ah, one last piece, and if you're not some how alert an admin about
it, perhaps through email or something. Maybe this question is more
application availability monitoring in general? Any opinions would be
appreciated.
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> Righ
pr 14, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
>
> On Apr 14, 2012, at 12:03 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>
>> How do people currently monitor the health of a solr cluster? Are
>> there any good tools which can show the health across the entire
>> cluster? Is this something wh
Yes very similar. I had hard coded /solr but it was these locations. I'll
update to use the provided patch and reverify on Monday.
On Saturday, April 7, 2012, Stefan Matheis
wrote:
> Hey Jamie
>
> On Saturday, April 7, 2012 at 2:45 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>> Thanks Ryan. So
just go to localhost:8983/solr and you'll see the updated interface.
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Darren Govoni wrote:
> Hi,
> Just updated solr trunk and tried the java -jar start.jar and
> localhost:8983/solr/admin.not found.
>
> Where did it go?
>
> thanks.
>
o and UI
> looking good. The info moved from being on the core to using a
> servlet at the root level.
>
> Note, it is not a request handler anymore, so the wt=XXX has no
> effect. It is always JSON
>
> ryan
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 7:01 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>&
I looked at our old system and indeed it used to make a call to
/solr/zookeeper not /solr/corename/zookeeper. I am making a change
locally so I can run with this but is this a bug or did I much
something up with my configuration?
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> I j
I just downloaded the latest snapshot and fired it up to take a look
around and I'm getting the following error when looking at the Cloud
view.
Loading of undefined failed with HTTP-Status 404
The request I see going out is as follows
http://localhost:8501/solr/slice1_shard1/zookeeper?wt=json
t
awesome Yonik. I'll indeed try this. Thanks!
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Yonik Seeley
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 12:19 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>> Not sure if this got lost in the shuffle, were there any thoughts on this?
>
> Sorting by "id" could be
Not sure if this got lost in the shuffle, were there any thoughts on this?
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> Given that in a distributed environment the docids are not guaranteed
> to be the same across shards should the sorting use the uniqueId field
> as the ti
12 at 3:12 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>> Thanks Mark. The delete by query is a very rare operation for us and
>> I really don't have the liberty to update to current trunk right now.
>> Do you happen to know about when
ily in Luke.
>
> On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 23:35 -0400, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>> I am currently indexing some information and am wondering why I am
>> getting duplicates in facets. From what I can tell they are the same,
>> but is there any case that could cause this that I may no
I am currently indexing some information and am wondering why I am
getting duplicates in facets. From what I can tell they are the same,
but is there any case that could cause this that I may not be thinking
of? Could this be some non printable character making it's way into
the index?
Sample o
wrote:
>
> On Apr 3, 2012, at 10:35 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>
>> I haven't personally seen this issue but I have been told by another
>> developer that he ran a deleteByQuery("*:*"). This deleted the index,
>> but on restart there was information still in
I haven't personally seen this issue but I have been told by another
developer that he ran a deleteByQuery("*:*"). This deleted the index,
but on restart there was information still in the index. Should this
be possible? I had planned to setup something to test this locally
but wanted to know if
Another option is to use something like edismax
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/ExtendedDisMax. You simply assign your qf
as something like title^10 brand^5 description^1 and then do a sort
based on price/discount, i.e. sort=price asc, discount desc
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 8:17 AM, mads wrote:
> Hi
u, Mar 29, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Yonik Seeley
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>> I recently got this stack trace when trying to execute a facet based
>> query on my index. The error went away when I did an optimize but I
>> was surprised to see it a
e for a full merge. It doesn't make
> that much difference and there is almost never a need to do it on a periodic
> basis.
>
> The full merge will mean a longer time between the commit and the time that
> the data is first searchable. Do the commit, then search.
>
> w
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1477
>> but it's marked as Won't Fix, does anyone know why it is so, or if this is
>> planned to be resolved?
>>
>> Dmitry
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:53 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>>
>
For whatever reason. I'm having difficult ulty reproducing the issue, I'll
continue to try and reproduce
On Sunday, March 25, 2012, Mark Miller wrote:
> Yeah, sorry - that's what I meant.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Mar 24, 2012, at 2:18 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
&
Did you try
http://lucene.apache.org/solr/api/org/apache/solr/client/solrj/impl/LBHttpSolrServer.html?
This might be what you're looking for.
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 11:23 AM, wrote:
> Hi,
>
> has SolrJ any possiblities to do a failover from a master to a slave for
> searching?
>
> Thank you
>
ted options and describe what (and where) you'd like to have :)
>
>
>
> On Sunday, March 25, 2012 at 4:25 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>
>> Is there a plan to add the ability to specify the shard and
>> collection when adding a core through the enhanced web gui, is there
Is there a plan to add the ability to specify the shard and
collection when adding a core through the enhanced web gui, is there a
JIRA for this? If not I'd be more than happy to add the request if
someone can point me to the active JIRA (both 3162 and 2667 are marked
Resolved).
Seems like I should have just tried it. Unloading did indeed remove
the core from the clusterstate, so that answers that.
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> I have recently been considering using microsharding in our
> distribution and wanted to make sure I understa
I have recently been considering using microsharding in our
distribution and wanted to make sure I understand the premise
correctly. The idea would be to fire up a set of solr instances, each
with a number of cores. Should those cores become over burdened we'd
fire up another solr instance on ano
There is no stack trace, I can fire things back up and try to get a
thread dump if that's useful.
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 4:07 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
> Can you get a stack trace dump?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 23, 2012, at 10:38 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>
>
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 6:37 AM, Martijn v Groningen
wrote:
> On 22 March 2012 03:10, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>
>> I need to apologize I believe that in my example I have too grossly
>> over simplified the problem and it's not clear what I am trying to do,
>> so I
e that grouping was the way to go in
this case, but again I am very interested in any suggestions that the
community could offer.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> Join looks interesting for this as well, is this currently supported
> in SolrCloud?
>
> On Wed, Mar 21
Join looks interesting for this as well, is this currently supported
in SolrCloud?
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> What would you recommend instead, I had thought about block join perhaps I'm
> open to suggestions tbough
>
>
> On Wednesday, March
ut during searching only interrested in in
> travel offers to specific destinations or in a specific period of time).
> Best way to find this out, is to just try it out.
>
> On 21 March 2012 22:34, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>
>> I was wondering how much more intensive grouping queries ar
I was wondering how much more intensive grouping queries are in
general. I am considering using grouping queries as my primary query
because I have the need to store a document as pieces with varying
access controls, for instance a portion of a document a user can see
but an admin can see the enti
Given that in a distributed environment the docids are not guaranteed
to be the same across shards should the sorting use the uniqueId field
as the tie breaker by default?
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Yonik Seeley
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>> I&
, and how others wouldn't need to do the same thing.
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Yonik Seeley
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>> I believe we're using replication to only duplicate the index
>> (standard SolrCloud nothing special on o
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>> HmmmOk, I don't see how it's possible for me to ensure that there
>> are no ties. If a query were for *:* everything has a constant score,
>> if the user requested 1 page then requested the n
nstance the
user asks for score asc, we'd make this score asc,key asc so that
results would be order by score and then by key so the results across
pages would be consistent?
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Yonik Seeley
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>&
ok, with my custom component out of the picture I still have the same
issue. Specifically, when sorting by score on a leader and replica I
am getting different doc orderings. Is this something anyone has
seen?
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> DocCounts are the same.
forcing
> replication. Logs around both would be helpful.
>
> Also the doc counts for each shard?
>
> On Mar 20, 2012, at 10:16 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to figure out how it's possible for 2 solr instances (1
>> which is leader 1 is replica)
I'm trying to figure out how it's possible for 2 solr instances (1
which is leader 1 is replica) to be out of sync. I've done commits to
the solr instances, forced replication but still the solr instances
have different info. The relevant snippet from my clusterstate.json
is listed below.
\
I am not currently running into memory issues, but I was wondering if
anyone could explain to me Solrs memory usage? What does Solr
actually store in memory? What are some of the largest memory
consumers (i.e. faceting, sorting, etc). Is the best way to start
addressing questions like this to ju
search depends from
> size of search result: numFound*log(start+rows), but from size of index.
>
> Regards
>
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>
>> I'm curious if anyone tell me how Solr/Lucene performs in a situation
>> where you have 100,000
I'm curious if anyone tell me how Solr/Lucene performs in a situation
where you have 100,000 documents each with 100 tokens vs having
1,000,000 documents each with 10 tokens. Should I expect the
performance to be the same? Any information would be greatly
appreciated.
Great, so to be clear I would execute the following correct?
http://localhost:8983/solr/admin/cores?action=REQUESTRECOVERY&core=slice1_shard2
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
>
> On Mar 14, 2012, at 12:03 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>
>> Is there a way to
Is there a way to provide an additional query constraint to the MLT
component? My particular use case is I want to get similar documents,
but limit them to the documents a user can actually see based on some
authorization query. Is this currently possible?
2 at 6:57 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 9, 2012, at 12:09 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>>
>> > To get this to work I had to modify my solr.xml to add a
>> > defaultCoreName, then everything worked fine on the old interface
>> > (/solr/admin). The new
start discussion. I'd be really interested in
comments/thoughts on this.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-3231
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> So I've thrown something together fairly quickly which is based on
> what Ahmet had sent that I beli
veOriginal attribute from WordDelimeterFilterFactory, can anyone
provide guidance on that?
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> Further digging leads me to believe this is not the case. The Synonym
> Filter supports this, but the Stemming Filter does not.
>
> Ahmet,
>
, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> Ok, so I'm digging through the code and I noticed in
> org.apache.lucene.analysis.synonym.SynonymFilter there are mentions of
> a keepOrig attribute. Doing some googling led me to
> http://wiki.apache.org/solr/AnalyzersTokenizersT
Ok, so I'm digging through the code and I noticed in
org.apache.lucene.analysis.synonym.SynonymFilter there are mentions of
a keepOrig attribute. Doing some googling led me to
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/AnalyzersTokenizersTokenFilters which
speaks of an attribute preserveOriginal="1" on
solr.Word
I'd be very interested to see how you did this if it is available. Does
this seem like something useful to the community at large?
On Thursday, March 8, 2012, Ahmet Arslan wrote:
>> Thanks the KeywordMarkerFilterFactory
>> seems to be what I was looking
>> for. I'm still wondering about keeping
Thanks the KeywordMarkerFilterFactory seems to be what I was looking
for. I'm still wondering about keeping the unstemmed word as a token
though. While I know that this would increase the index size slightly
I wonder what the negative of doing such a thing would be? Just seems
less destructive s
so my mistake on this, I was not setting hl.snippets so the default
value of 1 was being used. If I change to 2 I get the expected
result.
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> as an FYI I tried this with the standard highlighter and got the same
> result. Additionally
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> If I have a multivalued field with values as follows
>
> black pantswhite shirt
>
> and I do a query against that field with highlighting enabled as follows
>
> /select?hl.fl=clothing&am
If I have a multivalued field with values as follows
black pantswhite shirt
and I do a query against that field with highlighting enabled as follows
/select?hl.fl=clothing&rows=5&q=clothing:black clothing:shirt&hl=on&indent=true
I thought I would see the following in the highlights
black pants
I suppose it would help if I populated the list I try to remove things
fromI believe it's working once I did that. Now that this is out
there, is there a better way to do something like this?
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> On a previous version of a solr sna
On a previous version of a solr snapshot we had a custom component
which did the following
boolean fsv =
req.getParams().getBool(ResponseBuilder.FIELD_SORT_VALUES,false);
if(fsv){
NamedList sortVals = (NamedList)
rsp.getValues().get("sort_values");
Mark,
Is there a ticket around doing this? If the work/design was written
down somewhere the community might have a better idea of how exactly
we could help.
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
>
> On Feb 28, 2012, at 9:33 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>
>> where sp
rereading your email, perhaps this doesn't answer the question though.
Can you provide your solr.xml so we can get a better idea of your
configuration?
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> That is correct, the cloud does not currently elastically expand.
> Essen
That is correct, the cloud does not currently elastically expand.
Essentially when you first start up you define something like
numShards, once numShards is reached all else goes in as replicas. If
you manually specify the shards using the create core commands you can
define the layout however you
allow for reduced shuffling of document when
> expanding/reducing the cluster.
>
> Are there any ideas or progress in this direction, be it in a branch or
> in JIRA issues ?
>
>
> Andre
>
>
>
> Jamie Johnson wrote:
>>
>> The case is actually anytime you nee
Thanks for clarifying Yonik.
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Yonik Seeley
wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>> "Unfortunately, Apache Solr still uses this horrible code in a lot of
>> places, leaving us with a major piece of work undone. Majo
perfect, thanks Yonik!
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 11:41 PM, Yonik Seeley
wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>> How large will the transaction log grow, and how long should it be kept
>> around?
>
> We keep around enough logs to satisfy a m
Thanks Mark. I'll pull the latest trunk today and run with that.
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Are there any outstanding issues that I should be aware of?
>>
>>
> Not that I know of - we where trying to track down an issue around peer
> sync recovery that our C
I just got done reading
http://www.searchworkings.org/blog/-/blogs/uwe-says%3A-is-your-reader-atomic
and was specifically interested in the following line
"Unfortunately, Apache Solr still uses this horrible code in a lot of
places, leaving us with a major piece of work undone. Major parts of
Solr
top?
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Yonik Seeley
wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>> I'm trying to upgrade an application I have from an old snapshot of
>> solr to the latest stable trunk and see that the constructor for
>> Filter has chan
I'm trying to upgrade an application I have from an old snapshot of
solr to the latest stable trunk and see that the constructor for
Filter has changed, specifically there is another parameter named
acceptDocs, the API says the following
acceptDocs - Bits that represent the allowable docs to match
the early use and feedback is invaluable
> though.
>
> On Feb 24, 2012, at 10:53 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>
>> Pulling the latest version seems to have fixed whatever issue that
>> previously existed so everything appears to be working properly. I'm
>> seeing upda
everything looks good. Again thanks for
helping out with this.
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> I'm pulling the latest now. Once I've rebuilt and setup the test I'll
> forward all the logs on to you. Again thanks for looking into this.
>
>
I'm pulling the latest now. Once I've rebuilt and setup the test I'll
forward all the logs on to you. Again thanks for looking into this.
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 9:20 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
>
> On Feb 22, 2012, at 9:54 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>
>> Perhaps if you
either Sami nor I have replicated these results so far.
>
> On Feb 22, 2012, at 8:56 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>
>> I know everyone is busy, but I was wondering if anyone had found
>> anything with this? Any suggestions on what I could be doing wrong
>> would be greatly a
I know everyone is busy, but I was wondering if anyone had found
anything with this? Any suggestions on what I could be doing wrong
would be greatly appreciated.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
>
> On Feb 17, 2012, at 3:56 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>
>> id
yes committing in the mix.
id field is a UUID.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
> You are committing in that mix right?
>
> On Feb 17, 2012, at 2:07 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>
>> This was with the cloud-dev solrcloud-start.sh script (after that I've
nces?
>
> On Feb 17, 2012, at 1:52 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>
>> Yes, still seeing that. Master has 8 items, replica has 9. So the
>> delete didn't seem to work when the node was down.
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Yonik Seeley
>> wrote:
>>&g
Yes, still seeing that. Master has 8 items, replica has 9. So the
delete didn't seem to work when the node was down.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Yonik Seeley
wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>> Something that didn't work though
>> wa
e was down when a delete happened and then comes back up,
that node still listed the id I deleted. Is this currently supported?
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Yonik Seeley
wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>> I'm seeing the following. Do I need a _v
at
org.mortbay.jetty.bio.SocketConnector$Connection.run(SocketConnector.java:228)
at
org.mortbay.thread.QueuedThreadPool$PoolThread.run(QueuedThreadPool.java:582)
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> I stop the indexing, stop the shard, then start indexing ag
I stop the indexing, stop the shard, then start indexing again. So
shouldn't need Yonik's latest fix? In regards to how far out of sync,
it's completely out of sync, meaning index 100 documents to the
cluster (40 on shard1 60 on shard2) then stop the instance, index 100
more, when I bring the ins
Thanks Sami, so long at it's expected ;)
In regards to the replication not working the way I think it should,
am I missing something or is it simply not working the way I think?
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Sami Siren wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote
and having looked at this closer, shouldn't the down node not be
marked as active when I stop that solr instance?
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> Thanks Mark. I'm still seeing some issues while indexing though. I
> have the same setup describe in my pr
ot;http://JamiesMac.local:8502/solr"
state when everything comes back up after adding documents
{"collection1":{
"slice1":{
"JamiesMac.local:8501_solr_slice1_shard1":{
"shard_id":"slice1",
"leader":"t
12 at 3:05 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> still digging ;) Once I figure it out I'll be happy to share.
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Em wrote:
>> Hi Jamie,
>>
>> nice to hear.
>> Maybe you can share in what kind of bug you ran, so that other
>> deve
erience. :)
>
> Regards,
> Em
>
> Am 16.02.2012 19:23, schrieb Jamie Johnson:
>> please ignore this, it has nothing to do with the faceting component.
>> I was able to disable a custom component that I had and it worked
>> perfectly fine.
>>
>>
>> O
please ignore this, it has nothing to do with the faceting component.
I was able to disable a custom component that I had and it worked
perfectly fine.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> I am attempting to execute a query with the following parameters
>
> q=*:*
I am attempting to execute a query with the following parameters
q=*:*
distrib=true
facet=true
facet.limit=10
facet.field=manu
f.manu.facet.mincount=1
f.manu.facet.limit=10
f.manu.facet.sort=index
rows=10
When doing this I get the following exception
null java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsExceptio
Ok, great. Just wanted to make sure someone was aware. Thanks for
looking into this.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
>
> On Feb 14, 2012, at 10:57 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>
>> Not sure if this is
>> expected or not.
>
> Nope - should be alread
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>
>> I think it would if I indexed the time information separately. Which
>> was my original thought, but I was hoping to store this in one field
>> instead of 2. So my idea was I'd store the time portion as as
ted that
> explicitly, though). If the unique ID is included you could never reach
> that score.
>
> Just my 2 cents...
>
> Chantal
>
>
> On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 07:27 +0100, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>> Is there anyway with MLT to say get similar based on all fields or is
>> it always a requirement to specify the fields?
>
efficient
way of doing this?
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Yonik Seeley
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>> I would like to be able to facet based on the time of
>> day items are purchased across a date span. I was hoping that I could
>> do
mmonsHttpSolrServer.java:251)
at
org.apache.solr.cloud.RecoveryStrategy.replicate(RecoveryStrategy.java:120)
at org.apache.solr.cloud.RecoveryStrategy.run(RecoveryStrategy.java:208)
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> Doing so now, will let you know if I continue to see th
recovery.
>
> I'll keep working on tests in the meantime.
>
> - Mark
>
> On Feb 14, 2012, at 3:15 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>
>> Sounds good, if I pull the latest from trunk and rerun will that be
>> useful or were you able to duplicate my issue now?
>>
&
hat it's easy to determine that.
>
> I'm investigating more and working on a test + fix. I'll file a JIRA issue
> soon as well.
>
> - Mark
>
> On Feb 14, 2012, at 11:39 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>
>> Thanks Mark, not a huge rush, just me trying to get to
Mark
>
> On Feb 14, 2012, at 9:10 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>
>> Has there been any success in replicating this? I'm wondering if it
>> could be something with my setup that is causing the issue...
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Jamie Johnso
Has there been any success in replicating this? I'm wondering if it
could be something with my setup that is causing the issue...
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> Yes, I have the following layout on the FS
>
> ./bootstrap.sh
> ./example (standard examp
-data
-slice1_shard2
-data
if it matters I'm running everything from localhost, zk and the solr shards
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Sami Siren wrote:
> Do you have unique dataDir for each instance?
> 13.2.2012 14.30 "Jamie Johnson" kirjoitti:
> either didn't finish starting, or it gave up recovering...either case should
> be logged. You might try searching for the recover keyword and see if there
> are any interesting bits around that.
>
> Meanwhile, I have dug up a couple issues around recovery and committed fixes
I didn't see anything in the logs, would it be an error?
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
>
> On Feb 11, 2012, at 3:08 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>
>> I wiped the zk and started over (when I switch networks I get
>> different host names and honestly ha
at 9:40 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> how'd you resolve this issue?
>>
>
>
> I was basing my guess on seeing "JamiesMac.local" and "jamiesmac" in your
> first cluster state dump - your latest doesn't seem to mismatch like that
> though.
>
> - Mark Miller
> lucidimagination.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
"leader":"true",
"state":"active",
"core":"slice2_shard1",
"collection":"collection1",
"node_name":"JamiesMac.local:8502_solr",
"base_url":"http://JamiesM
multiple cores, but if you
>> notice anything that stands out that is largely different in what you are
>> doing, let me know.
>>
>> The cores that are behind, does it say they are down, recovering, or active
>> in zookeeper?
>>
>> On Feb 10, 2012, at 4:48
Sorry for pinging this again, is more information needed on this? I
can provide more details but am not sure what to provide.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> Sorry, I shut down the full solr instance.
>
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
&
g but I don't
understand why it worked, what exactly is this doing?
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> I'd like to look at the pseudo fields you're talking about (don't
> really understand it right now), but need to get something working in
> the sho
0, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>> So looking at query component it appears to sort the entire doc list
>> at the end of process, my component is defined after this query so the
>> doclist that I get should be sorted, right? To me this should mean
>> that I
201 - 300 of 517 matches
Mail list logo
