[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13101?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16937998#comment-16937998
]
David Smiley commented on SOLR-13101:
-------------------------------------
Solr already has a [Blob
Store|https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/8_0/blob-store-api.html] for jars
(plugins). And as Noble points out, SOLR-13710 introduces _a second_ Blob
Store in SOLR-13710 that appears duplicative with the former, committed to 8.x.
Eventually either could be used for not just plugins but resources (e.g.
language models, etc.) generally. Does it make sense to use the same name
"blob store" for index data? That would imply not just a common name but some
common APIs as well that work seamlessly. I'm not sure if these use cases fit
well together or not. If we separate them, I suggest we abandon this nebulous
word "blob" and be more specific – a "Resource Store" and a "Index Store".
What do others think?
> Shared storage support in SolrCloud
> -----------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-13101
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13101
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: SolrCloud
> Reporter: Yonik Seeley
> Priority: Major
> Time Spent: 3h 50m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> Solr should have first-class support for shared storage (blob/object stores
> like S3, google cloud storage, etc. and shared filesystems like HDFS, NFS,
> etc).
> The key component will likely be a new replica type for shared storage. It
> would have many of the benefits of the current "pull" replicas (not indexing
> on all replicas, all shards identical with no shards getting out-of-sync,
> etc), but would have additional benefits:
> - Any shard could become leader (the blob store always has the index)
> - Better elasticity scaling down
> - durability not linked to number of replcias.. a single replica could be
> common for write workloads
> - could drop to 0 replicas for a shard when not needed (blob store always
> has index)
> - Allow for higher performance write workloads by skipping the transaction
> log
> - don't pay for what you don't need
> - a commit will be necessary to flush to stable storage (blob store)
> - A lot of the complexity and failure modes go away
> An additional component a Directory implementation that will work well with
> blob stores. We probably want one that treats local disk as a cache since
> the latency to remote storage is so large. I think there are still some
> "locking" issues to be solved here (ensuring that more than one writer to the
> same index won't corrupt it). This should probably be pulled out into a
> different JIRA issue.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
