That makes perfect sense , thanks again! On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Shawn Heisey <apa...@elyograg.org> wrote:
> On 10/1/2014 7:08 PM, S.L wrote: > > Thanks ,load balancer seems to be the preferred solution here , I have a > > topology where I have 6 Solr nodes that support 3 shards with a > replication > > factor of 2. > > > > Looks like it woul dbe better to use the load balancers for querying > > only.The question, that I have is if I go the load balancer route should > I > > be listing all the six nodes in the load balancer or only the leaders as > > identified by SolrCloud admin console?Would the load balancing solution > > also incur any additional routing of requests between the individual > nodes > > of SolrCloud that would have not happened had the python Solr client been > > zookeeper aware? > > > > Also for indexing ,which is not done from a Python client but is done > using > > Solrj, I will avoid the load balancers and do the indexing it via the > > Zookeeper route. > > If you were to send all your queries to just one server, it's my > understanding that SolrCloud will load balance the actual work across > the cloud. I have not verified this. > > For a load balancer, the minimum requirement would be to list two of the > servers, but it's probably better to list them all. Leader designations > can change, and I'm pretty sure you don't want to change your load > balancer config just because the leader changed. > > If your 3 shards are using automatic document routing, then you can send > updates to any machine in the cluster and they'll end up in the right > place. Since you're using SolrJ for updates, this is probably not > something you need to worry about. > > Thanks, > Shawn > >
