Hi Erick Our application has one CommonsHttpSolrServer for each solr core used by our web app. Whilst we have many web app clients solr only has 1 client, our application. Does that make sense. This is why sticky load balancing is an issue for us.
I cannot see any where the state is being handled in the CommonsHttpSolrServer impl ? It looks like the state is not being passed by the client or am i missing something? Cheers Lee c On 27 September 2012 14:00, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com> wrote: > But again, why do you want to do this? I really think you don't. > > I'm assuming that when you say this: > "...resulting in the same slave being hit for all requests." > > you mean "all requests _from the same client_". If that's > not what's happening, then disregard my maundering > because when it comes to setting up LBs, I'm clueless. But > I can say that many installations have LBs set up with > sticky sessions on a per-client basis...... > > Consider another scenario; replication. If you have 2 slaves, > each with a polling interval of 5 minutes note that they are > not coordinated. So slave 1 can poll at 14:00:00. Slave 2 > at 14:01:00. Say there's been a commit at 14:00:30. Requests > to slave 2 will have a different view of the index than slave 1, > so if your user resends the exact same request, they may > see different results. I could submit the request 5 times in a > row and the results would not only be different each time, they > would flip-flop back and forth. > > I wouldn't do this unless and until you have a demonstrated need. > > Best > Erick > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 8:07 AM, Lee Carroll > <lee.a.carr...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > Hi Erick, > > > > the load balancer in front of the solr servers is dropping the cookie not > > the solr server themselves. > > > > are you saying the clients http connection manager builds will ignore > this > > state ? it looks like they do not. It looks like the > > client is passing the cookie back to the load balancer > > > > I want to configure the clients not to pass cookies basically. > > > > Does that make sense ? > > > > > > > > On 27 September 2012 12:54, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> What client state? Solr servers are stateless, they don't > >> keep any information specific to particular clients so this > >> doesn't seem to be a problem. > >> > >> What Solr _does_ do is cache things like fq clauses, but > >> these are not user-specific. Which actually argues for going > >> to the same slave on the theory that requests from a > >> user are more likely to have the same fq clauses. Consider > >> faceting on shoes. The user clicks "mens" and you add an > >> fq like &fq=gender:mens. Then the user wants dress shoes > >> so you submit another query &fq=gender:mens&fq=style:dress. > >> The first fq clause has already been calculated and cached so > >> doesn't have to be re-calculated for the second query... > >> > >> But the stickiness is usually the way Solr is used, so this seems > >> like a red herring. > >> > >> FWIW, > >> Erick > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:06 AM, Lee Carroll > >> <lee.a.carr...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> > Hi > >> > > >> > We have the following solr http server > >> > > >> > <bean class="org.apache.solr.client.solrj.impl.CommonsHttpSolrServer" > >> > id="solrserver" > > >> > <constructor-arg value="urlToSlaveLoadBalancer" /> > >> > <property name="soTimeout" value="1000" /> > >> > <property name="connectionTimeout" value="1000" /> > >> > <property name="defaultMaxConnectionsPerHost" value="5" /> > >> > <property name="maxTotalConnections" value="20" /> > >> > <property name="allowCompression" value="true" /> > >> > </bean> > >> > > >> > The issue we face is the f5 balancer is returning a cookie which the > >> client > >> > is hanging onto. resulting in the same slave being hit for all > requests. > >> > > >> > one obvious solution is to config the load balancer to be non sticky > >> > however politically a "non-standard" load balancer is timescale > suicide. > >> > (It is an out sourced corporate thing) > >> > > >> > I'm not keen to use the LB http solr server as i don't want this to > be a > >> > concern of the software and have a list of servers etc. (although as a > >> stop > >> > gap may well have to) > >> > > >> > My question is can I configure the solr server to ignore client state > ? > >> We > >> > are on solr 3.4 > >> > > >> > Thanks in advance lee c > >> >
