You could just have each Solr index and query from its own index, and not copy indexes.
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Anderson vasconcelos <anderson.v...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the Reply Erick > I will make the replication to both master manually. > > Thanks > > 2012/1/25, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com>: >> No, there no good ways to have a single slave know about >> two masters and just use the right one. It sounds like you've >> got each machine being both a master and a slave? This is >> not supported. What you probably want to do is either set >> up a repeater or just index to the two masters and manually >> change the back to the primary if the primary goes down, having >> all replication happen from the master. >> >> Best >> Erick >> >> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Anderson vasconcelos >> <anderson.v...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi >>> I'm doing now a test with replication using solr 1.4.1. I configured >>> two servers (server1 and server 2) as master/slave to sincronized >>> both. I put apache on the front side, and we index sometime in server1 >>> and sometime in server2. >>> >>> I realized that the both index servers are now confused. In solr data >>> folder, was created many index folders with the timestamp of >>> syncronization (Exemple: index.20120124041340) with some segments >>> inside. >>> >>> I thought that was possible to index in two master server and than >>> synchronized both using replication. It's really possible do this with >>> replication mechanism? If is possible, what I have done wrong? >>> >>> I need to have more than one node for indexing to guarantee failover >>> feature for indexing. MultiMaster is the best way to guarantee >>> failover feature for indexing? >>> >>> Thanks >> -- Lance Norskog goks...@gmail.com
