Thanks, Shawn
I have anticipated the answer about information returned by ReplicationHandler.
What baffled me is that usually on most of replicas indexversion and generation
returned by ReplicationHandler is right and it increases with commits.
But on some replicas it's not - it stops changing at some moment in the past
forever.
For example, I have 5 TLOG replicas:
For leader(and all good 3 replicas)
http://host_n:8983/solr/core_n/replication?command=indexversion returnes
{
"responseHeader":{
"status":0,
"QTime":0},
"indexversion":1541885907200,
"generation":1704}
But for one replica:
{
"responseHeader":{
"status":0,
"QTime":0},
"indexversion":1540842454653,
"generation":1216}
Could it be sign of some hidden issue? Where that information stored and why it
stops changing at some moment?
No indexing is going on of that collection at the moment of request. I'm
"deltaimporting" that collection ones per hour and only if needed.
So usually there is only 5-10 commits per day.
It's not a crucial issue for my use case as I have adequate information of
indexversion
and generation returned by mbeans, just curious of that strange behavior.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shawn Heisey [mailto:apa...@elyograg.org]
> Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2018 6:46 PM
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Replicationhandler with TLOG replicas
>
> On 11/10/2018 8:05 AM, Vadim Ivanov wrote:
> > Seems, the latter gets some wrong information as indexversion and
> generation
> > is far behind then leader.
> > But core index seems up to date and healthy.
> > Why such things could happen on some replicas? (Most of the replicas
> retuned
> > the same information by both commands)
> > Is information returned by Replicationhandler not applicable to tlog/pull
> > replicas and is not reliable ?
>
> SolrCloud does not use the replication handler in the same way that
> master/slave replication does. It "manually" initiates any replication
> that takes place -- the replication handler is not in charge. You
> cannot be sure that the indexes the replication handler thinks are
> master and slave are in fact the indexes that will be replicated next.
> Just ignore anything that the replication handler tells you. It may
> have absolutely no bearing on what's happening.
>
> Was indexing happening when you looked, or was it entirely stopped? If
> indexing is ongoing, you may have seen the difference in the index
> versions in between data being indexed on the leader and the time that
> the replication is initiated.
>
> Thanks,
> Shawn
