Write behind with Coherence, What happens if database failover?

When write-behind with coherence tries to delete, update or insert into database but the Oracle database is shutdown, when I start again the database, So when i try insert again in the database show me this error in the cache server:
2009-11-23 23:55:07.926/255.935 Oracle Coherence GE 3.5.2/463 <Error> (thread=WriteBehindThread:CacheStoreWrapper(com.oracle.coherence.handson.DBCacheStore), member=1): (Wrapped: Load failed: key=catalog50) java.sql.SQLException: Closed Connection
     at com.tangosol.util.Base.ensureRuntimeException(Base.java:293)
     at com.oracle.coherence.handson.DBCacheStore.load(DBCacheStore.java:64)
     at com.oracle.coherence.handson.DBCacheStore.store(DBCacheStore.java:77)
     at com.tangosol.net.cache.ReadWriteBackingMap$CacheStoreWrapper.store(ReadWriteBackingMap.java:4338)
     at com.tangosol.net.cache.ReadWriteBackingMap$CacheStoreWrapper.storeInternal(ReadWriteBackingMap.java:4064)
     at com.tangosol.net.cache.ReadWriteBackingMap$WriteThread.run(ReadWriteBackingMap.java:3731)
     at com.tangosol.util.Daemon$DaemonWorker.run(Daemon.java:714)
     at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:619)
Caused by: java.sql.SQLException: Closed Connection
     at oracle.jdbc.driver.SQLStateMapping.newSQLException(SQLStateMapping.java:70)
     at oracle.jdbc.driver.DatabaseError.newSQLException(DatabaseError.java:133)
     at oracle.jdbc.driver.DatabaseError.throwSqlException(DatabaseError.java:199)
     at oracle.jdbc.driver.DatabaseError.throwSqlException(DatabaseError.java:263)
     at oracle.jdbc.driver.DatabaseError.throwSqlException(DatabaseError.java:271)
     at oracle.jdbc.driver.DatabaseError.throwSqlException(DatabaseError.java:445)
     at oracle.jdbc.driver.PhysicalConnection.prepareStatement(PhysicalConnection.java:3127)
     at oracle.jdbc.driver.PhysicalConnection.prepareStatement(PhysicalConnection.java:3042)
     at com.oracle.coherence.handson.DBCacheStore.load(DBCacheStore.java:50)
     ... 6 more
How i can reestablish the database connection without restart my cache server?
Please Help me!!!
Sorry for my english.

Hi,
It looks like you are using com.oracle.coherence.handson.DBCacheStore.
http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E13924_01/coh.340/e14135/cohjdev.htm
If so, then I think that you could simply change the following method in the DBCacheStore ...
public Connection getConnection()
        if (m_con == null || m_con.isClosed())
            configureConnection();
        return m_con;
        }Thanks,
Tom

Similar Messages

I've lost the voice track when I listen to music with headphones.What happened? Can I get the complete sound back?

I've lost the voice track when I listen to music with headphones.What happened? Can I get the complete sound back?

Try compressed air. Try tweezers and a magnifying glass with good light.
The next step would be to Google an iPhone repair service in your area or use this as a good reason to upgrade.
Hint: there's a Reply button at the bottom right of each post so you can reply to the appropriate poster and not yourself.

What happen when Database in Backup Mode?

Hi,
What happen when we kept database in backup mode, Means using command 'Alter database Begin Backup';
Thanks...
Asit

jgarry wrote:
EdStevens wrote:
jgarry wrote:
What do you think of the snapshot backup on page 22 of [url http://en.community.dell.com/techcenter/storage/w/wiki/2638.oracle-11g-backup-and-recovery-using-rman-and-equallogic-snapshots-by-sis.aspx]this paper? (No sarcasm, I'm curious about these snap solutions in general. Though I am really down on Dell for what turned out to be a brain-damaged laptop I got for my wife.)
Well, you can't really make a judgement about a company's enterprise products based on an experience with their consumer products.What if it came from what they call a business products catalog? They intermingle laptops with servers.
Don't know, in general. I do know that for Dell there is a distinct difference between their decidedly consumer laptops (Inspiron) and their "business" Lattitude series. I know that at my last job we had a lot of rock solid HP equipment (servers and SAN) - vs. an HP laptop I had that was trouble from Day One. I'm sure there is a point in desktops and laptops the line can get blurred, but in the case of the OP, he was no where near that fuzzy line.
>
>>
Perhaps I can find time to read the white paper over the weekend ....

Issues with Dunning: what happens after level 3 of 3 ?

Hi,
We have set up 3 dunning levels. That works fine as I could test this because we had some invoices that have moved from 1 to 2 and to 3. The letters for level 3 has been printed and the GP data has been updated. The level 3 is shown and the history shows it as well. Looks like perfect.
However, now the problem starts. These invoices are still unpaid. What happened to them regarding dunning? If I run the dunning wizard again, all formerly level 3 invoices are not in there anymore.
How do I handle this to not forget these open invoices?
Best regards,
Franz

Dunning will only help you on the AR aging process. Nothing can replace other processes to collect the payments. As the scenario you are given, you have to keep your original process. Any open invoice during the dunning period should be handled by manual process or wait until another.
Thanks,
Gordon

Faulty display or connections with display, what happened to this topic?

Faulty screens, the bottom 2 1/2 inches of my 15" aluminum powerbook screen is gone. Ghosty, white, black or liney. Mine went bad 2 months out of warranty.
With 2,234 views and 71 posts, the topic about faulty 15”Aluminum Screens has been closed. No more posts allowed. (this is after the first forum thread was closed some months ago) Does this mean someone at Apple is actually looking at this manuracturer defect? Or does it mean the problem is too popular. I really hate feeling the same thing about the Bush administration as I now am suspecting I should feel about Apple and Steve Jobs.
The 15” and the 17” powerbook manufactured in China in the first part of 2005 have faulty screens. Look to the second page of the posts here and you will find all the complaints, as well as in the 17" forums. There is a “volunteer” named "a brody" who is trying to tell us that there is no proof that we have a manufacturer problem. The one true thing he says is that we all have to call in to Apple to register our complaints. And I say, write to Steve Jobs, directly. Tell him what you think.
We all have the same problem that started a few months out of warranty. For information on your screen: click in System Prefrences, Displays, Color, Open Profile, then scroll down to Apple Display make and model information:
Manufacturer 00000610
Model 00009C20
Serial # all zeros
Manufacture Date B87B9680
I have never purchased the extended warranty because it has always been a joke. Hardware in the past, has always been so good. With outsourcing comes problems apparently.
The update on my computer's screen problem is that now when I press on the left side of the screen, I can’t see anything below 2 1/2 inches. Pressing on the screen no longer makes the bottom of the screen visible. Gone. This is very sad for Apple. Me too, because I spent a lot on my Mac that I would not have, had I not trusted Apple products. I have used and trusted Macs for years.
I have always thought of Apple as a company that respected the people who delighted in their products. Their customers are people who paid triple for a far superior product. I am now disgusted with the kind of care I have received after buying a clearly faulty product, and after being a loyal customer for 20 years.
Please, some justice here,
Sherry

I did call Apple and got a case number when the screen problem started happening 2 months out of warranty.
I am in my 50]s and have always purchased Apple computers - except for the very first one that was a prehistoric Tandy. I have never purchased Applecare. It seemed a waste of money and a joke (I should clarify here my earlier post. I was not intending to say anything negative about Applecare but something positive about Apple because, in my past experience, it has been completely unnecessary for me to purchase the extended warranty. I had confidence in the Apple name, confidence that the hardware would last at least a couple or three years, and confidant that I would be wasting my money if I purchased it). My old Performa and my old Wallstreet still boot up and work just fine - tho of course too outdated to use for most practical purposes.
People who have posted the manufacturer information all have an aluminum 15” 1.67 gh manufactured by the same company, same date, same model number. The 12” and 17” have a different looking problem, but still a similar problem with the screen - same manufacturer, same date. Is it common for so many people to be complaining about the same problem so close to the end of the warranty period? The White Spot (boy I would love to have that white spot instead), the batteries, power supply in the G5 desktop, to name a few - all got the extension program.
It cannot be hard to imagine that consumers could be upset when they purchase a top of the line machine, and have it go bad right out of warranty. My Wallstreet lasted 6 years before it developed an easily fixable hinge problem, and it traveled a lot. My G4 mainly stays at home and is treated with kid gloves.
Thank you for your suggestion about calling Apple again and checking to see if they are looking into these problems. They have heard from many more people since I talked to them last.
Would you please let me know what the “A103 on the back” is that you are referring to? I am curious if your screen has the same info listed on my first post in this topic. If so, you are one of the lucky ones.
Thank you.

A loud alarm went off from my ipad . I think it had to do with icloud, what happened?

A loud alarm went off from my iPad. I thinkit had to do witth Icloud does anyone know what just happened?

A user over in another forum has suggested it could be related to something in Australia and/or New Zealand, possibly an issue affecting certain internet service providers and not entirely being an issue with Apple.
Nearly everyone that has posted in the other thread is from one of those countries and I haven't seen anything news-wise that suggests the issue is cropping up elsewhere yet.
Hopefully things get resolved very soon.
~Lyssa

What happened to Database Control?

Why are all OEM topics now forced to reside under the heading "Grid Control"? Grid Control is not the only OEM management option. In fact, it's not even the default: Database Control is installed with any basic 10g installation and serves as the default OEM manager.
Since 10g was released, I often see the terms "OEM" and "Grid Control" used interchangably, and that's not correct on a global level. Both options exist, and anyone running a single database instance is much more likely to use Database Control over Grid control, or if they don't have a terabyte of physical memory on their host.

Hi John!
I use VMware. I've created a RedHat 3.0 virtual machine and started it with 1 GB of RAM. Then I install EMGC and the local agent. I shutdown everything including the VM and edit its setting to come up with 512 MB.
Boot, start the GC and voila! it works. This is of course not a production ready system, but we have a working EMGC for a couple of machines (100+) on a 2 CPU with 4 GB in production.
cu
Andreas

I have XP and windows 8 with bootcamp. what happen if I delete W8. Xp still boot up after deletion?

Hi all!
i have XP and W8 With bootcamp. Can I delete completely W8 and XP still Boot up?
Thank for your answer.

I have not used multiple drives so can not speak from experience. From this community I have learned that one needs to remove all drives except the one to receive a Boot Camp/Windows installation.
I think this would be the most prudent way for you to remove Win 8 from the 2nd HD. Remove drives 1 and 3 then boot into drive 2 Mac OS X 10.7 and use Boot Camp Assistant to remove the BC/Win partition.
Another option can be used if you have an adequate sized external HDD. Clone the Mac 10.7 partition with Carbon Copy Cloner or SuperDuper to the external drive. Then boot from this external drive and use Disk Utility to reformat the internal drive as Mac OS Extended (Journaled) with GUID Partition Table. Then clone the external drive with 10.7 back to the original internal drive.

Switching from write through to write behind automatically

Hi,
We are considering a Coherence solution to protect a customer facing application from outages due to database failures. This is for a financial company and the monetary value of each transaction is large and we want to provide 100% guarantee against data loss while not incurring any outages. We want to provide a write-through persistence to the database through Coherence which can switch to a write-behind automatically at runtime if the database persistence fails. Is this doable automatically and would it solve the problem I am trying to solve without losing any inflight transactions? Are there any real customer cases that were successful in achieving this using Coherence?
Thanks
Sairam
Edited by: SKR on Feb 16, 2012 3:14 PM
Edited by: SKR on Feb 16, 2012 3:15 PM

SKR wrote:
Jonathan.Knight wrote:
Hi Sairam
I know you can change the write-delay in JMX for a cache using write-behind but I pretty certauin you cannot make a write-through cache suddenly become a write-behind cache.
I'm not sure why you think changing from write-through to write-behind will allow you to guarantee 100% no data loss - do you mean no loss of updates to the DB or no loss of data in the cache cluster? There are certainly scenarios that can occur where you can loose data from either the cluster or the DB that write-through or write-behind will not save you from. Presumably you want to use write-behind to allow for the DB to go down, although you will still need to configure Coherence to properly retry failed write-behind calls CacheStore behaviour on failure. What happens to your data if you are using write-behind and you loose a partition from you cluster (i.e. you loose a physical machine or two or more JVMs in a short space of time) - you have data loss - you cannot guarantee against this you can only mitigate it and have a recovery policy/procedure.
JKJK,
Thanks for your reply. I must have explained the scenario better. What we are trying to do is to have our transactions commit to the database synchronously using write-through, so that during normal operation, the data will be committed, persisted and durable in the database. But our RW database becomes a single point of failure and if some problem occurs to the database during the peak load time, we run the risk of an outage till we fix the database problem or failover to the standby (We don't have RAC architecture or automatic failover and the manual switchover takes about 10 - 15 mins minimum). We want to avoid this by providing a cache-only operation mode during such a failure, where the customers can continue to transact and the writes will get queued in the cache. I do understand that losing both the database and the cache or losing the primary and the backup in the cache would result in a data loss. But I am assuming such a dual failure is rare.
We do not want to run write-behind all the time but only during the database failure window. From what you mentioned, it seems the runtime switching from write-through to write-behind is not available as an option.
SairamHi Sairam,
I would suggest that you configure write-behind to have a fairly short write-delay, and you only return a confirmation to the client
- either after the write-behind succeeded (you can use a backing map listener to listen for the removal of the decoration which meant that the entry was dirty)
- or if the database went down (noticeable from the failure), then it is up to you whether you send a confirmation which also mentions that it is not persisted to disk yet, or not at all
Best regards,
Robert

Write-Behind batch behavior in EP partition level transactions

Hi,
We use EntryProcessors to perform updates on multiple entities stored in the same cache partition. According to the documentation, Coherence handles all the updates in a "sandbox" and then commits them atomically to the cache backing map.
The question is, when using write-behind, does Coherence guarantee that all entries updated in the same "partition level transaction" will be present in the same "storeAll" operation?
Again, according to the documentation, the write-behind thread behavior is the following:
The thread waits for a queued entry to become ripe.
When an entry becomes ripe, the thread dequeues all ripe and soft-ripe entries in the queue.
The thread then writes all ripe and soft-ripe entries either via store() (if there is only the single ripe entry) or storeAll() (if there are multiple ripe/soft-ripe entries).
The thread then repeats (1).
If all entries updated in the same partition level transaction become ripe or soft-ripe at the same instant they will all be present in the storeAll operation. If they do not become ripe/soft-ripe in the same instant, they may not be all present.
So, it all depends on the behavior of the commit of the partition level transaction, if all entries get the same update timestamp, they will all become ripe at the same time.
Does anyone know what is the behavior we can expect regarding this issue?
Thanks.

Hi,
That comment is still correct for 12.1 and 3.7.1.10.
I've checked Coherence APIs and the ReadWriteBackingMap behavior, and although partition level transactions are atomic, the updated entries will be added one by one to the write behind queue. In each added entry coherence uses current time to calculate when each entry will become ripe, so, there is no guarantee that all entries in the same partition level transaction will become ripe at the same time.
This leads me to another question.
We have a use case where we want to split a large entity we are storing in coherence into several smaller fragments. We use EntryProcessors and partition level transactions to guarantee atomicity in operations that need to update more than one fragment of the same entity. This guarantees that all fragments of the same entity are fully consistent. The cached fragments are then persisted into database using write-behind.
The problem now is how to guarantee that all fragments are fully consistent in the database. If we just relly on coherence write-behind mecanism we will have eventual consistency in DB, but in case of multi-server failure the entity may become inconsistent in database, which is a risk we wouldnt like to take.
Is there any other option/pattern that would allow us to either store all updates done on the entity or no update at all?
Probably if in the EntryProcessor we identify which entities were updated and if we place them in another persistency queue as a whole, we will be able to achieve this, but this is a kind of tricky workaround that we wouldnt like to use.
Thanks.

Write-Behind Caching and Multiple Puts

What happens when two consecutive puts are performed on the write-behind cache for the same key? Will CacheStore's store() or storeAll() be invoked once for every put() or only once for the last put() (the one which overrode the previous cached values)?

Hi Denis,
     If you use write-behind, there will be no unnesessary database updates - only the last put() will result in database update.
     Regards,
     Dimitri

What happened to Genius?

Just got iPhone 5c with ios7, What happened to the ability to make genius playlists from any song you were listening to in the music app. This was an awesome feature!

While you were listening to a song on your iPhone, if you taped the screen, you were prensented with three icons, I believe they were Repeat, Shuffle and a Genius icon. If you selected the Genius icon a playlist of similar songs would be assembled. Has this feature been removed?

Firmware update - what happens if I lose power?

First update on new iMac with Mavericks - what happens if I lose power during the installation? Had problems with my Macbook after this situation.

This is why backing up your data prior to any installation is a mandatory facet of using computers.

Can a db slowdown with write-behind cause a slowdown in cache operations?

If we have a coherence cluster, and one cache configured with write-behind is having trouble writing to the db (ie, it's slow), and we keep adding objects to the cache that exceed the ability of the db to consume them; will flow-control kick in and cause the writes to the cache to block/slow-down? Ie, the classic producer-consumer problem, where we are adding objects to the cache, faster than the cachestore can consume them.
What happens in this case? Will flow-control kick in and block writes to the cache? Will an internal buffer just keep growing? Are there any knobs to tweak this behavior (eg, in the case of spikes, where temporarily the producer is producing faster than the consumer can consume for a brief period of time, but then things go back to normal)?

user9222505 wrote:
I believe we discovered that the same thread pool is used for all requests to the cache, including gets, puts and calls into the cachestore. So if the writes are slow within the cachestore, then it uses up all of the threads and slows everything down.Hi,
This is not really correct.
If a cache in a service is configured to use write-behind then a separate thread for that service is started, which deals with write-behind store and storeAll operations.
The remove operations need to be handled synchronously to avoid corruption of the data-set in the scenario of reading a entry from the cache immediately after removing it (if it were not synchronously deleted from the backing storage, then reading it back could give an incorrect non-null value). Therefore remove operations are handled synchronously on the service / worker thread, and not delayed on the write-behind thread.
Gets are also synchronously handled, so they again are served on the service / worker thread.
So if the puts are slow and wait too much, that may delay other puts but should not contend with other threads. If the puts are computation intensive, then obviously they hinder other threads because of consumption of the same CPU resource, and not simply because they execute.
Best regards,
Robert

What triggers a write-through/write-behind of entry processor changes?

What triggers a write-through/write-behind when a cache entry is modified by a custom entry processor (subclass of AbstractProcessor)? Is it simply the call to Entry.setValue() that triggers this or are entry modifications detected in some other way?
The reason I am asking is that in our Coherence cluster it looks like some entry modifications through entry processors have not triggered a write-behind, and I see no logical pattern as to which ones have and which ones haven't except that some specific entries are just never written to our database. We see from our logs that our implementation of the CacheStore.store() method is not called in these cases, and we also see that the cache entry has been modified successfully.
We are using Coherence 3.3 on a three machine cluster with 8 nodes on each machine, accessed from clients through a TCP extend proxy.
Regards,
Mikael Carlstedt
mBlox Inc
Edited by: user3849225 on 16-Sep-2010 04:57

Hi Mikael
Calling setEntry() will result in a call to the CacheStore.store() method unless the value you are setting is the same as the existing entry value. If you are using writebehind then storeAll() will be called instead of store() if there are multiple entries waiting to be stored. Writebehind will also coelesce entries so that only the last entry for a given key will be stored.
What patch level are you using?
Paul
Edited by: pmackin on Sep 17, 2010 12:08 AM

Write behind with Coherence, What happens if database failover?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for