You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to solr-user@lucene.apache.org by Alexander Wallace <aw...@rwmotloc.com> on 2007/11/20 16:43:42 UTC
Solr cluster topology.
Hi All!
I just started reading about Solr a couple of days ago (not full time
of course) and it looks like a pretty impressive set of
technologies... I have still a few questions I have not clearly found:
Q: On a cluster, as I understand it, one and only one machine is a
master, and N servers could be slaves... The clients, do they all
talk to the master for indexing and to a load balancer for
searching? Is one particular machine configured to know it is the
master? Or is it only the settings for replicating the index that
matter? Or does one post reindex petitions to any of the slaves and
they will forward it to the master?
How can we have failover in the master?
It is a correct assumption that slaves could always be a bit out of
sync with the master, correct? A matter of minutes perhaps...
Thanks in advance for your responses!
Re: Solr cluster topology.
Posted by Alexander Wallace <aw...@rwmotloc.com>.
Thanks a lot for your responses! They were all very helpful!
On Nov 20, 2007, at 5:52 PM, Norberto Meijome wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:26:27 -0600
> Alexander Wallace <aw...@rwmotloc.com> wrote:
>
>> Interesting, this ALL MASTERS mode... I guess you don't do any
>> replication then...
>
> correct
>
>> In the single master, several slaves mode, I'm assuming the client
>> still writes to one and reads from the others... right?
>
> Correct again.
>
> There is also another approach which I think in SOLR is called
> FederatedSearch , where a front end queries a number of index
> servers (each with overlapping or non-overlapping data sets) and
> puts together 1 result stream for the answer. There was some
> discussion on the list, http://www.mail-archive.com/solr-
> user@lucene.apache.org/msg06081.html is the earliest link in the
> archive i can find .
>
> B
> _________________________
> {Beto|Norberto|Numard} Meijome
>
> "People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of
> thought which they avoid. "
> Soren Aabye Kierkegaard
>
> I speak for myself, not my employer. Contents may be hot. Slippery
> when wet. Reading disclaimers makes you go blind. Writing them is
> worse. You have been Warned.
>
Re: Solr cluster topology.
Posted by Norberto Meijome <fr...@meijome.net>.
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:26:27 -0600
Alexander Wallace <aw...@rwmotloc.com> wrote:
> Interesting, this ALL MASTERS mode... I guess you don't do any
> replication then...
correct
> In the single master, several slaves mode, I'm assuming the client
> still writes to one and reads from the others... right?
Correct again.
There is also another approach which I think in SOLR is called FederatedSearch , where a front end queries a number of index servers (each with overlapping or non-overlapping data sets) and puts together 1 result stream for the answer. There was some discussion on the list, http://www.mail-archive.com/solr-user@lucene.apache.org/msg06081.html is the earliest link in the archive i can find .
B
_________________________
{Beto|Norberto|Numard} Meijome
"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. "
Soren Aabye Kierkegaard
I speak for myself, not my employer. Contents may be hot. Slippery when wet. Reading disclaimers makes you go blind. Writing them is worse. You have been Warned.
Re: Solr cluster topology.
Posted by Alexander Wallace <aw...@rwmotloc.com>.
Thanks for the response!
Interesting, this ALL MASTERS mode... I guess you don't do any
replication then...
In the single master, several slaves mode, I'm assuming the client
still writes to one and reads from the others... right?
On Nov 20, 2007, at 12:54 PM, Matthew Runo wrote:
> Yes. The clients will always be a minute or two behind the master.
>
> I like the way some people are doing it - make them all masters!
> Just post your updates to each of them - you loose a bit of
> performance perhaps, but it doesn't matter if a server bombs out or
> you have to upgrade them, since they're all exactly the same.
>
> --Matthew
>
> On Nov 20, 2007, at 7:43 AM, Alexander Wallace wrote:
>
>> Hi All!
>>
>> I just started reading about Solr a couple of days ago (not full
>> time of course) and it looks like a pretty impressive set of
>> technologies... I have still a few questions I have not clearly
>> found:
>>
>> Q: On a cluster, as I understand it, one and only one machine is a
>> master, and N servers could be slaves... The clients, do they
>> all talk to the master for indexing and to a load balancer for
>> searching? Is one particular machine configured to know it is
>> the master? Or is it only the settings for replicating the index
>> that matter? Or does one post reindex petitions to any of the
>> slaves and they will forward it to the master?
>>
>> How can we have failover in the master?
>>
>> It is a correct assumption that slaves could always be a bit out
>> of sync with the master, correct? A matter of minutes perhaps...
>>
>> Thanks in advance for your responses!
>>
>>
>
>
RE: Solr cluster topology.
Posted by "Norskog, Lance" <la...@divvio.com>.
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/CollectionDistribution
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrCollectionDistributionScripts
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrCollectionDistributionStatusStats
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrOperationsTools
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrCollectionDistributionOperationsOutline
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/CollectionRebuilding
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrAdminGUI
-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Runo [mailto:mruno@zappos.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 10:54 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Solr cluster topology.
Yes. The clients will always be a minute or two behind the master.
I like the way some people are doing it - make them all masters! Just
post your updates to each of them - you loose a bit of performance
perhaps, but it doesn't matter if a server bombs out or you have to
upgrade them, since they're all exactly the same.
--Matthew
On Nov 20, 2007, at 7:43 AM, Alexander Wallace wrote:
> Hi All!
>
> I just started reading about Solr a couple of days ago (not full time
> of course) and it looks like a pretty impressive set of
> technologies... I have still a few questions I have not clearly found:
>
> Q: On a cluster, as I understand it, one and only one machine is a
> master, and N servers could be slaves... The clients, do they all
> talk to the master for indexing and to a load balancer for
> searching? Is one particular machine configured to know it is the
> master? Or is it only the settings for replicating the index that
> matter? Or does one post reindex petitions to any of the slaves
> and they will forward it to the master?
>
> How can we have failover in the master?
>
> It is a correct assumption that slaves could always be a bit out of
> sync with the master, correct? A matter of minutes perhaps...
>
> Thanks in advance for your responses!
>
>
Re: Solr cluster topology.
Posted by Matthew Runo <mr...@zappos.com>.
Yes. The clients will always be a minute or two behind the master.
I like the way some people are doing it - make them all masters! Just
post your updates to each of them - you loose a bit of performance
perhaps, but it doesn't matter if a server bombs out or you have to
upgrade them, since they're all exactly the same.
--Matthew
On Nov 20, 2007, at 7:43 AM, Alexander Wallace wrote:
> Hi All!
>
> I just started reading about Solr a couple of days ago (not full
> time of course) and it looks like a pretty impressive set of
> technologies... I have still a few questions I have not clearly found:
>
> Q: On a cluster, as I understand it, one and only one machine is a
> master, and N servers could be slaves... The clients, do they all
> talk to the master for indexing and to a load balancer for
> searching? Is one particular machine configured to know it is the
> master? Or is it only the settings for replicating the index that
> matter? Or does one post reindex petitions to any of the slaves
> and they will forward it to the master?
>
> How can we have failover in the master?
>
> It is a correct assumption that slaves could always be a bit out of
> sync with the master, correct? A matter of minutes perhaps...
>
> Thanks in advance for your responses!
>
>