Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Failed to acquire exclusive lock on the table store file #641

Closed
RobAustin opened this issue Feb 13, 2020 · 4 comments
Closed

Failed to acquire exclusive lock on the table store file #641

RobAustin opened this issue Feb 13, 2020 · 4 comments
Assignees

Comments

@RobAustin
Copy link
Contributor

RobAustin commented Feb 13, 2020

when run with:

  <dependency>
                <groupId>net.openhft</groupId>
                <artifactId>chronicle-bom</artifactId>
                <version>2.17.596</version>
                <type>pom</type>
                <scope>import</scope>
  </dependency>

it fails with the exception below, but when run with:

      <dependency>
                <groupId>net.openhft</groupId>
                <artifactId>chronicle-bom</artifactId>
                <version>2.17.543</version>
                <type>pom</type>
                <scope>import</scope>
     </dependency>

no exceptions are logged. Its a guess but this maybe due to optomizations put in the proxy class creation, to help startup times.

11:33:48.442 WARN  s.c.s.util.RunnerExceptionHandler - Can not log class net.openhft.chronicle.queue.impl.table.SingleTableStore Failed to acquire exclusive lock on the table store file. Retrying {}
net.openhft.chronicle.core.StackTrace: null
	at net.openhft.chronicle.queue.impl.table.SingleTableStore.doWithLock(SingleTableStore.java:141)
	at net.openhft.chronicle.queue.impl.table.SingleTableStore.doWithExclusiveLock(SingleTableStore.java:117)
	at net.openhft.chronicle.queue.impl.table.SingleTableStore.doWithExclusiveLock(SingleTableStore.java:304)
	at net.openhft.chronicle.queue.impl.table.AbstractTSQueueLock.<init>(AbstractTSQueueLock.java:40)
	at net.openhft.chronicle.queue.impl.single.TableStoreWriteLock.<init>(TableStoreWriteLock.java:38)
	at net.openhft.chronicle.queue.impl.single.SingleChronicleQueueBuilder.writeLock(SingleChronicleQueueBuilder.java:510)
	at net.openhft.chronicle.queue.impl.single.SingleChronicleQueue.<init>(SingleChronicleQueue.java:173)
	at net.openhft.chronicle.queue.impl.single.SingleChronicleQueueBuilder.build(SingleChronicleQueueBuilder.java:334)
	at software.chronicle.enterprise.queue.config.QueueBuilderFromConfig.queueFromConfig(QueueBuilderFromConfig.java:36)
	at software.chronicle.enterprise.queue.config.QueueBuilderFromConfig.queueFromConfig(QueueBuilderFromConfig.java:43)
	at software.chronicle.services.api.runner.RunnerCfg.createQueue(RunnerCfg.java:101)
	at software.chronicle.runner.v2.InputsController.initialiseQueues(InputsController.java:63)
	at software.chronicle.runner.v2.Runner.run(Runner.java:232)
	at software.chronicle.hundredx.RunNamedService.start(RunNamedService.java:160)
	at software.chronicle.hundredx.RunNamedService.lambda$run$0(RunNamedService.java:55)
	at java.util.concurrent.Executors$RunnableAdapter.call(Executors.java:511)
	at java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.run$$$capture(FutureTask.java:266)
	at java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.run(FutureTask.java)
	at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1149)
	at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:624)
	at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748)
@hft-team-city
Copy link
Collaborator

Released in Chronicle-Queue-5.19.0, BOM-2.19.4

@anirudh-striim
Copy link

Hello,

I posted a question on StackOverFlow ( https://stackoverflow.com/questions/77152872/chronicle-queue-failed-to-acquire-exclusive-lock-on-the-table-store-file ) which has the same error stack mentioned in this ticket. Can someone please help me there.

@tgd
Copy link
Contributor

tgd commented Sep 26, 2023

Hello @anirudh-striim - please can you share with us a unit test that reproduces the issue?

Please also create a new issue when sharing this unit test with us as this issue is now closed and marked as released. Once we have a unit test reproducing the issue we will be able to take a closer look.

@NaveenNatarajan97
Copy link

NaveenNatarajan97 commented Oct 3, 2023

@tgd As per your request, we created a Standalone utility to reproduce the issue consistently and created a new issue to track this.
#1446
Thanks in advance.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants