And please _really_ pay attention to Rick's comment about examining your solrconfig.xml and schema file. I strongly recommend that you do _not_ just copy them, but take the base files distributed with 6.5.1 and move any field definitions and/or changes to them rather than start with your current configs.
Best, Erick On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 7:01 AM, Shawn Heisey <apa...@elyograg.org> wrote: > On 5/26/2017 2:20 AM, mganeshs wrote: >> I am planning the following for moving my old solr index data created in >> 4.10 to new solr server with 6.5.1. Let me know whether it will work out or >> not. >> >> * Setup Solr and Collections with version 5.5 >> * Copy data folder ( in old solr server 4.10 ) to the corresponding >> collection's data folder >> * Optmize the collection >> * Now setup new solr and collections with version 6.5.1 >> * Copy the data folder of corresponding collections in 5.5 server ( which >> got optmised ) to data folder in 6.5.1 server > > The fact that you're using "collection" to describe this suggests that > you're running in cloud mode. If you are, and the collections are > sharded with the compositeId router, then you must be very careful to > make sure that the hash ranges match. Bad things will start to happen > with indexing if they don't match. If you're not running cloud, or have > indexes with only one shard, then you're good to go. You may find that > you need to manually edit hash ranges in zookeeper and restart all the > new Solr instances. > > Generally speaking, if you upgrade to 5.5 and optimize like you're > describing, everything will work. > > By using the IndexUpgrader from a Solr 5.5.4 download, you could upgrade > the index to a format that 6.5.1 can read, and skip the intermediate > upgrade. The statement about hash ranges would still apply, though. > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/IndexUpgrader+Tool > > I am assuming here that your 4.10 servers are using a schema that is > compatible with 6.5.1 without change. If you have to change the schema, > chances are goood that you're going to have to completely reindex anyway. > > Thanks, > Shawn >
