Return-Path: 
 <solr-user-return-93054-apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive=lucene.apache.org@lucene.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 26A2010137
	for <apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org>;
 Sun, 27 Oct 2013 21:03:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 67263 invoked by uid 500); 27 Oct 2013 21:03:46 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@lucene.apache.org
Received: (qmail 67149 invoked by uid 500); 27 Oct 2013 21:03:39 -0000
Mailing-List: contact solr-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:solr-user-help@lucene.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:solr-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:solr-user@lucene.apache.org>
List-Id: <solr-user.lucene.apache.org>
Reply-To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Received: (qmail 67138 invoked by uid 99); 27 Oct 2013 21:03:36 -0000
Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 21:03:36 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0
	tests=MIME_QP_LONG_LINE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,URI_HEX
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of billnbell@gmail.com designates
 209.85.216.46 as permitted sender)
Received: from [209.85.216.46] (HELO mail-qa0-f46.google.com) (209.85.216.46)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 21:03:31 +0000
Received: by mail-qa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id j15so1675626qaq.5
        for <solr-user@lucene.apache.org>;
 Sun, 27 Oct 2013 14:03:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references:in-reply-to
         :mime-version:message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to;
        bh=7nwXXkYfIA6jeLR45VlGT43gxFai6qiubMk1g1oI/kU=;
        b=NWJJwT47IBBJjV7Ke+9IuxVEcLh2hBzdRP9XToiGwOGSpgco+NzD+YTjBMQlg6GE7S
         xx3EB9wCWxq0wufaQVWReuZOBuvpr4UVwXpgnWc7FXKiqeZD9DjA4D37btocjLpF+OiW
         1PzO027vMjPRBFOQdod+8uYm+UqW/MAwbBwVSHlnuIFqVRW+R2XwR5yqzhqDX3CjlghR
         WMniLSdOKSm+YSlfzsmZ3lQcclo8T+paszXZWW1aGc+xAT1FyQqDCzZe4eflGMXfi+Xz
         zgufknhERcsymQ423jVH/zZPKgYZ8gdRC8QpmjWfrXI43UAA0RCmn5GMIrtf71BXnJdR
         zOQw==
X-Received: by 10.229.244.69 with SMTP id lp5mr25058254qcb.14.1382907790393;
        Sun, 27 Oct 2013 14:03:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2600:1008:b10e:a88c:b9:85dc:9d3f:7d1?
 ([2600:1008:b10e:a88c:b9:85dc:9d3f:7d1])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 5sm45568203qao.3.2013.10.27.14.03.08
        for <multiple recipients>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Sun, 27 Oct 2013 14:03:09 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
References: <1382614074570-4097501.post@n3.nabble.com>
In-Reply-To: <1382614074570-4097501.post@n3.nabble.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Message-Id: <6A0ED659-715B-4D4E-AA10-2697FEFF8539@gmail.com>
Cc: "solr-user@lucene.apache.org" <solr-user@lucene.apache.org>
From: Bill Bell <billnbell@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Proposal for new feature, cold replicas, brainstorming
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 15:33:30 -0500
To: "solr-user@lucene.apache.org" <solr-user@lucene.apache.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11B511)
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

Yeah replicate to a DR site would be good too.=20

Bill Bell
Sent from mobile


> On Oct 24, 2013, at 6:27 AM, yriveiro <yago.riveiro@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> I'm wondering some time ago if it's possible have replicas of a shard
> synchronized but in an state that they can't accept queries only updates.=20=

>=20
> This replica in "replication" mode only awake to accept queries if it's th=
e
> last alive replica and goes to replication mode when other replica becomes=

> alive and synchronized.
>=20
> The motivation of this is simple, I want have replication but I don't want=

> have n replicas actives with full resources allocated (cache and so on).
> This is usefull in enviroments where replication is needed but a high quer=
y
> throughput is not fundamental and the resources are limited.
>=20
> I know that right now is not possible, but I think that it's a feature tha=
t
> can be implemented in a easy way creating a new status for shards.
>=20
> The bottom line question is, I'm the only one with this kind of
> requeriments? Does it make sense one functionality like this?
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -----
> Best regards
> --
> View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Proposal-=
for-new-feature-cold-replicas-brainstorming-tp4097501.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.