You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I try to use Quartz.Net with RavenDb, I'm blocking the concurrent execution with the attribute (DisallowConcurrentExecution).
When the scheduler start the code start to recover the data from the data base (RavenJobStore.Util.cs, method : RecoverSchedulerData), if the trigger state is Acquired or Blocked we restore the default state which is Waiting.
There is a big issue with this approach. You will not the see the issue if you have a job with CRON expression, specially when the next trigger is not at the startup of your application.
If the trigger is at the startup and your start 2 instances at the same time, the first instance will trigger and lock the the state, but the second instance will restore the state (from Blocked to Wating) and trigger for a second time the job.
Is there any thing that we can do with this? why not simply removing this recovery step?
Thank you in avance.
Regards,
Mourad
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi,
I try to use Quartz.Net with RavenDb, I'm blocking the concurrent execution with the attribute (DisallowConcurrentExecution).
When the scheduler start the code start to recover the data from the data base (RavenJobStore.Util.cs, method : RecoverSchedulerData), if the trigger state is Acquired or Blocked we restore the default state which is Waiting.
There is a big issue with this approach. You will not the see the issue if you have a job with CRON expression, specially when the next trigger is not at the startup of your application.
If the trigger is at the startup and your start 2 instances at the same time, the first instance will trigger and lock the the state, but the second instance will restore the state (from Blocked to Wating) and trigger for a second time the job.
Is there any thing that we can do with this? why not simply removing this recovery step?
Thank you in avance.
Regards,
Mourad
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: