Unix Technical Forum

Lock Without Owner

This is a discussion on Lock Without Owner within the Informix forums, part of the Database Server Software category; --> When I run onstat -k, I have found that I've got a lock without an owner. I've searched the ...


Go Back   Unix Technical Forum > Database Server Software > Informix

FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 04-20-2008, 10:06 AM
Gary Andrus
 
Posts: n/a
Default Lock Without Owner

When I run onstat -k, I have found that I've got a lock without an
owner. I've searched the archives a bit and found 2 other threads (3+
years old) that mentioned something like this, but I never saw an
explanation for it.

I'm running on IDS 9.40.UC4 on SunOS 5.8. Here's a portion of the
output showing the lock without the owner.

sidb1p:informix[~]-[19]% onstat -k

IBM Informix Dynamic Server Version 9.40.UC4 -- On-Line -- Up 171
days 14:23:24 -- 487424 Kbytes

Locks
address wtlist owner lklist type tblsnum rowid
key#/bsiz
a09713c 0 1221cb70 0 HDR+S 100002 205 0
<snip>
16cdd1b8 0 12230850 0 S 100002 205 0
16cde904 0 0 0 HDR+ 100002 206 0
16ce1ae4 0 12233f28 0 S 100002 205 0
<snip>

32 active, 16000 total, 2048 hash buckets, 3 lock table overflows
sidb1p:informix[~]-[20]%


I haven't noticed any issues with the database, but noticed this
condition while investigating system status and thought it was a bit
odd.

Has anyone ever seen this? Is there an explanation for this lock?

TIA,
Gary

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 04-20-2008, 10:06 AM
try_and_err@web.de
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Lock Without Owner


Gary Andrus schrieb:
> When I run onstat -k, I have found that I've got a lock without an
> owner. I've searched the archives a bit and found 2 other threads (3+
> years old) that mentioned something like this, but I never saw an
> explanation for it.
> Locks
> address wtlist owner lklist type tblsnum rowid
> key#/bsiz
> 16cde904 0 0 0 HDR+ 100002 206 0


Can it be, that ER is running on your system ?
I can reproduce this, when i define a replicate - it seems, that the
log snooper cause the lock.
Maybe Madison Pruet can explain this ?

BTW:
Check which database cause the lock:
select database from sysmaster:systabnames
where hex(partnum) = "0x00100002"
-- it should be sysdatabases
select * from sysmaster:sysdatabases
where hex(rowid) = "0x00000206"
-- syscdr ?

Regards,
try_and_err

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 04-20-2008, 10:07 AM
Fernando Nunes
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Lock Without Owner

Gary Andrus wrote:
> When I run onstat -k, I have found that I've got a lock without an
> owner. I've searched the archives a bit and found 2 other threads (3+
> years old) that mentioned something like this, but I never saw an
> explanation for it.
>
> I'm running on IDS 9.40.UC4 on SunOS 5.8. Here's a portion of the
> output showing the lock without the owner.
>
> sidb1p:informix[~]-[19]% onstat -k
>
> IBM Informix Dynamic Server Version 9.40.UC4 -- On-Line -- Up 171
> days 14:23:24 -- 487424 Kbytes
>
> Locks
> address wtlist owner lklist type tblsnum rowid
> key#/bsiz
> a09713c 0 1221cb70 0 HDR+S 100002 205 0
> <snip>
> 16cdd1b8 0 12230850 0 S 100002 205 0
> 16cde904 0 0 0 HDR+ 100002 206 0
> 16ce1ae4 0 12233f28 0 S 100002 205 0
> <snip>
>
> 32 active, 16000 total, 2048 hash buckets, 3 lock table overflows
> sidb1p:informix[~]-[20]%
>
>
> I haven't noticed any issues with the database, but noticed this
> condition while investigating system status and thought it was a bit
> odd.
>
> Has anyone ever seen this? Is there an explanation for this lock?
>
> TIA,
> Gary
>

I've seen this after doing some nasty things in a session... namely
onmode -z.

I didn't investigate it... it was on a 10.00... After that I had to put
the engine in single mode and this lock disappeared.

Regards.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 04-20-2008, 10:08 AM
Gary Andrus
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Lock Without Owner

Thanks for the ideas.

There's no ER running on the system, so that couldn't have been causing
it.

There were some onmode -z commands run, so that may have caused it, but
I'm not sure.

After the initial "sighting", I saw the same situation on a different
server, on a different machine. I noticed that after some time, the
locks on both machines went away. There was nothing in the logs to
indicate any problems.

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 04-20-2008, 10:08 AM
Madison Pruet
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Lock Without Owner

The locks that you are indicating is the head of the shared locks on the
database itself. The head of the database shared lock list is generally
going to have an owner of zero. This is done to prevent a bogus deadly
embrace on the locks associated with the database lock chain.

FYI --- any lock on tblsnum 0x10002 is a lock on the database.



"Gary Andrus" <andrusg@aetna.com> wrote in message
news:1125416431.956476.113540@g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> When I run onstat -k, I have found that I've got a lock without an
> owner. I've searched the archives a bit and found 2 other threads (3+
> years old) that mentioned something like this, but I never saw an
> explanation for it.
>
> I'm running on IDS 9.40.UC4 on SunOS 5.8. Here's a portion of the
> output showing the lock without the owner.
>
> sidb1p:informix[~]-[19]% onstat -k
>
> IBM Informix Dynamic Server Version 9.40.UC4 -- On-Line -- Up 171
> days 14:23:24 -- 487424 Kbytes
>
> Locks
> address wtlist owner lklist type tblsnum rowid
> key#/bsiz
> a09713c 0 1221cb70 0 HDR+S 100002 205 0
> <snip>
> 16cdd1b8 0 12230850 0 S 100002 205 0
> 16cde904 0 0 0 HDR+ 100002 206 0
> 16ce1ae4 0 12233f28 0 S 100002 205 0
> <snip>
>
> 32 active, 16000 total, 2048 hash buckets, 3 lock table overflows
> sidb1p:informix[~]-[20]%
>
>
> I haven't noticed any issues with the database, but noticed this
> condition while investigating system status and thought it was a bit
> odd.
>
> Has anyone ever seen this? Is there an explanation for this lock?
>
> TIA,
> Gary
>



Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.2.0
www.UnixAdminTalk.com