Hi,

I'm wondering if it is reasonable to have multiple threads/nodes that modifies indexes in Lucene Directory based on Infinispan? Let's assume that two nodes try to update index in this same time. First one creates IndexWriter and obtains
write lock. There is high propability that second node throws LockObtainFailedException (as one IndexWriter is allowed on single index) and index is not modified. How is that? Should be always only one node that makes changes in
the index?

Cheers,
Lukasz

W dniu 15 września 2009 01:39 użytkownik Łukasz Moreń <lukasz.moren@gmail.com> napisał:
Hi,

With using JMeter I wanted to check if Infinispan dir does not crash under heavy load in "real" use and check performance in comparison with none/other directories.
However appeared problem when multiple IndexWriters tries to modify index (test InfinispanDirectoryTest) - random deadlocks, and Lucene exceptions.
IndexWriter tries to access files in index that were removed before. I'm looking into it, but not having good idea.

Concerning the last part, I think similar thing is done in InfinispanDirectoryProviderTest. Many threads are making changes and searching (not checking if db is in sync with index).
If threads finish their work, with Lucene query I'm checking if index contains as many results as expected. Maybe you meant something else?
Would be good to run each node in different VM.


Great ! Looking forward to it. What state are things in at the moment
if I want to play around with it ?

Should work with with one master(updates index) and one many slave nodes (sends changes to master). I tried with one master and one slave (both with jms and jgroups backend) and worked ok. Still fails if multiple nodes want to modify index.

I've attached patch with current version.

Cheers,
Łukasz

2009/9/13 Michael Neale <michael.neale@gmail.com>

Great ! Looking forward to it. What state are things in at the moment
if I want to play around with it ?

Sent from my phone.

On 13/09/2009, at 7:26 PM, Sanne Grinovero <sanne.grinovero@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 2009/9/12 Michael Neale <michael.neale@gmail.com>:
>> That does sounds pretty cool. Would be nice if the lucene indexes
>> could scale along with how people will want to use infinispan.
>> Probably worth playing with.
>
> Sure, this is the goal of Łukasz's work; We know compass has
> some good Directories, but we're building our own as one based
> on Infinispan is not yet available.
>
>>
>> Sent from my phone.
>>
>> On 13/09/2009, at 8:37 AM, Jeff Ramsdale <jeff.ramsdale@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm afraid I haven't followed the Infinispan-Lucene implementation
>>> closely, but have you looked at the Compass Project?
>>> (http://www.compass-project.org/overview.html) It provides a
>>> simplified interface to Lucene (optional) as well as Directory
>>> implementations built on Terracotta, Gigaspaces and Coherence. The
>>> latter, in particular, might be a useful guide for the Infinispan
>>> implementation. I believe it's mature enough to have solved many of
>>> the most difficult problems of implementing Directory on a
>>> distributed
>>> Map.
>>>
>>> If someone has any experience with Compass (particularly it's
>>> Directory implementations) I'd be interested in hearing about it...
>>> It's Apache 2.0 licensed, btw.
>>>
>>> -jeff
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>> infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>> infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev

_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev