I am using NServiceBus 5.2.16 and I have run into a problem with audit log cleanup. In the ServiceControl Management Utility the audit retention period is set to 30 days. However, the RavenDB database keeps growing with each day and in ServiceInsight I can see succeeded messages older than 30 days, so I suspect that old messages are not deleted from the database. What can I do to limit the size of the NServiceBus RavenDB database?
I managed to resolve this issue by deleting the entire Raven database and restarting ServiceControl. This created a new database and after that old audit entries are properly deleted by ServiceControl.
I did get some useful information from Particular support. You can control the audit cleanup process by settings in the ServiceControl.exe.config file. Particularly, the ServiceControl/ExpirationProcessTimerInSeconds and ServiceControl/ExpirationProcessBatchSize settings are useful as they allow you to schedule the cleanup process more often or increase the maximum number of items deleted in each batch. You can find more details on those settings in the NServiceBus documentation.
Additionally, you can monitor the cleanup process in ServiceControl's log files. However, first you need to increase the logging verbosity to at least Info. This can be done using the ServiceControl/LogLevel setting in the ServiceControl.exe.config file. After changing the log level, you should see log entries similar to the ones below in the files in ServiceControl's Logs directory.
2016-10-26 09:49:06.2652|77|Info|ServiceControl.Infrastructure.RavenDB.Expiration.SagaHistoryCleaner|Batching deletion of 0-499 sagahistory documents completed.
2016-10-26 09:49:06.2808|77|Info|ServiceControl.Infrastructure.RavenDB.Expiration.SagaHistoryCleaner|Batching deletion of 500-715 sagahistory documents.
2016-10-26 09:49:06.4996|77|Info|ServiceControl.Infrastructure.RavenDB.Expiration.SagaHistoryCleaner|Batching deletion of 500-715 sagahistory documents completed.
2016-10-26 09:49:06.4996|77|Info|ServiceControl.Infrastructure.RavenDB.Expiration.SagaHistoryCleaner|Deleted 716 expired sagahistory documents. Batch execution took 11635ms
2016-10-26 09:49:06.4996|77|Info|ServiceControl.Infrastructure.RavenDB.Expiration.ErrorMessageCleaner|No expired error documents found
Related
currently the logs in the folder “/engine-rocksdb/journals” are running full (WAL logs).
When does ArangoDB do a cleaning run of these logs and delete them automatically and how to trigger this cleaning run earlier? My ArangoDB 3.10 runs in single mode and in a virtual environment (cloud with a network storage).
The logfile are increasing very fast for me because there are many writes to the DB. What is the best way, any idea?
What I have done so far:
If I set the value “rocksdb.wal-archive-size-limit” it does delete the logs when the set limit is reached, but it shows errors in the logfile:
2022-09-27T17:53:04Z [898948] WARNING [d9793] {engines} forcing removal of RocksDB WAL file '/archive/813371.log' with start sequence 5387062892 because of overflowing archive. configured maximum archive size is 1073741824, actual archive size is: 75401520
However, I still don't understand the meaning of the logfile output: "configured maximum archive size is 1073741824, actual archive size is: 75401520`". The "actual archive size" is smaller?
But what are the consequences of lowering the "wal-archive-size-limit" value? Is it possible to switch off the wal-archive completely. What exactly is it for? As I understand it, ArangoDb need it for transaction security (i.e. in case of power loss), right?
In general, yes, this is a good thing, but how can I get ArangoDb to a) limit this WAL-archive (without error massages) and b) do a cleaning run faster?
thx :-)
When does ArangoDB do a cleaning run of these logs and delete them automatically and how to trigger this cleaning run earlier?
ArangoDB uses RocksDB underneath, and RocksDB will move WAL file (.log files) into its archive as soon as possible. In order to do so all data from the WAL file needs to be safely stored in the column families' .sst files and have been flushed to disk.
ArangoDB will delete files from the WAL archive (and only from there) once it can assure that an archived WAL file is not used anymore. It will not remove files for the archive that are or may be in current use.
There are a few reasons why ArangoDB may keep archived WAL files for some time:
when server-to-server replication is used: while a follower replicates data, it may read from the leader's WAL. Deleting the WAL file on the leader may make the replication fail
when arangodump is used to create a database dump, it will create a snapshot of data on the server, and the WAL files for that snapshot will be kept around until the snapshot isn't needed anymore (i.e. arangodump finishes).
the first 180 seconds after server start, all WAL files are intentionally kept, for forensic reasons, and to allow followers to replay events from a leader's WAL when it is restarted. The value of 180 seconds can be changed by adjusting the startup option --rocksdb.wal-file-timeout-initial.
there can be some background processing of changes that may refer to data from WAL files. For example, each insert into a collection will need to increase the collection's count() value by 1. To save an extra write into RocksDB on each insert, the count() value is only written to the storage engine by a background thread, ideally only once every X insert operations. However, this may lead to WAL files being around for a bit longer, especially if the background thread cannot keep up with the insert workload.
There is the startup option --rocksdb.wal-archive-size-limit to put a hard limit on the cumulated size of the WAL files in the archive. From your question, it appears that you are currently using ArangoDB version 3.10.
From the warning message you posted, it seems that the WAL archive cleanup somehow applies the wrong limit values.
It turns out that there has been a recent bugfix, released in ArangoDB version 3.10.1, 3.9.4, and 3.8.8, that should rectify this behavior. So upgrading to one of these or later versions may actually help when using the WAL archive size limit.
Shared your question in the Speedb hive, on Discord, and here is what we got for you:
"By default, ArangoDB set the max_wal_size to 1G the value of rocksdb.wal-archive-size-limit must be set to at least twice this number (otherwise you may end up with a single WAL file and the delete will fail)."
Hope this help, if it doesn't or you have follow up questions, please join the Speedb Discord and we will be happy to help.
My DB Admin advised that I should regularly take backup of .ldf files. Fine, this SQL post here explains this beautifully.
Consider that a transaction is being done in SQL Server. And at the same time, a scheduled process tries to access the .ldf file for backing it up.
What happens ? How this works ?
You must read Article Understanding SQL Server backup by Paul Randal. That is the best I can see which is available and can explain you in details various aspects.
Coming to your question a transaction log backup includes all information from previous transaction log back or full backup that started the log chain. Backup simply means reading information froma file(data or log) and writing it to destination disk. The transaction any would work independed of log backup running. A transaction follow a WAL(write ahead logging) protocol, for practical purposes all transaction information is first written in log file and then changes are later made to data file. So when transaction is running it would not be affected by transaction log backup job which is running both are doing different task and are muttually exclusive events. Current backup would try to backup all logs which are marked as committed and would truncate the logs if no transaction requires it. If any portion of log is committed after log backup has read that portion it would not come in current log backup but would come under further log backup.
Transacion log backup has important role in crash recovery it helps in determining what all operations has to be roll forwared and what has to be rolled back. Without transaction log backup or transaction log crash recovery is not possible
You must also read Logging and recovery in SQL Server to know about life cycle of a transaction.
The excat answer as to what acctual steps happens inside is beyond scope of discussion as nobody can exactly tell you what would happen but reading the article would give you a good idea.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
what are the consequences if the Transaction log growth is restricted and full in SQL SERVER
It will explodes and burn down your house..
Seriously , it will generate problems such as, not being able to perform transaction.
I strongly agree with Kundan.
But would like add some more points on this:
Additionally, transaction log expansion may occur for one of the
following reasons or in one of the following scenarios:
A very large transaction log file.
Transactions may fail and may start to roll back.
Transactions may take a long time to complete.
Performance issues may occur.
Blocking may occur.
The database is participating in an AlwaysOn availability group.
You can take following actions i the log file is full:
Backing up the log.
Freeing disk space so that the log can automatically grow.
Moving the log file to a disk drive with sufficient space.
Increasing the size of a log file.
Adding a log file on a different disk.
Completing or killing a long-running transaction.
For more info please refer to the below mentioned link:
https://support.microsoft.com/en-in/help/317375/a-transaction-log-grows-unexpectedly-or-becomes-full-in-sql-server
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms175495.aspx
I have been a lurker for several years and I think I have a question that hasn't been answered here.
We were in the middle of some pretty intense maintenance on or SQL server last night. Or primary database mdb file was very badly fragmented. We maintain a test copy of this database for testing and proof of concept purposes.
I had setup log shipping on the test database and without thinking I deleted the test database without removing the log shipping first. I am getting error 14421 - The log shipping secondary database SERVER.database has restore threshold of 45 minutes and is out of sync. No restore was performed for 10310 minutes. Restored latency is 0 minutes. Check agent log and logshipping monitor information.
I have removed everything I could with tsql. My research leads me to believe that this error is due to the backup job still trying to operate but I cannot find this job to remove it. It's really not a big deal but the error shows up every couple of minutes in the log.
Is there anything I can do?
Thanks in advance!
Log Shipping Information is stored in MSDB, not in the database itself. All you need to do is create a new database with the same name as the deleted database. Right click for properties, log ship tab and then uncheck the box to log ship the database. When you click okay the jobs(on primary and secondary) will be removed.
I am dealing with someone else's backup Maintenance Plan and have an issue with the log file, I have a database that sits on one drive with a size of 31 GB and a log file that sits on another server with a size of 20 GB, the database is in Full Recovery Model. There is a maintenance plan that runs once a day to do a complete backup and a second plan that does a backup of the log file every 15 minutes. I have checked and the drive that the log file gets backed up to and there is still plenty of room but the log file never gets smaller after the backup, is there something missing from the maintenance plan?
Thanks in advance
The situation as you describe it seems fine.
A transaction log backup does not shrink the log file. However, it does truncate the log, file, which means that space can be reused:
From Books Online (Transaction Log Truncation):
Log truncation automatically frees space in the logical log for reuse
by the transaction log.
Also, from Managing the Transaction Log:
Log truncation, which is automatic under the simple recovery model, is
essential to keep the log from filling. The truncation process reduces
the size of the logical log file by marking as inactive the virtual
log files that do not hold any part of the logical log.
This means that each time the transaction log backup occurs in your scenario, it's creating free space in the file which can be used by subsequent transactions.
Leading on from this, should you shrink the file as well? Generally speaking, the answer is no. Assuming your database does not suddenly have massive one-off spikes in usage, the transaction log will have grown to a size to accommodate the typical workload.
This means if you start shrinking the log, SQL Server will just need to grow it again... This is a resource intensive operation, affecting server performance, and no transactions can complete while the log is growing.
The current plan and file sizes all seem reasonable to me.
I don't know if this applies to your situation, but earlier versions of SQL Server 2012 have a bug that crops up when model is set to Simple recovery model. For any database created with model set to Simple, log files will continue to grow in an attempt to reach the 2,097,152 MB limit. This still applies if you alter to Full afterwards. KB article 2830400 states that altering to Full, then altering back to Simple is a workaround -- that was not my experience. Running CU 7 for SP1 was the only trick that worked for me.
The article provides links for the first updates that resolved this bug: "Cumulative Update 4 for SQL Server 2012 SP1", as well as, "Cumulative Update 7 for SQL Server 2012" (if you haven't installed SP1).
If you change the recovery to full and then back to simple, the shrink will work successfully.