Hi Manoj
There are advantages in both the approach. I recently read an article,
http://lucidworks.com/blog/podcast-solr-at-scale-at-aol/ . AOL uses Solr
and it uses one core per user.
Having one core per customer helps you
1. Easily migrate / backup the index
2. Load the core as and when require
Hi Toke,
I don't think I answered your question properly.
With the current 1 core/customer setup many cores are idle. The redesign we
are working on will move most of our searches to being driven by SOLR vs
database (current split is 90% database, 10% solr). With that change, all
cores will see t
Yes, we have plan to eventually have to shard the clusters - that will go
hand in hand with how rest of the system gets partitioned as well (swim
lanes). The other considerations for these lanes will be geo location etc
(in a AWS context, zones in east coast will be used for swim lanes that
cater t
"On the other hand,
it [sic] most of the cores are idle most of the time, the 1 core/customer
setup would be give better utilization of the hardware."
This is an important point. I've seen performance go to hell when 10M, 100M,
and 1B cloud collections were consolidated in a hardware constrained
You'll have to do a proof of concept test to determine how many collections
Solr/SolrCloud can handle.
With a very large number of customers you may have to do sharding of the
clusters themselves - limit each cluster to however many
customers/colllections work well (100? 250?) and then have se
Hi Toke,
Thank you for your insights.
> Why do you want to collapse the cores?
>
Most of the cores are small and a few big ones make up the bulk. Our
thinking was that it would be as easy to just have one core. Monitoring
becomes easy as well (we are using a monitoring tool in which there is a
On Tue, 2014-10-07 at 14:27 +0200, Manoj Bharadwaj wrote:
> My team inherited a SOLR setup with an architecture that has a core for
> every customer. We have a few different types of cores, say "A", "B", C",
> and for each one of this there is a core per customer - namely "A1",
> "A2"..., "B1", "B2
