lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Otis Gospodnetic <otis_gospodne...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Infrastructure for large Lucene index
Date Wed, 11 Oct 2006 07:04:57 GMT
It sounds like the 11th node would have to have a large disk with all indices.  Or perhaps
you'd keep copies of all your indices elsewhere, and would pull the right one in when you
see which node you need to replace.

Otis

----- Original Message ----
From: Slava Imeshev <imeshev@yahoo.com>
To: general@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 4:34:07 PM
Subject: Re: Infrastructure for large Lucene index

Doug,

--- Doug Cutting <cutting@apache.org> wrote:

> > the availability of this approach doesn't scale very cleanly though ... if
> > any one box in either cluster goes down, the entire cluster becomes
> > unusable.
> 
> A cost-effective variation works as follows: if you have 10 indexes and 
> 11 nodes, then you keep one node as a spare.  When any of the 10 active 
> nodes fail, the 11th resumes its duties.  While the 11th node is 
> launching you search only 9 out of the 10 indexes, so failover is not 
> entirely seamless, but it's a lot cheaper than mirroring all nodes.

How does the 11th know what index it has to bring up? In other words, 
where would it get the lost index?

Slava





Mime
View raw message