lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen Lewis <>
Subject Re: Error upgrading from 6.0 to 6.1
Date Tue, 23 Aug 2016 19:13:38 GMT
Erick, Shawn, you're right on both counts. Mixed jar versions are happening
in both cases, and only lead to a fatal error on on the upgrade to 6.1.0.
So there was a big gap in my upgrading methodology. I've confirmed that
fixing the bootstrapping script allows the upgrade and that the correct jar
files are being loaded after the fix.

Sorry for the confusion with the attachment. I've included the log below
just in case it is helpful to anyone listening.

Thanks again!


at org.apache.solr.core.CoreContainer.create(
at org.apache.solr.handler.admin.CoreAdminOperation$
at org.apache.solr.handler.admin.CoreAdminHandler$CallInfo.
at org.apache.solr.handler.admin.CoreAdminHandler.handleRequestBody(
at org.apache.solr.handler.RequestHandlerBase.handleRequest(
at org.apache.solr.servlet.HttpSolrCall.handleAdminRequest(
at org.apache.solr.servlet.SolrDispatchFilter.doFilter(
at org.apache.solr.servlet.SolrDispatchFilter.doFilter(
at org.eclipse.jetty.servlet.ServletHandler$CachedChain.
at org.eclipse.jetty.servlet.ServletHandler.doHandle(
at org.eclipse.jetty.server.handler.ScopedHandler.handle(
at org.eclipse.jetty.server.session.SessionHandler.
at org.eclipse.jetty.server.handler.ContextHandler.
at org.eclipse.jetty.servlet.ServletHandler.doScope(
at org.eclipse.jetty.server.session.SessionHandler.
at org.eclipse.jetty.server.handler.ContextHandler.
at org.eclipse.jetty.server.handler.ScopedHandler.handle(
at org.eclipse.jetty.server.handler.ContextHandlerCollection.handle(
at org.eclipse.jetty.server.handler.HandlerCollection.
at org.eclipse.jetty.server.handler.HandlerWrapper.handle(
at org.eclipse.jetty.server.Server.handle(
at org.eclipse.jetty.server.HttpChannel.handle(
at org.eclipse.jetty.server.HttpConnection.onFillable(
at org.eclipse.jetty.util.thread.strategy.ExecuteProduceConsume.
at org.eclipse.jetty.util.thread.QueuedThreadPool.runJob(
at org.eclipse.jetty.util.thread.QueuedThreadPool$

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Shawn Heisey <> wrote:

> On 8/22/2016 9:18 PM, Stephen Lewis wrote:
> > Oops, apologies for my confusing grammar and for missing the
> > attachment. The intro sentence should have read "I have a question
> > about upgrading a solr cloud cluster in place." I've actually attached
> > the log below this time.
> The mailing list eats most attachments.  Sometimes they make it through,
> usually they don't, and I never can see what causes the difference.
> Your attachment did not make it through.
> For us to see it, you will need to to place the log somewhere on the
> Internet and provide a URL to access it.
> When you get a message saying that application/octet-stream was expected
> but text/html is received instead, it usually means what was received
> from the remote server was an error page, instead of the javabin
> response that was expected.  To see what that error is, you'll need to
> check the log on the remote server -- in this case, the server with IP
> address
> Further down in the thread you did mention a NoSuchMethodError.  If
> that's the error message from, then I agree with Erick's
> assessment.  You've probably got multiple versions of Solr jars on your
> classpath.
> Best guess is that your bootstrapping step copies the install directory
> without deleting anything from the target, which would *add* jars to
> server/solr-webapp/webapp/WEB-INF/lib.  The jars in the two versions of
> Solr do not have the same names -- the full version number is part of
> the filename.
> I can anticipate a possible next question:  Why did it work when
> upgrading from 6.0.0 to 6.0.1?  The answer:  Mixing jars would most
> likely work with those two versions, because that's a bugfix release,
> and bugfix releases are usually 100 percent API/ABI compatible with the
> previous version.  Breaks in that compatibility are expected in minor
> version upgrades on the server side, especially in code relating to
> SolrCloud.  That code is evolving *VERY* rapidly.
> If you do not see evidence supporting the multiple-jar-version idea,
> then you may need to provide access to the logfile.
> We do *try* to ensure API/ABI compatibility on the the *client* side so
> user programs can update SolrJ to a new minor version without
> recompiling ... but even that is not guaranteed.
> Thanks,
> Shawn



  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message