Replication error on a non-replicated DB?

I'm running in to a problem that I can't seem to find any answers for,
and I'd appreciate any help people can give.
I have a table with a couple integers and a single text column in it.
Recently an update stored procedure started occasionally throwing the
following error:
7139:
Length of text, ntext, or image data (65637) to be replicated exceeds
configured maximum 65536.
All my searching in the BOL and newsgroups comes up with are cases
where people are replicating these columns and just don't correctly
size the config value for 'max text repl size'.
However, in this case I'm totally stumped as to why the error is
occurring in the first place because we *aren't using replication* on
any of our DBs.
As expected, Enterprise Manager says the DB is not configured as either
a publisher or subscriber. Is there any other place I can look to make
sure that the server isn't actually flagged as being replicated? Any
ideas as to a secondary problem that may be returning this error
number? Anything I'm totally missing here that I should have caught?
In EM. Tools>>Replication>>Configure Publishing....
Kevin Hill
President
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
"AaronL" <alouts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136415873.886603.103150@.o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...
> I'm running in to a problem that I can't seem to find any answers for,
> and I'd appreciate any help people can give.
> I have a table with a couple integers and a single text column in it.
> Recently an update stored procedure started occasionally throwing the
> following error:
> 7139:
> Length of text, ntext, or image data (65637) to be replicated exceeds
> configured maximum 65536.
> All my searching in the BOL and newsgroups comes up with are cases
> where people are replicating these columns and just don't correctly
> size the config value for 'max text repl size'.
> However, in this case I'm totally stumped as to why the error is
> occurring in the first place because we *aren't using replication* on
> any of our DBs.
> As expected, Enterprise Manager says the DB is not configured as either
> a publisher or subscriber. Is there any other place I can look to make
> sure that the server isn't actually flagged as being replicated? Any
> ideas as to a secondary problem that may be returning this error
> number? Anything I'm totally missing here that I should have caught?
>
|||You should not be getting this message. There is something very wrong here.
Can we see the trigger and the table schema to try to repro it. Also we need
to know the SQL Server version and sp.
Hilary Cotter
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
"AaronL" <alouts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136415873.886603.103150@.o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...
> I'm running in to a problem that I can't seem to find any answers for,
> and I'd appreciate any help people can give.
> I have a table with a couple integers and a single text column in it.
> Recently an update stored procedure started occasionally throwing the
> following error:
> 7139:
> Length of text, ntext, or image data (65637) to be replicated exceeds
> configured maximum 65536.
> All my searching in the BOL and newsgroups comes up with are cases
> where people are replicating these columns and just don't correctly
> size the config value for 'max text repl size'.
> However, in this case I'm totally stumped as to why the error is
> occurring in the first place because we *aren't using replication* on
> any of our DBs.
> As expected, Enterprise Manager says the DB is not configured as either
> a publisher or subscriber. Is there any other place I can look to make
> sure that the server isn't actually flagged as being replicated? Any
> ideas as to a secondary problem that may be returning this error
> number? Anything I'm totally missing here that I should have caught?
>
|||Fair enough - I suspected I'd either get a quick hit answer if this
were a known problem I had overlooked or a request for more info.
Unfortunately, after trying to create a concise script to duplicate the
problem, I ended up just thoroughly confused.
Performing the update against a cleanly created test table in the same
DB (using SELECT * INTO ... syntax) wont't fail, but the table in
question does.
After doing some more research, it looks like even though the DB is
showing up in Enterprise Manager as not being set up for replication,
10 of the 400 tables in this test environment actually have related
entries named syncobj_XXXX... appearing in the information_schema
views. Two of those 10 tables contain a text column and those are the
only two cases where I can force an update to fail with this error.
So, at this point the urgency is down quite a bit; I've narrowed the
problem down significantly, and confirmed that it is limited to my test
environment.
It appears as if there may have been an aborted/corrupt replication
configuration set up by someone/something. I'm still not entirely sure
I understand how we could have arrived in this situation, but it
requires a little more research and most likely a separate posting.
In the meantime, if anyone has any ideas how a DB can arrive in a state
where there are these syncobj_XXX entries in the system tables while
the DB still reports itself as not being either a publisher or
subscriber, I'd appreciate the insight. We don't use replication
anywhere, so I wouldn't expect this to be the case, but on the off
chance one of my developers had tried configuring this environment to
replicate through the wizard, then tried to undo those steps in the
wizard, would this be the result?
Better yet - any idea how/where I can safely remove these things?
Thanks.
-Aaron