lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alok Dhir <ad...@symplicity.com>
Subject Re: Shared index base
Date Fri, 02 May 2008 20:20:18 GMT
Here's another question on this rather old thread -- while poring  
through various options in solrconfig, I came across the the 'native'  
lockType option.

That seems to indicate that SOLR/Lucene should work fine with multiple  
writers, as long as a proper locking mechanism is in place, such as  
would be provided by a POSIX compliant cluster file system, such as  
GPFS, GFS, Ibrix, OCFS2...

Single shared index, multiple readers/writers, as long as the  
underlying filesystem implements fs locks properly.

Is this correct?

---
Alok K. Dhir
adhir@symplicity.com
Symplicity Corporation
1 703 351 0200 x 8080
www.symplicity.com

On Feb 27, 2008, at 3:10 AM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote:

> Alok: correct - commit causes Solr to re-open the index.
>
> Gene: That should work just fine.  While you can't have multiple  
> concurrent writers, you can send multiple concurrent indexing  
> requests to a single Solr instance designated to be the master.
>
> Otis
>
> --
> Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
>
> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Alok K. Dhir <adhir@symplicity.com>
>> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 7:51:19 PM
>> Subject: Re: Shared index base
>>
>> thanks for your response - i've been waiting for this very
>> clarification.  so 'commit()' makes readers re-read the indexes?
>> On Feb 26, 2008, at 7:03 PM, Mike Klaas wrote:
>>
>>> There hasn't really been a concrete answer given in this thread,
>>> so:  It works to point multiple Solr's at a single data dir, but you
>>> can't have more than one writer.  If you try, the index could become
>>> corrupted or inconsistent (especially if you are using 'simple' lock
>>> type).  Also, the Solrs do not communicate with each other.  You
>>> have to tell the readers manually that the index is updated (via
>>> commit()--autoCommit will not work).
>>>
>>> -Mike
>>>
>>> On 26-Feb-08, at 9:39 AM, Alok Dhir wrote:
>>>
>>>> Are you saying all the servers will use the same 'data' dir?  Is
>>>> that a supported config?
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 26, 2008, at 12:29 PM, Matthew Runo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We're about to do the same thing here, but have not tried yet. We
>>>>> currently run Solr with replication across several servers. So
>>>>> long as only one server is doing updates to the index, I think it
>>>>> should work fine.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>> Matthew Runo
>>>>> Software Developer
>>>>> Zappos.com
>>>>> 702.943.7833
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 26, 2008, at 7:51 AM, Evgeniy Strokin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I know there was such discussions about the subject, but I want
>>>>>> to ask again if somebody could share more information.
>>>>>> We are planning to have several separate servers for our search
>>>>>> engine. One of them will be index/search server, and all others
>>>>>> are search only.
>>>>>> We want to use SAN (BTW: should we consider something else?) and
>>>>>> give access to it from all servers. So all servers will use the
>>>>>> same index base, without any replication, same files.
>>>>>> Is this a good practice? Did somebody do the same? Any problems
>>>>>> noticed? Or any suggestions, even about different configurations
>>>>>> are highly appreciated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Gene
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


Mime
View raw message