Hi Mark,
I see no such issues in Solr 4.1. It seems to work fine.
Thanks.
On 24 January 2013 03:58, Mark Miller wrote:
> Yeah, I don't know what you are seeing offhand. You might try Solr 4.1 and
> see if it's something that has been resolved.
>
> - Mark
>
> On Jan 23, 2013, at 3:14 PM, Marcin
Yeah, I don't know what you are seeing offhand. You might try Solr 4.1 and see
if it's something that has been resolved.
- Mark
On Jan 23, 2013, at 3:14 PM, Marcin Rzewucki wrote:
> Guys, I pasted you the full log (see pastebin url). Yes, it is Solr4.0. 2
> cores are in sync, but the 3rd one i
Guys, I pasted you the full log (see pastebin url). Yes, it is Solr4.0. 2
cores are in sync, but the 3rd one is not:
INFO: PeerSync Recovery was not successful - trying replication. core=ofac
INFO: Starting Replication Recovery. core=ofac
It started replication and even says it is done successfull
Looks like it shows 3 cores start - 2 with versions that decide they are up to
date and one that replicates. The one that replicates doesn't have much logging
showing that activity.
Is this Solr 4.0?
- Mark
On Jan 23, 2013, at 9:27 AM, Upayavira wrote:
> Mark,
>
> Take a peek in the pastebi
Mark,
Take a peek in the pastebin url Marcin mentioned earlier
(http://pastebin.com/qMC9kDvt) is there enough info there?
Upayavira
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 02:04 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
> Was your full logged stripped? You are right, we need more. Yes, the peer
> sync failed, but then you cut ou
Was your full logged stripped? You are right, we need more. Yes, the peer sync
failed, but then you cut out all the important stuff about the replication
attempt that happens after.
- Mark
On Jan 23, 2013, at 5:28 AM, Marcin Rzewucki wrote:
> Hi,
> Previously, I took the lines related to coll
No, you look at wrong collection. I told you I have couple of collections
in Solr. I guess some messages may overlap each other. The one for which I
did test (index recovery) is called "ofac" and that fails. Besides, Solr
sometimes adds suffix to index directory internally and it is not a bug.
The
Are documents arriving, but your index is empty? Looking at that log,
everything appears to have happened fine, except the replication handler
has put the index in a directory with a suffix:
WARNING: New index directory detected: old=null
new=/solr/cores/bpr/selekta/data/index.20130121090342477
Ja
OK, check this link: http://pastebin.com/qMC9kDvt
On 23 January 2013 11:35, Upayavira wrote:
> Hmm, don't see it. Not sure if attachments make it to this list.
> Perhaps put it in a pastebin and include a link if too long to include
> in an email?
>
>
>
> Upayavira
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2
Hmm, don't see it. Not sure if attachments make it to this list.
Perhaps put it in a pastebin and include a link if too long to include
in an email?
Upayavira
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 10:28 AM, Marcin Rzewucki wrote:
Hi,
Previously, I took the lines related to collection I tested. Maybe s
Hi,
Previously, I took the lines related to collection I tested. Maybe some
interesting part was missing. I'm sending the full log this time.
It ends up with:
INFO: Finished recovery process. core=ofac
The issue I described is related to collection called "ofac". I hope the
log is meaningful now.
the first stage is identifying whether it can sync with transaction
logs. It couldn't, because there's no index. So the logs you have shown
make complete sense. It then says 'trying replication', which is what I
would expect, and the bit you are saying has failed. So the interesting
bit is likely i
OK, so I did yet another test. I stopped solr, removed whole "data/" dir
and started Solr again. Directories were recreated fine, but missing files
were not downloaded from leader. Log is attached (I took the lines related
to my test with 2 lines of context. I hope it helps.). I could find the
foll
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Marcin Rzewucki wrote:
> Sorry, my mistake. I did 2 tests: in the 1st I removed just index directory
> and in 2nd test I removed both index and tlog directory. Log lines I've
> sent are related to the first case. So Solr could read tlog directory in
> that moment.
No idea - logs might help.
- Mark
On Jan 22, 2013, at 4:37 PM, Marcin Rzewucki wrote:
> Sorry, my mistake. I did 2 tests: in the 1st I removed just index directory
> and in 2nd test I removed both index and tlog directory. Log lines I've
> sent are related to the first case. So Solr could read
Sorry, my mistake. I did 2 tests: in the 1st I removed just index directory
and in 2nd test I removed both index and tlog directory. Log lines I've
sent are related to the first case. So Solr could read tlog directory in
that moment.
Anyway, do you have an idea why it did not download files from le
The logging shows that its finding transaction log entries.
Are you doing anything else while bringing the nodes up and down? Indexing? Are
you positive you remove the tlog files? It can't really have any versions if it
doesn't read them from a tlog on startup...
- Mark
On Jan 22, 2013, at 3:
17 matches
Mail list logo
