Ah okay, that is entirely dependent on the number of jobs and the speed the server can process them. As a side note I would keep a close eye on the purgeOldJobs service, when it starts falling over (transaction timeout again) then the number of rows in the table will increase quickly which in turn will slow down polling.
In general the whole persisted jobs implementation is a bit fragile, especially when dealing with a large number of jobs. I've wanted to replace it with something like quartz for a while but haven't had the time. Regards Scott On 14/07/2011, at 2:10 PM, Josh Jacobson wrote: > Thanks again. I actually meant a suggestion for the transaction > timeout. In any case I am grateful for your explanation. > > > On Wednesday, July 13, 2011, Scott Gray <scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote: >> As best I can tell there shouldn't be any need to increase the interval >> between polls since the interval timer doesn't actually start until the >> previous poll has completed (see JobPoller.run()) so I can't see how a small >> interval would cause any backlog problems. >> >> I'm guessing if there is any lock contention then it's probably caused by >> the executing jobs trying to update their respective rows while the poller >> is holding a table lock. So from that point of view I guess increasing the >> interval could reduce the amount of contention between the executing jobs >> and the next poll. >> >> Regards >> Scott >> >> On 14/07/2011, at 1:02 PM, Josh Jacobson wrote: >> >>> Scott, >>> >>> Thanks! That is very precise advise. Do you have a suggestion on >>> interval time? 60 seconds? 120? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Scott Gray <scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com> >>> wrote: >>>> That configuration is for the frequency of job polls. There isn't any >>>> ability to specify the transaction timeout via configuration so you'll >>>> need to modify the code directly: >>>> JobManager.java (line 148): >>>> beganTransaction = TransactionUtil.begin(); >>>> needs to be changed to use TransactionUtil.begin(int) >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Scott >>>> >>>> HotWax Media >>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com >>>> >>>> On 14/07/2011, at 12:23 PM, Josh Jacobson wrote: >>>> >>>>> Brett, >>>>> >>>>> Before I start trying to run the jobs manually, I want to give your >>>>> suggestion a try. I think I know where to configure the job polling >>>>> transaction time (I believe it's the poll-db-millis="20000" value on >>>>> the framework/service/config/serviceengine.xml. >>>>> >>>>> However, I still don't know what to increase it to. I understand that >>>>> we wouldn't want to make it bigger than the default polling interval. >>>>> Do you know what the default interval between polling is? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Brett Palmer <brettgpal...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> I meant removing finished jobs. If you have thousands of pending jobs >>>>>> then >>>>>> you will have the same problem I mentioned in my first email. One >>>>>> resolution will be to increase the job poller transaction time. In the >>>>>> ofbiz version I was using there was not a way to configure the poller >>>>>> transaction time. It just used the default time. I had to create a >>>>>> patch >>>>>> to allow this to happen. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the patch you had to be careful to not increase the transaction time >>>>>> greater than the frequency of the job poller. Otherwise you get into a >>>>>> lock >>>>>> situation where one job poller is still running within a transaction and >>>>>> another poller starts. This didn't create a huge problem but the second >>>>>> job >>>>>> poller would usually lock and then time out. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Brett >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Josh Jacobson >>>>>> <josh.s.jacob...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Brett, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can you please explain what you mean by archiving the current JobSandbox >>>>>>> first? >>>>>>> Do you mean somehow removing the current pending jobs, applying you >>>>>>> patch and the copying them back again? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Brett Palmer <brettgpal...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Josh, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've also seen this problem if the JobSandbox table has too many rows >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> process. I ran into a similar problem when I tried to run 10,000 Async >>>>>>>> batch processes. The time it took for the JobPoller to process all the >>>>>>>> records was too long and the transaction would time out. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I had a patch to change the transaction timeout for the JobPoller >>>>>>>> specifically as it wasn't available in ofbiz at the time, but I don't >>>>>>> think >>>>>>>> I ever submitted it. I could look for this patch if anyone is >>>>>>>> interested >>>>>>>> but it may already be implemented in the framework. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
