It's not work using Elastic Inc's trademark "Rally" if we can avoid it. They 
are known to pursue such violations. And I believe it is a violation of the 
Apache license too. I like "Solr Orbit" :)

I'll wait some time to let all voices be heard wrt the various tools and which 
to pick going forward, then if everyone rallies (pun intended) around 
solr-benchmark, then we can proceed.

Jan

> 16. apr. 2026 kl. 14:36 skrev David Smiley <[email protected]>:
> 
> Why avoid the word "Rally" if that's its foundation/lineage?  If we
> want to avoid risk of using that word, then we simply ask
> ElasticSearch with our proposed name for our fork that includes that
> word.
> 
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2026 at 3:37 AM Jan Høydahl <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Thanks for presenting the solr-benchmark tool on the community meetup 
>> yesterday Kevin.
>> I'll encourage others to take it for a spin. There are rough edges but you 
>> should be able to get some results.
>> 
>> We also discussed the potential for moving the tool from my github space to 
>> asf.
>> That would make it easier for the community to contribute and collaborate. 
>> But it requires 2-3 PMC members interested in being maintainers.
>> If we make it an asf repo, David noted that we are not required to publish 
>> official releases until we feel compelled to do so.
>> Also, David noted the naming collision with the internal solr-benchmark 
>> module. How about "solr-orbit", which is a homage to "Rally" (orbiting the 
>> race track) but in our Solar-system universe :)
>> 
>> As a next step I'll start a VOTE thread for accepting the two repos into 
>> ASF. The results of the VOTE will guide further action.
>> 
>> Jan
>> 
>>> 8. mars 2026 kl. 20:42 skrev Jan Høydahl <[email protected]>:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I read through the benchmarking wiki page today. It was well written, 
>>> thanks Kevin for reviving this effort, and in such a structured way!
>>> 
>>> There's a renewed energy around benchmarking, and more tooling options than 
>>> ever. So to add to the mix I'm presenting yet another one 🤣🤣, "Solr 
>>> Benchmark":
>>> 
>>> https://github.com/janhoy/solr-benchmark
>>> 
>>> You may quickly notice that this looks familiar. And yes, it is a fork/port 
>>> of Rally/OpensearchBenchmark, ported to provision and benchmark Solr 
>>> clusters, using the same datasets and "workload"s as those tools.
>>> I first tried to start a fork 2 or 3 years ago but it stranded. I made a 
>>> new effort using LLM agents and this first working version was prepared in 
>>> a few afternoons.
>>> Even if the foundation is solid and proven over many years, this initial 
>>> port is not complete, view it as a MVP and WIP. Only one workload / dataset 
>>> is ported so far. Take it for a spin...
>>> 
>>> I'll defer to Kevin to add it to the tools list of the wiki and continue 
>>> the analysis effort with this as one of the contenders.
>>> 
>>> Jan
>>> 
>>>> 2. mars 2026 kl. 17:13 skrev Kevin Liang (BLOOMBERG/ 919 3RD A) 
>>>> <[email protected]>:
>>>> 
>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>> 
>>>> Given the recent interest and discussion around Solr performance 
>>>> benchmarking, I figured it would be useful to 1) centralize the discussion 
>>>> and 2) bring it to a long-lived format (that's not email). So with that, I 
>>>> have started 
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SOLR/Solr+Performance+Benchmarking
>>>>  (I figured there's still more discussion to be had before it becomes a 
>>>> SIP with technical requirements).
>>>> 
>>>> I encourage anyone and everyone who is interested to provide their input 
>>>> (comment or edit). This is a community initiative, and shouldn't be 
>>>> limited by me or any biases I may have. Hopefully people find this useful 
>>>> in moving the discussion forward.
>>>> 
>>>> -Kevin
>>> 
>> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to