jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexander Klimetschek <aklim...@day.com>
Subject Re: consistency guarantees of Jackrabbit/Lucene indexes
Date Thu, 14 May 2009 21:10:48 GMT
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 6:36 AM, Johannes Boneschanscher
<jackrabbit@boneschanscher.net> wrote:
> Hi All,
> I have searched the Internet and codebase of Jackrabbit about recoverability
> of the Lucene Indexing in a cluster scenario, however I'm not certain
> whether it is really recoverable. I hope someone can enlighten me.
> To make failover of the Jackrabbit machine possible we have our files for
> indexes of each node and of the FileDataStore on a network share.
> We use JNDIDatabaseJournal for clustering two nodes on the same machine. The
> version of Jackrabbit is Fri Jan 11 14:41:29 EET 2008 version=1.4 (according
> to the pom.properties inside Jackrabbit-Core)
> As far as I understand from JCR-204
> (http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-204), which is still open, some
> measures have been taken to make indexes recoverable.
> Also JCR-905 (closed) and JCR-778 (closed) seem related.
> In the past we have had issues with Jackrabbit that the connection to the
> network share was unstable and the index became corrupted, we try to avoid
> that (by moving it to a SAN with iSCSI), but as reindexing the entire
> repository takes a lot of time, as we also index the content with almost all
> text extractors (See:
> http://jackrabbit.apache.org/api/1.4/org/apache/jackrabbit/extractor/package-summary.html)
> we would like to know whether Jackrabbit can completely recover from this
> kind of situation. (BTW: We solve this by restarting the AppServer
> Jackrabbit is running on, and then the auto recover kicks in, I guess this
> one:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/jackrabbit/branches/1.3/jackrabbit-core/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/core/query/lucene/Recovery.java?view=log&pathrev=544247#rev544247
> )
> If it can recover, why is JCR-204 still open? If it cannot recover, we would
> have to use a local disk and we cannot cluster the machine anymore, and (if
> I can find time) I'll try and fix the issue.

Many things have improved in Jackrabbit 1.5, but I wouldn't generally
rule out that the index might get broken when the underlying IO is
disfunctional. So I'd choose the safe way.


Alexander Klimetschek

View raw message