That is a great idea to run the updates thru the LB also! I like it!
Thanks for the replies guys
-Original Message-
From: jimtronic [mailto:jimtro...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 1:46 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: some general solr 4.0 questions
I've got a setup like yours -- lots of cores and replicas, but no need for
shards -- and here's what I've found so far:
1. Zookeeper is tiny. I would think network I/O is going to be the biggest
concern.
2. I think this is more about high availability than performance. I've been
expirementing wit
I'll answer the other easy ones ;)
#1 yes, no need for a ton of RAM and tons of cores.
#2 it's not the overhead, it's that zookeeper is sensitive to not
hearing from nodes and marking them dead, at least in the Hadoop and
HBase world.
#3 yes, the external LB would simply spread the query load ov
I'll answer the easy one:
#4 - yes! In fact, it would seem wise in many of these straightforward cases
like yours to leave standard master/slave as-is for the time being even when
upgrading to Solr 4. No need to make life more complicated. Now, if you did
want to have NRT where updates are
