|
Home > Archive > BizTalk Server Orchestration > August 2005 > Preventing Zombies in Sequestial Convoy
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Preventing Zombies in Sequestial Convoy
|
|
|
| tHi All,
Are they any patterns or solutions to prevent zombies problem in Sequential
Convoys
I have an seqential convoy pattern aggregating messages which has a
timeout of 10 secs on the listen shape but there is a small window where
zombies can occur when timeout occurs and there are still messages subscribed
by orchestration
Is there any way to start a new orch instance once the timeout occurs so
that if there any messages subscribed to the orch is started by new instance
Regards,
| |
| Stephen W. Thomas 2005-08-10, 5:51 pm |
| Hello.
I don’t know of any way to prevent zombies. The key is to reduce the
chances of having them.
Your statement:
> Is there any way to start a new orch instance once the timeout occurs so
> that if there any messages subscribed to the orch is started by new instance
Well, this is basically what a zombie is. If you could do this, wouldn’t
have zombies in the first place.
If your business process ends (or does very little logic) right after the
delay is reached you should be fine.
I have a tool included with the Convoy Deep Dive whitepaper
(http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...6137a5a2914.asp)
called a Zombie Catcher. This could be modified or MOM could be used to
watch for Orchestrations that do have zombies. Then, you can handle them as
needed.
Hope this helps.
Stephen W. Thomas
http://www.biztalkgurus.com
"Shar" wrote:
> tHi All,
>
> Are they any patterns or solutions to prevent zombies problem in Sequential
> Convoys
>
> I have an seqential convoy pattern aggregating messages which has a
> timeout of 10 secs on the listen shape but there is a small window where
> zombies can occur when timeout occurs and there are still messages subscribed
> by orchestration
>
> Is there any way to start a new orch instance once the timeout occurs so
> that if there any messages subscribed to the orch is started by new instance
>
> Regards,
| |
|
| Thanks Stephen,
One more question , is there any way to have the receive location
service every hour so that i can prevent the messages getting to the
messagebox
Regards,
Sharath
"Stephen W. Thomas" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hello.
>
> I don’t know of any way to prevent zombies. The key is to reduce the
> chances of having them.
>
> Your statement:
>
> Well, this is basically what a zombie is. If you could do this, wouldn’t
> have zombies in the first place.
>
> If your business process ends (or does very little logic) right after the
> delay is reached you should be fine.
>
> I have a tool included with the Convoy Deep Dive whitepaper
> (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...6137a5a2914.asp)
> called a Zombie Catcher. This could be modified or MOM could be used to
> watch for Orchestrations that do have zombies. Then, you can handle them as
> needed.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Stephen W. Thomas
> http://www.biztalkgurus.com
>
>
> "Shar" wrote:
>
| |
| Stephen W. Thomas 2005-08-10, 8:48 pm |
| Hello.
You could use WMI and a windows scheduler / service or many other scheduling
tools to accomplish that.
I think I saw a sample on DotGotNet that greatly enhanced the service
windows on the Receive Port.
Hope this helps.
Stephen W. Thomas
http://www.biztalkgurus.com
"Shar" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks Stephen,
>
> One more question , is there any way to have the receive location
> service every hour so that i can prevent the messages getting to the
> messagebox
>
>
> Regards,
> Sharath
>
> "Stephen W. Thomas" wrote:
>
| |
|
| Thanks Stephen
-Regards,
Sharath
"Stephen W. Thomas" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hello.
>
> You could use WMI and a windows scheduler / service or many other scheduling
> tools to accomplish that.
>
> I think I saw a sample on DotGotNet that greatly enhanced the service
> windows on the Receive Port.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Stephen W. Thomas
> http://www.biztalkgurus.com
>
>
> "Shar" wrote:
>
|
|
|
|
|