[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The custom DB has taken on the QADDB schema and backup size. The backup[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]went from 37 MB to 6.4GB in a half of a day. Even though the db files[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]appear to only be 37 MB. The database appears to be in tact but any[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]reference made to schema ie webspeed broker and Progress editor DB tools[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]shows the schema for the main qad db. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The log file only shows reference to a vv_flush error and a (1068) error[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]which both seem to be fairly harmless according to the knowledge base.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I am unaware of any changes that have been made to the server (I should be[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]the only one to make them) for quite some time and the scripts have not[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]been modified since March.[/FONT]
I have no idea how this could happen. MFGPRO seems to be running fine, but no one would access these tables directly from MFGPRO only through webspeed brokers. I have also submitted a incident to QAD, but I was curious if anyone has seen this before? If anything maybe we will all learn something today. Is there anything I should look for?
Progress 9.1d (yes I know it is obsolete, planning the upgrade with beautiful blade servers as we speak).
I have no idea how this could happen. MFGPRO seems to be running fine, but no one would access these tables directly from MFGPRO only through webspeed brokers. I have also submitted a incident to QAD, but I was curious if anyone has seen this before? If anything maybe we will all learn something today. Is there anything I should look for?
Progress 9.1d (yes I know it is obsolete, planning the upgrade with beautiful blade servers as we speak).