Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 42F4DD8E4 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 13:44:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 16746 invoked by uid 500); 17 Oct 2012 13:44:21 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 16695 invoked by uid 500); 17 Oct 2012 13:44:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact solr-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list solr-user@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 16687 invoked by uid 99); 17 Oct 2012 13:44:20 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 13:44:20 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of yseeley@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.176 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.214.176] (HELO mail-ob0-f176.google.com) (209.85.214.176) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 13:44:16 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f176.google.com with SMTP id x4so9003927obh.35 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 06:43:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=wnCQGseLNp6eBZIHId0jGNC+jFn8P11SxJhWJrlHi80=; b=hkHUH8Cp9fzDb7wAeWfNOJdWL2QnmXmbL+cE9BW5DzYu9HwuBb2wRBXBM2C6f7tL7h 85B3tJxz3x4u3tdBstTiu8xuIhL79BzeSes/Sw4alNcjmvDflNZI6jGxb9QVmKdj0cks rIjJec2UZO/OqthdGKjFHTUld15xBBm7u4oNBh6R7s5MRNeWiJeP/65Dc/KIN+eTB9Gb 6toYXY+jrngVmCVMmBvAOroAFbxZ8knvjTdg56HD5kBgrokvjohca6btWn1no2tVT3tw 5gF9xQcwJso8wg3c+hZymrAMMyzN+Yqe+TLNbApJWvDXIXA2TWLxKrbjv6EyoNiF3DN8 yigg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.145.9 with SMTP id sq9mr15552570obb.42.1350481435680; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 06:43:55 -0700 (PDT) Sender: yseeley@gmail.com Received: by 10.60.171.4 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 06:43:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <10479_1350480821_ZZi070UhNCHxB.00_507EB3B5.7050107@uni-bielefeld.de> References: <10479_1350480821_ZZi070UhNCHxB.00_507EB3B5.7050107@uni-bielefeld.de> Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 09:43:55 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: G8a8hlxQFmaVBym56s2w1RuGrjQ Message-ID: Subject: Re: differences of LockFactory between solr 3.6.1 and 4.0.0? From: Yonik Seeley To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Bernd Fehling wrote: > Hi list, > > while checking the runtime behavior of solr 4.0.0 I recognized that the handling > of write.lock seams to be different. > > With solr 3.6.1 after calling optimize the index is optimzed and write.lock removed. > This tells me everything is flushed to disk and its save to copy the index. > > With solr 4.0.0 after calling optimize the index is optimized but the write.lock remains. > > They both use NativeFSLockFactory. > > What could be the cause that write.lock remains with solr 4.0.0? The IndexWriter is left open now on optimizes / commits to enable better NRT and better concurrency with adds (commits no longer block adds). -Yonik http://lucidworks.com