Do you use EmbeddedSolr in the query server? There is a memory leak
that shows up when taking a lot of replications.
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 8:28 AM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> Ah, but reading Peter's email message I reference more carefully, it seems
> that Solr already DOES provide an info-level
Ah, but reading Peter's email message I reference more carefully, it
seems that Solr already DOES provide an info-level log warning you about
over-lapping warming, awesome. (But again, I'm pretty sure it does NOT
throw or HTTP error in that condition, based on my and others experience).
> To
I hadn't looked at the code, am not familiar with Solr code, and can't
say what that code does.
But I have experienced issues that I _believe_ were caused by too
frequent commits causing over-lapping searcher preperation. And I've
definitely seen Solr documentation that suggests this is an iss
Isn't that what this code does?
onDeckSearchers++;
if (onDeckSearchers < 1) {
// should never happen... just a sanity check
log.error(logid+"ERROR!!! onDeckSearchers is " + onDeckSearchers);
onDeckSearchers=1; // reset
} else if (onDeckSearchers > maxWarm
It's definitely a known 'issue' that you can't replicate (or do any
other kind of index change, including a commit) at a faster frequency
than your warming queries take to complete, or you'll wind up with
something like you've seen.
It's in some documentation somewhere I saw, for sure.
The ad
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Simon Wistow wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 05:42:51PM -0700, Lance Norskog said:
>> You should query against the indexer. I'm impressed that you got 5s
>> replication to work reliably.
>
> That's our current solution - I was just wondering if there was anything
On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 05:42:51PM -0700, Lance Norskog said:
> You should query against the indexer. I'm impressed that you got 5s
> replication to work reliably.
That's our current solution - I was just wondering if there was anything
I was missing.
Thanks!
You should query against the indexer. I'm impressed that you got 5s
replication to work reliably.
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Simon Wistow wrote:
> We've been trying to get a setup in which a slave replicates from a
> master every few seconds (ideally every second but currently we have it
> s
