Amit: It's a balancing act. If I was starting fresh, even with one shard, I'd probably use SolrCloud rather than deal with the issues around the "how do I recover if my master goes down" question. Additionally, SolrCloud allows one to monitor the health of the entire system by monitoring the state information kept in Zookeeper rather than build a monitoring system that understands the changing topology of your network.
And if you need NRT, you just can't get it with traditional M/S setups. In a mature production system where all the operational issues are figured out and you don't need NRT, it's easier just to plop 4.x in traditional M/S setups and not go to SolrCloud. And you're right, you have to understand Zookeeper which isn't all that difficult, but is another moving part and I'm a big fan of keeping the number of moving parts down if possible. It's not a one-size-fits-all situation. From what you've described, I can't say there's a compelling reason to do the SolrCloud thing. If you find yourself spending lots of time building monitoring or High Availability/Disaster Recovery tools, then you might find the cost/benefit analysis changing. Personally, I think it's ironic that the memory improvements that came along _with_ SolrCloud make it less necessary to shard. Which means that traditional M/S setups will suit more people longer <G>.... Best Erick On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Amit Nithian <anith...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't know a ton about SolrCloud but for our setup and my limited > understanding of it is that you start to bleed operational and > non-operational aspects together which I am not comfortable doing (i.e. > software load balancing). Also adding ZooKeeper to the mix is yet another > thing to install, setup, monitor, maintain etc which doesn't add any value > above and beyond what we have setup already. > > For example, we have a hardware load balancer that can do the actual load > balancing of requests among the slaves and taking slaves in and out of > rotation either on demand or if it's down. We've placed a virtual IP on top > of our multiple masters so that we have redundancy there. While we have > multiple cores, the data volume is large enough to fit on one node so we > aren't at the data volume necessary for sharding our indices. I suspect > that if we had a sufficiently large dataset that couldn't fit on one box > SolrCloud is perfect but when you can fit on one box, why add more > complexity? > > Please correct me if I'm wrong for I'd like to better understand this! > > > > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:53 AM, rulinma <ruli...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I am doing research on SolrCloud. > > > > > > > > -- > > View this message in context: > > > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Poll-SolrCloud-vs-Master-Slave-usage-tp4042931p4043582.html > > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > >
