Subject | Re: [firebird-support] OIT and OAT not moving |
---|---|
Author | Faisal Abdullah |
Post date | 2004-12-16T08:55:17Z |
Hi,
the oldest active and the next one is piled up in the transaction
inventory manager in the memory. That's what I meant here, that these
transactions here always increases, possibly no one is doing a
hard-commit.
source code, and almost all of them uses something like
conn.beginTransaction(), conn.commit(), with no other options. I don't
wee why it can possibly do a commit retain. There are however cases
where there aren't any conn.commit() at all.
Regards,
Faisal
> >and transactions in inventory manager is piling up at lightning speed.From my understanding (correct me if i'm wrong), transactions between
> Can you explain what you mean by that?
the oldest active and the next one is piled up in the transaction
inventory manager in the memory. That's what I meant here, that these
transactions here always increases, possibly no one is doing a
hard-commit.
> Possibly, but it's impossible to guess that. Earlier you talked aboutWe use Jaybird as the JDBC/ODBC driver. I've gone through some of the
> people stopping the server arbitrarily "when performance slowed
> down". That symptom usually indicates a lot of long-running transactions -
> some of which may well have allowed inserts, updates and deletes to be
> committed to the database without actually releasing the transaction
> resources (this is the effect of Commit Retaining).
source code, and almost all of them uses something like
conn.beginTransaction(), conn.commit(), with no other options. I don't
wee why it can possibly do a commit retain. There are however cases
where there aren't any conn.commit() at all.
> More of the same. The application forces the server to continually use upScary...
> available resources by building up a transaction inventory that is never
> allowed to get into a level state. It just grows and grows, starving the
> server of resources for the work it's asked to do, until the inevitable
> daily downtime while someone reboots the server (hopefully *after* warning
> people to terminate their work safely and making sure they do so). Then,
> it just starts all over again...
Regards,
Faisal