lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shivaji Dutta <sdu...@hortonworks.com>
Subject Re: Pro and cons of using Solr Cloud vs standard Master Slave Replica
Date Wed, 13 Jan 2016 14:02:29 GMT
- SolrCloud uses zookeeper to manage HA
	- Zookeeper is a standard for all HA in Apache Hadoop
- You have collections which will manage your shards across nodes
- SolrJ Client is now fault tolerant with CloudSolrClient

This is the way future direction of the product will go.



On 1/13/16, 5:58 AM, "Gian Maria Ricci - aka Alkampfer"
<alkampfer@nablasoft.com> wrote:

>Thanks.
>
>--
>Gian Maria Ricci
>Cell: +39 320 0136949
>    
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Shawn Heisey [mailto:apache@elyograg.org]
>Sent: lunedì 11 gennaio 2016 18:28
>To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Pro and cons of using Solr Cloud vs standard Master Slave
>Replica
>
>On 1/11/2016 4:28 AM, Gian Maria Ricci - aka Alkampfer wrote:
>> a customer need a comprehensive list of all pro and cons of using
>> standard Master Slave replica VS using Solr Cloud. I¹m interested
>> especially in query performance consideration, because in this
>> specific situation the rate of new documents is really slow, but the
>> amount of data is about 50 millions of document, and the index size on
>> disk for single core is about 30 GB.
>
>The primary advantage to SolrCloud is that SolrCloud handles most of the
>administrative and operational details for you automatically.
>
>SolrCloud is a little more complicated to set up initially, because you
>must worry about Zookeeper as well as Solr, but once it's properly set
>up, there is no single point of failure.
>
>> Such amount of data should be easily handled by a Master Slave replica
>> with a  single core replicated on a certain number of slaves, but we
>> need to evaluate also the option of SolrCloud, especially for fault
>> tolerance.
>>
>
>Once you're beyond initial setup, fault tolerance with SolrCloud is much
>easier than master/slave replication.  Switching a slave to a master is
>possible, but the procedure is somewhat complicated.  SolrCloud does not
>*have* masters, it is a true cluster.
>
>With master/slave replication, the master handles all indexing, and the
>finished index segments are copied to the slaves via HTTP, and the slaves
>simply need to open them.  SolrCloud does indexing on all shard replicas,
>nearly simultaneously.  Usually this is an advantage, not a disadvantage,
>but in heavy indexing situations master/slave replication
>*might* show better performance on the slaves.
>
>Thanks,
>Shawn
>
>


Mime
View raw message