Thanks. You are right. Back-up does not put locks on tables. I noticed that it was another call in my script, consistency check, that was putting a lock on DB tables and for a very long time.
Yuksel bbergquist wrote: > > I have used SYSCS_UTIL.SYSCS_BACKUP_DATABASE successfully with a database > that is being updated continuously (~60 transactions/second). It does not > block the transactions but may slow down the process enough such that you > get lock timeouts. Try changing the derby.locks.timeout to something like > 60 seconds and see if your problem goes away. > > Just my observation and experience. > > Brett > > -----Original Message----- > From: istanbullu [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:19 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Does SYSCS_UTIL.SYSCS_BACKUP_DATABASE block transactions? > > > I have a tool that backs up a DB using SYSCS_UTIL.SYSCS_BACKUP_DATABASE. > According to the Derby admin guide, online backup does not block > transactions. However, I see an exception thrown from another DB > application trying to execute a query on the DB that is being backed up. > The exception is: "[java.sql.SQLTransactionRollbackException]: A lock > could not be obtained within the time". Does this imply that the admin > guide is not accurate on this matter? The size of the DB is 8-9 GBs. I > only see this issue when DB size is larger than about 2 GBs. > -- > View this message in context: > http://old.nabble.com/Does-SYSCS_UTIL.SYSCS_BACKUP_DATABASE-block-transactions--tp34348234p34348234.html > Sent from the Apache Derby Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Does-SYSCS_UTIL.SYSCS_BACKUP_DATABASE-block-transactions--tp34348234p34394434.html Sent from the Apache Derby Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
