On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Timothy Potter <thelabd...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is not a problem per se, just want to verify that we're not able > to specify which server shard splits are created as of 4.3.1? From > what I've seen, the new cores for the sub-shards are created on the > leader of the shard being split. > > Of course it's easy enough to migrate the new sub-shards to another > node after the fact especially since replication occurs automatically > for the splits. > > Seems like if the shard being split is large enough that doing the > split on the same node could cause some resource issues so might be > better to do the split on another server. Or is my assumption that the > split operation is pretty expensive incorrect?
I think it will be mostly IO - it may or may not be expensive depending on how IO bound your box already is. Splitting directly to a different servers would be cool, but would seem to require some sort of Directory implementation that streams things over the network rather than just locally store on disk. It's something I think we want in the future, but was a bit too much to bite off for the first iteration of this feature. > Lastly, also seems like we don't have control over where the replicas > of the split shards go? Seems like a good idea to optionally allow this... -Yonik http://lucidworks.com
