Showing posts with label locking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label locking. Show all posts

30 July 2019

IT: False Negative (Definitions)

"Spam that is mistaken for legitimate email." (Andy Walker, "Absolute Beginner’s Guide To: Security, Spam, Spyware & Viruses", 2005)

"Failing to report an event that should have been reported." (W Roy Schulte & K Chandy, "Event Processing: Designing IT Systems for Agile Companies", 2009)

"A subject who is identified as failing to have experienced the event of interest (e.g., exposure, disease) but has truly experienced the event is termed a false negative." (Herbert I Weisberg, "Bias and Causation: Models and Judgment for Valid Comparisons", 2010)

"An incorrect result, which fails to detect a condition or return a result that is actually present." (DAMA International, "The DAMA Dictionary of Data Management", 2011)

"An incorrect result as reported by a detective device, such as an IDS, an antivirus program, or a biometric security device. For example, an antivirus program may not “catch” a virus-infected file, or a fingerprint reader may incorrectly fail the fingerprint of the true user." (Mark Rhodes-Ousley, "Information Security: The Complete Reference, Second Edition, 2nd Ed.", 2013)

"A test result that incorrectly reports that a condition being tested for is absent, when, in fact, it is present (e.g., an intrusion detection subsystem falsely reports no attacks in the attack space of an enterprise system)." (O Sami Saydjari, "Engineering Trustworthy Systems: Get Cybersecurity Design Right the First Time", 2018)

"A condition when using optimistic locking whereby a row that was not updated since it was selected cannot be updated without first being selected again. Optimistic locking support does not allow a false positive to happen, but a false negative might happen. See also false positive." (Sybase, "Open Server Server-Library/C Reference Manual", 2019)

[false-negative result:] "A test result which fails to identify the presence of a defect that is actually present in the test object." (Software Quality Assurance)

04 February 2017

SQL Server Administration: Killing Sessions - Killing ‘em Softly and other Snake Stories

Introduction

    There are many posts on the web advising succinctly how to resolve a blocking situation by terminating a session via kill command, though few of them warn about its use and several important aspects that need to be considered. The command is powerful and, using an old adagio, “with power comes great responsibility”, responsibility not felt when reading between the lines. The easiness with people treat the topic can be seen in questions like “is it possibly to automate terminating sessions?” or in explicit recommendations of terminating the sessions when dealing with blockings.

   A session is created when a client connects to a RDBMS (Relational Database Management System) like SQL Server, being nothing but an internal logical representation of the connection. It is used further on to perform work against the database(s) via (batches of) SQL statements. Along its lifetime, a session is uniquely identified by an SPID (Server Process ID) and addresses one SQL statement at a time. Therefore, when a problem with a session occurs, it can be traced back to a query, where the actual troubleshooting needs to be performed.

   Even if each session has a defined scope and memory space, and cannot interact with other sessions, sessions can block each other when attempting to use the same data resources. Thus, a blocking occurs when one session holds a lock on a specific resource and a second session attempts to acquire a conflicting lock type on the same resource. In other words, the first session blocks the second session from acquiring a resource. It’s like a drive-in to a fast-food in which autos must line up into a queue to place an order. The second auto can’t place an order until the first don’t have the order – is blocked from placing an order. The third auto must wait for the second, and so on. Similarly, sessions wait in line for a resource, fact that leads to a blocking chain, with a head (the head/lead blocking) and a tail (the sessions that follow). It’s a FIFO (first in, first out) queue and using a little imagination one can compare it metaphorically with a snake. Even if imperfect, the metaphor is appropriate for highlighting some important aspects that can be summed up as follows:

  • Snakes have their roles in the ecosystem
  • Not all snakes are dangerous
  • Grab the snake by its head
  • Killing ‘em Softly
  • Search for a snake’s nest
  • Snakes can kill you in sleep
  • Snake taming

   Warning: snakes as well blockings need to be handled by a specialist, so don’t do it by yourself unless you know what are you doing!

Snakes have their roles in the ecosystem

    Snakes as middle-order predators have an important role in natural ecosystems, as they feed on prey species, whose numbers would increase exponentially if not kept under control. Fortunately, natural ecosystems have such mechanism that tend to auto-regulate themselves. Artificially built ecosystems need as well such auto-regulation mechanisms. As a series of dynamical mechanisms and components that work together toward a purpose, SQL Server is an (artificial) ecosystem that tends to auto-regulate itself. When its environment is adequately sized to handle the volume of information or data it must process then the system will behave smoothly. As soon it starts processing more data than it can handle, it starts misbehaving to the degree that one of its resources gets exhausted.

   Just because a blocking occurs doesn’t mean that is a bad thing and needs to be terminated. Temporary blockings occur all the time, as unavoidable characteristic of any RDBMS with lock-based concurrency like SQL Server. They are however easier to observe in systems with heavy workload and concurrent access. The more users in the system touch the same data, the higher the chances for a block to occur. A good design database and application architecture typically minimize blockings’ occurrence and duration, making them almost unobservable. At the opposite extreme poor database design combined with poor application design can make from blockings a DBA’s nightmare. Persistent blockings can be a sign of poor database or application design or a sign that one of the environment’s limits was reached. It’s a sign that something must be done. Restarting the SQL server, terminating sessions or adding more resources have only a temporary effect. The opportunity lies typically in addressing poor database and application design issues, though this can be costlier with time.

Not all snakes are dangerous

    A snake’s size is the easiest characteristic on identifying whether a snake is dangerous or not. Big snakes inspire fear for any mortal. Similarly, “big” blockings (blockings consuming an important percentage of the available resources) are dangerous and they have the potential of bringing the whole server down, eating its memory resources slowly until its life comes to a stop. It can be a slow as well a fast death.

   Independently of their size, poisonous snakes are a danger for any living creature. By studying snakes’ characteristics like pupils’ shape and skin color patterns the folk devised simple general rules (with local applicability) for identifying whether snakes are poisonous or not. Thus, snakes with diamond-shaped pupils or having color patterns in which red touches yellow are likely/believed to be poisonous. By observing the behavior of blockings and learning about SQL Server’s internals one can with time understand the impact of each blocking on server’s performance.

Grab the snake by its head

    Restraining a snake’s head assures that the snake is not able to bite, though it can be dangerous, as the snake might believe is dealing with a predator that is trying to hurt it, and reach accordingly. On the other side troubleshooting blockings must start with the head, the blocking session, as it’s the one which created the blocking problem in the first place.

    In SQL Server sp_who and its alternative sp_who2 provide a list of all sessions, with their status, SPID and a reference with the SPID of the session blocking it. It displays thus all the blocking pairs. When one deals with a few blockings one can easily see whether the sessions form a blocking chain. Especially in environments under heavy load one can deal with a handful of blockings that make it difficult to identify all the formed blocking chains. Identifying blocking chains is necessary because by identifying and terminating directly the head blocking will often make the whole blocking chain disappear. The other sessions in the chain will perform thus their work undisturbed.

    Going and terminating each blocking session in pairs as displayed in sp_who is not recommended as one terminates more sessions than needed, fact that could have unexpected repercussions. As a rule, one should restore system’s health by making minimal damage.

    In many cases terminating the head session will make the blocking chain disperse, however there are cases in which the head session is replaced by other session (e.g. when the sessions involve the same or similar queries). One will need to repeat the needed steps until all blocking chain dissolve.

Killing ‘em Softly 

   Killing a snake, no matter how blamable the act, it is sometimes necessary. Therefore, it should be used as ultimate approach, when there is no other alternative and when needed to save one’s or others’ life. Similarly killing a session should be done only in extremis, when necessary. For example, when server’s performance has deprecated considerably affecting other users, or when the session is hanging indefinitely.


    Kill command is powerful, having the power of a hammer. The problem is that when you have a hammer, every session looks like a nail. Despite all the aplomb one has when using a tool like a hammer, one needs to be careful in dealing with blockings. A blocking not addressed correspondingly can kick back, and in special cases the bite can be deadly, for system as well for one’s job. Killing the beast is the easiest approach. Kill one beast and another one will take its territory. It’s one of the laws of nature applicable also to database environments. The difference is that if one doesn’t addresses the primary cause that lead to a blocking, the same type of snake more likely will appear repeatedly.


    Unfortunately, the kill command is no bulletproof for terminating a session, it may only severe the snake. As the documentation warns, there can be cases in which the method won’t have any effect on the blocking, the blocking continuing to room around. So, might be a good idea to check whether the session disappeared and keep an eye on it until it totally disappeared. Especially when dealing with a blocking chain it can happen that the head session is replaced by another session, which probably was waiting for the same resources as the previous head session. It may happen that one deals with two or more blocking chains independent from each other. Such cases appear seldom but are possible.


     Killing the head session with a blocking without gathering some data provides less opportunities for learning, for understanding what’s happening in your system, of identifying what caused the blocking to occur. Therefore, before jumping to kill a session, collect the data you need for further troubleshooting.

Search for a snake’s nest 

   With the warning that unless one deals with small snakes, might not be advisable in searching for a snake’s nest, the idea behind this heuristic is that with a snake’s occurrence more likely there is also a nest not far away, where several other snakes might hide. Similarly, a query that causes permanent blockings might be the indication for code that generates a range of misbehaving queries. It can be same code or different pieces of code. One can attempt to improve the performance of a query that leads to blockings by adding more resources on the server or by optimizing SQL Server’s internals, though one can’t compensate for poor programming. When possible, one needs to tackle the problem at the source, otherwise performance improvements are only temporary.

Snakes can kill you in sleep 

   When wondering into the wild as well when having snakes as pets one must take all measures to assure that nobody’s health is endangered. Same principle should apply to databases as well, and the first line of defense resides in actively monitoring the blockings and addressing them timely as they occur. Being too confident that nothing happens and no taking the necessary precautions can prove to be a bad strategy when a problem occurs. In some situations, the damage might be acceptable in comparison with the effort and costs needed to build the monitoring infrastructure, though for critical systems it can come with important costs.

Snakes’ Taming 

   Having snakes as pets doesn’t seem like a good idea, and there are so many reasons why one shouldn’t do it (see PETA’s reasons)! On the other side, there are also people with uncommon hobbies, that not only limit themselves at having a snake pet, but try to tame them, to have them behave like pets. There are people who breed snakes to harness their venom for various purposes, occupation that requires handling snakes closely. There are also people who brought their relation with snakes at level of art, since ancient Egypt snake charming being a tradition in countries from Southeast Asia, Middle East, and North Africa. Even if not all snakes are tameable, snake’s taming and charming is possible. In the process the tamer must deprogram or control snakes’ behavior, following a specific methodology in a safe environment.

    No matter how much one tries to avoid persistent blockings, one can learn from troubleshooting blockings, about their sources, behavior as well about own limitations. One complex blocking can be a good example with which one can test his knowledge about SQL Server internals as well about applications’ architecture. Each blocking provides a scenario in which one can learn something.

    When fighting with a blocking, it’s wise to do it within a safe environment, typically a test or development environment. Fighting with it in a production environment can cause unnecessary stress and damage. So, if you don’t have a safe environment in which to carry the fight, then build one and try to keep the same essential characteristics as in production environment!

   There will be also situations in which one must fight with a blocking in the production environment. Then, be careful in not damaging the data as well the environment, and take all the needed precautions!


Conclusion

    The comparison between snakes and blockings might not be perfect, though hopefully it will imprint in reader’s mind the dangers of handling blockings inappropriately and increase the awareness in what concerns related topics.

29 August 2009

DBMS: Lock Granularity (Definitions)

"The size of the locked area - database, file, table, page, row, or column." (Peter Gulutzan & Trudy Pelzer, "SQL Performance Tuning", 2002)

"The size of the database element on which a lock is placed (usually a table or a row within a table)." (Jan L Harrington, "SQL Clearly Explained" 3rd Ed., 2010)

"Indicates the level of lock use. Locking can take place at the following levels: database, table, page, row, and field (attribute)." (Carlos Coronel et al, "Database Systems: Design, Implementation, and Management" 9th Ed, 2011)

"The level of data that is involved in a lock. Lock granularity can be at any level of physical data: database, block, set of tables, row, or column level, and include any amount of data contained within those objects." (DAMA International, "The DAMA Dictionary of Data Management", 2011)



19 August 2009

DBMS: Shared Lock (Definitions)

 "A lock created by non-update ('read') operations. Other users may read the data concurrently, but no transaction can acquire an exclusive lock on the data until all the shared locks have been released." (Karen Paulsell et al, "Sybase SQL Server: Performance and Tuning Guide", 1996)

"A lock used during READ operations." (Owen Williams, "MCSE TestPrep: SQL Server 6.5 Design and Implementation", 1998)

"Lock that allows concurrent transactions to read a resource." (S. Sumathi & S. Esakkirajan, "Fundamentals of Relational Database Management Systems", 2007)

"Control over a portion of the database given to one or more transactions that prevents other transactions from modifying the data while the locks are in place." (Jan L Harrington, "Relational Database Design and Implementation" 3rd Ed., 2009)

"A lock on a database element that prevents other transactions from updating the database element while the lock is held." (Jan L Harrington, "SQL Clearly Explained" 3rd Ed., 2010)

"A lock that is issued when a transaction requests permission to read data from a database and no exclusive locks are held on that data by another transaction. A shared lock allows other read-only transactions to access the database." (Carlos Coronel et al, "Database Systems: Design, Implementation, and Management" 9th Ed., 2011)

"A lock created by non-update (read) operations." (SQL Server 2012 Glossary, "Microsoft", 2012)

"The type of lock taken by the DBMS when data is read with no intent to update it." (Craig S Mullins, "Database Administration", 2012)

"A lock that limits concurrently running application processes to read-only operations on database data." (Sybase, "Open Server Server-Library/C Reference Manual", 2019)

18 August 2009

DBMS: Intent Lock (Definitions)

"Indicates the intention to acquire a share or exclusive lock on a data page." (Karen Paulsell et al, "Sybase SQL Server: Performance and Tuning Guide", 1996)

"Specifies the intent to gain a shared or exclusive lock." (Owen Williams, "MCSE TestPrep: SQL Server 6.5 Design and Implementation", 1998)

"An lock that indicates that SQL Server wants to acquire a shared or exclusive lock on a more specific resource. An intent lock prevents another transaction from acquiring an exclusive lock on the resource containing that page or row." (Microsoft Corporation, "SQL Server 7.0 System Administration Training Kit", 1999)

"A lock of a larger object related to a locked small object. Implicitly, any small-grain lock implies a shared big-grain lock. If there is one or more locks on pages belonging to a table, then there will also be a lock on the table itself, as a separate lock record." (Peter Gulutzan & Trudy Pelzer, "SQL Performance Tuning", 2002)

"A lock placed on one level of a resource hierarchy to protect shared or exclusive locks on lower-level resources." (Anthony Sequeira & Brian Alderman, "The SQL Server 2000 Book", 2003)

"A lock on a resource that indicates that the holder of the lock will read (intent shared) or write (intent exclusive) the resource using concurrency control at a finer granularity than that of the resource with the intent lock. Intent locks allow concurrent readers and writers of a resource. See What type of locking does MongoDB use?." (MongoDb, "Glossary", 2008)

"A lock that is placed on one level of a resource hierarchy to protect shared or exclusive locks on lower-level resources." (SQL Server 2012 Glossary, "Microsoft", 2012)

"A type of lock placed on higher-level database objects when a user or process acquires locks on data pages or rows. An intent lock stays in place for the life of the lower-level locks." (Craig S Mullins, "Database Administration: The Complete Guide to DBA Practices and Procedures" 2nd Ed., 2012)

17 August 2009

DBMS: Exclusive Locks (Definitions)

 "A lock that may not coexist with any other lock on the same object." (Peter Gulutzan & Trudy Pelzer, "SQL Performance Tuning", 2002)

"A lock used during WRITE operations." (Owen Williams, "MCSE TestPrep: SQL Server 6.5 Design and Implementation", 1998)

"A lock that prevents any other transaction from acquiring a lock on a resource until the original lock on the resource is released at the end of the transaction. An exclusive lock is always applied during an update operation (INSERT, UPDATE, or DELETE)." (Microsoft Corporation, "SQL Server 7.0 System Administration Training Kit", 1999)

"This type of lock prevents any other transaction from acquiring a lock on a resource until the original lock on the resource is released at the end of the transaction." (Anthony Sequeira & Brian Alderman, "The SQL Server 2000 Book", 2003)

"A lock on a database element that prevents other transactions from updating or viewing the database element while the lock is held." (Jan L Harrington, "SQL Clearly Explained" 3rd Ed., 2010)

"A lock that prevents any other transaction from acquiring a lock on a resource until the original lock on the resource is released at the end of the transaction." (Microsoft, "SQL Server 2012 Glossary", 2012)

"The type of lock taken by the DBMS when data is modified to prohibit other processes or users from reading or modifying the same data." (Craig S Mullins, "Database Administration", 2012)

"A lock that prevents concurrently executing application processes from accessing database data. See also gross lock, shared lock." (Sybase, "Open Server Server-Library/C Reference Manual", 2019)

"Locks which prevent any other transaction from acquiring a lock until the original lock is released at the end of a transaction, always applied for update (insert, update, delete) operations." (Karen Paulsell et al, "Sybase SQL Server: Performance and Tuning Guide", 1996)

15 August 2009

DBMS: Deadlocks (Definitions)

 "A situation which arises when two users, each having a lock on one piece of data, attempt to acquire a lock on the other’s piece of data. The SQL Server detects deadlocks, and kills one user’s process." (Karen Paulsell et al, "Sybase SQL Server: Performance and Tuning Guide", 1996)

"A situation that arises when two users, each having a lock on one piece of data, attempt to acquire a lock on the other’s piece. Each user waits for the other to release his or her lock. SQL Server detects deadlocks and kills one user’s process, returning error code 1205." (Patrick Dalton, "Microsoft SQL Server Black Book", 1997)

"A condition that arises when two or more transactions are waiting for one another to release locks." (Peter Gulutzan & Trudy Pelzer, "SQL Performance Tuning", 2002)

"A situation in SQL Server 2000 when two users each have a lock on one piece of data and they attempt to acquire a lock on the other’s piece of data. Each user would wait indefinitely for the other to release the lock, unless one of the user processes is terminated. SQL Server detects deadlocks and terminates one user’s process." (Anthony Sequeira & Brian Alderman, "The SQL Server 2000 Book", 2003)

"A state in which two users or processes cannot continue processing because they each have a resource that the other needs." (Thomas Moore, "EXAM CRAM™ 2: Designing and Implementing Databases with SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition", 2005)

"Occurs when multiple connections that hold locks are waiting for locks to be released that are held by the other transactions, that is, the transactions are waiting for each other to release locks." (Sara Morganand & Tobias Thernstrom , "MCITP Self-Paced Training Kit : Designing and Optimizing Data Access by Using Microsoft SQL Server 2005 - Exam 70-442", 2007)

"A specific type of locking problem when concurrent processes are competing for locks. For example, program1 holds a lock on A and is waiting for a lock on B; program2 holds a lock on B and is waiting for a lock on A." (Craig S Mullins, "Database Administration: The Complete Guide to DBA Practices and Procedures" 2nd Ed, 2012)

"A deadlock occurs when two or more user processes each have a lock on a separate page or table and each wants to acquire a lock on the other process’s page or table. The transaction with the least accumulated CPU time is killed and all of its work is rolled back." (Sybase)

"A situation in which two or more users are waiting for data locked by each other." (Oracle)

"A situation where different transactions are unable to proceed, because each holds a lock that the other needs. Because both transactions are waiting for a resource to become available, neither one ever releases the locks it holds." (MySQL)

"Unresolved contention for the use of resources." (IBM)



DBMS: Lock/Locking (Definitions)

"The process of restricting access to resources in a multi-user environment to maintain security and prevent concurrent access problems. SQL Server automatically applies locks to tables or pages." (Karen Paulsell et al, "Sybase SQL Server: Performance and Tuning Guide", 1996)

"SQL Server issues locks to prevent users from interfering with each other's work." (Owen Williams, "MCSE TestPrep: SQL Server 6.5 Design and Implementation", 1998)

"A restriction on access to a resource in a multiuser environment. SQL Server locks users out of a specific record, field, or file automatically to maintain security or prevent concurrent data manipulation problems." (Microsoft Corporation, "SQL Server 7.0 System Administration Training Kit", 1999)

"A method the DBMS uses to prevent concurrent transactions from interfering with one another. Physically, a lock is one of three things: a latch, a mark on the wall, or a RAM record." (Peter Gulutzan & Trudy Pelzer, "SQL Performance Tuning", 2002)

"A method of ensuring concurrency. Locking enables users to temporarily "check out" an object, preventing other users from changing the object, for the purpose of ensuring consistency." (Thomas Moore, "EXAM CRAM™ 2: Designing and Implementing Databases with SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition", 2005)

"SQL Server uses locks to prevent multiple users from modifying the same data at the same time." (Joseph L Jorden & Dandy Weyn, "MCTS Microsoft SQL Server 2005: Implementation and Maintenance Study Guide - Exam 70-431", 2006)

"A mechanism used by a concurrent system to prevent data anomalies by isolating transactions from each other." (Marilyn Miller-White et al, "MCITP Administrator: Microsoft® SQL Server™ 2005 Optimization and Maintenance 70-444", 2007)

"A lock is an access restriction placed on part of a database to prevent other users or processes from viewing or modifying data as it is being viewed or modified by one process. Locks can be placed on rows, pages, extents, tables, or databases." (Darril Gibson, "MCITP SQL Server 2005 Database Developer All-in-One Exam Guide", 2008)

"MongoDB uses locks to ensure that concurrency does not affect correctness. MongoDB uses read locks, write locks and intent locks. For more information, see What type of locking does MongoDB use?." (MongoDb, "Glossary", 2008)

"Used to control access to part of the database. For example, while one user updates a row, the database places a lock on the row so other users cannot interfere with the update. Different databases may lock data by rows, table, or disk page." (Rod Stephens, "Beginning Database Design Solutions", 2008)

"The processing of giving a transaction exclusive rights to view and/or update a database element to prevent problems that arise with interleaved transaction execution." (Jan L Harrington, "SQL Clearly Explained 3rd Ed. ", 2010)

"A DBMS function used to ensure the integrity of data. When a database resource is locked by one process, another process is not permitted to change the locked data. Locking is necessary to enable the DBMS to facilitate the ACID properties of transaction processing." (Craig S Mullins, "Database Administration: The Complete Guide to DBA Practices and Procedures" 2nd Ed, 2012)

"A restriction on access to a resource in a multiuser environment." (Microsoft, "SQL Server 2012 Glossary", 2012)

"A means of preventing uncommitted changes made by one application process from being perceived by another application process and for preventing one application process from updating data that is being accessed by another process. A lock ensures the integrity of data by preventing concurrent users from accessing inconsistent data. A means of serializing a sequence of events or serializing access to data." (Sybase, "Open Server Server-Library/C Reference Manual", 2019)

"The process by which a DBMS restricts access to a row in a multiuser environment. The DBMS usually sets a bit on a row or the physical page containing a row that indicates the row or page is locked." (Microsoft) 

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

About Me

My photo
IT Professional with more than 24 years experience in IT in the area of full life-cycle of Web/Desktop/Database Applications Development, Software Engineering, Consultancy, Data Management, Data Quality, Data Migrations, Reporting, ERP implementations & support, Team/Project/IT Management, etc.