:(
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SolrCloud-vs-Solr-master-slave-replication-tp4055541p4056926.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Also, I forgot to say... the same error started to happen again.. the index
is again corrupted :(
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SolrCloud-vs-Solr-master-slave-replication-tp4055541p4056926.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
ext:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SolrCloud-vs-Solr-master-slave-replication-tp4055541p4056925.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 4/15/2013 3:38 AM, Victor Ruiz wrote:
About SolrCloud, I know it doesn't use master-slave replication, but
incremental updates, item by item. That's why I thought it could work for
us, since our bottleneck appear to be the replication cycles. But another
point is, if the indexing occurs in all
s message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SolrCloud-vs-Solr-master-slave-replication-tp4055541p4055995.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 4/12/2013 6:45 AM, Victor Ruiz wrote:
As you can read, at the end it was due to a fail in the Solr master-slave
replication, and now I don't know if we should think about migrating to
SolrCloud, since Solr master-slave replications seems not to fit to our
requirements:
* index size: ~20 mill
.472066.n3.nabble.com/SolrCloud-vs-Solr-master-slave-replication-tp4055541.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
