-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 277
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Got often got Limit exceeded message in changelog #745
Comments
First, there are no guarantees that the jobs will be executed in order ever. If that's what you need, you must create the next job at the end of executing the previous one. That is not something that I can ever guarantee. I'll read the rest of it later; that was just the first thing that struck me. |
@mhenrixon What is the reason for We are trying to update Sidekiq 5.1.3 / sidekiq-unique 5.0.10 to a recent version, but in production our queues were not behaving as expected. In the Redis logs, we saw many "Limit exceeded" messages being added to |
Having this issue quite often on "long" running jobs (couple of minutes). |
I infer that |
@nathan-appere @ragesoss I should likely replace that message with a better one. You can allow any number of simultaneous locks. This message is likely confusing for people who don't use lock_limit: on their jobs. I'll see about making this less confusing. |
@mhenrixon Hi there, i just started using this gem, and im also confused by this message. Im using :replace strategy and i dont understand why i get limited_exceeded and it seems to be retried given that theres a previous job_id. Also lock_limit is not documented on the README, i believe. Thanks |
Used versions
Sidekiq:
6.4.1
Sidekiq Unique Jobs:
7.1.27
Rails:
7.0.2.2
Redis:
4.6.0
Describe the bug
Often get
limit exceeded
in the changelog even with a job triggered with an interval of 200ms, and the locks don't lock in the order the jobs were performed asyncallyPerformed jobs in order
Expected behavior
Current behavior
Worker class
Sidekiq initializers
What I do for test
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: