rswwdhex - job gets cancelled due to locking issue

Tue Jul 12 12:43:42 EDT 2005

Thanks Eddie, Rick,

We only have one instance of RSWWDHEX running at a time, or at least that is the intent. Although 
from the system logs, it appears multiple occurences are trying to get kicked off at the same time, 
therefore locking each other out... (extract of SM21 log)

19:15:21 sapprod1_RP1_23      BTC 33 400      EGC > Job SWWDHEX is currently locked
19:15:27 sapprod1_RP1_23      BTC 33 400      EGC > Job SWWDHEX is currently locked

Again, this job was scheduled to run once (by a userID that is not WF-BATCH) every 20 minutes.

Eddie, I passed on your suggestions  to the Basis team.  They had nothing to report as to the 
outcome (I don't know what we should have been looking for, and I didn't see the results myself).

So we have rescheduled RSWWDHEX to run at a longer interval, 30 minutes this time.  I'll check to 
see if we get a failure tonight.  Frankly, at this point, with so few actual deadlines to look out 
for, I am wondering if I shouldn't just run the job once daily.  But we'll see what the results are 
later on.

Happy WF-ing,
Sue

Rick Sample wrote:

> Had the same issue. Here is what I found and what we did to correct.
>  
> If multiple instances of SWWDHEX are running we get locks. I verified and
> can reproduce this and fixed. Here is what I did.
> Kill all SWWDHEX and have BASIS reschedule just one.
> Schedule SWWDHEX to run every X time.
>  
> Still don't know why it stopped but I assume I ran the config as myself. 
> SWU3
> and caused mult instances to be running.
> BASIS probably runs SWU3 for the simple fact that it SWU3 should only be 
> run  
> by a user that has SAP_ALL / SAP_NEW.
> Reason: WF-BATCH inherits the rights of the user running SWU3. No more. 
> No less.
> (You can search for responses from Jocelyn Dart and in "Practical WF for 
> SAP".)
>  
> WF-BATCH should not be used for batch processing like SWWDHEX, SWWERRE, 
> SWWERRE, etc.
> Use some other batch user for batch processing.
>  
> SWWA set to run periodically. Like every 5 mins.
> SWWB runs per instance of a deadline.
> (I could have these backwards. Look them up to be sure)
>  
> SWWA or SWWB? Depends on what you want.
> If you have few deadlines, run per instance and it will add a batch for
> each instance. See SM37 and you will see these being added per deadline.
> Or, if you have lots of deadlines. set to just periodically, it 
> should rescheduled ONE
> instance to run every X time.
>  
> Let me know if this helps. I am interested in what works for you.
> (And if I made any incorrect statement I am sure someone will let me know)
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Rick Sample
> SAP Workflow Analyst/Developer
> Graybar, Inc.
> 11885 Lackland Rd.
> 63146-4208
> 314.573.5822
> Rick.Sample at GBE.com <mailto:Rick.Sample at GBE.com>
> 
>  >>> keohan at ll.mit.edu 7/12/2005 7:34 >>>
> Hi all,
> 
> We are running on R/3 4.6c.
> 
> We had RSWWDHEX running without incident until last September, when it 
> stopped, I don't know why.
> When the matter was brought to my attention, we re-scheduled it via SWWB 
> (or is it SWWA, I can't be
> sure because Basis does it). The interval between runs is 20 minutes, 
> which should be sufficient,
> since there are probably less than 5 workitems 'waiting' for a deadline 
> at any given time.
> 
> Anyway, the job gets finishes, but fails to reschedule itself daily (no 
> specific time, it could fail
> to reschedule at 5:30, it could fail to reschedule at 7:30...). The 
> system log from SM21 says
> 'Job SWWDHEX is currently locked' and the detail entry follows:
> 
>  > Within background processing, it was found that the specified job is
>  > being edited, for example, another user edits the job or the run-time
>  > system of background processing is accessing the job. Please attempt to
>  > execute the action required by you with the job at a later date.
>  >
>  > If, in spite of repeated attempts, this should not be successful, that
>  > could be related to problems in the locking system (enqueue server): For
>  > example, "locking corpses" could be available. Please check that with
>  > the transaction SM12. You can also test the function efficiency of your
>  > locking system there by means of the displayed diagnosis.
>  >
> 
> I am sure we can reschedule with a longer interval between runs, but not 
> sure if this will actually
> solve the problem. Has anyone out there dealt with this ? OSS, and SDN 
> search of this archive
> yield no joy.
> 
> Happy WF-ing!
> Sue
> -- 
> Susan R. Keohan
> SAP Workflow Developer
> MIT Lincoln Laboratory
> 244 Wood Street
> LI-200
> Lexington, MA. 02420
> 781-981-3561
> _keohan at ll.mit.edu <mailto:keohan at ll.mit.edu>_
> _______________________________________________
> SAP-WUG mailing list
> _SAP-WUG at mit.edu <mailto:SAP-WUG at mit.edu>_
> _http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug_
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> SAP-WUG mailing list
> SAP-WUG at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug

-- 
Susan R. Keohan
SAP Workflow Developer
MIT Lincoln Laboratory
244 Wood Street
LI-200
Lexington, MA. 02420
781-981-3561
keohan at ll.mit.edu