You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@ofbiz.apache.org by Scott Gray <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com> on 2010/07/01 11:01:03 UTC
Re: Service engine timeouts
Hi Brett,
The JobManager probably wasn't intended (or at least initially written) to handle that many pending jobs, as a work around you could just add a timeout value to the TransactionUtil.begin() call in poll() and see if that does the trick. We could always look at making this configurable if you wanted to provide a patch for such a thing.
Regards
Scott
HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
On 29/06/2010, at 2:28 AM, Brett Palmer wrote:
> Rishi,
>
> Thanks for the quick response.
>
> The transaction timeout is not with my defined service. The problem occurs
> in the JobManager.poll() method of the service engine. The JobManager is
> going through all the currently pending jobs and changing them to running
> but it timesout before it can finish.
>
> I can't see a way without modifying the JobManager code to change this
> transaction time in the "poll" method. I don't think my service definition
> transaction time modifies the transaction time in the JobManager.
>
> Let me know if I am missing something here.
>
>
> Brett
>
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 2:10 AM, Rishi Solanki <ri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> To increase the transaction time out use transaction-timeout="{value}"
>> where value is any valid number.
>> Note that this needs to be done in your service definition.
>>
>> Rishi Solanki
>> Manager, Enterprise Software Development
>> HotWax Media Pvt. Ltd.
>> Direct: +91-9893287847
>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 2:17 AM, Brett Palmer <brettgpalmer@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> We are running into a problem with the service engine when trying to run
>> an
>>> archiving batch service. Here is how the service runs.
>>>
>>> 1. We run a service that collects a bunch of records for data
>> warehousing.
>>>
>>> 2. The data warehouse service calls an async service call to process each
>>> individual record.
>>>
>>> 3. The service engine them starts working on each individual record.
>>>
>>> We like the above process because it allows us to multi-process the large
>>> batch job.
>>>
>>> Here is the problem:
>>>
>>> There are over 10K records that are submitted as async service calls in
>>> step
>>> 2 above. I'm seeing a transaction time out when the service engine tries
>>> to
>>> process all of these records as it calls an "UPDATE JOB_SANDBOX for
>>> job_id=XXX". I believe it is trying to update all 10k of these jobs
>>> individually in a single transaction and times out. The jobs are then
>> left
>>> in a pending status and never changed but the service engine keeps timing
>>> out.
>>>
>>> Here are my questions:
>>>
>>> 1. Is there a way to increase the transaction time out for the service
>>> engine to update these jobs in the JobSandbox so the service engine
>> threads
>>> can then process them?
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> 2. Is there another way to break these jobs up so the service engine
>>> doesn't have to process 10k jobs in a single transaction.
>>>
>>>
>>> Note: the above process works very well when the number of records to
>>> process are around 1K.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Brett
>>>
>>
Re: Service engine timeouts
Posted by Brett Palmer <br...@gmail.com>.
Okay, I opened JIRA ticket OFBIZ-3855 for this issue. I have tested the
patch in our version of ofbiz. I will check it with the current version of
ofbiz and attach the patch to the JIRA ticket.
The files affected by this patch will be the following:
- serviceengine.xml
-- Added new attribute: poll-transaction-timeout="120" to the thread-pool
element
- service-config.xsd -- to allow the new attribute in the
serviceengine.xml
And the following source files:
- JobManager.java
- JobPoller.java
Thanks,
Brett
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 3:03 AM, David E Jones <de...@me.com> wrote:
>
> That sounds like the way to go Scott.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Jul 1, 2010, at 3:01 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
>
> > Hi Brett,
> >
> > The JobManager probably wasn't intended (or at least initially written)
> to handle that many pending jobs, as a work around you could just add a
> timeout value to the TransactionUtil.begin() call in poll() and see if that
> does the trick. We could always look at making this configurable if you
> wanted to provide a patch for such a thing.
> >
> > Regards
> > Scott
> >
> > HotWax Media
> > http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
> >
> > On 29/06/2010, at 2:28 AM, Brett Palmer wrote:
> >
> >> Rishi,
> >>
> >> Thanks for the quick response.
> >>
> >> The transaction timeout is not with my defined service. The problem
> occurs
> >> in the JobManager.poll() method of the service engine. The JobManager is
> >> going through all the currently pending jobs and changing them to
> running
> >> but it timesout before it can finish.
> >>
> >> I can't see a way without modifying the JobManager code to change this
> >> transaction time in the "poll" method. I don't think my service
> definition
> >> transaction time modifies the transaction time in the JobManager.
> >>
> >> Let me know if I am missing something here.
> >>
> >>
> >> Brett
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 2:10 AM, Rishi Solanki <rishisolankii@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>> To increase the transaction time out use transaction-timeout="{value}"
> >>> where value is any valid number.
> >>> Note that this needs to be done in your service definition.
> >>>
> >>> Rishi Solanki
> >>> Manager, Enterprise Software Development
> >>> HotWax Media Pvt. Ltd.
> >>> Direct: +91-9893287847
> >>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 2:17 AM, Brett Palmer <brettgpalmer@gmail.com
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> We are running into a problem with the service engine when trying to
> run
> >>> an
> >>>> archiving batch service. Here is how the service runs.
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. We run a service that collects a bunch of records for data
> >>> warehousing.
> >>>>
> >>>> 2. The data warehouse service calls an async service call to process
> each
> >>>> individual record.
> >>>>
> >>>> 3. The service engine them starts working on each individual record.
> >>>>
> >>>> We like the above process because it allows us to multi-process the
> large
> >>>> batch job.
> >>>>
> >>>> Here is the problem:
> >>>>
> >>>> There are over 10K records that are submitted as async service calls
> in
> >>>> step
> >>>> 2 above. I'm seeing a transaction time out when the service engine
> tries
> >>>> to
> >>>> process all of these records as it calls an "UPDATE JOB_SANDBOX for
> >>>> job_id=XXX". I believe it is trying to update all 10k of these jobs
> >>>> individually in a single transaction and times out. The jobs are then
> >>> left
> >>>> in a pending status and never changed but the service engine keeps
> timing
> >>>> out.
> >>>>
> >>>> Here are my questions:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. Is there a way to increase the transaction time out for the service
> >>>> engine to update these jobs in the JobSandbox so the service engine
> >>> threads
> >>>> can then process them?
> >>>>
> >>>> or
> >>>>
> >>>> 2. Is there another way to break these jobs up so the service engine
> >>>> doesn't have to process 10k jobs in a single transaction.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Note: the above process works very well when the number of records to
> >>>> process are around 1K.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Brett
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
>
>
Re: Service engine timeouts
Posted by David E Jones <de...@me.com>.
That sounds like the way to go Scott.
-David
On Jul 1, 2010, at 3:01 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
> Hi Brett,
>
> The JobManager probably wasn't intended (or at least initially written) to handle that many pending jobs, as a work around you could just add a timeout value to the TransactionUtil.begin() call in poll() and see if that does the trick. We could always look at making this configurable if you wanted to provide a patch for such a thing.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> HotWax Media
> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>
> On 29/06/2010, at 2:28 AM, Brett Palmer wrote:
>
>> Rishi,
>>
>> Thanks for the quick response.
>>
>> The transaction timeout is not with my defined service. The problem occurs
>> in the JobManager.poll() method of the service engine. The JobManager is
>> going through all the currently pending jobs and changing them to running
>> but it timesout before it can finish.
>>
>> I can't see a way without modifying the JobManager code to change this
>> transaction time in the "poll" method. I don't think my service definition
>> transaction time modifies the transaction time in the JobManager.
>>
>> Let me know if I am missing something here.
>>
>>
>> Brett
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 2:10 AM, Rishi Solanki <ri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> To increase the transaction time out use transaction-timeout="{value}"
>>> where value is any valid number.
>>> Note that this needs to be done in your service definition.
>>>
>>> Rishi Solanki
>>> Manager, Enterprise Software Development
>>> HotWax Media Pvt. Ltd.
>>> Direct: +91-9893287847
>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 2:17 AM, Brett Palmer <brettgpalmer@gmail.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We are running into a problem with the service engine when trying to run
>>> an
>>>> archiving batch service. Here is how the service runs.
>>>>
>>>> 1. We run a service that collects a bunch of records for data
>>> warehousing.
>>>>
>>>> 2. The data warehouse service calls an async service call to process each
>>>> individual record.
>>>>
>>>> 3. The service engine them starts working on each individual record.
>>>>
>>>> We like the above process because it allows us to multi-process the large
>>>> batch job.
>>>>
>>>> Here is the problem:
>>>>
>>>> There are over 10K records that are submitted as async service calls in
>>>> step
>>>> 2 above. I'm seeing a transaction time out when the service engine tries
>>>> to
>>>> process all of these records as it calls an "UPDATE JOB_SANDBOX for
>>>> job_id=XXX". I believe it is trying to update all 10k of these jobs
>>>> individually in a single transaction and times out. The jobs are then
>>> left
>>>> in a pending status and never changed but the service engine keeps timing
>>>> out.
>>>>
>>>> Here are my questions:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Is there a way to increase the transaction time out for the service
>>>> engine to update these jobs in the JobSandbox so the service engine
>>> threads
>>>> can then process them?
>>>>
>>>> or
>>>>
>>>> 2. Is there another way to break these jobs up so the service engine
>>>> doesn't have to process 10k jobs in a single transaction.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Note: the above process works very well when the number of records to
>>>> process are around 1K.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Brett
>>>>
>>>
>