If recovery failed, then that core is dead, it has given up.
So if an agent has just restarted or started a node, then it will wait until 
all cores have a "stable" or "final" state, before it declares the NODE as 
healthy, and consider restarting other nodes.
If a core (replica of a shard in a collection) is in DOWN state, it has just 
booted and will soon go into RECOVERING. It will stay in RECOVERING until it 
either is OK or RECOVERY_FAILED.
There is no point in waiting in an endless loop for every single core on a node 
to come up, we just want them to finish initializing and enter a stable state.
I guess other logic in solr-operator will take care of deciding how many 
replicas for a shard are live, as to whether it is safe to take down the next 
pod/node.

Jan

> 31. okt. 2021 kl. 16:14 skrev 戴晓彬 <xiaobin_...@foxmail.com>:
> 
> I'm a little puzzled, why UNHEALTHY_STATES does not contain 
> State.RECOVERY_FAILED
> 
>> 2021年10月31日 22:45,Jan Høydahl <jan....@cominvent.com> 写道:
>> 
>> See 
>> https://solr.apache.org/guide/8_10/implicit-requesthandlers.html#admin-handlers,
>>  you can query each node with 
>> 
>> http://node:8983/api/node/health?requireHealthyCores=true
>> 
>> It will only return HTTP 200 if all active cores on the node are healthy 
>> (none starting or recovering).
>> 
>> Jan
>> 
>>> 27. okt. 2021 kl. 17:27 skrev Vincenzo D'Amore <v.dam...@gmail.com>:
>>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> when a Solr instance is started I would be sure all the indexes present are
>>> up and running, in other words that the instance is healthy.
>>> The healthy status (aka liveness/readiness) is especially useful when a
>>> Kubernetes SolrCloud cluster has to be restarted for any configuration
>>> management needs and you want to apply your change one node at a time.
>>> AFAIK I can ping only one index at a time, but there is no way out of the
>>> box to test that a bunch of indexes are active (green status).
>>> Have you ever faced the same problem? What do you think?
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> Vincenzo
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Vincenzo D'Amore
>> 
> 

Reply via email to