MSExchangeIS 9519 (0xfffffa84): Missing or Corrupted Database Indexes

[This topic is intended to address a specific issue called out by the Exchange Server Analyzer Tool. You should apply it only to systems that have had the Exchange Server Analyzer Tool run against them and are experiencing that specific issue. The Exchange Server Analyzer Tool, available as a free download, remotely collects configuration data from each server in the topology and automatically analyzes the data. The resulting report details important configuration issues, potential problems, and nondefault product settings. By following these recommendations, you can achieve better performance, scalability, reliability, and uptime. For more information about the tool or to download the latest versions, see "Microsoft Exchange Analyzers" at https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=34707.]  

Topic Last Modified: 2007-01-22

The Microsoft® Exchange Database Troubleshooter Tool detected one or more MSExchangeIS 9519 events with error code 0xfffffa84 in the Application log. This event indicates that the indexes for this database are either corrupted or missing.

Explanation

The following reasons could result in a corrupted or missing database index:

  • This can occur during index cleanup of an Exchange database after you apply a new Microsoft Windows service pack. After you apply the service pack, you cannot mount the mailbox or the public folder databases in the Exchange server. Additionally, events ESE 609 and ESE 611 are logged in the Application event log.

  • This can occur after you run a database repair operation (eseutil /p). This can remove an index that is generated when the database is first created. Running the Eseutil repair command removes the index.

This error can also be identified as -1404, JET_errIndexNotFound. This error applies to the following versions of Exchange server:

  • Microsoft Exchange Server 2007

  • Microsoft Exchange Server 2003

  • Microsoft Exchange 2000 Server

User Action

To resolve this issue, follow the resolution that matches the problem scenario described earlier: