Search Results

Search found 800 results on 32 pages for 'locks'.

Page 5/32 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • If I use locks, can my algorithm still be lock-free?

    - by Joe Pension
    A common definition of lock-free is that at least one process makes progress. 1 If I have a simple data structure such as a queue, protected by a lock, then one process can always make progress, as one process can acquire the lock, do what it wants, and release it. So does it meet the definition of lock-free? 1 See eg M. Herlihy, V. Luchangco, and M. Moir. Obstruction-free synchronization: Double-ended queues as an example. In Distributed Computing, 2003. "It is lock-free if it ensures only that some thread always makes progress".

    Read the article

  • Is lock returned by ReentrantReadWriteLock equivalent to it's read and write locks?

    - by Todd
    Hello, I have been looking around for the answer to this, but no joy. In Java, is using the lock created by ReentrantReadWriteLock equivalent to getting the read and write locks as returned by readLock.lock() and writeLock.lock()? In other words, can I expect the read and write locks associated with the ReentrantReadWriteLock to be requested and held by synchronizing on the ReentrantReadWriteLock? My gut says "no" since any object can be used for synchronization. I wouldn't think that there would be special behavior for ReentrantReadWriteLock. However, special behavior is the corner case of which I may not be aware. Thanks, Todd

    Read the article

  • Must all Concurrent Data Store (CDB) locks be explicitly released when closing a Berkeley DB?

    - by Steve Emmerson
    I have an application that comprises multiple processes each accessing a single Berkeley DB Concurrent Data Store (CDB) database. Each process is single-threaded and does no explicit locking of the database. When each process terminates normally, it calls DB-close() and DB_ENV-close(). When all processes have terminated, there should be no locks on the database. Episodically, however, the database behaves as if some process was holding a write-lock on it even though all processes have terminated normally. Does each process need to explicitly release all locks before calling DB_ENV-close()? If so, how does the process obtain the "locker" parameter for the call to DB_ENV-loc_vec()?

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to create thread-safe collections without locks?

    - by Andrey
    This is pure just for interest question, any sort of questions are welcome. So is it possible to create thread-safe collections without any locks? By locks I mean any thread synchronization mechanisms, including Mutex, Semaphore, and even Interlocked, all of them. Is it possible at user level, without calling system functions? Ok, may be implementation is not effective, i am interested in theoretical possibility. If not what is the minimum means to do it? EDIT: Why immutable collections don't work. This of class Stack with methods Add that returns another Stack. Now here is program: Stack stack = new ...; ThreadedMethod() { loop { //Do the loop stack = stack.Add(element); } } this expression stack = stack.Add(element) is not atomic, and you can overwrite new stack from other thread. Thanks, Andrey

    Read the article

  • Why lock statements don't scale

    - by Alex.Davies
    We are going to have to stop using lock statements one day. Just like we had to stop using goto statements. The problem is similar, they're pretty easy to follow in small programs, but code with locks isn't composable. That means that small pieces of program that work in isolation can't necessarily be put together and work together. Of course actors scale fine :) Why lock statements don't scale as software gets bigger Deadlocks. You have a program with lots of threads picking up lots of locks. You already know that if two of your threads both try to pick up a lock that the other already has, they will deadlock. Your program will come to a grinding halt, and there will be fire and brimstone. "Easy!" you say, "Just make sure all the threads pick up the locks in the same order." Yes, that works. But you've broken composability. Now, to add a new lock to your code, you have to consider all the other locks already in your code and check that they are taken in the right order. Algorithm buffs will have noticed this approach means it takes quadratic time to write a program. That's bad. Why lock statements don't scale as hardware gets bigger Memory bus contention There's another headache, one that most programmers don't usually need to think about, but is going to bite us in a big way in a few years. Locking needs exclusive use of the entire system's memory bus while taking out the lock. That's not too bad for a single or dual-core system, but already for quad-core systems it's a pretty large overhead. Have a look at this blog about the .NET 4 ThreadPool for some numbers and a weird analogy (see the author's comment). Not too bad yet, but I'm scared my 1000 core machine of the future is going to go slower than my machine today! I don't know the answer to this problem yet. Maybe some kind of per-core work queue system with hierarchical work stealing. Definitely hardware support. But what I do know is that using locks specifically prevents any solution to this. We should be abstracting our code away from the details of locks as soon as possible, so we can swap in whatever solution arrives when it does. NAct uses locks at the moment. But my advice is that you code using actors (which do scale well as software gets bigger). And when there's a better way of implementing actors that'll scale well as hardware gets bigger, only NAct needs to work out how to use it, and your program will go fast on it's own.

    Read the article

  • Why are my downloads up to ~1500KByte/sec only, when the ADSL connection locks at 13611Kbit/s?

    - by leladax
    No uploading is going on other than the overhead of downloading which appears to be not high for the abilities of the connection: Only about 30-40KByte/s when the router locks at 1012Kb/s and other direct uploads or uploading overheads can reach more than 100KByte/sec so I don't think it's a congestion at uploading that is doing it. Is there something I miss? Because I assume 13611Kbit/s should be ~1701Kbyte/sec. Is it an overheard at the ADSL level I don't understand? Could it be the ISP doing it? If it's active throttling it can't be on single connections since 2 high speed connections still go up to ~1500KByte/sec. It's not an example on torrents or other complex situations. The tests were on Ethernet, but I doubt the results would be different on wireless. I wonder if the settings of those connections at my end could be doing it, e.g. MTU settings, though I haven't touched the defaults of a common Realtek NIC.

    Read the article

  • How can I get SQL Server transactions to use record-level locks?

    - by Joe White
    We have an application that was originally written as a desktop app, lo these many years ago. It starts a transaction whenever you open an edit screen, and commits if you click OK, or rolls back if you click Cancel. This worked okay for a desktop app, but now we're trying to move to ADO.NET and SQL Server, and the long-running transactions are problematic. I found that we'll have a problem when multiple users are all trying to edit (different subsets of) the same table at the same time. In our old database, each user's transaction would acquire record-level locks to every record they modified during their transaction; since different users were editing different records, everyone gets their own locks and everything works. But in SQL Server, as soon as one user edits a record inside a transaction, SQL Server appears to get a lock on the entire table. When a second user tries to edit a different record in the same table, the second user's app simply locks up, because the SqlConnection blocks until the first user either commits or rolls back. I'm aware that long-running transactions are bad, and I know that the best solution would be to change these screens so that they no longer keep transactions open for a long time. But since that would mean some invasive and risky changes, I also want to research whether there's a way to get this code up and running as-is, just so I know what my options are. How can I get two different users' transactions in SQL Server to lock individual records instead of the entire table? Here's a quick-and-dirty console app that illustrates the issue. I've created a database called "test1", with one table called "Values" that just has ID (int) and Value (nvarchar) columns. If you run the app, it asks for an ID to modify, starts a transaction, modifies that record, and then leaves the transaction open until you press ENTER. I want to be able to start the program and tell it to update ID 1; let it get its transaction and modify the record; start a second copy of the program and tell it to update ID 2; have it able to update (and commit) while the first app's transaction is still open. Currently it freezes at step 4, until I go back to the first copy of the app and close it or press ENTER so it commits. The call to command.ExecuteNonQuery blocks until the first connection is closed. public static void Main() { Console.Write("ID to update: "); var id = int.Parse(Console.ReadLine()); Console.WriteLine("Starting transaction"); using (var scope = new TransactionScope()) using (var connection = new SqlConnection(@"Data Source=localhost\sqlexpress;Initial Catalog=test1;Integrated Security=True")) { connection.Open(); var command = connection.CreateCommand(); command.CommandText = "UPDATE [Values] SET Value = 'Value' WHERE ID = " + id; Console.WriteLine("Updating record"); command.ExecuteNonQuery(); Console.Write("Press ENTER to end transaction: "); Console.ReadLine(); scope.Complete(); } } Here are some things I've already tried, with no change in behavior: Changing the transaction isolation level to "read uncommitted" Specifying a "WITH (ROWLOCK)" on the UPDATE statement

    Read the article

  • SQL Server Read Locking behavior

    - by Charles Bretana
    When SQL Server Books online says that "Shared (S) locks on a resource are released as soon as the read operation completes, unless the transaction isolation level is set to repeatable read or higher, or a locking hint is used to retain the shared (S) locks for the duration of the transaction." Assuming we're talking about a row-level lock, with no explicit transaction, at default isolation level (Read Committed), what does "read operation" refer to? The reading of a single row of data? The reading of a single 8k IO Page ? or until the the complete Select statement in which the lock was created has finished executing, no matter how many other rows are involved? NOTE: The reason I need to know this is we have a several second read-only select statement generated by a data layer web service, which creates page-level shared read locks, generating a deadlock due to conflicting with row-level exclusive update locks from a replication prcoess that keeps the server updated. The select statement is fairly large, with many sub-selects, and one DBA is proposing that we rewrite it to break it up into multiple smaller statements (shorter running pieces), "to cut down on how long the locks are held". As this assumes that the shared read locks are held till the complete select statement has finished, if that is wrong (if locks are released when the row, or the page is read) then that approach would have no effect whatsoever....

    Read the article

  • How to implement an offline reader writer lock

    - by Peter Morris
    Some context for the question All objects in this question are persistent. All requests will be from a Silverlight client talking to an app server via a binary protocol (Hessian) and not WCF. Each user will have a session key (not an ASP.NET session) which will be a string, integer, or GUID (undecided so far). Some objects might take a long time to edit (30 or more minutes) so we have decided to use pessimistic offline locking. Pessimistic because having to reconcile conflicts would be far too annoying for users, offline because the client is not permanently connected to the server. Rather than storing session/object locking information in the object itself I have decided that any aggregate root that may have its instances locked should implement an interface ILockable public interface ILockable { Guid LockID { get; } } This LockID will be the identity of a "Lock" object which holds the information of which session is locking it. Now, if this were simple pessimistic locking I'd be able to achieve this very simply (using an incrementing version number on Lock to identify update conflicts), but what I actually need is ReaderWriter pessimistic offline locking. The reason is that some parts of the application will perform actions that read these complex structures. These include things like Reading a single structure to clone it. Reading multiple structures in order to create a binary file to "publish" the data to an external source. Read locks will be held for a very short period of time, typically less than a second, although in some circumstances they could be held for about 5 seconds at a guess. Write locks will mostly be held for a long time as they are mostly held by humans. There is a high probability of two users trying to edit the same aggregate at the same time, and a high probability of many users needing to temporarily read-lock at the same time too. I'm looking for suggestions as to how I might implement this. One additional point to make is that if I want to place a write lock and there are some read locks, I would like to "queue" the write lock so that no new read locks are placed. If the read locks are removed withing X seconds then the write lock is obtained, if not then the write lock backs off; no new read-locks would be placed while a write lock is queued. So far I have this idea The Lock object will have a version number (int) so I can detect multi-update conflicts, reload, try again. It will have a string[] for read locks A string to hold the session ID that has a write lock A string to hold the queued write lock Possibly a recursion counter to allow the same session to lock multiple times (for both read and write locks), but not sure about this yet. Rules: Can't place a read lock if there is a write lock or queued write lock. Can't place a write lock if there is a write lock or queued write lock. If there are no locks at all then a write lock may be placed. If there are read locks then a write lock will be queued instead of a full write lock placed. (If after X time the read locks are not gone the lock backs off, otherwise it is upgraded). Can't queue a write lock for a session that has a read lock. Can anyone see any problems? Suggest alternatives? Anything? I'd appreciate feedback before deciding on what approach to take.

    Read the article

  • Xcode 3.1.2 locks up when loading C++ project...?

    - by Stabledog
    I have a project which builds correctly from the command line. On one of my Macs (10.5) running Xcode 3.1.2, I can load it and build it in the Xcode IDE. On my other Mac (same configuration of software), Xcode sometimes loads the project, but always locks up with a spinning beach ball at some point before the build is done. Sometimes this occurs as the project is loaded, sometimes late in the build. I've tried doing a 'clean' on the project, I've tried pulling in the source code fresh from source control. So far, no luck -- I have to kill Xcode and in effect, cannot develop on this particular Mac. I've uninstalled and reinstalled Xcode. Any clues?

    Read the article

  • Best practice for avoiding locks on a heavily read table?

    - by Luiggi
    Hi, I have a big database (~4GB), with 2 large tables (~3M records) having ~180K SELECTs/hour, ~2k UPDATEs/hour and ~1k INSERTs+DELETEs/hour. What would be the best practice to guarantee no locks for the reading tasks while inserting/updating/deleting? I was thinking about using a NOLOCK hint, but there is so much discussed about this (is good, is bad, it depends) that I'm a bit lost. I must say I've tried this in a dev environment and I didn't find any problems, but I don't want to put it on production until I get some feedback... Thank you! Luiggi

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – Concurrency Basics – Guest Post by Vinod Kumar

    - by pinaldave
    This guest post is by Vinod Kumar. Vinod Kumar has worked with SQL Server extensively since joining the industry over a decade ago. Working on various versions from SQL Server 7.0, Oracle 7.3 and other database technologies – he now works with the Microsoft Technology Center (MTC) as a Technology Architect. Let us read the blog post in Vinod’s own voice. Learning is always fun when it comes to SQL Server and learning the basics again can be more fun. I did write about Transaction Logs and recovery over my blogs and the concept of simplifying the basics is a challenge. In the real world we always see checks and queues for a process – say railway reservation, banks, customer supports etc there is a process of line and queue to facilitate everyone. Shorter the queue higher is the efficiency of system (a.k.a higher is the concurrency). Every database does implement this using checks like locking, blocking mechanisms and they implement the standards in a way to facilitate higher concurrency. In this post, let us talk about the topic of Concurrency and what are the various aspects that one needs to know about concurrency inside SQL Server. Let us learn the concepts as one-liners: Concurrency can be defined as the ability of multiple processes to access or change shared data at the same time. The greater the number of concurrent user processes that can be active without interfering with each other, the greater the concurrency of the database system. Concurrency is reduced when a process that is changing data prevents other processes from reading that data or when a process that is reading data prevents other processes from changing that data. Concurrency is also affected when multiple processes are attempting to change the same data simultaneously. Two approaches to managing concurrent data access: Optimistic Concurrency Model Pessimistic Concurrency Model Concurrency Models Pessimistic Concurrency Default behavior: acquire locks to block access to data that another process is using. Assumes that enough data modification operations are in the system that any given read operation is likely affected by a data modification made by another user (assumes conflicts will occur). Avoids conflicts by acquiring a lock on data being read so no other processes can modify that data. Also acquires locks on data being modified so no other processes can access the data for either reading or modifying. Readers block writer, writers block readers and writers. Optimistic Concurrency Assumes that there are sufficiently few conflicting data modification operations in the system that any single transaction is unlikely to modify data that another transaction is modifying. Default behavior of optimistic concurrency is to use row versioning to allow data readers to see the state of the data before the modification occurs. Older versions of the data are saved so a process reading data can see the data as it was when the process started reading and not affected by any changes being made to that data. Processes modifying the data is unaffected by processes reading the data because the reader is accessing a saved version of the data rows. Readers do not block writers and writers do not block readers, but, writers can and will block writers. Transaction Processing A transaction is the basic unit of work in SQL Server. Transaction consists of SQL commands that read and update the database but the update is not considered final until a COMMIT command is issued (at least for an explicit transaction: marked with a BEGIN TRAN and the end is marked by a COMMIT TRAN or ROLLBACK TRAN). Transactions must exhibit all the ACID properties of a transaction. ACID Properties Transaction processing must guarantee the consistency and recoverability of SQL Server databases. Ensures all transactions are performed as a single unit of work regardless of hardware or system failure. A – Atomicity C – Consistency I – Isolation D- Durability Atomicity: Each transaction is treated as all or nothing – it either commits or aborts. Consistency: ensures that a transaction won’t allow the system to arrive at an incorrect logical state – the data must always be logically correct.  Consistency is honored even in the event of a system failure. Isolation: separates concurrent transactions from the updates of other incomplete transactions. SQL Server accomplishes isolation among transactions by locking data or creating row versions. Durability: After a transaction commits, the durability property ensures that the effects of the transaction persist even if a system failure occurs. If a system failure occurs while a transaction is in progress, the transaction is completely undone, leaving no partial effects on data. Transaction Dependencies In addition to supporting all four ACID properties, a transaction might exhibit few other behaviors (known as dependency problems or consistency problems). Lost Updates: Occur when two processes read the same data and both manipulate the data, changing its value and then both try to update the original data to the new value. The second process might overwrite the first update completely. Dirty Reads: Occurs when a process reads uncommitted data. If one process has changed data but not yet committed the change, another process reading the data will read it in an inconsistent state. Non-repeatable Reads: A read is non-repeatable if a process might get different values when reading the same data in two reads within the same transaction. This can happen when another process changes the data in between the reads that the first process is doing. Phantoms: Occurs when membership in a set changes. It occurs if two SELECT operations using the same predicate in the same transaction return a different number of rows. Isolation Levels SQL Server supports 5 isolation levels that control the behavior of read operations. Read Uncommitted All behaviors except for lost updates are possible. Implemented by allowing the read operations to not take any locks, and because of this, it won’t be blocked by conflicting locks acquired by other processes. The process can read data that another process has modified but not yet committed. When using the read uncommitted isolation level and scanning an entire table, SQL Server can decide to do an allocation order scan (in page-number order) instead of a logical order scan (following page pointers). If another process doing concurrent operations changes data and move rows to a new location in the table, the allocation order scan can end up reading the same row twice. Also can happen if you have read a row before it is updated and then an update moves the row to a higher page number than your scan encounters later. Performing an allocation order scan under Read Uncommitted can cause you to miss a row completely – can happen when a row on a high page number that hasn’t been read yet is updated and moved to a lower page number that has already been read. Read Committed Two varieties of read committed isolation: optimistic and pessimistic (default). Ensures that a read never reads data that another application hasn’t committed. If another transaction is updating data and has exclusive locks on data, your transaction will have to wait for the locks to be released. Your transaction must put share locks on data that are visited, which means that data might be unavailable for others to use. A share lock doesn’t prevent others from reading but prevents them from updating. Read committed (snapshot) ensures that an operation never reads uncommitted data, but not by forcing other processes to wait. SQL Server generates a version of the changed row with its previous committed values. Data being changed is still locked but other processes can see the previous versions of the data as it was before the update operation began. Repeatable Read This is a Pessimistic isolation level. Ensures that if a transaction revisits data or a query is reissued the data doesn’t change. That is, issuing the same query twice within a transaction cannot pickup any changes to data values made by another user’s transaction because no changes can be made by other transactions. However, this does allow phantom rows to appear. Preventing non-repeatable read is a desirable safeguard but cost is that all shared locks in a transaction must be held until the completion of the transaction. Snapshot Snapshot Isolation (SI) is an optimistic isolation level. Allows for processes to read older versions of committed data if the current version is locked. Difference between snapshot and read committed has to do with how old the older versions have to be. It’s possible to have two transactions executing simultaneously that give us a result that is not possible in any serial execution. Serializable This is the strongest of the pessimistic isolation level. Adds to repeatable read isolation level by ensuring that if a query is reissued rows were not added in the interim, i.e, phantoms do not appear. Preventing phantoms is another desirable safeguard, but cost of this extra safeguard is similar to that of repeatable read – all shared locks in a transaction must be held until the transaction completes. In addition serializable isolation level requires that you lock data that has been read but also data that doesn’t exist. Ex: if a SELECT returned no rows, you want it to return no. rows when the query is reissued. This is implemented in SQL Server by a special kind of lock called the key-range lock. Key-range locks require that there be an index on the column that defines the range of values. If there is no index on the column, serializable isolation requires a table lock. Gets its name from the fact that running multiple serializable transactions at the same time is equivalent of running them one at a time. Now that we understand the basics of what concurrency is, the subsequent blog posts will try to bring out the basics around locking, blocking, deadlocks because they are the fundamental blocks that make concurrency possible. Now if you are with me – let us continue learning for SQL Server Locking Basics. Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.sqlauthority.com) Filed under: PostADay, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Performance, SQL Query, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, T SQL, Technology Tagged: Concurrency

    Read the article

  • July, the 31 Days of SQL Server DMO’s – Day 20 (sys.dm_tran_locks)

    - by Tamarick Hill
    The sys.dm_tran_locks DMV is used to return active lock resources on your server. Locking is a mechanism used by SQL Server to protect the integrity of data when you have multiple users that may potentially access the same data at the same time. Let’s run a query against this DMV so we can analyze the results. SELECT * FROM sys.dm_tran_locks As we can see, its a lot of lock information returned from this DMV. I will not go into detail about each of the columns returned, but I will touch on the ones that I feel are the most important. The first column in the output is the resource_type column which tells you the type of lock a particular row represents. It could be a PAGE lock, RID, OBJECT, DATABASE, or several other lock types. The resource_database_id represents the id of the database for a particular lock resource. The resource_lock_partition column represents the ID of a lock partition. When you have a table that is partitioned, locks can be escalated to the partition level before going to a table level lock. The request_mode column gives us information about the type of lock that is being requested. From the screenshots above we see RangeS-S locks which represent a share range lock and IS locks which represent Intent Shared locks. The request_status column displays whether the lock has been granted or whether the lock is waiting to be acquired. The request_session_id  shows the session_id that is requesting the lock. This DMV is the best place to go when you need to identify the exact locks that are being held or pending for individual requests. You might need this information when you are troubleshooting severe blocking or deadlocking problems on your server. For more information on this DMV, please see the below Books Online link: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190345.aspx Follow me on Twitter @PrimeTimeDBA

    Read the article

  • While in CMD shell, copying files from host OS to guest VM locks files (VMware Player/Workstation)

    - by Malcolm
    We're running the latest versions of VMWare Player and Workstation for Windows. The following behavior is identical across both products. Problem: We open a CMD prompt in our guest OS (XP, Vista, Windows 7) and copy files from our host OS using the standard CMD shell copy command: copy z:\C$\testfiles The copy completes successfully, but from that point forward, all the files that were copied to our guest OS are now LOCKED on our host OS. This does not happen if we use Windows Explorer to copy files - it only happens when files are copied via the CMD shell. As mentioned at the start of this question, this behavior is reproducible in both VMWare Player and VMWare Workstation across multiple machines and multiple guest OS's. I've googled for a workaround, but without success. Any ideas appreciated. Malcolm

    Read the article

  • Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard: Locks MS Office files, but not Adobe .AI and .PSD files?

    - by Bruce Garlock
    We have some shares setup on a Windows 2003 R2 server, and the MS Office files people save behave properly: The first person to open the file gets read/write, and the second person to open the file while the first person still has the file open, gets a read-only version. This is not true for the graphics files, like Adobe Illustrator .AI files, and Photoshop .PSD files. Anyone who goes to open these files has full read/write, even if someone else is already working on the file! This has lead to numerous file corruption issues, as well as other lost work, since it always saves the last changes to the file. How do we get Windows to properly lock these files so when someone is working on a file, and someone else wants to open one, they get read-only access? Many thanks, Bruce

    Read the article

  • Box.com file sharing - How are you managing concurrent document access and file locks? [closed]

    - by Matt
    My company is evaluating Box.com as a file server replacement. It's file locking behavior for concurrent access to files seems incomplete. Specifically, files are not locked* (either exclusive or read-only) when they are being edited by Office or similar programs. This inevitably results in multiple versions of documents as concurrent access results in change conflicts. *The exception is when the file is edited using Zoho Docs - perhaps other web-based office suites as well. Box provides multiple options for editing documents, including Google Docs, a local copy of Office or similar, Zoho Docs and others. If you are using Box how have you managed or worked around this behavior?

    Read the article

  • One incorrect SSH login attempt locks me out for an hour...

    - by Legend
    I've never observed this problem neither did any of my colleagues trying to SSH into the same system. If I try logging into my server using a wrong username and then press ^C to terminate or exhaust my password attempts, I am locked out for at least an hour. Is there something I can do on my end to fix this problem?

    Read the article

  • Best Practices in Preventing Locks in File sharing in Windows?

    - by crosenblum
    We have a web development server, that has our source control on it. That we use via mapped drives to open/edit/save/create files on to it. But I have noticed a lot of weird glitches with either the file lock/sharing/etc For example, if i have a file open on my local pc, and try to check out that file via my source control on dev, it error's out. The source control I use is QCVS by Qumasoft. Or If I use cuteftp to download something to dev, via my local pc, it won't download unless I close that file. So my brain sniff's and figures this is either an issue with folder/network/sharing, or an issue of permissions. Has anyone else had similar issues, and what did they do to fix it permanently? Thank you...

    Read the article

  • After binding Mac to AD, first login successfully creates mobile account and logs in, after that next login locks AD account

    - by user132844
    Mac os x 10.7 and 10.8 AD Server 2008 R2 Binding using AD Plugin or dsconfigad -add mydomain -username myuser -ou "OU=Computers,OU=Sites,OU=Mysite,DC=mycompany,DC=com" Works fine. First login happens fine. Creates mobile account, no issues noticed. After I logout, the next login attempt fails, and after only shaking one time, their AD account is locked out. opendirectory.log makes a vague mention of account being expired but honestly I don't see much in the logs that pops out as useful. Any help?

    Read the article

  • Windows 7 host with Ubuntu Guest and a performance hit, memory locks?

    - by Cyrylski
    I have a brand new Lenovo T510 with Core i5 and 4GB of RAM with Windows 7 on it. I Installed Ubuntu 10.10 in a Virtualbox. For some reason system gets really slow on this setup which makes me really angry. There's a video card shared with full 3D support enabled and 1GB of RAM allocated for the Ubuntu machine. It may sound stupid, but WHY is the whole memory consumed in an instant when I run Virtualbox? I struggled for like 10 minutes restraining myself from a brutal reset, and now everything runs smooth but memory "in use" in Resource Monitor is 3GB flat with only Chrome running. I'm new to Windows 7, but I'm really disappointed with performance at this point... I used to work in a different environment with much slower hardware and there was no such problem (WinXP over Ubuntu, 1GB out of 2GB allocated for WinXP guest on intel GMA). This is, until I clogged RAM totally there. But I was capable of running Chrome, Firefox and Apache server on a 1GB RAM in Ubuntu there and Photoshop CS4 on Windows XP and it worked. In this case I can't go beyond setting up Ubuntu properly. I bet I'm doing something wrong.

    Read the article

  • Which optional features would you recommend for a raytracer? [closed]

    - by locks
    I'm developing a basic triangle mesh raytracer on a short deadline. This means I can't implement every feature I come across, so I'm looking for some feedback about which features you think are most important, taking into consideration the performance of the feature and how much punch it packs. I'm especially looking for optimization techniques that allow for a faster rendering and simple techniques that make a big impact on the final scene quality. Is there any chance of making it fast enough to run in realtime? Here are some example of features I've read about: Anti-aliasing Bounding box Sky box

    Read the article

  • SQL Server stored procedure in multi threaded environments

    - by Shamika
    Hi, I need to execute some Sql server stored procs in a thread safe manner. At the moment I'm using software locks (C# locks) to achieve this but wonder what kind of features provided by the Sql server itself to achieve thread safety. It seems to be there are some table and row locking features built in to Sql server. Also from a performance perspective what is best approach? Software locks? Or Sql Server built in locks? Thanks, Shamika

    Read the article

  • SQL Server Table locks in long query - Solution: NoLock?

    - by Kovu
    a report in my application runs a query that needs between 5 - 15 seconds (constrained to count of rows that will be returned). The query has 8 joins to nearly all main-tables of my application (Customers, sales, units etc). A little tool shows me, that in this time, all those 8 tables are locked with a shared table lock. That means, no update operation will be done in this time. A solution from a friend is, to have every join in the query, which is not mandetory to have 100% correct data (dirty read), with a NoLock, so only 1 of this 8 tables will be locked completly. Is that a good solution? For a report in which 99% of data came from one table, unlock the less prio tables?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >