Yes. But keep in mind that Solr may be actually using an index.<TIMESTAMP> directory for its live search. See either the replication.properties file or consult the replication page to see what index directory it uses.
If it uses an index.<TIMESTAMP> directory you can safely move it to index and remove or modify replication.properties. On Wednesday 02 March 2011 15:03:54 Mike Franon wrote: > Is it ok if I just delete the old copies manually? or maybe run a > script that does it? > > On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Markus Jelsma > > <markus.jel...@openindex.io> wrote: > > Indeed, the slave should not have useless copies but it does, at least in > > 1.4.0, i haven't seen it in 3.x, but that was just a small test that did > > not exactly meet my other production installs. > > > > In 1.4.0 Solr does not remove old copies at startup and it does not > > cleanly abort running replications at shutdown. Between shutdown and > > startup there might be a higher index version, it will then proceed as > > expected; download the new version and continue. Old copies will appear. > > > > There is an earlier thread i started but without patch. You can, however, > > work around the problem by letting Solr delete a running replication by: > > 1. disable polling and then 2) abort replication. You can also write a > > script that will compare current and available replication directories > > before startup and act accordingly. > > > >> The slave should not keep multiple copies _permanently_, but might > >> temporarily after it's fetched the new files from master, but before > >> it's committed them and fully wamred the new index searchers in the > >> slave. Could that be what's going on, is your slave just still working > >> on committing and warming the new version(s) of the index? > >> > >> [If you do 'commit' to slave (and a replication pull counts as a > >> 'commit') so quick that you get overlapping commits before the slave was > >> able to warm a new index... its' going to be trouble all around.] > >> > >> On 3/1/2011 4:27 PM, Mike Franon wrote: > >> > ok doing some more research I noticed, on the slave it has multiple > >> > folders where it keeps them for example > >> > > >> > index > >> > index.20110204010900 > >> > index.20110204013355 > >> > index.20110218125400 > >> > > >> > and then there is an index.properties that shows which index it is > >> > using. > >> > > >> > I am just curious why does it keep multiple copies? Is there a > >> > setting somewhere I can change to only keep one copy so not to lose > >> > space? > >> > > >> > Thanks > >> > > >> > On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Mike Franon<kongfra...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> No pending commits, what it looks like is there are almost two copies > >> >> of the index on the master, not sure how that happened. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Markus Jelsma > >> >> > >> >> <markus.jel...@openindex.io> wrote: > >> >>> Are there pending commits on the master? > >> >>> > >> >>>> I was curious why would the size be dramatically different even > >> >>>> though the index versions are the same? > >> >>>> > >> >>>> One is 1.2 Gb, and on the slave it is 512 MB > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I would think they should both be the same size no? > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Thanks -- Markus Jelsma - CTO - Openindex http://www.linkedin.com/in/markus17 050-8536620 / 06-50258350
