Issue 2578: transaction service/2pc (ots-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Summary: suppose there are three server objects in three different machine and >they are in a >context of transaction. now first and the second objects are prepared >with the returns >votecommit. during the preparartion of third object, roll back is >called.now in the mean >time second object"s server went down though it had a successful prepare >call.so when transaction service will call roll back to second >object,(as resource assotiated with >it is registered)it will not be found and it can not be rolled back to >main tain the >consistency. how this situation can be handled? Resolution: No change needed. Revised Text: Actions taken: April 7, 1999: received issue January 16, 2001: closed issue Discussion: This issue is covered in the current specification. Consistency is maintained via replay_completion and presumed rollback logic. See Discussion section and issue archives for details. End of Annotations:===== X-Sender: renee@emerald.omg.org Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 13:22:27 -0400 To: ots-rtf From: Renee Subject: Fwd: transaction service/2pc Can someone respond to this request for help? Thanks, Renee >Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 18:59:51 -0500 >From: Som Sengupta >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; I) >X-Accept-Language: en >To: webtech@omg.org >Subject: transaction service/2pc > >please solve the following problem > >./////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >///////////////////// > >suppose there are three server objects in three different machine and >they are in a >context of transaction. now first and the second objects are prepared >with the returns >votecommit. during the preparartion of third object, roll back is >called.now in the mean >time second object's server went down though it had a successful prepare >call.so when transaction service will call roll back to second >object,(as resource assotiated with >it is registered)it will not be found and it can not be rolled back to >main tain the >consistency. how this situation can be handled? > Sender: nmcl@ncl.ac.uk Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 08:43:33 +0100 From: Mark Little Organization: Newcastle University X-Accept-Language: en To: Juergen Boldt CC: issues@emerald.omg.org, ots-rtf@emerald.omg.org Subject: Re: issue 2578 -- OTS RTF Issue References: <3.0.32.19990407132844.00769dac@emerald.omg.org> I don't think this needs to be an issue - it just seems like a basic misunderstanding of distributed transaction processing. The current OTS specification already contains sufficient information to address this. Mark. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SENDER : Dr. Mark Little, Arjuna Project, Distributed Systems Research. PHONE : +44 191 222 8066, FAX : +44 191 222 8232 POST : Department of Computing Science, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU EMAIL : M.C.Little@newcastle.ac.uk Sender: root@yana.inria.fr Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 11:38:48 +0200 From: Simone Sedillot Organization: INRIA - Roquencourt To: Juergen Boldt Subject: [Fwd: transaction service/2pc>] Message-ID: <370C7877.DDE9B045@inria.fr> Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 11:35:51 +0200 From: Simone Sedillot Organization: INRIA - Roquencourt X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.07 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.7 sun4u) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Som Sengupta , ots-rtf@emerald.omg.org Subject: transaction service/2pc > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit When OTS ( coordinator) invokes rollback on object 2, it catches the exception object not available and forgets about it, completing the rollback. When object 2 restarts, because it is is the prepared state, it invokes replay-completion on the recovery coordinator, and gets either - the exception object -not-exists, meaning the recovery coordinator has been released on rollback completion> Thus object 2 rolls back. note that if the ots were committing, it would not be released before commitment completion, in particular with object 2. - the exception communication failure and keep retry replay completion, in the case the recovery coordinator crahes - rollbacking, meaning the OTS is still in the rollback process, object 2 rolls back. consistency is maintained. I hope that this persuades you? regards simone Sender: root@yana.inria.fr Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 11:41:12 +0200 From: Simone Sedillot Organization: INRIA - Roquencourt To: Mark Little CC: Juergen Boldt , issues@emerald.omg.org, ots-rtf@emerald.omg.org Subject: Re: issue 2578 -- OTS RTF Issue References: <3.0.32.19990407132844.00769dac@emerald.omg.org> <370C5E25.9D88690@ncl.ac.uk> Mark Little wrote: > I don't think this needs to be an issue - it just seems like a basic > misunderstanding of distributed transaction processing. The current > OTS > specification already contains sufficient information to address > this. > > Mark. agreed, see my last mail simone > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > SENDER : Dr. Mark Little, Arjuna Project, Distributed Systems Research. > PHONE : +44 191 222 8066, FAX : +44 191 222 8232 > POST : Department of Computing Science, University of Newcastle upon > Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU > EMAIL : M.C.Little@newcastle.ac.uk From: "Mark Little" To: "Blake Biesecker" , Cc: References: <20000328133841.A13883@gemstone.com> Subject: Re: Issue 2578 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 10:00:18 +0100 Organization: Newcastle University MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-UIDL: EH To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 10:38 PM Subject: Issue 2578 > I think we can close this issue without action since it > is addressed by the current spec. (It probably shouldn't > have been opened as an issue, but since it was I'll > add to the next vote.) Agreed. Mark. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SENDER : Dr. Mark Little, Arjuna Project, Distributed Systems Research. PHONE : +44 191 222 8066, FAX : +44 191 222 8232 POST : Department of Computing Science, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU EMAIL : M.C.Little@newcastle.ac.uk