Layer 2 bridge SAN is just for my Apache/apps on Conga so they can be spun on up any host with a static IP. This has nothing to do with Solr which is running on plain old hardware.
Solrcloud is on a real cluster not on a SAN. The bit about dead with no error. I got this from a post I made asking about the best way to deploy apps. Was shown some code on making your app zookeeper aware. I am just getting to this so I'm talking from my ass. A ZK aware program will have a list of nodes ready for business verses a plain old Round Robin. If data on a machine is corrupted you can get 0 docs found while a ZK aware app will know that node is shite. On 16 December 2016 at 07:20, Dorian Hoxha <dorian.ho...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:39 PM, GW <thegeofo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dorian, > > > > From my reading, my belief is that you just need some beefy machines for > > your zookeeper ensemble so they can think fast. > > Zookeeper need to think fast enough for cluster state/changes. So I think > it scales with the number of machines/collections/shards and not documents. > > > After that your issues are > > complicated by drive I/O which I believe is solved by using shards. If > you > > have a collection running on top of a single drive array it should not > > compare to writing to a dozen drive arrays. So a whole bunch of light > duty > > machines that have a decent amount of memory and barely able process > faster > > than their drive I/O will serve you better. > > > My dataset will be lower than total memory, so I expect no query to hit > disk. > > > > > I think the Apache big data mandate was to be horizontally scalable to > > infinity with cheap consumer hardware. In my minds eye you are not going > to > > get crazy input rates without a big horizontal drive system. > > > There is overhead with small machines, and with very big machines (pricy). > So something in the middle. > So small cluster of big machines or big cluster of small machines. > > > > > I'm in the same boat. All the scaling and roll out documentation seems to > > reference the Witch Doctor's secret handbook. > > > > I just started into making my applications ZK aware and really just > > starting to understand the architecture. After a whole year I still feel > > weak while at the same time I have traveled far. I still feel like an > > amateur. > > > > My plans are to use bridge tools in Linux so all my machines are sitting > on > > the switch with layer 2. Then use Conga to monitor which apps need to be > > running. If a server dies, it's apps are spun up on one of the other > > servers using the original IP and mac address through a bridge firewall > > gateway so there is no hold up with with mac phreaking like layer 3. > Layer > > 3 does not like to see a route change with a mac address. My apps will be > > on a SAN ~ Data on as many shards/machines as financially possible. > > > By conga you mean https://sourceware.org/cluster/conga/spec/ ? > Also SAN may/will suck like someone answered in your thread. > > > > > I was going to put a bunch of Apache web servers in round robin to talk > to > > Solr but discovered that a Solr node can be dead and not report errors. > > > Please explain more "dead but no error". > > > It's all rough at the moment but it makes total sense to send Solr > requests > > based on what ZK says is available verses a round robin. > > > Yes, like I&other commenter wrote on your thread. > > > > > Will keep you posted on my roll out if you like. > > > > Best, > > > > GW > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 16 December 2016 at 03:31, Dorian Hoxha <dorian.ho...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Hello searchers, > > > > > > I'm researching solr for a project that would require a > > max-inserts(10M/s) > > > and some heavy facet+fq on top of that, though on low qps. > > > > > > And I'm trying to find blogs/slides where people have used some big > > > machines instead of hundreds of small ones. > > > > > > 1. Largest I've found is this > > > <https://sbdevel.wordpress.com/2016/11/30/70tb-16b-docs- > > > 4-machines-1-solrcloud/> > > > with 16cores + 384GB ram but they were using 25! solr4 instances / > server > > > which seems wasteful to me ? > > > > > > I know that 1 solr can have max ~29-30GB heap because GC is > > wasteful/sucks > > > after that, and you should leave the other amount to the os for > > file-cache. > > > 2. But do you think 1 instance will be able to fully-use a 256GB/20core > > > machine ? > > > > > > 3. Like to share your findings/links with big-machine clusters ? > > > > > > Thank You > > > > > >
