[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2421?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12862967#action_12862967
]
Shai Erera commented on LUCENE-2421:
------------------------------------
I guess that you've missed that on the thread: "_It is possible that two JVMs
will attempt to lock the same Directory, one w/ Native and the other w/ Simple.
If we won't check in obtain() whether the file exists, it might obtain a native
lock, while the Directory is actually locked by another JVM using Simple_". Uwe
also mentioned Native was fixed to use the same lock file name in 2.9 because
of that.
Another thing why we cannot leave the lock file behind is because if you e.g.
switch from Native to Simple you won't be able to obtain a lock.
And personally I prefer that if the Directory is not locked then the file won't
be there - even if just for clarity, or because how we've all become used to
treat the existence of the lock file by now. And I'd also hate to add another
line to bw section :)
> Hardening of NativeFSLock
> -------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-2421
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2421
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Index
> Reporter: Shai Erera
> Assignee: Shai Erera
> Fix For: 3.1
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-2421.patch
>
>
> NativeFSLock create a test lock file which its name might collide w/ another
> JVM that is running. Very unlikely, but still it happened a couple of times
> already, since the tests were parallelized. This may result in a false
> exception thrown from release(), when the lock file's delete() is called and
> returns false, because the file does not exist (deleted by another JVM
> already). In addition, release() should give a second attempt to delete() if
> it fails, since the file may be held temporarily by another process (like
> AntiVirus) before it fails. The proposed changes are:
> 1) Use ManagementFactory.getRuntimeMXBean().getName() as part of the test
> lock name (should include the process Id)
> 2) In release(), if delete() fails, check if the file indeed exists. If it
> is, let's attempt a re-delete() few ms later.
> 3) If (3) still fails, throw an exception. Alternatively, we can attempt a
> deleteOnExit.
> I'll post a patch later today.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
