I am trying to catch if timeout error occurs in Oracle. After googling a lot i did not find any specific fix for it. I have done below
try{}
catch (OracleException ex)
{
if (ex.Number == 01013)
CatchException(ex);
}
But i am not sure if timeout exception number is 01013.
Yes the code is 01013. Please refer the Oracle docs:
Default is 0 seconds, which enforces no time limit.
When the specified timeout value expires before a command execution
finishes, the command attempts to cancel. If cancellation is
successful, an exception is thrown with the message of ORA-01013: user
requested cancel of current operation. If the command executed in time
without any errors, no exceptions are thrown.
In a situation where multiple OracleCommand objects use the same
connection, the timeout expiration on one of the OracleCommand objects
may terminate any of the executions on the single connection. To make
the timeout expiration of a OracleCommand cancel only its own command
execution, simply use one OracleCommand for each connection if that
OracleCommand sets the CommandTimeout property to a value greater than
0.
Please note that there are possibly two other error codes which will throw when the .CommandTimeout is exceeded. Those are ORA-00936 and ORA-00604. Found in the docs.
When the specified timeout value expires before a command execution finishes, the command attempts to cancel. If cancellation is successful, an exception is thrown with the message of ORA-01013: user requested cancel of current operation. Other possible exceptions thrown after a command timeout expiration occurs include ORA-00936 and ORA-00604. If the command executed in time without any errors, no exceptions are thrown.
So your code should be:
try
{
// Data Access
}
catch (OracleException ex)
{
if (ex.Number == 01013 || ex.Number == 00936 || ex.Number == 00604)
CatchException(ex);
}
Related
According to Microsoft's article (SQL Server Connection Pooling (ADO.NET)),
When connection pooling is enabled, and if a timeout error or other login error occurs, an exception will be thrown and subsequent connection attempts will fail for the next five seconds, the "blocking period". If the application attempts to connect within the blocking period, the first exception will be thrown again. After the blocking period ends, another connection failure by the application will result in a blocking period that is twice as long as the previous blocking period. Subsequent failures after a blocking period ends will result in a new blocking periods that is twice as long as the previous blocking period, up to a maximum of five minutes.
How would you detect that the blocking period is active? I would assume that there is some property to check before attempting the connection so that you could avoid extending the blocking period.
There shouldn't be a need to check if you're in a blocking period to avoid extending it. As it says in the excerpt above, any attempts to connect during the blocking period will re-throw the first exception, it says nothing about extending the blocking period. However, each new blocking period will be twice as long as the previous.
In my experience, the exceptions that get thrown (due to timeouts, connection leaks, etc.) are either environmental issues or failing to properly close/dispose connections. It's a good idea to log these exceptions so that you can track down the real issue.
If you do keep coming across a timeout exception, you could catch it and try to clear all the pools, but it's likely due to a connection leak. You'll want to make sure you're wrapping your connections with a using statement, which will help to close/dispose of your connections when you're done with them or if an exception occurs.
using(SqlConnection connection = new SqlConnection("connection_string"))
{
using(SqlCommand command = new SqlCommand())
{
SqlCommand command = new SqlCommand();
command.Connection = connection;
command.CommandType = CommandType.Text;
command.CommandTimeout = [some timeout value];
command.CommandText = "Update SomeTable Set Value = 1";
connection.Open();
command.ExecuteNonQuery();
}
}
In addition to the ClientConnectionId field,
The SqlException.Message will also be reference-equal. That is, the cached string will be returned for connections that fail within the "blocking period".
However, this is also an implementation detail and may change.
Unfortunately there is no easy way to detect if you are in the ADO.NET "Blocking Period" or not (without resorting to something fragile like reflection).
However, if you are using .Net 4.5 or later, then you can detect if the last exception you observed from Open/OpenAsync is duplicated or not by looking at the ClientConnectionId of the SqlException and comparing that to the id of the last SqlException that you've seen (since the exceptions are duplicated, the ids are duplicated as well).
Assuming that you have a single place where you create\open SqlConnections for a single connection string, you can do the following:
public static class DataAccessLayer
{
// Single connection string that all connections use
private static readonly string _connectionString = "server=(local);integrated security=true;";
// Stores that last observed connection if when opening a connection
// NOTE: Using an object so that the Volatile methods will work
private static object _lastErrorConnectionId = Guid.Empty;
public static SqlConnection GetOpenedConnection()
{
try
{
SqlConnection connection = new SqlConnection(_connectionString);
connection.Open();
return connection;
}
catch (SqlException ex)
{
// Did the connection open get to the point of creating an internal connection?
if (ex.ClientConnectionId != Guid.Empty)
{
// Verify that the connection id is something new
var lastId = (Guid)Volatile.Read(ref _lastErrorConnectionId);
if (ex.ClientConnectionId != lastId)
{
// New error, save id and fall-through to re-throw
// NOTE: There is a small timing window here where multiple threads could end up switching this between
// a duplicated id and a new id. Since this is unlikely and will only cause a few additional exceptions to be
// thrown\logged, there isn't a large need for a lock here.
Volatile.Write(ref _lastErrorConnectionId, (object)ex.ClientConnectionId);
}
else
{
// Duplicate error
throw new DuplicatedConnectionOpenException(_connectionString, ex);
}
}
// If we are here, then this is a new exception
throw;
}
}
}
public class DuplicatedConnectionOpenException : Exception
{
public string ConnectionString { get; private set; }
internal DuplicatedConnectionOpenException(string connectionString, SqlException innerException)
: base("Hit the connection pool block-out period and a duplicated SqlException was thrown", innerException)
{
ConnectionString = connectionString;
}
}
Now if you call GetOpenedConnection and you see a DuplicatedConnectionOpenException being thrown, you will know that you have hit the "Blocking Period".
NOTE: I'm using Volatile Read/Write here instead of a lock since I'm opting for better performance versus being 100% accurate about being in the "Blocking Period". If you would prefer the accuracy you can use a lock instead.
Additionally, I do have code that works as an extension method on SqlConnection and can handle multiple connection strings, but its performance is much worse since it uses a ConcurrentDictionary to map connection strings to connection ids.
I one of my c# application, i have written sql connection code as following
try
{
myConnection = new SqlConnection(m_resourceDB.GetResourceString(nSiteID, ApplicationID.XClaim,(short)nResID ) );
myConnection.open();
}
I want to handle unkown issue of sqlserver like database down, time out.
For this i though to introduce for loop 3 times with 3 minute sleep between loop and if at all problem is there then i will exit from loop
I don't know my though is right or not? I want some expert advice on this? Any example?
I would say simply: the code that talks to connections etc should not be doing a sleep/retry, unless that code is already asynchronous. If the top-level calling code wants to catch an exception and set up a timer (not a sleep) and retry, then fine - but what you want to avoid is things like:
var data = dal.GetInfo();
suddenly taking 3 minutes. You might get away with it if it is an async/callback, and you have clearly advertised that this method may take minutes to execute. But even that feels like a stretch. And if you are up at the application logic, why not just catch the exception the first time, tell the user, and let the user click the button again at some point in the future?
If you are running a service with no user interface, then by all means, keep on looping until things start working, but at least log the errors to the EventLog while you're at it, so that the server admin can figure out when and why things go wrong.
For a client application, I would no suggest that you make the user wait 9 minutes before telling them things are not working like they should. Try to connect, assess the error condition, and let the user know what is going wrong so that they can take it further.
If you are using the SqlException class you can check the Exception Class and decide based on that what is going wrong, for example:
switch (sqlEx.Class)
{
case 20:
//server not found
case 11:
//database not found
All the classes have the SQL Server message on them, it is a matter of testing the different conditions.
It really depends on how you want your application to behave.
If your database access is dealt with on the same thread as your UI then whilst you are attempting to connect to a database it will become unresponsive.
The default time period for a connection timeout is already pretty long and so running it in a for loop 3 times would triple that and leave you with frustrated users.
In my opinion unless your specifically attempting to hide connection issues from the user, it is by far better to report back that a connection attempt has failed and ask the user if they wish to retry. Then having a count on the number of times that you'll allow a reconnection attempt before informing the user that they can't continue or putting the application into an "out of service" state.
I want to handle unkown issue of sqlserver like database down, time out.
Try to surround connection operation with using statement to capture connection related problems .
using( sqlcon = new SqlConnection(constr))
{}
Use the Try/Catch Statement for capturing the exception:
try
{
con.Open();
try
{
//Execute Queries
// ....
}
catch
{
// command related or other exception
}
finally
{
con.Close();
}
}
catch
{
// connection error
}
To prevent Exception of such type check these:
Troubleshooting Timeout SqlExceptions
you can set the CommandTimeout to some value on a SqlCommand:
objCmd.CommandTimeout = 600
You can catch the SqlException.
SqlException.Class
Gets the severity level of the error returned from the .NET Framework Data Provider for SQL Server.
SqlException.Errors
Gets a collection of one or more SqlError objects that give detailed information about exceptions generated by the .NET Framework Data Provider for SQL Server.
SqlCommand cmd = new SqlCommand();
cmd.Connection = new SqlConnection("CONNECTION_STRING");
cmd.CommandText = "SELECT * FROM ....";
// cmd.CommandType = System.Data.CommandType.Text;
try
{
cmd.Connection.Open();
try
{
SqlDataReader reader = cmd.ExecuteReader();
// ....
}
finally
{
cmd.Connection.Close();
}
}
catch (SqlException ex)
{
// ex.Class contains the ErrorCode, depends on your dataprovider
foreach (SqlError error in ex.Errors)
{
// error.LineNumber
// error.Message
}
}
The best way would be to putt it in a try catch statement and display the error in a better format, If it fails for 1 time, trying it continue sly 3 times will not change anything untill and unless you dc and send request again, In a separate in separate packed as a new request.
use try this.
try
{
Executing code.
}
catch (Exception err)
{
Display["ErrorMsg"] = err.Message.ToString() + "|" + err.GetBaseException() + "|" + Request.Url.ToString();
}
Good Luck.
I have an ASP.Net application with the following code:
try
{
sql = new SqlProc("prcCustomerAgeSelect",
SqlProc.InParam("#DateFrom", SqlDbType.DateTime, 8, _OrderDateFrom),
SqlProc.InParam("#DateTo", SqlDbType.DateTime, 8, _OrderDateTo),
sql.Command.CommandTimeout = 1;
dt = sql.ExecuteTable();
}
catch (SqlException ex)
{
Filter.ErrorMessage = "Please narrow your search criteria.";
}
Note the line:
sql.Command.CommandTimeout = 1;
Which causes a SqlException to be thrown (for testing).
I would have thought that the catch block would catch this exception, but it doesn't. Instead, I get:
Timeout expired. The timeout period elapsed prior to completion of the operation or the server is not responding.
[SqlException (0x80131904): Timeout expired. The timeout period elapsed prior to completion of the operation or the server is not responding.]
Why doesn't it catch it?? Am I using the wrong type? What am I missing here?
Thanks in advance!!
-Ev
It sounds like what you're seeing isn't a SqlException.
It's possible that SqlProc is itself catching SqlExceptions, extracting some information from them, then throwing new exceptions of a different type (embedding some of the original info in the new exception's message).
It looks like it may be a connection timeout, rather than a command timeout.
I would check to make sure that you can connect and run the query with a more sensible timeout value just to verify this.
I'm constantly getting the following exception which is caused by a user initiating a download and it consequently failing (or being cancelled):
Error Message : The remote host closed
the connection. The error code is
0x80072746. Stack Trace : at
System.Web.Hosting.ISAPIWorkerRequestInProcForIIS6.FlushCore(Byte[]
status, Byte[] header, Int32
keepConnected, Int32 totalBodySize,
Int32 numBodyFragments, IntPtr[]
bodyFragments, Int32[]
bodyFragmentLengths, Int32
doneWithSession, Int32 finalStatus,
Boolean& async) at
System.Web.Hosting.ISAPIWorkerRequest.FlushCachedResponse(Boolean
isFinal) at
System.Web.Hosting.ISAPIWorkerRequest.FlushResponse(Boolean
finalFlush) at
I've searched all over the internet, and found an interesting article, however there doesn't seem to be a definitive answer as the best way to prevent this filling up the logs.
The user sees no error and there's no actual problem in the app as it occurs only (to my understanding) in situations out of its control (user cancelling download or loss of connection) but there has to be a way to prevent such an exception being reported.
I hate to say it but I'm tempted to check for this exception and empty catch block its ass away - but this makes me feel like a dirty programmer.
So - what is the accepted method of preventing this exception filling up my mailbox?
The error occurs when you try to send a response to the client but they have disconnected. You can verify this by setting a breakpoint on the Response.Redirect or wherever you are sending data to the client, wait for Visual Studio to hit the breakpoint, then cancel the request in IE (using the x in the location bar). This should cause the error to occur.
To capture the error you can use the following:
try
{
Response.Redirect("~/SomePage.aspx");
Response.End();
}
catch (System.Threading.ThreadAbortException)
{
// Do nothing. This will happen normally after the redirect.
}
catch (System.Web.HttpException ex)
{
if (ex.ErrorCode == unchecked((int)0x80070057)) //Error Code = -2147024809
{
// Do nothing. This will happen if browser closes connection.
}
else
{
throw ex;
}
}
Or in C# 6 you can use Exception filters to prevent having to re throw the error:
try
{
Response.Redirect("~/SomePage.aspx");
Response.End();
}
catch (System.Threading.ThreadAbortException)
{
// Do nothing. This will happen normally after the redirect.
}
catch (System.Web.HttpException ex) when (ex.ErrorCode == unchecked((int)0x80070057))
{
// Do nothing. This will happen if browser closes connection.
}
Which is a better debugging experience since it will stop on the statement throwing the exception with the current state and all local variables preserved instead of on the throw inside the catch block.
You cannot prevent a remote Host to close anything.
And in some protocols this is the normal (or at least accepted) way to say goodbye.
So you will have to handle this specific exception.
From a practical perspective, there is nothing wrong with cancelling a download by virtue of a dead computer or a killed web session, therefore catching remote host closed exceptions is perfectly acceptable.
Suggestions on resolving this? I keep coming up with "missing" line numbers when consulting the google machine and that isn't the issue we are having. We have a line number but it doesn't point to anything but a closing brace.
Could this be because it is a timeout? It seems strange that it consistently gives up at the very end of the method, and the same method no less. The time outs are not necessarily frequent and the application (win forms calling asmx web service) does timeout in other places at times.
Edit: Code and Stack trace.
public DataSet GetData(...)
{
// About 18 try/catch blocks loading tables in dataset, all similar to below
try
{
// Create Table Adapter
// Fill Table
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
LogError(ex, System.Reflection.MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod(), null);
throw ex;
}
} //Line 479
System.Web.Services.Protocols.SoapException:
System.Web.Services.Protocols.SoapException:
Server was unable to process request.
---> System.Data.SqlClient.SqlException:
Timeout expired. The timeout period
elapsed prior to completion of the
operation or the server is not
responding. at
MonitoringDataService.AddAllData(DataSet
Data, DateTime LastSync, String
PrevAreas, String NewAreas, DateTime
PrevStartDate, DateTime PrevEndDate,
DateTime NewStartDate, DateTime
NewEndDate, Int32 CurrentUser, Boolean
IsInGroup) in
MonitoringDataService.cs:line 479
Worth noting that this is the inner exception.
Likely causes:
The code that is running is different from the source you are debugging from. This is the most likely cause.
Line could be the line after a throw new exception(...)
More than likely it's not really erroring on the end brace, but the line before it.