I am using sync framework 2.1 to sync my database and it is unidirectional only i.e. source to destination database. I am facing problem while syncing database for the first time. I have divided tables in different groups so that there is less overhead while syncing. I have one table which has 900k records in it. While syncing that table, SyncOrchestrator.Synchronize(); method not returning anything. Network usage,disk i/o everything goes high. I have wait to complete the sync process for 2 days but it still happening nothing. I have also check in sql db using "sp_who2" and the process is in suspended mode. I have also use some queries found from online and it says table_selectchanges takes too much time.
I have used following code to sync my database.
//setup the connections
var serverConn = new SqlConnection(sourceConnectionString);
var clientConn = new SqlConnection(destinationConnectionString);
// create the sync orchestrator
var syncOrchestrator = new SyncOrchestrator();
//setup providers
var localProvider = new SqlSyncProvider(scopeName, clientConn);
var remoteProvider = new SqlSyncProvider(scopeName, serverConn);
localProvider.CommandTimeout = 0;
remoteProvider.CommandTimeout = 0;
localProvider.ObjectSchema = schemaName;
remoteProvider.ObjectSchema = schemaName;
syncOrchestrator.LocalProvider = localProvider;
syncOrchestrator.RemoteProvider = remoteProvider;
// set the direction of sync session Download
syncOrchestrator.Direction = SyncDirectionOrder.Download;
// execute the synchronization process
syncOrchestrator.Synchronize();
We had this problem. We removed all the foreign key constraints from the database for the first sync. This reduced the initial sync from over 4 hours to about 10 minutes. After the initial sync completed we replaced the foreign key constraints.
I'm using hsqldb to create cached tables and indexed tables.
The data being stored has pretty high frequency so I need to use a connection pool.
Also because there is a lot of data I do not call checkpoint on every commit, but rather expect the data to be flushed after 50,000 rows are inserted.
So the thing is that I can see the .data file is growing but when I connect with hsqldb client I don't see the tables and the data.
So I had 2 simple tests, one inserted single row and one inserted 60,000 rows to new table. In both cases I couldn't see the result in any hsqldb client.
(Note that I use shutdown=true)
So when I add checkpoint after each commit, it solve the problem.
Also if specify in the connection string to use log, it solves the problem (I don't want the log in production though). Also not using pooled connection solved the problem and last is using pooled data source and explicitly close it before shutdown.
So I guess that some connections in the connection pool are not being closed, preventing from the db to somehow commit the changes and make them available for the client. But then, why couldn't I see the result even with 60,000 rows?
I also would expect the pool to be closed automatically...
What am I doing wrong? What is happening behind the scene?
The code to get the data source looks like this:
Class.forName("org.hsqldb.jdbcDriver");
String url = "jdbc:hsqldb:" + m_dbRoot + dbName + "/db" + ";hsqldb.log_data=false;shutdown=true;hsqldb.nio_data_file=false";
ConnectionFactory connectionFactory = new DriverManagerConnectionFactory(url, user, password);
GenericObjectPool connectionPool = new GenericObjectPool();
KeyedObjectPoolFactory stmtPool = new GenericKeyedObjectPoolFactory(null);
new PoolableConnectionFactory(connectionFactory, connectionPool, stmtPool, null, false, true);
DataSource ds = new PoolingDataSource(connectionPool);
And I'm using this Pooled data source to create table:
Connection c = m_dataSource.getConnection();
Statement st = c.createStatement();
String script = String.format("CREATE CACHED TABLE IF NOT EXISTS %s (id %s NOT NULL, entity %s NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (id));", m_tableName, m_idGenerator.getIdType(), TABLE_ENTITY_TYPE);
st.execute(script);
c.close;
st.close();
And insert rows:
Connection c = m_dataSource.getConnection();
c.setAutoCommit(false);
Statement stmt = c.prepareStatement(m_sqlInsert);
stmt.setObject(1, id);
stmt.setBinaryStream(2, Serializer.Helper.serialize(m_serializer, entity));
stmt.executeUpdate();
stmt.close();
stmt = null;
c.commit();
c.close();
stmt.close();
so the above seems to add data but it cannot be seen.
When I explicitly called
connectionPool.close();
Then and only then I could see the result.
I also tried to use JDBCDataSource and it worked as well.
So what is going on? And what is the right way to do this?
Your method of accessing the database from outside your application process is simply wrong.
Only one java process is supposed to connect to the file: database.
In order to achieve your aim, launch an HSQLDB server within your application, using exactly the same JDBC URL. Then connect to this server from the external client.
See the Guide:
http://www.hsqldb.org/doc/2.0/guide/listeners-chapt.html#lsc_app_start
Update: The OP commented that the external client was used after the application had stopped. Because you have turned the log off with hsqldb.log_data=false, nothing is persisted permanently. You need to perform an explicit CHECKPOINT or SHUTDOWN when your application completes its work. You cannot rely on shutdown=true at all, even without connection pooling.
See the Guide:
http://www.hsqldb.org/doc/2.0/guide/deployment-chapt.html#dec_bulk_operations
I've been working on this for about a day and a half now, and searched numberous blogs and help articles on the Web. I found several questions on SO related to this error, but I didn't think they quite applied to my situation (or in some cases, unfortunately, I couldn't understand them well enough to implement :P). I'm not sure I can describe this well enough for help... but here goes:
We have a .NET app to track our resources. There's an export function to copy a resource to the time tracking system and the billing system; this accesses a stored procedure that links to the time and billing databases.
I recently moved the billing system database to a new server (original server: Server 2003 SP2, SQL 2005; new server: Server 2008 R2, SQL 2008 R2). I have a Linked Server set up that points to the 2008 databases. I updated the stored procedure to point to the 2008 server, and then I got an error about MSDTC and RPC (http://www.safnet.com/writing/tech/archives/2007/06/server_myserver.html). I enabled 'rpc/rpc out' on the Linked Server and set MSDTC to allow Network Access (something like this: http://www.sqlwebpedia.com/content/msdtc-troubleshooting).
Now I'm getting the above, when I try to run the export function: "This SqlTransaction has completed; it is no longer usable." What seems odd to me is that when I just run the stored procedure (from SSMS), it says it completes successfully.
Has anyone seen this before? Have I missed something in the configuration? I keep going over the same pages, and the only thing I found was that I didn't reboot after making the MSDTC changes (mentioned in here: http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/forums/en-US/adodotnetdataproviders/thread/7172223f-acbe-4472-8cdf-feec80fd2e64/).
I can post part or all of the stored procedure, if it would help... please let me know.
I believe this error message is due to a "zombie transaction".
Look for possible areas where the transacton is being committed twice (or rolled back twice, or rolled back and committed, etc.). Does the .Net code commit the transaction after the SP has already committed it? Does the .Net code roll it back on encountering an error, then attempt to roll it back again in a catch (or finally) clause?
It's possible an error condition was never being hit on the old server, and thus the faulty "double rollback" code was never hit. Maybe now you have a situation where there is some configuration error on the new server, and now the faulty code is getting hit via exception handling.
Can you debug into the error code? Do you have a stack trace?
I had this recently after refactoring in a new connection manager. A new routine accepted a transaction so it could be run as part of a batch, problem was with a using block:
public IEnumerable<T> Query<T>(IDbTransaction transaction, string command, dynamic param = null)
{
using (transaction.Connection)
{
using (transaction)
{
return transaction.Connection.Query<T>(command, new DynamicParameters(param), transaction, commandType: CommandType.StoredProcedure);
}
}
}
It looks as though the outer using was closing the underlying connection thus any attempts to commit or rollback the transaction threw up the message "This SqlTransaction has completed; it is no longer usable."
I removed the usings added a covering test and the problem went away.
public IEnumerable<T> Query<T>(IDbTransaction transaction, string command, dynamic param = null)
{
return transaction.Connection.Query<T>(command, new DynamicParameters(param), transaction, commandType: CommandType.StoredProcedure);
}
Check for anything that might be closing the connection while inside the context of a transaction.
Had the exact same problem and just could not find the right solution.
Hope this helps somebody.
I have an .NET Core 3.1 WebApi with EF Core. Upon receiving multiple calls at the same time, the applications was trying to add and save changes to the database at the same time.
In my case the problem was that the table that the data would be saved in, did not have a primary key set.
Somehow EF Core missed when the migration was ran from the application that the ID in the model was supposed to be a primary key.
I found the problem by opening the SQL Profiler and seeing that all transactions was successfully submitted to the database (from the application) but only one new row was created. The profiler also showed that some type of deadlock was happening but I couldn't see much more in the trace logs of the profiler.
On further inspection I noticed that the primary key identifier was missing on the column "Id".
The exceptions I got from my application was:
This SqlTransaction has
completed; it is no longer usable.
and/or
An exception has been raised that is likely due to a transient
failure. Consider enabling transient error resiliency by adding
'EnableRetryOnFailure()' to the 'UseSqlServer' call.
I have the same problem. This error occurs because conection pooling. When exists two or more users acess the system the connetion pooling reuse a connetion and the transation too. If the first user execute commit ou rollback the transaction is no longe usable.
I have recently ran across similar situation. To debug in any VS IDE version, open exceptions from Debug (Ctrl + D, E) - check all checkboxes against the column "Thrown", and run the application in debug mode. I have realized that one of the tables was not imported properly in the new database, so internal Sql Exception was killing the connection, thus results into this error.
Gist of the story is, If Previously working code returns this error on a new database, this could be database schema missing issue, realize by above debugging tip,
Hope It Helps,
HydTechie
Also check for any long running processes executed from your .NET app against the DB. For example you may be calling a stored procedure or query which does not have enough time to finish which can show in your logs as:
Execution Timeout Expired. The timeout period elapsed prior to
completion of the operation or the server is not responding.
This SqlTransaction has completed; it is no longer usable.
Check the command timeout settings
Try to run a trace (profiler) and see what is happening on the DB side...
In my case the problem was that one of the queries included in the transaction was raising an exception, and even though the exception was "gracefully" handled, it still managed to roll back the entire transaction.
My pseudo-code was like:
var transaction = connection.BeginTransaction();
for(all the lines in a file)
{
try{
InsertLineInTable(); // INSERT statement might fail and throw an exception
}
catch {
// notify the user about the error on line x and continue
}
}
// Commit and Rollback will fail if one of the queries
// in InsertLineInTable threw an exception
if(CheckTableForErrors())
{
transaction.Commit();
}
else
{
transaction.Rollback();
}
Here is a way to detect Zombie transaction
SqlTransaction trans = connection.BeginTransaction();
//some db calls here
if (trans.Connection != null) //Detecting zombie transaction
{
trans.Commit();
}
Decompiling the SqlTransaction class, you will see the following
public SqlConnection Connection
{
get
{
if (this.IsZombied)
return (SqlConnection) null;
return this._connection;
}
}
I notice if the connection is closed, the transOP will become zombie, thus cannot Commit.
For my case, it is because I have the Commit() inside a finally block, while the connection was in the try block. This arrangement is causing the connection to be disposed and garbage collected. The solution was to put Commit inside the try block instead.
For what it's worth, I've run into this on what was previously working code. I had added SELECT statements in a trigger for debug testing and forgot to remove them. Entity Framework / MVC doesnt play nice when other stuff is output to the "grid". Make sure to check for any rogue queries and remove them.
In my case, I've some codes which need to execute after committing the transaction, at the same try-catch block. One of the codes threw
an error then try block handed over the error to its catch block which contains the transaction rollback.
It will show a similar error. For example, look at the code structure below :
SqlTransaction trans = null;
try{
trans = Con.BeginTransaction();
// your codes
trans.Commit();
//your codes having errors
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
trans.Rollback(); //transaction roll back
// error message
}
finally
{
// connection close
}
Hope it will help someone :)
Can someone shed light on what is happening behind the scenes with the SQL Lightweight transaction manager when multiple connections are opened to the same DB, using the Microsoft Data Access Application Block (DAAB)?
With the below code, we verified that MSDTC is indeed not required when opening 'multiple connections' to the same database.
This was the first scenario I tested: (where Txn1 and Txn2 use EntLib 4.1 to open a connection to the same DB and call different SPROCS)
using (var ts = new TransactionScope(TransactionScopeOption.Required))
{
DAL1.Txn1();
DAL2.Txn2();
ts.Complete();
}
Tracing this from profiler revealed that the same connection SPID was used for Txn1 and Txn2. After Txn1() was called, the Sql SPID would have been released back into the pool and Txn2() was able to re-use it.
However, when repeating this experiment and this time holding the connections open:
using (var ts = new TransactionScope(TransactionScopeOption.Required))
{
Database db1 = DatabaseFactory.CreateDatabase("db1");
DAL1.Txn1OnCon(db1);
Database db2 = DatabaseFactory.CreateDatabase("db1");
DAL2.Txn2OnCon(db2);
ts.Complete();
}
Viewing this from Profiler indicated that the 2 transactions were STILL using the same SPID. I was expecting the TransactionScope to have escalated to DTC as a distributed transaction should be required to control 2 concurrent connections. What have I missed?
Quoting from MSDN http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8xx3tyca(VS.80).aspx
Connection pooling reduces the number
of times that new connections need to
be opened. The pooler maintains
ownership of the physical connection.
It manages connections by keeping
alive a set of active connections for
each given connection configuration.
Whenever a user calls Open on a
connection, the pooler looks to see if
there is an available connection in
the pool. If a pooled connection is
available, it returns it to the caller
instead of opening a new connection.
When the application calls Close on
the connection, the pooler returns it
to the pooled set of active
connections instead of actually
closing it. Once the connection is
returned to the pool, it is ready to
be reused on the next Open call.
Just because a connection was used in a transaction doesn't mean it cannot be available for the next call. I found that If the connection string varied by the slightest thing, such as capitalization of a hostname, then you'd get a new physical connection to the db.
Sql 2005 or Sql 2008?
If you use sql 2008, a sequence of open+close connections are not escalated to a distributed transaction. But all the connection must use exactly the same connection string.
(pseudo-code)
string connstring = "...."
using (TransactionScope ts=...)
{
c1 = new connection(connstring );
c1.open
...use c1
c1.close
c2 = new connection(connstring );
c2.open
...use c2
c2.close
ts.complete()
}
The same code with sql2005 escalates to distributed transaction --> yuo need MSDTC
OK, my misunderstanding was with DAAB.
The DAAB Database opens and closes connections as needed (or obtains / releases them from the pool), i.e. connections aren't held for the lifespan of the DAAB Database object.
It is possible to manually control the database connections in DAAB as per below - by holding the actual connections open, they cannot be reused. This then requires MSDTC to be running as soon as 2 physical connections are open, as I had expected in the original question.
using (TransactionScope ts = new TransactionScope(TransactionScopeOption.Required))
{
using (DbConnection dbConn1 = DatabaseFactory.CreateDatabase("myDb").CreateConnection())
using (DbConnection dbConn2 = DatabaseFactory.CreateDatabase("myDb").CreateConnection())
{
dbConn1.Open();
DAL1.Txn1OnCon(dbConn1);
dbConn2.Open();
DAL2.Txn2OnCon(dbConn2);
DAL1.Txn1OnCon(dbConn1);
ts.Complete();
}
}
please help me resolve this problem:
There is an ambient MSMQ transaction. I'm trying to use new transaction for logging, but get next error while attempt to submit changes - "Timeout expired. The timeout period elapsed prior to completion of the operation or the server is not responding." Here is code:
public static void SaveTransaction(InfoToLog info)
{
using (TransactionScope scope =
new TransactionScope(TransactionScopeOption.RequiresNew))
{
using (TransactionLogDataContext transactionDC =
new TransactionLogDataContext())
{
transactionDC.MyInfo.InsertOnSubmit(info);
transactionDC.SubmitChanges();
}
scope.Complete();
}
}
Please help me.
Thx.
You could consider increasing the timeout or eliminating it all together.
Something like:
using(TransactionLogDataContext transactionDC = new TransactionLogDataContext())
{
transactionDC.CommandTimeout = 0; // No timeout.
}
Be careful
You said:
thank you. but this solution makes new question - if transaction scope was changed why submit operation becomes so time consuming? Database and application are on the same machine
That is because you are creating new DataContext right there:
TransactionLogDataContext transactionDC = new TransactionLogDataContext())
With new data context ADO.NET opens up new connection (even if connection strings are the same, unless you do some clever connection pooling).
Within transaction context when you try to work with more than 1 connection instances (which you just did)
ADO.NET automatically promotes transaction to a distributed transaction and will try to enlist it into MSDTC. Enlisting very first transaction per connection into MSDTC will take time (for me it takes 30+ seconds), consecutive transactions will be fast, however (in my case 60ms). Take a look at this http://support.microsoft.com/Default.aspx?id=922430
What you can do is reuse transaction and connection string (if possible) when you create new DataContext.
TransactionLogDataContext tempDataContext =
new TransactionLogDataContext(ExistingDataContext.Transaction.Connection);
tempDataContext.Transaction = ExistingDataContext.Transaction;
Where ExistingDataContext is the one which started ambient transaction.
Or attemp to speed up your MS DTC.
Also do use SQL Profiler suggested by billb and look for SessionId between different commands (save and savelog in your case). If SessionId changes, you are in fact using 2 different connections and in that case will have to reuse transaction (if you don't want it to be promoted to MS DTC).