Search Results

Search found 3089 results on 124 pages for 'lock'.

Page 12/124 | < Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  | Next Page >

  • how to i lock a Harddrive to a certain drive letter

    - by Memor-X
    i have an external hard drive that i have set to Drive F which on it contains some programs that i have shortcuts on the desktop how i have a second external hard drive which i store my music on which is auto assigned to Drive E, due to someone thinking that Australians love to have f** wings on power plugs for hard drives while power boards have each socket close together i can have both of these hard drives set at the same time my music hard drive i normally only plug up when i sync music to my ipod but on occasion when i unplug my music hard drive and plug my old one back in or at times when i turn on my computer with the music hard drive in, turn off my computer and turn it back on with my old hard drive it's drive letter gets switched to E i get annoyed having to always go into disk management and change the drive letter back to F when this happens so i am wondering if I can lock my hard drive to always be F, if anything else tries to be F it can fail for all i care If there is a batch file i can use that'll go though all the steps of Disk Management to change a drive's letter, that way i can set it up in the startup folder

    Read the article

  • Lock down a site using Forms Auth in IIS7 with Windows Auth

    - by justjoshingyou
    I have an ASP.NET MVC 1.0 application that uses Forms Authentication. We are using Windows Server 2008. I need to lock down the site so that only certain users (in AD Groups) can access the site. Unfortunately, though, when I set the site to not allow anon users and use windows authentication, due to the integration of the site and IIS, it shows the user as signed in as their domain account, instead of allowing them to sign in through Forms Auth. So, I need a mixed mode authentication. I need the site to be only accessible through windows auth, without anon users, but once you are in, it needs to use forms auth only. How would I go about doing this the right way?

    Read the article

  • Map Caps-Lock to Control in Windows 8.1

    - by Eric Huang
    Before the Windows 8.1 update, I was able to map Caps-Lock to Controls through the type of registry tweak in this post: Remapping a keyboard key in windows 8.1 However, after updating to 8.1, my tweak no longer works. What I had done was Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00 [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Keyboard Layout] "Scancode Map"=hex:00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,02,00,00,00,1d,00,3a,00,00,00,00,00 Windows 8.1 may have changed how it interprets the keyboard layout registry, I'm guessing. I'm an avid emacs user, so this problem is a life-or-death scenario for me.

    Read the article

  • Lock screen keeps making sound when screen is off

    - by row1
    I have my laptop (Asus UL20FT) on external power and hooked up to an external monitor. I keep the laptop lid closed and am using the 'second screen only' option. If you leave it on the lock screen for a short period of time the screen powers off. While the screen is off it keeps repeating a "duuuh duh duh" sound (sounds just like the device plugged in sound). The monitor is connected via HDMI and I have Microsoft and Logitech wireless USB dongles plugged in. How can I prevent this sound loop?

    Read the article

  • Does WD Drive Lock encrypt the data?

    - by ssg
    I wonder if WD Drive Lock ineed encrypts the data on a Western Digital My Book Essential device or just puts a firmware-level password on the device. If it's just a password the data surely could be retrieved by a third party. I could not find anything on about that on user manuals. I found a blog saying "data is secured with AES256" bla bla but that doesn't say anything about if the password could be compromised or not. Because I don't see any delays when I add/remove the password. On the other hand when I enable BitLocker, it takes hours before it encrypts everything with my password.

    Read the article

  • How do I open a pdf file with PDF X-Change Viewer so that I can still modify the pdf source?

    - by ltcomdata
    Whenever I open a pdf file with PDF X-Change Viewer it locks up the source pdf file to edits. Is there a way to open the pdf (with PDF X-Change Viewer) so that it doesn't lock-up the source file --- perhaps as a shell command with an option? The background: I use LaTeX to edit my pdf files, and preview the result with PDF X-Change Viewer. I must first close PDF X-Change Viewer before I can preview any changes I make in the LaTeX source. It would be nice if PDF X-Change Viewer did not lock-up the pdf source so that I could modify it without first closing PDF X-Change Viewer.

    Read the article

  • Laptop Locking Up

    - by David
    I am having a very weird issue on a Lenovo W510 laptop. It will lock up randomly. I have had it lock up during post, during the boot-up of Linux, during login, and after the login. The following are tests that I have performed on the laptop. I ran memtest I took out the extra memory module. I swapped the HDD with another HDD that had Windows 7 on it. (It BSOD'd, and before anyone could possibly read the error line, it restarts.) I tried taking the battery out and booting with only the Power cord. The only other options I can think of the problem being are the motherboard or the PSU. If anyone has any advice, I appreciate it. If not, the HP guy will be here in a few days to fix it. I would just love to call them up and tell them that the service is no longer needed.

    Read the article

  • is there any way to lock few Windows Registry enteries

    - by Moorage
    I have seen that most of virus , spyware etc changes few registry files which are linked to boot process or which starts when window loads user settings. Is there any way to lock those files which are linked to start the system like explorer.exe , userinit.exe so that virus at least should not be able to stop the system to start up. Why did'nt microsoft put those registry file separately so that nothing can touches them Now my userinit.exe file is affected and its not letting me logn on to computer. I get blank desktop but system loads during safe mode. I have run anti virus bootable cd but still have not found solution

    Read the article

  • Lock manager stops responding (lockd/nfslock), but shows as running

    - by dwaynehoov
    Essentially, lock manager stops responding (lockd/nfslock), but shows as running as a kernel process. If I bounce portmap and nfslock, it has no effect. Doesn't show up in the portmapper registered services rpcinfo -p .. doesn't show nlockmgr. it just shows portmapper and status If I manually remount the drives, it fixes the issue. I'm assuming that the service (lockd) goes stale or hangs when there is no NFS activity? It seems like issuing a mount for NFS volumes "awakens" it and things work once that happens. Please help me nail this down for point me to somewhere to get more information on what might be happening. System info: Linux xxx.yyy.com 2.6.32-300.38.1.el5uek #1 SMP Thu Oct 18 11:51:13 PDT 2012 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux cat /etc/redhat-release Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 5.8 (Tikanga) cat /etc/oracle-release Oracle Linux Server release 5.8 Thanks

    Read the article

  • Parallel Classloading Revisited: Fully Concurrent Loading

    - by davidholmes
    Java 7 introduced support for parallel classloading. A description of that project and its goals can be found here: http://openjdk.java.net/groups/core-libs/ClassLoaderProposal.html The solution for parallel classloading was to add to each class loader a ConcurrentHashMap, referenced through a new field, parallelLockMap. This contains a mapping from class names to Objects to use as a classloading lock for that class name. This was then used in the following way: protected Class loadClass(String name, boolean resolve) throws ClassNotFoundException { synchronized (getClassLoadingLock(name)) { // First, check if the class has already been loaded Class c = findLoadedClass(name); if (c == null) { long t0 = System.nanoTime(); try { if (parent != null) { c = parent.loadClass(name, false); } else { c = findBootstrapClassOrNull(name); } } catch (ClassNotFoundException e) { // ClassNotFoundException thrown if class not found // from the non-null parent class loader } if (c == null) { // If still not found, then invoke findClass in order // to find the class. long t1 = System.nanoTime(); c = findClass(name); // this is the defining class loader; record the stats sun.misc.PerfCounter.getParentDelegationTime().addTime(t1 - t0); sun.misc.PerfCounter.getFindClassTime().addElapsedTimeFrom(t1); sun.misc.PerfCounter.getFindClasses().increment(); } } if (resolve) { resolveClass(c); } return c; } } Where getClassLoadingLock simply does: protected Object getClassLoadingLock(String className) { Object lock = this; if (parallelLockMap != null) { Object newLock = new Object(); lock = parallelLockMap.putIfAbsent(className, newLock); if (lock == null) { lock = newLock; } } return lock; } This approach is very inefficient in terms of the space used per map and the number of maps. First, there is a map per-classloader. As per the code above under normal delegation the current classloader creates and acquires a lock for the given class, checks if it is already loaded, then asks its parent to load it; the parent in turn creates another lock in its own map, checks if the class is already loaded and then delegates to its parent and so on till the boot loader is invoked for which there is no map and no lock. So even in the simplest of applications, you will have two maps (in the system and extensions loaders) for every class that has to be loaded transitively from the application's main class. If you knew before hand which loader would actually load the class the locking would only need to be performed in that loader. As it stands the locking is completely unnecessary for all classes loaded by the boot loader. Secondly, once loading has completed and findClass will return the class, the lock and the map entry is completely unnecessary. But as it stands, the lock objects and their associated entries are never removed from the map. It is worth understanding exactly what the locking is intended to achieve, as this will help us understand potential remedies to the above inefficiencies. Given this is the support for parallel classloading, the class loader itself is unlikely to need to guard against concurrent load attempts - and if that were not the case it is likely that the classloader would need a different means to protect itself rather than a lock per class. Ultimately when a class file is located and the class has to be loaded, defineClass is called which calls into the VM - the VM does not require any locking at the Java level and uses its own mutexes for guarding its internal data structures (such as the system dictionary). The classloader locking is primarily needed to address the following situation: if two threads attempt to load the same class, one will initiate the request through the appropriate loader and eventually cause defineClass to be invoked. Meanwhile the second attempt will block trying to acquire the lock. Once the class is loaded the first thread will release the lock, allowing the second to acquire it. The second thread then sees that the class has now been loaded and will return that class. Neither thread can tell which did the loading and they both continue successfully. Consider if no lock was acquired in the classloader. Both threads will eventually locate the file for the class, read in the bytecodes and call defineClass to actually load the class. In this case the first to call defineClass will succeed, while the second will encounter an exception due to an attempted redefinition of an existing class. It is solely for this error condition that the lock has to be used. (Note that parallel capable classloaders should not need to be doing old deadlock-avoidance tricks like doing a wait() on the lock object\!). There are a number of obvious things we can try to solve this problem and they basically take three forms: Remove the need for locking. This might be achieved by having a new version of defineClass which acts like defineClassIfNotPresent - simply returning an existing Class rather than triggering an exception. Increase the coarseness of locking to reduce the number of lock objects and/or maps. For example, using a single shared lockMap instead of a per-loader lockMap. Reduce the lifetime of lock objects so that entries are removed from the map when no longer needed (eg remove after loading, use weak references to the lock objects and cleanup the map periodically). There are pros and cons to each of these approaches. Unfortunately a significant "con" is that the API introduced in Java 7 to support parallel classloading has essentially mandated that these locks do in fact exist, and they are accessible to the application code (indirectly through the classloader if it exposes them - which a custom loader might do - and regardless they are accessible to custom classloaders). So while we can reason that we could do parallel classloading with no locking, we can not implement this without breaking the specification for parallel classloading that was put in place for Java 7. Similarly we might reason that we can remove a mapping (and the lock object) because the class is already loaded, but this would again violate the specification because it can be reasoned that the following assertion should hold true: Object lock1 = loader.getClassLoadingLock(name); loader.loadClass(name); Object lock2 = loader.getClassLoadingLock(name); assert lock1 == lock2; Without modifying the specification, or at least doing some creative wordsmithing on it, options 1 and 3 are precluded. Even then there are caveats, for example if findLoadedClass is not atomic with respect to defineClass, then you can have concurrent calls to findLoadedClass from different threads and that could be expensive (this is also an argument against moving findLoadedClass outside the locked region - it may speed up the common case where the class is already loaded, but the cost of re-executing after acquiring the lock could be prohibitive. Even option 2 might need some wordsmithing on the specification because the specification for getClassLoadingLock states "returns a dedicated object associated with the specified class name". The question is, what does "dedicated" mean here? Does it mean unique in the sense that the returned object is only associated with the given class in the current loader? Or can the object actually guard loading of multiple classes, possibly across different class loaders? So it seems that changing the specification will be inevitable if we wish to do something here. In which case lets go for something that more cleanly defines what we want to be doing: fully concurrent class-loading. Note: defineClassIfNotPresent is already implemented in the VM as find_or_define_class. It is only used if the AllowParallelDefineClass flag is set. This gives us an easy hook into existing VM mechanics. Proposal: Fully Concurrent ClassLoaders The proposal is that we expand on the notion of a parallel capable class loader and define a "fully concurrent parallel capable class loader" or fully concurrent loader, for short. A fully concurrent loader uses no synchronization in loadClass and the VM uses the "parallel define class" mechanism. For a fully concurrent loader getClassLoadingLock() can return null (or perhaps not - it doesn't matter as we won't use the result anyway). At present we have not made any changes to this method. All the parallel capable JDK classloaders become fully concurrent loaders. This doesn't require any code re-design as none of the mechanisms implemented rely on the per-name locking provided by the parallelLockMap. This seems to give us a path to remove all locking at the Java level during classloading, while retaining full compatibility with Java 7 parallel capable loaders. Fully concurrent loaders will still encounter the performance penalty associated with concurrent attempts to find and prepare a class's bytecode for definition by the VM. What this penalty is depends on the number of concurrent load attempts possible (a function of the number of threads and the application logic, and dependent on the number of processors), and the costs associated with finding and preparing the bytecodes. This obviously has to be measured across a range of applications. Preliminary webrevs: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dholmes/concurrent-loaders/webrev.hotspot/ http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dholmes/concurrent-loaders/webrev.jdk/ Please direct all comments to the mailing list [email protected].

    Read the article

  • detection of 'flush tables with read lock' in php

    - by theduke0
    I would like to know from my application if a myisam table can accept writes (i.e. not locked). If an exception is thrown, everything is fine as I can catch this and log the failed statement to a file. However, if a 'flush tables with read lock' command has been issued (possibly for backup), the query I send will pretty much hang out forever. If one table is locked at a time, insert delayed works well. But when this global lock is applied, my query just waits. The query I run is an insert statement. If this statement fails or hangs, user experience is degraded. I need a way to send the query to the server and forget about it (pretty much). Does anyone have any suggestions on how to deal with this? -set a query timeout? -run asyncronous request and allow for the lock to expire while application continues? -fork my php process? Please let me know if I can provide and clarification or details.

    Read the article

  • Memory Barrier by lock statement

    - by jalalaldeen
    I read recently about memory barrier and the reordaring issue and now I have some confusion about it. Let us have a following senario: private object _object1 = null; private object _object2 = null; private bool _usingObject1 = false; private object MyObject { get { if (_usingObject1) { return _object1; } else { return _object2; } } set { if (_usingObject1) { _object1 = value; } else { _object2 = value; } } } private void Update() { _usingMethod1 = true; SomeProperty = FooMethod(); //.. _usingMethod1 = false; } 1- At Update method; is it always _usingMethod1 = true statement excecuted before getting or setting the property? or due reordaring issue we can not garantee that? 2- Should we use volitle like. private volitle bool _usingMethod1 = false; 3- If we use lock; can we garantee then every statement within the lock will be excecuted in order like: private void FooMethod() { object locker = new object(); lock (locker) { x = 1; y = a; i++; } } Thanks in advanced..

    Read the article

  • USB Hardware vs. Software Write Lock

    - by TreyK
    I'm in the market for a USB flash drive, and remember this cool feature a tiny 32MB flash drive of mine had: a write lock switch. This seemed like it would be an amazing feature to have as a shield against any nastiness happening to the drive on an unfamiliar computer. However, very few drives on the market offer this feature. Instead, it seems that forms of software protection are the more prominent method. This software protection causes me a bit of uneasiness, as it seems like this software wouldn't be nearly as bulletproof as a physical switch. Also, levels of protection seem to vary from product to product. Being able to protect certain folders from reading and/or writing would be nice, but is the security trade-off worth it? Just how effective can this software protection be? Wouldn't a simple format be able to clean any drive with software protection? My drive must also be compatible with Windows XP, Vista, and 7, as well as Linux and Mac. What would be the best way forward for getting a well-sized (~8GB) flash drive with a strong write protection implementation, for little or no more than a regular drive? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • 'txn-current-lock': Permission denied [500, #13] - Subversion + Apache Configuration Issue

    - by wfoster
    Current Setup Fedora 13 32bit Apache 2.2.16 Subversion repositories setup under /var/www/svn I have two different repositories under this directory so my /etc/httpd/conf.d/subversion.conf setup in this way; LoadModule dav_svn_module modules/mod_dav_svn.so LoadModule authz_svn_module modules/mod_authz_svn.so <Location /svn> DAV svn SVNListParentPath on SVNParentPath /var/www/svn <LimitExcept GET PROPFIND OPTIONS REPORT> AuthType Basic AuthName "Subversion Repository" AuthUserFile /etc/httpd/.htpasswd Require valid-user </LimitExcept> </Location> After copying over my repos and using; chmod 755 -R /var/www/svn chcon -R -t httpd_sys_content_t /var/www/svn chown apache:apache -R /var/www/svn I can browse my repos fine through the browser, and I can update all my working copies, however when I try to check in from anywhere I get the same error Can't open file '/var/www/svn/repo/db/txn-current-lock':Permission denied I have been working on this issue for a while now and cant seem to find a solution to my issues. It might be of some use to know that the repo existed on a different server before this, it has been now moved to this new server. Everything I have read seems to indicate that the permissions for apache are incorrect, however apache is set to run as User apache and Group apache. So as far as I can tell my setup is correct. The behavior is not though. Any Ideas? Solution The only way I was able to get this to work is to disable SELinux, it could also be done by setting the proper booleans with SELinux via setsetbool and getsebool since this is just a home server, I decided to disable SELinux and am reaping the benefits now.

    Read the article

  • Protocol to mount fat32 network filesystem on Linux with ability to lock files ( not advisory locks

    - by nagul
    I have a fat32 filesystem sitting on a NAS storage device (nslu2) that I need to mount on my Ubuntu system. I've tried Samba and NFS mounts, but both don't seem to support proper locking. More specifically, I am unable to save files to the mounted drive through GNUcash, KeepassX etc, which makes the share fairly useless. Is there a protocol that allows me to achieve this ? Note that the NAS storage device is running a linux OS so I can run pretty much any protocol that has a linux implementation. The only option I'm not looking for is to reformat the partition to ext3, which I'm not able to do due to other constraints. Alternatively, has anyone managed proper locking of a fat32 system over the network using Samba ? Or, is advisory locking the best you get with a network-mounted fat32 file system ? I've thought of trying sshfs but I've not found any indication that this will solve my problem. Edit: Okay, maybe I can reformat the drive, but to any file system except ext3. The "unslung" nslu2 doesn't like more than one ext3 drive, and I already have one attached. So any solution that involves reformatting the drive to ntfs, hfs etc is fine, as long as I can mount it on linux and lock files.

    Read the article

  • Timeout settings for Remote Desktop Sessions to lock

    - by atroon
    Our office uses a Windows 2003 server to provide access to an accounting application. Recently I was asked to increase the amount of time it takes for the session to lock itself and require the entry of the user's password to resume. That seems to be about ten minutes, at present. I am familiar with group policy and have tweaked those settings to scavenge sessions (and thereby licenses) from sessions that have been disconnected (by the user closing the mstsc.exe client or by a network issue). That's simple and straightforward. But I can't find anything in GP to allow a longer time period before the RDP client window goes black and then, when clicked upon, requires a username and password to resume the session. I must admit this would be nice personally as well, since most of my time is spent documenting the application and/or monitoring its database, so I usually have a window open to the terminal server along with the rest of the staff in the accounting center, but I interact with it very little. I usually enter my password 10-15 times per workday, but I'm pretty good at it by now. ;) So, can this timeout period be adjusted, or are we out of luck?

    Read the article

  • JDBC Lock a row using SELECT FOR UPDATE, doesn't work

    - by Rachid
    I am having issues with MySQL's SELECT .. FOR UPDATE, here is the query I am trying to run: SELECT * FROM tableName WHERE HostName='UnknownHost' ORDER BY UpdateTimestamp asc limit 1 FOR UPDATE After this, the concerned thread will do an UPDATE and change the HostName, which is then it should unlock the row. I am running a multi-threaded java application, so 3 threads are running this SQL statement, but when thread 1 runs this, it doesn't lock its results from thread 2 & 3. Therefore threads 2 & 3 are getting the same results and they could update the same row. Also each thread is on its own mysql connection. I'm using Innodb, with transaction-isolation = READ-COMMITTED, and the Autocommit is off before executing the select for update may I miss something? OR perhaps there is a better solution? Thanks a lot. Code : public BasicJDBCDemo() { Le_Thread newThread1=new Le_Thread(); Le_Thread newThread2=new Le_Thread(); newThread1.start(); newThread2.start(); } Thread : class Le_Thread extends Thread { public void run() { tring name = Thread.currentThread().getName(); System.out.println( name+": Debut."); long oid=Util.doSelectLockTest(name); Util.doUpdateTest(oid,name); } } Select : public static long doSelectLockTest(String threadName) { System.out.println("[OUTPUT FROM SELECT Lock ]...threadName="+threadName); PreparedStatement pst = null; ResultSet rs=null; Connection conn=null; long oid=0; try { String query = "SELECT * FROM table WHERE Host=? ORDER BY Timestamp asc limit 1 FOR UPDATE"; conn=getNewConnection(); pst = conn.prepareStatement(query); pst.setString(1, DbProperties.UnknownHost); System.out.println("pst="+threadName+"__"+pst); rs = pst.executeQuery(); if (rs.first()) { String s = rs.getString("HostName"); oid = rs.getLong("OID"); System.out.println("oid_oldest/host/threadName=="+oid+"/"+s+"/"+threadName); } } catch (SQLException ex) { ex.printStackTrace(); } finally { DBUtil.close(pst); DBUtil.close(rs); DBUtil.close(conn); } return oid; } Please help.... : Result : Thread-1: Debut. Thread-2: Debut. [OUTPUT FROM SELECT Lock ]...threadName=Thread-1 New connection.. [OUTPUT FROM SELECT Lock ]...threadName=Thread-2 New connection.. pst=Thread-2: SELECT * FROM b2biCheckPoint WHERE HostName='UnknownHost' ORDER BY UpdateTimestamp asc limit 1 FOR UPDATE pst=Thread-1: SELECT * FROM b2biCheckPoint WHERE HostName='UnknownHost' ORDER BY UpdateTimestamp asc limit 1 FOR UPDATE oid_oldest/host/threadName==1/UnknownHost/Thread-2 oid_oldest/host/threadName==1/UnknownHost/Thread-1 [Performing UPDATE] ... oid = 1, thread=Thread-2 New connection.. [Performing UPDATE] ... oid = 1, thread=Thread-1 pst_threadname=Thread-2: UPDATE b2bicheckpoint SET HostName='1_host_Thread-2',UpdateTimestamp=1294940161838 where OID = 1 New connection.. pst_threadname=Thread-1: UPDATE b2bicheckpoint SET HostName='1_host_Thread-1',UpdateTimestamp=1294940161853 where OID = 1

    Read the article

  • How to Treat Race Condition of Session in Web Application?

    - by Morgan Cheng
    I was in a ASP.NET application has heavy traffic of AJAX requests. Once a user login our web application, a session is created to store information of this user's state. Currently, our solution to keep session data consistent is quite simple and brutal: each request needs to acquire a exclusive lock before being processed. This works fine for tradition web application. But, when the web application turns to support AJAX, it turns to not efficient. It is quite possible that multiple AJAX requests are sent to server at the same time without reloading the web page. If all AJAX requests are serialized by the exclusive lock, the response is not so quick. Anyway, many AJAX requests that doesn't access same session variables are blocked as well. If we don't have a exclusive lock for each requests, then we need to treat all race condition carefully to avoid dead lock. I'm afraid that would make the code complex and buggy. So, is there any best practice to keep session data consistent and keep code simple and clean?

    Read the article

  • NHibernate mapping with optimistic-lock="version" and dynamic-update="true" is generating invalid up

    - by SteveBering
    I have an entity "Group" with an assigned ID which is added to an aggregate in order to persist it. This causes an issue because NHibernate can't tell if it is new or existing. To remedy this issue, I changed the mapping to make the Group entity use optimistic locking on a sql timestamp version column. This caused a new issue. Group has a bag of sub objects. So when NHibernate flushes a new group to the database, it first creates the Group record in the Groups table, then inserts each of the sub objects, then does an update of the Group records to update the timestamp value. However, the sql that is generated to complete the update is invalid when the mapping is both dynamic-update="true" and optimistic-lock="version". Here is the mapping: <class xmlns="urn:nhibernate-mapping-2.2" dynamic-update="true" mutable="true" optimistic-lock="version" name="Group" table="Groups"> <id name="GroupNumber" type="System.String, mscorlib, Version=2.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089"> <column name="GroupNumber" length="5" /> <generator class="assigned" /> </id> <version generated="always" name="Timestamp" type="BinaryBlob" unsaved-value="null"> <column name="TS" not-null="false" sql-type="timestamp" /> </version> <property name="UID" update="false" type="System.Guid, mscorlib, Version=2.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089"> <column name="GroupUID" unique="true" /> </property> <property name="Description" type="AnsiString"> <column name="GroupDescription" length="25" not-null="true" /> </property> <bag access="field.camelcase-underscore" cascade="all" inverse="true" lazy="true" name="Assignments" mutable="true" order-by="GroupAssignAssignment"> <key foreign-key="fk_Group_Assignments"> <column name="GroupNumber" /> </key> <one-to-many class="Assignment" /> </bag> <many-to-one class="Aggregate" name="Aggregate"> <column name="GroupParentID" not-null="true" /> </many-to-one> </class> </hibernate-mapping> When the mapping includes both the dynamic update and the optimistic lock, the sql generated is: UPDATE groups SET WHERE GroupNumber = 11111 AND TS=0x00000007877 This is obviously invalid as there are no SET statements. If I remove the dynamic update part, everything gets updated during this update statement instead. This makes the statement valid, but rather unnecessary. Has anyone seen this issue before? Am I missing something? Thanks, Steve

    Read the article

  • safely lock a file then move? windows

    - by acidzombie24
    I have a file and need to ensure it exist before inserting a row into the db. After i insert i need to use the PK as part of the filename and move it into another location. How do i check if it exist then lock it so it cant be deleted until i can insert into the db then proceed to move the file without it being deleted upon releasing the lock? also the file may be in use. I am thinking of copying the file into a safe location then moving that file away. In this case i need to copy a file that is being used for reading. How can i do the above steps safely? Using .NET

    Read the article

  • Release another user's lock obtained with sp_getapplock on SQL Server

    - by joshperry
    We have a system that uses sp_getapplock to create an exclusive mutex any time someone opens an order in the GUI. This is used to prevent multiple people from making changes to an order simultaneously. Sometimes people will open an order and go home, leaving it open. This effectively blocks anyone from being able to make changes to the order. I then get emails, calls and end up doing a kill <spid> in enterprise manager. Obviously I've gotten sick of this and want to make a quick self-service webform. The main problem I've run into is that kill requires sysadmin privileges, which I do not want to give to the user that the our website runs as. I have tried sp_releaseapplock but this doesn't let you release another user's lock (even when calling it as a sysadmin). So, finally my question; does anyone know of an alternative method to release a lock that was obtained by another user using sp_getapplock?

    Read the article

  • Remove another user's lock obtained with sp_getapplock on SQL Server

    - by joshperry
    We have a system that uses sp_getapplock to create an exclusive mutex any time someone opens an order in the GUI. This is used to prevent multiple people from making changes to an order simultaneously. Sometimes people will open an order and go home, leaving it open. This effectively blocks anyone from being able to make changes to the order. I then get emails, calls and end up doing a kill <spid> in enterprise manager. Obviously I've gotten sick of this and want to make a quick self-service webform. The main problem I've run into is that kill requires sysadmin privileges, which I do not want to give to the user that the our website runs as. I have tried sp_releaseapplock but this doesn't let you release another user's lock (even when calling it as a sysadmin). So, finally my question; does anyone know of an alternative method to release a lock that was obtained by another user using sp_getapplock?

    Read the article

  • lock file so that it cannot be deleted

    - by JoeCool
    I'm working with two independent c/c++ applications on Windows where one of them constantly updates an image on disk (from a webcam) and the other reads that image for processing. This works fine and dandy 99.99% of the time, but every once in a while the reader app is in the middle of reading the image when the writer deletes it to refresh it with a new one. The obvious solution to me seems to be to have the reader put some sort of a lock on the file so that the writer can see that it can't delete it and thus spin-lock on it until it can delete and update. Is there anyway to do this? Or is there another simple design pattern I can use to get the same sort of constant image refreshing between two programs? Thanks, -Robert

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  | Next Page >