Updating Stan's proposed announcement based on recent feedback... On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Stanley Bradbury <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
*** For Review and comment *** NOTICE TO ALL DERBY v10.3 USERS : CRITICAL FIX NOW AVAILABLE The Bottom Line: If you are currently using Derby 10.3.1.4 or Derby 10.3.2.1, it is strongly recommended that you upgrade to Derby 10.4.1.3 or 10.3.3.0 to avoid any chance of database corruption due to an issue with multiple threads accessing a database that is documented in <a href="issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3347">DERBY-3347</a>. This bug can cause unrecoverable database corruption during periods of heavy, multi-thread I/O operations. The error produced in the test case used to diagnose the problem was: ERROR XSDB3: Container information cannot change once written: was 0, now 80 It is felt that other errors might also be generated when this type of corruption occurs. The corruption message will most likely refer to page 0 of the container. For example: ERROR XSDG1: Page Page(0 ,Container(0, 5856)) could not be written... This bug corrupts the pages on disk and can go unnoticed. If you do not run database consistency checks regularly it is recommended you begin doing so as soon as possible after the upgrade. To insure that corruption has not already occurred in existing databases, after upgrade run the database consistency check at least once to validate all tables in the database. This process is documented at: http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/DatabaseConsistencyCheck If corruption has already occurred the database will need to be recovered from the last good backup. There is no alternative solution. Version 10.3.3.0 can be downloaded from: http://db.apache.org/derby/releases/release-10.3.3.0.cgi Version 10.4.1.3 can be downloaded from: http://db.apache.org/derby/releases/release-10.4.1.3.cgi ... Please let me know if you think there is additional information that is required. I think addressing this to Derby v10.3 users, along with the specific address to 10.3.1 and 10.3.2 users, should cover everyone affected. Are we sure this only affects Windows? If not, I say we leave platform specific details out. Other mail from Knut made it appear that this was definitely not a platform specific problem, but maybe platform specific JVM details make it harder to reproduce on non-Windows platforms. Thanks, Knut, for writing the release note. I don't really have anything to add, except maybe we should add exactly why we think the problem occurs (multiple threads accessing first page in heavily contended scenario). Maybe that's too much information for an end user. I propose also that we remove 10.3.1.4 and 10.3.2.1 from the download page. Do we also remove them from the archive? That is definitely something to check. It may be important to retain these from an Apache infrastructure/archive perspective. I'll follow up on that later. andrew
