Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 96932 invoked from network); 13 Nov 2007 18:53:56 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 13 Nov 2007 18:53:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 66981 invoked by uid 500); 13 Nov 2007 18:53:37 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-user-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 66951 invoked by uid 500); 13 Nov 2007 18:53:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list java-user@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 66937 invoked by uid 99); 13 Nov 2007 18:53:37 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:53:37 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of vivextra@gmail.com designates 72.14.204.239 as permitted sender) Received: from [72.14.204.239] (HELO qb-out-0506.google.com) (72.14.204.239) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:53:41 +0000 Received: by qb-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id e12so2351764qba for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:53:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=HhA72xlXkUI05uNkVDFUquUSEeaBo8w9ThVcDLg0hKk=; b=LHToYfeTFI+Cf7Vuu7Zb24TwAe9C36KiIH/3tdirw7dsngY6VhS+pgIGP2C8je7wgcQSCcmJVq5P46YrdO29mp8LdJnJ8uit4RxXzHRa/Z1PHpxi12MM6S53IoC+6hHk3eEGX6MPwzof5QpUmK64m49PJw74X6Mpgp/zkiNhIRY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=aSS0UsetQpMqSGXwabpi16LiODoN76tVzMo1oVctoFPkmzz54T8jz2wVvxZVnbW60+gRIMru41aOKIRMzPYx3L44QobG7REFj/UogQ5TYrAIC/brS/VA5CwZDui1MYG1epe1pdnmaZky1MTsWpQXSptjmlYvrdoxRkBXKzmrNaw= Received: by 10.142.80.7 with SMTP id d7mr1134587wfb.1194979999493; Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:53:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.161.16 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:53:19 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:53:19 -0800 From: "vivek sar" To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: restoring a corrupt index? In-Reply-To: <47377DF1.8050301@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <47361C43.6030506@gmail.com> <1194730460.31785.1220622099@webmail.messagingengine.com> <1194732079.3067.1220624239@webmail.messagingengine.com> <1194734434.8784.1220626841@webmail.messagingengine.com> <4737405F.1040608@gmail.com> <1194807588.7808.1220709497@webmail.messagingengine.com> <47377DF1.8050301@gmail.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org We have seen similar exceptions (with Lucene 2.2) when were doing the following mistakes, 1) Not closing the old searchers and re-creating a new one for every new search (fixed it by closing the searcher every time, if you want you could only one searcher instance as well) 2) Not having any jvm shutdown hook (in cases the JVM gets killled we need to make sure the indexer is closed if it's in the middle of indexing) - of course you would still need to avoid forceful killing (kill -9). Since, these two fixes we haven't seen this problem happening. I think if the indexer is abruptly stopped while it's in progress the index corruption can happen. -vivek On Nov 11, 2007 2:10 PM, Ryan McKinley wrote: > > > > > Ryan can you post the output of CheckIndex on your now-working index? > > (1800 is still too many files I think, certainly after having > > optimized). > > > > ok, 1800 was wrong - that was from a botched attempt where I: > 1. ran optimize on the broken 18K file index. It crashed midway through. > 2. run CheckIndex -fix on that > > When I: > 1. run CheckIndex -fix > 2. run Optimize > it results in an index with 65 files (that seems normal) > > > > Also, what steps finally allowed you to recover? CheckIndex > > (back-ported to 2.2) followed by optimize? > > > > I did not back-port to 2.2, this converted 2.2 index to 2.3, and i > shoved 2.3 libs into an exploded solr.war. (just to see if it works) > It works, but I'm better off going back to an older working version. > > > > > > I'm still baffled how Lucene 2.2 could ever produce a corrupt index > > even on hitting descriptor limits or other exceptions. I can see that > > this could cause files to not be deleted properly, but, I can't see > > how it can corrupt the index. > > > > I'm not confident it is lucene's fault - the hardware has been flaky > too. But the 18K files and 'too many open files' error makes me > suspicious. Unfortunately, I can't quite grock when stuff started going > wrong and how long it has been going on from my log files. > > > > Ryan can you share any details of how you (Solr) is using Lucene? Are > > you using autoCommit=false? I'd really love to get to the root cause > > here. > > > > I am using all standard solr config (copied from the example). I am > using solr's to "commit" added documents every 30 secs. > > > ryan > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org