Re: [SPAM: 3.000] Connection refused to host

Hi,
 On 10/31/05, Happy Manocha <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> i am trying to run an application , which is register ing object with
> rmiregistry. This application is running fine on linux/windows.
> Now i am trying to make it up for SUSE Linux (SLES-9) . I am getting the
> following error :

 RMI traffic is probably being firewalled. The default firewall rules will
block all non-standard inbound connections.
 I posted a solution to this in March 2005
(018912<http://archives.java.sun.com/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0503&L=rmi-users&P=R399&I=-3&X=0F1C0F71BC3F7581B4&[email protected]>).
You might want to see if this fixes your problem.
 Regards,
~Carl.

 java.rmi.ConnectException: Connection refused to host:
10.10.50.211<http://10.10.50.211>;
> nested
> exception is:
> java.net.ConnectException: Connection refused <@>
> java.rmi.activation.ActivationException <@>
> java.rmi.activation.ActivationException: unable to obtain
> ActivationSystem;
> nested exception is:
> java.rmi.ConnectException: Connection refused to host: 10.10.50.211<http://10.10.50.211>
> ;
> nested exception is:
> java.net.ConnectException: Connection refused
> at
> java.rmi.activation.ActivationGroup.getSystem(ActivationGroup.java:490)
>
> Do i need to do set something for SUSE linux version ?
>
> Regds
> Happy Manocha
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Jones - JavaSoft East [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 12:14 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: java.rmi.NoSuchObjectException: no such object in table
>
>
> > If I have a server stub and I bind that stub to a local Registry, is
> > that enough to keep it from being cleaned up by DGC?
>
> It should be. One case in which it currently isn't is when the
> registry invocation is made on a registry remote object directly
> instead of a stub for a registry (i.e. what's returned from
> LocateRegistry.createRegistry instead of LocateRegsitry.getRegistry)
> and the remote object's stub passed to the registry was returned from
> RemoteObject.toStub or UnicastRemoteObject.exportObject; in this
> situation, the following old bug thwarts reachability:
>
> http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4114579
>
> But invoking a registry stub (like LocateRegistry.getRegistry returns)
> should avoid that problem, because the remote object's stub will get
> marshalled and unmarshalled and thus properly registered with DGC.
>
> > I seem to be getting the above exception from a client (on a heavily
> > loaded and scaled system) and I'm not quite sure why. My server
> > simply extends AbstractRemoteObject then in the ctor does something
> > basically like this:
> >
> > LocateRegistry.getRegistry( getLocalServicePort() ).rebind(
> > UnicastRemoteObject.toStub( this ) );
>
> Bug 4114579 could come into play here too if the surrounding code is
> such that the local garbage collector can determine that the variable
> "this" is not used after the above code and the object it refers to is
> eligible for garbage collection after the UnicastRemoteObject.toStub
> invocation has completed, but before the Registry.rebind has
> completed. That might seem far-fetched, but we've seen that sort of
> GC behavior with the Hotspot Server VM, since JDK 5.0, on
> multiprocessor machines-- in particular, there is also this bug:
>
> http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6181943
>
> which could also affect the above code (regardless of 4114579). We
> haven't yet seen that bug occur with pre-5.0 JDK VMs, however. Are
> you using the Server VM?
>
> But this would only "explain" garbage collection of the remote object
> at the time of registry bind-- if it the collected remote object has
> previously been looked up and invoked successfully, then the problem
> must be something else; I'm not sure if that's what you meant by this:
>
> > With ~1,000 servers, the client can get this stub and invoke methods
> > on it with no problem. Looking at the server (i.e. agent) logs, all
> > have been initialized and idle for at least an hour. Every once in a
> > while we will see something like this:
> >
> > Caused by: java.rmi.NoSuchObjectException: no such object in table
>
> If so, then this shouldn't happen without removal or replacement of
> the registry binding or DGC communication failure, which seems
> unlikely. Are these remote objects exported with custom client socket
> factories? Any other unexpected failures logged?
>
> -- Peter
>
>
> ===========================================================================
> To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected] and include in the
> body
> of the message "signoff RMI-USERS". For general help, send email to
> [email protected] and include in the body of the message "help".
>
> For a list of frequently asked RMI questions please refer to:
> http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.3/docs/guide/rmi/faq.html
>
> To view past RMI-USERS postings, please see:
> http://archives.java.sun.com/archives/rmi-users.html
>
>
> ===========================================================================
> To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected] and include in the
> body
> of the message "signoff RMI-USERS". For general help, send email to
> [email protected] and include in the body of the message "help".
>
> For a list of frequently asked RMI questions please refer to:
> http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.3/docs/guide/rmi/faq.html
>
> To view past RMI-USERS postings, please see:
> http://archives.java.sun.com/archives/rmi-users.html
>

===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected] and include in the body
of the message "signoff RMI-USERS".  For general help, send email to
[email protected] and include in the body of the message "help".

For a list of frequently asked RMI questions please refer to:
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.3/docs/guide/rmi/faq.html

To view past RMI-USERS postings, please see:
http://archives.java.sun.com/archives/rmi-users.html