MySQL lock table size Exception

Hi,
Our users get random error pages from vibe/tomcat (Error 500).
If the user tries it again, it works without an error.
here are some errors from catalina.out:
Code:
2013-07-31 06:23:12,225 WARN [http-8080-8] [org.hibernate.util.JDBCExceptionReporter] - SQL Error: 1206, SQLState: HY000
2013-07-31 06:23:12,225 ERROR [http-8080-8] [org.hibernate.util.JDBCExceptionReporter] - The total number of locks exceeds the lock table size
2013-07-31 06:23:12,242 WARN [http-8080-8] [org.kablink.teaming.web.portlet.handler.LogContextInfoInterceptor] - Action request URL [http://vibe.*******.ch/ssf/a/do?p_name=ss_forum&p_action=1&entryType=4028828f3f0ed66d013f0f3ff208013d&binderId=2333&action=add_folder_entry&vibeonprem_url=1] for user [kablink,ro]
2013-07-31 06:23:12,245 WARN [http-8080-8] [org.kablink.teaming.spring.web.portlet.DispatcherPortlet] - Handler execution resulted in exception - forwarding to resolved error view
org.springframework.dao.InvalidDataAccessApiUsageException: object references an unsaved transient instance - save the transient instance before flushing: org.kablink.teaming.domain.FolderEntry; nested exception is org.hibernate.TransientObjectException: object references an unsaved transient instance - save the transient instance before flushing: org.kablink.teaming.domain.FolderEntry
at org.springframework.orm.hibernate3.SessionFactoryUtils.convertHibernateAccessException(SessionFactoryUtils.java:654)
at org.springframework.orm.hibernate3.HibernateAccessor.convertHibernateAccessException(HibernateAccessor.java:412)
at org.springframework.orm.hibernate3.HibernateTemplate.doExecute(HibernateTemplate.java:411)
2013-07-31 06:23:36,474 ERROR [Sitescape_QuartzSchedulerThread] [org.quartz.core.ErrorLogger] - An error occured while scanning for the next trigger to fire.
org.quartz.JobPersistenceException: Couldn't acquire next trigger: The total number of locks exceeds the lock table size [See nested exception: java.sql.SQLException: The total number of locks exceeds the lock table size]
at org.quartz.impl.jdbcjobstore.JobStoreSupport.acquireNextTrigger(JobStoreSupport.java:2794)
at org.quartz.impl.jdbcjobstore.JobStoreSupport$36.execute(JobStoreSupport.java:2737)
at org.quartz.impl.jdbcjobstore.JobStoreSupport.executeInNonManagedTXLock(JobStoreSupport.java:3768)
at org.quartz.impl.jdbcjobstore.JobStoreSupport.acquireNextTrigger(JobStoreSupport.java:2733)
at org.quartz.core.QuartzSchedulerThread.run(QuartzSchedulerThread.java:264)
Caused by: java.sql.SQLException: The total number of locks exceeds the lock table size
at com.mysql.jdbc.SQLError.createSQLException(SQLError.java:946)
at com.mysql.jdbc.MysqlIO.checkErrorPacket(MysqlIO.java:2870)
at com.mysql.jdbc.MysqlIO.sendCommand(MysqlIO.java:1573)
at com.mysql.jdbc.ServerPreparedStatement.serverExecute(ServerPreparedStatement.java:1169)
2013-07-31 06:27:12,463 WARN [Sitescape_Worker-8] [org.hibernate.util.JDBCExceptionReporter] - SQL Error: 1206, SQLState: HY000
2013-07-31 06:27:12,463 ERROR [Sitescape_Worker-8] [org.hibernate.util.JDBCExceptionReporter] - The total number of locks exceeds the lock table size
2013-07-31 06:27:12,463 ERROR [Sitescape_Worker-8] [org.jbpm.graph.def.GraphElement] - action threw exception: Hibernate operation: could not execute update query; uncategorized SQLException for SQL [update SS_ChangeLogs set owningBinderKey=?, owningBinderId=? where (entityId in (? , ?)) and entityType=?]; SQL state [HY000]; error code [1206]; The total number of locks exceeds the lock table size; nested exception is java.sql.SQLException: The total number of locks exceeds the lock table size
org.springframework.jdbc.UncategorizedSQLException: Hibernate operation: could not execute update query; uncategorized SQLException for SQL [update SS_ChangeLogs set owningBinderKey=?, owningBinderId=? where (entityId in (? , ?)) and entityType=?]; SQL state [HY000]; error code [1206]; The total number of locks exceeds the lock table size; nested exception is java.sql.SQLException: The total number of locks exceeds the lock table size
at org.springframework.jdbc.support.AbstractFallbackSQLExceptionTranslator.translate(AbstractFallbackSQLExceptionTranslator.java:83)
at org.springframework.orm.hibernate3.HibernateAccessor.convertJdbcAccessException(HibernateAccessor.java:424)
2013-07-31 06:27:22,393 INFO [CT-kablink] [org.kablink.teaming.lucene.LuceneProvider] - (kablink) Committed, firstOpTimeSinceLastCommit=1375251142310, numberOfOpsSinceLastCommit=12. It took 82.62174 milliseconds
2013-07-31 06:28:22,686 INFO [Sitescape_Worker-9] [org.kablink.teaming.jobs.CleanupJobListener] - Removing job send-email.sendMail-1375252102500
2013-07-31 06:29:51,309 INFO [Sitescape_Worker-10] [org.kablink.teaming.jobs.CleanupJobListener] - Removing job send-email.sendMail-1375252191099
2013-07-31 06:32:08,820 WARN [http-8080-2] [org.hibernate.util.JDBCExceptionReporter] - SQL Error: 1206, SQLState: HY000
2013-07-31 06:32:08,820 ERROR [http-8080-2] [org.hibernate.util.JDBCExceptionReporter] - The total number of locks exceeds the lock table size
2013-07-31 06:32:10,775 WARN [http-8080-1] [org.hibernate.util.JDBCExceptionReporter] - SQL Error: 1206, SQLState: HY000
2013-07-31 06:32:10,775 ERROR [http-8080-1] [org.hibernate.util.JDBCExceptionReporter] - The total number of locks exceeds the lock table size
2013-07-31 06:32:12,305 WARN [http-8080-1] [org.hibernate.util.JDBCExceptionReporter] - SQL Error: 1206, SQLState: HY000
2013-07-31 06:32:12,305 ERROR [http-8080-1] [org.hibernate.util.JDBCExceptionReporter] - The total number of locks exceeds the lock table size
2013-07-31 06:32:14,605 WARN [http-8080-3] [org.hibernate.util.JDBCExceptionReporter] - SQL Error: 1206, SQLState: HY000
2013-07-31 06:32:14,606 ERROR [http-8080-3] [org.hibernate.util.JDBCExceptionReporter] - The total number of locks exceeds the lock table size
2013-07-31 06:32:16,056 WARN [http-8080-3] [org.hibernate.util.JDBCExceptionReporter] - SQL Error: 1206, SQLState: HY000
2013-07-31 06:32:16,056 ERROR [http-8080-3] [org.hibernate.util.JDBCExceptionReporter] - The total number of locks exceeds the lock table size
2013-07-31 06:32:24,166 WARN [http-8080-1] [org.hibernate.util.JDBCExceptionReporter] - SQL Error: 1206, SQLState: HY000
2013-07-31 06:32:24,166 ERROR [http-8080-1] [org.hibernate.util.JDBCExceptionReporter] - The total number of locks exceeds the lock table size
2013-07-31 06:32:24,167 WARN [http-8080-1] [org.kablink.teaming.spring.web.portlet.DispatcherPortlet] - Handler execution resulted in exception - forwarding to resolved error view
org.springframework.jdbc.UncategorizedSQLException: Hibernate flushing: could not insert: [org.kablink.teaming.domain.AuditTrail]; uncategorized SQLException for SQL [insert into SS_AuditTrail (zoneId, startDate, startBy, endBy, endDate, entityType, entityId, owningBinderId, owningBinderKey, description, transactionType, fileId, applicationId, deletedFolderEntryFamily, type, id) values (?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, 'A', ?)]; SQL state [HY000]; error code [1206]; The total number of locks exceeds the lock table size; nested exception is java.sql.SQLException: The total number of locks exceeds the lock table size
at org.springframework.jdbc.support.AbstractFallbackSQLExceptionTranslator.translate(AbstractFallbackSQLExceptionTranslator.java:83)
at org.springframework.orm.hibernate3.HibernateTransactionManager.convertJdbcAccessException(HibernateTransactionManager.java:805)
at org.springframework.orm.hibernate3.HibernateTransactionManager.convertHibernateAccessException(HibernateTransactionManager.java:791)
at org.springframework.orm.hibernate3.HibernateTransactionManager.doCommit(HibernateTransactionManager.java:664)
It always logs the Mysql error code 1206:
MySQL :: MySQL 5.4 Reference Manual :: 13.6.12.1 InnoDB Error Codes
1206 (ER_LOCK_TABLE_FULL)
The total number of locks exceeds the lock table size. To avoid this error, increase the value of innodb_buffer_pool_size.
The value of innodb_buffer_pool_size is set to 8388608 (8MB) on my server.
In the documentation (MySQL :: MySQL 5.4 Reference Manual :: 13.6.3 InnoDB Startup Options and System Variables) it says that the default is 128MB.
Can i set the value to 134217728 (128MB) or will this cause other problems? Will this setting solve my problem?
Thanks for your help.

I already found an entry from Kablink:
https://kablink.org/ssf/a/c/p_name/s...beonprem_url/1
But i think this can't be a permanent solution...
Our MySQL Server version is 5.0.95 running on sles11

Similar Messages

Enqueue Replication Server - Lock Table Size

Note : I think I had posted it wrongly under ABAP Development, hence request moderator to kindly delete this post. Thanks
Dear Experts,
If Enqueue Replication server is configured, can you tell me how to check the Lock Table size value, which we set using profile parameter enque/table_size.
If enque server is configured in the same host as CI, it can be checked using
ST02 --> Detail Analysis Menu --> Storage --> Shared Memory Detail --> Enque Table
As it is a Standalone Enqueue Server, I don't know where to check this value.
Thanking you in anticipation.
Best Regards
L Raghunahth

Hi
Raghunath
Check the following links
http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw2004s/helpdata/en/37/a2e3ab344411d3acb00000e83539c3/content.htm
http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw04s/helpdata/en/44/5efc11f3893672e10000000a114a6b/content.htm
Regards
Bhaskar

Locking Table Size?

Hi M.M Team,
I noticed that my site can have uneven table cell sizes when
viewed in different browsers. IE is good, but Firefox isn't. Is
there a way to lock the table sizes please so that this doesn't
happen?
Thanks
Ray

You gotta stop using the Property inspector to set the font,
the color, or
the size. It creates 'spew' in your stylesheets.
I believe the problem you are having can be simplified if you
consider this
example -
Put a 2 row by 2 column table on the page. Merge the two
right hand cells
into a single column. Put an image into each left cell, and
you will see
that they merge vertically seamlessly. Now begin to add
content to the
merged cell on the right and you will see that at some point
you will have
forced the two left cells to begin to split apart vertically.
The more
content you add to the right, the further apart the two left
cells will get.
See what I mean?
To solve the problem, instead of making your page sit in a
single table,
have it in several nested tables. You should be able to put a
two column
table on the page with a nested table in each column. Put
your navigation
in the left nested table, and the
content in the right nested table. Now, changes to either of
the inner
table's
structure will not affect either of the inner nested tables.
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Adobe Community Expert
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com
- Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go
- DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs,
Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/
- Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================
"Ray Dar" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
news:ej4nqg$8bl$[email protected]..
> Hi Murray,
>
> On this link
>
>
http://www.myastrospace.com/newscientist.php
>
> The NASA TV cell is smaller in FireFox and larger in IE.
>
> Not sure why it does it.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Ray

Lock table size change in instance profile RZ10

i need your help. I changed the table size from 10000 to 17000 and then to 20000 but still have the same table size as before.i used rz10 to change the parameter enque/table_size.
the steps i followed are as in all documents i can find.
1. change parameter value
2. save it (parameter and instance)
3. activate it.
4.on restart instance (i just left it for the offline backup to do this).
on the 4th step is that enough, because after the system came back i checked the parameter in rz11 and the current value on the parameter is still 10000. (owner entries and granule still 12557 as before)
am i missing something?
vinaka
epeli

Hi,
it COULD be that the offline backup did indeed no restart of the instance. From Oracle I know that there is a so called "reconnect-status" where the SAP instance is trying over a defined period of time to log to the database again after the workprocesses lost connection to the database processes. In this timeframe the instance is not to be considered as restarted.
If you check ST02 you see the point of time where the instance was restarted in reality the last time. If this date is before your offline backup you need to do the restart manually.
Best regards, Alexander

Lock table Overflow as the file size is 50 MB BW side.

Hello Everyone,
I have a XML idoc file as input which is usually more then 50MB in size.
Usually, i am getting Lock table overflow at Receiver BW side . This error is pointing to Inbound_Asynchronous_Idoc.
i have tried dividing the Input XML idoc file into small group by handling them in chunk mode of sender communication channel.
However, since its TRFC , so if it gets processed in PI but at outbound if there is an Lock table overflow error, then it fails.
I have tried to process the 50 MB of file in parts by processing 5 MB at one point of time. but does this mean that BW also process data in parts or it gets entire 50 MB to process at one stretch.
Since the input is IDOC XML so i was not able to make use of Record Set per message. so i am making use of chunk mode.
AM i doing correctly ?
Regards,
Ravi

Hi Ravikanth,
If i make use of the below logic as mentioned in the link that you provided, then do i have to remove the chunk mode from communication channel .?
Secondly, mine is a SLSFCT idoc XSD that i am using here as source and target as well.
The hirearchy becomes like this after implementing the logic mentioned in link:
Messages
Message1
Z1ZBSD_SLSFCT01
IDOC
BEGIN
EDI_DC40
For Messages and MEssages1 there is no mapping at target side.
For Z1ZBSD_SLSFCT01 its 1..1 in source and 0..unbounded in target.
For IDOC its mapped to constant and Begin to constant with value 1 .
And then EDIDC to source and target are mapped to each other with occurrence of 1..1.
Is there some thing wrong that i am doing . because after this again the files are not getting divided
Regards

Help needed with locking tables+Mysql

Hello!
I have a table "A" which is of kind "auto_increament" (field "A1")
When I do an insert in A I need to know the next "auto_increament" index because I have to encrypt that index into another field in A lets say this field is called A2.
I understand that I have to do like like I do below (the semantic syntax) but I dont know the java syntax for locking tables and getting the next "auto_increament" index. The "lock type" of the ttable should be so now one else can write to the table.
--------semantic syntax---------------
1) LOCK A
2) Get "next" index from A
3) Make an insert
4) UNLOCK A
Very greatful for help!
Regards/D_S

http://www.mysql.com/search/?q=jdbc+autoincrement&base=http%3A%2F%2Fdev.mysql.com&lang=en&doc=0&m=a

Quering MySql DB tables using DB adapter in Oracle SOA

Hi',
I am trying to query MySql DB tables using DB adapter in Oracle SOA.
inside the weblogic server console I have created a data source and test is "success" MySql
Now inside the deployments > DBAdapter > Configuration > outbound connection pools
I am new outbound connection, however I only get one option by default "javax.resource.cci.ConnectionFactory".
which is default pointing to oracle DB.
If someone has implemented this earlier or some blog/document demonstrates this please let me know.
Thanks
Yatan

Thanks Naresh,
actually I tried changing the "platformClassName" to "oracle.toplink.platform.database.MySQL4Platform" in the existing connection factory.
I am able to update the DBAdapter successfully, however when I try to run the service created in JDEV which uses this MySql DB table it gives me below error.
I also have another doubt regarding "How can we create a new connection factory in weblogic console?"
ERROR:
The selected operation process could not be invoked.
An exception occured while invoking the webservice operation. Please see logs for more details.
oracle.sysman.emSDK.webservices.wsdlapi.SoapTestException: Exception occured when binding was invoked.
Exception occured during invocation of JCA binding: "JCA Binding execute of Reference operation 'insert' failed due to: Could not create/access the TopLink Session.
This session is used to connect to the datastore.
Caused by Exception [EclipseLink-7042] (Eclipse Persistence Services - 2.1.3.v20110304-r9073): org.eclipse.persistence.exceptions.ValidationException
*Exception Description: Database platform class [org.eclipse.persistence.platform.database.MySQL4Platform] not found.*
Internal Exception: Exception [EclipseLink-3007] (Eclipse Persistence Services - 2.1.3.v20110304-r9073): org.eclipse.persistence.exceptions.ConversionException
Exception Description: The object [org.eclipse.persistence.platform.database.MySQL4Platform], of class [class java.lang.String], could not be converted to [class java.lang.Class]. Ensure that the class [org.eclipse.persistence.platform.database.MySQL4Platform] is on the CLASSPATH. You may need to use alternate API passing in the appropriate class loader as required, or setting it on the default ConversionManager
Internal Exception: oracle.classloader.util.AnnotatedClassNotFoundException:
Missing class: org.eclipse.persistence.platform.database.MySQL4Platform
Dependent class: org.eclipse.persistence.internal.helper.ConversionManager
Loader: sun.misc.Launcher$AppClassLoader@13288040
Code-Source: /C:/Oracle/MiddlewarePS4/modules/org.eclipse.persistence_1.1.0.0_2-1.jar
Configuration: /C:/Oracle/MiddlewarePS4/modules/org.eclipse.persistence_1.1.0.0_2-1.jar
This load was initiated at default.composite.MySqlTest.soa_2c170363-5ad7-4578-8920-f30fb224a8d2:1.0 using the Class.forName() method.
You may need to configure the connection settings in the deployment descriptor (i.e. DbAdapter.rar#META-INF/weblogic-ra.xml) and restart the server. This exception is considered not retriable, likely due to a modelling mistake.
The invoked JCA adapter raised a resource exception.
Please examine the above error message carefully to determine a resolution.

MySQL Locks

Hi,
This is quite complicated, and probably I'm making a big mess in many concepts... but can someone help me with this??
All right... I'm using MySQL DB, and it's default table types do not support transactions, so I'm supposed to use table locks instead. There are also InnoDB table types in MySQL which support transactions, but since the server I'm putting all in is still unknown, I don't want to assume it will support InnoDB tables.
Then, when using JDBC API to access this DB, it seems by the documentation that all results are in the ResultSet type. But this representation is in fact a pointer to the DB row, and it pulls up the data just when requested.
For example, if I execute a select statement that returns me 10 rows, one will be read directly from the DB everytime i call the method next.
Is everything correct until now?
OK... the problem is... if I lock the table in order to protect this reading from other threads writings and the rows take some time to process individually, will the table be locked all that long? Or the JDBC implementation does all that for me and I don't even have to use locks? Or this is just an illusion and all the results are read and there is no further concurrency problem - after I release the lock, of course?
I know select, update and other operations are atomic in mysql default tables, but this will be used all over...
One last thing, I'm using MySQL Connector/J 3.0 JDBC driver.
I hope I could describe my doubt...
Thanks

There are also InnoDB table types in MySQL which support
transactions, but since the server I'm putting all in
is still unknown, I don't want to assume it will
support InnoDB tables.If you really need transactions, I think you can safely assume that it is available, since MySQL-Max versions since around 3.23.40+ have supported InnoDB.
Still, if you want to use MyISAM, you could, but individual table locking won't really give you transactional semantics. It may prevent premature dirty reads, but that's all, and it's an extremely expensive way of doing this.
But you may not need to do this, since the MyISAM table manager automatically locks the table when processing a query (so that no inserts or updates can take place while the query is being processed). So you won't get inconsistent results in terms of reading the result of half of an update, for instance.
However, you will never really get transactional semantics unless you lock the entire DB, but that's REALLY nasty.
But this representation is in fact a pointer to the DB
row, and it pulls up the data just when requested.False. MySQL doesn't have anything like DB cursors, so the entire
query result is read into memory as soon as you executeQuery(),
and the next() simply returns you values from memory.
So yes, if you start a query without a restrictive WHERE clause and without a LIMIT clause on a giant table, you'll run out of memory before you can even get the first row.
OK... the problem is... if I lock the table in order
to protect this reading from other threads writings
and the rows take some time to process individually,
will the table be locked all that long? No - see the above. If you're not using explicit locking, the tables being queried will be temporarily locked until the results are generated into the server's memory, and then the locks are released. Then the results are transferred completely to the client's JDBC driver memory, and it then feeds the results on each next() call.
On the other hand, if you lock the DB, you won't get a chance to unlock the DB until all the above steps are completed (i.e. until the last byte of the result set has been sent back to the JDBC driver and processed by it into the ResultSet).
This would make your application nearly unusable.
Or the JDBC implementation does all that for me and I don't
even have to use locks? Well, JDBC won't do this for you. If all you want is a clean query without partial individual-update side-effects, you can get that for free without doing any locking, courtesy of MySQL's MyISAM table manager.
However, if you need transactional semantics (i.e. you want to consider a series of updates or inserts as one transaction, and don't want any other query to see partial results after a subset of those updates), then:
(a) you'll have to do explicit locking, with all the hazards described above,
OR
(b) you'll have to break down and use InnoDB, and ask your users to install MySQL-Max 3.23.latest or 4.0.latest.

MM42 change material, split valuation at batch level, M301, locking table

Dear All,
I'm working on ECC 6.0 retail and I have activated split valuation at batch level. Now in MBEW for this specific material I have almost 14.400 entries.
If I try to change some material data (MM42) I receive an error message M3021 A system error has occurred while locking and then Lock table overflow.
I used SM12 to see the table (while MM42 is still running) and it seems that MBEW is the problem.
What should I do? For any material modification the system has to modify every entry in MBEW? Is there any possibility to skip this?
Thank you.

Hi,
Symptom
Key word: Enqueue
FM: A system error has occurred in the block handler
Message in the syslog: lock table overflowed
Other terms
M3021 MM02 F5 288 F5288 FBRA
Reason and Prerequisites
The lock table has overflowed.
Cause 1: Dimensions of the lock table are too small
Cause 2: The update lags far behind or has shut down completely, so that the lock entries of the update requests that are not yet updated cause the lock table to overflow.
Cause 3: Poor design of the application programs. A lock is issued for each object in an application program, for example a collective run with many objects.
Solution
Determine the cause:
SM12 -> Goto -> Diagnosis (old)
SM12 -> Extras -> Diagnosis (new)
checks the effectiveness of the lock management
SM12 -> Goto -> Diagnosis in update (old)
SM12 -> Extras -> Diagnosis in update (new)
checks the effectiveness of the lock management in conjunction with updates
SM12 -> OkCode TEST -> Error handling -> Statistics (old, only in the enqueue server)
SM12 -> Extras -> Statistics (new)
shows the statistics of the lock management, including the previous maximum fill levels (peak usage) of the partial tables in the lock table
If the owner table overflows, cause 2 generally applies.
In the alert monitor (RZ20), an overrunning of the (customizable) high-water marks is detected and displayed as an alert reason.
The size of the lock table can be set with the profile parameter u201Cenque/table_size =u201C. specifies the size of the lock table in kilobytes. The setting must be made in the profile of the enqueue server ( u2026_DVEBM.. ). The change only takes effect after the restart of the enqueue server.
The default size is 500 KB in the Rel 3.1x implementation of the enqueue table. The resulting sizes for the individual tables are:
Owner table: approx 560.
Name table: approx 560.
Entry table: approx 2240.
As of Rel 4.xx the new implementation of the lock table takes effect.
It can also be activated as described in note 75144 for the 3.1I kernel. The default size is 2000 KB. The resulting sizes for the individual tables are:
Owner table: approx 5400
Name table: approx 5400
Entry table: approx 5400
Example: with the
u201Cenque/table_size =32000u2033 profile parameter, the size of the enqueue table is set to 32000 KB. The tables can then have approx 40,000 entries.
Note that the above sizes and numbers depend on various factors such as the kernel release, patch number, platform, address length (32/64-bit), and character width (Ascii/Unicode). Use the statistics display in SM12 to check the actual capacity of the lock table.
If cause 2 applies, an enlargement of the lock table only delays the overflow of the lock table, but it cannot generally be avoided.
In this case you need to eliminate the update shutdown or accelerate the throughput of the update program using more update processes. Using CCMS (operation modes, see training BC120) the category of work processes can be switched at runtime, for example an interactive work process can be converted temporarily into an update process, to temporarily increase the throughput of the update.
For cause 3, you should consider a tuning of the task function. Instead of issuing a large number of individual locks, it may be better to use generic locks (wildcard) to block a complete subarea. This will also allow you to considerably improve the performance.

Lock table

My archival jobs continuously fails because of Lock table overflow even after increasing parameter enque/table_size and then bounced.
But in SM12 No lock entries found
Under SM12 EXTRAS -> STATISTICS OR DIAGONOSTIICS are inactive
Job logs as below...
Job started
Step 001 started (program ZRJJARC20, variant CLL4, user ID MINIO)
Archiving session 000078 is being created
Lock table overflow
Job cancelled after system exception ERROR_MESSAGE
Regards,
Peter

But i want to know why job fails even after clear lock entries in SM12.
Below find statics of locks
Enqueue Operations     42726
rejected     47
Error occured     1
Dequeue Operations     4349
Error occured     0
Dequeue All Operations     3735
Cleanup Operations     0
Backup Operations     2
Read Operations     5
Compress Operations     0
Verify Operations     0
Records written     29182
to the backup file     4
Maximum Number of Lock Owners     25311
Maximum Fill level     8
Current Fill Level     6
Maximum Number of Lock Arguments     25311
Maximum Fill level     25310
Current Fill Level     6
Maximum Number of Lock Entries     25311
Maximum Fill level     25310
Current Fill Level     6
Update; Fill Level at Maximum     1
Current Fill Level     0
Time in Lock Table /Seconds     2.876618s
Wait for Lock Table /Seconds     0.736393s
Time in Lock Server /Seconds     0.000000s

Lock table overflow problem in transaction sm58

Hi ,
I have a file to idoc scenario.I am on xi 7.0 sp09.
I am posting about 10000 records at one time in a 1 mb file.
In idx5 i am able to idocs .
However in transaction SM58 I am seeing Lock table overflow error .
Regards ,
Deepak

Deepak,
Here you can solve the problem in two ways
1) increase the size of the lock table via parameter
enque/table_size
2) or increase the enque work processes from 1 to 2 or 3
via parameter rdisp/wp_no_enq
Please have a look on SAP Note: 928044.
---Satish

File to Idoc error:"Lock table overflow"

When I post 3000 records I see 3000 idocs generated in ECC successfully, when I try to post 4000 idocs I get an error in PI "Lock table overflow" in SM58, please help
Thanks

Hi.
The error could be due to following:
1. small size of lock table
2. a particular program sets a large no of locks
3. an update process hangs hence setting a large number of locks
please check below thread.
Lock table overflow
Also check below link frm help.sap.
http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw70/helpdata/en/d3/43d2416d9c1c7be10000000a1550b0/frameset.htm
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Deepak.
Edited by: Deepak Shah on Feb 8, 2011 4:48 AM

Lock table overflow ???

Hi All,
We just installed a BW - IDES system, and in the process of activation of Business Content. There is a problem while activation, after the collection of CRM BI Content the system is giving following error, while installing the BI Content:
Message no. MC603
Diagnosis - This table overflowed when trying to enter SAP locks in the lock table.
System Response - The locks could not be set.
Procedure - Contact your system administrator. If this error occurs frequently, change the size of the profile parameter 'enque/table_size'. This parameter defines the size of the lock table in KByte.
Can someone please list down the steps to be taken to resolve the error or change the size of profile parameter.
Thanks & Regards,
Vikas Sharma

Hallo,
goto trans: /nRZ10 --> Select your instance profil and change or add parametere: 'enque/table_size' with the appropiate size. Best: Contact your BASIS people to change this parameter. And restart the system.
Best Regards,
Suan Liono

UCWB - Consolidation Workbench - Lock table overflow

Hello,
This is w.r.t SEM BCS. We are in the initial phase of consolidation implementation. When I try to execute UCWB - Consolidation Workbench, system is giving an error with Message No. MC603
Lock table overflow
Diagnosis
This table overflowed when trying to enter SAP locks in the lock table.
System Response
The locks could not be set.
Procedure
Contact your system administrator. If this error occurs frequently, change the size of the profile parameter 'enque/table_size'. This parameter defines the size of the lock table in KByte
Request you kindly reply in this regard.
Regards
Sreekanth

Hello Sreekanth
Have you implemented any note for this problem or adjusted the table parameters.I am also facing the same problem.Could you please let me know if there is any note which needs to be implemented.
thanks

Lock table overflow - Delta (fetch)

Hi,
I have an InfoCube which contains large amount of data. Before starting to extract data from this InfoCube, I want to set datamart status as fetched to start extractions with new coming requests.
However, when I choose the processing mode of DTP as "9 No Data Transfer; Delta Status in Source: Fetched" and execute the DTP, it ends with an error: "Lock table overflow".
Is there any way to solve this without increasing the lock table parameters (enque/table_size) ?
Regards,
Erdem

You need to first resolve the issue with the "Lock table Overflow"....usign the below method in RZ10.
Here you can solve the problem in two ways
1) increase the size of the lock table via parameter
enque/table_size
2) or increase the enque work processes from 1 to 2 or 3
via parameter rdisp/wp_no_enq
Ask Basis team for their assistance on the same.
Thanks
Murali

MySQL lock table size Exception

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for