Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 81214 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2008 10:12:14 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Apr 2008 10:12:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 13405 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2008 10:12:12 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-user-archive@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 13377 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2008 10:12:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact derby-user-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Derby Discussion" Delivered-To: mailing list derby-user@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 13366 invoked by uid 99); 1 Apr 2008 10:12:11 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Apr 2008 03:12:11 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [203.217.22.128] (HELO file1.syd.nuix.com.au) (203.217.22.128) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Apr 2008 10:11:21 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.2] (124-170-19-50.dyn.iinet.net.au [124.170.19.50]) by file1.syd.nuix.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB9E14A814D for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2008 21:11:54 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <47F20A58.6010000@nuix.com> Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 21:11:36 +1100 From: David Sitsky User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Derby Discussion Subject: Re: ERROR XSDG2: Invalid checksum on Page Page(0,Container(0, 1313)) References: <47F02F3E.40807@nuix.com> <47F065D0.6010404@sun.com> <47F074A0.40309@nuix.com> <47F163C3.3010502@nuix.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Dyre.Tjeldvoll@Sun.COM wrote: > David Sitsky writes: > >> For what its worth, I did another run last night on my 6 quad-core >> system. This time I had the derby issue happen for a JVM process on >> machine 1, two processes on machine 4, and one on machine 5. I run >> four JVM processes per quad-core machine. >> >> All the JVM processes have roughly the same data processing rate, but >> the issue happens at different times into the load. The problem >> occurred around time 420, 480, 800 and 900 minutes into the load for >> the four problematic processes. > > Just to clarify: These jvm processes do not access the SAME database, do > they? No - they all have their own embedded derby database. Cheers, David