cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Syncproblems

Former Member
0 Kudos
54

Hi all,

i want to know if anyone has expirienced strange syncproblems.

In our case it seems that the (offline) application send the complete data to WAS and sometimes after a short time ( e.g. 5 minutes ) some of the data are sent again. We can trace this behaviour in logfiles on the WAS. Our methods used to send the different data containers are called only once, so we really do not know why soem data are sent twice. Is there a known Bug/Feature in ME which causes the "double-send" behaviour ?

Regards,

Sascha

Accepted Solutions (0)

Answers (1)

Answers (1)

Former Member
0 Kudos

hello sascha,

what version of ME are you using?

manual synchronization case

possible cause is that the client was able to get any acknowledge message from the server thus resending the same containers on the next synchronization.

regards

jo

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Jo,

thanks for your answer.

We are using ME2.1 Patch 6.

But I have to admit that I did not fully understand your explanation. I am not that familiar with the HTTP protocol. After the TCP connection is established via SYN the client sends an ACK and the data to the server ?! After that the server responds with an ACK. Why should the client send the data again ? Sorry

I have a second question regarding synchronistaion:

We had similar problems with sending data when connection problems occured. When we start synchronisation the file readyToSend.sync is created. If the synchronisation fails and we try again this file grows and grows. When the synchronisation is successful after it failed 4 times, the data are sent 5 times

I have built a workaround which deletes this file everytime we start a new synchronisation if it exists.

Do you know whether this beahaviour is some kind of bug ?

Is the workaround correct or do I have to handle more than just the readyToSend.sync file ?

Kind regards,

Sascha

Former Member
0 Kudos

Nice question.

I don't know whether the workaround is correct, but it works fine for me too.

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi,

no idea anybody ?