lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From robert engels <reng...@ix.netcom.com>
Subject Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1044) Behavior on hard power shutdown
Date Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:42:16 GMT
It is unclear if you need to open them for writing. The unix specs  
clearly allow you do call fsync on ANY file descriptor.

The Linux docs seem to imply that a file descriptor opened for write  
is required.

The Java specification allows it on ANY file descriptor as well -  
this should be the only one that matters.

On Nov 30, 2007, at 11:35 AM, Michael McCandless (JIRA) wrote:

>
>     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1044? 
> page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment- 
> tabpanel#action_12547217 ]
>
> Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1044:
> --------------------------------------------
>
> From java-dev, Robert Engels wrote:
>
> {quote}
> My reading of the Unix specification shows it should work (the  
> _commit under Windows is less clear, and since Windows is not inode  
> based, there may be different issues).
>
> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/fsync.html
> {quote}
>
> OK thanks Robert.
>
> I think very likely this approach (let's call it "sync after close")
> will work.  The _commit docs (for WIN32) also seems to indicate that
> the file referenced by the descriptor is fully flushed (as we want):
>
>   http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/17618685
>
> Also at least PostgreSQL and Berkeley DB "trust" _commit as the
> equivalent of fsync (though I have no idea if they use it the same way
> we want to).
>
> Though ... I am also a bit concerned about opening files for writing
> that we had already previously closed.  It arguably makes Lucene "not
> quite" write-once.  And, we may need a retry loop on syncing because
> on Windows, various tools might wake up and peek into a file right
> after we close them, possibly interfering w/ our reopening/syncing.
>
> I think the alternative ("sync before close") is something like:
>
>   * Add a new method IndexOutput.close(boolean doSync)
>
>   * When a merge finishes, it must close all of its files with
>     doSync=true; and write the new segments_N with doSync=true.
>
>   * To implement commit() ... I think we'd have to force a merge of
>     all written segments that were not sync'd.  And on closing the
>     writer we'd call commit().  This is obviously non-ideal because
>     you can get very different sized level 1 segments out.  Although
>     the cost would be contained since it's only up to mergeFactor
>     level 0 segments that we will merge.
>
> OK ... I'm leaning towards sticking with "sync after close", so I'll
> keep coding up this approach for now.
>
>
>> Behavior on hard power shutdown
>> -------------------------------
>>
>>                 Key: LUCENE-1044
>>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ 
>> LUCENE-1044
>>             Project: Lucene - Java
>>          Issue Type: Bug
>>          Components: Index
>>         Environment: Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition, Sun  
>> Hotspot Java 1.5
>>            Reporter: venkat rangan
>>            Assignee: Michael McCandless
>>             Fix For: 2.3
>>
>>         Attachments: FSyncPerfTest.java, LUCENE-1044.patch,  
>> LUCENE-1044.take2.patch, LUCENE-1044.take3.patch,  
>> LUCENE-1044.take4.patch
>>
>>
>> When indexing a large number of documents, upon a hard power  
>> failure  (e.g. pull the power cord), the index seems to get  
>> corrupted. We start a Java application as an Windows Service, and  
>> feed it documents. In some cases (after an index size of 1.7GB,  
>> with 30-40 index segment .cfs files) , the following is observed.
>> The 'segments' file contains only zeros. Its size is 265 bytes -  
>> all bytes are zeros.
>> The 'deleted' file also contains only zeros. Its size is 85 bytes  
>> - all bytes are zeros.
>> Before corruption, the segments file and deleted file appear to be  
>> correct. After this corruption, the index is corrupted and lost.
>> This is a problem observed in Lucene 1.4.3. We are not able to  
>> upgrade our customer deployments to 1.9 or later version, but  
>> would be happy to back-port a patch, if the patch is small enough  
>> and if this problem is already solved.
>
> -- 
> 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: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>


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


Mime
View raw message