I'm also not really an HDFS expert but I believe it is slightly different:

The HDFS data is replicated, lets say 3 times, between the HDFS data nodes but for an HDFS client it looks like one directory and it is hidden that the data is replicated. Every client should see the same data. Just like every client should see the same data in ZooKeeper (every ZK node also has a full replica). So with 2 replicas there should only be two disjoint data sets. Thus it should not matter which solr node claims the replica and then continues where things were left. Solr should only be concerned about the replication between the solr replicas but not about the replication between the HDFS data nodes, just as it does not have to deal with the replication between the ZK nodes.

Anyhow, for now I would be happy if my patch for SOLR-10092 could get included soon as the auto add replica feature does not work without that at all for me :-)

On 22.02.2017 16:15, Erick Erickson wrote:
bq: in the none HDFS case that sounds logical but in the HDFS case all
the index data is in the shared HDFS file system

That's not really the point, and it's not quite true. The Solr index
unique _per replica_. So replica1 points to an HDFS directory (that's
triply replicated to be sure). replica2 points to a totally different
set of index files. So with the default replication of 3 your two
replicas will have 6 copies of the index that are totally disjoint in
two sets of three. From Solr's point of view, the fact that HDFS
replicates the data doesn't really alter much.

Autoaddreplica will indeed, to be able to re-use the HDFS data if a
Solr node goes away. But that doesn't change the replication issue I
described.

At least that's my understanding, I admit I'm not an HDFS guy and it
may be out of date.

Erick

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:30 PM, Hendrik Haddorp
<hendrik.hadd...@gmx.net> wrote:
Hi Erick,

in the none HDFS case that sounds logical but in the HDFS case all the index
data is in the shared HDFS file system. Even the transaction logs should be
in there. So the node that once had the replica should not really have more
information then any other node, especially if legacyClound is set to false
so having ZooKeeper truth.

regards,
Hendrik

On 22.02.2017 02:28, Erick Erickson wrote:
Hendrik:

bq: Not really sure why one replica needs to be up though.

I didn't write the code so I'm guessing a bit, but consider the
situation where you have no replicas for a shard up and add a new one.
Eventually it could become the leader but there would have been no
chance for it to check if it's version of the index was up to date.
But since it would be the leader, when other replicas for that shard
_do_ come on line they'd replicate the index down from the newly added
replica, possibly using very old data.

FWIW,
Erick

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Hendrik Haddorp
<hendrik.hadd...@gmx.net> wrote:
Hi,

I had opened SOLR-10092
(https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10092)
for this a while ago. I was now able to gt this feature working with a
very
small code change. After a few seconds Solr reassigns the replica to a
different Solr instance as long as one replica is still up. Not really
sure
why one replica needs to be up though. I added the patch based on Solr
6.3
to the bug report. Would be great if it could be merged soon.

regards,
Hendrik

On 19.01.2017 17:08, Hendrik Haddorp wrote:
HDFS is like a shared filesystem so every Solr Cloud instance can access
the data using the same path or URL. The clusterstate.json looks like
this:

"shards":{"shard1":{
          "range":"80000000-7fffffff",
          "state":"active",
          "replicas":{
            "core_node1":{
              "core":"test1.collection-0_shard1_replica1",
"dataDir":"hdfs://master...:8000/test1.collection-0/core_node1/data/",
              "base_url":"http://slave3....:9000/solr";,
              "node_name":"slave3....:9000_solr",
              "state":"active",


"ulogDir":"hdfs://master....:8000/test1.collection-0/core_node1/data/tlog"},
            "core_node2":{
              "core":"test1.collection-0_shard1_replica2",
"dataDir":"hdfs://master....:8000/test1.collection-0/core_node2/data/",
              "base_url":"http://slave2....:9000/solr";,
              "node_name":"slave2....:9000_solr",
              "state":"active",


"ulogDir":"hdfs://master....:8000/test1.collection-0/core_node2/data/tlog",
              "leader":"true"},
            "core_node3":{
              "core":"test1.collection-0_shard1_replica3",
"dataDir":"hdfs://master....:8000/test1.collection-0/core_node3/data/",
              "base_url":"http://slave4....:9005/solr";,
              "node_name":"slave4....:9005_solr",
              "state":"active",


"ulogDir":"hdfs://master....:8000/test1.collection-0/core_node3/data/tlog"}}}}

So every replica is always assigned to one node and this is being stored
in ZK, pretty much the same as for none HDFS setups. Just as the data is
not
stored locally but on the network and as the path does not contain any
node
information you can of course easily take over the work to a different
Solr
node. You should just need to update the owner of the replica in ZK and
you
should basically be done, I assume. That's why the documentation states
that
an advantage of using HDFS is that a failing node can be replaced by a
different one. The Overseer just has to move the ownership of the
replica,
which seems like what the code is trying to do. There just seems to be a
bug
in the code so that the core does not get created on the target node.

Each data directory also contains a lock file. The documentation states
that one should use the HdfsLockFactory, which unfortunately can easily
lead
to SOLR-8335, which hopefully will be fixed by SOLR-8169. A manual
cleanup
is however also easily done but seems to require a node restart to take
effect. But I'm also only recently playing around with all this ;-)

regards,
Hendrik

On 19.01.2017 16:40, Shawn Heisey wrote:
On 1/19/2017 4:09 AM, Hendrik Haddorp wrote:
Given that the data is on HDFS it shouldn't matter if any active
replica is left as the data does not need to get transferred from
another instance but the new core will just take over the existing
data. Thus a replication factor of 1 should also work just in that
case the shard would be down until the new core is up. Anyhow, it
looks like the above call is missing to set the shard id I guess or
some code is checking wrongly.
I know very little about how SolrCloud interacts with HDFS, so although
I'm reasonably certain about what comes below, I could be wrong.

I have not ever heard of SolrCloud being able to automatically take
over
an existing index directory when it creates a replica, or even share
index directories unless the admin fools it into doing so without its
knowledge.  Sharing an index directory for replicas with SolrCloud
would
NOT work correctly.  Solr must be able to update all replicas
independently, which means that each of them will lock its index
directory and write to it.

It is my understanding (from reading messages on mailing lists) that
when using HDFS, Solr replicas are all separate and consume additional
disk space, just like on a regular filesystem.

I found the code that generates the "No shard id" exception, but my
knowledge of how the zookeeper code in Solr works is not deep enough to
understand what it means or how to fix it.

Thanks,
Shawn


Reply via email to