Failed to notify 'DBA' via email

We have some SQL jobs those run on a schedule basis. These jobs are setup to
notify us via email in case of job fails. However, Some time we get this
error "Failed to notify 'DBA' via email." Initially I thought it may be b/c
of mail server was not available but our exchnage server admin has looked at
exchange logs and not found any thing at that time. I also looked at the SQL
server logs and did not find any issues. My question is: is there any thing
can go wrong in the SQL server that can cause this probelm?
Help is appreciated.
Thanks,
MohMoh,
FWIW - SQL Server MAPI will only wait a certain amount of time to deliver a
message. If it cannot get out, then the mail will 'fail' even though
Exchange is up and running and healthy. It might be Exchange, networking,
domain issues, etc. that cause the problem.
If you Google on "sql mail Failed to notify" you will see a few comments on
this, without any real help that I could find.
(Unless xp_smtp_sendmail would work for you.)
RLF
"Moh Abb" <mabbas@.aligntech.com> wrote in message
news:eiv3swh3EHA.3376@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> We have some SQL jobs those run on a schedule basis. These jobs are setup
to
> notify us via email in case of job fails. However, Some time we get this
> error "Failed to notify 'DBA' via email." Initially I thought it may be
b/c
> of mail server was not available but our exchnage server admin has looked
at
> exchange logs and not found any thing at that time. I also looked at the
SQL
> server logs and did not find any issues. My question is: is there any
thing
> can go wrong in the SQL server that can cause this probelm?
> Help is appreciated.
> Thanks,
> Moh
>|||"Russell Fields" <RussellFields@.NoMailPlease.Com> wrote in message
news:ePA64pj3EHA.2600@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Moh,
> FWIW - SQL Server MAPI will only wait a certain amount of time to deliver
a
> message. If it cannot get out, then the mail will 'fail' even though
> Exchange is up and running and healthy. It might be Exchange, networking,
> domain issues, etc. that cause the problem.
> If you Google on "sql mail Failed to notify" you will see a few comments
on
> this, without any real help that I could find.
Generally I find if you don't absolutely need to use Exchange, setup a local
SMTP server right on teh SQL box and send email through that directly.
Eliminates timeouts, etc.
> (Unless xp_smtp_sendmail would work for you.)
> RLF
> "Moh Abb" <mabbas@.aligntech.com> wrote in message
> news:eiv3swh3EHA.3376@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > We have some SQL jobs those run on a schedule basis. These jobs are
setup
> to
> > notify us via email in case of job fails. However, Some time we get this
> > error "Failed to notify 'DBA' via email." Initially I thought it may be
> b/c
> > of mail server was not available but our exchnage server admin has
looked
> at
> > exchange logs and not found any thing at that time. I also looked at the
> SQL
> > server logs and did not find any issues. My question is: is there any
> thing
> > can go wrong in the SQL server that can cause this probelm?
> >
> > Help is appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Moh
> >
> >
>
>

Fail over - DNS change

Hi,

In case of failover to standby server, what is theest way to redirect
client applications to new server?
1) DNS name change -- not viable due to Caching issue.

IS there any alternate like Oracle's onames/LDAP for resolving name
with sql server?

Can use Sever alias?

Thanksbarbara_2003@.hotmail.com (barbara) wrote in message news:<5cd01256.0408221348.259e22d1@.posting.google.com>...
> Hi,
> In case of failover to standby server, what is theest way to redirect
> client applications to new server?
> 1) DNS name change -- not viable due to Caching issue.
> IS there any alternate like Oracle's onames/LDAP for resolving name
> with sql server?
> Can use Sever alias?
> Thanks

There's no equivalent to Oracle's naming solutions, since MSSQL uses
the operating system for name resolution. If you can't use DNS, then
you would have to look at modifying connection strings or ODBC DSNs in
your applications. This is easier for some types of applications than
others, of course.

Simon|||Please share any other recommendations.

sql@.hayes.ch (Simon Hayes) wrote in message news:<60cd0137.0408230548.39882eda@.posting.google.com>...
> barbara_2003@.hotmail.com (barbara) wrote in message news:<5cd01256.0408221348.259e22d1@.posting.google.com>...
> > Hi,
> > In case of failover to standby server, what is theest way to redirect
> > client applications to new server?
> > 1) DNS name change -- not viable due to Caching issue.
> > IS there any alternate like Oracle's onames/LDAP for resolving name
> > with sql server?
> > Can use Sever alias?
> > Thanks
> There's no equivalent to Oracle's naming solutions, since MSSQL uses
> the operating system for name resolution. If you can't use DNS, then
> you would have to look at modifying connection strings or ODBC DSNs in
> your applications. This is easier for some types of applications than
> others, of course.
> Simon|||Sinon,

Thanks for reply. How does it uses OS for name resolution in case of
multiple instances? Could we use multiple IP address feature of sql
2000 for fail over purpose? Using virtual IP, but without using
clustering.

sql@.hayes.ch (Simon Hayes) wrote in message news:<60cd0137.0408230548.39882eda@.posting.google.com>...
> barbara_2003@.hotmail.com (barbara) wrote in message news:<5cd01256.0408221348.259e22d1@.posting.google.com>...
> > Hi,
> > In case of failover to standby server, what is theest way to redirect
> > client applications to new server?
> > 1) DNS name change -- not viable due to Caching issue.
> > IS there any alternate like Oracle's onames/LDAP for resolving name
> > with sql server?
> > Can use Sever alias?
> > Thanks
> There's no equivalent to Oracle's naming solutions, since MSSQL uses
> the operating system for name resolution. If you can't use DNS, then
> you would have to look at modifying connection strings or ODBC DSNs in
> your applications. This is easier for some types of applications than
> others, of course.
> Simon|||barbara_2003@.hotmail.com (barbara) wrote in message news:<5cd01256.0408240202.7bb670e8@.posting.google.com>...
> Sinon,
> Thanks for reply. How does it uses OS for name resolution in case of
> multiple instances? Could we use multiple IP address feature of sql
> 2000 for fail over purpose? Using virtual IP, but without using
> clustering.

<snip
The client resolves the server part of the instance name, then
connects to port 1434 to get back a list of instances and the ports
they listen on; it can then connect to the correct port for the
instance you requested. You can specify these ports explicitly using
the MSSQL Server Network Utility if you want to.

Clustering is the standard way to implement failover with MSSQL -
multiple instances aren't useful for high availability. You can check
these resources for more details:

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin...vailability.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oy/sqlhalp.mspx

I'm not sure why you want to avoid clustering - if you have a business
need for any sort of high availability solution, then you have to make
sure you get the correct resources you need for that.

Simon|||Our vendor application (web based) doesn't support clustering. What
are the disadvantages of using NLB for failover? I've read it is not
advisable to use NLB for critical DB failovers. Is it true?

sql@.hayes.ch (Simon Hayes) wrote in message news:<60cd0137.0408240605.2c289511@.posting.google.com>...
> barbara_2003@.hotmail.com (barbara) wrote in message news:<5cd01256.0408240202.7bb670e8@.posting.google.com>...
> > Sinon,
> > Thanks for reply. How does it uses OS for name resolution in case of
> > multiple instances? Could we use multiple IP address feature of sql
> > 2000 for fail over purpose? Using virtual IP, but without using
> > clustering.
> <snip>
> The client resolves the server part of the instance name, then
> connects to port 1434 to get back a list of instances and the ports
> they listen on; it can then connect to the correct port for the
> instance you requested. You can specify these ports explicitly using
> the MSSQL Server Network Utility if you want to.
> Clustering is the standard way to implement failover with MSSQL -
> multiple instances aren't useful for high availability. You can check
> these resources for more details:
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin...vailability.asp
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oy/sqlhalp.mspx
> I'm not sure why you want to avoid clustering - if you have a business
> need for any sort of high availability solution, then you have to make
> sure you get the correct resources you need for that.
> Simon|||barbara_2003@.hotmail.com (barbara) wrote in message news:<5cd01256.0408241352.44eb3992@.posting.google.com>...
> Our vendor application (web based) doesn't support clustering. What
> are the disadvantages of using NLB for failover? I've read it is not
> advisable to use NLB for critical DB failovers. Is it true?

<snip
I have no idea, since I've never used NLB myself. See here:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oy/hasog04.mspx

Simon