Master Slave set up in Solr Cloud

["S.L" <si...@gmail.com>]

Hi All,

As I previously reported due to no overlap in terms of the documets in the
SolrCloud replicas of the index shards , I have turned off the replication
and basically have there shards with a replication factor of 1.

It obviously seems will not be scalable due to the fact that the same core
will be indexed and queried at the same time as this is a long running
indexing task.

My questions is what options do I have to set up the replicas of the single
per shard core outside of the SolrCloud replication factor mechanism
because that does not seem to work for me ?


Thanks.

Re: Master Slave set up in Solr Cloud

["Meraj A. Khan" <me...@gmail.com>]

Eirck,

I meant having a replication factor of 1 in SolrCloud would not be
scalable, I ended up using a replication factor of 1 , because of the
disjoint replicas issue for replication factor greater than 1 , that I
mentioned previously in the other email thread.

Are you saying that a SolrCloud cluster with a replication factor of 1
would be performant as well ? I had read in SolrCloud documentation
that the required number of replicas is directly proportional to the
number of queries(concurrent).

Thanks

On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 11:59 PM, Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I _strongly_ urge you to try it before assuming it won't work.
>
> bq: It obviously seems will not be scalable due to the fact that the same core
> will be indexed and queried at the same time as this is a long running
> indexing task.
>
> What evidence do you have for this? SolrCloud is designed for this scenario.
> You have to have a huge ingestion rate for this to be a problem, essentially you
> need to be pushing Solr's CPU utilization through the roof.
>
> I don't know of configurations where you can essentially have each of
> your shards
> act as a master in the old-style master/slave situation. But a lot of
> people with
> very high indexing and query rates seem to make SolrCloud work in
> their situations,
> before recommending anything I'd like to see some evidence that the stock
> solution won't work.
>
> Best,
> Erick
>
> On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 7:06 PM, S.L <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Resending this  as I might have not been clear in my earlier query.
>>
>> I want to use SolrCloud for everything except the replication , is it
>> possible to set up the master-slave configuration using different Solr
>> instances and still be able to use the sharding feature provided by
>> SolrCloud ?
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 6:18 PM, S.L <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> As I previously reported due to no overlap in terms of the documets in the
>>> SolrCloud replicas of the index shards , I have turned off the replication
>>> and basically have there shards with a replication factor of 1.
>>>
>>> It obviously seems will not be scalable due to the fact that the same core
>>> will be indexed and queried at the same time as this is a long running
>>> indexing task.
>>>
>>> My questions is what options do I have to set up the replicas of the single
>>> per shard core outside of the SolrCloud replication factor mechanism because
>>> that does not seem to work for me ?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>

Re: Master Slave set up in Solr Cloud

[Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>]

I _strongly_ urge you to try it before assuming it won't work.

bq: It obviously seems will not be scalable due to the fact that the same core
will be indexed and queried at the same time as this is a long running
indexing task.

What evidence do you have for this? SolrCloud is designed for this scenario.
You have to have a huge ingestion rate for this to be a problem, essentially you
need to be pushing Solr's CPU utilization through the roof.

I don't know of configurations where you can essentially have each of
your shards
act as a master in the old-style master/slave situation. But a lot of
people with
very high indexing and query rates seem to make SolrCloud work in
their situations,
before recommending anything I'd like to see some evidence that the stock
solution won't work.

Best,
Erick

On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 7:06 PM, S.L <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Resending this  as I might have not been clear in my earlier query.
>
> I want to use SolrCloud for everything except the replication , is it
> possible to set up the master-slave configuration using different Solr
> instances and still be able to use the sharding feature provided by
> SolrCloud ?
>
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 6:18 PM, S.L <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> As I previously reported due to no overlap in terms of the documets in the
>> SolrCloud replicas of the index shards , I have turned off the replication
>> and basically have there shards with a replication factor of 1.
>>
>> It obviously seems will not be scalable due to the fact that the same core
>> will be indexed and queried at the same time as this is a long running
>> indexing task.
>>
>> My questions is what options do I have to set up the replicas of the single
>> per shard core outside of the SolrCloud replication factor mechanism because
>> that does not seem to work for me ?
>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>

Re: Master Slave set up in Solr Cloud

["S.L" <si...@gmail.com>]

Resending this  as I might have not been clear in my earlier query.

I want to use SolrCloud for everything except the replication , is it
possible to set up the master-slave configuration using different Solr
instances and still be able to use the sharding feature provided by
SolrCloud ?

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 6:18 PM, S.L <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> As I previously reported due to no overlap in terms of the documets in the
> SolrCloud replicas of the index shards , I have turned off the replication
> and basically have there shards with a replication factor of 1.
>
> It obviously seems will not be scalable due to the fact that the same core
> will be indexed and queried at the same time as this is a long running
> indexing task.
>
> My questions is what options do I have to set up the replicas of the single
> per shard core outside of the SolrCloud replication factor mechanism because
> that does not seem to work for me ?
>
>
> Thanks.
>