web
You’re offline. This is a read only version of the page.
close
Skip to main content

Announcements

No record found.

News and Announcements icon
Community site session details

Community site session details

Session Id :
Dynamics 365 Community / Blogs / Dynamics GP Land / eConnect 2010 Fills Event L...

eConnect 2010 Fills Event Log with Warning "Distributed Transaction was used"

Community Member Profile Picture Community Member
After converting a Dynamics GP eConnect 9 integration to eConnect 2010, I was doing some testing, and everything looked fine.  Customers were being created in GP 2010, and everything was working smoothly. However, after several rounds of testing, I received an error:

The event log file is full

It took me a few seconds to understand what this meant--was this referring to the Windows Event Log?  This was a bit puzzling, since my integration isn't writing to the Event Log directly.  I opened the Event Viewer and poked around, but didn't see much.  But when I then selected the eConnect event log, I saw hundreds of Warning messages that had filled the log to it's default capacity of 512K (and overwrite events older than 7 days).


All of these eConnect warnings had no Event ID, and all had a Description that starts with this annoying message:

The description for Event ID ( 0 ) in Source ( Microsoft.Dynamics.GP.eConnect ) cannot be found. The local computer may not have the necessary registry information or message DLL files to display messages from a remote computer. You may be able to use the /AUXSOURCE= flag to retrieve this description; see Help and Support for details. 

Finally, half way down the Description, this information was provided:

The following information is part of the event: Distributed Transaction was used
This could be caused by new connection strings used within each xml document, but reusing the base transaction scope.
Configuration Setting 'ReuseBaseTransaction' is by default FALSE. Remove this configuration setting, or set it to FALSE if this was not the expected behavior.

Uhhhh, okay.  I am not doing anything special regarding "Distributed Transactions", so this didn't mean much to me, and after reviewing the eConnect 2010 Installation guide and Developer's guide, I couldn't find any reference to Distributed Transactions or the ReuseBaseTransaction parameter.

I even check the Microsoft.Dynamics.GP.eConnect.Service.exe.config, and ReuseBaseTransaction is not a default parameter, so I'm not yet sure where that might be located.

After doing more testing, it appears that for every customer record that I submit to the eConnect 2010 CreateEntity method, over 300 warning of these messages are recorded in the eConnect event log.  Pretty haywire.

At 10pm, lacking any other bright ideas, I compose the text for a support case and forward it to the GP partner that I'm working with for submission.  After a few e-mail exchanges, he asks if I've tried the integration on another server.  Brilliant, and painfully obvious idea that just didn't occur to me late at night.

So at 11pm, I install a fresh copy of GP 2010 and eConnect 2010 on another server, get my Visual Studio project setup, and then run the integration.  No Warnings.  In fact no activity at all in the eConnect Event Log.  Clean as a whistle, as my grandmother says.

So, the good news is that the error appears to only occur on one of my servers.  The not so good news is that Server A is a 32-bit Server 2003 machine with SQL 2005, and Server B is a 64-bit Server 2008 machine with SQL 2008.  Since the servers are so different, and since there are separate 32-bit and 64-bit eConnect 2010 installs, it is quite possible that the different configurations played a role in Warning vs. No Warning.  And the bad news is that I don't yet know what the Warning means or what is causing it.


I'll be converting two other integrations to eConnect 2010 and deploying them on the client's test server, so we'll see if the Event Log Warnings occur there.  I'll post an update if I learn more.

This was originally posted here.

Comments

*This post is locked for comments