On 3/1/2013 11:00 AM, Amit Nithian wrote:
But does that mean that in SolrCloud, slave nodes are busy indexing
documents?
With SolrCloud, there is no such thing as master or slave. When you
index documents, all applicable shard replicas are indexing the
documents independently. I think the s
king 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:
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> 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.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
>
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
>> > th
e 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:
> > >
> >
> 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.
> > >
> >
>
this!
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:53 AM, rulinma 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.
> >
>
.
>
>
>
> --
> 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.
>
Most of my customers switch to 4.0 without jumping on SolrCloud. Reason being
that it currently is harder to set up. And when you have the need for one shard
with 1-2 replicas it's pretty simple with old-style.
I think when managing the Solr config in ZK becomes easier more will want to
migrate
My feeling so far is that there are lots of Solr users with fairly simple
and small scale setups where fully distributed SolrCloud system is not
actually needed. I'm sure things are constantly shifting and in 12 months
the same poll will yield more SolrCloud yes answers.
Otis
--
Solr & ElasticSea
I cannot answer "yes" to any of those options.
Master/slave and cloud have different strengths and weaknesses. We will use
each one where it is appropriate.
The loose coupling in master/slave is a very good thing and increases
robustness for a corpus that does not have tight freshness requireme
"Do you use replication instead, or do you just have one instance?"
On 02/25/2013 07:55 PM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
Hi,
Quick poll to see what % of Solr users use SolrCloud vs. Master-slave setup:
http://blog.sematext.com/2013/02/25/poll-solr-cloud-or-not/
I have to say I'm surprised with the
10 matches
Mail list logo
