Linked Server Transaction Locks...
Mar 9, 2007
Hey all,
I've been experiencing an issue related to linked server. Here is the scene:
- Application A queries View V located in SQL Server S1
- View V accesses Table T located in SQL Server S2 using a linked server
The problem is:
- Application A start the transaction and it simply gets locked. It throws no errors nor exceptions.
Important:
- S1 and S2 are in different machines
- When S1 = S2, then the application successfully access View V.
Any suggestions?
View 1 Replies
ADVERTISEMENT
Jul 16, 2015
I've got an INSERT that's selecting data from a linked server and attempting to push 10 million rows into the blank table. More or less, it looks like this:
insert into ReceivingTable (
Field1, Field2, Field3, Field4
, Field5, Field6, Field7, Field8
, Field9, Field10, Field11, Field12
, Field13, Field14, Field15
[code]...
The instance of the SQL Server Database Engine cannot obtain a LOCK resource at this time. Rerun your statement when there are fewer active users. Ask the database administrator to check the lock and memory configuration for this instance, or to check for long-running transactions. There are no other active users. I ran it again and monitored the following DMO to watch the growth of locks for that spid:
SELECT request_session_id, COUNT (*) num_locks
-- select *
FROM sys.dm_tran_locks
--where request_session_id = 77
GROUP BY request_session_id
ORDER BY count (*) DESC
The number of locks started small and held for a while around 4-7 locks, but at about 5 minutes in the number of locks held by that spid grew dramatically to more than 8 million before finally erroring again with the same message. Researching, I can't figure out why it's not escalating from row locks to table locks at the appropriate threshold. The threshold in was set to 0 at first (Server Properties > Advanced > Parallelism > Locks). I set it to 5000, and it still didn't seem to work. Rewriting the INSERT to include a WITH (TABLOCK) allows it to finish successfully in testing. My problem is that it's coming out of an ETL with source code that I can't edit. I need to figure out how to force it to escalate to locking the entire table via table or server level settings.
A colleague suggested that installing service packs may take care of it (the client is running SQL Server 2008 R2 (RTM)), but I haven't found anything online to support that theory.
View 9 Replies
View Related
Jul 23, 2005
Hi,I am quite puzzled how SQLServer manages transactions.Whatever the isolation level I set when performing an insertion, otherconnections do not have access to the table in select mode.Example in SQL Analyzer:create table foo (id numeric(10),data varchar(100))On Connection 1SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL READ COMMITTEDGOBEGIN TRANSACTIONinsert into foo(id,data) values (1,'data');On Connection 2SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL READ COMMITTEDselect * from foo-> QUERY HANGSOn Connection 1COMMITOn Connection 2Get the resultUsing READ COMMITTED level, I was expecting not to lock the table whenperforming the select.Thanks in advance for your help,Cedric
View 4 Replies
View Related
Oct 27, 2005
Have the need for going to a table to get an identity value. This is for updating an existing database, blah blah blah. Here is the schema of the table we are using:CREATE TABLE [TableIdentityValue] ( [TableName] [varchar] (50) , [NextNegativeIdentity] [int] NOT NULL , [NextPositiveIdentity] [int] NOT NULL , CONSTRAINT [PK_TableIdentityValue] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ( [TableName] ) ON [PRIMARY] ) ON [PRIMARY]GO
Now, depending on the type of data we are inserting into a table, we need to get either a negative or positive number for the PK. There are two sprocs that control the obtaining of those values:CREATE PROCEDURE GetNegativeIdentity @tableName varchar(50)AS DECLARE @nextNegativeIdentityValue int
BEGIN TRANSACTION SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE
SET @nextNegativeIdentityValue = ( SELECT NextNegativeIdentity FROM TableIdentityValue WITH (ROWLOCK) WHERE TableName = @tableName )
UPDATE TableIdentityValue SET NextNegativeIdentity = @nextNegativeIdentityValue - 1 WHERE TableName = @tableName
COMMIT TRANSACTION RETURN @nextNegativeIdentityValueGOCREATE PROCEDURE GetPositiveIdentity @tableName varchar(50)AS DECLARE @nextPositiveIdentityValue int
BEGIN TRANSACTION SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE
SET @nextPositiveIdentityValue = ( SELECT NextPositiveIdentity FROM TableIdentityValue WHERE TableName = @tableName )
UPDATE TableIdentityValue SET NextPositiveIdentity = @nextPositiveIdentityValue + 1 WHERE TableName = @tableName
COMMIT TRANSACTION RETURN @nextPositiveIdentityValueGOSo, the thing is, we need the read and update of the value from the specific TableIdentityValue row to be atomic - we don't want anyone else reading or modifying that data. The problem is knowing which level of isolation to use and/or locking, and how to implement that. I have tried a few different things that seemed to make sense, like placing a ROWLOCK on the SELECT statement, but is that lock going to hold for the entire length of the transaction? Also, I read that using some of the lock hints can be accomplished in the sense that some isolation levels are the same as some lock hints (e.g. setting isolation level to SERIALIZABLE "has the same effect as setting HOLDLOCK on all tables in all SELECT statements in a transaction" according to SQL Books Online.Any help is appreciated!
View 5 Replies
View Related
Oct 1, 2007
We have a web-based third-party application that has both background processes and user activity requests running in the same database (SQL Server 2005 SP2). The problem is that a background process will start a long-running transaction and hold an exclusive lock on a few rows in a given table (a small table, <100 rows). The web clients need to scan this same table, but when their "select *" statements get to those locked row(s), the web client queries stall waiting for that exclusive lock to be released. This effectively brings the entire web front end to a halt because all clients must hit this table for each user action. I realize that this is the classic lock condition that multiversioning databases like Oracle, PostgreSQL, SQL Server Compact Edition, and other databases do not suffer because they don't use shared read locks like SQL Server. But since we're on SQL Server for this app, what is the way to get around this problem? Modifying the clients to use WITH (NOLOCK) is not an option... there will be major consistency issues unless the clients run in Read Committed or higher. Any ideas? We could tweak this app if needed. Does SQL Server 2008 introduce multiversioning or at least some mechanism to get around this problem? I did not see it mentioned on the Microsoft site, but maybe I missed it. Thanks in advance.
Austin
View 6 Replies
View Related
Mar 12, 2008
Hello,
I have some locks issues on production database (win 2k3 SP1, sql server 2k5).
In fact, I have an asynchronous process that makes SELECT TOP 1 in a table and UPDATE the selected row. The transaction isolation level for doing this action is READUNCOMMITTED.
The isolation level readuncommitted is ignored for the update if I'm not wrong.
On the other hand, I have some transactional activities with the isolation level read uncommitted too.
But when I control the database activity, I find very often locks between the asynchronous part and the transactional part. This is the transactional activity that is locking the asynchronous activity.
The transactional activity is a simple SELECT and this type of query, in spite of the isolation level readuncommitted, makes exclusives locks when the asynchronous makes LCK_M_U.
I tried to modify the strored procedure for the SELECT/UPDATE of the asynchronous process with a "UPDATE my_table ... FROM my_table" query in order to reduce the transaction time. But the problem is always present.
Can someone help me to understand how a select query with the isolation level readuncommtted can make exclusives locks ?
Thanks in advance.
View 2 Replies
View Related
May 15, 2008
Hello, I've a problem with a software developed in C# with the framework 2.0. This is the error I receive : The operation could not be performed because OLE DB provider "SQLNCLI" for linked server "XXX_LINKED_SERVER" was unable to begin a distributed transaction. OLE DB provider "SQLNCLI" for linked server "XXX_LINKED_SERVER" returned message "No transaction is active.". If I try directly to restart the process, it works fine. Is there someone who can help me ? This is the process 1. In C# --> Call of a Query : select from the linked server (db in sql 2005) and insert into a table SQL 2005 2. In the C# --> using (TransactionScope scope = new TransactionScope()) and insert in a table in SQL 2005 which is link server Thank in advance.
View 1 Replies
View Related
Jan 7, 2002
Hi,
There was a distributed trasaction set up and functioning fine, But gave the following error recently.
The operation could not be performed because the OLE DB provider 'SQLOLEDB' does not support distributed transactions
[OLE/DB provider returned message: Distributed transaction error]
Could anyone please help why is this error and how can be rectified.
Thanks in advance
John Jayaseelan
View 1 Replies
View Related
Oct 10, 2007
I have a problem in running this query on linked servers, which has distributed partitioned view.
SQLTransaction transaction;... public void DeleteAllData() { try { connection.Open(); transaction = connection.BeginTransaction(); { Console.WriteLine("Deleting All Data..."); string cmdText = ""; cmd = new SqlCommand(cmdText, connection, transaction); cmd.CommandText = "delete from NEW_ORDER where NO_O_ID > 0"; cmd.ExecuteNonQuery(); cmd.CommandText = "delete from ORDER_LINE where OL_NUMBER > 0"; cmd.ExecuteNonQuery();
transaction.Commit();
Console.WriteLine("Sucessful"); } } catch (Exception e) { Console.WriteLine("Failed in Method DeleteAllData"); throw e; } finally { connection.Close(); } }
The error returned was:
Failed in Method DeleteAllDataSQL Exception caught: Unable to start a nested transaction for OLE DB provider "SQLNCLI" for linked server "SERVER_B". A nested transaction was required because the XACT_ABORT option was set to OFF.OLE DB provider "SQLNCLI" for linked server "SERVER_B" returned message "Cannotstart more transactions on this session.".
I realized that this problem may be eliminated if I'm using stored procedures on the database, and SET XACT_ABORT ON before any transaction.
Please could anyone help me.
View 1 Replies
View Related
Aug 16, 2007
Dear all,
We have connected a Access to a MS SQL Server 2005 as a Linked Server with the followoing settings:
1) Provider: Microsoft Jet 4.0 OLE DB Provider
2) Product Name: Access
3) Data source: X:XXXXX.mdb
4) Provider string: ;pwd=YYYYYY;
5) Collation Compatible: False
6) Data Access: True
7) Rpc: False
8) Rpc Out: False
9) Use Remote Collation: True
10) Collation Name:
11) Connection Timeout: 0
12) Query Timeout: 0
We found that when cannot have any insert/update/delete statement for this linked server if transaction is began. Otherwise, we will have the following exception.
============
Msg 7390, Level 16, State 2, Line 1
The requested operation could not be performed because OLE DB provider "Microsoft.Jet.OLEDB.4.0" for linked server "ZZZZZZ" does not support the required transaction interface.===========
We wonder whether the problem is because Access does not support distributed transaction. If so, do you know any workaround will work for us?
Thanks and regards,
William
View 3 Replies
View Related
May 18, 2015
i want to run a transaction across mulitpule instences of sqlserver with out linked server.
distributed trnasaction can do it with link server , can it do it with out linked server.
View 9 Replies
View Related
Feb 9, 2006
Is there a way to read data from a linked server,within a transaction, without using DTC?The data on the linked server is static, thereforethere is no need for two-phase commit. There isno need for locking data on the linked server, becauseit is not being updated (either from the remote server,or from the local server).I don't want to run DTC because:1.) there have been security-related flaws with DTC inthe past2.) the application doesn't do distributed updates, andbecause the data on on the remote server is static,there is really no data integrity exposure withoutDTC.I cannot specify "WITH (NOLOCK)" on the select fromthe linked server:Server: Msg 7377, Level 16, State 1, Line 6Cannot specify an index or locking hint for a remote data source.I tried setting the isolation level:SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL READ UNCOMMITTEDbut that seems to have no effect on the requirement to use DTC.I still get the message:MSDTC on server 'LOCALSERVER' is unavailable.Is there some other way around this? Is it possible to provide someconnection string parameter, in the linked server setup, that wouldspecify the "READ UNCOMMITTED" isolation level for the linked server,so that DTC wouldn't be necessary.(In other words, can I tell SQL Server, "trust me, this won't hurt"?)Environment: SQL Server 2000 sp4The SQL does something like:declare @x char(4), @k int, @rc1 int, @rc2 intset @k=123BEGIN TRANselect @x=xfrom remoteserver.remotedatabase.dbo.tablewhere k=@kupdate localdatabase.dbo.table1set x=@xwhere k=@kset @rc1=@@errorupdate localdatabase.dbo.table2set x=@xwhere k=@kset @rc2=@@errorif (@rc1 = 0 AND @rc2=0) COMMIT TRANelse ROLLBACK TRAN
View 2 Replies
View Related
Jul 20, 2005
I have a database containing my own tables and data and I wanted tobe able to query this against an accountancy program which has an ODBCdriver. This was never a problem with MS Access and Jet but I hit Jet'slimitations and have moved to SQL.Creating my own SQL database was no problem, but I was unsure of thebest way to be able to be able to have my SQL tables and my accountancysoftware tables appearing in the same Access front end.I created a linked server to the accountancy program. This wassuccessful in that I could see all the tables below the linked server inenterprise manager.My problem occurs when I try to bring the data from these tablesinto my SQL database.I create a new view in my database:-SELECT *FROM OPENQUERY(SAGE_SERVER, 'SELECT * FROM STOCK')(My linked server is called 'SAGE_SERVER' and I am trying to retrieveall columns from the STOCK table.)I then try to save this view and get the following errors.ODBC Error: [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]The operationcould not be performed because the OLE DB provider 'MSDASQL' was unableto begin a distributed transaction.[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]OLE DB Error Trace[OLE/DBProvider 'MSDASQL' ITransactionJoi JoinTransaction returned 0x8004d00a].Thanks in advance,Marcus Thornton.
View 1 Replies
View Related
May 16, 2015
i want to run a transaction across mulitpule instances of sqlserver with out linked server.distributed trnasaction can do it with link server , can it do it with out linked server.
View 4 Replies
View Related
Nov 3, 2005
I am using sql 2005 beta
View 23 Replies
View Related
Aug 5, 2015
We are migrating our database(s) from ORACLE to SQL. In Oracle we were able to issue a SELECT statement and see all of the locks (Blocking and Non-Blocking) currently in the system. The query also included the Process ID of the process we needed to kill in order to get rid of the lock.
We now need to create the same type of query for Microsoft SQL Server 2012. I have seen postings on different sites saying that this info can be obtained using SP_WHO2 or using the SQL Server Management Studio Activity Monitor's PROCESSES tab, but we are looking for a SELECT statement that will give us similar information.
View 7 Replies
View Related
Apr 20, 2004
Hi all,
I have two servers linked with sp_addlinkedserver. Now I open a connection to server1 and try some insert queries in server2. It throws up an exception saying nested transaction could not be opened. Please note that I have only one transaction which builds all sql queries and inserts. The exception message aso says,
" The nested transaction was initiated because XACT_ABORT was set to off"
Where am I going wrong? Please help.
View 1 Replies
View Related
Jan 24, 2008
Is it possible to query linked servers without the Distributed Transaction Coordinator service enabled or allowing network access?
Is that ONLY for transactions? What if I just wanted to read the data and nothing else?
View 13 Replies
View Related
Mar 25, 2002
Hi ,
On my Desktop i registered Production Server in Enterprise Manager
on that Server if i go to SecurityLinked Servers
There is another Server is already mapped, when i am trying to see the Tables under that one of the
Linked Server i am getting the Error message saying that
"Error 17 SQL Server does not exist or access denied"
if i went to Production Server location and if i try to see the tables i am able to see properly, no problems
why i am not able to see from my Desk top
i am using the sa user while mapping the Production Server on my DESKTOP using (ENTERPRISE MANAGER)
And i check the Client Network Utility in the Alias using Named Pipe only, i changed to TCP/IP still same problem
What might the Problem how can i see the Tables in Linked Server from my DESKTOP
Thanks
View 5 Replies
View Related
Apr 24, 2015
I am using Linked Server in SQL Server 2008R2 connecting to a couple of Linked Servers.
I was able to connect Linked Servers, but I cannot point to a specific database in a Linked Server, also, I cannot rename Linked Server's name.
How to point the linked server to a specific database? How to rename the Linked Server?
The following is the code that I am using right now:
USE [master]
GO
EXEC master.dbo.sp_addlinkedserver
@server = N'Machine123Instance456',
@srvproduct=N'SQL Server' ;
GO
EXEC sp_addlinkedsrvlogin 'Machine123Instance456', 'false', NULL, 'username', 'password'
View 6 Replies
View Related
Sep 13, 2000
Everytime I try to open the design-mode of a table from enterprise mgr, I get this error 1204.---
SQL Server has run out of LOCKS. Rerun your statement when there are fewer active users, or ask the system administrator to reconfigure SQL Server with more LOCKS.
There no other users but me. Locks have been configured to their max (over 200000000). Don't understand whats wrong. Please help..
View 4 Replies
View Related
Jun 8, 2004
We've experienced persistent hang up on our application. I tried opening the enterprise manager->management->Current Activity->Locks/Object and I've seen ridiculous entries like master.dbo.spt_values, SIS.dbo.feesclass,tempdb.dbo$##lockinfo205. I don't what this mean? does it tell us that something wrong with the application that does not release locks? please help me.
View 4 Replies
View Related
Jan 17, 2005
I have a simple web application using ASP.NET/C#/SQL Server 2000/Windows 2000
I'm having problems with the server "hanging" for ~15 minutes. Disk/CPU are idle so this isn't a resource issue. In Enterprise Manager, under "Current Activity" I see several processes waiting on:
LCK_M_X
LCK_M_S
LCK_M_S
NETWORKIO
How do I investigate this? My application is so simple, I have trouble imagining how a lock-related problem could ocurr? There is absolutely no concurrent processing done on this server. There is only one user running this app and there are no separate threads spawned.
Although this problem is sporadic, this happens the most while doing the following:
- Open connection1 (for SELECT)
- Open connection2 (for UPDATE)
- Open SqlDataReader through connection1 with SELECT statement
- Iterate through
- For certain records issue UPDATE statement via connection2.
Here are some sample code snippets. Default ADO.NET options and everything should be cleaned up through C# "using" blocks without relying on garbage collection.
using (SqlConnection selectConnection = LeadsDatabase.OpenConnection()) {
using (SqlConnection updateConnection = LeadsDatabase.OpenConnection()) {
using (SqlCommand dbCommand = new SqlCommand(sql, selectConnection)) {
using (SqlDataReader reader = dbCommand.ExecuteReader()) {
while (reader.Read()) {
using (SqlCommand updateCommand = new SqlCommand(sql, updateConnection)) {
updateCommand.ExecuteNonQuery();
View 14 Replies
View Related
Feb 28, 2002
Hi, i have installed sql 7.0 sp1 on a server that frecuently report the error: 1024
"SQL Server has run out of LOCKS. Rerun your statement when there are fewer active users, or ask the system administrator to reconfigure SQL Server with more LOCKS.."
I reconfiguered the locks twice, but the error persist.
What do you recomend to do to avoid this error??
thanks.
View 1 Replies
View Related
Apr 14, 1999
Situation:
When I ran a query and bumped into a message that is "SQL server has run out of LOCKS. Re-run your command when there are fewer active ussers. or ask your system administratroe to reconfigyre SQL Server with more LOCKS." Then, I tried to reconfigure/increase the locks. It could not let me do it. So, I tried to relog on the server, then I kept getting the same message as above.
Questions:
Is there a way to log on the server and reconfigure the locks? Do I have reinstall the SQL server?
I appreciate it ahead of time.
View 4 Replies
View Related
Nov 29, 2001
Hi,
I am getting the following message from the SQL Server 7.0.
I have increased the locks but still it is getting messages on few days.
Coould you please advise me what is the main reason for ran out of locks and how can solve this problem otherthan increase the locks.If needs to be increased what is the calculation method to arrive at the number of locks.
Thanks
>RAvi
"
SQL Server Alert System: 'Demo: Sev. 19 Errors' occurred on CSQWBDB1
DESCRIPTION:Error: 1204, Severity: 19, State: 1
SQL Server has run out of LOCKS. Rerun your statement when there are fewer active users, or ask the system administrator to reconfigure SQL Server with more LOCKS. "
The present configuration:
name minimum maximum config_value run_value
locks 5000 2147483647 225000 225000
View 1 Replies
View Related
Jul 18, 2006
Is there a way to bypass the syntax checking when adding a stored procedure via a script?
I have a script that has a LINKed server reference (see below) .
INSERT
INTO ACTDMSLINKED.ACTDMS.DBO.COILS ..etc.
ACTDMSLINKED does not exist at the time I need to add the stored procedure that references it.
PLEASE to not tell me to add the LINK and then run the script. This is not an option in this scenerio.
Thanks,
Terry
View 4 Replies
View Related
Mar 9, 2007
I have to find locks which have been caused by some particular users before the scheduled jobs kick off and kill the locked processes so that the scheduled job executes without failing. How to do this in SQL server? please help
Thanks in Advance
View 10 Replies
View Related
Feb 18, 2008
Hi All,
I am frequently getting an error of Unable to acquire a LOCK at this time. Something about too many users logged in. What is the limit of LOCKS in MS SQL 2005 ? When I switch the cluster nodes, the LOCK issue goes away. The issue only occurs when someone tries a DDL command. Advice.
View 4 Replies
View Related
Jun 17, 2004
Is anyone have already encountered such a problem :
When a table is locked by several locks (key, pag), either a SELECT request which does not need to lock any row cannot succeed.
In SQL Server Enterprise Manager, I see that my request is waiting for a lock "LCK_M_S" !!!
How I can avoid this kind of situation which seems to me completely abnormal.
I have never been faced with this kind of problem in Oracle.
Thanks for anyone who will help me to resolve this "bug".
View 4 Replies
View Related
May 28, 2008
hello,
I have an application wrote in Power Builder 11 and use OLEDB connection for SQL SERVER 2005 DB.
it works excellent till multiple users access the application. 2 seconds passes and locks appears and blocks all the DB!
I realy don't know what is the reason. In past I used SQL Native driver and it works well with the same application!!! (other reasons caused me to change the connection. not this).
Does someone can help me????????
View 3 Replies
View Related
Jun 10, 2015
I have Full database backup upto previous day and transaction logfile of Today transaction. my database has crashed. I have restored previous day's Full backup. I have faced difficulty to restore today's transaction from today's transaction log. What are the steps to restore full database back and one day's transaction log file. Note: there is no differential database backup and transaction backup.
View 8 Replies
View Related
Oct 23, 2007
I have a co-worker whose sql server 2005 is exhibiting strange behavior. We have already re-installed sql server 2005 and service packed it to SP2 to try and see if the behavior stops but it has not.
Every so often during the day sql server 2005 will start to slow down to the point that my co-worker's queries begin to time out. He turned on profiler to look at what was going on behind the scenes.
We see where sa is releasing and acquring locks to the tune of 180,000 rows in a fifteen minute span when this behavior starts so does his time outs. He has reporting options and analysis services installed but not configured. His only connection is to his local database. Occasionally, you see a number like - (03000d8f0ecc) appear in the Text Data column in profiler for sa. I read something about reporting options using sa for clean up but I don't think that is what is happening here.
Does someone have a clue as to what is happening and a way we can prevent the behavior? It is affecting his ability to work on his application.
Thx
View 1 Replies
View Related
