Search Results

Search found 1047 results on 42 pages for 'locking'.

Page 10/42 | < Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >

  • How to salvage SQL server 2008 query from KILLED/ROLLBACK state without waiting half a day?

    - by littlegreen
    I have a stored procedure that inserts batches of millions of rows, emerging from a certain query, into an SQL database. It has one parameter selecting the batch; when this parameter is omitted, it will gather a list of batches and recursively call itself, in order to iterate over batches. In (pseudo-)code, it looks something like this: CREATE PROCEDURE spProcedure AS BEGIN IF @code = 0 BEGIN ... WHILE @@Fetch_Status=0 BEGIN EXEC spProcedure @code FETCH NEXT ... INTO @code END END ELSE BEGIN -- Disable indexes ... INSERT INTO table SELECT (...) -- Enable indexes ... Now it can happen that this procedure is slow, for whatever reason: it can't get a lock, one of the indexes it uses is misdefined or disabled. In that case, I want to be able kill the procedure, truncate and recreate the resulting table, and try again. However, when I try and kill the procedure, the process frequently oozes into a KILLED/ROLLBACK state from which there seems to be no return. From Google I have learned to do an sp_lock, find the spid, and then kill it with KILL <spid>. But when I try to kill it, it tells me SPID 75: transaction rollback in progress. Estimated rollback completion: 0%. Estimated time remaining: 554 seconds. I did find a forum message hinting that another spid should be killed before the other one can start a rollback. But that didn't work for me either, plus I do not understand, why that would be the case... could it be because I am recursively calling my own stored procedure? (But it should be having the same spid, right?) In any case, my process is just sitting there, being dead, not responding to kills, and locking the table. This is very frustrating, as I want to go on developing my queries, not waiting hours on my server sitting dead while pretending to be finishing a supposed rollback. Is there some way in which I can tell the server not to store any rollback information for my query? Or not to allow any other queries to interfere with the rollback, so that it will not take so long? Or how to rewrite my query in a better way, or how kill the process successfully without restarting the server?

    Read the article

  • Java: Making concurrent MySQL queries from multiple clients synchronised

    - by Misha Gale
    I work at a gaming cybercafe, and we've got a system here (smartlaunch) which keeps track of game licenses. I've written a program which interfaces with this system (actually, with it's backend MySQL database). The program is meant to be run on a client PC and (1) query the database to select an unused license from the pool available, then (2) mark this license as in use by the client PC. The problem is, I've got a concurrency bug. The program is meant to be launched simultaneously on multiple machines, and when this happens, some machines often try and acquire the same license. I think that this is because steps (1) and (2) are not synchronised, i.e. one program determines that license #5 is available and selects it, but before it can mark #5 as in use another copy of the program on another PC tries to grab that same license. I've tried to solve this problem by using transactions and table locking, but it doesn't seem to make any difference - Am I doing this right? Here follows the code in question: public LicenseKey Acquire() throws SmartLaunchException, SQLException { Connection conn = SmartLaunchDB.getConnection(); int PCID = SmartLaunchDB.getCurrentPCID(); conn.createStatement().execute("LOCK TABLE `licensekeys` WRITE"); String sql = "SELECT * FROM `licensekeys` WHERE `InUseByPC` = 0 AND LicenseSetupID = ? ORDER BY `ID` DESC LIMIT 1"; PreparedStatement statement = conn.prepareStatement(sql); statement.setInt(1, this.id); ResultSet results = statement.executeQuery(); if (results.next()) { int licenseID = results.getInt("ID"); sql = "UPDATE `licensekeys` SET `InUseByPC` = ? WHERE `ID` = ?"; statement = conn.prepareStatement(sql); statement.setInt(1, PCID); statement.setInt(2, licenseID); statement.executeUpdate(); statement.close(); conn.commit(); conn.createStatement().execute("UNLOCK TABLES"); return new LicenseKey(results.getInt("ID"), this, results.getString("LicenseKey"), results.getInt("LicenseKeyType")); } else { throw new SmartLaunchException("All licenses of type " + this.name + "are in use"); } }

    Read the article

  • How to write my own global lock / unlock functions for PostgreSQL

    - by rafalmag
    I have postgresql (in perlu) function getTravelTime(integer, timestamp), which tries to select data for specified ID and timestamp. If there are no data or if data is old, it downloads them from external server (downloading time ~300ms). Multiple process use this database and this function. There is an error when two process do not find data and download them and try to do an insert to travel_time table (id and timestamp pair have to be unique). I thought about locks. Locking whole table would block all processes and allow only one to proceed. I need to lock only on id and timestamp. pg_advisory_lock seems to lock only in "current session". But my processes uses their own sessions. I tried to write my own lock/unlock functions. Am I doing it right? I use active waiting, how can I omit this? Maybe there is a way to use pg_advisory_lock() as global lock? My code: CREATE TABLE travel_time_locks ( id_key integer NOT NULL, time_key timestamp without time zone NOT NULL, UNIQUE (id_key, time_key) ); ------------ -- Function: mylock(integer, timestamp) DROP FUNCTION IF EXISTS mylock(integer, timestamp) CASCADE; -- Usage: SELECT mylock(1, '2010-03-28T19:45'); -- function tries to do a global lock similar to pg_advisory_lock(key, key) CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION mylock(id_input integer, time_input timestamp) RETURNS void AS $BODY$ DECLARE rows int; BEGIN LOOP BEGIN -- active waiting here !!!! :( INSERT INTO travel_time_locks (id_key, time_key) VALUES (id_input, time_input); EXCEPTION WHEN unique_violation THEN CONTINUE; END; EXIT; END LOOP; END; $BODY$ LANGUAGE 'plpgsql' VOLATILE COST 1; ------------ -- Function: myunlock(integer, timestamp) DROP FUNCTION IF EXISTS myunlock(integer, timestamp) CASCADE; -- Usage: SELECT myunlock(1, '2010-03-28T19:45'); -- function tries to do a global unlock similar to pg_advisory_unlock(key, key) CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION myunlock(id_input integer, time_input timestamp) RETURNS integer AS $BODY$ DECLARE BEGIN DELETE FROM ONLY travel_time_locks WHERE id_key=id_input AND time_key=time_input; RETURN 1; END; $BODY$ LANGUAGE 'plpgsql' VOLATILE COST 1;

    Read the article

  • A deadlock was detected while trying to lock variables in SSIS

    Error: 0xC001405C at SQL Log Status: A deadlock was detected while trying to lock variables "User::RowCount" for read/write access. A lock cannot be acquired after 16 attempts. The locks timed out. Have you ever considered variable locking when building your SSIS packages? I expect many people haven’t just because most of the time you never see an error like the one above. I’ll try and explain a few key concepts about variable locking and hopefully you never will see that error. First of all, what is all this variable locking all about? Put simply SSIS variables have to be locked before they can be accessed, and then of course unlocked once you have finished with them. This is baked into SSIS, presumably to reduce the risk of race conditions, but with that comes some additional overhead in that you need to be careful to avoid lock conflicts in some scenarios. The most obvious place you will come across any hint of locking (no pun intended) is the Script Task or Script Component with their ReadOnlyVariables and ReadWriteVariables properties. These two properties allow you to enter lists of variables to be used within the task, or to put it another way, these lists of variables to be locked, so that they are available within the task. During the task pre-execute phase the variables and locked, you then use them during the execute phase when you code is run, and then unlocked for you during the post-execute phase. So by entering the variable names in one of the two list, the locking is taken care of for you, and you just read and write to the Dts.Variables collection that is exposed in the task for the purpose. As you can see in the image above, the variable PackageInt is specified, which means when I write the code inside that task I don’t have to worry about locking at all, as shown below. public void Main() { // Set the variable value to something new Dts.Variables["PackageInt"].Value = 199; // Raise an event so we can play in the event handler bool fireAgain = true; Dts.Events.FireInformation(0, "Script Task Code", "This is the script task raising an event.", null, 0, ref fireAgain); Dts.TaskResult = (int)ScriptResults.Success; } As you can see as well as accessing the variable, hassle free, I also raise an event. Now consider a scenario where I have an event hander as well as shown below. Now what if my event handler uses tries to use the same variable as well? Well obviously for the point of this post, it fails with the error quoted previously. The reason why is clearly illustrated if you consider the following sequence of events. Package execution starts Script Task in Control Flow starts Script Task in Control Flow locks the PackageInt variable as specified in the ReadWriteVariables property Script Task in Control Flow executes script, and the On Information event is raised The On Information event handler starts Script Task in On Information event handler starts Script Task in On Information event handler attempts to lock the PackageInt variable (for either read or write it doesn’t matter), but will fail because the variable is already locked. The problem is caused by the event handler task trying to use a variable that is already locked by the task in Control Flow. Events are always raised synchronously, therefore the task in Control Flow that is raising the event will not regain control until the event handler has completed, so we really do have un-resolvable locking conflict, better known as a deadlock. In this scenario we can easily resolve the problem by managing the variable locking explicitly in code, so no need to specify anything for the ReadOnlyVariables and ReadWriteVariables properties. public void Main() { // Set the variable value to something new, with explicit lock control Variables lockedVariables = null; Dts.VariableDispenser.LockOneForWrite("PackageInt", ref lockedVariables); lockedVariables["PackageInt"].Value = 199; lockedVariables.Unlock(); // Raise an event so we can play in the event handler bool fireAgain = true; Dts.Events.FireInformation(0, "Script Task Code", "This is the script task raising an event.", null, 0, ref fireAgain); Dts.TaskResult = (int)ScriptResults.Success; } Now the package will execute successfully because the variable lock has already been released by the time the event is raised, so no conflict occurs. For those of you with a SQL Engine background this should all sound strangely familiar, and boils down to getting in and out as fast as you can to reduce the risk of lock contention, be that SQL pages or SSIS variables. Unfortunately we cannot always manage the locking ourselves. The Execute SQL Task is very often used in conjunction with variables, either to pass in parameter values or get results out. Either way the task will manage the locking for you, and will fail when it cannot lock the variables it requires. The scenario outlined above is clear cut deadlock scenario, both parties are waiting on each other, so it is un-resolvable. The mechanism used within SSIS isn’t actually that clever, and whilst the message says it is a deadlock, it really just means it tried a few times, and then gave up. The last part of the error message is actually the most accurate in terms of the failure, A lock cannot be acquired after 16 attempts. The locks timed out.  Now this may come across as a recommendation to always manage locking manually in the Script Task or Script Component yourself, but I think that would be an overreaction. It is more of a reminder to be aware that in high concurrency scenarios, especially when sharing variables across multiple objects, locking is important design consideration. Update – Make sure you don’t try and use explicit locking as well as leaving the variable names in the ReadOnlyVariables and ReadWriteVariables lock lists otherwise you’ll get the deadlock error, you cannot lock a variable twice!

    Read the article

  • How to you solve the problem of implicit locking and parallel execution?

    - by Eonil
    Where the code is: function A() { lock() doSomething() unlock() } We can call A safely from multiple threads, but it never be executed in parallel . For parallel execution, we have to evade all of this code. But the problem is we never know the A is getting lock or not. If we have source code (maybe lucky case), we have to decode all code to know locking is happening or not. This sucks. But even worse is we normally have no source code. It's obvious this kind of hidden locks will become bottleneck of parallel execution even all the other parts are designed for parallel. And also, (1) With locks, execution cannot be parallel. (2) And I can't know whether the locks are used or not in any code. (3) Defensively, I can't make parallel anything! This facts drives me crazy. How do you solve this problem?

    Read the article

  • Which logs will tell me about the Touchpad and Keyboard locking up?

    - by Sepero
    I have an Asus N53SM laptop that I leave running for several weeks at a time. I never put it in hibernate or suspend, I only close the lid when I'm not using it. After a few days or weeks of running, the touchpad and keyboard will Both lock up (at the same time) for no apparent reason. I could be just surfing the internet when it happens. The touchpad and keyboard seem to only lock up when I'm actively using the laptop (not when idle), which may mean it's related to something I press, but I'm not sure? The touchpad never locks or unlocks when Pressing FN and the designated touchpad lock key (it does not seem to work on Linux). While the touchpad and keyboard are locked, I am able to plug in my USB mouse and successfully use it to control the screen cursor. I can also remotely get into the system with vnc and ssh, everything seems to run fine there as well. No processes appear out of control. It's just the laptops physical touchpad and keyboard that are locking up. How might I go about diagnosing this problem? What system logs to look at? (anything specific to look for in them?) Perhaps I should try reloading some modules? Any thing else I should inspect?

    Read the article

  • PHP MySQLi timeout not working

    - by Marcin
    Hi guys I have a weird problem with mysqli timeout options, here you go: I am using mysqli_init() and real_connect() in order to set MYSQLI_OPT_CONNECT_TIMEOUT $this->__mysqli = mysqli_init(); if(!$this->__mysqli->options(MYSQLI_OPT_CONNECT_TIMEOUT,1)) throw new Exception('Timeout settings failed') $this->__mysqli->real_connect(host,user,pass,db); .... Then I am initiating query on locked table (LOCKE TABLE users WRITE) and its just hanging, ignoring all my settings even: set_time_limit(1); ini_set('max_execution_time',1); ini_set('default_socket_timeout',1); ini_set('mysql.connect_timeout',1); I understand why set_time_limit(1) and max_execution_time is ignored but why other timeouts and especially MYSQLI_OPT_CONNECT_TIMEOUT are ignored and how to solve it. I am using PHP 5.3.1 on Windows and Linux boxes, please help.

    Read the article

  • FileSystemWatcher.WaitForChanged returns, but there is still a lock on the file

    - by SnOrfus
    I have a program that send a document to a pdf printer driver and that driver prints to a particular directory. After the print I want to attach the pdf to an e-mail (MailMessage) and send it off. Right now, I send the document to the printer (wich spawns a new process) and then call a FileSystemWatcher.WaitForChanged(WaitForChangedResult.Created) but when the object is created, it's still not done "printing" and the pdf printer still has a lock on it, throwing an error when I try to attach that file to an e-mail. I've considered a plain Thread.Sleep(2000) or whatever, but that's far less than ideal. I considered putting the attachment code in a try/catch block and looping on failure, but again, that's just bad news. I can't really think of an elegant solution.

    Read the article

  • Using Monitor Class

    - by Mubashar Ahmad
    Dear All I would like to ask couple of Questions regarding the use of Monitor Class in .Net. To understand the Questions please look at the following Code. public class MyClass { private List<int> _MyCollection = new List<int>(); public void GetLock() { Monitor.Enter(_MyCollection); } public void ReleaseLock() { Monitor.Exit(_MyCollection); } public void UpdateCollection(/*anyparam*/) { //update collection without lock on collection } } public class MyAppMain { private static MyClass myclass = new MyClass(); public static void main(args) { try { myclass.GetLock(); //an operation that does not do any update on myclass but wanted //to ensure that the collection within myclass never update //while its doing following opetion //Do somthing } finally { myclass.ReleaseLock(); } } } Now is this the right use of monitor and do i need to use Pulse or PulseAll to signal waiting thread and if so than should use plus before or after Exit function? Regards Mubashar

    Read the article

  • We have multiple app servers running against a single database. How do I ensure that each row in a q

    - by Dave
    We have about 7 app servers running .NET windows services that ping a single sql server 2005 queue table and fetch a fixed amount of records to process at fixed intervals. The amount of records to process and the amount of time between fetches are both configurable and are initially set to 100 and 30 seconds initially. Currently, my queue table has an int status column which can be either "Ready, Processing, Complete, Error". The proc that fetches the records has a sql transaction with the following code inside the transaction: 1) Fetch x number of records into temp table where the status is "Ready". The select uses a holdlock hint 2) Update the status on those records in the Queue table to "Processing" The .NET services do some processing that may take seconds or even minutes per record. Another proc is called per record that simply updates the status to "Complete". The update proc has no transaction as I'm leaning on the implicit transaction as part of the update clause here. I don't know the traffic exceptions for this but figure it will be under 10k records per day. Is this the best way to handle this scenario? If so, are there any details that I've left out, such as a hint here or there? Thanks! Dave

    Read the article

  • Subversion lock-modify-unlock solution for SSIS .dtsx

    - by EasyDot
    Hello! I wonder how i could set up a developer enviroment for SSIS,.dtsx packages in Subversion? I read about Subversion "svn:needs-lock" property and the ability to set auto-props in a subversion repository by setting "enable-auto-props = yes" in the repository config file. The "svn:needs-lock" property is neccesary when working with SSIS,dtsx to handle the files like binary files wich must be locked to avoid mergingconflicts. How should i configure Subversion config file for this kind of development? An example for setting auto-prop svn:needs-lock to .doc files (I think its working?!): [miscellany] enable-auto-props = yes [auto-props] *.doc = svn:mime-type=application/msword;svn:needs-lock=*

    Read the article

  • Fluent NHibernate OptimisticLock.None() causes "The string 'none' is not a valid Boolean value."

    - by David Thomas Garcia
    I'm using the following mapping: public class LoadMap : IAutoMappingOverride<Load> { public void Override(AutoMapping<Load> mapping) { mapping.HasMany(x => x.Bids).OptimisticLock.None(); mapping.Version(x => x.Version); } } But when I try to create the session I get the following exception: [FormatException: The string 'none' is not a valid Boolean value.] [XmlSchemaValidationException: The 'optimistic-lock' attribute is invalid - The value 'none' is invalid according to its datatype 'http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema:boolean' - The string 'none' is not a valid Boolean value.] I'm using NHibernate 2.1.2.4000 and I was using Fluent NHibernate 1.0RTM, but tried the latest build 636 just to be sure this isn't something that was fixed recently or something. As a side note, in case I'm doing this all wrong, I would like to be able to make changes to the .Bids list without incrementing Version. I saw an example on Ayende's blog that did what I wanted with properties.

    Read the article

  • Does IsolatedStorageFileStream.Lock work under SIlverlight4?

    - by Noah
    Silverlight uses an IsolatedStorageFileStream to open files. The IsolatedStorageFileStreamunder NET.4 claims to support the Lock Method (Inherited from FileStream) The following code IsolatedStorageFile isf; IsolatedStorageFileStream lockStream = new IsolatedStorageFileStream( "my.lck", FileMode.OpenOrCreate, isf ); lockStream.Lock( 0, 0 ); generates the following error, wrapped for readability, under VS2010 and Silverlight 4 'System.IO.IsolatedStorage.IsolatedStorageFileStream' does not contain a definition for 'Lock' and no extension method 'Lock' accepting a first argument of type 'System.IO.IsolatedStorage.IsolatedStorageFileStream' could be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?)

    Read the article

  • pthreads: reader/writer locks, upgrading read lock to write lock

    - by ScaryAardvark
    I'm using read/write locks on Linux and I've found that trying to upgrade a read locked object to a write lock deadlocks. i.e. // acquire the read lock in thread 1. pthread_rwlock_rdlock( &lock ); // make a decision to upgrade the lock in threads 1. pthread_rwlock_wrlock( &lock ); // this deadlocks as already hold read lock. I've read the man page and it's quite specific. The calling thread may deadlock if at the time the call is made it holds the read-write lock (whether a read or write lock). What is the best way to upgrade a read lock to a write lock in these circumstances.. I don't want to introduce a race on the variable I'm protecting. Presumably I can create another mutex to encompass the releasing of the read lock and the acquiring of the write lock but then I don't really see the use of read/write locks. I might as well simply use a normal mutex. Thx

    Read the article

  • Java Memory Model: reordering and concurrent locks

    - by Steffen Heil
    Hi The java meomry model mandates that synchronize blocks that synchronize on the same monitor enforce a before-after-realtion on the variables modified within those blocks. Example: // in thread A synchronized( lock ) { x = true; } // in thread B synchronized( lock ) { System.out.println( x ); } In this case it is garanteed that thread B will see x==true as long as thread A already passed that synchronized-block. Now I am in the process to rewrite lots of code to use the more flexible (and said to be faster) locks in java.util.concurrent, especially the ReentrantReadWriteLock. So the example looks like this: // in thread A synchronized( lock ) { lock.writeLock().lock(); x = true; lock.writeLock().unlock(); } // in thread B synchronized( lock ) { lock.readLock().lock(); System.out.println( x ); lock.readLock().unlock(); } However, I have not seen any hints within the memory model specification that such locks also imply the nessessary ordering. Looking into the implementation it seems to rely on the access to volatile variables inside AbstractQueuedSynchronizer (for the sun implementation at least). However this is not part of any specification and moreover access to non-volatile variables is not really condsidered covered by the memory barrier given by these variables, is it? So, here are my questions: Is it safe to assume the same ordering as with the "old" synchronized blocks? Is this documented somewhere? Is accessing any volatile variable a memory barrier for any other variable? Regards, Steffen

    Read the article

  • Is this (Lock-Free) Queue Implementation Thread-Safe?

    - by Hosam Aly
    I am trying to create a lock-free queue implementation in Java, mainly for personal learning. The queue should be a general one, allowing any number of readers and/or writers concurrently. Would you please review it, and suggest any improvements/issues you find? Thank you. import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicReference; public class LockFreeQueue<T> { private static class Node<E> { E value; volatile Node<E> next; Node(E value) { this.value = value; } } private AtomicReference<Node<T>> head, tail; public LockFreeQueue() { // have both head and tail point to a dummy node Node<T> dummyNode = new Node<T>(null); head = new AtomicReference<Node<T>>(dummyNode); tail = new AtomicReference<Node<T>>(dummyNode); } /** * Puts an object at the end of the queue. */ public void putObject(T value) { Node<T> newNode = new Node<T>(value); Node<T> prevTailNode = tail.getAndSet(newNode); prevTailNode.next = newNode; } /** * Gets an object from the beginning of the queue. The object is removed * from the queue. If there are no objects in the queue, returns null. */ public T getObject() { Node<T> headNode, valueNode; // move head node to the next node using atomic semantics // as long as next node is not null do { headNode = head.get(); valueNode = headNode.next; // try until the whole loop executes pseudo-atomically // (i.e. unaffected by modifications done by other threads) } while (valueNode != null && !head.compareAndSet(headNode, valueNode)); T value = (valueNode != null ? valueNode.value : null); // release the value pointed to by head, keeping the head node dummy if (valueNode != null) valueNode.value = null; return value; }

    Read the article

  • Spinlocks, How Much Useful Are They?

    - by unknown
    How often do you find yourself actually using spinlocks in your code? How common is it to come across a situation where using a busy loop actually outperforms the usage of locks? Personally, when I write some sort of code that requires thread safety, I tend to benchmark it with different synchronization primitives, and as far as it goes, it seems like using locks gives better performance than using spinlocks. No matter for how little time I actually hold the lock, the amount of contention I receive when using spinlocks is far greater than the amount I get from using locks (of course, I run my tests on a multiprocessor machine). I realize that it's more likely to come across a spinlock in "low-level" code, but I'm interested to know whether you find it useful in even a more high-level kind of programming?

    Read the article

  • Multi-part question about multi-threading, locks and multi-core processors (multi ^ 3)

    - by MusiGenesis
    I have a program with two methods. The first method takes two arrays as parameters, and performs an operation in which values from one array are conditionally written into the other, like so: void Blend(int[] dest, int[] src, int offset) { for (int i = 0; i < src.Length; i++) { int rdr = dest[i + offset]; dest[i + offset] = src[i] > rdr? src[i] : rdr; } } The second method creates two separate sets of int arrays and iterates through them such that each array of one set is Blended with each array from the other set, like so: void CrossBlend() { int[][] set1 = new int[150][75000]; // we'll pretend this actually compiles int[][] set2 = new int[25][10000]; // we'll pretend this actually compiles for (int i1 = 0; i1 < set1.Length; i1++) { for (int i2 = 0; i2 < set2.Length; i2++) { Blend(set1[i1], set2[i2], 0); // or any offset, doesn't matter } } } First question: Since this apporoach is an obvious candidate for parallelization, is it intrinsically thread-safe? It seems like no, since I can conceive a scenario (unlikely, I think) where one thread's changes are lost because a different threads ~simultaneous operation. If no, would this: void Blend(int[] dest, int[] src, int offset) { lock (dest) { for (int i = 0; i < src.Length; i++) { int rdr = dest[i + offset]; dest[i + offset] = src[i] > rdr? src[i] : rdr; } } } be an effective fix? Second question: If so, what would be the likely performance cost of using locks like this? I assume that with something like this, if a thread attempts to lock a destination array that is currently locked by another thread, the first thread would block until the lock was released instead of continuing to process something. Also, how much time does it actually take to acquire a lock? Nanosecond scale, or worse than that? Would this be a major issue in something like this? Third question: How would I best approach this problem in a multi-threaded way that would take advantage of multi-core processors (and this is based on the potentially wrong assumption that a multi-threaded solution would not speed up this operation on a single core processor)? I'm guessing that I would want to have one thread running per core, but I don't know if that's true.

    Read the article

  • Release another user's lock obtained with sp_getapplock on SQL Server

    - by joshperry
    We have a system that uses sp_getapplock to create an exclusive mutex any time someone opens an order in the GUI. This is used to prevent multiple people from making changes to an order simultaneously. Sometimes people will open an order and go home, leaving it open. This effectively blocks anyone from being able to make changes to the order. I then get emails, calls and end up doing a kill <spid> in enterprise manager. Obviously I've gotten sick of this and want to make a quick self-service webform. The main problem I've run into is that kill requires sysadmin privileges, which I do not want to give to the user that the our website runs as. I have tried sp_releaseapplock but this doesn't let you release another user's lock (even when calling it as a sysadmin). So, finally my question; does anyone know of an alternative method to release a lock that was obtained by another user using sp_getapplock?

    Read the article

  • Disable inserted lines in multiline TextBox

    - by Shohin
    I have a multiline Textbox for my web page. When user logs in and enters text and press "Save" button, data will be saved. Then, next time when the same user logs in and searches for data, I want him to edit only new text in multiline TextBox, not removing or replacing previously entered text. Is there any way to make multiline TextBox to lock inserted lines or inserted text and allow to only add text? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • How can I implement a proper counter bean with EJB 3.0?

    - by Aaron Digulla
    I have this entity bean: import javax.persistence.*; @Entity public class CounterTest { private int id; private int counter; @Id public int getId() { return id; } public void setId(int id) { this.id = id; } public int getCounter() { return counter; } public void setCounter(int counter) { this.counter = counter; } } and this stateful bean to increment a counter: import java.rmi.RemoteException; import javax.ejb.*; import javax.persistence.*; @Stateful public class CounterTestBean implements CounterTestRemote { @PersistenceContext(unitName = "JavaEE") EntityManager manager; public void initDB() { CounterTest ct = new CounterTest(); ct.setNr(1); ct.setWert(1); manager.persist(ct); } public boolean testCounterWithLock() { try { CounterTest ct = manager.find(CounterTest.class, 1); manager.lock(ct, LockModeType.WRITE); int wert = ct.getWert(); ct.setWert(wert + 1); manager.flush(); return true; } catch (Throwable t) { return false; } } } When I call testCounterWithLock() from three threads 500 times each, the counter gets incremented between 13 and 1279 times. How do I fix this code so that it is incremented 1500 times?

    Read the article

  • PHP MySQLi timeout on locked tables?

    - by Marcin
    Hi guys I have a weird problem with mysqli timeout options, here you go: I am using mysqli_init() and real_connect() in order to set MYSQLI_OPT_CONNECT_TIMEOUT $this->__mysqli = mysqli_init(); if(!$this->__mysqli->options(MYSQLI_OPT_CONNECT_TIMEOUT,1)) throw new Exception('Timeout settings failed') $this->__mysqli->real_connect(host,user,pass,db); .... Then I am initiating query on locked table (LOCKE TABLE users WRITE) and its just hanging, ignoring all my settings even: set_time_limit(1); ini_set('max_execution_time',1); ini_set('default_socket_timeout',1); ini_set('mysql.connect_timeout',1); I understand why set_time_limit(1) and max_execution_time is ignored but why other timeouts and especially MYSQLI_OPT_CONNECT_TIMEOUT are ignored and how to solve it. I am using PHP 5.3.1 on Windows and Linux boxes, please help.

    Read the article

  • Do condition variables still need a mutex if you're changing the checked value atomically?

    - by Joseph Garvin
    Here is the typical way to use a condition variable: // The reader(s) lock(some_mutex); if(protected_by_mutex_var != desired_value) some_condition.wait(some_mutex); unlock(some_mutex); // The writer lock(some_mutex); protected_by_mutex_var = desired_value; unlock(some_mutex); some_condition.notify_all(); But if protected_by_mutex_var is set atomically by say, a compare-and-swap instruction, does the mutex serve any purpose (other than that pthreads and other APIs require you to pass in a mutex)? Is it protecting state used to implement the condition? If not, is it safe then to do this?: // The writer protected_by_mutex_var = desired_value; some_condition.notify_all(); With the writer never directly interacting with the reader's mutex? If so, is it even necessary that different readers use the same mutex?

    Read the article

  • How is thread synchronization implemented, at the assembly language level?

    - by Martin
    While I'm familiar with concurrent programming concepts such as mutexes and semaphores, I have never understood how they are implemented at the assembly language level. I imagine there being a set of memory "flags" saying: lock A is held by thread 1 lock B is held by thread 3 lock C is not held by any thread etc But how is access to these flags synchronized between threads? Something like this naive example would only create a race condition: mov edx, [myThreadId] wait: cmp [lock], 0 jne wait mov [lock], edx ; I wanted an exclusive lock but the above ; three instructions are not an atomic operation :(

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >