lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erick Erickson <>
Subject Re: Replication not working
Date Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:54:52 GMT
You've probably hit it on the head. The slave version is greater than the master
version, so replication isn't "necessary". BTW, the version starts
life as a timestamp,
but then is simply incremented on successive commits, which accounts for
what you are seeing.

You should be able to blow the index away on the slave and wait for replication
and go from there.

Another possibility: How much faith do you have in your slave index?
If it's all good,
you could simply copy *that* to the master manually and go from there.

If you're rebuilding your entire index, just blow the master index
away, re-index from
scratch and that should work too (be sure to disable replication
during the rebuild
unless you want a partial index on the slave).

Although copying the files *then* deciding not to use them doesn't seem like
a good thing. Not sure if 3.x has the same behavior or not...


On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Dean Pullen <> wrote:
> E.g. I see this in the slave logs:
> 2011-12-21 15:45:27,635  INFO handler.SnapPuller:265 - Master's version: 1271406570655,
generation: 376
> 2011-12-21 15:45:27,635  INFO handler.SnapPuller:266 - Slave's version: 1271406571565,
generation: 1286
> 2011-12-21 15:45:27,636  INFO handler.SnapPuller:267 - Starting replication process
> 2011-12-21 15:45:27,639  INFO handler.SnapPuller:270 - Number of files in latest index
in master: 9
> …
> 2011-12-21 15:45:50,997  INFO handler.SnapPuller:286 - Total time taken for download
: 23 secs
> 2011-12-21 15:45:51,050  INFO handler.SnapPuller:586 - New index installed. Updating
index properties…
> Yet the index doesn't change!
> On 21 Dec 2011, at 15:37, Dean Pullen wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I have an odd problem locally when attempting replication with solr 1.4
>> The problem is, though the master files get copied to a temp directory in the slave
data directory (I see this happen at runtime), they are then not copied over the actual slave
index data.
>> We were wondering if it was due to the index version of the restored master data
being behind the slave index version after a restore? Any other ideas would be appreciated.
>> Thanks,
>> Dean Pullen

View raw message