Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 72432 invoked from network); 3 Nov 2007 23:57:07 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 3 Nov 2007 23:57:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 96999 invoked by uid 500); 3 Nov 2007 23:56:48 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 96950 invoked by uid 500); 3 Nov 2007 23:56:48 -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 96939 invoked by uid 99); 3 Nov 2007 23:56:48 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 03 Nov 2007 16:56:48 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [208.69.42.181] (HELO radix.cryptio.net) (208.69.42.181) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 03 Nov 2007 23:57:15 +0000 Received: by radix.cryptio.net (Postfix, from userid 1007) id 6745E71C1E9; Sat, 3 Nov 2007 16:56:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by radix.cryptio.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ECEC71C1D7 for ; Sat, 3 Nov 2007 16:56:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 16:56:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Chris Hostetter To: Lucene Dev Subject: Re: [jira] Resolved: (LUCENE-1044) Behavior on hard power shutdown In-Reply-To: <472D0942.8000403@gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <21643215.1194067491098.JavaMail.jira@brutus> <472D0942.8000403@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org : Is the new autocommit=false code atomic (the new check point is successfully : made and moved to or its not)? If not I imagine it could be made to be without : too much work right? No matter what work we do in Java code to try and garuntee atomicity, the JVM can't garuntee that File IO buffers are flushed unless the JVM is shutdown cleanly, so i don't see how we could possibly make any claims of atomicity in the event of hard process (or OS) termination. i'd be happy to be proven wrong by someone who knows more about IO, filesystems, and the JVM Specification. -Hoss --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org