Promon throws memory violation (49) and brings db down - Forum - OpenEdge RDBMS - Progress Community

Promon throws memory violation (49) and brings db down

 Forum

Promon throws memory violation (49) and brings db down

This question is not answered

OpenEdge 11.6.3 (maybe since 11.4) only on Solaris 64-bit

To reproduce the issue:

proserve sports

promon sports
Manually enter:
R&D
debghb
1. Status
14. Shared Memory Segments
X Exit

Memory violation is issued only on exit.
We will not get the error if the debghb password is skipped.

[2017/03/22@14:19:47.000+0000] P-7643 T-1 I PROMON 5: (49) SYSTEM ERROR: Memory violation.

Wed Mar 22 14:19:47 2017
[2017/03/22@14:19:47.000+0000] P-7643 T-1 I PROMON 5: (439) ** Save file named core for analysis by Progress Software Corporation.

Wed Mar 22 17:20:20 2017
[2017/03/22@17:20:20.999+0300] P-7642 T-1 I BROKER 0: (5028) SYSTEM ERROR: Releasing regular latch. latchId: 2
[2017/03/22@17:20:20.999+0300] P-7642 T-1 I BROKER 0: (2522) User 5 died holding 1 shared memory locks.

Note that latchId 2 is USR latch that promon uses during logout.

Wild guess: the issue can be related to PSC00354720:
MEMORY VIOLATION ERROR (49) WHEN RUNNING PROUTIL -C DBIPCS
knowledgebase.progress.com/.../Memory-violation-error-49-when-running-proutil-C-dbipcs
OpenEdge version: OE 11.4
OS version: Solaris 5.10

Just a warning!

All Replies
  • OE development has investigated and found the cause for the promon issue which was introduced in 11.6.3.

    Just FYI, it is very unlikely the same as the proutil dbipcs issue.

  • OE development team is very fast! Yes

    BTW, the customer got the error while running my dbmon script. I asked DBA to test the script in their test environment but admin run it on production server for all running databases. And, of course, all databases were crushed. Sad

  • >Error only on Solaris 64-bit

    That is all Oracle fault  :)

    As it works fine on IBM AIX.

    Dmitri Levin

    Alphabroder

  • Information from PSTS: The issue is going to be fixed in 11.7.1

  • Not Solaris-only; I can reproduce this in 64-bit 11.6.3 on Linux (RHEL 6.3).