m: Jason Rutherglen
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Tue, December 8, 2009 7:44:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Replicating multiple cores
>
> > Yes. I'd highly recommend using the Java replication though.
>
> Is there a reason? I understand it's new etc, however I thin
> Complexity is the main problem
I agree, replicating multiple cores otherwise means multiple rsyncd
processes, and true enough that management of shell scripts multiplies
in complexity.
2009/12/8 Noble Paul നോബിള് नोब्ळ् :
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 6:14 AM, Jason Rutherglen
> wrote:
>>> Yes. I
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 6:14 AM, Jason Rutherglen
wrote:
>> Yes. I'd highly recommend using the Java replication though.
>
> Is there a reason? I understand it's new etc, however I think one
> issue with it is it's somewhat non-native access to the filesystem.
> Can you illustrate a real world adv
> Yes. I'd highly recommend using the Java replication though.
Is there a reason? I understand it's new etc, however I think one
issue with it is it's somewhat non-native access to the filesystem.
Can you illustrate a real world advantage other than the enhanced
admin screens?
On Mon, Dec 7, 200
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Jason Rutherglen <
jason.rutherg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If I've got multiple cores on a server, I guess I need multiple
> rsyncd's running (if using the shell scripts)?
>
Yes. I'd highly recommend using the Java replication though.
--
Regards,
Shalin Shekhar Man
