So far we had only to deal with HTTP code 500, because solr was not able to
process some file types. We manage to tel solr to ignore tika exception.
This helps us quite a lot, but solr as problem with processing some file
types, and I have not yet find a way to tell solr to basically skip errors,
while still logging them.

I will check with the customer to get the error, but it was yesterday when
it shows up and they have continued with the indexing (we are still at the
initial indexing of the repository) and the logs with errors have
disappeared.


Thanks for your support,


Roland.



On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Karl Wright <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Roland,
>
> It depends on what the error code is.  There is quite a bit of logic in
> the Solr connector (and in ManifoldCF itself) for handling errors of
> different kinds.  Fundamentally there are two main kinds of error condition
> - one which causes a retry (and can, if so specified, cause either the
> offending document to be skipped or the job aborted) and another which
> always causes a job to abort.  The Solr connector has to decide based on
> limited information exactly what to do.  General HTTP error codes such as
> "500" errors, for example, contain little information and look just the
> same whether the error represent a document Tika is unhappy with, or
> something more fundamental, like a complete misconfiguration of Solr.
>
> If you can provide more detailed information as to the kind of error(s)
> you are seeing then we can advise you further.
>
> Karl
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Roland Everaert <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I helped a customer to deploy solr+manifoldcf to index files from a
>> windows share drive. But every time solr is sending back an error message,
>> the manifoldcf jobs abort, which is not really convenient for hour long
>> indexing.
>>
>> So is there a possibility to configure manifold so it doesn't stopped
>> every time solr return an http code different from 200?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>> Roland.
>>
>
>

Reply via email to