Another question on that configuration, when the "master" commits, how does the "slave" knows that the index has changed? Does it check the index and finds out that it has a newer version? Thanks again for the help, Ofer
ב-19 בנוב 2010, בשעה 05:30, Lance Norskog <goks...@gmail.com> כתב/ה: If they are on the same server, you do not need to replicate. If you only do queries, the query server can use the same index directory as the master. Works quite well. Both have to have the same LockPolicy in solrconfig.xml. For security reasons, I would run the query server as a different user who has read-only access to the index; that way it cannot touch the index. On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Ofer Fort <ofer...@gmail.com> wrote: anybody? On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Ofer Fort <ofer...@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, I'm working with Erez, we experienced this again, and this time the slave index folder didn't contain the index.XXX folder, only one index folder. if we shutdown the slave, the CPU on the master was normal, as soon as we started the slave again, the CPU went up to 100% again. thanks for any help ofer On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Erez Zarum <e...@icinga.org.il> wrote: Hi all, We've been seeing this for the second time already. I have a solr (1.4.1) master and a slave. both are located on the same machine (16GB RAM, 4GB allocated to the slave and 3GB to the master) All our updates are going towards the master, and all the queries are towards the slave. Once in a while the slave gets OutOfMemoryError. This is not the big problem (i have a about 100M documents) The problem is that from that moment the CPU of the slave AND the master is almost 100%. If i shutdown the slave, the CPU of the master drops. If i start the slave again, the CPU is 100% again. I have the replication set on commit and startup. I see that in the data folder contains three index folders: index, index.XXXYYY and index.XXXYYY.ZZZ The only way i was able to get pass it (worked two times already), is to shutdown the two servers, and to copy all the index of the master to the slave, and start them again. >From that moment and on, they continue to work and replicate with a very reasonable CPU usage. Our guess is that it failed to replicate due to the OOM and since then tries to do a full replication again and again? but why is the CPU of the master so high? -- Lance Norskog goks...@gmail.com
