Mailing-List: contact java-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of michael@loot.co.za designates
 41.204.193.132 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <4B7CD305.4010800@loot.co.za>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:41:25 +0200
From: Michael van Rooyen <michael@loot.co.za>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB;
 rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: java.io.IOException: read past EOF since migration to 2.9.1
References: <4B7BFA9D.4030809@loot.co.za> <1266422425.4644.92.camel@te-laptop>
 <4B7CCE84.6020709@loot.co.za>
In-Reply-To: <4B7CCE84.6020709@loot.co.za>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


> Toke Eskildsen wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 15:18 +0100, Michael van Rooyen wrote:
>>> I recently upgraded from version 2.3.2 to 2.9.1. [...]
>>> Since going live a few days ago, however, we've twice had read past 
>>> EOF exceptions.
>>
>> The first thing to do is check the Java version. If you're using Sun JRE
>> 1.6.0, you might have encountered a nasty bug in the JVM:
>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1282
> We're still using 1.5.0_06, and have been using it for ages.  When 
> doing these kind of updates, I tend to change only one component at a 
> time.  In this case, all our code and the JVM stayed the same and all 
> that changed was Lucene 2.3.2 to 2.9.1, then the EOF errors started 
> occurring...
>
Just looking at that bug report, the links provided show that those 
errors occurred with Lucene 2.3.x on JRE 1.6.0.  If it were that JRE bug 
causing the EOF problem, I would have expected to get errors while we 
were using 2.3.2, but we used that for over a year on the same JVM 
(1.5.0_06) without a single error.

What's interesting is that whatever error was in the index will 
disappear once the faulty segment is merged in the next cycle, so it's 
quite possible (and perhaps likely in a heavily updated index) that by 
the time the index is checked, the corruption will be gone.  In this 
case, it may be reported as an EOF exception on a good index, and I've 
seen a few of those in the mail archives.  I suspect that if the merge 
process were more pedantic in not merging segments unless they are 
completely without error (including the deleted docs counts), then a lot 
more users might start encountering this problem.

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