473,405 Members | 2,167 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post Job

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 473,405 software developers and data experts.

Migrating from 5.1 to 8.1: Locking problems (isolation level ?)

We migrated a database from Version 5.1 to 8.1 and are experiencing
massive locking problems. We migrated in the following steps:

0) Server 5.2, Clients 5.2: everithing was fine
1) Server 5.2, Clients 6.1: everything still fine
2) Server 8.1, Clients 6.1: here the problem occurs
3) server 8.1, Clients 8.1: not yet done.

Steps 1 & 2 were nessecary because there are to many clients spread
over to much area to migrate all at once from 5.2 to 8.1, and the 5.2
client can't work with the 8.1 server.

Since switching to Server 8.1 we experience massive locking problems,
the lock list is permanently full (>98%) althoug it's now far bigger
than before (ca. 32MB).

The Server and clients are running on W2K, the clients connect via
ODBC (standard installation of DB2 client). We have not and do not now
explicitly set an isolation level.

I've read at some places that the default isolation level was changed
from CS to RR in 8.1, and that would nicely explain the symptoms we
experience. If that's the case, then I'd VERY MUCH like to know how to
change this default back to CS.

We have no statically bound applications that we know of, only
dynamically generated ODBC connections.
I've thought of some possible solutions:

1) Set the server's default isolation level back to CS (WHERE ?).
2) Edit all client's db2cli.ini files. (Yuck)
3) Set the isolation level at the beginning of each
connection/transaction (YUCK)
4) Modify all appropriate SELECT statements to add "FOR READ ONLY"
(MAJOR pain in the a..)

Anyone has a good idea for me ? I'm running out of them.

TIA, Wolfgang
Nov 12 '05 #1
3 2743
Wolfgang,
one of the steps after Migration is to set
the indices to type-2 indices.
It resolves -afaik - the next key locking...

Regards,
Joachim

"Wolfgang Bachmann" <wo***************@ecofinance.com> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag news:1e**************************@posting.google.c om...
We migrated a database from Version 5.1 to 8.1 and are experiencing
massive locking problems. We migrated in the following steps:

0) Server 5.2, Clients 5.2: everithing was fine
1) Server 5.2, Clients 6.1: everything still fine
2) Server 8.1, Clients 6.1: here the problem occurs
3) server 8.1, Clients 8.1: not yet done.

Steps 1 & 2 were nessecary because there are to many clients spread
over to much area to migrate all at once from 5.2 to 8.1, and the 5.2
client can't work with the 8.1 server.

Since switching to Server 8.1 we experience massive locking problems,
the lock list is permanently full (>98%) althoug it's now far bigger
than before (ca. 32MB).

The Server and clients are running on W2K, the clients connect via
ODBC (standard installation of DB2 client). We have not and do not now
explicitly set an isolation level.

I've read at some places that the default isolation level was changed
from CS to RR in 8.1, and that would nicely explain the symptoms we
experience. If that's the case, then I'd VERY MUCH like to know how to
change this default back to CS.

We have no statically bound applications that we know of, only
dynamically generated ODBC connections.
I've thought of some possible solutions:

1) Set the server's default isolation level back to CS (WHERE ?).
2) Edit all client's db2cli.ini files. (Yuck)
3) Set the isolation level at the beginning of each
connection/transaction (YUCK)
4) Modify all appropriate SELECT statements to add "FOR READ ONLY"
(MAJOR pain in the a..)

Anyone has a good idea for me ? I'm running out of them.

TIA, Wolfgang

Nov 12 '05 #2
Hallo Joachim,

thanx for this tip. I tried it, but unfortunately it didn't help. :-(
So if you have another idea, i'd be more than happy.

ru, Wolfgang

Joachim Mueller wrote:
Wolfgang,
one of the steps after Migration is to set
the indices to type-2 indices.
It resolves -afaik - the next key locking...

Regards,
Joachim

"Wolfgang Bachmann" <wo***************@ecofinance.com> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag news:1e**************************@posting.google.c om...
We migrated a database from Version 5.1 to 8.1 and are experiencing
massive locking problems. We migrated in the following steps:

0) Server 5.2, Clients 5.2: everithing was fine
1) Server 5.2, Clients 6.1: everything still fine
2) Server 8.1, Clients 6.1: here the problem occurs
3) server 8.1, Clients 8.1: not yet done.

Steps 1 & 2 were nessecary because there are to many clients spread
over to much area to migrate all at once from 5.2 to 8.1, and the 5.2
client can't work with the 8.1 server.

Since switching to Server 8.1 we experience massive locking problems,
the lock list is permanently full (>98%) althoug it's now far bigger
than before (ca. 32MB).

The Server and clients are running on W2K, the clients connect via
ODBC (standard installation of DB2 client). We have not and do not now
explicitly set an isolation level.

I've read at some places that the default isolation level was changed
from CS to RR in 8.1, and that would nicely explain the symptoms we
experience. If that's the case, then I'd VERY MUCH like to know how to
change this default back to CS.

We have no statically bound applications that we know of, only
dynamically generated ODBC connections.
I've thought of some possible solutions:

1) Set the server's default isolation level back to CS (WHERE ?).
2) Edit all client's db2cli.ini files. (Yuck)
3) Set the isolation level at the beginning of each
connection/transaction (YUCK)
4) Modify all appropriate SELECT statements to add "FOR READ ONLY"
(MAJOR pain in the a..)

Anyone has a good idea for me ? I'm running out of them.

TIA, Wolfgang


--

Wolfgang Bachmann

ecofinance Finanzsoftware & Consulting GmbH
Graz / Vienna / Essen / London
Grieskai 10, 8020 Graz, Austria
Phone: (++43) 316 908030
Fax: (++43) 316 908030-24
http://www.ecofinance.com
Nov 12 '05 #3
Wolfgang,

APAR IY44380 describes the problem you have:
http://www-306.ibm.com/cgi-bin/db2ww...aparno=IY44380

Solution:
Carry out direct migration to DB2 UDB v8 FixPak 2 or higher.The relevant
APAR is IY44380.

If the problem exists already, you may be able to remedy it with a DROP and
repeated binding
of the CLI packages. An upgrade to a higher FixPak does not help in this
case.

The procedure is as follows (as an instance owner in the sqllib/bnd</>
directory).

Generate a script
db2 select "'drop package nullid.' concat char(name,8)
from sysibm.sysplan where name like 'SYS%'
order by name" > del_cli_packages.scr

Execute the script
db2 -vf del_cli_packages.scr

Check that there are no more packages with the name SYS%
db2 "select char(creator,8),char(name,8),explicit_bind_time
from sysibm.sysplan order by creator,name"

Rebind the packages
db2 bind @db2cli.lst blocking all grant public
db2 bind @db2ubind.lst blocking all grant public

Regards,
Joachim

"Wolfgang Bachmann" <wo***************@ecofinance.com> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag news:ne********************@inet.ecofinance.com...
Hallo Joachim,

thanx for this tip. I tried it, but unfortunately it didn't help. :-(
So if you have another idea, i'd be more than happy.

ru, Wolfgang

Joachim Mueller wrote:
Wolfgang,
one of the steps after Migration is to set
the indices to type-2 indices.
It resolves -afaik - the next key locking...

Regards,
Joachim

"Wolfgang Bachmann" <wo***************@ecofinance.com> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag news:1e**************************@posting.google.c om...
We migrated a database from Version 5.1 to 8.1 and are experiencing
massive locking problems. We migrated in the following steps:

0) Server 5.2, Clients 5.2: everithing was fine
1) Server 5.2, Clients 6.1: everything still fine
2) Server 8.1, Clients 6.1: here the problem occurs
3) server 8.1, Clients 8.1: not yet done.

Steps 1 & 2 were nessecary because there are to many clients spread
over to much area to migrate all at once from 5.2 to 8.1, and the 5.2
client can't work with the 8.1 server.

Since switching to Server 8.1 we experience massive locking problems,
the lock list is permanently full (>98%) althoug it's now far bigger
than before (ca. 32MB).

The Server and clients are running on W2K, the clients connect via
ODBC (standard installation of DB2 client). We have not and do not now
explicitly set an isolation level.

I've read at some places that the default isolation level was changed
from CS to RR in 8.1, and that would nicely explain the symptoms we
experience. If that's the case, then I'd VERY MUCH like to know how to
change this default back to CS.

We have no statically bound applications that we know of, only
dynamically generated ODBC connections.
I've thought of some possible solutions:

1) Set the server's default isolation level back to CS (WHERE ?).
2) Edit all client's db2cli.ini files. (Yuck)
3) Set the isolation level at the beginning of each
connection/transaction (YUCK)
4) Modify all appropriate SELECT statements to add "FOR READ ONLY"
(MAJOR pain in the a..)

Anyone has a good idea for me ? I'm running out of them.

TIA, Wolfgang


--

Wolfgang Bachmann

ecofinance Finanzsoftware & Consulting GmbH
Graz / Vienna / Essen / London
Grieskai 10, 8020 Graz, Austria
Phone: (++43) 316 908030
Fax: (++43) 316 908030-24
http://www.ecofinance.com

Nov 12 '05 #4

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

3
by: heynothanks | last post by:
(MSSQL2000) I have read the transaction/locking sections in the MS-help, online and several books. What I want to understand is the transaction behavior in single statements . If I have a...
16
by: Nid | last post by:
How do I do row-level locking on SQL Server? Thanks, Nid
5
by: Ritesh | last post by:
Hi All, According to my observation using SP_WHO2 in my database, some INSERT statements are getting blocked by SELECT statements. Though the blocking SELECT statement is having ReadPast hint,...
3
by: mahajan.sanjeev | last post by:
Hi All, I am using a SQLTransaction to insert records into a table. At one time, there are 5000 or more records to be inserted one by one. It takes some 20-25 mins for the entire process to run....
8
by: dan.c.roth | last post by:
Hi I am having a debate with one of the Postgres developers (Tom Lane) according to him ms-sql does not implement predicate locking(SERIALIZABLE). Where predicate locking is defined as (from...
375
by: rkusenet | last post by:
This article is very bleak about future of DB2. How credible is the author. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1839681,00.asp
12
by: Rami | last post by:
I have some requirement for an automated payment system. The system has four machines setup as follows: 1- Two machines have a clustered database. 2- Two machines have a .net business logic...
3
by: Brad Pears | last post by:
I have a vb.net 2005 app that asks for a job number. After the job number has been entered, I run an SQL 2000 stored procedure that selects the appropriate row from the Jobs table. I do not want to...
0
by: Caper | last post by:
Hello everyone, I am a bit confused about Innodb deadlock and the "SELECT…FOR UPDATE” statement. 1. Here is a deadlock example 1) Create actor table CREATE TABLE actor(actor_id INT...
0
by: Charles Arthur | last post by:
How do i turn on java script on a villaon, callus and itel keypad mobile phone
0
BarryA
by: BarryA | last post by:
What are the essential steps and strategies outlined in the Data Structures and Algorithms (DSA) roadmap for aspiring data scientists? How can individuals effectively utilize this roadmap to progress...
1
by: nemocccc | last post by:
hello, everyone, I want to develop a software for my android phone for daily needs, any suggestions?
1
by: Sonnysonu | last post by:
This is the data of csv file 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 the lengths should be different i have to store the data by column-wise with in the specific length. suppose the i have to...
0
by: Hystou | last post by:
There are some requirements for setting up RAID: 1. The motherboard and BIOS support RAID configuration. 2. The motherboard has 2 or more available SATA protocol SSD/HDD slots (including MSATA, M.2...
0
Oralloy
by: Oralloy | last post by:
Hello folks, I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>". The problem is that using the GNU compilers,...
0
by: Hystou | last post by:
Overview: Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows...
0
tracyyun
by: tracyyun | last post by:
Dear forum friends, With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each...
0
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 1 May 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM). In this session, we are pleased to welcome a new...

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.