Search Results

Search found 121 results on 5 pages for 'deadlocks'.

Page 1/5 | 1 2 3 4 5  | Next Page >

• Reducing Deadlocks - not a DBA issue ?

  - by steveh99999

   As a DBA, I'm involved on an almost daily basis troubleshooting 'SQL Server' performance issues. Often, this troubleshooting soon veers away from a 'its a SQL Server issue' to instead become a wider application/database design/coding issue.One common perception with SQL Server is that deadlocking is an application design issue - and is fixed by recoding...  I see this reinforced by MCP-type questions/scenarios where the answer to prevent deadlocking is simply to change the order in code in which tables are accessed....Whilst this is correct, I do think this has led to a situation where many 'operational' or 'production support' DBAs, when faced with a deadlock, are happy to throw the issue over to developers without analysing the issue further....A couple of 'war stories' on deadlocks which I think are interesting :- Case One , I had an issue recently on a third-party application that I support on SQL 2008.  This particular third-party application has an unusual support agreement where the customer is allowed to change the index design on the third-party provided database.  However, we are not allowed to alter application code or modify table structure..This third-party application is also known to encounter occasional deadlocks – indeed, I have documentation from the vendor that up to 50 deadlocks per day is not unusual !So, as a DBA I have to support an application which in my opinion has too many deadlocks - but, I cannot influence the design of the tables or stored procedures for the application. This should be the classic - blame the third-party developers scenario, and hope this issue gets addressed in a future application release - ie we could wait years for this to be resolved and implemented in our production environment...But, as DBAs  can change the index layout, is there anything I could do still to reduce the deadlocks in the application ?I initially used SQL traceflag 1222 to write deadlock detection output to the SQL Errorlog – using this I was able to identify one table heavily involved in the deadlocks.When I examined the table definition, I was surprised to see it was a heap – ie no clustered index existed on the table.Using SQL profiler to see locking behaviour and plan for the query involved in the deadlock, I was able to confirm a table scan was being performed.By creating an appropriate clustered index - it was possible to produce a more efficient plan and locking behaviour.So, less locks, held for less time = less possibility of deadlocks. I'm still unhappy about the overall number of deadlocks on this system - but that's something to be discussed further with the vendor.Case Two,  a system which hadn't changed for months suddenly started seeing deadlocks on a regular basis. I love the 'nothing's changed' scenario, as it gives me the opportunity to appear wise and say 'nothings changed on this system, except the data'.. This particular deadlock occurred on a table which had been growing rapidly. By using DBCC SHOW_STATISTICS - the DBA team were able to see that the deadlocks seemed to be occurring shortly after auto-update stats had regenerated the table statistics using it's default sampling behaviour.As a quick fix, we were able to schedule a nightly UPDATE STATISTICS WITH FULLSCAN on the table involved in the deadlock - thus, greatly reducing the potential for stats to be updated via auto_update_stats, consequently reducing the potential for a bad plan to be generated based on an unrepresentative sample of the data. This reduced the possibility of a deadlock occurring.  Not a perfect solution by any means, but quick, easy to implement, and needed no application code changes. This fix gave us some 'breathing space'  to properly fix the code during the next scheduled application release.   The moral of this post - don't dismiss deadlocks as issues that can only be fixed by developers...

  Read the article

• I have data about deadlocks, but I can't understand why they occur

  - by Alex

  I am receiving a lot of deadlocks in my big web application. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2941233/how-to-automatically-re-run-deadlocked-transaction-asp-net-mvc-sql-server Here I wanted to re-run deadlocked transactions, but I was told to get rid of the deadlocks - it's much better, than trying to catch the deadlocks. So I spent the whole day with SQL Profiler, setting the tracing keys etc. And this is what I got. There's a Users table. I have a very high usable page with the following query (it's not the only query, but it's the one that causes troubles) UPDATE Users SET views = views + 1 WHERE ID IN (SELECT AuthorID FROM Articles WHERE ArticleID = @ArticleID) And then there's the following query in ALL pages: User = DB.Users.SingleOrDefault(u => u.Password == password && u.Name == username); That's where I get User from cookies. Very often a deadlock occurs and this second Linq-to-SQL query is chosen as a victim, so it's not run, and users of my site see an error screen. I read a lot about deadlocks... And I don't understand why this is causing a deadlock. So obviously both of this queries run very often. At least once a second. Maybe even more often (300-400 users online). So they can be run at the same time very easily, but why does it cause a deadlock? Please help. Thank you

  Read the article

• Getting deadlocks in MySQL

  - by at

  We're very frustratingly getting deadlocks in MySQL. It isn't because of exceeding a lock timeout as the deadlocks happen instantly when they do happen. Here's the SQL code that is executing on 2 separate threads (with 2 separate connections from the connection pool) that produces a deadlock: UPDATE Sequences SET Counter = LAST_INSERT_ID(Counter + 1) WHERE Sequence IS NULL Sequences table has 2 columns: Sequence and Counter The LAST_INSERT_ID allows us to retrieve this updated counter value as per MySQL's recommendation. That works perfect for us, but we get these deadlocks! Why are we getting them and how can we avoid them?? Thanks so much for any help with this.

  Read the article

• Gracefully Handling Deadlocks

  - by Derek Dieter

  In some situations, deadlocks may need to be dealt with not by changing the source of the deadlock, but by changing handling the deadlock gracefully. An example of this may be an external subscription that runs on a schedule deadlocking with another process. If the subscription deadlocks then it would be ok to [...]

  Read the article

• Gracefully Dealing with Deadlocks

  - by Derek Dieter

  In some situations, deadlocks may need to be dealt with not by changing the source of the deadlock, but by changing handling the deadlock gracefully. An example of this may be an external subscription that runs on a schedule deadlocking with another process. If the subscription deadlocks then it would be ok to [...]

  Read the article

• Using SQL Profiler to Resolve Deadlocks in SQL Server

  MVP Jonathan Kehayias brings us a short article on how to troubleshoot deadlocks in SQL Server.

  Read the article

• Class Loading Deadlocks

  - by tomas.nilsson

  Mattis follows up on his previous post with one more expose on Class Loading Deadlocks As I wrote in a previous post, the class loading mechanism in Java is very powerful. There are many advanced techniques you can use, and when used wrongly you can get into all sorts of trouble. But one of the sneakiest deadlocks you can run into when it comes to class loading doesn't require any home made class loaders or anything. All you need is classes depending on each other, and some bad luck. First of all, here are some basic facts about class loading: 1) If a thread needs to use a class that is not yet loaded, it will try to load that class 2) If another thread is already loading the class, the first thread will wait for the other thread to finish the loading 3) During the loading of a class, one thing that happens is that the <clinit method of a class is being run 4) The <clinit method initializes all static fields, and runs any static blocks in the class. Take the following class for example: class Foo { static Bar bar = new Bar(); static { System.out.println("Loading Foo"); } } The first time a thread needs to use the Foo class, the class will be initialized. The <clinit method will run, creating a new Bar object and printing "Loading Foo" But what happens if the Bar object has never been used before either? Well, then we will need to load that class as well, calling the Bar <clinit method as we go. Can you start to see the potential problem here? A hint is in fact #2 above. What if another thread is currently loading class Bar? The thread loading class Foo will have to wait for that thread to finish loading. But what happens if the <clinit method of class Bar tries to initialize a Foo object? That thread will have to wait for the first thread, and there we have the deadlock. Thread one is waiting for thread two to initialize class Bar, thread two is waiting for thread one to initialize class Foo. All that is needed for a class loading deadlock is static cross dependencies between two classes (and a multi threaded environment): class Foo { static Bar b = new Bar(); } class Bar { static Foo f = new Foo(); } If two threads cause these classes to be loaded at exactly the same time, we will have a deadlock. So, how do you avoid this? Well, one way is of course to not have these circular (static) dependencies. On the other hand, it can be very hard to detect these, and sometimes your design may depend on it. What you can do in that case is to make sure that the classes are first loaded single threadedly, for example during an initialization phase of your application. The following program shows this kind of deadlock. To help bad luck on the way, I added a one second sleep in the static block of the classes to trigger the unlucky timing. Notice that if you uncomment the "//Foo f = new Foo();" line in the main method, the class will be loaded single threadedly, and the program will terminate as it should. public class ClassLoadingDeadlock { // Start two threads. The first will instansiate a Foo object, // the second one will instansiate a Bar object. public static void main(String[] arg) { // Uncomment next line to stop the deadlock // Foo f = new Foo(); new Thread(new FooUser()).start(); new Thread(new BarUser()).start(); } } class FooUser implements Runnable { public void run() { System.out.println("FooUser causing class Foo to be loaded"); Foo f = new Foo(); System.out.println("FooUser done"); } } class BarUser implements Runnable { public void run() { System.out.println("BarUser causing class Bar to be loaded"); Bar b = new Bar(); System.out.println("BarUser done"); } } class Foo { static { // We are deadlock prone even without this sleep... // The sleep just makes us more deterministic try { Thread.sleep(1000); } catch(InterruptedException e) {} } static Bar b = new Bar(); } class Bar { static { try { Thread.sleep(1000); } catch(InterruptedException e) {} } static Foo f = new Foo(); }

  Read the article

• What do you look for when debugging deadlocks?

  - by Michael K

  Recently I've been working on projects that heavily use threading. I think that I'm OK at designing them; use stateless design as much as possible, lock access to all resources that more than one thread needs, etc. My experience in functional programming has helped that immensely. However, when reading other people's thread code, I get confused. I am debugging a deadlock right now, and since the coding style and design are different from my personal style, I am having a difficult time seeing potential deadlock conditions. What do you look for when debugging deadlocks?

  Read the article

• Increasing deadlocks with NoLock

  - by Dave Ballantyne

  One on my personnel pet issues is with inappropriate use of the NOLOCK hint (and read uncommitted) .  Dont get me wrong, I have used it in exceptional circumstances , but as a general statement it is a bad thing.  Mostly , when NOLOCK, is used the discussion is around a single statement,  “it runs faster with nolock for XYZ reason”,  however ,IMO, this is quite a shorted sighted view.  What about the Transaction ? What about other concurrent users ?  What is good for one statement in isolation , does not mean that it is good for the system as a whole.  I have seen on a number of occasions deadlocks happen, when tasks that would of(and should of) be blocked continue to execute, only for a deadlock to occur at a later data writing (INSERT,UPDATE,DELETE) statement.  Writers will block writers regardless of isolation level. By Way of (fairly contrived ) example , lets generate some dummy tables and populate with some data drop table a go drop table b go Create Table a ( col1 integer ) go insert into a values(1) insert into a values(2) go Create Table b ( col1 integer ) go insert into b values(1) insert into b values(2) go   Now make two connections. In connection one execute set transaction isolation level read committed BEGIN TRAN Select * from a Select * from b delete from a In connection two execute set transaction isolation level read committed BEGIN TRAN Select * from a Select * from b delete from b Right now the ‘select from a’ in connection two is being blocked by the ‘delete from a’ in connection one.  This is ,IMO, quite a healthy and natural thing to be happening , some see this as a ‘slow down’, a drop in performance.  So, lets reach for our ‘NOLOCK’ magic pill.  Cancel the blocked query and ROLLBACK both transactions, then in connection one execute set transaction isolation level read uncommitted BEGIN TRAN Select * from a Select * from b delete from b and then in connection two execute set transaction isolation level read uncommitted BEGIN TRAN Select * from a Select * from b delete from a We have now solved out performance problem , no more blocking.  Lets finish the work required by the transaction, in connection one , execute delete from a Oh, ‘ performance problem’ again , its now being blocked. Still, lets complete the work in connection two…. delete from b DEADLOCK!!  It is important to be clear about the role of the select statements.  They do not participate within the deadlock, but are preventing code executing that would of.   Additionally, without the select readers to block, a deadlock would occur on the deletes with READ COMMITTED. Naturally, other isolation levels will exhibit different behaviour as to where and when they will and wont block,  and I would encourage you to read BOL and satisfy yourself that you really do NEED to NOLOCK.

  Read the article

• DeadLocks

  initial information about Deadlock

  Read the article

• How to manually detect deadlocks

  - by Dawson

  I understand the concepts of deadlock well enough, but when I'm given a problem like the one below I'm not sure how to go about solving it. I can draw a resource allocation graph, but I'm not sure how to solve it from there. Is there a better more formal way of solving this? Consider a system with five processes, P1 through P5, and five resources, R1 through R5. Resource ownership is as follows. • P1 holds R1 and wants R3 • P2 holds R2 and wants R1 • P3 holds R3 and wants R5 • P4 holds R5 and wants R2 • P5 holds R4 and wants R2 Is this system deadlocked? Justify your answer. If the system is deadlocked, list the involved processes.

  Read the article

• Handling Deadlocks in SQL Server

  In this excerpt from his book Troubleshooting SQL Server: A Guide for the Accidental DBA, Jonathan Kehayias provides a guide to identifying the causes, reacting to, and ultimately preventing the dreaded deadlock. What are your servers really trying to tell you? Find out with new SQL Monitor 3.0, an easy-to-use tool built for no-nonsense database professionals.For effortless insights into SQL Server, download a free trial today.

  Read the article

• Snapshot on, still deadlocks, ROWLOCK

  - by Patto

  I turned snapshot isolation on in my database using the following code ALTER DATABASE MyDatabase SET ALLOW_SNAPSHOT_ISOLATION ON ALTER DATABASE MyDatabase SET READ_COMMITTED_SNAPSHOT ON and got rid off lots of deadlocks. But my database still produces deadlocks, when I need to run a script every hour to clean up 100,000+ rows. Is there a way I can avoid deadlocks in my cleanup script, do I need to set ROWLOCK specifically in that query? Is there a way to increase the number of row level locks that a database uses? How are locks promoted? From row level to page level to table level? My delete script is rather simple: delete statvalue from statValue, (select dateadd(minute,-60, getdate()) as cutoff_date) cd where temporaryStat = 1 and entrydate < cutoff_date Right now I am looking for quick solution, but a long term solution would be even nicer. Thanks a lot, Patrikc

  Read the article

• help troubleshooting deadlocks in sql server database

  - by Makach

  I've got two database servers, (1) production (2) test on the production database I get frequent deadlocks and I'm trying to find out what is causing it. I take a backup of the database in production and restore it in test and when I perform the exact same scenario that yields deadlocks on the production server I am unable to reproduce in test. any ideas/tips/hints would be much appreciated.

  Read the article

• SQL Server deadlocks between select/update or multiple selects

  - by RobW

  All of the documentation on SQL Server deadlocks talks about the scenario in which operation 1 locks resource A then attempts to access resource B and operation 2 locks resource B and attempts to access resource A. However, I quite often see deadlocks between a select and an update or even between multiple selects in some of our busy applications. I find some of the finer points of the deadlock trace output pretty impenetrable but I would really just like to understand what can cause a deadlock between two single operations. Surely if a select has a read lock the update should just wait before obtaining an exclusive lock and vice versa? This is happening on SQL Server 2005 not that I think this makes a difference.

  Read the article

• What trace flags are needed for detecting deadlocks

  - by AngryHacker

  I am trying to get better information on deadlocks that are occurring in my DB. After reading this article, it's still unclear to me whether I should be using trace flag 1204, 1222 or both.

  Read the article

• quartz throws deadlocks under load

  - by Khandelwal

  We are using Quartz with Spring and our configuration is throwing deadlocks when quartz has more than 1 thread configured. I'm starting to believe that it's because we don't have our quartz configured correctly with Spring, but I can't find enough documentation on how to configure the two to play nicely. We are running on both Windows and Linux environments - pointing at MSSQL and Oracle DBs. With both OS, using either DB, we can throw the following deadlock errors... We're consistently throwing these deadlock errors. We run under heavy load, inserting hundreds of quartz triggers in a matter of minutes. 2010-03-17 18:52:31,737 [] [] ERROR [DFScheduler_Worker-42] core.ErrorLogger core.ErrorLogger (QuartzScheduler.java:2185) - An error occured while marking executed job complete. job= 'BPM.6e41a6567f0000020100362a51dc7a50' org.quartz.JobPersistenceException: Couldn't remove trigger: Transaction (Process ID 87) was deadlocked on lock resources with another process and has been chosen as the deadlock victim. Rerun the transaction. [See nested exception: com.microsoft.sqlserver.jdbc.SQLServerException: Transaction (Process ID 87) was deadlocked on lock resources with another process and has been chosen as the deadlock victim. Rerun the transaction.] at org.quartz.impl.jdbcjobstore.JobStoreSupport.removeTrigger(JobStoreSupport.java:1469)at org.quartz.impl.jdbcjobstore.JobStoreSupport.triggeredJobComplete(JobStoreSupport.java:2978)at org.quartz.impl.jdbcjobstore.JobStoreSupport$39.execute(JobStoreSupport.java:2962) at org.quartz.impl.jdbcjobstore.JobStoreSupport$41.execute(JobStoreSupport.java:3713)at org.quartz.impl.jdbcjobstore.JobStoreSupport.executeInNonManagedTXLock(JobStoreSupport.java:3747) at org.quartz.impl.jdbcjobstore.JobStoreSupport.executeInNonManagedTXLock(JobStoreSupport.java:3709)at org.quartz.impl.jdbcjobstore.JobStoreSupport.triggeredJobComplete(JobStoreSupport.java:2958)at org.quartz.core.QuartzScheduler.notifyJobStoreJobComplete(QuartzScheduler.java:1727)at org.quartz.core.JobRunShell.run(JobRunShell.java:273) at org.quartz.simpl.SimpleThreadPool$WorkerThread.run(SimpleThreadPool.java:534) Caused by: com.microsoft.sqlserver.jdbc.SQLServerException: Transaction (Process ID 87) was deadlocked on lock resources with another process and has been chosen as the deadlock victim. Rerun the transaction. at com.microsoft.sqlserver.jdbc.SQLServerException.makeFromDatabaseError(Unknown Source at com.microsoft.sqlserver.jdbc.SQLServerStatement.getNextResult(Unknown Source) at com.microsoft.sqlserver.jdbc.SQLServerPreparedStatement.doExecutePreparedStatement(Unknown Source) at ... org.quartz.impl.jdbcjobstore.StdJDBCDelegate.deleteSimpleTrigger(StdJDBCDelegate.java:1820) at org.quartz.impl.jdbcjobstore.JobStoreSupport.deleteTriggerAndChildren(JobStoreSupport.java:1345 at org.quartz.impl.jdbcjobstore.JobStoreSupport.removeTrigger(JobStoreSupport.java:1453 ... 9 more

  Read the article

• How to configure RetryAdvice and ExceptionTranslation for Deadlocks using NHibernate and Spring

  - by zoidbeck

  Hi, i am using Spring.net 1.2 with NHibernate 2.0.1. Within my project i'am facing some Deadlock issues and besides the database tweaks to minimize the occurence i would like to implement Springs RetryAdvice to handle this. I can't find any working example how to configure a this. The reference seems to be clear about how to use it but somehow i can't get it working. <!--Used to translate NHibernate exception to Spring.DataAccessExceptions--> <object type="Spring.Dao.Attributes.PersistenceExceptionTranslationPostProcessor, Spring.Data"/> <!--ExceptionHandler performing Retry on Deadlocks--> <object name="ExceptionHandlingAdvice" type="Spring.Aspects.RetryAdvice, Spring.Aop"> <property name="retryExpression" value="on exception name DeadLockLoserException retry 3x rate (1*#n + 0.5)"/> </object> I have added the [Repository] attribute to my DAOs to get ExceptionTranslation enabled and tried to add the RetryAdvice to the TransactionProxyFactoryObject i am using but it won't work. I don't understand where to put this Advice. Do i have to declare a PointCut to add it or how could i get it to work as expected. Thx in advance - any help appreciated.

  Read the article

• Reproducing a Conversion Deadlock

  - by Alexander Kuznetsov

  Even if two processes compete on only one resource, they still can embrace in a deadlock. The following scripts reproduce such a scenario. In one tab, run this: CREATE TABLE dbo.Test ( i INT ) ; GO INSERT INTO dbo.Test ( i ) VALUES ( 1 ) ; GO SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE ; BEGIN TRAN SELECT i FROM dbo.Test ; --UPDATE dbo.Test SET i=2 ; After this script has completed, we have an outstanding transaction holding a shared lock. In another tab, let us have that another connection have...(read more)

  Read the article

• JDK-7 SwingWorker deadlocks?

  - by kd304

  I have a small image processing application which does multiple things at once using SwingWorker. However, if I run the following code (oversimplified excerpt), it just hangs on JDK 7 b70 (windows) but works in 6u16. It starts a new worker within another worker and waits for its result (the real app runs multiple sub-workers and waits for all this way). Did I use some wrong patterns here (as mostly there is 3-5 workers in the swingworker-pool, which has limit of 10 I think)? import javax.swing.SwingUtilities; import javax.swing.SwingWorker; public class Swing { static SwingWorker<String, Void> getWorker2() { return new SwingWorker<String, Void>() { @Override protected String doInBackground() throws Exception { return "Hello World"; } }; } static void runWorker() { SwingWorker<String, Void> worker = new SwingWorker<String, Void>() { @Override protected String doInBackground() throws Exception { SwingWorker<String, Void> sw2 = getWorker2(); sw2.execute(); return sw2.get(); } }; worker.execute(); try { System.out.println(worker.get()); } catch (Exception e) { e.printStackTrace(); } } public static void main(String[] args) { SwingUtilities.invokeLater(new Runnable() { @Override public void run() { runWorker(); } }); } }

  Read the article

• deadlocks in the innodb status

  - by shantanuo

  Mysql sever has suddenly become very slow. There are no queries in the slow query log but the innodb status shows something like the following. Does it mean that it is due to innodb deadlock? if Yes, what is the way out? *************************** 1. row *************************** Status: ===================================== 100315 12:55:29 INNODB MONITOR OUTPUT ===================================== Per second averages calculated from the last 5 seconds ---------- SEMAPHORES ---------- OS WAIT ARRAY INFO: reservation count 187532, signal count 188120 Mutex spin waits 0, rounds 61908654, OS waits 33052 RW-shared spins 89241, OS waits 41948; RW-excl spins 5857, OS waits 1557 ------------------------ LATEST DETECTED DEADLOCK ------------------------ 100315 12:43:02 *** (1) TRANSACTION: TRANSACTION 0 56996536, ACTIVE 0 sec, process no 5000, OS thread id 3031395216 starting index read mysql tables in use 1, locked 1 LOCK WAIT 6 lock struct(s), heap size 1024, undo log entries 6 MySQL thread id 994, query id 7699751 localhost application Searching rows for update UPDATE QUERY *** (1) WAITING FOR THIS LOCK TO BE GRANTED: RECORD LOCKS space id 0 page no 4073 n bits 296 index `PRIMARY` of table `dbII/tbl_ticket_block_master` trx id 0 56996536 lock_mode X locks r ec but not gap waiting Record lock, heap no 141 PHYSICAL RECORD: n_fields 23; compact format; info bits 0 0: len 7; hex 33353837393936; asc 3587996;; 1: len 4; hex 800001f4; asc ;; 2: len 1; hex 47; asc G;; 3: len 2; hex 6f6b; asc ok;; 4: le n 6; hex 0000035957fe; asc YW ;; 5: len 7; hex 000000401737c0; asc @ 7 ;; 6: SQL NULL; 7: SQL NULL; 8: SQL NULL; 9: len 3; hex 8fb46e; asc n;; 10: SQL NULL; 11: len 1; hex 30; asc 0;; 12: len 0; hex ; asc ;; 13: SQL NULL; 14: len 1; hex 33; asc 3;; 15: len 4; hex 4b9ceebe ; asc K ;; 16: len 1; hex 30; asc 0;; 17: len 4; hex 80006ae8; asc j ;; 18: len 0; hex ; asc ;; 19: len 0; hex ; asc ;; 20: len 0; hex ; asc ;; 21: len 0; hex ; asc ;; 22: len 0; hex ; asc ;; *** (2) TRANSACTION: TRANSACTION 0 56996527, ACTIVE 0 sec, process no 5000, OS thread id 2961476496 fetching rows, thread declared inside InnoDB 237 mysql tables in use 3, locked 3 121 lock struct(s), heap size 11584, undo log entries 16 MySQL thread id 995, query id 7699729 localhost application Searching rows for update UPDATE QUERY *** (2) HOLDS THE LOCK(S): RECORD LOCKS space id 0 page no 4073 n bits 296 index `PRIMARY` of table `DBII/tbl_ticket_block_master` trx id 0 56996527 lock_mode X Record lock, heap no 1 PHYSICAL RECORD: n_fields 1; compact format; info bits 0 0: len 8; hex 73757072656d756d; asc supremum;; Record lock, heap no 2 PHYSICAL RECORD: n_fields 23; compact format; info bits 0 0: len 7; hex 33353837343631; asc 3587461;; 1: len 4; hex 800001f4; asc ;; 2: len 1; hex 47; asc G;; 3: len 6; hex 497373756564; asc Is sued;; 4: len 6; hex 000003425295; asc BR ;; 5: len 7; hex 8000000464012c; asc d ,;; 6: SQL NULL; 7: len 4; hex 80000058; asc X;; 8: len 1; hex 43; asc C;; 9: len 3; hex 8fb465; asc e;; 10: len 3; hex 8fb46d; asc m;; 11: len 1; hex 30; asc 0;; 12: len 0; hex ; asc ; ; 13: SQL NULL; 14: len 1; hex 33; asc 3;; 15: len 4; hex 4b9b33a2; asc K 3 ;; 16: len 3; hex 756d67; asc umg;; 17: len 4; hex 80006744; asc gD;; 18: len 0; hex ; asc ;; 19: len 0; hex ; asc ;; 20: len 0; hex ; asc ;; 21: len 0; hex ; asc ;; 22: len 0; hex ; asc ;;

  Read the article

• deadlocks in Client Server Application

  - by fakhrad

  hi (excuse me about my english) I'm a dotnet propgrammer. recently i wrote a client-server application that use system.net.sockets for connecting and use .net remoting for comunications. when number of client increased(e. up to 100) sometimes server application freezed and after several minuts comebacks. i use sql2005 with pooling and timeout. Plz Help Me!

  Read the article

• Some questions regarding threads and deadlocks

  - by mousey

  will parent process and child process in deadlock if parent is using resource and child will also get same resource ? what if parent contains two threads ? will child also get 2 threads ? how can fork will be thread safe ?

  Read the article

• TerminateProcess and deadlocks

  - by Tony

  Is it real that the TerminateProcess function in Windows could hang because the threads inside the process were stuck in a deadlock? Example: Process A is running under Process B's control, now Process A gets into a deadlock and Process B detects this and decides to 'Kill' process A using TerminateProcess. Would it be successful in killing the hung Process A?

  Read the article

• Identifying and Resolving Oracle ITL Deadlock

  - by Allan

  I have an Oracle DB package that is routinely causing what I believe is an ITL (Interested Transaction List) deadlock. The relevant portion of a trace file is below. Deadlock graph: ---------Blocker(s)-------- ---------Waiter(s)--------- Resource Name process session holds waits process session holds waits TM-0000cb52-00000000 22 131 S 23 143 SS TM-0000ceec-00000000 23 143 SX 32 138 SX SSX TM-0000cb52-00000000 30 138 SX 22 131 S session 131: DID 0001-0016-00000D1C session 143: DID 0001-0017-000055D5 session 143: DID 0001-0017-000055D5 session 138: DID 0001-001E-000067A0 session 138: DID 0001-001E-000067A0 session 131: DID 0001-0016-00000D1C Rows waited on: Session 143: no row Session 138: no row Session 131: no row There are no bit-map indexes on this table, so that's not the cause. As far as I can tell, the lack of "Rows waited on" plus the "S" in the Waiter waits column likely indicates that this is an ITL deadlock. Also, the table is written to quite often (roughly 8 insert or updates concurrently, as often as 240 times a minute), so and ITL deadlock seems like a strong possibility. I've increased the INITRANS parameter of the table and it's indexes to 100 and increased the PCT_FREE on the table from 10 to 20 (then rebuilt the indexes), but the deadlocks are still occurring. The deadlock seems to happen most often during an update, but that could just be a coincidence, as I've only traced it a couple of times. My questions are two-fold: 1) Is this actually an ITL deadlock? 2) If it is an ITL deadlock, what else can be done to avoid it?

  Read the article

1 2 3 4 5  | Next Page >