On 2-May-08, at 1:20 PM, Alok Dhir wrote:
Here's another question on this rather old thread -- while poring
through various options in solrconfig, I came across the the
'native' lockType option.
That seems to indicate that SOLR/Lucene should work fine with
multiple writers, as long as a
xing
requests to a single Solr instance designated to be the master.
Otis
--
Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
- Original Message
From: Alok K. Dhir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 7:51:19 PM
Subject: Re:
t.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
- Original Message
> From: Alok K. Dhir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 7:51:19 PM
> Subject: Re: Shared index base
>
> thanks for your response - i've been waiting for this v
thanks for your response - i've been waiting for this very
clarification. so 'commit()' makes readers re-read the indexes?
On Feb 26, 2008, at 7:03 PM, Mike Klaas wrote:
There hasn't really been a concrete answer given in this thread,
so: It works to point multiple Solr's at a single data d
There hasn't really been a concrete answer given in this thread, so:
It works to point multiple Solr's at a single data dir, but you can't
have more than one writer. If you try, the index could become
corrupted or inconsistent (especially if you are using 'simple' lock
type). Also, the S
AIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue 2/26/2008 1:27 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Shared index base
I saw a 100X slowdown running with indexes on NFS.
I don't understand going through a lot of effort with unsupported
configurations just to share an index. Local disk is cheap, the
snapsho
t; From: Walter Underwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tue 2/26/2008 1:27 PM
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Shared index base
>
> I saw a 100X slowdown running with indexes on NFS.
>
> I don't understand going through a lot of effort with unsupporte
is a risk to mess up the index.
Thanks,
Jae
-Original Message-
From: Walter Underwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue 2/26/2008 1:27 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Shared index base
I saw a 100X slowdown running with indexes on NFS.
I don't understand going t
I saw a 100X slowdown running with indexes on NFS.
I don't understand going through a lot of effort with unsupported
configurations just to share an index. Local disk is cheap, the
snapshot stuff works well, and local discs avoid a single point
of failure.
The testing time to make a shared index
Runo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 12:18 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Shared index base
I hope so. I've found that every once in a while Solr 1.2 replication
will die, from a temp-index file that seems to ham it up. Removing
that file
I hope so. I've found that every once in a while Solr 1.2 replication
will die, from a temp-index file that seems to ham it up. Removing
that file on all the servers fixes the issue though.
We'd like to be able to point all the servers at an NFS location for
their index files, and use a
Are you saying all the servers will use the same 'data' dir? Is that
a supported config?
On Feb 26, 2008, at 12:29 PM, Matthew Runo wrote:
We're about to do the same thing here, but have not tried yet. We
currently run Solr with replication across several servers. So long
as only one serv
We tried this architecture for our initial rollout of Solr/Lucene to
our production application. We ran into a problem with it, which may
or may not apply to you. Our production software servers all are
monitored for uptime by a daemon which pings them periodically and
restarts them if a response
We're about to do the same thing here, but have not tried yet. We
currently run Solr with replication across several servers. So long as
only one server is doing updates to the index, I think it should work
fine.
Thanks!
Matthew Runo
Software Developer
Zappos.com
702.943.7833
On Feb 26,
14 matches
Mail list logo
