: NFS, Stale File Handle Problem and my thoughts
You only have to create the deletion policy (merging uses it).
Mike
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Sertic Mirko, Bedag
wrote:
> Ok, so does the merging go thru the IndexDeletionPolicy, or do I have to deal
> with the MergePolicy t
ards
> Mirko
>
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Januar 2010 17:12
> An: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: NFS, Stale File Handle Problem and my thoughts
>
> Yes, normal merging will cause
@lucene.apache.org
Betreff: Re: NFS, Stale File Handle Problem and my thoughts
Yes, normal merging will cause this problem as well.
Generally you should always use IndexReader.reopen -- it gives much
better reopen speed, less resources used, less GC, etc.
Mike
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:49 AM
achricht-
> Von: Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Januar 2010 16:14
> An: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: NFS, Stale File Handle Problem and my thoughts
>
> Right, it's only machine A that needs the deletion policy. All
: Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Januar 2010 16:14
An: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Betreff: Re: NFS, Stale File Handle Problem and my thoughts
Right, it's only machine A that needs the deletion policy. All
read-only machines just reopen on
eded files are taken from the
>> >> IndexDeletionPolicy, and deleted at 12:30. At this point the files to be
>> >> deleted should no longer be required by any IndexReader and can be
>> safely
>> >> deleted.
>> >>
>> >> So the IndexDeletionPolicy should be
t; >> Machine B has read only access.
> >>
> >> Would this be a valid setup? The only limitation is there is only ONE
> >> IndexWriter box, and multiple IndexReader boxes. Based on our
> requirements,
> >> this should fix very well. I really want to avoid s
this should fix very well. I really want to avoid some kind of index
>> replication between the boxes...
>>
>> Regards
>> Mirko
>>
>>
>>
>> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
>> Von: Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com]
>> Gese
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Januar 2010 14:45
> An: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: NFS, Stale File Handle Problem and my thoughts
>
> Right, you just need to make a custom Ind
ween the boxes...
>
> Regards
> Mirko
>
>
>
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Januar 2010 14:45
> An: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: NFS, Stale File Handle Problem and
Nachricht-
Von: Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Januar 2010 14:45
An: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Betreff: Re: NFS, Stale File Handle Problem and my thoughts
Right, you just need to make a custom IndexDeletionPolicy. NFS makes
no effort to protec
Right, you just need to make a custom IndexDeletionPolicy. NFS makes
no effort to protect deletion of still-open files.
A simple approach is one that only deletes a commit if it's more than
XXX minutes/hours old, such that XXX is set higher than the frequency
that IndexReaders are guaranteed to h
h...@all
We are using Lucene 2.4.1 on Debian Linux with 2 boxes. The index is
stored on a common NFS share. Every box has a single IndexReader
instance, and one Box has an IndexWriter instance, adding new documents
or deleting existing documents at a given point in time. After adding or
deletin
13 matches
Mail list logo
