OK, so to make sure i understand, even though the "slave" doesn't do any indexing, i will call commit and it will do nothing to the index itself, but will reload it? thanks
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 8:26 AM, Lance Norskog <goks...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ah! If the program doing the indexing has manual commits, the program > could send a commit to the slave. If the indexer uses automatic > commits, there is a trick: you can add a program as a postCommit event > in solrconfig.xml. This can just be a shell script or a curl command > that sends a commit to the slave Solr. > > Be sure to make all of the wait options false to this command; you > don't want the master to block while the slave loads up the new index. > Or, to control the maximum load on your server, you might actually > want to make the master wait while the slave loads up > > Lance > > On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Ofer Fort <ofer...@gmail.com> wrote: > > thanks Erick, > > but my question was regard the configuration Lance suggested, a > > configuration where i have two servers, set set logical master and slave, > > not as a true replication. Since both are running on the same machine, > just > > have one only doing updates, and the other only queries, but both are > using > > the same index files. > > > > Ofer > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 8:52 PM, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > >> The slave polls. See: http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrReplication > >> > >> Best > >> Erick > >> > >> On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Ofer Fort <ofer...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > Another question on that configuration, when the "master" commits, how > >> does > >> > the "slave" knows that the index has changed? Does it check the index > and > >> > finds out that it has a newer version? > >> > Thanks again for the help, > >> > Ofer > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > ב-19 בנוב 2010, בשעה 05:30, Lance Norskog <goks...@gmail.com> כתב/ה: > >> > > >> > If they are on the same server, you do not need to replicate. > >> > > >> > If you only do queries, the query server can use the same index > >> > directory as the master. Works quite well. Both have to have the same > >> > LockPolicy in solrconfig.xml. For security reasons, I would run the > >> > query server as a different user who has read-only access to the > >> > index; that way it cannot touch the index. > >> > > >> > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Ofer Fort <ofer...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > > >> > anybody? > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Ofer Fort <ofer...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > Hi, I'm working with Erez, > >> > > >> > we experienced this again, and this time the slave index folder didn't > >> > contain the index.XXX folder, only one index folder. > >> > > >> > if we shutdown the slave, the CPU on the master was normal, as soon as > we > >> > started the slave again, the CPU went up to 100% again. > >> > > >> > thanks for any help > >> > > >> > ofer > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Erez Zarum <e...@icinga.org.il> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > Hi all, > >> > > >> > We've been seeing this for the second time already. > >> > > >> > I have a solr (1.4.1) master and a slave. both are located on the same > >> > machine (16GB RAM, 4GB allocated to the slave and 3GB to the master) > >> > > >> > All our updates are going towards the master, and all the queries are > >> > towards the slave. > >> > > >> > Once in a while the slave gets OutOfMemoryError. This is not the big > >> > problem > >> > (i have a about 100M documents) > >> > > >> > The problem is that from that moment the CPU of the slave AND the > master > >> is > >> > almost 100%. > >> > > >> > If i shutdown the slave, the CPU of the master drops. > >> > > >> > If i start the slave again, the CPU is 100% again. > >> > > >> > I have the replication set on commit and startup. > >> > > >> > I see that in the data folder contains three index folders: index, > >> > index.XXXYYY and index.XXXYYY.ZZZ > >> > > >> > > >> > The only way i was able to get pass it (worked two times already), is > to > >> > shutdown the two servers, and to copy all the index of the master to > the > >> > slave, and start them again. > >> > > >> > From that moment and on, they continue to work and replicate with a > very > >> > reasonable CPU usage. > >> > > >> > > >> > Our guess is that it failed to replicate due to the OOM and since then > >> > tries > >> > to do a full replication again and again? > >> > > >> > but why is the CPU of the master so high? > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Lance Norskog > >> > goks...@gmail.com > >> > > >> > > > > > > -- > Lance Norskog > goks...@gmail.com >
