CPF8361 Error after V6R1 Upgrade

265 pts.
Tags:
iSeries Upgrades
RPG
SQL
V6R1
After upgrading from V5R4 to V6R1 we have begun to encounter CPF8361 errors related to Committment Control running embeded SQL.    Transactions get hung up in RDB and then processes get stuck.   Is this specifically related to the upgrade and is there a simple process to correct the issue. 



Software/Hardware used:
iSeries,V6R1, in house applications
ASKED: February 11, 2011  4:58 PM
UPDATED: March 1, 2011  5:42 PM

Answer Wiki

Thanks. We'll let you know when a new response is added.

We saw this error ater a new release where SQL defaulted to commit *YES
Try the SQL SET OPTION statement to control COMMITT
There might be a meaningful message in the job log above the error.
Good Luck

Discuss This Question: 9  Replies

 
There was an error processing your information. Please try again later.
Thanks. We'll let you know when a new response is added.
Send me notifications when members answer or reply to this question.

REGISTER or login:

Forgot Password?
By submitting you agree to receive email from TechTarget and its partners. If you reside outside of the United States, you consent to having your personal data transferred to and processed in the United States. Privacy
  • Shadow4412
    We are receiving a Reason Code 6. I remember reading a lot of information concerning changes related to SQL with the V6R1 upgrade. My concern is that we are in the process of upgrading several systems and we need to determine what the fix is because the code that is receiving the error will be running on all systems. Is it as simple as recompiling the programs or do we need to modify the programs.
    265 pointsBadges:
    report
  • TomLiotta
    Can you supply the rest of the message text after the reason code? For some reason, IBM created this message description with a bunch of substitution variables to create the description dynamically. It's possible that everyone will see different text, so we'll need to see your copy. (Sheesh... after so many times asking for message ID, we hit this one!) Tom
    125,585 pointsBadges:
    report
  • Shadow4412
    Message ID . . . . . . : CPF8361 Severity . . . . . . . : 40 Message type . . . . . : Escape Date sent . . . . . . : 02/10/11 Time sent . . . . . . : 08:44:58 Message . . . . : Cannot place resource under commitment control. Reason code 6. Cause . . . . . : An attempt was made to place a resource under commitment control for commitment definition *DFTACTGRP that was not valid. Reason code is 6 -- One of the following limits was exceeded: system storage, user profile storage limit for user profile QDBSHR, no more than 2,097,143 unique commitment definition/journal combinations on the system, or the maximum resources for the commitment definition exceeded. Recovery . . . : Depending on which limit was exceeded, do one of the following: (1) Free some storage STG(*FREE) parameter on the SAVOBJ command. (2) Assign storage to user profile QDBSHR using the MAXSTG parameter on the CHGUSRPRF command. (3) Have fewer than 2,097,143 unique commitment definitions/journal combinations on the system. (4) Remove some resources from commitment control. Technical description . . . . . . . . : The commitment definition identifier is X'5CC4C6E3C1C3E3C7D9D7'. The activation group number is X'00000002'. The lock space id is UDB_0100000000049BCE. The lock space associated space id is 1. The XID is X'00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000'.
    265 pointsBadges:
    report
  • TomLiotta
    Can you provide your cume level and perhaps DB2 group level? There are a few V6R1 PTFs connected to MSGCPF8361. Some are on cume/group packages; others are not yet. Tom
    125,585 pointsBadges:
    report
  • Shadow4412
    Tom, These are our PTF Levels SF99616 8 SF99610 10215 SF99609 72 SF99608 18 SF99601 15 SF99562 13 SF99357 17 SF99356 18 SF99354 8 SF99353 13 SF99115 14
    265 pointsBadges:
    report
  • TomLiotta
    Are these related to remote DBs at all? (Either sending or receiving transactions.) Or are they all local processes, either batch or interactive? Tom
    125,585 pointsBadges:
    report
  • Shadow4412
    Tom, The DB is local but the processes are batch. This is occurring with enbedded QSL in our CC processing application. I found a recent PTF from IBM SI41047 that is specific to RC6 that I am currently reviewing. Please let me know what your thoughts are.
    265 pointsBadges:
    report
  • TomLiotta
    I saw a number of related PTFs, but it looked like many were tied to potential comm elements. If it's all local, those might be weeded out. As for SI41047, I didn't see a V6R1 equivalent, not yet. IBM might make one available quickly if asked. Or I might have just looked incorrectly. Your embedded SQL is in programs compiled through the SQL precompiler, and not 'embedded' as SQL CLI could be called 'embedded', right? Tom
    125,585 pointsBadges:
    report
  • Shadow4412
    After working with IBM for over 2 weeks on this issue it seems that we are not the only ones experiencing this issue after upgrading to V6R1. The developers are working of a fix for the issue.
    265 pointsBadges:
    report

Forgot Password

No problem! Submit your e-mail address below. We'll send you an e-mail containing your password.

Your password has been sent to:

To follow this tag...

There was an error processing your information. Please try again later.

REGISTER or login:

Forgot Password?
By submitting you agree to receive email from TechTarget and its partners. If you reside outside of the United States, you consent to having your personal data transferred to and processed in the United States. Privacy

Thanks! We'll email you when relevant content is added and updated.

Following