Is it ok if I just delete the old copies manually? or maybe run a script that does it?
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Markus Jelsma <markus.jel...@openindex.io> wrote: > Indeed, the slave should not have useless copies but it does, at least in > 1.4.0, i haven't seen it in 3.x, but that was just a small test that did not > exactly meet my other production installs. > > In 1.4.0 Solr does not remove old copies at startup and it does not cleanly > abort running replications at shutdown. Between shutdown and startup there > might be a higher index version, it will then proceed as expected; download > the new version and continue. Old copies will appear. > > There is an earlier thread i started but without patch. You can, however, work > around the problem by letting Solr delete a running replication by: 1. disable > polling and then 2) abort replication. You can also write a script that will > compare current and available replication directories before startup and act > accordingly. > > >> The slave should not keep multiple copies _permanently_, but might >> temporarily after it's fetched the new files from master, but before >> it's committed them and fully wamred the new index searchers in the >> slave. Could that be what's going on, is your slave just still working >> on committing and warming the new version(s) of the index? >> >> [If you do 'commit' to slave (and a replication pull counts as a >> 'commit') so quick that you get overlapping commits before the slave was >> able to warm a new index... its' going to be trouble all around.] >> >> On 3/1/2011 4:27 PM, Mike Franon wrote: >> > ok doing some more research I noticed, on the slave it has multiple >> > folders where it keeps them for example >> > >> > index >> > index.20110204010900 >> > index.20110204013355 >> > index.20110218125400 >> > >> > and then there is an index.properties that shows which index it is using. >> > >> > I am just curious why does it keep multiple copies? Is there a >> > setting somewhere I can change to only keep one copy so not to lose >> > space? >> > >> > Thanks >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Mike Franon<kongfra...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> No pending commits, what it looks like is there are almost two copies >> >> of the index on the master, not sure how that happened. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Markus Jelsma >> >> >> >> <markus.jel...@openindex.io> wrote: >> >>> Are there pending commits on the master? >> >>> >> >>>> I was curious why would the size be dramatically different even though >> >>>> the index versions are the same? >> >>>> >> >>>> One is 1.2 Gb, and on the slave it is 512 MB >> >>>> >> >>>> I would think they should both be the same size no? >> >>>> >> >>>> Thanks >
