[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13101?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17247258#comment-17247258
]
David Smiley commented on SOLR-13101:
-------------------------------------
I would like to close this issue as won't-fix because the substance and feature
branch (with linked PRs) pointing to this issue is dead-in-the-water (will not
be merged, or further publicly contributed to). However the issue title,
"Shared storage support" (rather general) is not a "won't-fix" ! So with that,
I propose I re-title the issue to "Shared storage via new SHARED replica type"
because in my mind, that's the most stand-out aspect of this PR compared to
other alternatives. WDYT [~ilan]?
That said, do not lose hope for a solution to come into being! I've been
excitedly working on a new plan I've been internally sharing that solves the
contribut-ability matters that the SHARED replica type implementation lacks.
If things go well in the coming weeks... there will end up being a new Jira
issue to be called "BlobDirectory, a shared storage approach" that will link
here.
> 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: 15h 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: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
