Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63CB4200C10 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:13:31 +0100 (CET) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 6261B160B57; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 23:13:31 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id AD009160B54 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:13:30 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 84398 invoked by uid 500); 19 Jan 2017 23:13:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 84388 invoked by uid 99); 19 Jan 2017 23:13:29 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 23:13:29 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 1CF4AC0048 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 23:13:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.199 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.199 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[KAM_ASCII_DIVIDERS=0.8, KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY=1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.999] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qA_g6jdibFMx for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 23:13:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org [209.188.14.139]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTP id 40B4E5F3BC for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 23:13:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jira-lw-us.apache.org (unknown [207.244.88.139]) by mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id A662AE0256 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 23:13:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jira-lw-us.apache.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jira-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at jira-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTP id 629E320D39 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 23:13:26 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 23:13:26 +0000 (UTC) From: "Erick Erickson (JIRA)" To: dev@lucene.apache.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: [jira] [Commented] (SOLR-10006) Cannot do a full sync (fetchindex) if the replica can't open a searcher MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 archived-at: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 23:13:31 -0000 [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10006?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15830798#comment-15830798 ] Erick Erickson commented on SOLR-10006: --------------------------------------- No, SOLR-9836 doesn't fix this one I'm afraid. The error is: 'eoe_shard1_replica1' is not available due to init failure: Error opening new searcher . . . NoSuchFileException: /blahblahblah The core admin APi REQUESTRECOVERY call fails with: "Could not find core to call recovery..." Not sure this fixable without major surgery though. And it should be rare enough that manually fixing things like this up isn't onerous. > Cannot do a full sync (fetchindex) if the replica can't open a searcher > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: SOLR-10006 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10006 > Project: Solr > Issue Type: Improvement > Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public) > Affects Versions: 5.3.1, 6.4 > Reporter: Erick Erickson > > Doing a full sync or fetchindex requires an open searcher and if you can't open the searcher those operations fail. > For discussion. I've seen a situation in the field where a replica's index became corrupt. When the node was restarted, the replica tried to do a full sync but fails because the core can't open a searcher. The replica went into an endless sync/fail/sync cycle. > I couldn't reproduce that exact scenario, but it's easy enough to get into a similar situation. Create a 2x2 collection and index some docs. Then stop one of the instances and go in and remove a couple of segments files and restart. > The replica stays in the "down" state, fine so far. > Manually issue a fetchindex. That fails because the replica can't open a searcher. Sure, issuing a fetchindex is abusive.... but I think it's the same underlying issue: why should we care about the state of a replica's current index when we're going to completely replace it anyway? -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org