Hi, That setup should work and there should be no index corruption. I do not fully follow why you are doing this and have a feeling you are not really solving the real problem. Why is this better than the typical Solr master/slave setup? I think all you did is skip the data copying step.
Otis -- Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch ----- Original Message ---- > From: Jagadish Rath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Sent: Wednesday, October 1, 2008 4:34:21 AM > Subject: Re: Anyproblem in running two solr instances on the same machine > using the same directory ? > > Can any one throw some light into the issue ?? > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 11:48 AM, Jagadish Rath wrote: > > > Hi > > > > I am running two solr instances on the same machine using the same data > > directory. one on port 8982 and the other on 8984. > > > > - 1st one *only accepts commits* (indexer) -- *port 8982* > > > > -- It has all tha cache size as 0, to get rid of warmup of > > searchers > > > > - 2nd one* accepts all the queries*.(searcher) -- *port 8984* > > > > -- It has non-zero cache size as it needs to handle queries > > > > - I have a cron *which does a dummy commit to the 2nd instance (on port > > 8984)* to update its searcher every 1 minute. > > > > --- *curl http://localhost:8984/solr/update -s -H > > 'Content-type:text/xml; charset=utf-8' -d ""* > > > > I am trying to use this as a *solution to the maxWarmingSearcher limit > > exceeded Error* that occurs as a result of a large no. of commits. I am > > trying to use this solution as an alternate to the conventional master/slave > > solution. > > > > I have following questions > > > > - *Is there any known issue with this solution or any issues that can > > be foreseen for this solution?* > > > > * -- does it result in a corrupted index ? > > * > > > > - *What are the other solutions to the problem of "maxWarmingSearchers > > limit exceeded error " ?** * > > > > A would really appreciate a quick response. > > > > Thanks > > Jagadish Rath > >
