I have auto commit after 40k RECs/1800secs. But I only tested with manual commit, but I don't see why it should work differently. Roman On 7 Jun 2013 20:52, "Tim Vaillancourt" <t...@elementspace.com> wrote:
> If it makes you feel better, I also considered this approach when I was in > the same situation with a separate indexer and searcher on one Physical > linux machine. > > My main concern was "re-using" the FS cache between both instances - If I > replicated to myself there would be two independent copies of the index, > FS-cached separately. > > I like the suggestion of using autoCommit to reload the index. If I'm > reading that right, you'd set an autoCommit on 'zero docs changing', or > just 'every N seconds'? Did that work? > > Best of luck! > > Tim > > > On 5 June 2013 10:19, Roman Chyla <roman.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > So here it is for a record how I am solving it right now: > > > > Write-master is started with: -Dmontysolr.warming.enabled=false > > -Dmontysolr.write.master=true -Dmontysolr.read.master= > > http://localhost:5005 > > Read-master is started with: -Dmontysolr.warming.enabled=true > > -Dmontysolr.write.master=false > > > > > > solrconfig.xml changes: > > > > 1. all index changing components have this bit, > > enable="${montysolr.master:true}" - ie. > > > > <updateHandler class="solr.DirectUpdateHandler2" > > enable="${montysolr.master:true}"> > > > > 2. for cache warming de/activation > > > > <listener event="newSearcher" > > class="solr.QuerySenderListener" > > enable="${montysolr.enable.warming:true}">... > > > > 3. to trigger refresh of the read-only-master (from write-master): > > > > <listener event="postCommit" > > class="solr.RunExecutableListener" > > enable="${montysolr.master:true}"> > > <str name="exe">curl</str> > > <str name="dir">.</str> > > <bool name="wait">false</bool> > > <arr name="args"> <str>${montysolr.read.master:http://localhost > > > > > }/solr/admin/cores?wt=json&action=RELOAD&core=collection1</str></arr> > > </listener> > > > > This works, I still don't like the reload of the whole core, but it seems > > like the easiest thing to do now. > > > > -- roman > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Roman Chyla <roman.ch...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Peter, > > > > > > Thank you, I am glad to read that this usecase is not alien. > > > > > > I'd like to make the second instance (searcher) completely read-only, > so > > I > > > have disabled all the components that can write. > > > > > > (being lazy ;)) I'll probably use > > > http://wiki.apache.org/solr/CollectionDistribution to call the curl > > after > > > commit, or write some IndexReaderFactory that checks for changes > > > > > > The problem with calling the 'core reload' - is that it seems lots of > > work > > > for just opening a new searcher, eeekkk...somewhere I read that it is > > cheap > > > to reload a core, but re-opening the index searches must be definitely > > > cheaper... > > > > > > roman > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:03 AM, Peter Sturge <peter.stu...@gmail.com > > >wrote: > > > > > >> Hi, > > >> We use this very same scenario to great effect - 2 instances using the > > >> same > > >> dataDir with many cores - 1 is a writer (no caching), the other is a > > >> searcher (lots of caching). > > >> To get the searcher to see the index changes from the writer, you need > > the > > >> searcher to do an empty commit - i.e. you invoke a commit with 0 > > >> documents. > > >> This will refresh the caches (including autowarming), [re]build the > > >> relevant searchers etc. and make any index changes visible to the RO > > >> instance. > > >> Also, make sure to use <lockType>native</lockType> in solrconfig.xml > to > > >> ensure the two instances don't try to commit at the same time. > > >> There are several ways to trigger a commit: > > >> Call commit() periodically within your own code. > > >> Use autoCommit in solrconfig.xml. > > >> Use an RPC/IPC mechanism between the 2 instance processes to tell the > > >> searcher the index has changed, then call commit when called (more > > complex > > >> coding, but good if the index changes on an ad-hoc basis). > > >> Note, doing things this way isn't really suitable for an NRT > > environment. > > >> > > >> HTH, > > >> Peter > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Roman Chyla <roman.ch...@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Replication is fine, I am going to use it, but I wanted it for > > instances > > >> > *distributed* across several (physical) machines - but here I have > one > > >> > physical machine, it has many cores. I want to run 2 instances of > solr > > >> > because I think it has these benefits: > > >> > > > >> > 1) I can give less RAM to the writer (4GB), and use more RAM for the > > >> > searcher (28GB) > > >> > 2) I can deactivate warming for the writer and keep it for the > > searcher > > >> > (this considerably speeds up indexing - each time we commit, the > > server > > >> is > > >> > rebuilding a citation network of 80M edges) > > >> > 3) saving disk space and better OS caching (OS should be able to use > > >> more > > >> > RAM for the caching, which should result in faster operations - the > > two > > >> > processes are accessing the same index) > > >> > > > >> > Maybe I should just forget it and go with the replication, but it > > >> doesn't > > >> > 'feel right' IFF it is on the same physical machine. And Lucene > > >> > specifically has a method for discovering changes and re-opening the > > >> index > > >> > (DirectoryReader.openIfChanged) > > >> > > > >> > Am I not seeing something? > > >> > > > >> > roman > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Jason Hellman < > > >> > jhell...@innoventsolutions.com> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Roman, > > >> > > > > >> > > Could you be more specific as to why replication doesn't meet your > > >> > > requirements? It was geared explicitly for this purpose, > including > > >> the > > >> > > automatic discovery of changes to the data on the index master. > > >> > > > > >> > > Jason > > >> > > > > >> > > On Jun 4, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Roman Chyla <roman.ch...@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > OK, so I have verified the two instances can run alongside, > > sharing > > >> the > > >> > > > same datadir > > >> > > > > > >> > > > All update handlers are unaccessible in the read-only master > > >> > > > > > >> > > > <updateHandler class="solr.DirectUpdateHandler2" > > >> > > > enable="${solr.can.write:true}"> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > java -Dsolr.can.write=false ..... > > >> > > > > > >> > > > And I can reload the index manually: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > curl " > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > http://localhost:5005/solr/admin/cores?wt=json&action=RELOAD&core=collection1 > > >> > > > " > > >> > > > > > >> > > > But this is not an ideal solution; I'd like for the read-only > > >> server to > > >> > > > discover index changes on its own. Any pointers? > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thanks, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > roman > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Roman Chyla < > > roman.ch...@gmail.com> > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> Hello, > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> I need your expert advice. I am thinking about running two > > >> instances > > >> > of > > >> > > >> solr that share the same datadirectory. The *reason* being: > > >> indexing > > >> > > >> instance is constantly building cache after every commit (we > > have a > > >> > big > > >> > > >> cache) and this slows it down. But indexing doesn't need much > > RAM, > > >> > only > > >> > > the > > >> > > >> search does (and server has lots of CPUs) > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> So, it is like having two solr instances > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> 1. solr-indexing-master > > >> > > >> 2. solr-read-only-master > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> In the solrconfig.xml I can disable update components, It > should > > be > > >> > > fine. > > >> > > >> However, I don't know how to 'trigger' index re-opening on (2) > > >> after > > >> > the > > >> > > >> commit happens on (1). > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Ideally, the second instance could monitor the disk and re-open > > >> disk > > >> > > after > > >> > > >> new files appear there. Do I have to implement custom > > >> > > IndexReaderFactory? > > >> > > >> Or something else? > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Please note: I know about the replication, this usecase is IMHO > > >> > slightly > > >> > > >> different - in fact, write-only-master (1) is also a > replication > > >> > master > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Googling turned out only this > > >> > > >> > > >> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.jakarta.lucene.solr.user/71912 - > > >> > > no > > >> > > >> pointers there. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> But If I am approaching the problem wrongly, please don't > > hesitate > > >> to > > >> > > >> 're-educate' me :) > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Thanks! > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> roman > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
