lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Amit Nithian <anith...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Poll: SolrCloud vs. Master-Slave usage
Date Fri, 01 Mar 2013 18:00:28 GMT
But does that mean that in SolrCloud, slave nodes are busy indexing
documents?


On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 5:37 AM, Michael Della Bitta <
michael.della.bitta@appinions.com> wrote:

> Amit,
>
> NRT is not possible in a master-slave setup because of the necessity
> of a hard commit and replication, both of which add considerable
> delay.
>
> Solr Cloud sends each document for a given shard to each node hosting
> that shard, so there's no need for the hard commit and replication for
> visibility.
>
> You could conceivably get NRT on a single node without Solr Cloud, but
> there would be no redundancy.
>
> Michael Della Bitta
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> Appinions
> 18 East 41st Street, 2nd Floor
> New York, NY 10017-6271
>
> www.appinions.com
>
> Where Influence Isn’t a Game
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Amit Nithian <anithian@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Erick,
> >
> > Well put and thanks for the clarification. One question:
> > "And if you need NRT, you just can't get it with traditional M/S setups."
> > ==> Can you explain how that works with SolrCloud?
> >
> > I agree with what you said too because there was an article or
> discussion I
> > read that said having high-availability masters requires some fairly
> > complicated setups and I guess I am under-estimating how
> > expensive/complicated our setup is relative to what you can get out of
> the
> > box with SolrCloud.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Amit
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Erick Erickson <erickerickson@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Amit:
> >>
> >> It's a balancing act. If I was starting fresh, even with one shard, I'd
> >> probably use SolrCloud rather than deal with the issues around the "how
> do
> >> I recover if my master goes down" question. Additionally, SolrCloud
> allows
> >> one to monitor the health of the entire system by monitoring the state
> >> information kept in Zookeeper rather than build a monitoring system that
> >> understands the changing topology of your network.
> >>
> >> And if you need NRT, you just can't get it with traditional M/S setups.
> >>
> >> In a mature production system where all the operational issues are
> figured
> >> out and you don't need NRT, it's easier just to plop 4.x in traditional
> M/S
> >> setups and not go to SolrCloud. And you're right, you have to understand
> >> Zookeeper which isn't all that difficult, but is another moving part and
> >> I'm a big fan of keeping the number of moving parts down if possible.
> >>
> >> It's not a one-size-fits-all situation. From what you've described, I
> can't
> >> say there's a compelling reason to do the SolrCloud thing. If you find
> >> yourself spending lots of time building monitoring or High
> >> Availability/Disaster Recovery tools, then you might find the
> cost/benefit
> >> analysis changing.
> >>
> >> Personally, I think it's ironic that the memory improvements that came
> >> along _with_ SolrCloud make it less necessary to shard. Which means that
> >> traditional M/S setups will suit more people longer <G>....
> >>
> >> Best
> >> Erick
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Amit Nithian <anithian@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I don't know a ton about SolrCloud but for our setup and my limited
> >> > understanding of it is that you start to bleed operational and
> >> > non-operational aspects together which I am not comfortable doing
> (i.e.
> >> > software load balancing). Also adding ZooKeeper to the mix is yet
> another
> >> > thing to install, setup, monitor, maintain etc which doesn't add any
> >> value
> >> > above and beyond what we have setup already.
> >> >
> >> > For example, we have a hardware load balancer that can do the actual
> load
> >> > balancing of requests among the slaves and taking slaves in and out of
> >> > rotation either on demand or if it's down. We've placed a virtual IP
> on
> >> top
> >> > of our multiple masters so that we have redundancy there. While we
> have
> >> > multiple cores, the data volume is large enough to fit on one node so
> we
> >> > aren't at the data volume necessary for sharding our indices. I
> suspect
> >> > that if we had a sufficiently large dataset that couldn't fit on one
> box
> >> > SolrCloud is perfect but when you can fit on one box, why add more
> >> > complexity?
> >> >
> >> > Please correct me if I'm wrong for I'd like to better understand this!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:53 AM, rulinma <rulinma@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I am doing research on SolrCloud.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > View this message in context:
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Poll-SolrCloud-vs-Master-Slave-usage-tp4042931p4043582.html
> >> > > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message