I have my copy and know how to do what I need. Thanks guys. John W. Colby www.ColbyConsulting.com jwcolby wrote: > Francisco, > > It turns out that there was an instance of SQL Server Express (x32) > installed by Visual Studio. Not needing that (and since that was listed > as an available server) I uninstalled that. Now the job at least begins > to run (no error message about the destination server being unavailable) > but it does not complete. > > The only firewall on the server is the Windows Firewall, which is > disabled. This is Stonehenge, trying to run a job on Stonehenge, said > job to copy a database from StoneHenge to Stonehenge with a rename (copy > to different name). I have been using this technique in x32 SQL Server > for many months now. > > Now the job runs but gives an error on the last step saying that the job > failed and check the event log. There is a Error entry in the event log > but the error message is useless (package xxx failed) and the help > lookup returns "no additional information". > > There is an additional warning AFTER the error which basically says "the > job failed, last step run was step 1". Help lookup returns "no > additional info". > > No idea where to turn at this point. It is "just a simple copy". > However between now and back when it used to work I have completely > reinstalled the Windows (to x64) and SQL Server (x64) and of course my > user, though I am using the same username, password and machine name. > > All of my databases reside out on a RAID array / volume. I unattached > all databases before the reinstall, and then reattached them after. I > can see the database being copied. I can open the database, open views > and see data etc. I just can't copy the database to a new database / > name, which is what I do to get a new "blank" order database set up. > > Not good. > > John W. Colby > www.ColbyConsulting.com > > > Francisco Tapia wrote: >> If the Sql Browser is running, then the next thing I would double check is >> if you have any firewalls running between the two systems. >> >> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 9:10 AM, jwcolby <jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I just upgraded Stonehenge, my main server to Windows 2003 x64 / SQL >>> Server x64. This morning I tried to do a copy database, which I have >>> done dozens of times before and now it says that the "destination server >>> is not running", the destination server being (default). >>> >>> Further if I go into the list of servers combo, either source or >>> destination, it does not show Stonehenge in the list of servers, though >>> it does show Stonehenge / SQL Express and M90. To my knowledge M90 (my >>> laptop) is not running SQL Server at the moment. So the >>> >>> So it appears that the list of available servers is not correct. I >>> thought that the SQL Browser service was responsible for finding >>> instances of SQL Server, and that service is running. >>> >>> Any idea what might be going on or how to determine what is going on? >>> >>> -- >>> John W. Colby >>> www.ColbyConsulting.com >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dba-SQLServer mailing list >>> dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com >>> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver >>> http://www.databaseadvisors.com >>> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > dba-SQLServer mailing list > dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver > http://www.databaseadvisors.com > >