Vibe 3.4 Versioning + File locking issues

Dear all,
I've searched many Links in google and also the many Novell Forum Threads, but nothing answers my question. This confuses me because I can't imagine that only we have this problem.
Here our Issue:
We want to use Vibe as a File Management System with the feature of file versioning. So we imported our Files (Office files, PDFs) into our Vibe Server and started testing with the versioning.
What we noticed is that it is very easy to destroy the whole versioning of a file! You can reset a files version (f.e. 1.7) back to Version 1.0 with one simple click. It even deletes the whole version history of that file!
Let me try to explain:
We Have our Vibe Server (V.3.4) and many Clients (Win7) that have the Office 2007 Vibe Addin + Vibe desktop Client installed.
Now if a User opens a file (f.e. Word document) from the Vibe Server, with the Browser or with the office addin, makes changes and then wants to save them, he is asked if he wants to create a new version or overwrite it.
If you press "create new version" it does what is should, but if "overwrite it" is clicked, it will delete the whole versioning + history of the file...
This is not acceptable for us, because we need to keep the versioning of files for our documentation we create that belongs to files. It is no solution to change the rights to only read for all users. Because everyone needs to be able to create files, change them and delete if necessary.
Now to my confusion, are we the only company that has this requirement? I cant find anything regarding this problem...
A second Problem that we have is with the lock function in Vibe. You can lock a file but other users can easily open that file (f.e. over the web browser), make changes and save them... They are then the author of the file.
So the lock seems to be only a visual notification that it is "locked" from another user.
Can someone please help me on these issues?
Thanks and regards
Michael

Hi all,
sorry for the late reply.
In the meantime I found out something interesting. The mechanic of the office Add-In seems to be broken (?) on some user clients! We compared a few Clients that have the office 2007 + Vibe Add-in installed, and we noticed a big difference in the updating mechanic!
On my Computer (= broken Add-in), when I open a File from the Vibe server, the first thing I noticed is, that my symbols (Dashboard, lock, refresh, etc.) in the Vibe Add-in are grayed out! I've checked the rights to that file, they are fine. It doesn't matter if I'm a user with admin rights or if I open it as THE Admin, same issue. Even the Dashboard to the right (in office), which should show me the owner, name, and version of the file, is missing. When I make a change and click "save" it opens the "save as" window.
On the other client (correct working Add-in), all the Vibe Add-in Symbol are usable, the dashboard is shown and when you press "save", it creates a new version. This is what I expect it to do.
If I use another Client with my credentials, it works fine! The strange thing is, the Add-in error only affects a handfull of clients... I've tryed everything to do a clean reinstallation of the Vibe Office Add-in but it doesn't fix the issue. I think that some files are not being deleted when doing the uninstallment.
I've checked the eventlog, it showes me the following message when opening files described above:
ERROR 2015-01-28 15:24:12,436 Novell.Collaboration.UX.Util.WindowSettings [1] - Unable to load window settings
System.Configuration.ConfigurationErrorsException: Fehler beim Laden des Anbietertyps: Novell.Collaboration.Core.Settings.AppDataSettings Provider, Novell.Collaboration.Common, Version=1.0.1.302, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null.
bei System.Configuration.ApplicationSettingsBase.get_I nitializer()
bei System.Configuration.ApplicationSettingsBase.Creat eSetting(PropertyInfo propInfo)
bei System.Configuration.ApplicationSettingsBase.Ensur eInitialized()
bei System.Configuration.ApplicationSettingsBase.get_P roperties()
bei System.Configuration.ApplicationSettingsBase.Reloa d()
bei Novell.Collaboration.UX.Util.WindowSettings.Restor eSettings()
Regards
Michael

Similar Messages

File locking issue

hi ,
I use a java applet for ftp images upload using a third party ftp API library (edtftpj).
i run my applet from browser but I'm experiencing a strange issue :
-i upload a file & leave the browser opened.
-i then open this same file with gimp or photo-shop & get 'file in use' error.
-if i close browser & try opening file ,the file is opened correctly.
I investigated the issue more thoroughly and here are my conclusions :
1) First i made sure to close all File's streams in the applet.so I'm sure i eliminated this issue of forgotten opened file streams .
2) also i made sure to close all network connections that might be holding the File lock.
It's clear that another process is still locking the File & preventing access to it.
i used a win32 program (procExp) to monitor active processes . it turned out that javaw.exe is the process that use the File. i was convinced of this fact with a simple experiment : if i destroy the applet (closing applet's browser window -not necessarily all browser instances-) then in this case the file lock is released and i can access and delete File correctly.
my questions :
-How to instruct javaw.exe to release the File lock ? (is that possible at all to do ?)
-is it a bug in JVM ? (i'm using jdk1.4.2)
-or is it an OS centric issue related to windows only ?
i would appreciate your ideas about this problem .
thanks.

Exactly, and I've been aware of all that since about 1997. I don't know whether that was supposed to answer my question to you as the OP but it doesn't.
Sadly I misread your second-last post to say that you are using Thread.stop(), which you're not, so that explains some of the confusion. But I don't understand why you say Thread.interrupt() doesn't release the resources. It isn't supposed to. It doesn't do anything except set a flag and cause your thread to throw an InterruptedException if it's calling Object.wait(), Thread.sleep(), or certain I/O routines. It's up to your thread to react appropriately, and/or to call Thread.isInterrupted at appropriate intervals.
So Thread.interrupt() (a) provides the boolean flag you need and (b) also interrupts your thread under some circumstances. So it is definitely the solution you should be using: call Thread.interrupt() to tell the thread to exit, and call Thread.isInterrupted() in the thread itself to know whether to do so.

File Locking Issue with Concurrent Locks

Hi. I'm trying to implement a procedure using the File Lock class for two instances of the same program (running on different servers) accessing files shared over an NFS mount in Unix (this is using Java 1.5). 99% of the time, this works great. One box will get the lock, and the other will respect that lock and not touch the file. However, the other 1% of the time, both boxes seem to access the same file simultaniously, allowing BOTH to acquire locks on the same file.
I'm wondering if anyone has any advice on how to solve this problem. I've been searching all over but haven't found a solution. Like I said, the locking works most of the time - I've even independantly verified that it does (and that it's not just timing) with a test program. It's only when both programs access the file at the exact same does that there seems to be a problem.
If it helps, here is the gist of my code:
      FileLock javaLock = null;
      FileChannel fileChannel = null;
      for(int i = 0; i < fileArray.length; i++)
         javaLock = null;
         fileChannel = null;
         if(!fileArray.exists())
continue;
try
RandomAccessFile raLockFile = new RandomAccessFile(fileArray[i], "rw");
try
fileChannel = raLockFile.getChannel();
if(fileArray[i].exists())
javaLock = fileChannel.tryLock();
catch(OverlappingFileLockException ofle)
// Error printed here
continue;
catch(Exception e)
// Error
javaLock = null;
if(javaLock == null)
continue; // File is already locked, move to next one
// Processing is done on the file here
catch(Exception e)
// Error
finally
try
if(javaLock != null)
javaLock.release();
if(fileChannel != null)
fileChannel.close();
catch(Exception e)
// Error
Edited by: kksmith on Jul 21, 2008 7:31 AM
Edited by: kksmith on Jul 21, 2008 7:32 AM

I don't have the errors on hand at the moment, but most were File Not Found IOExceptions (because one box would finish processing the file and rename it out from under the other box). Using a bunch of System.out.println()s I was able to determine that both boxes were locking the same specific files producing those errors.
The other weird thing that would happen is that the file would be processed correctly on one box, but somehow leave behind a zero length version of itself, which the other box would finish processing normally as if we had received a zero length file (as we have special code in place for that condition). This is probably the biggest problem, since I can trap File Not Founds (though it's messy and kind of defeats the purpose of using locks to begin with), but I don't have a real easy way to catch this (and I can't just toss out all zero lengths because we want to know if we legitamently got a zero length file in).
As far as I can tell though, this problem doesn't occur outside of an NFS mount, but I haven't tested it extensively enough to be sure (since it's a random timing thing, it's difficult to reproduce outside of just dumping a ton of files on it). I'm not entirely sure how our NFS system in configured, since that is completely out of my hands (System Admins have contol over all of that). But I believe it has most of the latest patches.

Weird File Locking Issue with Excel 2013

We are experiencing a strange issue whereby we are frequently unable to save Excel files; whilst working on a document a user will select Save As, change the name of the document and attempt to save, a 0KB file is created in the location and an error returned
to the user stating that the file is in use by another user. At this point it is normally possible to save but on occasion this has also failed. It is possible to duplicate the issue on multiple machines.
The user has Full control over the destination directory, both share & NTFS.
File Server is running Windows Server Essentials 2012R2.
The Users desktops are running Windows 7 sp1, all available Windows Updates have been applied.
They have an Office 2013 Small Business Premium subscription, two of the users have a full msi based installation of Office and one the Click-to-Run version.
They use Eset Endpoint Antivirus and Eset File Security on the server, the problem can be duplicated with both client & server antivirus disabled.
Have disabled power saving on client & server network cards.
Does anyone have any suggestions on how to troubleshoot this?

Hi,
As far as I know, if one user had opened or edited one file in File Server, the other users only could be open the file read-only. It could not be saved or other behavior.I would suggest the following:
Turn off the Preview Pane, Details Pane and pop ups that show information about file and desktop items.
This is a problem that has been reported to affect Windows 7 clients only, not Windows XP. The problem here may have something to do with the Windows Explorer in Windows 7. We are currently investigating this further and will post more information as it
is available.
In a Windows Explorer window, do the following:
1. Right click on the Start Button.
2. Click 'Open Windows Explorer'.
3. At the top left click Organize > Layout
4. Uncheck Details Pane and Preview Pane.
5. On a Windows menu, click on Tools > Folder Options. In the box that opens up, click on the View tab. Scroll down the list to
“Show pop-up description for folder and desktop items” and clear the checkbox and then click OK.
http://blogs.technet.com/b/the_microsoft_excel_support_team_blog/archive/2012/05/14/the-definitive-locked-file-post.aspx
BTW, I recommend you
use a shared workbook to collaborate in Excel.
Regards,
George Zhao
TechNet Community Support

File Locking Issues

Hi,
I am reading and writing to the single file which will be shared among
requests. I predict that there will be lot of read request to the file then write requests to the file thats
why I thought that better to avoid the synchronization because I beleive that It will Create the significant Overhead as all the Read requests will also be serailized.
Is there any way I can specify in the code that File gets the Lock Only if there is a Write Request and continue to serve the all the read request without serializing them.
What will happen If I Go without synchronization, will in the worst case application will crash.

That all sounds good. One thing, though... If you use connection pooling (it's provided by some JDBC drivers and by some app servers -- depends on your environment) for your database connection, using a database for the index wouldn't appreciably slow down your application for 300 users. This would also let you avoid the synchronization issues. And, depending on how many entries go in the index, it might actually be faster than reading and writing a large file all the time.
But, if you do want to go with a master index file, one option would be to keep a static File object that represents the master index, and then synchronize the writing code on that object.
Hope this helps; write back if you have more questions.
Jeff

File locked message when saving a file with Photoshop

We've been seeing a problem with several users that is hard to reproduce. Every once in a while when they try to save a file in Photoshop on the server they get a dialogue saying 'the file is locked, use Finder info to unlock the file'.
This file is located on the server and the problem only happens when doing a 'Save', not with a 'Save as'. The server is running 10.5.5 and the clients are 10.4.11. This is happening with Photoshop versions CS1, 2 and 3. It also happend with Illustrator CS3 once.
We've been experimenting with different scenario's using different ACL's and POSIX settings. Also, when the client reboots their machine the exact same 'Save' actions works again.

I've been receiving complaints about a similar issue over the past few weeks, except using Quark and Excel. I wonder if it's related to the 10.5.5 update. Are you sure you didn't get the version numbers reversed in your post? We're having the issue with 10.4.11 SERVER and 10.5.5. CLIENTS.
It's a file locking issue, so you probably won't fix it by changing the ACLs or POSIX permissions. The server thinks a different process still has the file open, so it's preventing you from changing the file. "Save As" works because it creates a new file.
You can probably eject & reconnect the volume from the client instead of fully rebooting.
The question is what's keeping the file open. You can run:
sudo lsof | grep <filename>
... in Terminal to see whether a given Mac has the file open. If the server comes back with a response to that command (don't worry what it says - you just want to see if anything comes back), then you know that the file is locked.
Next, go to each client that could have the file open and run the same command. If none of them have it open, you're probably looking at the same glitch that I've been. The server thinks a file is open but none of the clients do.

File locked by "another user"

Hi,
I am supporting a small office with 8x Windows 7 Pro 64x machines running Office 2007. They have a 2008 R2 DC which is also file server.
Recently we started getting the message that files are locked by "another user". This does not happen all the time and the files are not in use by anyone when it occurs. If a file is used by someone else it gives the user name in the error message.
They can try opening the file one moment and it fails, try again and it works fine. Sometimes it takes repeated tries or they have to open the file from within Excel (they usually just double click the file to open). I'm not sure if it happens with Word as
well, as they are a quite Excel heavy office.
I did some investigation online and a lot of the threats I found were related to Windows Defender - which my client was using. So I got rid of that and installed McAfee, which I liked much better anyway. Unfortunately that did not help and my client reports
that the incidences of locked files are getting more and more, to the point where they are quite annoyed.
In all honesty, I don't know where to start to get on top of this thing and would appreciate some guidance ;)
Thanks!
Maike
Here a screenshot I got, a little small - sorry!

Hi Maike,
Check if the following information would help:
There is a public blog on file locking issues (http://blogs.technet.com/b/the_microsoft_excel_support_team_blog/archive/2012/05/14/the-definitive-locked-file-post.aspx).
I would suggest the following:
If you are seeing problems where the file is locked when double clicking from Windows Explorer, but the files open up correctly when opened in Excel or Word, do the following:
Turn off the Preview Pane, Details Pane and pop ups that show information about file and desktop items
This is a problem that has been reported to affect Windows 7 clients only, not Windows XP. The problem here may have something to do with the Windows Explorer in Windows 7. We are currently investigating this further and will post more information as it is
available.
In a Windows Explorer window, do the following:
1. Right click on the Start Button.
2. Click 'Open Windows Explorer'.
3. At the top left click Organize > Layout
4. Uncheck Details Pane and Preview Pane.
5. On a Windows menu, click on Tools > Folder Options. In the box that opens up, click on the View tab. Scroll down the list to“Show pop-up description for folder and desktop items” and clear the checkbox and then click OK.
If you are seeing issues where the wrong user name is showing up, there is a known bug on that and a fix:
In cases where the wrong user name is displayed in the file lock dialog
Sometimes where it says 'another user' it has the name of someone that didn't open the file or it has no name at all. Just a big ' ' where a name ought to be. Fear not, there is a fix for this problem. The flavor depends on
whether you have Excel 2010 or Excel 2007. The below KB Articles contain hotfixes that address several issues, not just the file locked issue. But in the dialog of the article you will see this as one of the problem descriptions:
Assume that you have an .xls file that is protected by Information Rights Management (IRM) on a network share. When you open the file in Excel 2007, a File In Use dialog box appears. However, the dialog box does not display the
correct name of the user who locked the file. Therefore, you cannot edit the file.
Understand that these fixes don't make the File in Use dialog go away, they just correct the problem of showing bogus user name information on the dialog itself.
Excel 2007 -
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2598133
Excel 2010 -
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2598143
Will Buffington
Microsoft Excel Support
Max Meng
TechNet Community Support

WAFS/WAAS File Locking

I have run into an issue that i believe is file server related however i just want to run it by the board for clarification.
A remote site was recently converted from a standalone server site to one that is supported via WAFS/WAAS 4.0.11 installed on a 512 WAE w/ 2GB of Ram acting as wafs edge. The core is a 612 w/ 4GB of ram.
All user home folders reside across the WAN in the data center on a NetApp NAS SAN hosting the home folder natively (there is no windows server involved).
The issue is with file locking. Periodically, when a user opens a file on the server that is already been opened they are not getting any indication that the file is in use. Once they go to save the file they are told by the system that they cannot save the file using the same filename since it is being modified.
From reading the docs on WAFS/WAAS this looks like it is a problem with the OpLocks coming from the NetApp NAS and nothing to do with WAFS since WAFS/WAAS doesn't act on file locking requests, only passing them through to the file server.
Are my assumptions correct in this regard? Could WAFS be interferring some how with this communication and causing the file locking information being received from the NetApp NAS not to be correctly sent to the client?
Any way for me to debug this besides a packet capture? Any show commands that could indicate an issue? or logs?
TIA
Mike Louis

Zach,
Part of the problem appears to be packet loss of the 4050 messages. We have created a class-map to match 4050 traffic and the connectivity directive in the WAE. Hopefully this will solve some of the intermittent file locking issues we are having.
However, i had some other questions after poking around in the /expert mode of the WAE.
1. When changing the WAFS connectivity bandwidth statement the CM states that the device Edge Component must be restarted. Is there a command that will allow me to do this without rebooting the box? Can i just remove the device from the Core - Edge group and then reassign it to restart the process?
2. Under the expert mode in 4.0.11 i noticed this value:
LockManager MBean Attributes:
Name Type Access Value
MaxGrantedLock int RO 10
MaxPendingLock int RO 0
What does MaxGrantedLock mean here? Will it not grant more than 10 locks at one time?
I have about 60 simultaneous users on file shares at any one time and they are intermittently not receiving the "file in use" statement from the server. Could this be part of the problem?
Thanks in advance
Mike

403, extra user, files locked....

Have been happy for years - have just set up a dozen web sites in Sites/ by moving them from another folder (where they were fine - just thought I'd use the Sites folder...) and suddenly these problems.
I have read and tried things - repaired permissions, Apache hosts etc all fine (and always were) and signposted correctly to new folder.
So...saving a web site (I use Rapidweaver) says it cant save because the file is locked.
In "Info". It isn't.
Someone suggested that I may not be the owner suddenly - where is this shown (not in "Info")?
In "info" quite a few files have a new extra user.
Me, rw, staff, r, everyone, r and now...
everyone again but with Custom access. And it cannot be removed.
So to the web sites. set up in Sites/ as, say, /hereford.
This site works fine.
as /wizard - the index page is fine but subsequent pages such as parties have css and images in a subfolder which are not being accessed/served.
Other sites just get a 403 yet I cannot work out what is different!
html. php - some work some don't.
None of the folders or files are locked (in "Info").
Any ideas, please?

Hi Dave,
Most of the time, nothing is actually locking the file itself. When a user is modifying the file, Office will create a hidden temp file. It's the temp file that gets accessed by any programs.
This KB Article has a description of the way that Excel saves files:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/814068/en-us
There are multiple causes for the problem, here is a public blog from the Microsoft Excel Support Team, which has a thorough discussion of the file locking issues. You might want to have a look:
http://blogs.technet.com/b/the_microsoft_excel_support_team_blog/archive/2012/05/14/the-definitive-locked-file-post.aspx
Thanks,
Ethan Hua CHN
Forum Support
Come back and mark the replies as answers if they help and unmark them if they provide no help.
If you have any feedback on our support, please click
here

MS Office file locking on SMB share

I have both Windows and Mac clients accessing the same SMB share. There are file locking issues with Microsoft Office files, eg Excel.
Scenario 1:
1) PC User connects to the share and opens file test.xls. The PC user gets read/write access.
2) Mac user connects to the share and opens file test.xls. The file opens read-only. This is the desired behavior.
Scenario 2 (the problem):
1) Mac user connects to the share and opens file test.xls. The Mac user gets read/write access.
2) PC user connects to the share and tries to access file test.xls. Access fails with the following error: "Cannot access 'test.xls'".
A few details:
The share is on a NAS (network-attached-storage) device, although I can reproduce the same behavior on a windows server or Samba server as well.
The Macs are OSX 10.4 or 10.3 with Office 2004
The PCs are XP SP2 with Office XP Pro
My storage vendor says this is a 'Mac issue'. Any thoughts?
Thanks!
Various Mac OS X (10.4.6)

There are plenty of free ways to view at MS Office, but I don't think there are any to let you edit it. Most free apps are free for a reason (luring people in for purchases/upgrades, or supporting a commercial company as a portal, or as public services) - a dedicated professional app such as this is going to cost you less than 10 dollars.

Row locking issue with version enabled tables

I've been testing the effect of locking in version enabled tables in order to assess workspace manager restrictions when updating records in different workspaces and I have encountered a locking problem where I can't seem to update different records of the same table in different sessions if these same records have been previously updated & committed in another workspace.
I'm running the tests on 11.2.0.3. I have ROW_LEVEL_LOCKING set to ON.
Here's a simple test case (I have many other test cases which fail as well but understanding why this one causes a locking problem will help me understand the results from my other test cases):
--Change tablespace names as required
create table t1 (id varchar2(36) not null, name varchar2(50) not null) tablespace XXX;
alter table t1 add constraint t1_pk primary key (id) using index tablespace XXX;
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
insert into t1 values ('1', 'name1');
insert into t1 values ('2', 'name2');
insert into t1 values ('3', 'name3');
commit;
exec dbms_wm.enableversioning('t1');
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
exec dbms_wm.createworkspace('TESTWSM1');
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('TESTWSM1');
--update 2 records in a non-LIVE workspace in preparation for updating in different workspaces later
update t1 set name = name||'changed' where id in ('1', '2');
commit;
quit;
--Now in a separate session (called session 1 for this example) run the following without committing the changes:
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '1';
--Now in another session (session 2) update a different record from the same table. The below update will hang waiting on the transaction in session 1 to complete (via commit/rollback):
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '2';
I'm surprised records of different ids can't be updated in different sessions i.e. why does session 1 lock the update of record 2 which is not being updated anywhere else. I've tried this using different non-LIVE workspaces with similar results. I've tried changing table properties e.g. initrans with and still get a lock. The changes to table properties are successfully propagated to the _LT tables but not all the related workspace manager tables created for table T1 above. I'm not sure if this is the issue.
Note an example of the background workspace manager query that may create the lock is something like:
UPDATE TESTWSM.T1_LT SET LTLOCK = WMSYS.LT_CTX_PKG.CHECKNGETLOCK(:B6 , LTLOCK, NEXTVER, :B3 , 0,'UPDATE', VERSION, DELSTATUS, :B5 ), NEXTVER = WMSYS.LT_CTX_PKG.GETNEXTVER(NEXTVER,:B4 ,VERSION,:B3 ,:B2 ,683) WHERE ROWID = :B1
Any help with this will be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Hi Ben,
Thanks for your quick response.
I've tested your suggestion and it does work with 2 workspaces but the same problem is enountered when additional workspaces are created.
It seems if multiple workspaces are used in a multi user environment, locks will be inevitable which will degrade performance especially if a long transaction is used.
Deadlocks can also be encountered where eventually one of the sessions is rolled back by the database.
Is there a way of avoiding this e.g. by controlling the creation of workspaces and table updates?
I've updated my test case below to demonstrate the extra workspace locking issue.
--change tablespace name as required
create table t1 (id varchar2(36) not null, name varchar2(50) not null) tablespace XXX;
alter table t1 add constraint t1_pk primary key (id) using index tablespace XXX;
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
insert into t1 values ('1', 'name1');
insert into t1 values ('2', 'name2');
insert into t1 values ('3', 'name3');
commit;
exec dbms_wm.enableversioning('t1');
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
exec dbms_wm.createworkspace('TESTWSM1');
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('TESTWSM1');
update t1 set name = name||'changed' where id in ('1', '2');
commit;
Session 1:
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '1';
session 2:
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '2';
--end of original test case, start of additional workspace locking issue:
Session 1:
rollback;
Session 2:
rollback;
--update record in both workspaces
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '3';
commit;
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('TESTWSM1');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '3';
commit;
Session 1:
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '1';
session 2:
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '2';
Session 1:
rollback;
Session 2:
rollback;
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
exec dbms_wm.createworkspace('TESTWSM2');
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('TESTWSM2');
update t1 set name = name||'changed2' where id in ('1', '2');
commit;
Session 1:
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '1';
--this now gets locked out by session 1
session 2:
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '2';
Session 1:
rollback;
Session 2:
rollback;
--update record 3 in TESTWSM2
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('TESTWSM2');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '3';
commit;
Session 1:
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '1';
--this is still locked out by session 1
session 2:
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '2';
Session 1:
rollback;
Session 2:
rollback;
--try updating LIVE
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '3';
commit;
Session 1:
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '1';
--this is still locked out by session 1
session 2:
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '2';
Session 1:
rollback;
Session 2:
rollback;
--try updating TESTWSM1 workspace too - so all have been updated since TESTWSM2 was created
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('TESTWSM1');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '3';
commit;
Session 1:
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '1';
--this is still locked out by session 1
session 2:
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '2';
Session 1:
rollback;
Session 2:
rollback;
--try updating every workspace afresh
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
update t1 set name = 'changedA' where id = '3';
commit;
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('TESTWSM1');
update t1 set name = 'changedB' where id = '3';
commit;
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('TESTWSM2');
update t1 set name = 'changedC' where id = '3';
commit;
Session 1:
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '1';
--this is still locked out by session 1
session 2:
exec dbms_wm.gotoworkspace('LIVE');
update t1 set name = 'changed' where id = '2';
Session 1:
rollback;
Session 2:
rollback;

Issues with file locking when reading a file using RollingFile Appender

Hi,
I am facing a file Rotation Issue with log4j. I want a way to read one file from two diff apps.
Intro: App A is writing a file F using log4j rolling file appender and app B is reading the same file F using new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(new FileInputStream(_file))).
Issue: App A is not able to roll the file. Because it is having a handle on the same file F.
Please let me know how can I handle this issue.

If you have the file open for reading when log4j tries to rename it, the rename will fail. Solution: don't have the file open for reading.
I want to read the feed of such rolling logs without closing any handle.I gave you a solution to that too.
If I am closing the handle after every read then there will be no way to determine where I left.Nobody suggested that.
Is there any possible solution for this?What part of the solution I have already posted didn't you understand?

File locking with OSX Server & Microsoft Word

We have a small office LAN based on a Airport Extreme bases station. Periodically Microsoft Word reports a break in connection to the shared folder where we store documents to get disconnected. When that happens and the user reconnects to the share, the user gets the file read-only message for the Word document that was open at the time.
I have found that in order to clear the read-only flag, I have to restart the server and open the Word file on the server with the ID of the user who was editing the file on the remote computer. Only that seems to clear the file locking that causes the file to be read-only.
I cannot figure out a less drastic way to release the lock file. I don't see any hidden temp files in the same folder as the document that is locked for editing found by ls -a or in the root direction of the shared folder in the .TemporaryItems/folders.<UID> that seems to be holding the lock.
I have run chflags nouchg <Word file> from Terminal, but that seems to have no effect either. I also used xattr to see if there were any locks held that way, but I don't see anything that way either.
File sharing to Macs only, which are configured just to use AFP through OSX Server.
Does anyone understand how the file locks of Word documents can be released directly with out restarting the server?
I should add that the underlying problems seems to be WiFi related. The behavior is that the WiFi connection seems to break long enough that the shared volumes disconnects. Outlook also causes a break. This behavior seems to have started with 10.9 and the purchase of new Retina Display MacBook Pros. I turned off AppNap on the Office applications but that is not clearly helpful. I also have been told the problem seems more likely to occur when Word is open in the background and another program like Outlook is in the foreground.
Any suggestions appreciated.

Apple write an operating system and also produce file sharing software as part of that to be used as a file server. Apple provide documentation for third-party software developers on how they should write software to work with Apple's software and also give those developers early access to new versions so those third-party developers can test and if needed make adjustments and issue updates to cope with any Apple changes.
Some third-party developers are good at dealing with this, some are bad, and some totally ignore what Apple does and give the impression they don't care if their product works properly or not. I think we can all judge where Microsoft sits.
It appears Microsoft have never paid any attention in particular to how Apple expect file-locking to be handled when accessing files on a Mac server. There have been problems for years and years and years with Office. Two other problems I have seen which seem different to yours but probably related are -
With Office documents it is supposed to be possible for more than one person to edit the same file at the same time, consider it a miracle if this actually works
With Office in particular Word, there is an auto-save function, unfortunately the way this seems to be implemented it seems that Word creates a new temporary file each time it auto-saves the document and keeps all the previous temporary files open still, this eventually means potentially over a hundred temporary files are open - just for one Word document and you can then hit a limit on the total number of files you are allowed to have open at the same time. At this point further auto-saves fail, and you also encounter great difficulty doing a real full save of the document.
I do not hold Apple completely blameless over this issue, it is likely their file-locking implementations change too often, and have inadequate documentation, however even considering this a company the size of Microsoft with the amount of sales (and profit) they derive from Office for the Mac has no excuses at all for failing to put the effort in to resolve any such clearly critical problems.
We could go on and on about other areas where Microsoft don't play by the (software) rules. Even in Windows Office does not obey the standard print dialog rules Microsoft specified themselves!
Unfortunately not only is Office for Mac upgraded infrequently, but even when new paid for upgrades are released Microsoft have a history of still not fixing bugs. It goes without saying that a mere free update is even less likely to actually fix a bug, typically such free updates only address security issues. The next version of Office is going to be Office for Mac 2014 see http://www.macworld.com/article/2106643/microsoft-will-release-a-new-version-of- office-for-mac-this-year.html
One area I confidently predict Microsoft not to resolve in Office for Mac 2014 is that fact that Word for Mac still does not support right-to-left languages like Hebrew and Arabic. This is despite the fact that OS X itself has supported this for years and years, and despite the fact other Mac programs support this including the free TextEdit and Pages - both of which can read Word files. Some people may remember that at one point the Israeli Government temporarily banned all Microsoft software over this issue. See http://apple-beta.slashdot.org/story/03/10/15/2215249/israeli-government-suspend s-microsoft-contracts This issue goes back over TEN years!!
I note that Microsoft has now taken their OfficeForMac blog offline, probably due to the weight of criticisms. I would not say it is due to out-right anti-Microsoft hate, that war ended long ago. We just want products that work. I myself do use Microsoft products, even at home - where they are the best solution, so I use Microsoft Media Center for example. Sadly this is now being neglected by Microsoft.

[ADF-11.1.2] Locking issue with SQL 92

I see one Locking issue with SQL92 Oracle ADF Application.
ADF Version: [ADF-11.1.2]
Database: Oracle 10g Express Edition
Situation 1:
With Following setting:
File: Application Resource > Description > ADF META-INF > adf-config.xml
    <startup>
      <amconfig-overrides>
        <config:Database jbo.SQLBuilder="SQL92" jbo.locking.mode="optimistic"/>
      </amconfig-overrides>
    </startup>I have a page showing record 'x' of view object. I open same record on another page. Now I have same record showing on two different tabs of browser.
1. I modify first record and save it. It worked... Got commited to database.
2. I goto second tab and modify same record and tried to same it. It throws me an error - Another user has changed the row with primary key oracle.jbo.Key[38 ] . As expected...
3. I then, reopen the same record on 3rd tab of browser. Modify it and tried to save it. It just hang... as if it is processing the record endlessly.
If I see the Log:
<BaseSQLBuilderImpl> <doEntitySelectForAltKey> [312] BaseSQLBuilderImpl Executing doEntitySelect ... (true)
<BaseSQLBuilderImpl> <doEntitySelectForAltKey> [313] Generating new LOCK statement
<BaseSQLBuilderImpl> <buildSelectString> [314] Built select: 'SELECT ID, CI_ID, COLUMN_NAME, DISPLAY_COLUMN_NAME, COLUMN_VALUE, CREATE_DATE, CREATE_BY FROM ESUSER.CI_AUDIT'
<BaseSQLBuilderImpl> <doEntitySelectForAltKey> [315] Executing LOCK "SELECT ID, CI_ID, COLUMN_NAME, DISPLAY_COLUMN_NAME, COLUMN_VALUE, CREATE_DATE, CREATE_BY FROM ESUSER.CI_AUDIT WHERE ID=? FOR UPDATE"
<BaseSQLBuilderImpl> <bindWhereAttrValue> [316] Where binding param 1: 38
That's it.. nothing happens further.. If I execute above query on SQL Worksheet, it doesn't come up with the result. Just hang for something...
SELECT ID, CI_ID, COLUMN_NAME, DISPLAY_COLUMN_NAME, COLUMN_VALUE, CREATE_DATE, CREATE_BY FROM ESUSER.CI_AUDIT WHERE ID='38' FOR UPDATE I can execute above query for other record of same table but not '38'. Even if I fire commit command to database, it is not working.
I have to restart the database services to bring everything to normal state.
Situation 2:
With Oracle as Database :
    <startup>
      <amconfig-overrides>
        <config:Database jbo.SQLBuilder="Oracle" jbo.locking.mode="optimistic"/>
      </amconfig-overrides>
    </startup>Everything is working file. i.e. at step 3, record is getting modified successfully with following log:
<OracleSQLBuilderImpl> <doEntitySelectForAltKey> [27] OracleSQLBuilder Executing doEntitySelect on: ESUSER.CI_AUDIT (true)
<ADFLogger> <begin> Entity read all attributes
<OracleSQLBuilderImpl> <buildSelectString> [28] Built select: 'SELECT ID, CI_ID, COLUMN_NAME, DISPLAY_COLUMN_NAME, COLUMN_VALUE, CREATE_DATE, CREATE_BY FROM ESUSER.CI_AUDIT CIAudit'
<OracleSQLBuilderImpl> <doEntitySelectForAltKey> [29] Executing LOCK...SELECT ID, CI_ID, COLUMN_NAME, DISPLAY_COLUMN_NAME, COLUMN_VALUE, CREATE_DATE, CREATE_BY FROM ESUSER.CI_AUDIT CIAudit WHERE ID=? FOR UPDATE NOWAIT
<ADFLogger> <addContextData> Entity read all attributes
<OracleSQLBuilderImpl> <bindWhereAttrValue> [30] Where binding param 1: 38
<ADFLogger> <addContextData> Entity read all attributes
<ADFLogger> <end> Entity read all attributes
<ADFLogger> <end> Lock Entity
<ADFLogger> <begin> Before posting the entity's changes
<ADFLogger> <begin> Updating audit columns
<ADFLogger> <end> Updating audit columns
<ADFLogger> <end> Before posting the entity's changes
<OracleSQLBuilderImpl> <doEntityDML> [31] OracleSQLBuilder Executing, Lock 2 DML on: ESUSER.CI_AUDIT (Update)
<OracleSQLBuilderImpl> <buildUpdateStatement> [32] UPDATE buf CIAudit>#u SQLStmtBufLen: 210, actual=60
<OracleSQLBuilderImpl> <doEntityDML> [33] UPDATE ESUSER.CI_AUDIT CIAudit SET COLUMN_VALUE=? WHERE ID=?
<ADFLogger> <begin> Entity DML
<OracleSQLBuilderImpl> <bindUpdateStatement> [34] Update binding param 1: cip7ri1
<OracleSQLBuilderImpl> <bindWhereAttrValue> [35] Where binding param 2: 38
<ADFLogger> <addContextData> Entity DML
<ADFLogger> <end> Entity DML
Can any one please tell me, what is the issue with SQL92 setting ?
Edited by: Anandsagar Sah on Mar 11, 2012 8:10 AM

The framework works correctly in the Situation #1. Please, note that the locking statement in this case is "SELECT ... FOR UPDATE", but not "SELECT ... FOR UPDATE NOWAIT" (as it is in the Situation #2). When you entered the 2nd tab and tried to update the row, then the framework executed the locking statement and the row was locked (and it remained locked because the framework detected that another user had modified the row, so it stopped the processing and no COMMIT operation was executed). When you entered the 3rd tab and tried to update the row, then the framework tried to lock the row againg, but the locking statement was blocked by the existign lock and it started waiting on the lock from the 2nd tab. So this is expected behaviour.
The interesting question is why you do not get any error in the Situation #2. In my opinion you should get an error because the locking statement from the 3rd tab should fail immediately (because the row should have been locked from the 2nd tab and the locking statement is with NOWAIT option). I suspect that when the DB is Oracle and you use Oracle SQLBuilder, then the ADF issues a DB savepoint at the beginning of the DML operation and rolls back to the savepoint is a case of some failure, so the 2nd tab has not left any lock. You can check this by setting on SQL trace on the DB server.
Dimitar

DW CS3 cross-platform check in/out file locking

Here is my setup:
* Apple X-Serve file server (as a mapped drive on several
Windows XPsp2
machines and a shared drive on one Mac 10.4)
* Up-to-date Dreamweaver CS3 on every machine (3 windows, 1
mac)
* Enable file check in and check out (site preference for all
installations)
* Contribute compatibility (site preference for all
installations)
The problem is that when a file is checked in on the mac, the
file becomes
locked such that the windows machines can't check out the
file. All of the
windows machines check out and check in files with no problem
if the mac hasn't
touched them. Once the mac has checked in a file, I have to
"unlock" the file
via the right-click context menu on the file. (This unlock is
called "Turn off
Read Only" on the windows version.)
Windows FTP Log on check out after mac check in:
/.../public_html/help/faq.php - locked
/.../public_html/help/faq.php - error occurred - An FTP error
occurred -
cannot get faq.php.
/.../public_html/help/faq.php - unlocked
Apparently the Mac DW CS3 version of "Check in" and the
Windows DW CS3 version
of "Check in" are different and incompatible. Has anyone else
had this problem
or know of a solution? Removing the Mac is not an option.
This may or may not be related, but whenever a file is opened
on the operating
system other than last edited (mac opens windows edited file
or windows opens
mac edited file), the "Overwrite local copy" dialog shows up
when checking out
a file. When a compare is made of the server/local files,
there are no changes.
Both mac and windows have the same line ending settings in
the preferences.
http://www.hostingforum.ca/700363-cs3-cross-platform-check-out-file-locking.html
I'm having exactly the same issue. Has anyone experienced
this before, and if so have a solution?
Thanks in advance!

In your Site definition, you need to specify the Remote Info
of your
server, and then "Enable file checkin and checkout".
HTH,
Randy
djdeel wrote:
> I am unable to check out a file using the context menu
when right clicking on the file.

Vibe 3.4 Versioning + File locking issues

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for