Internal Website Search

that has been concurrently changed by someone else. If it is not acceptable then refresh is not the solution ... to present an error to the user if it tries to commit changes on a document that has been concurrently

.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1110) at java.util. concurrent

(JIoEndpoint.java:312) at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1110) at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:603) at java.lang

.SFSEventManager$SFSEventRunner.run(SFSEventManager.java:64) java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1145) java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run

.JIoEndpoint$SocketProcessor.run(JIoEndpoint.java:310) at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1145) at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run

I have facing a problem when i am executing the query first time, Please find the stack trace below java.lang.InterruptedException at java.util. concurrent .locks.AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.acquireSharedInterruptibly(AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.java:1301) at java.util. concurrent .Semaphore.acquire

concurrency issue with one lock - then when the first process delete the lock and then the folder ... that two processes will try to delete the same obsolete directory concurrently , but this should not cause any problem. support Support

to set the objectdb.temp. concurrent -file-read system property to true when running your server (-D objectdb.temp. concurrent -file-read=true) . If set to true , try false . If not tried already, try

] at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1145) [rt.jar:1.7.0_21] at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:615) [rt.jar:1.7.0_21

(NioEndpoint.java:1456) [tomcat-embed-core-8.0.28.jar:8.0.28] at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1142) [na:1.8.0_72] at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker

it. In addition, we just released a new build (2.7.1_01) that supports concurrent reading from ... :     System.setProperty("objectdb.temp. concurrent -file-read", "true"); (or using

if the performance issue is due to load of several concurrent clients, or maybe same slow performance ... concurrent requests from different users, and also tries to use multiple cores for a single request

version). In my theory, this is a (possible) cause and what we are doing - concurrent access ... concurrently executing threads, as the entity manager and persistence context are not required

.35.jar:9.0.35] at java.base/java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1130) ~[na:na] at java.base/java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor

.ArrayList; import java.util.HashMap; import java.util.Map; import java.util. concurrent .CyclicBarrier; import java.util. concurrent .TimeUnit; public class Main { public static void main(String[] args

(Unknown Source) java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1149) java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:624) java.lang.Thread.run

.AprEndpoint$SocketWithOptionsProcessor.run(AprEndpoint.java:1782) at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1110) at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run

the load. Are you sure about that? More than 10-20 concurrent working threads may cause more harm than good ... ;More than 10-20 concurrent working threads may cause more harm than good. If you change it to 20

.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1110) [rt.jar:1.7.0_04] at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:603) [rt.jar:1.7.0_04] at java

; at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1142)         at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java

;  at io.netty.util. concurrent .SingleThreadEventExecutor$5.run(SingleThreadEventExecutor.java ... )     at io.netty.util. concurrent .FastThreadLocalRunnable.run(FastThreadLocalRunnable

have to manage the concurrency for the operations on db............... with a method static i ... singleton for read, update, write at db if 2 client it call the methods on mode concurrent ????? write

this is related to registering persistable types in the database concurrently , i.e. when running the application

Trying to move a project from test into production phase, I have started to get internal exceptions when working on large data sets: java.util. concurrent .ExecutionException: com.objectdb.o.InternalException: Unexpected internal exception .... Caused by: com.objectdb.o.InternalException: Unexpected

pessimistic locking due to a highly concurrent system that requires integrity on some value. Rest

what may be the cause for this exception? I could understand a  concurrency issue when persisting

seem to be related to ObjectDB but to concurrent access to an unsynchronized ArrayList . It is unclear

. concurrent .TimeUnit . Could you please check if after changing the type of that field, e.g. to java.lang

call to the PersistenceManagerFactory , locking down set/get methods of the Symbol class via java.util. concurrent

yet why the slowness happens only with virtualization and about 3 concurrent users. Hopefully profiling

file concurrently (queuing additional threads if any). The number of working threads in embedded mode

concurrently can cause exactly this issue of structural issues (orphan pages and page with multiple

. This is demonstrated for example on this tutorial . For real concurrent multi threading you just have to use

cannot write to the same ObjectDB database concurrently . Future versions may remove this limitation

another concurrent transaction that cannot yet see the operations of the first transaction. The connection

Optimistic locking failure: I am using a Semaphore to force this execution of concurrents transactions T1 and T2 that cause parallel updates to A/B but it does not throw an OptimisticLockException and roll back. T1 T2 ---------------------------------------------------------- READ(A) version=1

.DispatchedTask.run(Dispatched.kt:233) at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1149) at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:624

.lang.InterruptedException at java.util. concurrent .locks.AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.acquireSharedInterruptibly(AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.java:1177) at java.util. concurrent .Semaphore.acquire(Semaphore

.net.JIoEndpoint$SocketProcessor.run(JIoEndpoint.java:310) at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1142) at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run

(Unknown Source)         at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(Unknown Source)         at java.util. concurrent

.run(Unknown Source) at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.runTask(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:886) at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:908) at java

.temp. concurrent -file-read", "true"); by the way, in our application it is not possible that some ... and queried concurrently , but no exceptions are thrown later, i.e. restarting the system wasn't really

.net.JIoEndpoint$SocketProcessor.run(JIoEndpoint.java:310) at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1145) at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run

.apache.tomcat.util.net.SocketProcessorBase.run(SocketProcessorBase.java:49) at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1149) at java.util. concurrent .ThreadPoolExecutor

, number of concurrent users, JVM heap usage, GC activity, etc? support Support Did you have these query

, but there is still a need to hold multiple versions for concurrent transactions in order to support  MCC . support

object. Fixed merging entity objects of another EntityManager . Fixed a bug in concurrent

DB in Server mode, I have numerous threads trying to concurrently persist new entities

several concurrent committing transactions together and reducing the number of sync operations by sync

that thread) then you must make sure that the ObjectDB database file is never accessed concurrently by