Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Mention IndexFormatToo{Old,New}Exception as corruption #104204

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 10, 2024
Merged

Mention IndexFormatToo{Old,New}Exception as corruption #104204

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
10 changes: 8 additions & 2 deletions docs/reference/troubleshooting/corruption-issues.asciidoc
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -38,6 +38,13 @@ well-tested, so you can be very confident that a checksum mismatch really does
indicate that the data read from disk is different from the data that {es}
previously wrote.

If a file header is corrupted then it's possible that {es} might not be able
to work out how to even start reading the file which can lead to an exception
such as:

- `org.apache.lucene.index.IndexFormatTooOldException`
- `org.apache.lucene.index.IndexFormatTooNewException`

It is also possible that {es} reports a corruption if a file it needs is
entirely missing, with an exception such as:

Expand All @@ -50,8 +57,7 @@ system previously confirmed to {es} that this file was durably synced to disk.
On Linux this means that the `fsync()` system call returned successfully. {es}
sometimes reports that an index is corrupt because a file needed for recovery
is missing, or it exists but has been truncated or is missing its footer. This
indicates that your storage system acknowledges durable writes incorrectly or
that some external process has modified the data {es} previously wrote to disk.
may indicate that your storage system acknowledges durable writes incorrectly.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I do not think this change is related to the title. Was it intentional?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah it was intentional, I meant to fix this in the last change to this file but missed it.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why would you like to remove the mention of another process? My understanding is that it is still a possibility. Is it mentioned anywhere else?


There are many possible explanations for {es} detecting corruption in your
cluster. Databases like {es} generate a challenging I/O workload that may find
Expand Down