CORRECTION:
Ok, I simplified my test case a little... I removed the UNC
share which is
a remote file share that Windows supports.
I have two processes
running
on the same Windows XP machine.
1) The first process uses an IndexWriter
to writes to the index and then closes the IndexWriter.
2) The first process
sends a multicast event to the other process.
3) The other process receives
the multicast event opens an IndexReader.
4) Meanwhile, the first process
opens an IndexReader and performs a delete. The IndexReader is then closed.
5) The first process opens an IndexWriter to add more documents. At this
point the IndexWriter often gets an error: Lock obtain timed out
Any advice?
Is this only a problem on Windows?
Here's the stack
trace:
java.io.IOException:
Lock obtain timed out: [EMAIL
PROTECTED]:\WINDOWS\TEMP\lucene-9906f192fb41cc8775cf839213997b7e-commit.lock
at org.apache.lucene.store.Lock.obtain(Lock.java:58)
at org.apache.lucene.store.Lock$With.run(Lock.java:108)
at org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.mergeSegments(IndexWriter.java:501)
at org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.maybeMergeSegments(IndexWriter.java:458)
at org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.addDocument(IndexWriter.java:310)
--- Lucene Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, I simplified
my test case a little... I removed the UNC share which is
> a remote file
share that Windows supports.
>
> I have two processes running
> on the
same Windows XP machine.
> 1) The first process uses an IndexWriter
> to
writes to the index and then closes the IndexWriter.
> 2) The first process
> sends a multicast event to the other process.
> 3) The other process opens
> an IndexReader.
> 4) Meanwhile, the first process tries to open the index
again
> to do a write.
> 5) Often the IndexWriter gets an error: Lock obtain
timed
> out
>
> Any advice? Is this only a problem on Windows?
>
>
Here's the stack
> trace:
> java.io.IOException: Lock obtain timed out:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:\WINDOWS\TEMP\lucene-9906f192fb41cc8775cf839213997b7e-commit.lock
>
> at org.apache.lucene.store.Lock.obtain(Lock.java:58)
> at org.apache.lucene.store.Lock$With.run(Lock.java:108)
>
> at org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.mergeSegments(IndexWriter.java:501)
>
> at org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.maybeMergeSegments(IndexWriter.java:458)
>
> at org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.addDocument(IndexWriter.java:310)
>
>
> --- Lucene Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> > > Hi Christoph,
> > >
> > > Thats what I thought. But what I'm
> seeing is this:
> > > - open
> > > reader for searching
> > > (the reader is
> opening an index on a
remote machine
> > > (via UNC) which takes a couple seconds)
>
> > > -
meanwhile the other service opens
> > > an IndexWriter and adds a document
>
> > > (the index writer determines that it needs
> > > to merge so it
tries
> to get a lock. since the reader is still opening, the
> > > IO
exception is
> thrown)
> > >
> > > I believe that increasing the merge
factor will
> > > reduce
> the opportunity for this to occur. But it will
still occur at some
> > > point.
>
> > >
> > I'm not sure what you mean
by `opening an index on a remote machine
> (via
> > UNC)' but have you
made sure that lock files are put in the same
> directory
> > for both processes
(see the mailing list archive for details)?
>
> > Also note, that lucene's
locking is known not to work on NFS (also see
> the
> > list archive). I
don't know if it works on SMB mounts.
> >
> > Morus
>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > 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]
