I've got all of my ASP.NET requests wrapped in a Session and a Transaction that gets commited only at the very end of the request.
At some point during execution of the request, I would like to insert an object and make it visible to other potential threads - i.e. split the insertion into a new transaction, commit that transaction, and move on.
The reason is that the request in question hits an API that then chain hits another one of my pages (near-synchronously) to let me know that it processed, and thus double submits a transaction record, because the original request had not yet finished, and thus not committed the transaction record.
So I've tried wrapping the insertion code with a new SessionScope, TransactionScope(TransactionMode.New), combination of both, flushing everything manually, etc.
However, when I call Refresh on the object I'm still getting the old object state.
Here's some code sample for what I'm seeing:
Post outsidePost = Post.Find(id); // status of this post is Status.Old
using (TransactionScope transaction = new TransactionScope(TransactionMode.New))
{
Post p = Post.Find(id);
p.Status = Status.New; // new status set here
p.Update();
SessionScope.Current.Flush();
transaction.Flush();
transaction.VoteCommit();
}
outsidePost.Refresh();
// refresh doesn't get the new status, status is still Status.Old
Any suggestions, ideas, and comments are appreciated!
I've had a similar problem before, related to isolation levels. The default isolation level was set to "Snapshot", and when running on SQL Server, this meant that the first transaction would not see anything that changed since it started. Maybe it's your isolation level?
If not, try creating a brand-new TransactionScope straight after disposing the one above, and see if you can read it back as New. If you can't, it's probably nothing to do with the outside transaction.
Hope that helps.
Marcus
Related
In a clustered intershop environment, we see a lot of error messages. I'm suspecting the communication between the application servers is not reliable.
Caused by: com.intershop.beehive.orm.capi.common.ORMException:
Could not UPDATE object: com.intershop.beehive.bts.internal.orderprocess.basket.BasketPO
Is there safe way to for the local application server, to load the latest instance.
BasketPO basket = null;
try{
BasketPOFactory factory = (BasketPOFactory) NamingMgr.getInstance().lookupFactory(BasketPOFactory.FACTORY_NAME);
try(ORMObjectCollection<BasketPO>baskets = factory.getObjectsBySQLWhere("uuid=?", new Object[]{basketID},CacheMode.NO_CACHING);){
if(null != baskets && !baskets.isEmpty()){
basket = baskets.stream().findFirst().get();
}
}
}
catch(Throwable t){
Logger.error(this, t.getMessage(),t);
}
Does the ORMObject#refresh method help ?
try{
if(null != basket)
basket.refresh();
}
catch(Throwable t){
Logger.error(this, t.getMessage(),t);
}
You experience that error because an optimistic lock "fails". To understand the problem better I'll try to explain how the optimistic locking works in particular in the Intershop ORM layer.
There is a column named OCA in the PO tables (OCA == optimistic control attribute?). Imagine that two servers (or two different threads/transactions) try to update the same row in a table. For performance reasons there is no DB locking involved by default (e.g. by issuing select for update). Instead the first thread/server increments the OCA by one when it updates the row successfully within its transaction.
The second thread/server knows the value of the OCA from the time that it created its own state. It then tries to update the row by issuing a similar query:
UPDATE ... OCA = OCA + 1 ... WHERE UUID = <uuid> AND OCA = <old_oca>
Since the OCA is already incremented by the first thread/server this update fails (in reality - updates 0 rows) and the exception that you posted above is thrown when the ORM layer detects that no rows were updated.
Your problem is not the inter-server communication but rather the fact that either:
multiple servers/threads try to update the same object;
there are direct updates in the database that bypass the ORM layer (less likely);
To solve this you may:
Avoid that situation altogether (highly recommended by me :-) );
Use the ISH locking framework (very cumbersome imHo);
Use pesimistic locking supported by the ISH ORM layer and Oracle (beware of potential performance issues, deadlocks, bugs);
Use Java locking - but since the servers run in different JVM-s this is rarely an option;
OFFTOPIC remarks: I'm not sure why you use getObjectsBySQLWhere when you know the primary key (uuid). As far as I remember ORMObjectCollection-s should be closed if not iterated completely.
UPDATE: If the cluster is not configured correctly and the multicasts can't be received from the nodes you won't be able to resolve the problems programatically.
The "ORMObject.refresh()" marks the cached shared state as invalid. Next access to the object reloads the state from the database. This impacts the performance and increase the database server load.
BUT:
The "refresh()" method does not reload the PO instance state if it already assigned to the current transaction.
Would be best to investigate and fix the server communication issues.
Other possibility is that it isn't a communication problem (multicast between node in the cluster i assume), but that there are simply two request trying to update the basket at the same time. Example two ajax request to update something on the basket.
I would avoid trying to "fix" the orm, it would only cause more harm than good. Rather investigate further and post back more information.
I have a SysOperation Framework process that creates a ReliableAsynchronous batch to post packing slips and several get created at a time.
Depending on how quickly I click to create them, I get:
Cannot edit a record in LastValue (SysLastValue).
An update conflict occurred due to another user process deleting the record or changing one or more fields in the record.
And
Cannot create a record in LastValue (SysLastValue). User ID: t edit a, Class.
The record already exists.
On a couple of them in the BatchHistory. I have this.parmLoadFromSysLastValue(false); set. I'm not sure how to prevent writing to SysLastValue table.
Any idea what could be going on?
I get this exception a lot too, so I've created the habit of catching DuplicateKeyException in my service operation. When it is thrown, catch it and retry (for a default of 5x).
The error occurs when a lot of processes run simultaneously, like you are doing now.
DupplicateKeyException can be caught inside a transaction so you could improve by putting a try/catch around the code that does the insert in the SysLastValue table if you can find the code.
As far as I can see these are the only to occurrences where a record is inserted in this table (except maybe in kernel):
InventUnusedDimCleanUp.serialize()
SysAutoSemaphore.autoSemaphore()
Put a breakpoint there and see if that code is executed. If so you can add a try/catch with retry and see if that "fixes" it.
You could also use the tracing cockpit and the trace parser to figure out where that record is inserted if it's not one of those two.
My theory about LoadFromSysLastValue: I believe setting this.parmLoadFromSysLastValue(false) does not work since it is only taken into account when the dialog is started, not when your operation is executed. When in batch, no SysLastValue will be used to initialize your data contract as you want it to use the exact parameters you have supplied in your data contract .
It's because of the code calling SysOperationController.savelast() while in batch, my solution is to set loadFromSysLastValue to false in SysOperationController.loadFromSysLastValue() as part of the in batch check:
if (!this.isInBatch())
{
.....
}
//Begin
else
{
loadFromSysLastValue = false;
}
//End
Maybe this is a really noob question since I'm fairly new to handling transactions with PetaPoco.
Problem I'm facing using PetaPoco as a microORM to handle my db transaction is that if I throw an exception just before the .Complete() method of the transaction, everything is rolled back correctly but if I'm catching exceptions inside the
Using scope As PetaPoco.Transaction = db.GetTransaction()
' try/catch here and if the db command fails transaction won't roll back
scope.Complete()
End Using
the transaction won't roll back if one of the db operations fails. How can I solve this?
The issue was me not handling correctly the "call/not call" the scope.Complete() based on Exceptions intercepted along the path.
In particulart I had a boolean flag "rollBackTransaction" starting to false and then updating to true if any of the try/catch block inside the transaction raised and exception.
At the end I just checked it:
If Not rollBackTransaction Then
scope.Complete()
End If
This can be used as well for the TransactionScope suggested by Simon wich will eventually roll back a transaction if .Complete() is not called before closing the Using block.
Now what was causing a false flag and thus calling the scope.Complete() method each time, was that inside the transaction I called a sub wich had it's own exception handling and thus would never raise an exception in the main transaction block to correctly update the "rollBackTransaction" flag.
What I learned is that if you are using try/catch inside the transaction, be very sure that the external methods you call raise an exception if they fall, and update a flag all along based on wich you will call the scope.Complete().
Anyway Simon, thanks for pointing out that .NET feature I didn't know wich seems to be extremely useful!
Wonder what else it will include in the transaction... file system changes?
I have a system set up to lock certain content in a database table so only one user can edit that content at a time. Easy enough and that part is working fine. But now I'm at a road block of how to send a request to "unlock" the content. I have the stored procedure to unlock the content, but how/where would I call it when the user just closes their browser?
You also can't know when the user turns off his computer. You have to do it the other way around.
Require that the lock be renewed periodically. Only the web site would do the periodic renewal. If the user stops using the web site, then the lock expires.
Otherwise, require the user to explicitly unlock the content. Other users who want to edit the content can then go yell at the first user when they can't do their jobs. Not a technological solution, but still a good one. Shame works.
The best thing you can really do is add something to your Session_End in your global.asax. Unfortunately, this won't fire until the session times out.
When the user clicks the "X" in their browser, there isn't anyway to guarantee the browser will send you anything back.
A quick note on the Session_End approaches. If you use this method, then you have to ensure
That sessionstate is InProc, eg. add something like this to your Web.config
<sessionState mode="InProc" timeout="timeout_in_minutes"/>
Make sure that you've setup IIS as to not recycle worker processes during normal operation (see for instance this blog post).
Edit:
Not directly answering the question directly, but another approach would be to use Optimistic concurrency control on the data in question.
There is such event as "user closes browser".
Nevertheless, I can think of two workarounds:
Use Javascript/Ajax to permanently
(lets say every 10 seconds) call a
method in your page. The DateTime of
your last query needs to be stored
somewhere. Now you write a windows
service that checks every second
which session are timed out. Perform
your custom action there.
Use the global.asax Session_End()
-Event. (cannot be used with every SessionState, look up for which ones
it is usable)
Trying to leave a stackoverflow answer page pops up an "are you sure" dialog. Perhaps during the on-page-leave event that SO uses (or however SO does this), you can send a final request with an XmlHttpRequest object. This won't cover if the browser process closes unexpectedly (use session_onend for that), but it will at least send the "I'm closed" event earlier
I think your one stored procedure can do the locking and unlocking (used with "Select #strNewMax As NewMax")...
Here is an example from a system I have:
Declare #strNewMax Char
Select #strNewMax = 'N'
BEGIN TRANSACTION
/* Lock only the rows for this Item ID, and hold those locks throughout the transaction. */
If #BidAmount > (Select Max(AB_Bid_AMT) from AuctionBid With(updlock, holdlock) Where AB_AI_ID = #AuctionItemId)
Begin
Insert Into AuctionBid (AB_AI_ID, AB_Bid_AMT, AB_Emp_ID, AB_Entry_DTM)
Select #AuctionItemId, #BidAmount, #EmployeeId, GetDate()
Select #strNewMax = 'Y'
End
COMMIT TRANSACTION
Select #strNewMax As NewMax
This will insert a record as the next highest bid, all while locking the entire table, so no other bids are processed at the same time. It will return either a 'Y' or 'N' depending on if it worked or not.
Maybe you can take this and adjust it to fit your application.
I've a requirement of creating a HttpHandler that will serve an image file (simple static file) and also it'll insert a record in the SQL Server table. (e.g http://site/some.img, where some.img being a HttpHandler) I need an in-memory object (like Generic List object) that I can add items to on each request (I also have to consider a few hundreds or thousands requests per second) and I should be able unload this in-memory object to sql table using SqlBulkCopy.
List --> DataTable --> SqlBulkCopy
I thought of using the Cache object. Create a Generic List object and save it in the HttpContext.Cache and insert every time a new Item to it. This will NOT work as the CacheItemRemovedCallback would fire right away when the HttpHandler tries to add a new item. I can't use Cache object as in-memory queue.
Anybody can suggest anything? Would I be able to scale in the future if the load is more?
Why would CacheItemRemovedCalledback fire when you ADD something to the queue? That doesn't make sense to me... Even if that does fire, there's no requirement to do anything here. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your requirements?
I have quite successfully used the Cache object in precisely this manner. That is what it's designed for and it scales pretty well. I stored a Hashtable which was accessed on every app page request and updated/cleared as needed.
Option two... do you really need the queue? SQL Server will scale pretty well also if you just want to write directly into the DB. Use a shared connection object and/or connection pooling.
How about just using the Generic List to store requests and using different thread to do the SqlBulkCopy?
This way storing requests in the list won't block the response for too long, and background thread will be able to update the Sql on it's own time, each 5 min so.
you can even base the background thread on the Cache mechanism by performing the work on CacheItemRemovedCallback.
Just insert some object with remove time of 5 min and reinsert it at the end of the processing work.
Thanks Alex & Bryan for your suggestions.
Bryan: When I try to replace the List object in the Cache for the second request (now, count should be 2), the CacheItemRemovedCalledback gets fire as I'm replacing the current Cache object with the new one. Initially, I also thought this is weird behavior so I gotta look deeper into it.
Also, for the second suggestion, I will try to insert record (with the Cached SqlConnection object) and see what performance I get when I do the stress test. I doubt I'll be getting fantastic numbers as it's I/O operation.
I'll keep digging on my side for an optimal solution meanwhile with your suggestions.
You can create a conditional requirement within the callback to ensure you are working on a cache entry that has been hit from an expiration instead of a remove/replace (in VB since I had it handy):
Private Shared Sub CacheRemovalCallbackFunction(ByVal cacheKey As String, ByVal cacheObject As Object, ByVal removalReason As Web.Caching.CacheItemRemovedReason)
Select Case removalReason
Case Web.Caching.CacheItemRemovedReason.Expired, Web.Caching.CacheItemRemovedReason.DependencyChanged, Web.Caching.CacheItemRemovedReason.Underused
' By leaving off Web.Caching.CacheItemRemovedReason.Removed, this will exclude items that are replaced or removed explicitly (Cache.Remove) '
End Select
End Sub
Edit Here it is in C# if you need it:
private static void CacheRemovalCallbackFunction(string cacheKey, object cacheObject, System.Web.Caching.CacheItemRemovedReason removalReason)
{
switch(removalReason)
{
case System.Web.Caching.CacheItemRemovedReason.DependencyChanged:
case System.Web.Caching.CacheItemRemovedReason.Expired:
case System.Web.Caching.CacheItemRemovedReason.Underused:
// This excludes the option System.Web.Caching.CacheItemRemovedReason.Removed, which is triggered when you overwrite a cache item or remove it explicitly (e.g., HttpRuntime.Cache.Remove(key))
break;
}
}
To expand on my previous comment... I get the picture you are thinking about the cache incorrectly. If you have an object stored in the Cache, say a Hashtable, any update/storage into that Hashtable will be persisted without you explicitly modifying the contents of the Cache. You only need to add the Hashtable to the Cache once, either at application startup or on the first request.
If you are worried about the bulkcopy and page request updates happening simultaneously, then I suggest you simple have TWO cached lists. Have one be the list which is updated as page requests come in, and one list for the bulk copy operation. When one bulk copy is finished, swap the lists and repeat. This is similar to double-buffering video RAM for video games or video apps.