First of all: thank you for your answers. Yes, I meant side by side configuration. I think the worst case for ZKs here is to loose two of them. However, I'm going to use 4 availability zones in same region so at least this will reduce the risk of loosing both of them at the same time. Regards.
On 21 November 2012 17:06, Rafał Kuć <r....@solr.pl> wrote: > Hello! > > Zookeeper by itself is not demanding, but if something happens to your > nodes that have Solr on it, you'll loose ZooKeeper too if you have > them installed side by side. However if you will have 4 Solr nodes and > 3 ZK instances you can get them running side by side. > > -- > Regards, > Rafał Kuć > Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch - ElasticSearch > > > Separate is generally nice because then you can restart Solr nodes > > without consideration for ZooKeeper. > > > Performance-wise, I doubt it's a big deal either way. > > > - Mark > > > On Nov 21, 2012, at 8:54 AM, Marcin Rzewucki <mrzewu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I have 4 solr collections, 2-3mn documents per collection, up to 100K > >> updates per collection daily (roughly). I'm going to create SolrCloud4x > on > >> Amazon's m1.large instances (7GB mem,2x2.4GHz cpu each). The question is > >> what about zookeeper? It's going to be external ensemble, but is it > better > >> to use same nodes as solr or dedicated micro instances? Zookeeper does > not > >> seem to be resources demanding process, but what would be better in this > >> case ? To keep it inside of solrcloud or separately (micro instances > seem > >> to be enough here) ? > >> > >> Thanks in advance. > >> Regards. > >
