Ok, after removing the index and touching the repo recursively, the size of
the index-database (.index + .indexer) is much smaller than before.
before deleting it: 63 MB
after running the repo-scan from scratch: 1.5 MB
This is the scan-statistic from the log-file:
Repository Dir : /opt/managed_repos/internal
Repository Name : Central Releases Repository
Repository Layout : default
Known Consumers : (7 configured)
auto-rename
metadata-updater
repository-purge
auto-remove
update-db-artifact
create-missing-checksums
index-content
Invalid Consumers : <none>
Duration : 41 Seconds 83 Milliseconds
When Gathered : 6/29/09 12:12 PM
Total File Count : 116604
In my understanding, after running the scan and creating the index-database
from scratch, the size of the index-database should be larger than before,
not smaller.
In the Browse-view, it looks as complete as before. However this artifact
(dozer) still cannot be found using the Search-function. So the situation
has not improved.
PS: this time no error occured during the walk thru the repo.
Deng Ching-2 wrote:
>
> Yep, that would help :)
>
> Thanks,
> Deng
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Marc Lustig <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> I just discovered the following in the log:
>>
>> 2009-06-29 11:30:39,351 [http-8080-13] WARN
>> org.apache.archiva.indexer.search.NexusRepositorySearch - IO error
>> occured
>> while accessing index of repository 'snapshots' :
>> /opt/managed_repos/snapshots/.indexer/_3p2_1ea.del (No
>> such file or directory)
>> 2009-06-29 11:30:39,353 [http-8080-13] WARN
>> org.apache.archiva.indexer.search.NexusRepositorySearch - IO error
>> occured
>> while accessing index of repository 'internal' :
>> /opt/managed_repos/internal/.indexer/_bir.cfs (No such f
>> ile or directory)
>>
>> Will it help to delete the index-database and let it create from scratch?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Marc Lustig wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi all,
>> > finally we managed to upgrade to Achiva 1.2.1. It brings a large number
>> of
>> > usefull new features and fixes. Thanks to the developers!
>> >
>> > However, I just discovered an issue that I didn't saw on the old
>> version
>> > (1.1.2).
>> >
>> > The scanner still cannot be forced to do a complete scan (ignoring the
>> > timestamp). We have discussed this before. So you have to touch the
>> files
>> > to let them scan again.
>> >
>> > So, this is what I did. After running the scan the concerned artifact
>> > appears in Browse, but it still cannot be found using the Search
>> function.
>> > HOw is that possible? I thought that both functions rely on the same
>> > database-index?
>> >
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/Artifact-can-be-found-using-Browse%2C-but-not-using-Search-tp24251041p24251097.html
>> Sent from the archiva-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Artifact-can-be-found-using-Browse%2C-but-not-using-Search-tp24251041p24251829.html
Sent from the archiva-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
