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. I’m 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
