Thanks Robert, I've asked our sysadmins to install a more recent Java version for testing. I'll report back if it fails with the newer Java version.
Tom On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm particularly thinking its something like > http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=5091921 > > We tried to add workarounds to lucene to dodge problems from this, but > really a newer unaffected version would be safer. > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Tom Burton-West <tburt...@umich.edu > >wrote: > > > >> java.version=1.6.0_16 > > > > > > Tom can you use a newer java version for this? That's pretty old, and > > seeing such a crazy field number worries me that its some jvm bug. > > > > you could even try to run the checkindex itself with a newer java, just > in > > case the index is fine (it might not be) > > > > >
