Thought as much, thanks for the reply. Is there an easy way of dropping the index on the slave, or do I have to manually delta the index files?
Regards, Dean. On 21 Dec 2011, at 15:54, Erick Erickson wrote: > You've probably hit it on the head. The slave version is greater than the > master > version, so replication isn't "necessary". BTW, the version starts > life as a timestamp, > but then is simply incremented on successive commits, which accounts for > what you are seeing. > > You should be able to blow the index away on the slave and wait for > replication > and go from there. > > Another possibility: How much faith do you have in your slave index? > If it's all good, > you could simply copy *that* to the master manually and go from there. > > If you're rebuilding your entire index, just blow the master index > away, re-index from > scratch and that should work too (be sure to disable replication > during the rebuild > unless you want a partial index on the slave). > > Although copying the files *then* deciding not to use them doesn't seem like > a good thing. Not sure if 3.x has the same behavior or not... > > Best > Erick > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Dean Pullen <dean.pul...@semantico.com> > wrote: >> E.g. I see this in the slave logs: >> >> 2011-12-21 15:45:27,635 INFO handler.SnapPuller:265 - Master's version: >> 1271406570655, generation: 376 >> 2011-12-21 15:45:27,635 INFO handler.SnapPuller:266 - Slave's version: >> 1271406571565, generation: 1286 >> 2011-12-21 15:45:27,636 INFO handler.SnapPuller:267 - Starting replication >> process >> 2011-12-21 15:45:27,639 INFO handler.SnapPuller:270 - Number of files in >> latest index in master: 9 >> … >> 2011-12-21 15:45:50,997 INFO handler.SnapPuller:286 - Total time taken for >> download : 23 secs >> 2011-12-21 15:45:51,050 INFO handler.SnapPuller:586 - New index installed. >> Updating index properties… >> >> Yet the index doesn't change! >> >> >> On 21 Dec 2011, at 15:37, Dean Pullen wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I have an odd problem locally when attempting replication with solr 1.4 >>> >>> The problem is, though the master files get copied to a temp directory in >>> the slave data directory (I see this happen at runtime), they are then not >>> copied over the actual slave index data. >>> >>> We were wondering if it was due to the index version of the restored master >>> data being behind the slave index version after a restore? Any other ideas >>> would be appreciated. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Dean Pullen >>
