The "Legacy Scaling and Distribution" section of the Solr Reference Guide also gives info elated to so-called master-slave mode: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Legacy+Scaling+and+Distribution
Also, although the old master-slave mode is still technically supported in the sense that the code and doc is still there, You won't be able to get the level of community support here on the mailing list as you can get for SolrCloud. Unless you're simply trying to decide whether to leave an old legacy system as-is with the old distributed mode, nobody should be considered a fresh new distributed Solr deployment with anything other than SolrCloud. (Hmmm... have any of the committers considered deprecating the old non-SolrCloud distributed mode features?) -- Jack Krupansky On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Shivaji Dutta <sdu...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > - SolrCloud uses zookeeper to manage HA > - Zookeeper is a standard for all HA in Apache Hadoop > - You have collections which will manage your shards across nodes > - SolrJ Client is now fault tolerant with CloudSolrClient > > This is the way future direction of the product will go. > > > > On 1/13/16, 5:58 AM, "Gian Maria Ricci - aka Alkampfer" > <alkamp...@nablasoft.com> wrote: > > >Thanks. > > > >-- > >Gian Maria Ricci > >Cell: +39 320 0136949 > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Shawn Heisey [mailto:apa...@elyograg.org] > >Sent: lunedì 11 gennaio 2016 18:28 > >To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > >Subject: Re: Pro and cons of using Solr Cloud vs standard Master Slave > >Replica > > > >On 1/11/2016 4:28 AM, Gian Maria Ricci - aka Alkampfer wrote: > >> a customer need a comprehensive list of all pro and cons of using > >> standard Master Slave replica VS using Solr Cloud. I¹m interested > >> especially in query performance consideration, because in this > >> specific situation the rate of new documents is really slow, but the > >> amount of data is about 50 millions of document, and the index size on > >> disk for single core is about 30 GB. > > > >The primary advantage to SolrCloud is that SolrCloud handles most of the > >administrative and operational details for you automatically. > > > >SolrCloud is a little more complicated to set up initially, because you > >must worry about Zookeeper as well as Solr, but once it's properly set > >up, there is no single point of failure. > > > >> Such amount of data should be easily handled by a Master Slave replica > >> with a single core replicated on a certain number of slaves, but we > >> need to evaluate also the option of SolrCloud, especially for fault > >> tolerance. > >> > > > >Once you're beyond initial setup, fault tolerance with SolrCloud is much > >easier than master/slave replication. Switching a slave to a master is > >possible, but the procedure is somewhat complicated. SolrCloud does not > >*have* masters, it is a true cluster. > > > >With master/slave replication, the master handles all indexing, and the > >finished index segments are copied to the slaves via HTTP, and the slaves > >simply need to open them. SolrCloud does indexing on all shard replicas, > >nearly simultaneously. Usually this is an advantage, not a disadvantage, > >but in heavy indexing situations master/slave replication > >*might* show better performance on the slaves. > > > >Thanks, > >Shawn > > > > > >
