lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Brian Klippel" <>
Subject RE: 99.9% uptime requirement
Date Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:38:14 GMT
You could create a new "working" core, then call the swap command once
it is ready.  Then remove the work core and delete the appropriate index
folder at your convenience.

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Petersen [] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 6:41 PM
Subject: RE: 99.9% uptime requirement

Maintenance Questions:  In a two slave one master setup where the two
slaves are behind load balancers what happens if I have to restart solr?
If I have to restart solr say for a schema update where I have added a
new field then what is the recommended procedure?

If I can guarantee no commits or optimizes happen on the master during
the schema update so no new snapshots become available then can I safely
leave rsyncd enabled?  When I stop and start a slave server, should I
first pull it out of the load balancers list or will solr gracefully
release connections as it shuts down so no searches are lost?

What do you guys do to push out updates?

Thanks for any thoughts,

-----Original Message-----
From: Walter Underwood [] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 8:57 AM
Subject: Re: 99.9% uptime requirement

Right. You don't get to 99.9% by assuming that an 8 hour outage is OK.  
Design for continuous uptime, with plans for how long it takes to  
patch around a single point of failure. For example, if your load  
balancer is a single point of failure, make sure that you can redirect  
the front end servers to a single Solr server in much less than 8 hours.

Also, think about your SLA. Can the search index be more than 8 hours  
stale? How quickly do you need to be able to replace a failed indexing  
server? You might be able to run indexing locally on each search  
server if they are lightly loaded.


On Aug 4, 2009, at 7:11 AM, Norberto Meijome wrote:

> On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 13:15:44 -0700
> "Robert Petersen" <> wrote:
>> Thanks all, I figured there would be more talk about daemontools if  
>> there
>> were really a need.  I appreciate the input and for starters we'll  
>> put two
>> slaves behind a load balancer and grow it from there.
> Robert,
> not taking away from daemon tools, but daemon tools won't help you  
> if your
> whole server goes down.
> don't put all your eggs in one basket - several
> servers, load balancer (hardware load balancers x 2, haproxy, etc)
> and sure, use daemon tools to keep your services running within each  
> server...
> B
> _________________________
> {Beto|Norberto|Numard} Meijome
> "Why do you sit there looking like an envelope without any address  
> on it?"
>  Mark Twain
> I speak for myself, not my employer. Contents may be hot. Slippery  
> when wet.
> Reading disclaimers makes you go blind. Writing them is worse. You  
> have been
> Warned.

View raw message