lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erick Erickson <>
Subject Re: Poll: SolrCloud vs. Master-Slave usage
Date Fri, 01 Mar 2013 02:29:08 GMT

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>....


On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Amit Nithian <> 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 <> wrote:
> > I am doing research on SolrCloud.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> >
> > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at
> >

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