I'm wondering if we shouldn't ditch the new term "partition" here and just use "replica"?
In the past, we've sort of used "shard" to mean both a single physical index, and the logical piece of the larger collection. In practice, this ambiguity normally isn't much of a problem as it's normally clear by context and when it's not we sometimes throw in the word "replica". Examples: "Doc X belongs on Shard Z", "Shard Z on this node is corrupt". Refreshing my memory on our ZK layout, it seems like we are using "shards" in the logical sense there. /COLLECTIONS (v=6 children=1) COLLECTION1 (v=0 children=1) "configName=myconf" SHARDS (v=0 children=1) SHARD1 (v=0 children=1) ROGUE.LOCAL:8983_SOLR_ (v=0) "node_name=Rogue.local:8983_solr url=http://Rogue.local:8983/solr/" So perhaps we should just continue that, and change "partition" to "replica" when necessary to prevent ambiguity? -Yonik http://www.lucene-eurocon.com - The Lucene/Solr User Conference --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org