I think this sort of patch is acceptable: touchFile() is not called in performance-critical code. One improvement would for it not to busy-wait, but rather to sleep, i.e.:

     long then = file.lastModified();
     long now = System.currentTimeMillis();
     while (now == then) {
       Thread.sleep(1);
       now = System.currentTimeMillis();
     }
     file.setLastModified(now);

Doug

Hani Suleiman wrote:
Ok, I figured out what's going on.

I suspect this will only manifest itself on faster machines (I'm on a dual 1.42ghz G4)

What happens basically is that the the timer resolution on file.lastModified isn't accurate enough, so when a file is touched, it returns the same value for lastModified. This in turn causes the segment staleness checks in IndexReader to fail (around line 276, lastModified(directory)==segmentInfosAge), hence the testcase fails.

I believe this is a bug, but I can't come up with a satisfactory workaround. My solution is to modify FSDirectory.touchFile(String name) to have the following block;

    long oldModified = file.lastModified();
    do
    {
      file.setLastModified(System.currentTimeMillis());
    }
    while(oldModified==file.lastModified());

This ensures that a touch ensures the file is considered 'fresher' that it was before, which makes everything happy. It's a bit of a hack though, so I'm not sure of how you guys would prefer handling this, take the performance hit with the extra lastModified checks, if make it an even bigger hack by checking for OSX, or something far more clever and not detrimental to performance ;)

Hani

On Tuesday, September 30, 2003, at 12:42 AM, Hani Suleiman wrote:

here you go, happens to me on linux too (with JDK 1.4.0)

OSX using latest 1.4.1

[junit] ------------- ---------------- ---------------
[junit] Testsuite: org.apache.lucene.index.TestIndexReader
[junit] Tests run: 5, Failures: 2, Errors: 0, Time elapsed: 2.883 sec


[junit] Testcase: testDeleteReaderWriterConflict(org.apache.lucene.index.TestIndexReader) : FAILED
[junit] Delete allowed on an index reader with stale segment information
[junit] junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: Delete allowed on an index reader with stale segment information
[junit] at org.apache.lucene.index.TestIndexReader.testDeleteReaderWriterConflict( TestIndexReader.java:271)
[junit] at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
[junit] at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.ja va:39)
[junit] at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccesso rImpl.java:25)



[junit] Testcase: testDeleteReaderReaderConflict(org.apache.lucene.index.TestIndexReader) : FAILED
[junit] Delete allowed from a stale index reader
[junit] junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: Delete allowed from a stale index reader
[junit] at org.apache.lucene.index.TestIndexReader.testDeleteReaderReaderConflict( TestIndexReader.java:397)
[junit] at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
[junit] at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.ja va:39)
[junit] at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccesso rImpl.java:25)




On Tuesday, September 30, 2003, at 12:37 AM, Erik Hatcher wrote:

Hani,

I don't see this test failure on OS X. Thanks to your patch on the RussianAnalyzer, all my tests now successfully pass. Could you give us the stack trace for the problem you're seeing?

Erik


On Monday, September 29, 2003, at 11:28 PM, Hani Suleiman wrote:


I'm seeing a fairly disturbing testcase failure on OSX in TestIndexReader.testDeleteReaderWriterConflict and TestIndexReader.testDeleteReaderReaderConflict

This only happens on OSX though, is this a known issue? Any have an ideas of what sort of thing is going wrong before I dig in further?

Hani


--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Reply via email to