[jboss-user] [jBPM] - Re: JBPM 3.2.5, MSSQL 2005 - blocking in JBPM_JOB table
Alejandro Guizar [http://community.jboss.org/people/alex.guizar%40jboss.com] created the
discussion
"Re: JBPM 3.2.5,MSSQL 2005 - blocking in JBPM_JOB table"
To view the discussion, visit: http://community.jboss.org/message/560975#560975
--------------------------------------------------------------
Is it safe to to set transaction isolation level to READ_UNCOMMITTED?
No, it is not. HSQLDB supports read-uncommitted isolation only and jBPM exhibits
erratic behavior in concurrent processes, particularly in process variables and join
nodes. Apart from HSQLDB, jBPM is http://hudson.jboss.org/hudson/view/jBPM/job/jbpm3-db/
continuously tested with READ_COMMITTED isolation.
Is there another, safer solution to this problem?
Yes. Try a
https://repository.jboss.org/nexus/content/groups/public/org/jbpm/jbpm3/j...
newer jBPM version. At least https://jira.jboss.org/browse/JBPM-2790 one fix has gone
towards improving job execution.
Looks like the issue is with having a lot jobs that execute quickly,
which results in a lot of inserts and deletes, which then results in a lot of updates to
the indexes. Having removed all the indexes in the jbpm_job table has greatly reduced
blocking issues, but not eliminated them. Is there anyway to configure jbpm not to delete
jobs, but just mark them as complete?
No, but it would make a fine addition. At some
point I thought of a configuration switch to delete process instances once they finished,
to avoid filling up the database. Along with a switch to +not+ delete jobs and a procedure
to clean up old jobs and, optionally, process instances, jBPM would have a complete
cleaning solution.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to this message by going to Community
[http://community.jboss.org/message/560975#560975]
Start a new discussion in jBPM at Community
[http://community.jboss.org/choose-container!input.jspa?contentType=1&...]
Attachments:
- attachment.html (text/html — 4.4 KB)