lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Yonik Seeley" <>
Subject Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-665) temporary file access denied on Windows
Date Fri, 15 Sep 2006 03:43:42 GMT
On 9/14/06, Michael McCandless <> wrote:
> > If it will happen so rarely, make it simpler and go directly for
> > segments_(N-1)... (treat it like your previous plan if segments_N.done
> > hadn't been written yet).
> Yes, true, we could just fall back to the prior segments_(N-1) file in
> this case.  Though that means the reader will likely just hit an
> IOException trying to load the segments (since a commit is "in
> process") and then I'd have to re-retry against segments_N.

You need to fall back in any case... (remember the writer crashing scenario).
Reusing the fallback logic makes the code simpler in a case that will
almost never happen.
It's really just a question of if you put in extra retry logic or not.

> I've been using NFS as my "proxy" for "least common denominator"

I think that's a safe bet ;-)
NFS v2 or v3?

-Yonik Solr, the open-source Lucene search server

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message