Role specific configurations can go into /node_roles/${rolename} znode, and
that is outside the scope of this SIP. The concept of role specific modes
(eg allowed, preferred for overseer) is a welcome addition to original
proposal to model the overseer functionality properly without any confusion
to
> I'm very strongly in favor of not letting users design a system in which the
> cluster can be "live" without an overseer.
> I understand that the overseer can be taxing to the cluster,
That is really just an implementation choice. Bluntly, It doesn't do anything
smartwatch could not handle on
So I think we're loosing sight of the original concept of "default" and
conflating it with role configuration.
When we started talking about "default roles" the idea was "default" was a
flag that indicated if the role was active on a Solr Node where no roles
had been specified. Plain and simple. F
I think I understand Ilan's motivation for two defaults. Here's a summary
of what I understand Ilan's proposal, and a follow up proposal that
achieves the similar effect with less perceived complexity to user.
*Ilan's proposal (as I understand it):*
1. Every role to have two defaults. Example:
da
Ilan was asking how what should be the overseer role in the following
situations
a) role=overseer,data:on
b) role=overseer: preferred,data:on
c) role=data:on
I'm saying a shouldn't be valid. Only b & c are valid
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021, 12:44 PM Mike Drob wrote:
> Ilan,
>
> Can you provide a
Ilan,
Can you provide a more detailed concrete example? I’m having a lot of
trouble understanding what you are proposing, beyond that it is somehow
contraindicated with what Ishan/Noble suggest.
Apologies for my failure to understand.
Thanks,
Mike
On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 5:21 PM Ilan Ginzburg w
Thanks for the heads-up!
~ David Smiley
Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 12:05 PM Adrien Grand wrote:
> Hello Solr devs,
>
> This is a heads up that the BadApple annotation has been removed from
> Lucene 10.x since it wasn't use
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021, 10:21 AM Ilan Ginzburg wrote:
> If we go with optional role params, we need two defaults:
> 1. the param value to use when the role is specified without a parameter,
> and
> 2. the param value to use for the role on a node for which the role is
> not specified at all.
>
> I d
If we go with optional role params, we need two defaults:
1. the param value to use when the role is specified without a parameter, and
2. the param value to use for the role on a node for which the role is
not specified at all.
I don't know how to sensibly name these defaults, but the actual
valu
> We don't even know what framework to use yet ;-)
We should define what we want to achieve before picking the framework. PoCs
are fine at this point for evaluating various options, but we shouldn't let
any framework dictate what we should or shouldn't do for our users.
On Mon, 6 Dec, 2021, 12:41
Just a simple +1 of support to modernization efforts in general. It's
encouraging to see that Jason & Eric had some fun together on this.
Modernization, I think, helps with the fun of any open-source project, and
thus helps keep everyone interested in continuing and reviewing interest in
Solr. If
11 matches
Mail list logo
