so my initial test worked, this appeared in ZK now

roles=searcher,indexer

which I can use to tell if it should be used to write to or not.  It
had fewer changes to other files as well

I needed to change
  CloudDescriptor (add roles variable/methods)
  CoreContainer (parse roles attribute)
  ZKController (store roles in ZK)

and now what is in ZK is the following:

roles=searcher,indexer
node_name=hostname:8983_solr
url=http://hostname:8983/solr/

As I said this will meet my need, I can provide my changes back to the
JIRA referenced if this is what is expected from roles.

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Jamie Johnson <jej2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So I see this JIRA which references roles
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2765
>
> I'm looking at implementing what Yonik suggested, namely in
> solrconfig.xml I have something like
>
>    <core name="${coreName}" instanceDir="." shard="${shard}"
> collection="${collection}" roles="searcher,indexer"/>
>
> these will be pulled out and added to the cloudDescriptor so they can
> be saved in ZK.  Seem reasonable?
>
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Jamie Johnson <jej2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> also as an FYI I created this JIRA
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2811
>>
>> which perhaps should be removed if the roles option comes to life.  Is
>> there a JIRA on that now?
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Jamie Johnson <jej2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Thanks for the reply Mark.  So a couple of questions.
>>>
>>> When is distributed indexing going to be available on Trunk?  Are
>>> there docs on it now?
>>>
>>> I think having Roles on the shard would scratch the itch here, because
>>> as you said I could then include a role which indicated what to do
>>> with this server.
>>>
>>> My use case is actually for something outside of Solr.  As of right
>>> now we are not on the latest trunk (actually a few months back I
>>> think) but could push to upgrade to it if the distributed indexing
>>> code was available today, but management may still shoot that down
>>> because of a short timeline.  Suffice it to say that I'll be reading
>>> this information by another application to handle distributed indexing
>>> externally.  The version that I'm working on requires that the
>>> application be responsible for performing the distribution.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Because the distributed indexing phase of SolrCloud will not use 
>>>> replication, we have not really gone down this path at all.
>>>>
>>>> One thing we are considering is adding the ability to add various roles to 
>>>> each shard as hints - eg a shard might be designated a searcher and 
>>>> another an indexer.
>>>>
>>>> You might be able to piggy back on this to label things master/slave. A 
>>>> ZooKeeper aware replication handler could then use this information.
>>>>
>>>> There is nothing to stop you from adding this information to zookeeper 
>>>> yourself, using standard zookeeper tools - but just putting the 
>>>> information is only half the problem - something then needs to read it.
>>>>
>>>> - Mark Miller
>>>> lucidimagination.com
>>>> 2011.lucene-eurocon.org | Oct 17-20 | Barcelona
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 4, 2011, at 10:26 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ok, so I am pretty sure this information is not available.  What is
>>>>> the most appropriate way to add information like this to ZK?  I can
>>>>> obviously look for the system properties enable.master and
>>>>> enable.slave, but that won't be fool proof since someone could put
>>>>> this in the config file instead and not as a system property.  Is
>>>>> there a way to determine this quickly programatically without having
>>>>> to go through all of the request handlers in the solrCore?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Jamie Johnson <jej2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Is it possible to determine if a solr instance is a master or a slave
>>>>>> in replication terms based on the information that is placed in ZK in
>>>>>> SolrCloud?
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Reply via email to