APP Fabric: WF monitoring not working - persistance on a separate server

Locked APP Fabric: WF monitoring not working - persistance on a separate server

  • Sunday, September 25, 2011 9:35 AM
     
     

    We have the following set-up.

    WF services in Server A

    WF monitoring database in Server A

    WF persistance database in Server B

     

    IF I look in the dashboard (from server A), the WF calls are not monitored correctly. It does not show any persisted WF instances. However, it does show that WF calls in the WCF call history.

    I am not sure if it is related to the set-up above, but I have tried several known-issues such as checking if the services are started etc.

     

    Any help, would be greately appreciated.

     

    Thanks,

     

    Joseph

All Replies

  • Monday, September 26, 2011 10:35 PM
    Moderator
     
     

    Are the databases on the same SQL instance or different SQL instances?

    Thanks,


    If this answers your question, please use the "Answer" button to say so | Ben Cline
  • Wednesday, September 28, 2011 9:33 AM
     
     
    Hi Ben - They are on different SQL instances
  • Sunday, October 02, 2011 4:20 AM
    Moderator
     
     

    It took me a while to find this but I think your scenario is supported based on this article: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg132877.aspx.

    The article mentioned end-to-end monitoring can be affected if the WF services have monitoring stores that are on different SQL instances but it sounds like yours are all on the same instance.

    I am wondering if your WF instances are reaching a point of persistence or not. Do you know if they are executing immediately and may be not persisting at all?

    Thanks,


    If this answers your question, please use the "Answer" button to say so | Ben Cline

  • Saturday, October 08, 2011 8:26 AM
     
     

    Hi Ben,

     

    Apologies for not replying earlier and many thanks for your feedback.

    Yes - persistance is OK as correlation works successfully.

    To tell you the truth, we have put this issue on hold for now as it is consuming too much of our time and we have taken the decison to give priority to the functional requirements.

    Later on, I will dedicate more time to investigate further. I will reply back to this post with any updates.

     

    Thanks,

     

    Joseph