COMMIT failed in RSORAADM, object JOB, function CREATE, return code 4

[Former Member]

Hi,

I received an error message below when I schedule any job in DB13:

COMMIT failed in RSORAADM, object JOB, function

CREATE, return code 4

This error happened only when I specify the time and/or Period (Weeks), Calendar. If no time/period/calendar specified (alias immediate execute), then there is no error.

I check in SM21 system logs, there is an error as follows:

15:11:37 BP1TULAP170_WFS_00 DIA 001 100 SETIR0 DB13 EGZ

BP_JOB_MODIFY: Job cannot be modified. Reason:

15:11:37 BP1TULAP170_WFS_00 DIA 001 100 SETIR0 DB13 EG5 > All

servers for background processing are in use

15:11:43 BP1TULAP170_WFS_00 DIA 001 100 SETIR0 DB13 EGZ

BP_JOB_MODIFY: Job cannot be modified. Reason:

15:11:43 BP1TULAP170_WFS_00 DIA 001 100 SETIR0 DB13 EG5 > All

servers for background processing are in use

When I check in SM51, actually there are a lot of BGD workprocesses

available in the system. There are 2 instances in WFS and both

instances have a lot of free Background workprocesses.

No abap dumps generated, also I check there is no update lock or record

lock (SM12/SM13).

Thanks and best regards,

Mark

[Former Member]

Hello Mark,

Hope my take at your problem might be helpful.

Recently I had the same problem. Just as you described, I had a lot of background jobs available in sm50 but I could not schedule any job in DB13.

I was able to track this problem to Operation Modes (RZ03) Configure them properly and switch the operation mode to the one defined using RZ03.

Hope that helps.

Regards,

Syed

[Former Member]

Hi Mark,

please have alook at the following note:

Note 367540 - BP_JOB_MODIFY: Job cannot be modified.

Hope this helps.

--Amrendra

[Former Member]

Hi Amrendra,

Thanks for your reply. When I check the note 367540, it mentioned about the background workprocesses that is not available. Actually in the system there are alot of BGD workprocess available after I check in SM51/SM50. So it's abit different from the note mentioned.

Regards,

Mark