Re: Overseer could not get tags

2019-02-27 Thread Zheng Lin Edwin Yeo
I am seeing the same issue in Solr 7.7.0 Apparently there is already a JIRA at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-12860. Regards, Edwin On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 08:03, dshih wrote: > Opened SOLR-13274 > > > > -- > Sent from: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-User-f472068.html >

Re: Overseer could not get tags

2019-02-26 Thread dshih
Opened SOLR-13274 -- Sent from: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-User-f472068.html

Re: Overseer could not get tags

2019-02-26 Thread dshih
We are seeing the same issue running 7.4.0. Increasing the request and response header size did not resolve the issue. Should we open a JIRA ticket if one does not already exist? -- Sent from: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-User-f472068.html

Re: Overseer could not get tags

2018-11-01 Thread Chris Ulicny
efault="81920" /> > After solr restart - no more annoying messages > > > -Original Message- > > From: Chris Ulicny [mailto:culicny@iq.media] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 7:40 PM > > To: solr-user > > Subject: Re: Overseer could not get ta

RE: Overseer could not get tags

2018-10-31 Thread Vadim Ivanov
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 7:40 PM > To: solr-user > Subject: Re: Overseer could not get tags > > I've managed to replicate this issue with the 7.5.0 release as well by > starting up a single instance of solr in cloud mode (on windows) and > uploading the security.json file belo

Re: Overseer could not get tags

2018-10-31 Thread Chris Ulicny
I've managed to replicate this issue with the 7.5.0 release as well by starting up a single instance of solr in cloud mode (on windows) and uploading the security.json file below to it. After a short while, the "could not get tags from node..." messages start coming through every 60 seconds. The

Overseer could not get tags

2018-10-17 Thread Chris Ulicny
Hi all, Recently in a 7.4.0 test cluster, we ran into SOLR-12814 which we fixed by slightly increasing the request header size. However, there were some other log messages along with the "URI size >8192" message which we thought were related, but