The downsides that come to mind:
1. Every write gets amplified by the number of nodes in the cloud. 1000
write requests end up creating 1000*N HTTP calls as the leader forwards
those writes individually to all of the followers in the cloud. Contrast
that with classical replication where only changed index segments get
replicated asynchronously.
2. Slightly more complicated infrastructure in terms of having to run a
zookeeper cluster.
#1 is a trade off against being possibly more available to writes in the
case of a single down node. In the cloud case, you're still open for
business. In the classical replication case, you're no longer available
for writes if the downed node is the master.
My two cents.
On 1/6/15 16:30, Will Milspec wrote:
Hi all,
We have a smallish index that performs well for searches and are
considering using solrcloud --but just for high availability/redundancy,
i.e. without any sharding.
The indexes would be replicated, but not distributed.
I know that "there are no stupid questions..Only stupid people"...but here
goes:
-is solrcloud w/o sharding done?( I.e. "it's just not done!!" )
-any downside (i.e. aside from the lack of horizontal scalability )
will
