Hi Jacob, Aha, the first time, I see. Without knowing the background I'd say: "So why would you expose your Solr instances to search in the first place if the index is not in place? Just copy the index to Solr slaves manually the first time and then start the slaves."
On the other hand, I think the "I'm not ready yet" type of response might be something that Solr should have in the future. Otis -- Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch ----- Original Message ---- > From: Jacob Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 12:43:09 AM > Subject: Re: How to keep a slave offline until the index is puller from master > > Hi Otis, > > Thanks for the response. I was actually talking about the initial > sync over from the master. what I'd like I guess is a "lock" command > which would start true, and when snapinstaller ran successfully for > the first time would become false. I can write the bash, but I'm not > sure how to get solr to to push out the 503 (I guess that would be the > appropriate code)... > > Best, > Jacob > > > > On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 12:29 AM, Otis Gospodnetic > wrote: > > Even with your current setup (if it's done correctly) slavs should not be > returning 0 hits for a query that previously returned hits. That is, nothing > should be off-line. Index searcher warmup and swapping happens in the > background and while that's happening the old searcher should be serving > queries. > > > > > > Otis -- > > Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > >> From: Jacob Singh > >> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > >> Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 5:54:39 AM > >> Subject: How to keep a slave offline until the index is puller from master > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I'm running multiple instances (solr 1.2) on a single jetty server using > JNDI. > >> > >> When I launch a slave, it has to retrieve all of the indexes from the > >> master server using the snapuller / snapinstaller. > >> > >> This works fine, however, I don't want to wait to activate the slave > >> (turn on jetty) while waiting for every slave to get its data. > >> > >> Is there anyway to make sure that a slave is "up2date" before letting > >> it accept queries? AS it is, the last slave will take 10-15 to get > >> its data, and for those 15 minutes, it is active in the load balancer > >> and therefor taking requests which return 0 results. > >> > >> Also, if I switch to multi-core (1.3) is this problem avoided? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Jacob > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> +1 510 277-0891 (o) > >> +91 9999 33 7458 (m) > >> > >> web: http://pajamadesign.com > >> > >> Skype: pajamadesign > >> Yahoo: jacobsingh > >> AIM: jacobsingh > >> gTalk: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > -- > > +1 510 277-0891 (o) > +91 9999 33 7458 (m) > > web: http://pajamadesign.com > > Skype: pajamadesign > Yahoo: jacobsingh > AIM: jacobsingh > gTalk: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
