Subject: Re: "Another process changed the volume during the search..."
From: Walt Reed (walt@terrascope.com)
Date: Wed Feb 07 2001 - 20:53:36 EST
Chris Garrigues wrote:
> > From: Walt Reed <walt@terrascope.com>
> > Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 16:06:54 -0800
> >
> > Chris Garrigues wrote:
> >
> > > One of the clients I've set up using netatalk is having a problem where w
> > hen
> > > he attempts to use Sherlock to search a netatalk volume, he gets an alert
> > with
> > > this message:
> > >
> > > Unable to search the volume "WCFileServer"
> > > Another process changed the volume during the search.
> > > Please wait for the process to finish and try again.
> > >
> > > He's running 9.0. I assume that another user updated something during hi
> > s
> > > search. Am I right in this assumption? Is there anything I can do about
> > this?
> > >
> >
> > you neglect to mention what processes might be using the volume: apache, samba,
> > wuftp, nfs, backup software?
> > are users connecting through ftp via bbedit? do users telnet to the machine? how
> > many users?
>
> None of the above. This particular machine is only used by atalk users.
> Backup software wasn't running at the time. apache is on the system, but it's
> home is in a different part of the filesystem. Samba is also running, but
> there are no PCs on that particular site. telnet is disabled and the only
> people who have ssh are myself and my partner, neither of whom were logged in.
>
> > do any of the other users @ the location experience similar problems? is the user
> > a "perpetual problem" user? how many other programs is the user running @ the
> > same time?
>
> He's the most cluefull user at that particular client. The other users all pass
> their issues through him. I'll check with him and see if anyone else is having
> the problem.
>
> > i'm just trying to get an idea of how many variables you are dealing with. also,
> > i'd update this person to 9.0.4, i've noticed better network performance.
>
> I think he's actually using 9.0.4, but I'll make sure about that as well.
>
> > if, in fact, you are right and another user is changing the files and interfering
> > w/ the search, i think i'd try writing an applescript that mounts the volume and
> > then indexes it @ night when no one could bother it, then shuts down the machine.
> > once sherlock has it indexed, it should be able to search easier.
>
> How do you do that? Sherlock/Find/Index Volumes doesn't list the server and I
> read in the archive that Apple disabled the ability to build indexes over the
> network.
>
> (For some context, I'm primarily a Unix guy but i know my way around a Mac
> fairly well. I don't do windows.)
>
hmm.. i thought you could do an index like that, but it seems you can't anymore, that's
too bad.
found this in the help menu:
"Mounted servers, CD-ROM discs, and read-only disks...do not appear in the Index
Volumes window." it goes on to say that you can index it "directly on the shared
volume", which i assume means only if it's a mac, and directly from it's console. you
can get the contextual menu to give you the option (hold down the "ctrl" and click on
the volume from the finder) to index, but it doesn't work. sorry about that.
i'd still check his system & make sure he's running 9.0.4. turn off samba if you
aren't using it, or at least turn it off for now, to eliminate it from the equation.
is the problem intermitant? i tried to do a sherlock search here (i did 2 @ the same
time from different machines) and found it slow, but it worked, and my users telnet,
ftp, samba, etc. do your users open files directly from the server, or do they use
local copies and update the server (or is there a version control software running)?
i'm wondering if a file could be getting locked or updated as you said. one of the
most insidious problems i've had to deal w/ is users trying to include fonts off the
server in adobe type manager rather than copying them to the local drive, resulting in
weird startup problems, but that's a whole 'nother issue...
other than that, all i can think of is to make sure nfs isn't somehow on. i know it
can lock files that are in use.
will keep looking into it.
walt reed
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sun Oct 14 2001 - 03:04:32 EDT