Hi Shawn, Thanks for your reply.
Yes, we were planning for such instance where the replica went down during indexing, and when it re-started, it will start to copy the index over to the main node. Regards, Edwin On 5 February 2016 at 03:35, Shawn Heisey <apa...@elyograg.org> wrote: > On 2/4/2016 9:27 AM, Zheng Lin Edwin Yeo wrote: > > Yes, I'm already on SolrCloud, so I'll probably stick to that. > > > > Regarding the network, I am just afraid that when the replica code copies > > the index over from the main node, it will use up all the available > > bandwidth, and causes the search query to have little bandwidth left, > which > > will affect the performance of the search from the front-end. > > Replicating the index in SolrCloud should be a VERY rare event, only > happening when there's a serious problem such as a server going down and > coming back up later, or after certain maintenance events. > > Merges do not involve network traffic. In SolrCloud, each replica will > handle merging locally. It does not happen over the network. > > Even if a replication DOES happen, TCP makes room on the network for new > connections like queries. It's inherent in the design of the protocol. > This is particularly effective on LAN connectivity. If there's a WAN > involved, then you might be right to worry about bandwidth. > > Regarding something you asked earlier in the thread: Assuming LAN > connectivity, I think the only thing you will achieve by using separate > network interfaces is configuration complexity. > > It might be possible to separate the interfaces, even though I think > it's not required. If you populate the hosts file on each server, or > use split DNS, you could have clients use a different address than the > Solr servers themselves use for inter-node communication, but in general > there is no need for this, because high network bandwidth utilization is > only likely during a replication event, or during bulk indexing to > rebuild collections. For bulk indexing, the CPU and disk I/O impact > will almost certainly cause more of a slowdown than the network, unless > you're using a low-speed WAN, which is not recommended. > > Thanks, > Shawn > >
