be lost, if
-fix were specified
Thanks,
Nishesh
-----Original Message-----
From: Uwe Schindler [mailto:u...@thetaphi.de]
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 2:47 AM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Index Corruption with Lucene 2.9.3
Hi Nishesh,
The index corruption may be caused by on
gt; To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Index Corruption with Lucene 2.9.3
>
> Thanks Uwe for your comments.
>
> Few points to note for our setup -
> 1) At any time only one thread will be adding index and merging with the
final
> index. Two threads will not concurrently be
Schindler [mailto:u...@thetaphi.de]
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 2:39 PM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Index Corruption with Lucene 2.9.3
One addition:
Maybe you should update your antique Java version from the year 2007
(1.6.0_02) to something more up-to-date and maybe use 64
...@thetaphi.de
> -Original Message-
> From: Uwe Schindler [mailto:u...@thetaphi.de]
> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 11:33 PM
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Index Corruption with Lucene 2.9.3
>
> Hi,
>
> In general it's a bad idea to use Lucen
Hi,
In general it's a bad idea to use Lucene on network-mounted drives. E.g.,
NFS is heavily broken with the file locking used by Lucene (NIO does not
work at all, and file-based lock support fails because directory updated may
not be visible at all times, or are visible before files are flushed -
