[omniORB] Problem with omniORB 303 and HP_UX 11

[Huw Edwards]

> Hi 
> 
> We are getting an intermittant problem using omniORB303 on an 
> HP-UX 11.00 machine - we have a server that 3 different clients attach 
> to via omniNames. Sometimes the 3rd application will fail to attach - it 
> receives the CORBA::Object from the naming service and narrows 
> it to be a server object but fails (COMM_FAILURE) when it tries to 
> call a method on the server. If this happens any new client trying to 
> attach will also fail but clients already attached continue 
> communicating with the server as normal.
> 
> Given that clients already attached are OK and new clients fail we 
> thought the IOR entry in omniNames was somehow corrupting
> but that seems not to change.
> 
> Setting the ORBtraceLevel at 20 in the server the output is - 
> 
> <<When it works>>
> omniORB: scavenger : scanning connections
> omniORB: tcpSocketMTfactory Rendezvouser: unblock from accept()
> omniORB: tcpSocketMTfactory Rendezvouser: accept new strand.
> omniORB: tcpSocketMTfactory Worker: start.
> omniORB: tcpSocketMTfactory Rendezvouser: block on accept()
> omniORB: Handling a GIOP LOCATE_REQUEST.
> 
> <<When it fails>>
> omniORB: scavenger : scanning connections
> omniORB: tcpSocketMTfactory Rendezvouser: unblock from accept()
> omniORB: tcpSocketMTfactory Rendezvouser: accept new strand.
> omniORB: tcpSocketStrand::real_shutdown() fd no. 9 Done
> omniORB: scavenger : scanning connections
> 
> 
> which I guess suggests that 
> 	newthr = new tcpSocketWorker(newSt,pd_factory);
> fails - is that guess correct and what could cause it to fail ?
> 
> The same application works consistently on DEC-Alpha/OSF1 machines.
> 
> In the search archives Sai-Lo (sp?) was reporting problems with
> the behaviour of threads on HP-UX (unfortunately I can't get
> into the archives to give a reference) - has there been any progress
> on the threads problem like patches from HP and would it be useful 
> going to 3.0.4?
> 
> Regards 
> Huw
> 
> ps obviously there a load of messages before the 2 snippets 
> I've included which I can supply if necessary but I wanted to
> keep this short.