You need to specify the index version number for which list of files is to be shown. The URL should be like this:http://<masterhost>:<port>/solr/replication?command=filelist&indexversion=<index version number>
You can get the index version number from the URL: http://<masterhost>:<port>/solr/replication?command=indexversion On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Jeff Newburn <jnewb...@zappos.com> wrote: > We see the exact same thing. Additionally, that url returns 404 on a > multicore and gives an error when I add the core. > > − > <response> > − > <lst name="responseHeader"> > <int name="status">0</int> > <int name="QTime">0</int> > </lst> > <str name="status">no indexversion specified</str> > </response> > > -- > Jeff Newburn > Software Engineer, Zappos.com > jnewb...@zappos.com - 702-943-7562 > > > > From: Jian Han Guo <jian...@gmail.com> > > Reply-To: <solr-user@lucene.apache.org> > > Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 23:43:02 -0700 > > To: <solr-user@lucene.apache.org> > > Subject: Re: replicated index files have incorrect timestamp > > > > I am using Mac OS 10.5. > > > > I can't access the box right now and this week. I'll do it next week and > > post the result then. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jianhan > > > > 2009/4/22 Noble Paul നോബിള് नोब्ळ् <noble.p...@gmail.com> > > > >> which OS are you using? > >> > >> it does not look at the timestamps to decide if the index is in sync . > >> It looks at the index version only. > >> > >> BTW can you just hit the master withe url and paste the response here > >> > >> http://<masterhost>:<port>/solr/replication?command=filelist > >> > >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Jian Han Guo <jian...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> That's right. The timestamp of files on the slave side are all Dec 31 > >> 1969, > >>> so it looks the timestamp was not set (and therefore it is zero). The > >> ones > >>> on the master side are all correct. Nevertheless, solr seems being able > >> to > >>> recognize that master and slave are in sync after replication. Don't > know > >>> how it does that. > >>> > >>> I haven't check if the two machines are in sync, but even if they are > >> not, > >>> the timestamp should not be Dec 31, 1969, I think. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> Jianhan > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 2009/4/22 Noble Paul നോബിള് नोब्ळ् <noble.p...@gmail.com> > >>> > >>>> Let me assume that you are using the in-inbuilt replication. > >>>> > >>>> The replication ties to set the timestamp of all the files same as > >>>> that of the files in the master. just cross check. > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 6:57 AM, Jian Han Guo <jian...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>> I am using nightly build on 4/22/2009. Replication works fine, but > the > >>>> files > >>>>> inside index directory on slave side all have old timestamp: Dec 31 > >>>> 1969. > >>>>> Is this a known issue? > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> > >>>>> Jianhan > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> --Noble Paul > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> --Noble Paul > >> > > -- Regards, Akshay K. Ukey.
