You should be able to run like that.  Most likely nobody can answer your last 
question with certainty because it's likely very few people, if any, are 
running Solr in this type of a setup.


Otis
--
Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch



----- Original Message ----
> From: Jagadish Rath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Wednesday, October 1, 2008 11:49:27 AM
> Subject: Re: Anyproblem in running two solr instances on the same machine 
> using the same directory ?
> 
> Ok. Can we run two solr instances(using the same data directory) one for
> commits and the other for queries on the same machine ? Are there any known
> issues for this ?
> 
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 11:48 AM, Jagadish Rath wrote:
> 
> > Hi
> >
> >   I am running two solr instances on the same machine using the same data
> > directory. one on port 8982 and the other on 8984.
> >
> >    - 1st one *only accepts commits* (indexer) -- *port 8982*
> >
> >          -- It has all tha cache size as 0, to get rid of warmup of
> > searchers
> >
> >    - 2nd one* accepts all the queries*.(searcher) -- *port 8984*
> >
> >          -- It has non-zero cache size as it needs to handle queries
> >
> >    - I have a cron *which does a dummy commit to the 2nd instance (on port
> >    8984)* to update its searcher every 1 minute.
> >
> >          --- *curl http://localhost:8984/solr/update -s -H
> > 'Content-type:text/xml; charset=utf-8' -d  ""*
> >
> >  I am trying to use this as a *solution to the maxWarmingSearcher limit
> > exceeded Error* that occurs as a result of a large no. of commits. I am
> > trying to use this solution as an alternate to the conventional master/slave
> > solution.
> >
> >   I have following questions
> >
> >    - *Is there any known issue with this solution or any issues that can
> >    be foreseen for this solution?*
> >
> > *       -- does it result in a corrupted index ?
> > *
> >
> >    - *What are the other solutions to the problem of "maxWarmingSearchers
> >    limit exceeded error " ?**  *
> >
> >  A would really appreciate a quick response.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Jagadish Rath
> >

Reply via email to