I tried 60 seconds for timeout but that didn't work. I guess Ill double it now and keep trying.
I have about 260,000 pending jobs, and nothing is getting done. I know what you mean about purgeOldjobs. That service is crashed now and I deleted old jobs from the database by hand. I was up to 2.6 million rows. Ofbiz was pretty much unusable. If you have any other suggestions I'd love Yo hear them. On Wednesday, July 13, 2011, Scott Gray <scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote: > 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, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
