Hi Adi, RAID10 is good for satisfying both indexing and query, striping across mirror sets. However, you lose half of your raw disk space, just like with RAID1.
Here is a mail thread of mine which discusses RAID levels for Solr specific: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/462d7467b2f2d064223eb46763a6a6e606ac670fe7f7b40858d97c0d@1366325333@%3Csolr-user.lucene.apache.org%3E Kind Regards, Furkan KAMACI On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 10:25 PM Kaminski, Adi <adi.kamin...@verint.com> wrote: > Hi, > We are about to size large environment with 7 nodes/servers with > replication factor 2 of SolrCloud cluster (using Solr 7.6). > > The system contains parent-child (nested documents) schema, and about to > have 40M parent docs with 50-80 child docs each (in total 2-3.2B Solr docs). > > We have a use case that will require to update parent document fields > triggered by an application flow (with re-indexing or atomic/partial update > approach, that will probably require to upgrade to Solr 8.1.1 that supports > this feature and contains some fixes in nested docs handling area). > > Since these updates might be quite heavy from IOPS perspective, we would > like to make sure that the IO hardware and RAID configuration are optimized > (r/w ratio of 50% read and 50% write, to allow balanced search and update > flows). > > Can someone share similar scale/use- case/deployment RAID level > configuration ? > (I assume that RAID5&6 are not an option due to parity/dual parity heavy > impact on write operations, so it leaves RAID 0, 1 or 10). > > Thanks in advance, > Adi > > > > > Sent from Workspace ONE Boxer > > > This electronic message may contain proprietary and confidential > information of Verint Systems Inc., its affiliates and/or subsidiaries. The > information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or > entity(ies) named above. If you are not the intended recipient (or > authorized to receive this e-mail for the intended recipient), you may not > use, copy, disclose or distribute to anyone this message or any information > contained in this message. If you have received this electronic message in > error, please notify us by replying to this e-mail. >
