Okay, I opened JIRA ticket OFBIZ-3855 for this issue. I have tested the patch in our version of ofbiz. I will check it with the current version of ofbiz and attach the patch to the JIRA ticket.
The files affected by this patch will be the following: - serviceengine.xml -- Added new attribute: poll-transaction-timeout="120" to the thread-pool element - service-config.xsd -- to allow the new attribute in the serviceengine.xml And the following source files: - JobManager.java - JobPoller.java Thanks, Brett On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 3:03 AM, David E Jones <d...@me.com> wrote: > > That sounds like the way to go Scott. > > -David > > > On Jul 1, 2010, at 3:01 AM, Scott Gray wrote: > > > Hi Brett, > > > > The JobManager probably wasn't intended (or at least initially written) > to handle that many pending jobs, as a work around you could just add a > timeout value to the TransactionUtil.begin() call in poll() and see if that > does the trick. We could always look at making this configurable if you > wanted to provide a patch for such a thing. > > > > Regards > > Scott > > > > HotWax Media > > http://www.hotwaxmedia.com > > > > On 29/06/2010, at 2:28 AM, Brett Palmer wrote: > > > >> Rishi, > >> > >> Thanks for the quick response. > >> > >> The transaction timeout is not with my defined service. The problem > occurs > >> in the JobManager.poll() method of the service engine. The JobManager is > >> going through all the currently pending jobs and changing them to > running > >> but it timesout before it can finish. > >> > >> I can't see a way without modifying the JobManager code to change this > >> transaction time in the "poll" method. I don't think my service > definition > >> transaction time modifies the transaction time in the JobManager. > >> > >> Let me know if I am missing something here. > >> > >> > >> Brett > >> > >> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 2:10 AM, Rishi Solanki <rishisolan...@gmail.com > >wrote: > >> > >>> To increase the transaction time out use transaction-timeout="{value}" > >>> where value is any valid number. > >>> Note that this needs to be done in your service definition. > >>> > >>> Rishi Solanki > >>> Manager, Enterprise Software Development > >>> HotWax Media Pvt. Ltd. > >>> Direct: +91-9893287847 > >>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 2:17 AM, Brett Palmer <brettgpal...@gmail.com > >>>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> We are running into a problem with the service engine when trying to > run > >>> an > >>>> archiving batch service. Here is how the service runs. > >>>> > >>>> 1. We run a service that collects a bunch of records for data > >>> warehousing. > >>>> > >>>> 2. The data warehouse service calls an async service call to process > each > >>>> individual record. > >>>> > >>>> 3. The service engine them starts working on each individual record. > >>>> > >>>> We like the above process because it allows us to multi-process the > large > >>>> batch job. > >>>> > >>>> Here is the problem: > >>>> > >>>> There are over 10K records that are submitted as async service calls > in > >>>> step > >>>> 2 above. I'm seeing a transaction time out when the service engine > tries > >>>> to > >>>> process all of these records as it calls an "UPDATE JOB_SANDBOX for > >>>> job_id=XXX". I believe it is trying to update all 10k of these jobs > >>>> individually in a single transaction and times out. The jobs are then > >>> left > >>>> in a pending status and never changed but the service engine keeps > timing > >>>> out. > >>>> > >>>> Here are my questions: > >>>> > >>>> 1. Is there a way to increase the transaction time out for the service > >>>> engine to update these jobs in the JobSandbox so the service engine > >>> threads > >>>> can then process them? > >>>> > >>>> or > >>>> > >>>> 2. Is there another way to break these jobs up so the service engine > >>>> doesn't have to process 10k jobs in a single transaction. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Note: the above process works very well when the number of records to > >>>> process are around 1K. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Brett > >>>> > >>> > > > >
