buflatch error

Under what circumstances do we get this message?
Waiting for type 0x2, current count 0x508, current owning EC 0x00000000.
2005-03-08 02:49:26.52 spid189 WARNING: EC 6e4d3560, 0 waited 4800 sec. on
latch 8130f2c0. Not a BUF latch.My first port of call will be to check H/W(controller, disk drives for bad
sectors)
switch on perfmon(current disk read/write queue length) see under what
circumstances this is happening(heavy read/write)
HTH
"Bharath" <Bharath@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DFA6BE50-896C-408C-9C6B-16A1EA59645A@.microsoft.com...
> Under what circumstances do we get this message?
> Waiting for type 0x2, current count 0x508, current owning EC 0x00000000.
> 2005-03-08 02:49:26.52 spid189 WARNING: EC 6e4d3560, 0 waited 4800 sec.
on
> latch 8130f2c0. Not a BUF latch.|||The output of sysprocesses might give some more information.
Here is an article that might be useful for you:
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=822101
A latch is a short-term lightweight synchronization object. The following
list describes the different types of latches:
? Non-buffer (Non-BUF) latch: The non-buffer latches provide
synchronization services to in-memory data structures or provide re-entrancy
protection for concurrency-sensitive code lines. These latches can be used
for a variety of things, but they are not used to synchronize access to
buffer pages.
This message indicates longer than expected thread wait in the system. If
you see a drop of performance due to this, please consider contact microsoft
support. The problem might have been fixed by existing hotfix or QFE
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/309093/EN-US/
--
Wei Xiao [MSFT]
SQL Server Storage Engine Development
http://weblogs.asp.net/weix
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Bharath" <Bharath@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DFA6BE50-896C-408C-9C6B-16A1EA59645A@.microsoft.com...
> Under what circumstances do we get this message?
> Waiting for type 0x2, current count 0x508, current owning EC 0x00000000.
> 2005-03-08 02:49:26.52 spid189 WARNING: EC 6e4d3560, 0 waited 4800 sec.
> on
> latch 8130f2c0. Not a BUF latch.|||Thanks Wei. It helps
"wei xiao" wrote:
> The output of sysprocesses might give some more information.
> Here is an article that might be useful for you:
> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=822101
> A latch is a short-term lightweight synchronization object. The following
> list describes the different types of latches:
> ? Non-buffer (Non-BUF) latch: The non-buffer latches provide
> synchronization services to in-memory data structures or provide re-entrancy
> protection for concurrency-sensitive code lines. These latches can be used
> for a variety of things, but they are not used to synchronize access to
> buffer pages.
>
> This message indicates longer than expected thread wait in the system. If
> you see a drop of performance due to this, please consider contact microsoft
> support. The problem might have been fixed by existing hotfix or QFE
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/309093/EN-US/
> --
> Wei Xiao [MSFT]
> SQL Server Storage Engine Development
> http://weblogs.asp.net/weix
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> "Bharath" <Bharath@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:DFA6BE50-896C-408C-9C6B-16A1EA59645A@.microsoft.com...
> > Under what circumstances do we get this message?
> >
> > Waiting for type 0x2, current count 0x508, current owning EC 0x00000000.
> > 2005-03-08 02:49:26.52 spid189 WARNING: EC 6e4d3560, 0 waited 4800 sec.
> > on
> > latch 8130f2c0. Not a BUF latch.
>
>

buflatch error

Under what circumstances do we get this message?
Waiting for type 0x2, current count 0x508, current owning EC 0x00000000.
2005-03-08 02:49:26.52 spid189 WARNING: EC 6e4d3560, 0 waited 4800 sec. on
latch 8130f2c0. Not a BUF latch.
My first port of call will be to check H/W(controller, disk drives for bad
sectors)
switch on perfmon(current disk read/write queue length) see under what
circumstances this is happening(heavy read/write)
HTH
"Bharath" <Bharath@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DFA6BE50-896C-408C-9C6B-16A1EA59645A@.microsoft.com...
> Under what circumstances do we get this message?
> Waiting for type 0x2, current count 0x508, current owning EC 0x00000000.
> 2005-03-08 02:49:26.52 spid189 WARNING: EC 6e4d3560, 0 waited 4800 sec.
on
> latch 8130f2c0. Not a BUF latch.
|||The output of sysprocesses might give some more information.
Here is an article that might be useful for you:
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=822101
A latch is a short-term lightweight synchronization object. The following
list describes the different types of latches:
? Non-buffer (Non-BUF) latch: The non-buffer latches provide
synchronization services to in-memory data structures or provide re-entrancy
protection for concurrency-sensitive code lines. These latches can be used
for a variety of things, but they are not used to synchronize access to
buffer pages.
This message indicates longer than expected thread wait in the system. If
you see a drop of performance due to this, please consider contact microsoft
support. The problem might have been fixed by existing hotfix or QFE
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/309093/EN-US/
Wei Xiao [MSFT]
SQL Server Storage Engine Development
http://weblogs.asp.net/weix
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Bharath" <Bharath@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DFA6BE50-896C-408C-9C6B-16A1EA59645A@.microsoft.com...
> Under what circumstances do we get this message?
> Waiting for type 0x2, current count 0x508, current owning EC 0x00000000.
> 2005-03-08 02:49:26.52 spid189 WARNING: EC 6e4d3560, 0 waited 4800 sec.
> on
> latch 8130f2c0. Not a BUF latch.
|||Thanks Wei. It helps
"wei xiao" wrote:

> The output of sysprocesses might give some more information.
> Here is an article that might be useful for you:
> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=822101
> A latch is a short-term lightweight synchronization object. The following
> list describes the different types of latches:
> ? Non-buffer (Non-BUF) latch: The non-buffer latches provide
> synchronization services to in-memory data structures or provide re-entrancy
> protection for concurrency-sensitive code lines. These latches can be used
> for a variety of things, but they are not used to synchronize access to
> buffer pages.
>
> This message indicates longer than expected thread wait in the system. If
> you see a drop of performance due to this, please consider contact microsoft
> support. The problem might have been fixed by existing hotfix or QFE
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/309093/EN-US/
> --
> Wei Xiao [MSFT]
> SQL Server Storage Engine Development
> http://weblogs.asp.net/weix
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> "Bharath" <Bharath@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:DFA6BE50-896C-408C-9C6B-16A1EA59645A@.microsoft.com...
>
>

buflatch error

Under what circumstances do we get this message?
Waiting for type 0x2, current count 0x508, current owning EC 0x00000000.
2005-03-08 02:49:26.52 spid189 WARNING: EC 6e4d3560, 0 waited 4800 sec. on
latch 8130f2c0. Not a BUF latch.My first port of call will be to check H/W(controller, disk drives for bad
sectors)
switch on perfmon(current disk read/write queue length) see under what
circumstances this is happening(heavy read/write)
HTH
"Bharath" <Bharath@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DFA6BE50-896C-408C-9C6B-16A1EA59645A@.microsoft.com...
> Under what circumstances do we get this message?
> Waiting for type 0x2, current count 0x508, current owning EC 0x00000000.
> 2005-03-08 02:49:26.52 spid189 WARNING: EC 6e4d3560, 0 waited 4800 sec.
on
> latch 8130f2c0. Not a BUF latch.|||The output of sysprocesses might give some more information.
Here is an article that might be useful for you:
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=822101
A latch is a short-term lightweight synchronization object. The following
list describes the different types of latches:
? Non-buffer (Non-BUF) latch: The non-buffer latches provide
synchronization services to in-memory data structures or provide re-entrancy
protection for concurrency-sensitive code lines. These latches can be used
for a variety of things, but they are not used to synchronize access to
buffer pages.
This message indicates longer than expected thread wait in the system. If
you see a drop of performance due to this, please consider contact microsoft
support. The problem might have been fixed by existing hotfix or QFE
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/309093/EN-US/
Wei Xiao [MSFT]
SQL Server Storage Engine Development
http://weblogs.asp.net/weix
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Bharath" <Bharath@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DFA6BE50-896C-408C-9C6B-16A1EA59645A@.microsoft.com...
> Under what circumstances do we get this message?
> Waiting for type 0x2, current count 0x508, current owning EC 0x00000000.
> 2005-03-08 02:49:26.52 spid189 WARNING: EC 6e4d3560, 0 waited 4800 sec.
> on
> latch 8130f2c0. Not a BUF latch.|||Thanks Wei. It helps
"wei xiao" wrote:

> The output of sysprocesses might give some more information.
> Here is an article that might be useful for you:
> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=822101
> A latch is a short-term lightweight synchronization object. The following
> list describes the different types of latches:
> ? Non-buffer (Non-BUF) latch: The non-buffer latches provide
> synchronization services to in-memory data structures or provide re-entran
cy
> protection for concurrency-sensitive code lines. These latches can be used
> for a variety of things, but they are not used to synchronize access to
> buffer pages.
>
> This message indicates longer than expected thread wait in the system. If
> you see a drop of performance due to this, please consider contact microso
ft
> support. The problem might have been fixed by existing hotfix or QFE
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/309093/EN-US/
> --
> Wei Xiao [MSFT]
> SQL Server Storage Engine Development
> http://weblogs.asp.net/weix
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
.
> "Bharath" <Bharath@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:DFA6BE50-896C-408C-9C6B-16A1EA59645A@.microsoft.com...
>
>

BSOD blamed on nlemsql.sys

We have Server 2003 crashing every day or so, saying:
*** STOP: 0x0000008E 0xC00000005,0xF74FB472,0xB8681AEC,0x0000
0000
*** nlemsql.sys - Address F74FB472 base at F74F7000, DateStamp 3eca40a0
There are only two references to nlemsql on Google, neither of which are
related to a crash.
We're trying to narrow down what happens just before this, but haven't
managed to get any useful information yet.
It's a stab in the dark, but: anyone seen this before?
Rikthat's the good ole KERNEL_MODE_EXCEPTION_NOT_HANDLED, an error which the os
did not know how to handle. These are almost always hardware compatibility
issues, you need a firmware or driver update. The question is which one, it
looks like the driver for nlemsql.sys. That driver is not part of SQL
Server. Search your system looking for it and when you find it right click
on it and look at properties, and then the version tab. There should be a
clue as to what this driver is for, or who made it somewhere here. You can
also open it in text pad looking for clues. Another thing you can do is to
check the directory it is in which occasionally well tell you something.
this file is not part of SQL 2000 or SQl 2005.
I would also contact your vendor of the server.
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
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
"Rik Hemsley" <rik@.rikkus.info> wrote in message
news:uy$h8OSZGHA.3972@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> We have Server 2003 crashing every day or so, saying:
> *** STOP: 0x0000008E 0xC00000005,0xF74FB472,0xB8681AEC,0x0000
0000
> *** nlemsql.sys - Address F74FB472 base at F74F7000, DateStamp 3eca40a0
> There are only two references to nlemsql on Google, neither of which are
> related to a crash.
> We're trying to narrow down what happens just before this, but haven't
> managed to get any useful information yet.
> It's a stab in the dark, but: anyone seen this before?
> Rik

BSOD blamed on nlemsql.sys

We have Server 2003 crashing every day or so, saying:
*** STOP: 0x0000008E 0xC00000005,0xF74FB472,0xB8681AEC,0x00000000
*** nlemsql.sys - Address F74FB472 base at F74F7000, DateStamp 3eca40a0
There are only two references to nlemsql on Google, neither of which are
related to a crash.
We're trying to narrow down what happens just before this, but haven't
managed to get any useful information yet.
It's a stab in the dark, but: anyone seen this before?
Rikthat's the good ole KERNEL_MODE_EXCEPTION_NOT_HANDLED, an error which the os
did not know how to handle. These are almost always hardware compatibility
issues, you need a firmware or driver update. The question is which one, it
looks like the driver for nlemsql.sys. That driver is not part of SQL
Server. Search your system looking for it and when you find it right click
on it and look at properties, and then the version tab. There should be a
clue as to what this driver is for, or who made it somewhere here. You can
also open it in text pad looking for clues. Another thing you can do is to
check the directory it is in which occasionally well tell you something.
this file is not part of SQL 2000 or SQl 2005.
I would also contact your vendor of the server.
--
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
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
"Rik Hemsley" <rik@.rikkus.info> wrote in message
news:uy$h8OSZGHA.3972@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> We have Server 2003 crashing every day or so, saying:
> *** STOP: 0x0000008E 0xC00000005,0xF74FB472,0xB8681AEC,0x00000000
> *** nlemsql.sys - Address F74FB472 base at F74F7000, DateStamp 3eca40a0
> There are only two references to nlemsql on Google, neither of which are
> related to a crash.
> We're trying to narrow down what happens just before this, but haven't
> managed to get any useful information yet.
> It's a stab in the dark, but: anyone seen this before?
> Rik