BTW if you have the CheckIndex output when you ran it on the two failed indices, can you forward that?
Mike On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 6:32 AM, Michael McCandless <luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 1:08 AM, David Sitsky <s...@nuix.com> wrote: >> Incidentally.. this is what TerminateProcess does say from MSDN: >> >> TerminateProcess initiates termination and returns immediately. This >> stops execution of all threads within the process and requests >> cancellation of all pending I/O. The terminated process cannot exit >> until all pending I/O has been completed or canceled. > > Hmm that language is rather spooky -- the cancellation of all "pending > I/O" sounds dangerous. So the question is what Windows API the JRE > uses for fsync, and whether Windows considers that "pending I/O". > > It seems unlikely that an fsync, once returned, can be cancelled by > the OS, since the OS must forward the request to the IO system, wait > for it to move the bytes to stable storage (write cache in your case), > before returning. > >> So I am not sure if this is a problem or not.. if a background merge >> is happening while TerminateProcess() is called, then potentially, the >> Lucene libraries may have written some data, but I wonder if the O/S >> can "cancel" it before it is committed? You would hope if fsync() >> equivalent is called, that the pending I/O operations can't be >> cancelled, but I do wonder? > > I do wonder as well :) But I can't imagine Windows can cancel already > completed fsync's on TerminateProcess. > > Any bytes written by Lucene but not fsync'd are perfectly fair game to > "lose" -- that won't affect the index because we do not remove the old > commit point until all files referenced by the new commit point have > been fsync'd. > > Mike > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
