You are viewing limited content. For full access, please sign in.

Question

Question

Increasing the operation timeout (by casting the channel/proxy to IContextChannel and setting the OperationTimeout property)

asked on October 9, 2015

Hi, 
I am getting a timeout error (see screenshot) when trying to retrieve LF form values from the workflow. 

Full error message is - 

This request operation sent to net.tcp://localhost:8085/ManagementService did not receive a reply within the configured timeout (00:00:30).  The time allotted to this operation may have been a portion of a longer timeout.  This may be because the service is still processing the operation or because the service was unable to send a reply message.  Please consider increasing the operation timeout (by casting the channel/proxy to IContextChannel and setting the OperationTimeout property) and ensure that the service is able to connect to the client.

 

Please let me know how I can increase the operation timeout value??

 

10-9-2015 2-00-34 PM.jpg
0 0

Replies

replied on October 9, 2015

That message indicates your Workflow Server is either not running or under a high load.

0 0
replied on October 9, 2015

Please let me know how I can increase the operation timeout value so it does not fail when server is under high load.. ??

0 0
replied on October 12, 2015

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I was trying to ask if you know what is going on with your server. 30 seconds is a pretty long time to wait for a repsonse.

0 0
replied on October 14, 2015

Hi Miruna, 

There is nothing wrong with the server. 

The form that I am trying to 'Retrieve Values' from is a very big form with more than 1000 fields and lots of JavaScripts and CSS. That might be causing the time out when retrieving the values. 

 

0 0
replied on October 15, 2015

JavaScript and CSS are not loaded when Workflow retrieves the form fields. But 1000 fields is a lot.

In the Workflow Designer's config file (C:\Program Files\Laserfiche\Laserfiche Workflow 9\Laserfiche.Workflow.Designer.exe.config), look for a section that looks like this:

<bindings>
      <netTcpBinding>
        <binding name="ConfigurationClientBinding" transferMode="Streamed"
          maxBufferSize="1000" maxReceivedMessageSize="67108864">
          <readerQuotas maxStringContentLength="1024000000" maxArrayLength="1024000000" />
        </binding>
      </netTcpBinding>
    </bindings>

and add the following after maxReceivedMessageSize:  receiveTimeout="00:01:00" sendTimeout="00:01:00"

<bindings>
      <netTcpBinding>
        <binding name="ConfigurationClientBinding" transferMode="Streamed"
          maxBufferSize="1000" maxReceivedMessageSize="67108864" receiveTimeout="00:01:00" sendTimeout="00:01:00">
          <readerQuotas maxStringContentLength="1024000000" maxArrayLength="1024000000" />
        </binding>
      </netTcpBinding>
    </bindings>

You may have to try different values to see what works out for such a large form.

Out of curiousity, why do users need to see 1000 fields in a single form?

1 0
replied on November 18, 2015

I tried the solution suggested above, but it did not work. 

 

We are using this form to contract with new Healthcare Providers. Contracting process is lengthy and we need to collect lot of information about the provider, hence the form is very big. 

0 0
replied on May 23, 2018

This solution worked for me.  I had to restart the Workflow service after making the config change.

0 0
replied on September 4, 2019

Does this replace the method of extending this operationtimeout value that is documented for version 8.3 in the registry keys?

 

https://support.laserfiche.com/kb/1012896/modifying-connection-and-operation-timeout-limits-for-workflow-8-3

0 0
replied on September 4, 2019

Case 204218 is advising to add a registry key to increase the operationtimeout value but the full path the key is supposed to go in isn't there. This post sounds like it is increasing the same timeout. Can someone confirm? And confirm if we need to add the Options folder or increase these values in the config file?

0 0
replied on September 5, 2019

No, these are unrelated.

0 0
You are not allowed to follow up in this post.

Sign in to reply to this post.