lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1011) Two or more writers over NFS can cause index corruption
Date Mon, 01 Oct 2007 07:42:50 GMT


Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1011:

> i'm not an expert on file Locking (either in Lucene, or in the JVM,
> or any OSes) but i have to wonder if the problems you are seeing are
> inherent in the Java FileLock APIs, or if they only manifest in
> specific implementations (ie: certain JVM impls, certain
> filesystems, certain combinations of NFS client/server, etc...)

I'm no expert either, and I continue to be rather shocked each time I
learn more!

> if we can say "NativeFSLockFactory uses the Java FileLock API to
> provide locking. FileLock known to be buggy in the following
> situations: .... " then we've done all we can do, correct?

I agree, I think this is exactly what we should do.  I'll update the
javadoc for NativeFSLockFactory with this statement.

> Two or more writers over NFS can cause index corruption
> -------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: LUCENE-1011
>                 URL:
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Index
>    Affects Versions: 1.9, 2.0.0, 2.0.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.9
>            Reporter: Michael McCandless
>            Assignee: Michael McCandless
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 2.3
>         Attachments: LUCENE-1011.patch
> When an index is used over NFS, and, more than one machine can be a
> writer such that they swap roles quickly, it's possible for the index
> to become corrupt if the NFS client directory cache is stale.
> Not all NFS clients will show this.  Very recent versions of Linux's
> NFS client do not seem to show the issue, yet, slightly older ones do,
> and the latest Mac OS X one does as well.
> I've been working with Patrick Kimber, who provided a standalone test
> showing the problem (thank you Patrick!).  This came out of this
> thread:
> Note that the first issue in that discussion has been resolved
> (LUCENE-948).  This is a new issue.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

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

View raw message