lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Rafael Rossini" <rafael.ross...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: solr+hadoop = next solr
Date Thu, 07 Jun 2007 21:07:17 GMT
Hi, Jeff and Mike.

   Would you mind telling us about the architecture of your solutions a
little bit? Mike, you said that you implemented a highly-distributed search
engine using Solr as indexing nodes. What does that mean? You guys
implemented a master, multi-slave solution for replication? Or the whole
index shards for high availability and fail over?


On 6/7/07, Jeff Rodenburg <jeff.rodenburg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Mike - thanks for the comments.  Some responses added below.
>
> On 6/7/07, Mike Klaas <mike.klaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I've implemented a highly-distributed search engine using Solr (200m
> > docs and growing, 60+ servers).   It is not a Solr-based solution in
> > the vein of FederatedSearch--it is a higher-level architecture that
> > uses Solr as indexing nodes.  I'll note that it is a lot of work and
> > would be even more work to develop in the generic extensible
> > philosophy that Solr espouses.
>
>
> Yeah, we've done the same thing in the .Net world, and it's a tough slog.
> We're in the same situation -- making our solution generically extensible
> is
> pretty much a non-starter.
>
> > In terms of the FederatedSearch wiki entry (updated last year), has
> > > there
> > > been any progress made this year on this topic, at least something
> > > worthy of
> > > being added or updated to the wiki page?  Not to splinter efforts
> > > here, but
> > > maybe a working group that was focused on that topic could help to
> > > move
> > > things forward a bit.
> >
> > I don't believe that absence of organization has been the cause of
> > lack of forward progress on this issue, but simply that there has
> > been no-one sufficiently interested and committed to prioritizing
> > this huge task to work on it.  There is no need to form a working
> > group (not when there are only a handful of active committers to
> > begin with)--all interested people could just use solr-dev@ for
> > discussion.
>
>
> That makes sense, just didn't want to bombard the list with the subject if
> it was a detractor from the core project, i.e. keep lucene messages on
> lucene, solr messages on solr, etc.  The good-community-participant
> approach, if you will.
>
> Solr is an open-source project, so huge features will get implemented
> > when there is a person or group of people devoted to leading the
> > charge on the issue.  If you're interested in being that person,
> > that's great!
> >
> >
> Glad to jump in, not sure I qualify as such for that, but certainly a big
> cheerleader nonetheless.
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message