LOCK REQUEST TIME OUT PERIOD EXCEEDED

Got a VB6 program creating records in an SQL 2000 DB. I have 5 client
machines creating 100,000 records each in the same table at the same time.
On a couple of machine I get the error "LOCK REQUEST TIME OUT PERIOD
EXCEEDED". This happened maybe 4 times. Would this be due to a network or
hardware limitation or is it a SQL DB factor maybe ?
The SQL server is only a P4 with 512 ram.
Clients machines vary greatly and run 2000pro and XPpro.
Thanks for any pointers.
Scott.It seems the table is locked by one process for a longer
time, and this has forced other process to throw the
error 1222.
The LOCK_TIMEOUT setting allows an application to set a
maximum time that a statement waits on a blocked
resource. When a statement has waited longer than the
LOCK_TIMEOUT setting, the blocked statement is canceled
automatically, and error message 1222 "Lock request time-
out period exceeded" is returned to the application.
I think if after every 1000 inserts, if you commit the
transaction, then the resource will not be locked for a
longer duration.
regds,
Shrikant Patil,
MCDBA
>--Original Message--
>Got a VB6 program creating records in an SQL 2000 DB. I
have 5 client
>machines creating 100,000 records each in the same table
at the same time.
>On a couple of machine I get the error "LOCK REQUEST
TIME OUT PERIOD
>EXCEEDED". This happened maybe 4 times. Would this be
due to a network or
>hardware limitation or is it a SQL DB factor maybe ?
>The SQL server is only a P4 with 512 ram.
>Clients machines vary greatly and run 2000pro and XPpro.
>Thanks for any pointers.
>Scott.
>
>.
>|||i see.
so the error was recived because one clinet/process was ready to commit 1000
records while another clinet/process was in the process of commiting - hence
the error.
the chances that a clinet machine would recive this with our software in
practice is very remotei guess as they would probablty never create that
many records at the same time to the same table. even if they did the RETRY
option seems to deal with it well anyway.
Is there other locking methods that can be employed rather than the 1000
batch one ?
Thanks for your time
Scott

Lock problem when inserting and deleting records

Hi all.

I have an application that is using a SQL compact edition database to save/process information.

I run a test that is creating two threads:

1. one is inserting data in Table1

2. the other one is deleting records from Table1

When I run the application, I get some exceptions on both threads saying that the insert/delete could not aquire a lock on the table.

After a while, when I try to connect to the database I get an exception saying that the database file might be corrupted.

Any thoughts?

Thanks.

Hello,

Can you send me the database, and if possible, tell me (or give me) the app, so that, I can see what the issue is? Send it to goteti.udaya.bhanu@.gmail.com. And also, let me know which version of SQL CE are you using (3.1 or 3.0 etc...). Are you using ADO.NET or a native app to do this. Can you send me the code.

Thanks

Udaya.

|||

The db has a very simple structure:

2 tables with strings and datetimes as columns data types.

I am using SQLCE 3.1 version and ADO.NET. So, there is no native call from my code.

Thanks.

Mircea

|||

Hello,

I have tried to repro the issue, with SQLCE 3.1, but, could not. I need one more detail for that, I think. Which version of .NET are you using? Are you using .NET CF or .NET (on a device or on the desktop)?

Thanks

Udaya.

|||

If your both threads are doing DML operations on the same thread at the same time, there is a good chance that you experience locking issues. It could be that both operations need a lock on the same index page and one of them is denied lock for a long time (2000 msec or some thing like that). This looks okay to me. We are trying to improve the experience.

How to solve it? You might solve the above problem by either handling the error or serializing your actions. In the first approach you might want to just catch the error and retry the operation.

But why file corruption? This should not happen. Unless we look into your code, it's difficult to explain. Can you please try using different connection objects in these two threads?

Thanks

Raja [MSFT]

P.S: If this solves your problem, please mark it as answered.

Lock problem when inserting and deleting records

Hi all.

I have an application that is using a SQL compact edition database to save/process information.

I run a test that is creating two threads:

1. one is inserting data in Table1

2. the other one is deleting records from Table1

When I run the application, I get some exceptions on both threads saying that the insert/delete could not aquire a lock on the table.

After a while, when I try to connect to the database I get an exception saying that the database file might be corrupted.

Any thoughts?

Thanks.

Hello,

Can you send me the database, and if possible, tell me (or give me) the app, so that, I can see what the issue is? Send it to goteti.udaya.bhanu@.gmail.com. And also, let me know which version of SQL CE are you using (3.1 or 3.0 etc...). Are you using ADO.NET or a native app to do this. Can you send me the code.

Thanks

Udaya.

|||

The db has a very simple structure:

2 tables with strings and datetimes as columns data types.

I am using SQLCE 3.1 version and ADO.NET. So, there is no native call from my code.

Thanks.

Mircea

|||

Hello,

I have tried to repro the issue, with SQLCE 3.1, but, could not. I need one more detail for that, I think. Which version of .NET are you using? Are you using .NET CF or .NET (on a device or on the desktop)?

Thanks

Udaya.

|||

If your both threads are doing DML operations on the same thread at the same time, there is a good chance that you experience locking issues. It could be that both operations need a lock on the same index page and one of them is denied lock for a long time (2000 msec or some thing like that). This looks okay to me. We are trying to improve the experience.

How to solve it? You might solve the above problem by either handling the error or serializing your actions. In the first approach you might want to just catch the error and retry the operation.

But why file corruption? This should not happen. Unless we look into your code, it's difficult to explain. Can you please try using different connection objects in these two threads?

Thanks

Raja [MSFT]

P.S: If this solves your problem, please mark it as answered.

Lock on system table

Hi all,
One of my stored procedure is creating around 7 #tables.
This procedure comes out after 5 mins with error
1222 'Lock request time-out period exceeded'.
My @.@.lock_timeout is -1.
Analysis showed that this stored procedures holds numerous
shared and exclusive locks on sysobjects, sysindexes and
syscolumns on tempdb. It blocks all other processes and
nobody can do anything.
Can anybody suggests why this could be happening and way
out?
Thanks in advance
Himanshu JaniHi Himanshu ,
If your stored procedure uses SELECT ..INTO to create and populate the
temporary tables this can cause locking problems as it will take out a lock
on the system tables to create the temporary table, but will hold this lock
for the duration of the insert. You can solve this problem by creating the
temporary table explicitly with either CREATE TABLE or with SELECT ..
INTO... WHERE 1=0. You then have to insert the data into the temporary table
with a normal insert. If the table creation happens inside a transaction the
locks will be taken for the duration of the transaction, so it makes sense
to create the temporary tables outside a long running transaction. If you
use SQL Server 2000 you can also use table variables instead of temporary
tables, table variables do not participate in transactions, and so you won't
have any locks on the system tables in tempdb.
--
Jacco Schalkwijk
SQL Server MVP
"Himanshu Jani" <himanshu@.ocwen.co.in> wrote in message
news:0a0301c38c94$a10602c0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> One of my stored procedure is creating around 7 #tables.
> This procedure comes out after 5 mins with error
> 1222 'Lock request time-out period exceeded'.
> My @.@.lock_timeout is -1.
> Analysis showed that this stored procedures holds numerous
> shared and exclusive locks on sysobjects, sysindexes and
> syscolumns on tempdb. It blocks all other processes and
> nobody can do anything.
> Can anybody suggests why this could be happening and way
> out?
> Thanks in advance
> Himanshu Jani|||It seems to me that SELECT INTO is just a single command
that combines both the CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements
(with the benefit of minimumally logging the INSERT).
This means that the X-lock(s) on the system tables in
tempdb is held just for the duration of the CREATE and not
for the duration of the entire SELECT INTO statement.
On SQL Server 2000, SP3, I just ran 'SELECT INTO' into a
#temp table from a 12 million record table and was able to
simultaneously run and complete a second SELECT INTO into
another #temp table while the first SELECT INTO was still
running.
Thoughts?
Thanks, -- Brian
>--Original Message--
>Hi Himanshu ,
>If your stored procedure uses SELECT ..INTO to create and
populate the
>temporary tables this can cause locking problems as it
will take out a lock
>on the system tables to create the temporary table, but
will hold this lock
>for the duration of the insert. You can solve this
problem by creating the
>temporary table explicitly with either CREATE TABLE or
with SELECT ..
>INTO... WHERE 1=0. You then have to insert the data into
the temporary table
>with a normal insert. If the table creation happens
inside a transaction the
>locks will be taken for the duration of the transaction,
so it makes sense
>to create the temporary tables outside a long running
transaction. If you
>use SQL Server 2000 you can also use table variables
instead of temporary
>tables, table variables do not participate in
transactions, and so you won't
>have any locks on the system tables in tempdb.
>--
>Jacco Schalkwijk
>SQL Server MVP
>
>"Himanshu Jani" <himanshu@.ocwen.co.in> wrote in message
>news:0a0301c38c94$a10602c0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
>> Hi all,
>> One of my stored procedure is creating around 7 #tables.
>> This procedure comes out after 5 mins with error
>> 1222 'Lock request time-out period exceeded'.
>> My @.@.lock_timeout is -1.
>> Analysis showed that this stored procedures holds
numerous
>> shared and exclusive locks on sysobjects, sysindexes and
>> syscolumns on tempdb. It blocks all other processes and
>> nobody can do anything.
>> Can anybody suggests why this could be happening and way
>> out?
>> Thanks in advance
>> Himanshu Jani
>
>.
>

Localization in SQL Server 2000

Hi.

I have distributed databases in different language versions, I am creating a stored procedure, and this problably in future is going to be migrated to other SQL Server database. the query that I have inside the stored procedure is this:

Insert Into Prueba Values(14,'31/07/1999') ---> format date of this query is in Hispanic version (this works fine)

But, If this query is migrated to other SQL Server and it's version would be in English, that query wouldn't work, the principal reason is the format date.

Solution that I have on mind is creating a stored procedure that receives three parameters the month,day and year. I want to identify the localization of that SQL Server database and use "IF" conditions and inside of these concatenate month,day and year obviously depending of the date format identified through "IF" conditions.

If somebody has an idea to solve this or somebody knows how to identify the locatization in an SQL Server database I would be thankful.

Thank you again and best regards.

Christian

Hello my friend,

You do not need to do this. Instead, change the way string dates are interpreted in your stored procedure by using the SET DATEFORMAT command in the procedure before parsing the date. Run the following to see what I mean: -

DECLARE @.datevar varchar(50)
SET @.datevar = '2007/08/04'

SET DATEFORMAT ymd
SELECT MONTH(@.datevar)

SET DATEFORMAT ydm
SELECT MONTH(@.datevar)

Kind regards

Scotty

|||

Thank you so much...

I know it's going to work fine.

Thank you so much again !!

local SQL Server 2005 Express and Host with SQL Server 2000

I'm creating an app and have SQL Server 2005 Express installed. Most of the hosts now offering SQL Server 2005 are a bit pricey compared to those only offering 2000. Will I have any difficulty uploading my site and running the db on SQL 2000?
Thanks in advance.I've been searching these forums but all people having about the same question, all have no replies in the thread.

I'd love some feedback on this issue.
I'm quite new to asp.net.

I've got vs installed with sql 2005 express. but I also installed sql 2000 since my host is still using this one.
how can I port the db ? can I use the advanced controls (like login, membership, roles) if using a sql 2000 db ?

thank you|||ok I found some more replies in other threads.

basically I think my best approach should/could be:

-develop the website directly with ms sql 2000 as my database installed locally.
I guess the advanced features related to security, users, roles aren't configurable through the new admin panel of asp.net (related to the aspnetdb.* )
but If I understand correctly I could use sql 2005 for that and then run the tool inside the .NET 2.0 folder to port them into a mssql 2000 database. am I correct ?

any recommendations are welcome ;)

thanks|||

Because it depends on what you are doing. Yes, you can use sql 2000. Yes, you can move the data. No, sql 2000 can't do everything sql 2005 can, so if you write custom stored procedures, views, etc then you'll have to change them if they don't work on sql 2000.

The aspnetdb works fine on sql 2000, as does the sql providers that shipped with vs 2005. The problem is that it varies from hosting provider to hosting provider on how you get access to the sql box, and therefore you can't really give any instructions on "This is how you move your tables, views, stored procedures, indexes, triggers, and data easily".