Autogrowth 32000 percent

I have a database with a 3G datafile, and 1G logfile. I have set the
Autogrowth on the datafile to 250M, for the third time. Somehow, I don't know
when, the Autogrowth is getting changed to [32000 percent]. So when the
datafile tries to expand it take a considerable amount of disk space (106G),
then my log dumps start failing due to low disk space.
Autogrowth=32000%
Has anyone seen this before?
Thanks in advance,
KenL wrote:
> I have a database with a 3G datafile, and 1G logfile. I have set the
> Autogrowth on the datafile to 250M, for the third time. Somehow, I don't know
> when, the Autogrowth is getting changed to [32000 percent]. So when the
> datafile tries to expand it take a considerable amount of disk space (106G),
> then my log dumps start failing due to low disk space.
> Autogrowth=32000%
> Has anyone seen this before?
> Thanks in advance,
You don't say, but I'm assuming this is on SQL 2005? This is a known
bug:
http://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=127177
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com
|||Tracy, thanks very much for the response. The feedback referenced below is
talking about SQL 2000, and says it will be fixed in the next release of SQL
Server. I am using SQL 2005, so isn't that the next release? I do not see a
resolution?
Thanks,
"Tracy McKibben" wrote:

> KenL wrote:
> You don't say, but I'm assuming this is on SQL 2005? This is a known
> bug:
> http://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=127177
>
> --
> Tracy McKibben
> MCDBA
> http://www.realsqlguy.com
>
|||KenL wrote:
> Tracy, thanks very much for the response. The feedback referenced below is
> talking about SQL 2000, and says it will be fixed in the next release of SQL
> Server. I am using SQL 2005, so isn't that the next release? I do not see a
> resolution?
No, this is definately a SQL 2005 bug... The article that I linked to
talks about one possible cause of this as being a status bit in a
converted SQL 2000 database.
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com
|||Tracy, again thanks for the response.
The database is in SQL 2005, and was upgraded from a SQL 7 to SQL 2000, and
then SQL 2005. So are your saying this is a known bug that there currently is
no fix or workaround?
Thanks,
Ken
"Tracy McKibben" wrote:

> KenL wrote:
> No, this is definately a SQL 2005 bug... The article that I linked to
> talks about one possible cause of this as being a status bit in a
> converted SQL 2000 database.
>
> --
> Tracy McKibben
> MCDBA
> http://www.realsqlguy.com
>