[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1011?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12531428
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1011:
--------------------------------------------
> i'm not an expert on file Locking (either in Lucene, or in the JVM,
> or any OSes) but i have to wonder if the problems you are seeing are
> inherent in the Java FileLock APIs, or if they only manifest in
> specific implementations (ie: certain JVM impls, certain
> filesystems, certain combinations of NFS client/server, etc...)
I'm no expert either, and I continue to be rather shocked each time I
learn more!
> if we can say "NativeFSLockFactory uses the Java FileLock API to
> provide locking. FileLock known to be buggy in the following
> situations: .... " then we've done all we can do, correct?
I agree, I think this is exactly what we should do. I'll update the
javadoc for NativeFSLockFactory with this statement.
> Two or more writers over NFS can cause index corruption
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1011
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1011
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Index
> Affects Versions: 1.9, 2.0.0, 2.0.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.9
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Assignee: Michael McCandless
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 2.3
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1011.patch
>
>
> When an index is used over NFS, and, more than one machine can be a
> writer such that they swap roles quickly, it's possible for the index
> to become corrupt if the NFS client directory cache is stale.
> Not all NFS clients will show this. Very recent versions of Linux's
> NFS client do not seem to show the issue, yet, slightly older ones do,
> and the latest Mac OS X one does as well.
> I've been working with Patrick Kimber, who provided a standalone test
> showing the problem (thank you Patrick!). This came out of this
> thread:
>
> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/engine?do=post_view_flat;post=50680;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;list=lucene
> Note that the first issue in that discussion has been resolved
> (LUCENE-948). This is a new issue.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
