[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Linux-cluster] gfs+nfs+lucene, anyone had tried?



Hi, 

in the file /var/lib/nfs/etabI get this:

/nfsdata  nodo1(rw,sync,wdelay,hide,nocrossmnt,secure,no_root_squash,no_all_squash,no_subtree_check,secure_locks,acl,fsid=45793,mapping=identity,anonuid=65534,anongid=65534)

the version of nfs are this:

nfs-utils-1.0.9-42.el5
nfs-utils-lib-1.0.8-7.6.el5

thanks

ESG


2010/4/21 Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho redhat com>
Hi,

Did you set fsid= on the export? Which NFS version are you using?

Steve.

On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 17:00 +0200, ESGLinux wrote:
> HI,
>
>
> look at the error that happens when two nodes are writing to the
> index:
>
>
>  java.io.IOException: Stale NFS file handle
>         at java.io.RandomAccessFile.writeBytes(Native Method)
>         at java.io.RandomAccessFile.write(RandomAccessFile.java:466)
>         at
> org.apache.lucene.store.FSIndexOutput.flushBuffer(FSDirectory.java:503)
>         at
> org.apache.lucene.store.BufferedIndexOutput.flush(BufferedIndexOutput.java:84)
>         at
> org.apache.lucene.store.BufferedIndexOutput.close(BufferedIndexOutput.java:98)
>         at
> org.apache.lucene.store.FSIndexOutput.close(FSDirectory.java:506)
>         at
> org.apache.lucene.index.FieldsWriter.close(FieldsWriter.java:48)
>         at
> org.apache.lucene.index.SegmentMerger.mergeFields(SegmentMerger.java:191)
>         at
> org.apache.lucene.index.SegmentMerger.merge(SegmentMerger.java:88)
>         at
> org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.mergeSegments(IndexWriter.java:709)
>         at
> org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.mergeSegments(IndexWriter.java:686)
>         at
> org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.optimize(IndexWriter.java:543)
>
> I think in this case one node has writen to the index and the other
> don´t. Could it be a problem? does GFS anything with this situation?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> ESG
>
>
>
> 2010/4/21 Jeff Sturm <jeff sturm eprize com>
>         We use Lucene over GFS (no NFS), but the design of our
>         application updates Lucene from only one node at a time.
>
>
>
>         In general applications that utilize POSIX locking can handle
>         concurrent updates safely on GFS even with multiple nodes.  It
>         wasn't clear to us whether Lucene supports this, however, and
>         in your case NFS adds a layer to the mix.
>
>
>
>         From:linux-cluster-bounces redhat com
>         [mailto:linux-cluster-bounces redhat com] On Behalf Of
>         ESGLinux
>         Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 8:22 AM
>         To: linux clustering
>         Subject: [Linux-cluster] gfs+nfs+lucene, anyone had tried?
>
>
>
>
>
>         Hi All,
>
>
>
>
>         I´m mounting a cluster using NFS over GFS and I´m going to
>         store a lucene index on it.
>
>
>
>
>
>         There are two nodes that write in this index, and I´m worried
>         about the index corruption.
>
>
>
>
>
>         So anyone have implemented something like this? any problem I
>         can find?
>
>
>
>
>
>         Thanks in advance,
>
>
>
>
>
>         ESG
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>         --
>         Linux-cluster mailing list
>         Linux-cluster redhat com
>         https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
>
>
> --
> Linux-cluster mailing list
> Linux-cluster redhat com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster


--
Linux-cluster mailing list
Linux-cluster redhat com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]