Ahhh your PR triggered an idea. I'll open a few PRs adjusting the Solr version from latest back to earlier 7.x versions. See which version the problem was introduced in.
Kevin Risden On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 9:17 AM Jeremy Smith <jas2...@cornell.edu> wrote: > Thanks so much for looking into this and cleaning up my code. > > > I added a pull request to show some additional strange behavior. If we > restart solr-1, making solr-2 the leader, the out of date value of [10] > gets propagated back to solr-1. Perhaps this will give a hint as to what > is going on. > > ________________________________ > From: > Kevin Risden > <kris...@apache.org> > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 10:24:24 PM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: SolrCloud Replication Failure > > I haven't dug into why this is happening but it definitely reproduces. I > removed the local requirements (port mapping and such) from the gist you > posted (very helpful). I confirmed this fails locally and on Travis CI. > > https://github.com/risdenk/test-solr-start-stop-replica-consistency > > I don't even see the first update getting applied from num 10 -> 20. After > the first update there is no more change. > > Kevin Risden > > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 8:26 PM Jeremy Smith <jas2...@cornell.edu> wrote: > > > Thanks Erick, this is 7.5.0. > > ________________________________ > > From: Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 8:20:18 PM > > To: solr-user > > Subject: Re: SolrCloud Replication Failure > > > > What version of solr? This code was pretty much rewriten in 7.3 IIRC > > > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 10:47 Jeremy Smith <jas2...@cornell.edu wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > We are currently running a moderately large instance of standalone > > > solr and are preparing to switch to solr cloud to help us scale up. I > > have > > > been running a number of tests using docker locally and ran into an > issue > > > where replication is consistently failing. I have pared down the test > > case > > > as minimally as I could. Here's a link for the docker-compose.yml (I > put > > > it in a directory called solrcloud_simple) and a script to run the > test: > > > > > > > > > https://gist.github.com/smithje/2056209fc4a6fb3bcc8b44d0b7df3489 > > > > > > > > > Here's the basic idea behind the test: > > > > > > > > > 1) Create a cluster with 2 nodes (solr-1 and solr-2), 1 shard, and 2 > > > replicas (each node gets a replica). Just use the default schema, > > although > > > I've also tried our schema and got the same result. > > > > > > > > > 2) Shut down solr-2 > > > > > > > > > 3) Add 100 simple docs, just id and a field called num. > > > > > > > > > 4) Start solr-2 and check that it received the documents. It did! > > > > > > > > > 5) Update a document, commit, and check that solr-2 received the > update. > > > It did! > > > > > > > > > 6) Stop solr-2, update the same document, start solr-2, and make sure > > that > > > it received the update. It did! > > > > > > > > > 7) Repeat step 6 with a new value. This time solr-2 reverts back to > what > > > it had in step 5. > > > > > > > > > I believe the main issue comes from this in the logs: > > > > > > > > > solr-2_1 | 2018-10-31 17:04:26.135 INFO > > > (recoveryExecutor-4-thread-1-processing-n:solr-2:8082_solr > > > x:test_shard1_replica_n2 c:test s:shard1 r:core_node4) [c:test s:shard1 > > > r:core_node4 x:test_shard1_replica_n2] o.a.s.u.PeerSync PeerSync: > > > core=test_shard1_replica_n2 url=http://solr-2:8082/solr Our versions > > are > > > newer. ourHighThreshold=1615861330901729280 > > > otherLowThreshold=1615861314086764545 ourHighest=1615861330901729280 > > > otherHighest=1615861335081353216 > > > > > > PeerSync thinks the versions on solr-2 are newer for some reason, so it > > > doesn't try to sync from solr-1. In the final state, solr-2 will > always > > > have a lower version for the updated doc than solr-1. I've tried this > > with > > > different commit strategies, both auto and manual, and it doesn't seem > to > > > make any difference. > > > > > > Is this a bug with solr, an issue with using docker, or am I just > > > expecting too much from solr? > > > > > > Thanks for any insights you may have, > > > > > > Jeremy > > > > > > > > > > > >
