lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-2421) Hardening of NativeFSLock
Date Sat, 01 May 2010 04:28:53 GMT


Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-2421:

bq. I guess that you've missed that on the thread

No, just havn't seen a good reason yet...

{quote} "It is possible that two JVMs will attempt to lock the same Directory, one w/ Native
and the other w/ Simple. If we won't check in obtain() whether the file exists, it might obtain
a native lock, while the Directory is actually locked by another JVM using Simple". Uwe also
mentioned Native was fixed to use the same lock file name in 2.9 because of that.{quote}

Lock factories do not have to work with all other lock need to use the same
lock factory across all process'.

bq. Another thing why we cannot leave the lock file behind is because if you e.g. switch from
Native to Simple you won't be able to obtain a lock.

Not true - there is no reason both simple and native need to use the same lock file - or even
that the native lock feel needs to be in the same dir (eg it could be in a tmp dir)

bq. And personally I prefer that if the Directory is not locked then the file won't be there

You cannot guarantee this in any case. If they cannot be deleted, it cannot be deleted - but
cleanliness is no reason to throw an exception in an event that is not actually a failure

bq. even if just for clarity, or because how we've all become used to treat the existence
of the lock file by now.

I don't find that persuasive myself...

bq. And I'd also hate to add another line to bw section

but its not a back compat break ...

> Hardening of NativeFSLock
> -------------------------
>                 Key: LUCENE-2421
>                 URL:
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Index
>            Reporter: Shai Erera
>            Assignee: Shai Erera
>             Fix For: 3.1
>         Attachments: LUCENE-2421.patch, LUCENE-2421.patch
> NativeFSLock create a test lock file which its name might collide w/ another JVM that
is running. Very unlikely, but still it happened a couple of times already, since the tests
were parallelized. This may result in a false exception thrown from release(), when the lock
file's delete() is called and returns false, because the file does not exist (deleted by another
JVM already). In addition, release() should give a second attempt to delete() if it fails,
since the file may be held temporarily by another process (like AntiVirus) before it fails.
The proposed changes are:
> 1) Use ManagementFactory.getRuntimeMXBean().getName() as part of the test lock name (should
include the process Id)
> 2) In release(), if delete() fails, check if the file indeed exists. If it is, let's
attempt a re-delete() few ms later.
> 3) If (3) still fails, throw an exception. Alternatively, we can attempt a deleteOnExit.
> I'll post a patch later today.

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