Subscribe

Snap creator 4.1.1 'A workflow is already executing for the given configuration'

[ Edited ]

Hi Team,

 

On the snap creator server I didn’t find any running process of the backup job LAU on the snapcreator server.
But when I try to trigger a job of the LAU, it said the workflow was already executing.

And I also checked the job monitor in the GUI, no relevant job there.

Restart the snapcreator service can solve the issue.
Please help to advise what can be done without restarting the service, since the it will impact the running jobs.
 
vsa319150:~ # ps -ef |grep snap
root      3464     1  4 Nov03 ?        18:08:23 java -Xms256m -XX:MaxPermSize=512m -jar snapcreator.jar -port 8443
sc       22007 22005  0 08:18 ?        00:00:00 /opt/scServer/snapcreator --profile sc02nsq --config K7O_log --action backup --policy daily --verbose
root     23200 23024  0 08:22 pts/1    00:00:00 grep snap
 
vsa319150:~ # /opt/scServer/snapcreator --profile sc02nsq --config LAU_log --action backup --policy daily --verbose
INFO: Found stored credentials for user sc, profile/config of */*
[Tue Nov 18 08:23:16 2014] ERROR: Workflow startup failed
[Tue Nov 18 08:23:16 2014] INFO: SCF-00202: Reading configuration:[sc02nsq]/[LAU_log]
[Tue Nov 18 08:23:16 2014] ERROR: ENG-00002:A workflow is already executing for the given configuration

Re: Snap creator 4.1.1 'A workflow is already executing for the given configuration'

Since it has been a couple days since you posted, have you tried restarting the service?

 

Did that clear up the issue?

 

Typically when I have seen this there was a job still in the running status - restarting the agent seemed to resolve the issue for me.

 

John

Re: Snap creator 4.1.1 'A workflow is already executing for the given configuration'

Hi John,

 

Yes, a service restart can solve that.

But you know there will be always jobs running on the snapcreator server.

A restart will impact those jobs.

 

Normally we can find out the problematic job process from OS level and then kill it.

But the issue I reported was we could not find out that process.

 

I think it may be a bug or something hidden in the background.

Anything else we can check?

 

BR.

James