| Author |
Message
|
| punky |
 Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 2:44 am Post subject: jco error at SAP side WMB flow |
 |
|
Apprentice
Joined: 26 May 2011
Posts: 44
Location: India
|
Hi Masters,
I have a scenario for Publish flow.
The source side is SAP and publishing data to the topics (on WMB cluster).
As SAP side we are using QRFC configuration so that the sequencing can be maintained before publishing data to the topics.
The version of WMB used is : 7.0.0.2
and the level of runtime used is 7.0.0.2
Now coming on to the issue:
A large number of messages (around 27 K) struck in the SAP queue (SAP_ALE_EDIQUEUE) and the error thrown by the message is "com.sap.conn.jco.JCoException: (1000) javax.resource.ResourceException".
When I reactivate and refresh the queue, I get the same error.
I was searching over internet for some help but could not find much information on this.
Actions taken by me:
I have checked for the JCO files to be placed at the WMB server and that appears to be fine.
Restarted the flows and reloaded the broker.
I have deleted the error message (IDOC) and tried processing the remaining messages and found that around 1000 messages got processeed successfully but the issue is occured again.
I have asked the BASIS team to analyse the issue and they say that the gateway connection is closing again and again.
We have another flow which is implementing the ALE scenario (SAP adapter to queue using TRFC) on the same broker is working perfect.
Please help me to understand, what is causing the issue; SAP CRM system or WMB system.
Regards,
Punky
Last edited by punky on Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:24 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| punky |
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 26 May 2011
Posts: 44
Location: India
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| lancelotlinc |
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 5:53 am Post subject: Re: jco error at SAP side WMB flow |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 22 Mar 2010
Posts: 4941
Location: Bloomington, IL USA
|
| punky wrote: |
| The version of WMB used is : 7.0.0.2 and the level of runtime used is 7.0.0.1 |
7.0.0.5 has several relevant SAP fixes.
_________________
http://leanpub.com/IIB_Tips_and_Tricks
Save $20: Coupon Code: MQSERIES_READER |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| punky |
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 6:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 26 May 2011
Posts: 44
Location: India
|
Hi Lancelotlinc,
Can we be sure if this is a WMB issue or SAP issue.
And if this is WMB issue; is there something that can be done to fix it at present level?
Upgrading to 7.0.0.5 here looks difficult as we have gone live in production with this flow and it performed good for a week or so with other WMB flows and upgrading would require work on all the flows.
Secondly, this is working fine in non production environment.
Please advice!!!
Best Regards,
Punky |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| lancelotlinc |
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 22 Mar 2010
Posts: 4941
Location: Bloomington, IL USA
|
| punky wrote: |
| Upgrading to 7.0.0.5 here looks difficult |
No more difficult than upgrading to 7.0.0.1.
IBM support policy provides fixes to current software. If you are on 7.0.0.1 and the bug is fixed in 7.0.0.5, the solution is to apply the 7.0.0.5 maintenance.
You should always be rolling your environments to recent maintenance. 7.0.0.1 was released three years ago. Your management should be afraid of staying on three year old software (not applying the recent fixes).
_________________
http://leanpub.com/IIB_Tips_and_Tricks
Save $20: Coupon Code: MQSERIES_READER |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| punky |
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 26 May 2011
Posts: 44
Location: India
|
Hi Lancelotlinc,
Just to clarify.
You want me to upgrade the toolkit and runtime both.
Or just the runtime from 7.0.0.1 to 7.0.0.5.
The other doubt here was the behaviour in the present case.
The adapter processes around 1000 messages and then throws JCO exception and when I delete some messages it processes few humdred messages again.
Is this ambiguity caused by the node or the runtime?
Best Regards,
Punky
" Just want to be sure before accepting it." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| punky wrote: |
You want me to upgrade the toolkit and runtime both.
Or just the runtime from 7.0.0.1 to 7.0.0.5. |
It's not about what he or she wants.
It's about what you should be doing, as a routine matter of business.
And that's staying within a single fixpack of the most recent release of software that your business is depending on for it's success.
That applies to both Toolkit and runtime. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| punky |
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 26 May 2011
Posts: 44
Location: India
|
Thanks mqjeff 
| Quote: |
| It's not about what he or she wants. |
Here the question was "are you advising me to upgrade the toolkit or the runtime". But that is now covered in your reply.
I will try convincing the big brother's to upgrade and move to version 7.0.0.5
Best Regards,
Punky |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| lancelotlinc |
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 22 Mar 2010
Posts: 4941
Location: Bloomington, IL USA
|
| punky wrote: |
| Here the question was "are you advising me to upgrade the toolkit or the runtime". |
Maintenance application should be a normal activity in your organization. Your management recognizes this.
Whether or not a recommendation is made, it should be automatic, on a regular schedule. Fix packs come out about every quarter (three months). So each three months, your adminstrators should schedule server time to perform regular maintenance. Its like getting the oil changed in your car.
-- side note for versions of toolkit & runtime --
Re: 7.0.0.2 toolkit on 7.0.0.1 runtime, this makes no sense. Significant changes , especially to SOAP nodes, went in on 7.0.0.2. You should always mirror your toolkit version to the intended production runtime version.
_________________
http://leanpub.com/IIB_Tips_and_Tricks
Save $20: Coupon Code: MQSERIES_READER |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
And that's staying within a single fixpack of the most recent release of software that your business is depending on for it's success.
That applies to both Toolkit and runtime. |
Not only does this make sense, but not doing it can inhibit your development. Imagine if 7.0.0.2 had new nodes or functionality that your developer tried to exploit; any flow so developed would fail to deploy.
Case in point: one of our development teams put together a really nifty set of flows leveraging the Connect:Direct nodes in their 7.0.0.5 Toolkits which they'd got themselves. Worked great until they hit the corporate Test environment which runs at 7.0.0.3 and all the deploys failed.
They're currently working out what's easier; re-working their file handling strategy to use File node, or having the 7.0.0.5 upgrade moved from Q2 to now. Personally I can't lose (I wanted to go to 7.0.0.5 end of last year) but it's causing them all sorts of problems.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Bravo |
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 03 Oct 2005
Posts: 146
|
I believe you have different RFC destination and the connection seems to fine.
Can you check Max uncommitted messages on the queue manager level and increase?
_________________
Bravo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| punky |
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 26 May 2011
Posts: 44
Location: India
|
Hi Bravo,
The RFC destination for this adapter is different and we get 2 types of IDOCS as input to this adapter.
The connection is working fine (sm59 connection test is OK).
I am a WMB developer for the project, so will ask the MQ team to get me the details on the "Max uncommittted messages" for the queue manager.
The queue is on SAP side, so does this property on MQ queue manager play a role in generating the failed messages?
Best Regards,
Punky |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| punky |
| Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 6:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 26 May 2011
Posts: 44
Location: India
|
Hi Bravo,
Tried by resetting the "Max uncommittted messages" to 50K.
The error is still not resolved.
Best Regards,
Punky |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| lancelotlinc |
| Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 22 Mar 2010
Posts: 4941
Location: Bloomington, IL USA
|
| punky wrote: |
Hi Bravo,
Tried by resetting the "Max uncommittted messages" to 50K.
The error is still not resolved.
Best Regards,
Punky |
Don't know why you expect different results if you don't take the advice of the people in the know.
There are a dozen IBM APARs for javax.resource.ResourceException on the SAP side, some APARs with suggested workarounds. Not the least of which is to use a recent version of the products. The root cause may not be directly related to load. There may be some data in your payload that trips this trigger occasionally. Such as date conversion or integer conversion.
Open a PMR.
_________________
http://leanpub.com/IIB_Tips_and_Tricks
Save $20: Coupon Code: MQSERIES_READER |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| punky |
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 26 May 2011
Posts: 44
Location: India
|
I have raised a SR with IBM and arranging the details they are asking for.
Below is the error message which occured on WMB side.
Jan 15 21:36:40 wmbServer user:err|error WebSphere Broker v7002[8978440]: (BrokerName.ExecutionGroup)[11825]BIP2628E: Exception condit
ion detected on input node 'FlowName.Input'. : BrokerName.92807a65-2b01-000
0-0080-f2aea027a948: /build/S700_P/src/DataFlowEngine/TemplateNodes/ImbCallableTemplateNode.cpp: 1201: Java_com_ibm_broker_plu
gin_MbCallableTemplateNode__1failMessage: ComIbmSAPInputNode: FlowName#FCMComposite_1_7
Please check if any one has faced this before.
Note: Item marked in Bold have been replaced by me as this is client specific.
Regards,
Punky |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
