On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Per Steffensen <st...@designware.dk> wrote: > There are defaults for both replicationFactor and maxShardsPerNode, so non > of them HAS to be provided - default is 1 in both cases. > > int repFactor = msgStrToInt(message, REPLICATION_FACTOR, 1); > int maxShardsPerNode = msgStrToInt(message, MAX_SHARDS_PER_NODE, 1); > > Remember than replicationFactor decides how many "instances" of you shard > you will get, so a value of 1 does not provide you any replication. > > > On 1/3/13 3:46 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 9:21 PM, davers <dboych...@improvementdirect.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> So by providing the correct replicationFactor parameter for the number of >>> servers has fixed my issue. >>> >>> So can you not provide a higher replicationFactor than you have >>> live_nodes? > > Yes, but you will end up with multiple replica of the same shard running on > the same node. It is kinda pointless (IMHO), but might be ok if you later > want to "move" one of the replica to a "new" node. I would prefer to not > allow creating more replica than you have nodes (because it is kinda > pointless) and then just copy data when you, in the future, create a new > replica of a shard on a new node.
I agree - it's pointless to have two replicas of the same shard on a single node. But I'm talking about having replicationFactor as a target, so when you start up *new* nodes they will become a replica for any shard where the number of replicas is currently less than the replicationFactor. Ideally, one would be able to create a new collection with no nodes initially assigned to it if desired. -Yonik http://lucidworks.com
