Mailing-List: contact general-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-Id: <200610102038.k9AKcfjI019295@smtp.ryley.com>
From: "James" <james@ryley.com>
To: <general@lucene.apache.org>
Subject: RE: Infrastructure for large Lucene index
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:38:41 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
thread-index: Acbsq30ohngvgEviQZ2hBWh/oVxqfwAAIFlg
In-Reply-To: <20061010203407.94524.qmail@web55105.mail.re4.yahoo.com>

Save them all and redirect the index reader appropriately when one of the
main indexes fail.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Slava Imeshev [mailto:imeshev@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 4:34 PM
> To: general@lucene.apache.org
> 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