Author: Kent Belan
Posted: 2011-09-06 15:08:50 Link
Very intersesting.
I just got this error reported to me today, from the same client with the
1104 errors.
No 1104 errors since last Friday, but this 2066 error popped up today.
I hate these kind of errors ....
-----Original Message-----
From: profox-bounces@leafe.com [mailto:profox-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf
Of MB Software Solutions,LLC
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 2:50 PM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: VFP9SP2 - Error 2066: Index file "z:\data\costs.cdx" tag "Njobid"
iscorrupted. Please rebuild it.
Got a client getting this somewhat frequently now from his Win7 client.
I remotely connected and configured his Norton 360 to ignore all
DBF/CDX/FPT files as well as the application folder on his box and the
network share (Z: drive ), all with the "include subfolders" option checked.
Yet he still keeps getting this error. His IT person has said that she
checked to make sure the write-caching was disabled.
I'm asking for additional ideas?
Thanks,
--Mike
--
Mike Babcock, MCP
MB Software Solutions, LLC
President, Chief Software Architect
http://mbsoftwaresolutions.com
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/6EA3032A9D49431FB51D9122C850E0CD@LaptopW7
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: MB Software Solutions, LLC
Posted: 2011-09-06 15:39:42 Link
On 9/6/2011 3:08 PM, Kent Belan wrote:
> Very intersesting.
>
> I just got this error reported to me today, from the same client with the
> 1104 errors.
>
> No 1104 errors since last Friday, but this 2066 error popped up today.
>
> I hate these kind of errors ....
Thanks everyone for the tips. I'll pass them onto the IT person there.
Much appreciated!
I do notice that it fails constantly on the Costs table. That's the
only table where I do a ZAP in my code. Coincidence? I don't think so!
You other guys who got this 2066 (or funky 108 or 1104 errors)...was
it always on the same table, and do you ZAP that table in your code????
Sounds like a clue.
--
Mike Babcock, MCP
MB Software Solutions, LLC
President, Chief Software Architect
http://mbsoftwaresolutions.com
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/4E6676FE.2060208@mbsoftwaresolutions.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: <kamcginnis@gmail.com>
Posted: 2011-09-06 16:03:57 Link
I found that zap usually fails with VFP9 SP2. I use delete all and pack and have no problems at all. (pack requires
exclusive use, same as zap)
----- Original Message -----
From: "MB Software Solutions,LLC" <mbsoftwaresolutions@mbsoftwaresolutions.com>
To: "ProFox Email List" <profox@leafe.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: VFP9SP2 - Error 2066: Index file "z:\data\costs.cdx" tag "Njobid"iscorrupted. Please rebuild it.
On 9/6/2011 3:08 PM, Kent Belan wrote:
> Very intersesting.
>
> I just got this error reported to me today, from the same client with the
> 1104 errors.
>
> No 1104 errors since last Friday, but this 2066 error popped up today.
>
> I hate these kind of errors ....
Thanks everyone for the tips. I'll pass them onto the IT person there.
Much appreciated!
I do notice that it fails constantly on the Costs table. That's the
only table where I do a ZAP in my code. Coincidence? I don't think so!
You other guys who got this 2066 (or funky 108 or 1104 errors)...was
it always on the same table, and do you ZAP that table in your code????
Sounds like a clue.
--
Mike Babcock, MCP
MB Software Solutions, LLC
President, Chief Software Architect
http://mbsoftwaresolutions.com
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/051701cc6cd0$1dd04e90$7a00a8c0@w2k3s02
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: Tracy Pearson
Posted: 2011-09-06 16:03:59 Link
MB Software Solutions, LLC wrote on 2011-09-06:
> On 9/6/2011 3:08 PM, Kent Belan wrote:
> Very intersesting.
>
> I just got this error reported to me today, from the same client with the
> 1104 errors.
>
> No 1104 errors since last Friday, but this 2066 error popped up today.
>
> I hate these kind of errors ....
>
>
> Thanks everyone for the tips. I'll pass them onto the IT person there.
> Much appreciated!
> I do notice that it fails constantly on the Costs table. That's the
> only table where I do a ZAP in my code. Coincidence? I don't think so!
> You other guys who got this 2066 (or funky 108 or 1104 errors)...was
> it always on the same table, and do you ZAP that table in your
> code???? Sounds like a clue.
>
Mike,
Thank you!
You just triggered something I haven't been considering on Windows 7/Vista
machines. The built in Indexing.
By default .CDX files are included in the Windows Indexing! This might be a
part of what is causing file locks.
Check that out on those odd Windows 7 and let us all know!
Tracy Pearson
PowerChurch Software
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/000f01cc6cd0$1e163130$5a429390$@powerchurch.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: Mike Copeland
Posted: 2011-09-06 16:05:14 Link
No Zapping....different DBFs...always in the same folder on the same
mapped drive.
I went ahead and added code in my error handler that if a 108 error is
encountered, sleep(4000) then try again. Almost always works.
Mike
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: VFP9SP2 - Error 2066: Index file "z:\data\costs.cdx" tag
"Njobid" iscorrupted. Please rebuild it.
From: MB Software Solutions, LLC
<mbsoftwaresolutions@mbsoftwaresolutions.com>
To: profoxtech@leafe.com
Date: 9/6/2011 2:39 PM
On 9/6/2011 3:08 PM, Kent Belan wrote:
> Very intersesting.
>
> I just got this error reported to me today, from the same client with the
> 1104 errors.
>
> No 1104 errors since last Friday, but this 2066 error popped up today.
>
> I hate these kind of errors ....
Thanks everyone for the tips. I'll pass them onto the IT person there.
Much appreciated!
I do notice that it fails constantly on the Costs table. That's the
only table where I do a ZAP in my code. Coincidence? I don't think so!
You other guys who got this 2066 (or funky 108 or 1104 errors)...was
it always on the same table, and do you ZAP that table in your code????
Sounds like a clue.
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/4E667CFA.5000404@ggisoft.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: MB Software Solutions, LLC
Posted: 2011-09-06 16:27:12 Link
On 9/6/2011 4:03 PM, kamcginnis@gmail.com wrote:
> I found that zap usually fails with VFP9 SP2. I use delete all and pack and have no problems at all. (pack requires
> exclusive use, same as zap)
Really? What's the failure message? You're right that DELETE ALL and
PACK is equivalent, but I thought I recall ZAP being quicker. ??
--
Mike Babcock, MCP
MB Software Solutions, LLC
President, Chief Software Architect
http://mbsoftwaresolutions.com
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/4E668220.9040201@mbsoftwaresolutions.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: Richard Kaye
Posted: 2011-09-06 17:16:55 Link
I had one instance recently where the same tag in the same CDX was getting corrupted on a semi-regular basis. Tracy's comment about the Windows Indexing service was another thing I hadn't thought of. I may have to add that to the list. Having said that, I had the client's IT guys add the appropriate registry keys for disabling the oplocks/write caching and it's been stable since then.
--
rk
-----Original Message-----
From: profoxtech-bounces@leafe.com [mailto:profoxtech-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf Of MB Software Solutions, LLC
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 3:40 PM
To: profoxtech@leafe.com
Subject: Re: VFP9SP2 - Error 2066: Index file "z:\data\costs.cdx" tag "Njobid" iscorrupted. Please rebuild it.
I do notice that it fails constantly on the Costs table. That's the only table where I do a ZAP in my code. Coincidence? I don't think so!
You other guys who got this 2066 (or funky 108 or 1104 errors)...was it always on the same table, and do you ZAP that table in your code????
Sounds like a clue.
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/DF1EEF11E586A64FB54A97F22A8BD04419F2A66C95@ACKBWDDQH1.artfact.local
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: Charlie Coleman
Posted: 2011-09-06 20:44:36 Link
At 04:27 PM 9/6/2011 -0400, MB Software Solutions, LLC wrote:
>On 9/6/2011 4:03 PM, kamcginnis@gmail.com wrote:
> > I found that zap usually fails with VFP9 SP2. I use delete all and pack
> and have no problems at all. (pack requires
> > exclusive use, same as zap)
>
>Really? What's the failure message? You're right that DELETE ALL and
>PACK is equivalent, but I thought I recall ZAP being quicker. ??
If you've got a few hundred thousand records in the table, ZAP would be
quite a bit faster.
Heck, I'd be tempted to do my own ZAP routine before going the DELETE ALL /
PACK route...
Function myzap
parameter cTbl2Zap
LOCAL cDataDir
cDataDir = addbs(justpath(dbc()))
select (cTbl2Zap)
copy structure to (cDataDir + cTbl2Zap + "_tmpthing") database (dbc()) with CDX
DROP TABLE (cTbl2Zap)
USE (cTbl2Zap + "_tmpthing")
copy structure to (cDataDir + cTbl2Zap) database (dbc()) with cdx
drop table (cTbl2Zap + "_tmpthing")
use (cTbl2Zap)
return
Of course, if ZAP was hitting an error, maybe the DROP TABLE would have
triggered the same thing....?
-Charlie
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/5.2.0.9.2.20110906200406.05a4e2a8@incoming.verizon.net
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: MB Software Solutions, LLC
Posted: 2011-09-07 00:16:37 Link
On 9/6/2011 8:44 PM, Charlie Coleman wrote:
> At 04:27 PM 9/6/2011 -0400, MB Software Solutions, LLC wrote:
>> On 9/6/2011 4:03 PM, kamcginnis@gmail.com wrote:
>>> I found that zap usually fails with VFP9 SP2. I use delete all and pack
>> and have no problems at all. (pack requires
>>> exclusive use, same as zap)
>>
>> Really? What's the failure message? You're right that DELETE ALL and
>> PACK is equivalent, but I thought I recall ZAP being quicker. ??
>
> If you've got a few hundred thousand records in the table, ZAP would be
> quite a bit faster.
>
> Heck, I'd be tempted to do my own ZAP routine before going the DELETE ALL /
> PACK route...
>
> Function myzap
> parameter cTbl2Zap
> LOCAL cDataDir
> cDataDir = addbs(justpath(dbc()))
>
> select (cTbl2Zap)
> copy structure to (cDataDir + cTbl2Zap + "_tmpthing") database (dbc()) with CDX
> DROP TABLE (cTbl2Zap)
> USE (cTbl2Zap + "_tmpthing")
> copy structure to (cDataDir + cTbl2Zap) database (dbc()) with cdx
> drop table (cTbl2Zap + "_tmpthing")
> use (cTbl2Zap)
>
> return
>
>
> Of course, if ZAP was hitting an error, maybe the DROP TABLE would have
> triggered the same thing....?
Neat idea, Charlie! I'll consider it. No, the ZAP wasn't the line
hitting the error.
--
Mike Babcock, MCP
MB Software Solutions, LLC
President, Chief Software Architect
http://mbsoftwaresolutions.com
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/4E66F025.7070209@mbsoftwaresolutions.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: Gérard Lochon
Posted: 2011-09-08 02:44:36 Link
>
> Heck, I'd be tempted to do my own ZAP routine before going the DELETE ALL
> /
> PACK route...
>
> Function myzap
> parameter cTbl2Zap
> LOCAL cDataDir
> cDataDir = addbs(justpath(dbc()))
>
> select (cTbl2Zap)
> copy structure to (cDataDir + cTbl2Zap + "_tmpthing") database (dbc())
> with CDX
> DROP TABLE (cTbl2Zap)
> USE (cTbl2Zap + "_tmpthing")
> copy structure to (cDataDir + cTbl2Zap) database (dbc()) with cdx
> drop table (cTbl2Zap + "_tmpthing")
> use (cTbl2Zap)
>
> return
>
Be careful, with this routine you loose the primary key ! (converted in
candidate key by COPY STRUCTURE)
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/1D95E23D943241099048B0A7D5F84695@MuriellePC
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.