: B- A backup of the current index would be created
: C- Re-Indexing will happen on Master-core2
: D- When Indexing is done, we'll trigger a swap between Master-core1 and
: core2
...
: But how can B,C, and D. I'll do it manually. Wait! I'm not sure my boss will
: pay for that.
: 1/Can I
oes that sound good to you? Or is there a
better and more elegant way to do the trick when indexing and replication
should be beating at a high pace?
Thank you.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Architecture-discussion-tp825708p860942.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
optimization only when the replication activity is not so crucial
in order to avoid degrading the search performances.
Thank you very much. That helps a lot.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Architecture-discussion-tp825708p860767.html
Sent from the Solr
: 4- trigger swap between core 1 and core2
: 5- At this point Slave index has been renewed ... we can revert back to the
: previous index if there was any issues with the new one.
these steps are largely unneccessary -- within a single SolrCore Solr
already keeps track of the "current" searcher
Do you have any insights that could help me and other people that might be
interested in that discussion?
Thanks.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Architecture-discussion-tp825708p828658.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
for sharing.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Architecture-discussion-tp825708p825708.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
