Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of yseeley@gmail.com designates
 64.233.166.183 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth;
        b=OJMTC7x9J5Kzf9xIxkuIpLK5pKy4bSRPCGGibw878IdFlXiIMlXspiNelZ2TTuMIyQBGuWp58+lJn+lBrr7uLIX0k9izWGreHbv3tjSret74CUGRwFACYXgTSCCyu4q+9LnVNnJdsshvE5ciFXbWv1Lnz4mue6naFXYrti30iUE=
Message-ID: <c68e39170609142043g48968b51oe4628942e4d2d8b0@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 23:43:42 -0400
From: "Yonik Seeley" <yonik@apache.org>
Sender: yseeley@gmail.com
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-665) temporary file access denied on
 Windows
In-Reply-To: <450A1108.5070306@mikemccandless.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: 
 <E1F190DAC247C64FAA46B38316FA151D04D99C76@EX-101.mail.navisite.com>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.58.0609131452200.25120@hal.rescomp.berkeley.edu>
	 <4508809C.4000204@mikemccandless.com>
	 <c68e39170609131742g733456b8t189748540ca752b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4508BE24.8050600@mikemccandless.com>
	 <c68e39170609131947s792c562cg695fc0003ea95e07@mail.gmail.com>
	 <c68e39170609131949o31548c37m1c1d54670a5f4eb9@mail.gmail.com>
	 <450933F2.8020601@mikemccandless.com>
	 <c68e39170609140701o43a17891yc04f76818e0e13e4@mail.gmail.com>
	 <450A1108.5070306@mikemccandless.com>

On 9/14/06, Michael McCandless <lucene@mikemccandless.com> 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
http://incubator.apache.org/solr Solr, the open-source Lucene search server

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org