I think this is rather dangerous. How would these multiple slaves coordinate replication? Would they all replicate at once? If only one was configured to replicate, how would the others know to reopen serchers?
Furthermore, simply opening up more Solr instances on the same machine isn't expanding the resources that need to be expanded, e.g. physical memory to increase throughput. Separate machines with separate their own disks for your slaves is _much_ safer and actually expands capacity. After all, if the CPU is pegged on your slave machine under hight CPU load, starting up additional JVMs on that machine won't get you any more CPU cycles. Best Erick On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Rohit Harchandani <rhar...@gmail.com>wrote: > ok. but what are the problems when brining up multiple instances reading > from the same data directory? > also how to re-open the searchers without restarting solr? > Thanks, > Rohit > > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Otis Gospodnetic < > otis.gospodne...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > If you have high query rate, running multiple instances of Solr on the > same > > server doesn't typically make sense. I'd stop and rethink.... :) > > > > Otis > > -- > > Solr Performance Monitoring - http://sematext.com/spm/index.html > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Rohit Harchandani <rhar...@gmail.com > > >wrote: > > > > > Hi All, > > > I am currently using solr 4.0. The application I am working on > requires a > > > high rate of queries per second. > > > Currently, we have setup a single master and a single slave on a > > production > > > machine. We want to bring up multiple instances of solr (slaves). Are > > there > > > any problems, when bringing them up on different ports but using the > same > > > data directory? These will be only serving up queries and all the > > indexing > > > will take place on the master machine. > > > > > > Also, if i have multiple instances from the same data directory and i > > > perform replication. Would that re-open searchers on all the instances? > > > Thanks, > > > Rohit > > > > > >
