| Author |
Message
|
| eai_guy |
 Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:17 pm Post subject: Message Broker 7.0.0.2 |
 |
|
Voyager
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 90
|
Hello,
We are running on 7.0.0.2 and seeing some issues with data base connectivity. We are using JDBC configurable shared service with JDBC type 4 connection. We are seeing errors related to “commitTrxnBranch” method invocation from WMB class “JDBCType4SinglePhaseTrxnHandler”
Multiple threads get locked and then down the line we see execution group gets hung.
Before opening PMR with IBM, wanted to know if anyone faced issues of these kind. Sorry I am not able to paste exact exception as I do not have access to the same.
To mitigate this problem we are also planning to switch to odbc connectivity by using DSN from ESQL to see this code causes same issues in new execution group.
Is it true that JDBC shared service is encouraged over ODBC connectivity from message broker 7 onwards? I heard some people saying this without justification 
Oracle_XXXXX
connectionUrlFormat='jdbc:oracle:thin:[user]/[password]@[serverName]:[portNumber]:[connectionUrlFormatAttr1]'
connectionUrlFormatAttr1='XXXXX'
connectionUrlFormatAttr2=''
connectionUrlFormatAttr3=''
connectionUrlFormatAttr4=''
connectionUrlFormatAttr5=''
databaseName='XXXX'
databaseType='Oracle'
databaseVersion='9.2.0.4'
description='Oracle XXXX for XXXX'
environmentParms='default_none'
jarsURL='/opt/oracle/instantclient/10.2.0.2.0_64'
maxConnectionPoolSize='0'
portNumber='xxxx'
securityIdentity='Oraclexxxxxxxx'
serverName='xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
type4DatasourceClassName='oracle.jdbc.xa.client.OracleXADataSource'
type4DriverClassName='oracle.jdbc.OracleDriver'
Any comments/ suggestions are Welcome on this issue.
Tried searching topics on same post on the forum but did not find. If anything was run on this topic than please direct me to that thread |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| lancelotlinc |
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:57 pm Post subject: Re: Message Broker 7.0.0.2 |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 22 Mar 2010
Posts: 4941
Location: Bloomington, IL USA
|
| eai_guy wrote: |
| Multiple threads get locked and then down the line we see execution group gets hung. |
Did you collect MustGather docs? If so, post them.
| eai_guy wrote: |
| Sorry I am not able to paste exact exception |
Are we supposed to guess as to what the exception is? How can someone help you if you don't tell them the exception?
_________________
http://leanpub.com/IIB_Tips_and_Tricks
Save $20: Coupon Code: MQSERIES_READER |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20767
Location: LI,NY
|
You changed the connection url format... Don't do that without knowing exactly what you are doing or without having IBM direct you to do that... 
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 6:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| fjb_saper wrote: |
| You changed the connection url format... Don't do that without knowing exactly what you are doing or without having IBM direct you to do that... |
erm.
It looks the same as the default one on my machine...   |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 6:28 am Post subject: Re: Message Broker 7.0.0.2 |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| eai_guy wrote: |
| Is it true that JDBC shared service is encouraged over ODBC connectivity from message broker 7 onwards? I heard some people saying this without justification |
I certainly don't tell that to my clients.
JDBC is all well and good until you try and use it from a node that doesn't support it.
I'm sure there are consultants out in the field that make strong efforts to insert their own java-centric viewpoint on the world and on their customers and on message broker. But it seems a better practice to me to focus on the product capabilities and the customer need. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20767
Location: LI,NY
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
| fjb_saper wrote: |
| You changed the connection url format... Don't do that without knowing exactly what you are doing or without having IBM direct you to do that... |
erm.
It looks the same as the default one on my machine... |
I thought the original had the [databaseType] and [databaseName] fields in it... so to my view this had been altered... but maybe it is different with oracle thin driver ?
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm Post subject: Re: Message Broker 7.0.0.2 |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
I'm sure there are consultants out in the field that make strong efforts to insert their own java-centric viewpoint on the world and on their customers and on message broker. |
You must be talking about those whose answer to 'Life, the Universe and Everything' associated with Broker is to use a 'Singleton'.
_________________
WMQ User since 1999
MQSI/WBI/WMB/'Thingy' User since 2002
Linux user since 1995
Every time you reinvent the wheel the more square it gets (anon). If in doubt think and investigate before you ask silly questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| lancelotlinc |
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 5:08 am Post subject: Re: Message Broker 7.0.0.2 |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 22 Mar 2010
Posts: 4941
Location: Bloomington, IL USA
|
| smdavies99 wrote: |
| mqjeff wrote: |
I'm sure there are consultants out in the field that make strong efforts to insert their own java-centric viewpoint on the world and on their customers and on message broker. |
You must be talking about those whose answer to 'Life, the Universe and Everything' associated with Broker is to use a 'Singleton'. |
I'm sure there were some horse-driven buggy drivers who thought similar things about motor carriage chauffeurs.
Singleton pattern is a tool. You can use it in any language, even ESQL. IBM uses Singleton pattern in many places in many products, including Message Broker. The Infocentre is full of Singleton references.
If a bolt needs tightening, a wrench is a good tool to do that. If a process needs measuring, one tool that many people use (including IBM), is a Singleton.
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/websphere/library/techarticles/0703_boag/0703_boag.html
| Quote: |
| A singleton connection factory is provided to ensure that each thread in the pool is connected only once. The factory class keeps a static map of the threads that have been connected and can either return the existing connection handle, or create and store the connection handle when called by a thread. |
I'm not sure why people get so hung up on the use of the term Singleton. Updating one's own skillset is a good thing, don't be shy.
_________________
http://leanpub.com/IIB_Tips_and_Tricks
Save $20: Coupon Code: MQSERIES_READER |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| eai_guy |
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 90
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| eai_guy |
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:35 am Post subject: Re: Message Broker 7.0.0.2 |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 90
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
| eai_guy wrote: |
| Is it true that JDBC shared service is encouraged over ODBC connectivity from message broker 7 onwards? I heard some people saying this without justification |
I certainly don't tell that to my clients.
JDBC is all well and good until you try and use it from a node that doesn't support it.
I'm sure there are consultants out in the field that make strong efforts to insert their own java-centric viewpoint on the world and on their customers and on message broker. But it seems a better practice to me to focus on the product capabilities and the customer need. |
Thanks Jeff! But customer whom we are doing development says "This was told by IBM to prefer JDBC over ODBC" but I am not sure whether he is speaking truth or not
I did one thing was to ask him "why not ODBC"? answer I got was IBM told us |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
IBM is a big company with a lot of employees.
Again, you can't use a JDBC database connection from a number of different nodes, including the DatabaseInput node.
There are also databases that you can't really access from ODBC.
So there isn't a blanket statement that can be made "always use ODBC" or "always use JDBC".
Even if someone who works for IBM told your customer this, there were probably a large number of caveats or explanatory material around it. Or there were very site specific technical reasons for this to be said, that got lost in the intervening conversations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| the third side to the ODBC/JDBC coin is that you're still in message broker, so it shouldn't matter what supplies the data to the flow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:43 am Post subject: Re: Message Broker 7.0.0.2 |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| eai_guy wrote: |
But customer whom we are doing development says "This was told by IBM to prefer JDBC over ODBC" but I am not sure whether he is speaking truth or not
I did one thing was to ask him "why not ODBC"? answer I got was IBM told us |
Who is "IBM" in this context? Support desk? Sales? Pre-sales? Independant consultant working under the IBM Global Services banner (or whatever it's called these days)?
Also told how? As a response to a PMR? In a product newsletter? In a bar over drinks?
By the same standard of proof, Sun once told me all Java was rubbish. The only difference between your client and me is that I knew he didn't have any standing within the actual company and was speaking anecdotally from a personal view.
(Falling off his bar stool 30 seconds later did nothing to increase his credibility in my eyes).
So to move back to your OP, if your plan is to mitigate this issue by going to ODBC rather than JDBC, the people naysaying this need to back up their position with something definitive.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| eai_guy |
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 90
|
Thanks for your response!
Ground reality over here is In house admin team here is not sure what is going on. They have issues running user trace as well as service trace. All they say is we have same JDBC type 4 error and execution group is hung.
I have seen the code and it looks as below.
Since they are giving only problem definition and no details on exception/traces. I am suggesting to switch to OBBC(by editing odbc.ini and run mqsisetdbparams) and deploy code change to one of execution group and see if same problem remains in specific EG with odbc change
String dSnName = (String) getUserDefinedAttribute("DataSourceName");
Connection conn = null;
try {
conn = this.getJDBCType4Connection(
dSnName,
JDBC_TransactionType.MB_TRANSACTION_AUTO);
// There is a catch block I did not paste here
stmt = conn.createStatement(
ResultSet.TYPE_SCROLL_INSENSITIVE,
ResultSet.CONCUR_READ_ONLY);
rs = stmt.executeQuery("select xx from xx_table where xx = '"
+ variable + "'"); |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| eai_guy |
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 90
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
IBM is a big company with a lot of employees.
Again, you can't use a JDBC database connection from a number of different nodes, including the DatabaseInput node.
There are also databases that you can't really access from ODBC.
So there isn't a blanket statement that can be made "always use ODBC" or "always use JDBC".
Even if someone who works for IBM told your customer this, there were probably a large number of caveats or explanatory material around it. Or there were very site specific technical reasons for this to be said, that got lost in the intervening conversations. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
