But does that mean that in SolrCloud, slave nodes are busy indexing documents?
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 5:37 AM, Michael Della Bitta < michael.della.bi...@appinions.com> wrote: > Amit, > > NRT is not possible in a master-slave setup because of the necessity > of a hard commit and replication, both of which add considerable > delay. > > Solr Cloud sends each document for a given shard to each node hosting > that shard, so there's no need for the hard commit and replication for > visibility. > > You could conceivably get NRT on a single node without Solr Cloud, but > there would be no redundancy. > > Michael Della Bitta > > ------------------------------------------------ > Appinions > 18 East 41st Street, 2nd Floor > New York, NY 10017-6271 > > www.appinions.com > > Where Influence Isn’t a Game > > > On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Amit Nithian <anith...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Erick, > > > > Well put and thanks for the clarification. One question: > > "And if you need NRT, you just can't get it with traditional M/S setups." > > ==> Can you explain how that works with SolrCloud? > > > > I agree with what you said too because there was an article or > discussion I > > read that said having high-availability masters requires some fairly > > complicated setups and I guess I am under-estimating how > > expensive/complicated our setup is relative to what you can get out of > the > > box with SolrCloud. > > > > Thanks! > > Amit > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > >> 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. > >> > > > >> > > >> >
