ok, i'll try that and update the group thanks On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Lance Norskog <goks...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, the Solr commit operations always reloads the index. And it > always throws away the Solr caches: queryresult, document, filter > query. > > If you do this, please post your results. > > On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Ofer Fort <ofer...@gmail.com> wrote: > > OK, > > so to make sure i understand, even though the "slave" doesn't do any > > indexing, i will call commit and it will do nothing to the index itself, > but > > will reload it? > > thanks > > > > On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 8:26 AM, Lance Norskog <goks...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> Ah! If the program doing the indexing has manual commits, the program > >> could send a commit to the slave. If the indexer uses automatic > >> commits, there is a trick: you can add a program as a postCommit event > >> in solrconfig.xml. This can just be a shell script or a curl command > >> that sends a commit to the slave Solr. > >> > >> Be sure to make all of the wait options false to this command; you > >> don't want the master to block while the slave loads up the new index. > >> Or, to control the maximum load on your server, you might actually > >> want to make the master wait while the slave loads up > >> > >> Lance > >> > >> On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Ofer Fort <ofer...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > thanks Erick, > >> > but my question was regard the configuration Lance suggested, a > >> > configuration where i have two servers, set set logical master and > slave, > >> > not as a true replication. Since both are running on the same machine, > >> just > >> > have one only doing updates, and the other only queries, but both are > >> using > >> > the same index files. > >> > > >> > Ofer > >> > > >> > > >> > On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 8:52 PM, Erick Erickson < > erickerick...@gmail.com > >> >wrote: > >> > > >> >> The slave polls. See: http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrReplication > >> >> > >> >> Best > >> >> Erick > >> >> > >> >> On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Ofer Fort <ofer...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > Another question on that configuration, when the "master" commits, > how > >> >> does > >> >> > the "slave" knows that the index has changed? Does it check the > index > >> and > >> >> > finds out that it has a newer version? > >> >> > Thanks again for the help, > >> >> > Ofer > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > ב-19 בנוב 2010, בשעה 05:30, Lance Norskog <goks...@gmail.com> > כתב/ה: > >> >> > > >> >> > If they are on the same server, you do not need to replicate. > >> >> > > >> >> > If you only do queries, the query server can use the same index > >> >> > directory as the master. Works quite well. Both have to have the > same > >> >> > LockPolicy in solrconfig.xml. For security reasons, I would run the > >> >> > query server as a different user who has read-only access to the > >> >> > index; that way it cannot touch the index. > >> >> > > >> >> > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Ofer Fort <ofer...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > anybody? > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Ofer Fort <ofer...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Hi, I'm working with Erez, > >> >> > > >> >> > we experienced this again, and this time the slave index folder > didn't > >> >> > contain the index.XXX folder, only one index folder. > >> >> > > >> >> > if we shutdown the slave, the CPU on the master was normal, as soon > as > >> we > >> >> > started the slave again, the CPU went up to 100% again. > >> >> > > >> >> > thanks for any help > >> >> > > >> >> > ofer > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Erez Zarum <e...@icinga.org.il> > >> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Hi all, > >> >> > > >> >> > We've been seeing this for the second time already. > >> >> > > >> >> > I have a solr (1.4.1) master and a slave. both are located on the > same > >> >> > machine (16GB RAM, 4GB allocated to the slave and 3GB to the > master) > >> >> > > >> >> > All our updates are going towards the master, and all the queries > are > >> >> > towards the slave. > >> >> > > >> >> > Once in a while the slave gets OutOfMemoryError. This is not the > big > >> >> > problem > >> >> > (i have a about 100M documents) > >> >> > > >> >> > The problem is that from that moment the CPU of the slave AND the > >> master > >> >> is > >> >> > almost 100%. > >> >> > > >> >> > If i shutdown the slave, the CPU of the master drops. > >> >> > > >> >> > If i start the slave again, the CPU is 100% again. > >> >> > > >> >> > I have the replication set on commit and startup. > >> >> > > >> >> > I see that in the data folder contains three index folders: index, > >> >> > index.XXXYYY and index.XXXYYY.ZZZ > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > The only way i was able to get pass it (worked two times already), > is > >> to > >> >> > shutdown the two servers, and to copy all the index of the master > to > >> the > >> >> > slave, and start them again. > >> >> > > >> >> > From that moment and on, they continue to work and replicate with a > >> very > >> >> > reasonable CPU usage. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Our guess is that it failed to replicate due to the OOM and since > then > >> >> > tries > >> >> > to do a full replication again and again? > >> >> > > >> >> > but why is the CPU of the master so high? > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > -- > >> >> > Lance Norskog > >> >> > goks...@gmail.com > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Lance Norskog > >> goks...@gmail.com > >> > > > > > > -- > Lance Norskog > goks...@gmail.com >
