Nevermind, I realized that my master index was not tickling the index version number when a commit or optimize happened. I gave in and nuke and paved it, and now it seems fine.
Is there any known reason why this would happen, so I can avoid this in the future? Thanks, Michael Della Bitta ------------------------------------------------ Appinions, Inc. -- Where Influence Isn’t a Game. http://www.appinions.com On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Michael Della Bitta <michael.della.bi...@appinions.com> wrote: > Hi, I'm having trouble with replication on a brand new rollout of 3.6. > > Basically I've traced it to the slave always thinking the index it > creates when it warms up is newer than what's on the master, no matter > what I do... deleting the slave's index, committing or optimizing on > the master, etc. I can see the replication request come in on the > master, but nothing happens, presumably because of the Index Version > discrepancy. > > The clocks of the two machines are within 3 seconds of one another, > but I don't know if that's significant. > > Actually, I'm having trouble figuring out how Index Version is > calculated at all, and before I dive into the source, I thought I'd > ask here. My slave is saying Index Version 1340979968338, Generation > 1, and my master says Index Version 1340052708476, Generation 83549. > > Anybody have any ideas? > > Thanks, > > Michael Della Bitta > > ------------------------------------------------ > Appinions, Inc. -- Where Influence Isn’t a Game. > http://www.appinions.com
