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 06:22:13 GMT
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