Re: old index files not deleted on slave

2011-01-24 Thread feedly team
Interestingly that worked. I deleted the slave index and restarted. After the first replication I shut down the server, deleted the lock file and started it again. It seems to be behaving itself now even though a lock file seems to be recreated. Thanks a lot for the help. This still seems like a bu

Re: old index files not deleted on slave

2011-01-22 Thread Alexander Kanarsky
I see the file -rw-rw-r-- 1 feeddo feeddo0 Dec 15 01:19 lucene-cdaa80c0fefe1a7dfc7aab89298c614c-write.lock was created on Dec. 15. At the end of the replication, as far as I remember, the SnapPuller tries to open the writer to ensure the old files are deleted, and in your case it cannot obtai

Re: old index files not deleted on slave

2011-01-22 Thread feedly team
The file system checked out, I also tried creating a slave on a different machine and could reproduce the issue. I logged SOLR-2329. On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Lance Norskog wrote: > This could be a quirk of the native locking feature. What's the file > system? Can you fsck it? > > If this

Re: old index files not deleted on slave

2011-01-03 Thread Mauricio Aristizabal
unsubscribe On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Markus Jelsma wrote: > I'm seeing this issue as well on 1.4.1 where all slaves are using simple as > the locking mechanism. For some unknown reason slaves either don't remove > old > index.DATE directories or old index files in the index directory. Only

Re: old index files not deleted on slave

2011-01-03 Thread Markus Jelsma
I'm seeing this issue as well on 1.4.1 where all slaves are using simple as the locking mechanism. For some unknown reason slaves either don't remove old index.DATE directories or old index files in the index directory. Only the second slave has the correct index size. master 4.8Gindex 4.8G

Re: old index files not deleted on slave

2010-12-30 Thread sakunthalakishan
info. -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/old-index-files-not-deleted-on-slave-tp2113493p2167789.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: old index files not deleted on slave

2010-12-29 Thread Lance Norskog
You should use Locktype 'simple' instead of 'single'. I've never heard of a .nfs000* file. On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:42 PM, sakunthalakishan wrote: > > We are using Locktype "single". > -- > View this message in context: > http://lucene.472066.

Re: old index files not deleted on slave

2010-12-28 Thread sakunthalakishan
We are using Locktype "single". -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/old-index-files-not-deleted-on-slave-tp2113493p2161030.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: old index files not deleted on slave

2010-12-28 Thread sakunthalakishan
deleted. And these .nfs files are still being used by SOLR in jboss. This setup is giving issue only in linux. Is this known bug on linux? -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/old-index-files-not-deleted-on-slave-tp2113493p2160924.html Sent from the Solr

Re: old index files not deleted on slave

2010-12-18 Thread Lance Norskog
This could be a quirk of the native locking feature. What's the file system? Can you fsck it? If this error keeps happening, please file this. It should not happen. Add the text above and also your solrconfigs if you can. One thing you could try is to change from the native locking policy to the

old index files not deleted on slave

2010-12-18 Thread feedly team
I have set up index replication (triggered on optimize). The problem I am having is the old index files are not being deleted on the slave. After each replication, I can see the old files still hanging around as well as the files that have just been pulled. This causes the data directory size to in