Re: Connector issues

[Jean-Louis Monteiro]

Great note Jon.
Thanks it's appreciated

+1

Le jeu. 4 oct. 2018 à 12:01, Romain Manni-Bucau  a
écrit :

> +1 looks good
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>  | Old Blog
>  | Github <
> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> LinkedIn  | Book
> <
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> >
>
>
> Le jeu. 4 oct. 2018 à 11:59, Jonathan Gallimore <
> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> > I have pushed some commits onto the PR here:
> > https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/174, and would appreciate some
> > review.
> > One the things I found was that if I hold onto a reference to the proxy
> for
> > the transaction, it doesn't get cleaned up, but then losing the reference
> > from the scope at the end of the transaction also didn't clean things up.
> > What was actually going on was:
> >
> > 
> > connection = cf.createConnection();
> >
> > // forget to close it
> >
> > connection2 = cf.createConnection(); // different proxy, but same
> > ManagedConnectionInfo as the TransactionCachingInterceptor provides the
> > same connection
> > connection2.close(); // this removed the ManagedConnectionInfo from the
> > references field on AutoConnectionTracker, so it was no longer tracked
> for
> > cleanup.
> > 
> >
> > The transaction then completed, and connection dropped from scope, but
> > because the ManagedConnectionInfo associated with it wasn't in the
> > references list anymore, it never got cleaned up.
> >
> > To make matters worse, TransactionCachingInterceptor sees that the
> > ManagedConnectionInfo has open handles and refuses to send it back to the
> > pool. The effect is the connections leaked and never went back to the
> pool.
> >
> > So, my latest changes:
> >
> > * Keep a proxy for as long as the transaction runs
> > * Checks the reference list and cleans up at the end
> > * Checks the ManagedConnectionInfo object, and if there are open handles,
> > destroys the connection.
> > * Additionally, if OpenEJB.connector is set to log at FINEST, it should
> > reveal where any unclosed connections are originally opened, to provide
> the
> > developer with a hint on how to fix them.
> >
> > I'll add some tests this afternoon, but any thoughts would be much
> > appreciated.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 3:18 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
> > jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I was thinking the same - do it through the registry. Let me have a go
> at
> > > hacking on that and I'll post back here. Many thanks for the feedback.
> > >
> > > Jon
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 3:15 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > rmannibu...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> that is what I had in mind, throught it was already the case to be
> > honest
> > >> through the transaction registry - excess of enthusiasm probably ;)
> > >>
> > >> Side note: dropped G for now, if we find something impacting g-txmgr
> > we'll
> > >> add it back
> > >>
> > >> Romain Manni-Bucau
> > >> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
> > >>  | Old Blog
> > >>  | Github <
> > >> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> > >> LinkedIn  | Book
> > >> <
> > >>
> >
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Le ven. 28 sept. 2018 à 16:11, Jonathan Gallimore <
> > >> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> > >>
> > >> > I apologize, I CC'd Geronimo in case there was anything relevant on
> > the
> > >> > Geronimo connector side. Happy to drop the CC if its not relevant.
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks for the quick response!
> > >> >
> > >> > Off the top of my head, I wonder if we could keep a reference to the
> > >> > connection proxy in the transaction (if there is one), and remove
> the
> > >> > reference when the transaction is complete?
> > >> >
> > >> > Jon
> > >> >
> > >> > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 2:57 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > >> rmannibu...@gmail.com>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Hi Jon,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I experienced that kind of "surprise" in recent jvm since gc is
> way
> > >> more
> > >> > > aggressive - cause lambda are way more memory consuming ;). This
> > lead
> > >> to
> > >> > > this kind of issue where the GC happens before the object should
> > >> actually
> > >> > > be finalizable.
> > >> > > I suspect we need to rework the AutoConnectionTracker to take into
> > >> > account
> > >> > > these new behaviors and actually take into consideration the
> > >> lifecycle of
> > >> > > the underlying connection.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Maybe I got it wrong but I see the ability to disable the proxying
> > as
> > >> a
> > >> > > quickfix/workaround - which is ok - but it means we need to fix
> the
> > >> > source
> > >> > > anyway as a 

Re: Connector issues

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

+1 looks good

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau  |  Blog
 | Old Blog
 | Github  |
LinkedIn  | Book



Le jeu. 4 oct. 2018 à 11:59, Jonathan Gallimore <
jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> a écrit :

> I have pushed some commits onto the PR here:
> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/174, and would appreciate some
> review.
> One the things I found was that if I hold onto a reference to the proxy for
> the transaction, it doesn't get cleaned up, but then losing the reference
> from the scope at the end of the transaction also didn't clean things up.
> What was actually going on was:
>
> 
> connection = cf.createConnection();
>
> // forget to close it
>
> connection2 = cf.createConnection(); // different proxy, but same
> ManagedConnectionInfo as the TransactionCachingInterceptor provides the
> same connection
> connection2.close(); // this removed the ManagedConnectionInfo from the
> references field on AutoConnectionTracker, so it was no longer tracked for
> cleanup.
> 
>
> The transaction then completed, and connection dropped from scope, but
> because the ManagedConnectionInfo associated with it wasn't in the
> references list anymore, it never got cleaned up.
>
> To make matters worse, TransactionCachingInterceptor sees that the
> ManagedConnectionInfo has open handles and refuses to send it back to the
> pool. The effect is the connections leaked and never went back to the pool.
>
> So, my latest changes:
>
> * Keep a proxy for as long as the transaction runs
> * Checks the reference list and cleans up at the end
> * Checks the ManagedConnectionInfo object, and if there are open handles,
> destroys the connection.
> * Additionally, if OpenEJB.connector is set to log at FINEST, it should
> reveal where any unclosed connections are originally opened, to provide the
> developer with a hint on how to fix them.
>
> I'll add some tests this afternoon, but any thoughts would be much
> appreciated.
>
> Jon
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 3:18 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I was thinking the same - do it through the registry. Let me have a go at
> > hacking on that and I'll post back here. Many thanks for the feedback.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 3:15 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibu...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> that is what I had in mind, throught it was already the case to be
> honest
> >> through the transaction registry - excess of enthusiasm probably ;)
> >>
> >> Side note: dropped G for now, if we find something impacting g-txmgr
> we'll
> >> add it back
> >>
> >> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
> >>  | Old Blog
> >>  | Github <
> >> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> >> LinkedIn  | Book
> >> <
> >>
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Le ven. 28 sept. 2018 à 16:11, Jonathan Gallimore <
> >> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> >>
> >> > I apologize, I CC'd Geronimo in case there was anything relevant on
> the
> >> > Geronimo connector side. Happy to drop the CC if its not relevant.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for the quick response!
> >> >
> >> > Off the top of my head, I wonder if we could keep a reference to the
> >> > connection proxy in the transaction (if there is one), and remove the
> >> > reference when the transaction is complete?
> >> >
> >> > Jon
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 2:57 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
> >> rmannibu...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi Jon,
> >> > >
> >> > > I experienced that kind of "surprise" in recent jvm since gc is way
> >> more
> >> > > aggressive - cause lambda are way more memory consuming ;). This
> lead
> >> to
> >> > > this kind of issue where the GC happens before the object should
> >> actually
> >> > > be finalizable.
> >> > > I suspect we need to rework the AutoConnectionTracker to take into
> >> > account
> >> > > these new behaviors and actually take into consideration the
> >> lifecycle of
> >> > > the underlying connection.
> >> > >
> >> > > Maybe I got it wrong but I see the ability to disable the proxying
> as
> >> a
> >> > > quickfix/workaround - which is ok - but it means we need to fix the
> >> > source
> >> > > anyway as a long term solution. Am I understanding it right? If so
> we
> >> > need
> >> > > to ensure to keep the reference until the connection is released at
> >> least
> >> > > and ensure it was not closed in the pool (kind of testOnXXX).
> >> > > Also wonder if there is anything related to geronimo since you cc-ed
> >> it.
> >> > > IIRC this logic is only in TomEE, no?
> >> > >
> >> > > side 

Re: Connector issues

[Jonathan Gallimore]

I have pushed some commits onto the PR here:
https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/174, and would appreciate some review.
One the things I found was that if I hold onto a reference to the proxy for
the transaction, it doesn't get cleaned up, but then losing the reference
from the scope at the end of the transaction also didn't clean things up.
What was actually going on was:


connection = cf.createConnection();

// forget to close it

connection2 = cf.createConnection(); // different proxy, but same
ManagedConnectionInfo as the TransactionCachingInterceptor provides the
same connection
connection2.close(); // this removed the ManagedConnectionInfo from the
references field on AutoConnectionTracker, so it was no longer tracked for
cleanup.


The transaction then completed, and connection dropped from scope, but
because the ManagedConnectionInfo associated with it wasn't in the
references list anymore, it never got cleaned up.

To make matters worse, TransactionCachingInterceptor sees that the
ManagedConnectionInfo has open handles and refuses to send it back to the
pool. The effect is the connections leaked and never went back to the pool.

So, my latest changes:

* Keep a proxy for as long as the transaction runs
* Checks the reference list and cleans up at the end
* Checks the ManagedConnectionInfo object, and if there are open handles,
destroys the connection.
* Additionally, if OpenEJB.connector is set to log at FINEST, it should
reveal where any unclosed connections are originally opened, to provide the
developer with a hint on how to fix them.

I'll add some tests this afternoon, but any thoughts would be much
appreciated.

Jon


On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 3:18 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I was thinking the same - do it through the registry. Let me have a go at
> hacking on that and I'll post back here. Many thanks for the feedback.
>
> Jon
>
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 3:15 PM Romain Manni-Bucau 
> wrote:
>
>> that is what I had in mind, throught it was already the case to be honest
>> through the transaction registry - excess of enthusiasm probably ;)
>>
>> Side note: dropped G for now, if we find something impacting g-txmgr we'll
>> add it back
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>>  | Old Blog
>>  | Github <
>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>> LinkedIn  | Book
>> <
>> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
>> >
>>
>>
>> Le ven. 28 sept. 2018 à 16:11, Jonathan Gallimore <
>> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>
>> > I apologize, I CC'd Geronimo in case there was anything relevant on the
>> > Geronimo connector side. Happy to drop the CC if its not relevant.
>> >
>> > Thanks for the quick response!
>> >
>> > Off the top of my head, I wonder if we could keep a reference to the
>> > connection proxy in the transaction (if there is one), and remove the
>> > reference when the transaction is complete?
>> >
>> > Jon
>> >
>> > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 2:57 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> rmannibu...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi Jon,
>> > >
>> > > I experienced that kind of "surprise" in recent jvm since gc is way
>> more
>> > > aggressive - cause lambda are way more memory consuming ;). This lead
>> to
>> > > this kind of issue where the GC happens before the object should
>> actually
>> > > be finalizable.
>> > > I suspect we need to rework the AutoConnectionTracker to take into
>> > account
>> > > these new behaviors and actually take into consideration the
>> lifecycle of
>> > > the underlying connection.
>> > >
>> > > Maybe I got it wrong but I see the ability to disable the proxying as
>> a
>> > > quickfix/workaround - which is ok - but it means we need to fix the
>> > source
>> > > anyway as a long term solution. Am I understanding it right? If so we
>> > need
>> > > to ensure to keep the reference until the connection is released at
>> least
>> > > and ensure it was not closed in the pool (kind of testOnXXX).
>> > > Also wonder if there is anything related to geronimo since you cc-ed
>> it.
>> > > IIRC this logic is only in TomEE, no?
>> > >
>> > > side note: reference queue is supposed thread safe yes.
>> > >
>> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
>> > > @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>> > >  | Old Blog
>> > >  | Github <
>> > > https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>> > > LinkedIn  | Book
>> > > <
>> > >
>> >
>> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Le ven. 28 sept. 2018 à 15:49, Jonathan Gallimore <
>> > > jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>> > >
>> > > > Hi Folks,
>> > > >
>> > > > I have been looking into some issues with TomEE using Websphere MQ,
>> > > > 

Re: Connector issues

[Jonathan Gallimore]

I was thinking the same - do it through the registry. Let me have a go at
hacking on that and I'll post back here. Many thanks for the feedback.

Jon

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 3:15 PM Romain Manni-Bucau 
wrote:

> that is what I had in mind, throught it was already the case to be honest
> through the transaction registry - excess of enthusiasm probably ;)
>
> Side note: dropped G for now, if we find something impacting g-txmgr we'll
> add it back
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>  | Old Blog
>  | Github <
> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> LinkedIn  | Book
> <
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> >
>
>
> Le ven. 28 sept. 2018 à 16:11, Jonathan Gallimore <
> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> > I apologize, I CC'd Geronimo in case there was anything relevant on the
> > Geronimo connector side. Happy to drop the CC if its not relevant.
> >
> > Thanks for the quick response!
> >
> > Off the top of my head, I wonder if we could keep a reference to the
> > connection proxy in the transaction (if there is one), and remove the
> > reference when the transaction is complete?
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 2:57 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibu...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Jon,
> > >
> > > I experienced that kind of "surprise" in recent jvm since gc is way
> more
> > > aggressive - cause lambda are way more memory consuming ;). This lead
> to
> > > this kind of issue where the GC happens before the object should
> actually
> > > be finalizable.
> > > I suspect we need to rework the AutoConnectionTracker to take into
> > account
> > > these new behaviors and actually take into consideration the lifecycle
> of
> > > the underlying connection.
> > >
> > > Maybe I got it wrong but I see the ability to disable the proxying as a
> > > quickfix/workaround - which is ok - but it means we need to fix the
> > source
> > > anyway as a long term solution. Am I understanding it right? If so we
> > need
> > > to ensure to keep the reference until the connection is released at
> least
> > > and ensure it was not closed in the pool (kind of testOnXXX).
> > > Also wonder if there is anything related to geronimo since you cc-ed
> it.
> > > IIRC this logic is only in TomEE, no?
> > >
> > > side note: reference queue is supposed thread safe yes.
> > >
> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > @rmannibucau  |  Blog
> > >  | Old Blog
> > >  | Github <
> > > https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> > > LinkedIn  | Book
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Le ven. 28 sept. 2018 à 15:49, Jonathan Gallimore <
> > > jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> > >
> > > > Hi Folks,
> > > >
> > > > I have been looking into some issues with TomEE using Websphere MQ,
> > > > specifically issues where XA resources are returning a -7 error
> during
> > a
> > > > transaction commit when the system is under load. The -7 error
> > indicates
> > > > that the resource is closed.
> > > >
> > > > The result of this error seems to be resources staying in the system
> > > > somehow associated with the connection, and subsequently, these can't
> > be
> > > > enlisted in transactions (because they are closed).
> > > >
> > > > The stacktrace is like this, and happens over and over again as the
> > > server
> > > > attempts to process more messages from the queue.
> > > >
> > > > WARN  Transaction- Unable to enlist XAResource
> > > >
> org.apache.geronimo.transaction.manager.WrapperNamedXAResource@3dd56e90
> > ,
> > > > errorCode: -7
> > > > javax.transaction.xa.XAException: The method 'xa_start' has failed
> with
> > > > errorCode '-7' due to the resource being closed.
> > > > at
> > com.ibm.mq.jmqi.JmqiXAResource.start(JmqiXAResource.java:946)
> > > > ~[com.ibm.mq.jmqi.jar:7.5.0.5 - p750-005-150424]
> > > > at
> > com.ibm.mq.connector.xa.XARWrapper.start(XARWrapper.java:581)
> > > > ~[com.ibm.mq.connector.jar:7.5.0.5-p750-005-150424]
> > > > at
> > > >
> > >
> >
> org.apache.geronimo.transaction.manager.WrapperNamedXAResource.start(WrapperNamedXAResource.java:111)
> > > > ~[geronimo-transaction-3.1.4.jar:3.1.4]
> > > > at
> > > >
> > >
> >
> org.apache.geronimo.transaction.manager.TransactionImpl.enlistResource(TransactionImpl.java:209)
> > > > [geronimo-transaction-3.1.4.jar:3.1.4]
> > > > at
> > > >
> > >
> >
> org.apache.geronimo.connector.outbound.TransactionEnlistingInterceptor.getConnection(TransactionEnlistingInterceptor.java:60)
> > > > [geronimo-connector-3.1.4.jar:3.1.4]
> > > > at
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 

Re: Connector issues

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

that is what I had in mind, throught it was already the case to be honest
through the transaction registry - excess of enthusiasm probably ;)

Side note: dropped G for now, if we find something impacting g-txmgr we'll
add it back

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau  |  Blog
 | Old Blog
 | Github  |
LinkedIn  | Book



Le ven. 28 sept. 2018 à 16:11, Jonathan Gallimore <
jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> a écrit :

> I apologize, I CC'd Geronimo in case there was anything relevant on the
> Geronimo connector side. Happy to drop the CC if its not relevant.
>
> Thanks for the quick response!
>
> Off the top of my head, I wonder if we could keep a reference to the
> connection proxy in the transaction (if there is one), and remove the
> reference when the transaction is complete?
>
> Jon
>
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 2:57 PM Romain Manni-Bucau 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Jon,
> >
> > I experienced that kind of "surprise" in recent jvm since gc is way more
> > aggressive - cause lambda are way more memory consuming ;). This lead to
> > this kind of issue where the GC happens before the object should actually
> > be finalizable.
> > I suspect we need to rework the AutoConnectionTracker to take into
> account
> > these new behaviors and actually take into consideration the lifecycle of
> > the underlying connection.
> >
> > Maybe I got it wrong but I see the ability to disable the proxying as a
> > quickfix/workaround - which is ok - but it means we need to fix the
> source
> > anyway as a long term solution. Am I understanding it right? If so we
> need
> > to ensure to keep the reference until the connection is released at least
> > and ensure it was not closed in the pool (kind of testOnXXX).
> > Also wonder if there is anything related to geronimo since you cc-ed it.
> > IIRC this logic is only in TomEE, no?
> >
> > side note: reference queue is supposed thread safe yes.
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau  |  Blog
> >  | Old Blog
> >  | Github <
> > https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> > LinkedIn  | Book
> > <
> >
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> > >
> >
> >
> > Le ven. 28 sept. 2018 à 15:49, Jonathan Gallimore <
> > jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> >
> > > Hi Folks,
> > >
> > > I have been looking into some issues with TomEE using Websphere MQ,
> > > specifically issues where XA resources are returning a -7 error during
> a
> > > transaction commit when the system is under load. The -7 error
> indicates
> > > that the resource is closed.
> > >
> > > The result of this error seems to be resources staying in the system
> > > somehow associated with the connection, and subsequently, these can't
> be
> > > enlisted in transactions (because they are closed).
> > >
> > > The stacktrace is like this, and happens over and over again as the
> > server
> > > attempts to process more messages from the queue.
> > >
> > > WARN  Transaction- Unable to enlist XAResource
> > > org.apache.geronimo.transaction.manager.WrapperNamedXAResource@3dd56e90
> ,
> > > errorCode: -7
> > > javax.transaction.xa.XAException: The method 'xa_start' has failed with
> > > errorCode '-7' due to the resource being closed.
> > > at
> com.ibm.mq.jmqi.JmqiXAResource.start(JmqiXAResource.java:946)
> > > ~[com.ibm.mq.jmqi.jar:7.5.0.5 - p750-005-150424]
> > > at
> com.ibm.mq.connector.xa.XARWrapper.start(XARWrapper.java:581)
> > > ~[com.ibm.mq.connector.jar:7.5.0.5-p750-005-150424]
> > > at
> > >
> >
> org.apache.geronimo.transaction.manager.WrapperNamedXAResource.start(WrapperNamedXAResource.java:111)
> > > ~[geronimo-transaction-3.1.4.jar:3.1.4]
> > > at
> > >
> >
> org.apache.geronimo.transaction.manager.TransactionImpl.enlistResource(TransactionImpl.java:209)
> > > [geronimo-transaction-3.1.4.jar:3.1.4]
> > > at
> > >
> >
> org.apache.geronimo.connector.outbound.TransactionEnlistingInterceptor.getConnection(TransactionEnlistingInterceptor.java:60)
> > > [geronimo-connector-3.1.4.jar:3.1.4]
> > > at
> > >
> >
> org.apache.geronimo.connector.outbound.TransactionCachingInterceptor.getConnection(TransactionCachingInterceptor.java:101)
> > > [geronimo-connector-3.1.4.jar:3.1.4]
> > > at
> > >
> >
> org.apache.geronimo.connector.outbound.ConnectionHandleInterceptor.getConnection(ConnectionHandleInterceptor.java:43)
> > > [geronimo-connector-3.1.4.jar:3.1.4]
> > > at
> > >
> >
> org.apache.geronimo.connector.outbound.TCCLInterceptor.getConnection(TCCLInterceptor.java:39)
> > > [geronimo-connector-3.1.4.jar:3.1.4]
> > > at
> > >
> >
> 

Re: Connector issues

[Jonathan Gallimore]

I apologize, I CC'd Geronimo in case there was anything relevant on the
Geronimo connector side. Happy to drop the CC if its not relevant.

Thanks for the quick response!

Off the top of my head, I wonder if we could keep a reference to the
connection proxy in the transaction (if there is one), and remove the
reference when the transaction is complete?

Jon

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 2:57 PM Romain Manni-Bucau 
wrote:

> Hi Jon,
>
> I experienced that kind of "surprise" in recent jvm since gc is way more
> aggressive - cause lambda are way more memory consuming ;). This lead to
> this kind of issue where the GC happens before the object should actually
> be finalizable.
> I suspect we need to rework the AutoConnectionTracker to take into account
> these new behaviors and actually take into consideration the lifecycle of
> the underlying connection.
>
> Maybe I got it wrong but I see the ability to disable the proxying as a
> quickfix/workaround - which is ok - but it means we need to fix the source
> anyway as a long term solution. Am I understanding it right? If so we need
> to ensure to keep the reference until the connection is released at least
> and ensure it was not closed in the pool (kind of testOnXXX).
> Also wonder if there is anything related to geronimo since you cc-ed it.
> IIRC this logic is only in TomEE, no?
>
> side note: reference queue is supposed thread safe yes.
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>  | Old Blog
>  | Github <
> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> LinkedIn  | Book
> <
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> >
>
>
> Le ven. 28 sept. 2018 à 15:49, Jonathan Gallimore <
> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> > Hi Folks,
> >
> > I have been looking into some issues with TomEE using Websphere MQ,
> > specifically issues where XA resources are returning a -7 error during a
> > transaction commit when the system is under load. The -7 error indicates
> > that the resource is closed.
> >
> > The result of this error seems to be resources staying in the system
> > somehow associated with the connection, and subsequently, these can't be
> > enlisted in transactions (because they are closed).
> >
> > The stacktrace is like this, and happens over and over again as the
> server
> > attempts to process more messages from the queue.
> >
> > WARN  Transaction- Unable to enlist XAResource
> > org.apache.geronimo.transaction.manager.WrapperNamedXAResource@3dd56e90,
> > errorCode: -7
> > javax.transaction.xa.XAException: The method 'xa_start' has failed with
> > errorCode '-7' due to the resource being closed.
> > at com.ibm.mq.jmqi.JmqiXAResource.start(JmqiXAResource.java:946)
> > ~[com.ibm.mq.jmqi.jar:7.5.0.5 - p750-005-150424]
> > at com.ibm.mq.connector.xa.XARWrapper.start(XARWrapper.java:581)
> > ~[com.ibm.mq.connector.jar:7.5.0.5-p750-005-150424]
> > at
> >
> org.apache.geronimo.transaction.manager.WrapperNamedXAResource.start(WrapperNamedXAResource.java:111)
> > ~[geronimo-transaction-3.1.4.jar:3.1.4]
> > at
> >
> org.apache.geronimo.transaction.manager.TransactionImpl.enlistResource(TransactionImpl.java:209)
> > [geronimo-transaction-3.1.4.jar:3.1.4]
> > at
> >
> org.apache.geronimo.connector.outbound.TransactionEnlistingInterceptor.getConnection(TransactionEnlistingInterceptor.java:60)
> > [geronimo-connector-3.1.4.jar:3.1.4]
> > at
> >
> org.apache.geronimo.connector.outbound.TransactionCachingInterceptor.getConnection(TransactionCachingInterceptor.java:101)
> > [geronimo-connector-3.1.4.jar:3.1.4]
> > at
> >
> org.apache.geronimo.connector.outbound.ConnectionHandleInterceptor.getConnection(ConnectionHandleInterceptor.java:43)
> > [geronimo-connector-3.1.4.jar:3.1.4]
> > at
> >
> org.apache.geronimo.connector.outbound.TCCLInterceptor.getConnection(TCCLInterceptor.java:39)
> > [geronimo-connector-3.1.4.jar:3.1.4]
> > at
> >
> org.apache.geronimo.connector.outbound.ConnectionTrackingInterceptor.getConnection(ConnectionTrackingInterceptor.java:66)
> > [geronimo-connector-3.1.4.jar:3.1.4]
> > at
> >
> org.apache.geronimo.connector.outbound.AbstractConnectionManager.allocateConnection(AbstractConnectionManager.java:81)
> > [geronimo-connector-3.1.4.jar:3.1.4]
> > at
> >
> com.ibm.mq.connector.outbound.ConnectionFactoryImpl.createManagedJMSConnection(ConnectionFactoryImpl.java:194)
> > [com.ibm.mq.connector.jar:7.5.0.5-p750-005-150424]
> > at
> >
> com.ibm.mq.connector.outbound.ConnectionFactoryImpl.createConnectionInternal(ConnectionFactoryImpl.java:153)
> > [com.ibm.mq.connector.jar:7.5.0.5-p750-005-150424]
> > at
> >
> com.ibm.mq.connector.outbound.ConnectionFactoryImpl.createConnection(ConnectionFactoryImpl.java:138)
> > [com.ibm.mq.connector.jar:7.5.0.5-p750-005-150424]
> > at

Re: Connector issues

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

Hi Jon,

I experienced that kind of "surprise" in recent jvm since gc is way more
aggressive - cause lambda are way more memory consuming ;). This lead to
this kind of issue where the GC happens before the object should actually
be finalizable.
I suspect we need to rework the AutoConnectionTracker to take into account
these new behaviors and actually take into consideration the lifecycle of
the underlying connection.

Maybe I got it wrong but I see the ability to disable the proxying as a
quickfix/workaround - which is ok - but it means we need to fix the source
anyway as a long term solution. Am I understanding it right? If so we need
to ensure to keep the reference until the connection is released at least
and ensure it was not closed in the pool (kind of testOnXXX).
Also wonder if there is anything related to geronimo since you cc-ed it.
IIRC this logic is only in TomEE, no?

side note: reference queue is supposed thread safe yes.

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau  |  Blog
 | Old Blog
 | Github  |
LinkedIn  | Book



Le ven. 28 sept. 2018 à 15:49, Jonathan Gallimore <
jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> a écrit :

> Hi Folks,
>
> I have been looking into some issues with TomEE using Websphere MQ,
> specifically issues where XA resources are returning a -7 error during a
> transaction commit when the system is under load. The -7 error indicates
> that the resource is closed.
>
> The result of this error seems to be resources staying in the system
> somehow associated with the connection, and subsequently, these can't be
> enlisted in transactions (because they are closed).
>
> The stacktrace is like this, and happens over and over again as the server
> attempts to process more messages from the queue.
>
> WARN  Transaction- Unable to enlist XAResource
> org.apache.geronimo.transaction.manager.WrapperNamedXAResource@3dd56e90,
> errorCode: -7
> javax.transaction.xa.XAException: The method 'xa_start' has failed with
> errorCode '-7' due to the resource being closed.
> at com.ibm.mq.jmqi.JmqiXAResource.start(JmqiXAResource.java:946)
> ~[com.ibm.mq.jmqi.jar:7.5.0.5 - p750-005-150424]
> at com.ibm.mq.connector.xa.XARWrapper.start(XARWrapper.java:581)
> ~[com.ibm.mq.connector.jar:7.5.0.5-p750-005-150424]
> at
> org.apache.geronimo.transaction.manager.WrapperNamedXAResource.start(WrapperNamedXAResource.java:111)
> ~[geronimo-transaction-3.1.4.jar:3.1.4]
> at
> org.apache.geronimo.transaction.manager.TransactionImpl.enlistResource(TransactionImpl.java:209)
> [geronimo-transaction-3.1.4.jar:3.1.4]
> at
> org.apache.geronimo.connector.outbound.TransactionEnlistingInterceptor.getConnection(TransactionEnlistingInterceptor.java:60)
> [geronimo-connector-3.1.4.jar:3.1.4]
> at
> org.apache.geronimo.connector.outbound.TransactionCachingInterceptor.getConnection(TransactionCachingInterceptor.java:101)
> [geronimo-connector-3.1.4.jar:3.1.4]
> at
> org.apache.geronimo.connector.outbound.ConnectionHandleInterceptor.getConnection(ConnectionHandleInterceptor.java:43)
> [geronimo-connector-3.1.4.jar:3.1.4]
> at
> org.apache.geronimo.connector.outbound.TCCLInterceptor.getConnection(TCCLInterceptor.java:39)
> [geronimo-connector-3.1.4.jar:3.1.4]
> at
> org.apache.geronimo.connector.outbound.ConnectionTrackingInterceptor.getConnection(ConnectionTrackingInterceptor.java:66)
> [geronimo-connector-3.1.4.jar:3.1.4]
> at
> org.apache.geronimo.connector.outbound.AbstractConnectionManager.allocateConnection(AbstractConnectionManager.java:81)
> [geronimo-connector-3.1.4.jar:3.1.4]
> at
> com.ibm.mq.connector.outbound.ConnectionFactoryImpl.createManagedJMSConnection(ConnectionFactoryImpl.java:194)
> [com.ibm.mq.connector.jar:7.5.0.5-p750-005-150424]
> at
> com.ibm.mq.connector.outbound.ConnectionFactoryImpl.createConnectionInternal(ConnectionFactoryImpl.java:153)
> [com.ibm.mq.connector.jar:7.5.0.5-p750-005-150424]
> at
> com.ibm.mq.connector.outbound.ConnectionFactoryImpl.createConnection(ConnectionFactoryImpl.java:138)
> [com.ibm.mq.connector.jar:7.5.0.5-p750-005-150424]
> at
> com.ibm.mq.connector.outbound.ConnectionFactoryImpl.createConnection(ConnectionFactoryImpl.java:123)
> [com.ibm.mq.connector.jar:7.5.0.5-p750-005-150424]
>
> The issue itself bears some resemblance to these posts:
>
>
> http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/Unable-to-enlist-XAResource-error-td4666552.html
>
> http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/Does-tomEE-issue-double-rollbacks-td4666090.html
>
> http://tomee-openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/errorcode-100-when-using-websphere-MQ-with-tomee-td4666519.html
>
> com.ibm.mq.jmqi.JmqiXAResource has a isClosed field, and this is set when
> close_internal() is