Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 85000 invoked from network); 27 Oct 2006 15:12:42 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 27 Oct 2006 15:12:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 13221 invoked by uid 500); 27 Oct 2006 15:12:50 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 13174 invoked by uid 500); 27 Oct 2006 15:12:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list java-dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 13163 invoked by uid 99); 27 Oct 2006 15:12:49 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Oct 2006 08:12:49 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of ning.li.li@gmail.com designates 66.249.82.229 as permitted sender) Received: from [66.249.82.229] (HELO wx-out-0506.google.com) (66.249.82.229) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Oct 2006 08:12:34 -0700 Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id s15so724357wxc for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2006 08:12:14 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=hgqfKlyCPY+67KjHJPlJxkJ3qO/2QVvwu1r+d9ZHoInypFPknmHdp5fr3ONQamMYmEjrl26C1ZrftL/SC7LjPZszflHsiRvzhrwGkupuWk/ClGzM9ls4SV31p7IEONSdMSHQi1lNl77GNK32g5ZzVlzYkEsGxS6dL2UswlE35Eo= Received: by 10.90.105.19 with SMTP id d19mr2493990agc; Fri, 27 Oct 2006 08:12:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.90.31.12 with HTTP; Fri, 27 Oct 2006 08:12:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 11:12:13 -0400 From: "Ning Li" To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-555) Index Corruption In-Reply-To: <29949214.1161882797829.JavaMail.root@brutus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1163475.1145861407628.JavaMail.jira@brutus> <29949214.1161882797829.JavaMail.root@brutus> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org > It's only upon successfully writing the new segments that Lucene will write a new "segments" file referring to the new segments. After that, it removes the old segments. Since it makes these changes in the correct order, it should be the case that disk full exception never affects the already written index. Lucene could produce an inconsistent index if addIndexes(Directory[]) does not run to its completion. The following is my recent comment on another issue. "This makes me notice a bug in current addIndexes(Directory[]). In current addIndexes(Directory[]), segment infos in S are added to T's "segmentInfos" upfront. Then segments in S are merged to T several at a time. Every merge is committed with T's "segmentInfos". So if a reader is opened on T while addIndexes(Directory[]) is going on, it could see an inconsistent index." --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org