bq. As for #2, I haven't found any tickets that mention anything like that, that may not mean much though.
I'll see if I can dig it up. Perhaps it's only been discussed and we still need to make one, but I'm pretty sure someone did. - Mark On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 9:01 PM Erick Erickson <[email protected]> wrote: > bq: A report of a 'spotting' or two in the wild is a very weak leg for > such a hack to stand on. > > Can't disagree. The more I think about it, the harder it is to see > some process that would > be helpful. The fact that the node (and presumably all replicas on > that node) are unavailable > means you can't index to any replica on that node _and_ you can't do > regular distributed queries. About the only thing you _can_ do is > query the (stale) replicas on > that node with &distrib=false, which is at least a little useful when > trying to understand the > state of the system but totally useless when it comes to a production > setup. > > I guess "monitor and if it's repeatable try to find out why it was > being removed in the first place". > > As for #2, I haven't found any tickets that mention anything like > that, that may not mean much > though. > > Scott: > > Right, but since the node was removed from live_nodes in the first > place, presumably the Solr > node wasn't reachable (speculation). So it wouldn't receive an event > that it was removed > from the live_node ephemeral and couldn't repair itself. > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Scott Blum <[email protected]> wrote: > > Most ephemeral node uses include a monitoring component or watch of some > > kind tho. > > > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 5:54 PM, Mark Miller <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> That is just silly though. There is no reason it should be gone in a > legit > >> situation. We can't have everything monitoring all it's state all the > time > >> and trying to correct it. > >> > >> A report of a 'spotting' or two in the wild is a very weak leg for such > a > >> hack to stand on. > >> > >> > >> - Mark > >> > >> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 5:40 PM Scott Blum <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>> For #1, I think each node should periodically ensure it's in the > >>> live_nodes list in ZK. > >> > >> -- > >> - Mark > >> about.me/markrmiller > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > -- - Mark about.me/markrmiller
