Mailing-List: contact users-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of ianboston@gmail.com designates
 74.125.82.50 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=sender:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date
         :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer;
        b=io6h4v3pN5NQsVRSdwRm/kEBm9WgzdgQzkiLonaHxiYaPwo4F3Eie2X/zKN2Hk3Mo8
         k1xTsBaU8eVBwXrE3VUlIqobv93zum/87eDLYxl7nVGMln1tRxi7ORtApGlm2pFrm3LU
         fCUt413AQCAwLWaCeewAXg2GqYwNmde9B4aaA=
Sender: Ian Boston <ianboston@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Subject: Re: Lucene consistency in clustered environment
From: Ian Boston <ieb@tfd.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <4CA1CD76.9010103@rug.nl>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 13:19:32 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <33BB0FEA-96AD-4EA0-B5EE-4AE0C212B693@tfd.co.uk>
References: <4CA1CD76.9010103@rug.nl>
To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org

Did you setup the machines as a Jackrabbit cluster as per [1] right from =
the start ?
And do you have a complete Journal right from the first operation in the =
JCR (or local state snapshots)

The local state of the Lucene index is dependent on every node in the =
cluster replaying every event from the Journal to ensure that they all =
contain the same content. The Journal is also used for sharedItem state =
invalidation which will ensure that stale items do not get into =
responses.

HTH
Ian

1 http://wiki.apache.org/jackrabbit/Clustering

On 28 Sep 2010, at 12:11, Dennis van der Laan wrote:

> Hi all,
>=20
> We are using Jackrabbit 1.6.1 in a production environment. It is
> clustered across 6 machines, which all store the Lucene indexes on a
> local disk. After using this setup for a couple of months, we are =
seeing
> the Lucene indexes differ per machine. Not only the size of the =
indexes,
> but some documents seem to be indexed on one machine, but not on =
another
> machine. So doing a full-text search (xpath with a ' contains' clause)
> will have different results depending on the machine the query is run =
on.
> I am a complete Lucene novice, so my question is: is this
> non-deterministic behaviour a characteristic of Lucene (and should we
> rebuild all indexes on a regular basis to keep them in sync) or is
> something going wrong here?
>=20
> Thanks for any help!
> Beste regards,
> Dennis
>=20
> --=20
> Dennis van der Laan, MSc
> Centre for Information Technology
> University of Groningen
>=20