Hi Chris, The core node numbers should be cleared out when the collection is deleted. Is that something you see consistently ?
P.S: I just tried creating a collection with 1 shard and 200 replicas and saw
the core node numbers as expected. On deleting and recreating the collection, I
saw that the counter was reset. Just to be clear, I tried this on master.
-Anshum
> On Jan 4, 2018, at 12:16 PM, Chris Ulicny <culicny@iq.media> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> In 7.1, how does solr determine the numbers that are assigned to the
> replicas? I'm familiar with the earlier naming conventions from 6.3, but I
> wanted to know if there was supposed to be any connection between the
> "_n##" suffix and the number assigned to the "core_node##" name since they
> don't seem to follow the old convention. As an example node from
> clusterstatus for a testcollection with replication factor 2.
>
> "core_node91":{
> "core":"testcollection_shard22_replica_n84",
> "base_url":"http://host:8080/solr";,
> "node_name":"host:8080_solr",
> "state":"active",
> "type":"NRT",
> "leader":"true"}
>
> Along the same lines, when creating the testcollection with 200 shards and
> replication factor of 2, I am also getting nodes that have negative numbers
> assigned to them which looks a lot like an int overflow issue. From the
> cluster status:
>
> "shard157":{
> "range":"47ae0000-48f4ffff",
> "state":"active",
> "replicas":{
> "core_node1675945628":{
> "core":"testcollection _shard157_replica_n-1174535610",
> "base_url":"http://host1:8080/solr";,
> "node_name":"host1:8080_solr",
> "state":"active",
> "type":"NRT"},
> "core_node1642259614":{
> "core":"testcollection _shard157_replica_n-1208090040",
> "base_url":"http://host2:8080/solr";,
> "node_name":"host2:8080_solr",
> "state":"active",
> "type":"NRT",
> "leader":"true"}}}
>
> This keeps happening even when the collection is successfully deleted (no
> directories or files left on disk), the entire cluster is shutdown, and the
> zookeeper chroot path cleared out of all content. The only thing that
> happened prior to this cycle was a single failed collection creation which
> seemed to clean itself up properly, after which everything was shutdown and
> cleaned from zookeeper as well.
>
> Is there something else that is keeping track of those values that wasn't
> cleared out? Or is this now the expected behavior for the numerical
> assignments to replicas?
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
