lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Replication not working
Date Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:14:11 GMT
Be careful deleting the index manually. Delete the entire index directory,
i.e. the data dir has no index directory under it.

About copying the index from the slave to the master, just shut down
the master, delete all the files from the index, and use scp or something
to copy the files in the index from the slave to the master.

Best
Erick

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Dean Pullen <dean.pullen@semantico.com> wrote:
> I can't see a way, if the slave is on another server.
>
> We're going to upgrade solr - as you can delete the index after unloading a core in this
way:
>
> cores?action=UNLOAD&core=liveCore&deleteIndex=true
>
> From v3.3 (I think)
>
> On 21 Dec 2011, at 16:11, Dean Pullen wrote:
>
>> Thought as much, thanks for the reply.
>>
>> Is there an easy way of dropping the index on the slave, or do I have to manually
delta the index files?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Dean.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 21 Dec 2011, at 15:54, Erick Erickson wrote:
>>
>>> 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...
>>>
>>> Best
>>> Erick
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Dean Pullen <dean.pullen@semantico.com>
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
>>>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message