We upgraded from Domino 8.5.3 FP5 to Domino 9 (various hot fix versions) in August. Since then, we continue to get B-tree corruption errors on our Domino Directory (NAMES.NSF) on multiple servers. Our environment is mixed: 20 or so Domino 9 servers, plus two Domino 8.5.3 servers and one Domino 8.0.2 server. All are running on Windows OS. Some 32-bit, some 64-bit. Most clients are still running 8.5.x. Has anyone else experienced this problem after upgrading from 8.5.x to 9.x? Thanks! Examples of messages we see when running FIXUP on the NAMES.NSF file: [0784:0002-0678] err_invalid_btree ERROR: Invalid btree longdata size [E:\Lotus\Domino\data\names.nsf] [0784:0002-0678] err_invalid_btree ERROR: B-tree structure is invalid [E:\Lotus\Domino\data\names.nsf] [0784:0002-0678] 10/18/2013 11:30:44 PM NSF BT: Verification error in view ($Users) in database names.nsf. See NOTES.BRP for dump. [0784:0002-0678] 10/18/2013 11:30:44 PM BTVerifyNode: ERROR BT_DATA 3:37 in node 6:0 has size 560, sum of chunks is 4 [0784:0002-0678] 10/18/2013 11:30:44 PM Informational, rebuild view needed - collection object was deleted (reading E:\Lotus\Domino\data\names.nsf view note Title:‘($Users)’) [10B8:0002-13D0] err_invalid_btree ERROR: Invalid btree entry [e:\Lotus\Domino\data\names.nsf] [10B8:0002-13D0] err_invalid_btree ERROR: B-tree structure is invalid [e:\Lotus\Domino\data\names.nsf] [10B8:0002-13D0] 10/21/2013 12:36:37 PM NSF BT: Verification error in view ($Users) in database names.nsf. See NOTES.BRP for dump. [10B8:0002-13D0] 10/21/2013 12:36:37 PM BTVerifyNode: ERROR in 721:0, MaxKeySize is 0 - expected 62 [10B8:0002-13D0] 10/21/2013 12:36:37 PM Informational, rebuild view needed - collection object was deleted (reading e:\Lotus\Domino\data\names.nsf view note Title:‘($Users)’)
Subject: Btree errors
To resolve do the following:
-
Shutdown Domino
-
ncompact.exe names.nsf -C -D
-
nupdall.exe names.nsf -R
-
Start Domino
HTH
Subject: B-tree errors in Domino Directory since upgrade from 8.5.3 to 9.0
Did this fix your issue? We have seen the same problem with the upgrade but only on our servers that we updated to windows enterprise 64.