[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-524?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Hoss Man resolved SOLR-524.
---------------------------
Resolution: Duplicate
The scripts are currently designed with the assumption that each index
(regardless of whether it is from a separate core or a separate webapp) be
replicated using a distinct instance of rsyncd (with a distinct port number)
there are a few advantages to this approach: notably that it's easy to disable
replication for a single index while you do maintenance on the master.
That said: there are are plenty of compelling reasons to simplify and/or add
alternate mechanisms for replicating multiple indexes ... but we already have
an issue tracking this (SOLR-433) So i'm going to resolve this asa dup.
Ezra: please take a look at SOLR-433 and the approaches being taken in that
issue.
> snappuller has limitation w/r/t/ handling multiple web apps
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-524
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-524
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: replication
> Affects Versions: 1.2
> Environment: Linux (CentOS release 5 (Final))
> Java JDK 6
> Reporter: Ezra Epstein
> Priority: Minor
> Original Estimate: 0.5h
> Remaining Estimate: 0.5h
>
> The snappuller has a limitation which makes it hard to use for replicating
> the indices for multiple webapps. In particular, by changing:
> # rsync over files that have changed
> rsync -Wa${verbose}${compress} --delete ${sizeonly} \
> ${stats} rsync://${master_host}:${rsyncd_port}/solr/${name}/
> ${data_dir}/${name}-wip
> to:
> # rsync over files that have changed
> rsync -Wa${verbose}${compress} --delete ${sizeonly} \
> ${stats} rsync://${master_host}:${rsyncd_port}/${rsync_module_path}/${name}/
> ${data_dir}/${name}-wip
> and adding an rsync_module_path variable to scripts.conf, plus giving it a
> default value of "solr" before the 'unset' commands at the top of the
> snappuller script, I've worked around the issue. Still, it seems better to
> not hard-code the module name ([solr]) and also to allow some flexibility in
> the location of the data files under that module. This is req'd for multiple
> webapps since they won't share a data folder.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
