Indeed, the slave should not have useless copies but it does, at least in 1.4.0, i haven't seen it in 3.x, but that was just a small test that did not exactly meet my other production installs.
In 1.4.0 Solr does not remove old copies at startup and it does not cleanly abort running replications at shutdown. Between shutdown and startup there might be a higher index version, it will then proceed as expected; download the new version and continue. Old copies will appear. There is an earlier thread i started but without patch. You can, however, work around the problem by letting Solr delete a running replication by: 1. disable polling and then 2) abort replication. You can also write a script that will compare current and available replication directories before startup and act accordingly. > The slave should not keep multiple copies _permanently_, but might > temporarily after it's fetched the new files from master, but before > it's committed them and fully wamred the new index searchers in the > slave. Could that be what's going on, is your slave just still working > on committing and warming the new version(s) of the index? > > [If you do 'commit' to slave (and a replication pull counts as a > 'commit') so quick that you get overlapping commits before the slave was > able to warm a new index... its' going to be trouble all around.] > > On 3/1/2011 4:27 PM, Mike Franon wrote: > > ok doing some more research I noticed, on the slave it has multiple > > folders where it keeps them for example > > > > index > > index.20110204010900 > > index.20110204013355 > > index.20110218125400 > > > > and then there is an index.properties that shows which index it is using. > > > > I am just curious why does it keep multiple copies? Is there a > > setting somewhere I can change to only keep one copy so not to lose > > space? > > > > Thanks > > > > On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Mike Franon<kongfra...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> No pending commits, what it looks like is there are almost two copies > >> of the index on the master, not sure how that happened. > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Markus Jelsma > >> > >> <markus.jel...@openindex.io> wrote: > >>> Are there pending commits on the master? > >>> > >>>> I was curious why would the size be dramatically different even though > >>>> the index versions are the same? > >>>> > >>>> One is 1.2 Gb, and on the slave it is 512 MB > >>>> > >>>> I would think they should both be the same size no? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks
