On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote:

> On 28/01/16 16:52, Matthew Holt wrote:
>
>> Hi Andy,
>> Thanks for the reply. Responding in-line below...
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 4:26 AM, Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 27/01/16 21:45, Matthew Holt wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>> Wanted to check if anyone can confirm if you can successfully change the
>>>> TDB File Mode in 2.7.11
>>>>
>>>>
>>> 2.7.1?
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's correct, I had that listed incorrectly there.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> from direct to mapped (assuming a restart takes
>>>
>>>> place) , or vice-versa, without any issues?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You can do that.
>>>
>>> (though upgrading would be a good idea)
>>>
>>> We've read that this is supported, and tried this without any issues, but
>>>
>>>> received some push back as at one time this was an issue.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> What was the issue?
>>>
>>
>>
>> At this point not too sure. They encountered this issue around 5 years
>> ago,
>>
>
> Depends on who "they" are.
>
> (If it happens to be IBM ...)
>
> There is one issue that arises ... MS Windows does not allow memory mapped
> files to be deleted without exiting the JVM.  This is a long standing Java
> issue for Sun/Oracle/OpenJDK JVMs.
>
> But direct mode vs mapped mode is reported as not much of a performance
> win on Windows  anyway.


Thanks Andy. Good call there. :)

That's one issue we were aware of, and for now, only enabling it for Linux
64 bit users.

We hadn't seen any issue in our testing, but found a long-ago defect
talking about that a potential issue, so had wanted to make sure we could
be more confident with the switch over.

Thanks again,
Matt

>
>
>     Andy
>
>
> and put code in place so that it would only use the File IO mode the
>> indices were created with. We have only been using Direct, and are now
>> switching to Mapped IO for systems that support it to take advantage of
>> performance benefits.
>>
>>
>> Thanks again for your help,
>> Matt
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>          Andy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for any help you can provide,
>>>> Matt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Reply via email to