Note the number of zookeeper nodes is independent of number of shards.
Otis
--
SOLR Performance Monitoring - http://sematext.com/spm
On Nov 22, 2012 4:19 AM, "Luis Cappa Banda" wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I´ve been dealing with the same question these days. In architecture terms,
> it´s always better to
On 11/22/2012 2:18 AM, Luis Cappa Banda wrote:
I´ve been dealing with the same question these days. In architecture terms,
it´s always better to separate services (Solr and Zookeeper, in this case)
rather to keep them in a single instance. However, when we have to deal
with costs issues, all of u
edium-size clusters (10 to 20 machines), let
alone large clusters (dozens to 100 or more machines).
-- Jack Krupansky
-Original Message-
From: Otis Gospodnetic
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 9:37 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: SolrCloud and external Zookeeper ensembl
If your Solr instances don't max out your ec2 instances you should be fine.
But maybe even micro instances will suffice. Or 1 on demand and 2 spot
ones. If cost is the concern, that is.
Otis
--
SOLR Performance Monitoring - http://sematext.com/spm
On Nov 21, 2012 5:07 PM, "Marcin Rzewucki" wrote:
there will be a relatively small "ensemble" of zookeepers
that service a large "army" or "armada" of Solr nodes.
-- Jack Krupansky
-Original Message-
From: Marcin Rzewucki
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 5:06 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: R
Yes, this is exactly my case. I prefer 3rd option too. As I have 2 more
instances to be used for my purposes (SolrCloud4x + 2 more instances for
loading) it will be easier to configure zookeeper ensemble (as I can use
those 2 additional machines + 1 from SolrCloud) and avoid more instances to
be pu
Hello,
I´ve been dealing with the same question these days. In architecture terms,
it´s always better to separate services (Solr and Zookeeper, in this case)
rather to keep them in a single instance. However, when we have to deal
with costs issues, all of use we are quite limitated and we must ele
Yes, I meant the same (not -zkRun). However, I was asking if it is safe to
have zookeeper and solr processes running on the same node or better on
different machines?
On 21 November 2012 21:18, Rafał Kuć wrote:
> Hello!
>
> As I told I wouldn't use the Zookeeper that is embedded into Solr, but
>
Hello!
As I told I wouldn't use the Zookeeper that is embedded into Solr, but
rather setup a standalone one.
--
Regards,
Rafał Kuć
Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch - ElasticSearch
> First of all: thank you for your answers. Yes, I meant side by side
> configuration.
First of all: thank you for your answers. Yes, I meant side by side
configuration. I think the worst case for ZKs here is to loose two of them.
However, I'm going to use 4 availability zones in same region so at least
this will reduce the risk of loosing both of them at the same time.
Regards.
On
Hello!
Zookeeper by itself is not demanding, but if something happens to your
nodes that have Solr on it, you'll loose ZooKeeper too if you have
them installed side by side. However if you will have 4 Solr nodes and
3 ZK instances you can get them running side by side.
--
Regards,
Rafał Kuć
S
Separate is generally nice because then you can restart Solr nodes without
consideration for ZooKeeper.
Performance-wise, I doubt it's a big deal either way.
- Mark
On Nov 21, 2012, at 8:54 AM, Marcin Rzewucki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have 4 solr collections, 2-3mn documents per collection, up to
Hi,
I have 4 solr collections, 2-3mn documents per collection, up to 100K
updates per collection daily (roughly). I'm going to create SolrCloud4x on
Amazon's m1.large instances (7GB mem,2x2.4GHz cpu each). The question is
what about zookeeper? It's going to be external ensemble, but is it better
t
13 matches
Mail list logo
