I'm getting a run-time error referencing C:\Skyline DataMiner\SLCloud.xml. See the stack trace below. The file contains NATS entries for each of the DMAs in the cluster and references the DataMinerUser.creds file. I verified that the NATS process is running on all of the DMAs. Any idea what process might be hung up on this file or what log file might give me more insight on the root cause of the alarm?
DataMiner Feature Release 10.3.11
Unexpected Exception [Sending SLDataGateway message request:DataRequest<Alarm> with filter: ((Alarm.DataMinerID[Int32] ==38255) AND (Alarm.RootAlarmID[Int32] ==10842885)) over NATS failed with error: System.IO.IOException: The process cannot access the file 'C:\Skyline DataMiner\SLCloud.xml' because it is being used by another process.
at System.IO.__Error.WinIOError(Int32 errorCode, String maybeFullPath)
at System.IO.FileStream.Init(String path, FileMode mode, FileAccess access, Int32 rights, Boolean useRights, FileShare share, Int32 bufferSize, FileOptions options, SECURITY_ATTRIBUTES secAttrs, String msgPath, Boolean bFromProxy, Boolean useLongPath, Boolean checkHost)
at System.IO.FileStream..ctor(String path, FileMode mode, FileAccess access, FileShare share)
at DataMinerMessageBroker.API.Configuration.SLCloudConfig.<ReadEndpoints>d__11.MoveNext()
--- End of stack trace from previous location where exception was thrown ---
Hi Joe,
You can use either Handle or Process Explorer tools to find which process has taken the file handle if this issue is occurring regularly.
It is also possible that multiple processes are trying to access the file at the same time to create a NATS connection. If this is the case, we already released a fix in DataMiner 10.4.9 which dramatically reduces the amount of new NATS connections being created by the specific use case you reported (Sending SLDataGateway message request...)
Hi Joe, This fix is not merged to the 10.4 main release, but I’ll check with the team if we can get it there as well. Not sure which CU that would be then though
Thanks Laurens. Will this fix be applied to the next main release? If not I’ll look at upgrading to 10.4.9 instead of 10.4 CU6.