Return-Path: <user-return-839-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@lucy.apache.org>
X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io
Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io
Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183])
	by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D11B200BD8
	for <archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io>; Wed,  7 Dec 2016 12:15:57 +0100 (CET)
Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix)
	id 9A10B160B0A; Wed,  7 Dec 2016 11:15:57 +0000 (UTC)
Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id E36F8160AFD
	for <archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io>; Wed,  7 Dec 2016 12:15:56 +0100 (CET)
Received: (qmail 50041 invoked by uid 500); 7 Dec 2016 11:15:56 -0000
Mailing-List: contact user-help@lucy.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:user-help@lucy.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:user-unsubscribe@lucy.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:user@lucy.apache.org>
List-Id: <user.lucy.apache.org>
Reply-To: user@lucy.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list user@lucy.apache.org
Received: (qmail 50023 invoked by uid 99); 7 Dec 2016 11:15:55 -0000
Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd3-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 07 Dec 2016 11:15:55 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by spamd3-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd3-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 649A2180690
	for <user@lucy.apache.org>; Wed,  7 Dec 2016 11:15:55 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd3-us-west.apache.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31
	tests=[KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY=1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.999]
	autolearn=disabled
Received: from mx1-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8])
	by localhost (spamd3-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.10]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id CPemqW9PruAz for <user@lucy.apache.org>;
	Wed,  7 Dec 2016 11:15:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from hosting04.aevum.de (hosting04.aevum.de [188.68.58.30])
	by mx1-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 4CC745FB36
	for <user@lucy.apache.org>; Wed,  7 Dec 2016 11:15:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] (aftr-185-17-205-229.dynamic.mnet-online.de [185.17.205.229])
	by hosting04.aevum.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D2D426004F
	for <user@lucy.apache.org>; Wed,  7 Dec 2016 12:15:47 +0100 (CET)
To: user@lucy.apache.org
References: <CY1PR06MB2172D9FFA47BAFD82A51351794820@CY1PR06MB2172.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
 <CY1PR06MB21725B216E89D7369DA6F0AA94820@CY1PR06MB2172.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
From: Nick Wellnhofer <wellnhofer@aevum.de>
Message-ID: <cd2168fb-227b-d672-9359-1a32e29869a7@aevum.de>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 12:15:46 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CY1PR06MB21725B216E89D7369DA6F0AA94820@CY1PR06MB2172.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [lucy-user] LUCY_Folder_Open_Out_IMP at core/Lucy/Store/Folder.c
 line 119
archived-at: Wed, 07 Dec 2016 11:15:57 -0000

On 06/12/2016 17:17, Gupta, Rajiv wrote:
> Any idea why I'm getting this error.
>
> Error Invalid path: 'seg_9i/lextemp'
> 20161205 184114 [] [event_check_for_logfile_completion_in_db][FAILED at DB Query to check logfile completion][Error Invalid path: 'seg_9i/lextemp'
> 20161205 184114 []  LUCY_Folder_Open_Out_IMP at core/Lucy/Store/Folder.c line 119
> 20161205 184114 []  S_lazy_init at core/Lucy/Index/PostingListWriter.c line 92
>
>
> In another log file getting different error
>
> Error rename from '<Dir>/.lucyindex/1/schema.temp' to '<Dir> /.lucyindex/1/schema_an.json' failed: Invalid argument
> 20161205 174146 []  LUCY_Schema_Write_IMP at core/Lucy/Plan/Schema.c line 429
>
> When committing the indexer object.

This looks like two processes are writing to the index at once. This shouldn't 
happen unless something with our locking mechanism is broken. Do you have an 
unusual setup? Are you perhaps running on NFS?

> In both the case I'm seeing one common pattern that time is getting skewed up in the STDOUT log file by 5-6 hrs before starting the process on this file. In actual system time is not changed.

I don't fully understand this paragraph. Can you clarify?

Nick