Thanks! Going to have to throw up another solr 6.x instance for testing again. Solr cloud will maintain index integrity across the nodes if indexed to just one node correct?
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Walter Underwood <wun...@wunderwood.org> wrote: > Yes, good old HTTP. > > wunder > Walter Underwood > wun...@wunderwood.org > http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog) > > > > On Sep 19, 2017, at 9:54 AM, David Hastings < > hastings.recurs...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Do you use HttpSolrClient then? > > > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Walter Underwood < > wun...@wunderwood.org> > > wrote: > > > >> We run SolrJ 4.7.1 with Solr 6.5.1 (16 node cloud). No problems. > >> > >> We do not use the cloud-specific client and I’m pretty sure that we > don’t > >> use ConcurrentUpdateSolrServer. The latter is because it doesn’t report > >> errors properly. > >> > >> We do our indexing through the load balancer and let the Solr Cloud > >> cluster get the right docs to the right shards. That runs at 1 million > >> docs/minute, so it isn’t worth doing anything fancier. > >> > >> wunder > >> Walter Underwood > >> wun...@wunderwood.org > >> http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog) > >> > >> > >>> On Sep 19, 2017, at 9:05 AM, David Hastings < > >> hastings.recurs...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> What about the ConcurrentUpdateSolrServer for solrj? That is what > almost > >>> all of my indexing code is using for solr 5.x, Its been a while since I > >>> experimented with upgrading but i seem to remember having to go > >>> to HttpSolrClient and couldnt get the code to compile, so i tabled the > >>> experiment for a while. eventually I will need to move to solr 6, but > >> if i > >>> could keep the same indexing code that would be ideal > >>> > >>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Erick Erickson < > >> erickerick...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Felix: > >>>> > >>>> There's no specific testing that I know of for this issue, it's "best > >>>> effort". Which means it _should_ work but I can't make promises. > >>>> > >>>> Now that said, underlying it all is just HTTP requests going back and > >>>> forth so I know of no a-priori reasons it wouldn't be fine. It's just > >>>> "try it and see" though. > >>>> > >>>> Best, > >>>> Erick > >>>> > >>>> I'm probably preaching to the choir, but Java 1.7 is two years past > >>>> the end of support from Oracle, somebody sometime has to deal with > >>>> upgrading. > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:47 PM, Felix Stanley > >>>> <felixstan...@globalsources.com> wrote: > >>>>> Hi there, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> We are planning to use SOLR J 5.5.4 to query from SOLR 6.5. > >>>>> > >>>>> The reason was that we have to rely on JDK 1.7 at the client and as > far > >>>> as I > >>>>> know SOLR J 6.x.x only support JDK 1.8. > >>>>> > >>>>> I understood that SOLR J generally maintains backwards/forward > >>>> compatibility > >>>>> from this article: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> https://wiki.apache.org/solr/Solrj > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Would there though be any exception that we need to take caution of > for > >>>> this > >>>>> specific version? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks a lot. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Best Regards, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Felix Stanley > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ---------------------- > >>>>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > >>>>> > >>>>> This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential > and/or > >>>> privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient or have > >>>> received this e-mail in error, please inform the sender immediately > and > >>>> delete this e-mail (including any attachments) from your computer, and > >> you > >>>> must not use, disclose to anyone else or copy this e-mail (including > any > >>>> attachments), whether in whole or in part. > >>>>> > >>>>> This e-mail and any reply to it may be monitored for security, legal, > >>>> regulatory compliance and/or other appropriate reasons. > >>>> > >> > >> > >
